sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acton Turville, Bradley Stoke, Cadbury Heath, Charfield, Chipping Sodbury, Emersons Green

Introduction This document represents the response of the Conservative Group on South Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission for (henceforward as LGBCE, or the Commission)’s draft recommendations for the future warding pattern of the Local Authority of . The Commission’s use of broad geographic regions of the Authority is a helpful way to understand the wider context in which each ward is situated, and so we have endeavoured to respond where possible along these lines in order that our responses easily correspond with the Commission’s recommendations. Our response seeks not only to identify where the Group’s views differ from the Commissions, and to offer constructive recommendations for minor changes in order to better represent our local communities, but also to emphasise our broad agreement with the overwhelming majority of the Commission’s recommendations

1. General comments 1. The Group welcomes the Commission’s broad approach of taking Parish Council boundaries as a primary building block for putting together the Unitary‐level warding pattern. Parish Councils represent coherent communities, with strong identities and leadership and often present helpful boundary lines to build from. We believe it is best practice to, wherever possible, have unitary ward boundaries coterminous with Parish boundaries.

2. We appreciate the care which has been given in the round to acknowledging the myriad distinct communities in our diverse area. We feel there are one or two aberrations which are put forward in our proposed amendments, and so we have taken steps to try to better meet the Commission’s intentions to keep cohesive communities together, whilst separately recognising distinctive identities and maintaining good electoral equality.

3. We accept the overwhelming majority of the Commission’s proposals, and have included observations and arguments where appropriate which support and strengthen the positions outlined by the Commission across the district 4. On the small number of areas where we slightly disagree, we have prepared four amendments. None of the amendments have impacts beyond the wards in which they are proposed, all of them retain the essential vision set out by the Commission.

5. The four amendments, in short, are:  Merging the proposed Ward, an integral part of Parish, into a single, three‐member Stoke Gifford Ward  Separating Staple Hill & into a two‐member Staple Hill ward and a one‐member Mangotsfield Village ward, recognising the distinct communities which look in opposite directions (Staple Hill towards Downend and Mangotsfield towards )  Merging the proposed and Sodbury Vale wards into a singular two‐member Chipping Sodbury and Vale ward, recognising the important historic links, the necessity to maintain Chipping Sodbury Parish within a single unitary wards, and acknowledging the imbalance of councillor workload representing Chipping Sodbury as compared to all the rural villages which look towards it  Moving the boundary between North and Yate Central in order to better reflect the three clear centres of gravity around Brinsham/Brimsham, Cranleigh Court/Station Road, and Yate Shopping Centre, creating a two‐member Yate North and a three‐member Yate Central ward

South Western areas North, Bradley Stoke South, and Little Stoke 1. In the Conservative Group’s previous submission we took the respective boundaries of Stoke Gifford, and and the Common Parishes, and Bradley Stoke Town Council as a starting point, wanting to keep those boundaries intact if at all possible.

2. Stoke Lodge is our newest Parish, only being created as a result of our last Parish boundary review, and it is of grave concern to us that the current warding patterns splits this Parish between the proposed new Bradley Stoke North and Little Stoke wards.

3. Stoke Lodge has a distinct identity, with its own facilities, including Stoke Lodge Primary School (see Appendix 1A), which does not look toward Little Stoke, which has Little Stoke Primary School School.

4. We ask that the Commission considers applying the approach generally applied across much of the Authority and allows all of Stoke Lodge and the Common Parish to remain within the proposed new Bradley Stoke North Ward, as its community looks more towards Bradley Stoke than to Stoke Gifford.

5. There are also strong concerns about breaking Little Stoke off into a singular one‐member ward, as Little Stoke is an important and integral part of the wider Stoke Gifford community and cannot be dissevered.

6. Stoke Gifford is an existing civil and ecclesiastical Parish which includes Little Stoke (see Appendix 1B). In fact, the main office for Stoke Gifford Parish Council is situated in Little Stoke. To create a one‐member Little Stoke Ward would put Stoke Gifford Parish Council’s own offices outside of Stoke Gifford, and the Parish Council would hold its regular meetings outside of its namesake ward.

7. The parish church and Vicar of St Michael’s covers all of Stoke Gifford Parish, including Little Stoke. The St Michael’s Parish Centre is used by all residents of the Parish, not just those on the south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road. The Centre has meeting rooms, its own café and will soon hold the new Community Library that is been established and will serve all residents of the Parish.

8. The Stoke Gifford Baptist Church’s congregation is drawn from across all part of the parish, including a strong contingent of residents from Little Stoke.

9. The Stoke Gifford‐Little Stoke‐‐Cheswick‐UWE Community Engagement Forum hold their meetings in Little Stoke /Parish Council facilities.

10. Little Stoke Community Social club is situated in Little Stoke and serves the whole community, drawing members from all of Stoke Gifford, including Little Stoke. These facilities are used by local teams in activities such as skittles and darts, as well as social events attended by members and families from across the whole of Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke. These facilities are also regularly used by Stoke Gifford Parish Council for community related meetings. Little Stoke/Stoke Gifford Bee Keepers Association have their bee hives and facilities there and hold meetings on‐site.

11. The Stoke Gifford/Little Stoke Neighbourhood Watch meetings are held on behalf of the whole community in the Little Stoke area. The Stoke Gifford Police Neighbourhood beat team hold their Police surgeries for residents across the Parish in Little Stoke.

12. The two youth clubs in the parish work closely together and each draw young people from across the whole parish, not just in their immediate areas.

13. There are two primary schools in the Parish: St Michael’s and Little Stoke. As St Michael’s School is always over‐subscribed, children from the south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road will attend Little Stoke School as well. The same occurs with the different play groups across the Parish. For example, Bright Sparks Nursery and pre‐school serves the whole of the Stoke Gifford community from its facility in Little Stoke.

14. The two secondary schools in the area draw children from all parts of the Stoke Gifford Parish. This means that pupils from Little Stoke attend both and so do those living south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road.

15. There are many uniformed groups in the Parish including Cubs, Rainbows, Guides, Army Cadets and especially the Scouts, who have been running since 1952. The members of these are all drawn from all parts of the Parish, making it impossible for Little Stoke to be treated as a separate and independent entity.

16. The Stoke Gifford Cenotaph is positioned on Stoke Gifford village green in memorial to the many local residents who lost their lives from across Stoke Gifford, including Little Stoke.

17. The large Medical Centre and pharmacy on Braydon Avenue, Little Stoke is used by all residents across the parish of Stoke Gifford.

18. Little Stoke residents tend to use ASDA and Sainsbury’s (south of the main railway line) for shopping as the bus does not go to the Willowbrook Centre in Bradley Stoke.

19. There are many local Stoke Gifford organisations that have members jointly from Little Stoke and the rest of Stoke Gifford. These include the Town Women’s Guild, the Gardening Club, Slimmers World, Royal British Legion, Stokes Phoenix Club, the Budgerigar Society, Stoke Gifford Taxi Association, Extreme Allstar Cheerleaders Club, Stoke Gifford Short Mat Bowls Club. Stoke Gifford Striders Running Club, Stoke Lane Athletic Football Club, and the Stokes Cycling Club.

20. The Parish allotments are owned by Stoke Gifford Parish Council and are sited south of the Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road. These are used by residents from all parts of the Parish including those who live within Little Stoke and the site is cared for by Little Stoke Garden Society whose members are also from across the Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke area.

21. There are three playing fields across the Parish which are owned by the Parish Council and constitute a coherent leisure strategy.

22. Forty Acres is left intentionally as a wild haven, Mead Park is well maintained and intended for casual use, and Little Stoke Park specifically emphasises sporting uses, such as football, running, cricket etc. as well as a BMX track. As such, residents from across the Parish both make use and participate in the maintenance of all three facilities.

23. Residents from across the Parish use the tennis court facilities provided within North Road, Stoke Gifford.

24. All parts of the parish receive the Stoke Gifford Journal and Little Stoke Gifford Community Matters and Bradley Stoke Matters magazine.

25. With the above in mind, we suggest that it would be practically very difficult to represent Little Stoke as a single‐member ward without making reference to the wider Stoke Gifford community, especially bearing in mind nationally recognised protocol that members ought not take up casework from residents or businesses in another ward. As well as these difficulties, there seems to be no tangible benefits to Little Stoke being represented separately. Consequently we propose the following amendments to the Commission’s recommendations, which address the issues articulated above, better encapsulate the Commission’s intentions with respect to the approach to Parishes, and do not impact on the Commission’s wider proposed recommendations for the warding pattern of South Gloucestershire.

26. The below table shows indicative calculations based on the Commission’s proposed warding pattern.

Ward Name Number of Cllrs Variance as of 2023 Voters per cllr Voters per ward

Bradley Stoke North 2 +3.98% 3923 7846

Bradley Stoke South 2 ‐7.02% 3508 7016

Charlton and Cribbs 3 +3.98% 3923 11769

Filton 2 +8.00% 4075 8150

Little Stoke 1 +5.01% 3962 3962

Patchway Coniston 1 +5.01% 3962 3962

Stoke Gifford 2 +9.01% 4113 8226

University 1 ‐8.00% 3471 3471

27. The Conservative Group proposes that the draft Little Stoke Ward be reintegrated with Stoke Gifford, producing a 3‐member Stoke Gifford ward composed of 12,188 electors, with a variance of +7.7%

28. We further propose that the entirety of Stoke Lodge and the Common Parish be integrated into the Bradley Stoke North Ward, this would move 503 voters out of the new enlarged Stoke Gifford Ward and into Bradley Stoke North.

29. Additionally we propose to add the ‘Bailey’s Court’ part of Bradley Stoke Town Council that has moved into the new Stoke Gifford Ward into Bradley Stoke South. This would move 599 voters out of Stoke Gifford.

30. In order to balance out the electoral parity in the Bradley Stoke wards, transfer all of Champs Sur Marne and Meadow Brook Primary School from Bradley Stoke North to Bradley Stoke South, moving 150 voters into the South, and providing a stronger boundary along Fiddlers Wood Lane, rather than using a pavement which bisects Champs Sur Marne.

31. The below table shows new indicative data for our proposed amendments to the Commission’s draft recommendations, along with maps.

Ward Name Number of Cllrs Variance as of 2023 Voters per cllr Voters per ward

Bradley Stoke North 2 +8.65% 4100 8199

Bradley Stoke South 2 +2.90% 3883 7765

Charlton and Cribbs 3 +3.98% 3923 11769

Filton 2 +8.00% 4075 8150

Patchway Coniston 1 +5.01% 3962 3962

Stoke Gifford 3 ‐2.06% 3695 11086

University 1 ‐8.00% 3471 3471

Bradley Stoke North (2 members)

Bradley Stoke South (2 members)

Stoke Gifford (3 members)

Charlton & Cribbs, Filton, and Patchway Coniston 32. The proposals for these wards largely mirror our previous submission to the Commission, with common sense changes to make them more practical. As such the Group accepts these proposed recommendations in their entirety.

33. We would like to re‐emphasise the key principles that guided our proposals for this area. First and foremost Filton is a self‐contained community with a strong identity, clear boundaries and an active Town Council. It was not necessary or appropriate to divide this community, nor to add others to it.

Stoke Gifford and University

34. Patchway Coniston represents the bulk of ‘old Patchway’, the areas built on prior to the large‐ scale development. It has a clear identity, and strong boundaries. Charlton and Cribbs comprises the communities of , the Charlton Hayes development, and the new Filton Airfield Development, which is expected to have a large buildout prior to 2023.

35. Despite the Group’s concerns detailed above with respect to the Stoke Gifford ward, we recognise the logic of the University Ward, which has a separate identity and character to surrounding communities, and accept the Commission’s proposals.

Rural West 36. The Group acknowledges the access issues around the vicinity of Hallen Road and therefore agrees that the proposed changes are appropriate. We are pleased that the strong community links and rural character of the area are recognised and believe that the and , and Severn Vale Wards are appropriate. All the villages in that ward either border the River Severn or have parts that are low lying that have drainage issues flowing into the river.

37. Despite proposing a different warding arrangement to that put forward by the Group, we acknowledge that Thornbury is a distinct community and mathematically matches up to having 3 members, however so distributed. As such we accept the draft recommendation for a singular, three‐ member ward for the town. On the same token of having Thornbury as a three member ward we request that Stoke Gifford also becomes a three member ward because of the commonality across that parish.

Rural East and Yate and 38. The Group accepts the Parish Council’s request that current warding arrangements be maintained in Charfield.

39. The proposed new Frampton Cotterell seat is a creative solution to a number of problems, allowing to be reunited as a Parish in a singular unitary ward. It demonstrates clear transport links from the urban areas of Frampton Cotterell and to the more sparsely populated rural areas in the North of the ward, most notably Road and Wootton Road.

40. Whilst putting Coalpit Heath into this ward does leave as a split parish, in this instance Coalpit Heath does look more to Frampton Cotterell than to Westerleigh. They share a common border at Badminton Road, in fact on that road they are essentially one settlement, sharing mutually provided facilities, shops, schools, clubs, etc. and with a shared character and identity. This is an appropriate decision, which works very much along the lines of the request made by Dodington Parish Council, that the rural parts of its Parish, which look both more like and more towards neighbouring rural villages than to the urban areas within its Parish boundaries, be included in a ward more in keeping with its own character

Chipping Sodbury, Dodington, Sodbury Vale, Yate Central and Yate North

41. We agree with the request of Dodington Parish Council to include the rural parts within its boundaries in a different unitary ward, which will better represent its rurality. Boyd Valley is an appropriate ward given geographic proximity and the fact that , Dodington, and Codrington, as small, rural villages, face similar issues and share similar cultures to the Boyd Valley villages such as Marshfield, Hinton etc.

42. We have concerns about the boundary drawn between Chipping Sodbury Ward and Sodbury Vale. As we outlined in our previous submission, there are strong links in education, services, amenities and shared interests in local issues as well as identifiable physical transport connections between Chipping Sodbury Market town, and the surrounding villages of , , Hakwesbury and .

43. The proposed boundary separates the town of Chipping Sodbury from the bulk of its parish, including the village of Old Sodbury, which has strong social, political, economic and historic links to Chipping Sodbury.

44. As noted on the Sodbury Town Council website: “The town is frequently described as being part of the , although really only the east side of the parish, including Old Sodbury, is strictly in the hills. The Cotswolds escarpment, which runs through Old Sodbury, is here quite low at 300 feet above the Vale of Sodbury whilst it reaches as high as 750 feet at points elsewhere.”

45. We urge the commission to visit relevant material on the area’s history and relationship with each other at https://www.sodburytowncouncil.gov.uk/history which provides a comprehensive background to the eastern areas shared history and community dating back to the medieval era.

46. Chipping Sodbury and the surrounding villages in our proposed 2‐member Sodbury Vale ward share a similar, historic, market town/village character. This is evident when you compare Chipping Sodbury High Street (see Appendix 1C), High Street (see Appendix 1D), and High Street (see Appendix 1E).

47. The rural villages of Sodbury Vale are well linked to Chipping Sodbury both in terms of physical infrastructure like roads, and also public transport links.

48. Chipping Sodbury Town is bound with the rural villages via vast network of lanes and roads such as the Horton lane, which then goes into a further network to the north east which runs intertwined to the spinal A46 which centres on the eastern villages.

49. Connections from Chipping Sodbury to the east, such as Acton Turville, Badminton, and Old Sodbury are very strong in both the A4040 and the Badminton Road (A432) which runs through Chipping Sodbury town, to the A46 with a linear road link to Acton Turville.

50. Wickwar, Chipping Sodbury and Hawkesbury Upton are joined in public transport in the form of the clockwise and counter clockwise 84/85 Buses, which serve a route from the villages into the town, and onwards to Yate centre. The route can be found here https://bustimes.org.uk/services/84‐ yate‐wotton‐under‐edge‐yate demonstrating Chipping Sodbury as the main centre for the surrounding rural areas.

51. Chipping Sodbury Town and Wickwar village are demonstrably linked directly by the aptly named Wickwar and Sodbury road, providing a short journey between the two. Whilst we accept that the Yate Town Council Boundaries marginally intercept the route, we feel this does not detract from the physical connection that both communities undoubtedly share via this historic link road.

52. Chipping Sodbury and the surrounding villages also share an economic centre in Chipping Sodbury High Street, which acts as a focus for shared amenities and facilities.

53. As outlined in previous submissions we believe Chipping Sodbury High Street to be a central focus to the surrounding villages in terms of grocery shopping at Waitrose located within the town on the Wickwar Road. The unique grade‐listed high street shares common architecture, particularly in the case of Wickwar village but it is the only high street in the area that offers a range of shops, cafes, restaurants, locksmiths, letting agents, a pharmacy, Police station, and nightlife for the surrounding area and where many residents from the eastern villages seek a shopping experience.

54. In terms of education, Chipping Sodbury Secondary School is the main secondary education available to students in the proposed 2‐member ward which, if the commission agreed with our suggestion, would mean that the Area of Prime Responsibility would be coterminous with the ward boundaries for a new Chipping Sodbury and Vale ward.

55. The area of prime responsibility document from the local authority which demonstrated this here: http://edocs.southglos.gov.uk/secondaryadmission/pages/secondary‐schools‐academies‐ foundation‐trust‐schools‐university‐technical‐colleges‐and‐studio‐schools‐in‐south‐gloucestershire‐ and‐maps‐2/yate‐and‐chipping‐sodbury‐consortium‐area‐of‐prime‐responsibility The most salient quote being: “b. Chipping Sodbury School has a First Area of Responsibility for the parishes of Wickwar, Hawkesbury, Horton, Little Sodbury, Acton Turville, , part of Dodington parish and Old Sodbury area.”

56. The communities of Wickwar, Hakwesbury Upton, Chipping Sodbury and the hamlets share similar concerns and interests in protecting the AONB across the vale area, and retaining the town’s semi‐rural identity.

57. In the draft proposals the ward patterns would see the green space such as Sodbury Common, which is a focus across these communities, split between the wards, which seems unnecessary.

58. Development concerns shared by Chipping Sodbury Residents to the north east, and east off of St Johns Way, Colts Green and to the south are shared by the hamlets residents in Old Sodbury, Little Sodbury and Horton, and with recent speculative developments proposed in Wickwar and Hawkesbury Upton prompting similar concerns

59. The main amenities such as Health Care, GP services, Cinema and leisure are provided by Yate Town and as such the dependence of Chipping Sodbury, Wickwar and the Cotswold villages is shared by all communities, with Chipping Sodbury acting as the ‘gateway’ to Yate for all of these communities. We feel as such that the Commission should recognise this shared history and identity by joining the two proposed wards to reflect the pattern which is shown in everyday life, whilst keeping the external boundaries initially proposed by the Commission.

60. We feel that the joining of the two proposed wards would improve effective governance for the area at both Town/Parish and unitary level. At present the two single‐member ward proposals bisect the Town Council boundaries for Sodbury Town Council, and we believe from the draft recommendations that it is the only town or parish council in which this is proposed. We believe that this would be unjustified in light of the strong bond between Old Sodbury and Chipping Sodbury, and the surrounding villages articulated above.

61. We note the concern of the commission in its Boyd Valley proposals in regards to the physical geography and size of the two member ward. The draft proposals for a single member Sodbury Vale ward would be echoed in this concern, as the size would effectively be similar to that of Boyd valley yet it would rely on a single member to represent the area rather than the two in the Boyd Valley ward. We feel that the balance in councillor workload would be more effective if the wards were joined.

62. At present the single member in Chipping Sodbury would only be responsible for engaging with Sodbury Town Council, whereas the lone Sodbury Vale member would be responsible for engaging with 7 parish councils including Sodbury Town Council.

63. Our proposed 2‐member Sodbury Vale ward has a variance of +5%, which is more ideal than the Sodbury Vale ward, which is +8%.

64. See below map of proposed Chipping Sodbury and Vale ward

65. We acknowledge the Commission’s acceptance of Yate Town Council’s proposals, however we are disappointed with that the unique identities of each area within the town appear to have been overlooked in favour of a broad North/South distinction. We feel this view is a simplistic approach which has led to the roles of the town centre and Badminton Road as points of community focus and arterial transport routes diminished. We feel that our original proposals for Yate Central and Yate North provide good electoral equality and better identifiable boundaries, whilst improving on the draft proposals in its sense of community.

66. We do however accept the Commission’s proposed new boundary between Yate Central and Dodington, and have reflected this in our updated amendment to the draft recommendations.

67. We believe that the draft proposals have failed to take into account the shared identity clearly felt and acknowledged by residents on both sides of Station Road, which unites residents of Station Road itself with those of Cranleigh Court Road, Moorland Road, Longs Drive, as well as Home Orchard and The Glen. We believe these areas all share a common identity as part of the wider Yate Central community. Residents of these areas share communal concerns, for example traffic issues and presence of HGVs on Station Road, as well as interests in local amenities, shops and facilities they all have in common.

68. In the same vein as our argumentation on the A420, we would strongly suggest that Station Road be considered an area of community focus in Yate Central, and not a mere boundary border, as this would help reflect the natural connections between the areas surrounding the earlier part of Station Road and the latter, and avoids the damage done to community cohesion by arbitrarily separating this well integrated neighbourhood.

69. We also consider the mini roundabout (picture below) at the top of Church Road along Greenways Road to be a clear boundary feature, along with the top end of Milton Road where it meets the river. These would both be natural choices for the new boundary lines as they reflect local features and respect the clear distinction of identities between Yate Central and Yate North. We are therefore concerned by the current proposals which would include the areas surrounding Cranleigh Court Road within the Yate North ward, as we feel this arbitrary inclusion dismisses the importance of the two separate identities, which is acknowledged by local residents on both sides. As it is clearly shown in the pictures of Brinsham/Brimsham (a curious historical spelling mistake has led the area to be known by both names) signage found in Appendix 1F, Yate North enjoys a unique community feel and identity which is entirely separate to that of residents of Cranleigh Court Road, which has a different character and certainly no affinity or signage indicating reference to Brinsham/Brimsham.

70. The continuous and arterial route of Badminton Road, Station road, and Kennedy Way are instead focuses of the Yate central community, rather than the partial strong boundary which has been applied. We are concerned that the draft proposals are inconsistent in these roads roles, and we feel our proposals resolve this inconsistency. As the Commission was minded to agree with our analysis when considering the A420 in the area, we would ask that the Commission consider the same analysis in this area.

71. We feel there is no clear or exceptional reasoning as to why the residential roads of Chatterton, Moorland Road and Maybank Road area should be divided against the Longs Drive, Mow Barton and Cranleigh Court Road area particularly as they share two parades of local amenities and shops.

72. We are concerned that the designation of the later sections of Station Road are then used as a focus to the very central section of the ward in the case of Home Orchard, and the Glen road areas. We feel this is an inconsistent approach to these arterial roads designation and we feel our proposed amendments resolve this neatly.

73. We are of the view that of the two main Western accesses to the Town, the Bristol road/ B4059 serve as the main and sole access to our proposed North Yate two‐member ward and that the A432 serves the majority of the Cranleigh Court Road, particularly the Southern end. We contend that much of the traffic in this area naturally looks south to access the North Ring Road (A4174) for onwards commuting to Bristol and the North fringe via Badminton Road.

74. This is demonstrated via the main bus routes. Our proposed North Yate ward is almost singularly served by the X46 and 46. The Station Road, as a focus for much for the Cranleigh court road community is served by multiple services such as the 82, X47, 47 and the 46.

75. See below bus route map, which demonstrates the points made above:

76. We believe residents of areas such as Longs Drive, Moorland Road, Cranleigh Court Road, Mow Barton and Station Road all share in, and benefit from, the same local amenities and facilities, such as the parade of shops on Cranleigh Court Road, or stores on the Western part of Station Road. These can clearly be seen in the pictures we have provided in Appendix 1F. These connected areas are seen as separate under the current proposals, however we maintain that they can instead be seen as a natural extension of the other facilities and services found on the Eastern part of Station Road and Kennedy Way, all coming together to form the beating heart of Yate Central, as felt by local residents and visitors alike.

77. A marked distinctiveness can also be discerned for Yate North, with local amenities such as the Brimsham Park and shop area, as well as the Wellington Road One Stop Shop all contributing to the shared sense of community Yate North residents feel and are aware of, which sets them apart from Yate Central residents.

78. We believe that our proposals have a stronger, more identifiable boundary than the current draft proposals, which do not divide communities as described above. We feel more appropriate, clear and distinctive boundaries between North Yate, and the Central ward would be at the two points at the top of Cranleigh Court Road, shown in Appendix 1F, and that of the top of Church Road at the mini‐roundabout. Our proposed Boundary for the two wards uses Greenways road effectively as a strong boundary, until it meets the A4059 overhead. The axis of roads is a physically strong separating points between the two wards, and would mean a distinctive ward pattern for Yate North.

79. We concur with Yate Town Council’s and the Commission’s assessment of the need to ensure unifying North Yate representation. However, we feel that this would best be achieved by a team of two representatives solely focused on the task of ensuring a smooth integration of the new neighbourhoods and community set to emerge, with a strong three‐member team of town centre representatives, using the Town Centre as a truly central focus of the ward. At present, with the Commission’s current draft proposals Station Road as a boundary rather than a focus, takes focus away from the town centre.

80. The current proposals make for an aberrant warding pattern, which includes residential areas such as Cranleigh Court Road which are physically closer in distance to the Town Centre, to be placed in a the North Yate ward where areas of the South of the Yate Central ward are much further away. Our proposals better reflect the way the community works by placing the town centre rightly in the middle of the central ward.

81. To summarise the lengthy argumentation above, we strongly believe that the Commission’s plans would greatly benefit from our proposed amendments for Yate Central and Yate North. Our plans not only retain electoral equality and fairness, but they also respect and mirror the strong ward identities of our three distinct centres of gravity ‐ Brinsham/Brimsham, Cranleigh Court Road/Station Road, and the Yate Shopping Centre. Our proposals allow for better and more effective governance, they reiterate the importance of shared community interests and concerns, and reinforce the idea of our town centre as fully located at the heart of a Yate Central ward.

82. See below proposed new warding patterns for Yate North and Yate Central:

83. Yate North

84. Yate Central

Western Areas Emersons Green 85. We welcome the proposal to maintain Emersons Green Town Council within a single unitary ward. Emersons Green has a strong community identity and an active Town Council and this proposal provides for effective governance and representation of the area, as well as strong adherence to statutory criteria.

Frenchay and Downend 86. The Group welcomes this proposed warding arrangement, based, in large part, on our previous submission. Whilst it severs from the rest of Winterbourne Parish, it is physically separated by the A4174 ring road anyway, and has a very different character to the rest of Winterbourne. In fact the areas of Frenchay around Malmains Drive better resembles Downend and Bromley Heath (see Oakdale Road as a comparator) than it does the centre of Winterbourne (see Flaxpits Lane to compare).

87. The Aintree Drive area, often locally referred to as ‘the Racecourses’ is rightly better placed within the same ward as the rest of Downend and Bromley Heath Parish.

Staple Hill and Mangotsfield

88. We have concerns, however, about the proposed three‐member Staple Hill and Mangotsfield ward, and do not believe that this represents the best way of fulfilling the statutory criteria.

89. Mangotsfield and Staple Hill are two distinct and independent communities, which have previously been recognised under the current district boundary between Staple Hill and Rodway wards. In fact, Staple Hill and Mangotsfield have been separate wards throughout South Gloucestershire’s existence and its predecessor Kingswood Borough Council.

90. Both communities are proud to have their own respective sets of shops, services and facilities, which largely means that residents of one community have little reason to visit the other. There is a healthy rivalry between the two. When Mangotsfield and Staple Hill residents do have the need to access wider facilities, Staple Hill looks to Downend, whereas Mangotsfield looks to Emersons Green with whom there is significant shared history.

91. The Group proposes below a single member Mangotsfield Village ward to champion this community, based on Mangotsfield’s close and historic relationship with Emersons Green – a far stronger relationship than with Staple Hill. Various facilities carrying the ‘Mangotsfield’ name are in fact in Emersons Green ward/parish as the relatively new Emersons Green development (and even newer Lyde Green development) were built in the historic Mangotsfield Rural Parish (the precursor authority to Emersons Green Town Council).

92. We therefore propose a slight amendment to the Commission’s proposals, which would maintain 3 councillors across these two communities, but through a single member Mangotsfield Village ward and two member Staple Hill ward. The electoral variance in our proposal would be +1% for a new 2 member Staple Hill Ward and ‐1% for a new Mangotsfield Village Ward, making for excellent electoral equality, acknowledging the unique identities of these two communities, without disrupting the Commission’s wider vision for the Authority.

93. Our proposed boundary between a Mangotsfield Village Ward and a Staple Hill Ward is slightly to the east of the existing boundary between Staple Hill and Rodway wards. This means that all of Hill House Road, Haythorne Court, Bankside and The Hawthornes, which are currently in Rodway ward and immediately adjacent to Page Park, would transfer into our proposed 2 member Staple Hill Ward. Page Park would, therefore, also be wholly contained within the new Staple Hill Ward.

94. We set out in more detail below the justifications for our proposed warding arrangement across Mangotsfield and Staple Hill.

95. The principal reason given by the Commission for creating a 3 member ward is the role of Page Park “as a local leisure hub, forming the central focal point of the new ward” based upon the Labour Group’s original submission. We acknowledge this point to an extent, which is why we are suggesting that all of Hill House Road, Haythorne Court, Bankside and The Hawthornes which are in the current Rodway ward should transfer into a two member Staple Hill ward. But insofar as this Page Park argument applies to Mangotsfield, we feel that this has been exaggerated.

96. If Mangotsfield residents wish to enjoy green open space, then they will use Rodway Hill Common as the largest green space locally, not Page Park, as this is far closer and more accessible, being located next to Mangotsfield Secondary School. Page Park is at the top of a steep hill, further reducing its appeal to Mangotsfield residents. Undeveloped land protected with Green Belt status begins at St James Place, recognising the transition into a more rural part of South Gloucestershire, which is a very different feel to the more urban community of Staple Hill.

97. There are also additional areas of recreational green space throughout Mangotsfield, such as Charn Hill Woods, Springfield Park and Windsor Place, which have all been recommended for official Local Green Space Designation as part of South Gloucestershire Council’s Policies, Sites and Places DPD.

98. Our proposed new ward boundary between Staple Hill and Mangotsfield would place Page Park wholly within the Staple Hill ward, which was a key concern of the Labour Group in their original submission.

99. For sports and more active recreation, Mangotsfield has its own football club, Mangotsfield United FC (see Appendix 1G) and rugby club, Cleve RFC (see Appendix 1H) both located on Cossham Street, and just within the Emersons Green district/parish ward boundary.

100. Mangotsfield and Staple Hill have their own separate ‘education ecosystem’ of pre‐schools, primary schools and secondary schools.

101. Mangotsfield children will attend pre‐schools locally, such as Mangotsfield Pre‐School in St James Church Hall, and then move onto Barley Close and Mangotsfield Primary Schools before finishing up at Mangotsfield Secondary School (see Appendix 1I).

102. In contrast, Staple Hill children will attend pre‐schools locally, move onto The Tynings and Staple Hill Primary Schools before completing their secondary education at Downend Secondary School.

103. It should be noted that Mangotsfield Primary and Mangotsfield Secondary School are in fact located just across the ward boundary in Emersons Green ward, which will also continue under the Commission’s revised ward boundary for Emersons Green.

104. Mangotsfield has its own Scout Troop based on Northcote Road (see Appendix 1J), which offers a varied programme of activities through its Beavers, Cubs, Scouts and Explorer sections. Staple Hill has its own separate Scout Troop.

105. Mangotsfield has its own thriving local centre focused around St James Place, just as Staple Hill has its own focused around Broad Street. Within and around St James Place, there is a parade of shops (see Appendix 1K), including a Express store (see Appendix 1L), barbers, chiropractor and takeaway . Adjacent to the parade is the Mangotsfield War Memorial and on the opposite side of the road is a popular florists. A mere 50 metres further up St James Place is a public car park (see Appendix 1M), public toilets (see Appendix 1N) and hair & beauty shop, as well as Mangotsfield Post Office (see Appendix 1O).

106. When there is a need to shop at a large supermarket, Mangotsfield residents will join with their Emersons Green neighbours to access Emersons Green Town Centre, in which large Sainsbury’s and Lidl supermarkets are located.

107. For residents living at the southern end of Emersons Green (Colliers Break, Wadham Grove and the southern end of Johnsons Drive), for ease of convenience they will use Mangotsfield’s local centre at St James Place (a distance of 0.2miles), rather than make the longer journey to Emersons Green Town Centre (1.1miles away).

108. Mangotsfield is served by its own churches, such as St James Church (see Appendix 1P) and Mangotsfield United Reform Church on Cossham Street (see Appendix 1Q).

109. Mangotsfield also has its own , such as the Red Lion on St James Street (see Appendix 1R), The Salutation at St James Place and the Lamb Inn at Windsor Place (see Appendix S). Staple Hill has its own pubs.

110. In coming together for Remembrance, both Staple Hill and Mangotsfield have their own separate War Memorials and therefore have their own separate Remembrance Day events. As Mangotsfield’s War Memorial is located in St James Place (see Appendix 1T), it is therefore advertised to and shared with the Emersons Green community.

111. Mangotsfield and Emersons Green again come together annually to celebrate the Mangotsfield Village Festival, which is held at Cleve Rugby Club on Cossham Street. The parade begins in St James Place. https://www.mangotsfieldfestival.co.uk/

112. In summary, the Conservative Group believes that a one‐member Mangotsfield Village Ward and two‐member Staple Hill Ward represents the best way to adhere to the statutory criteria, reflects the strong and separate identities of these two competing communities and has excellent electoral parity. Importantly, it is an amendment that can be made to the Commission’s draft proposals with no wider knock‐on impact on neighbouring wards. We commend this proposed change.

113. The below maps demonstrate our proposed amended boundaries.

114. Proposed Mangotsfield Village Ward

115. Proposed Staple Hill Ward

Winterbourne 116. Winterbourne is relatively self‐contained area with a historic identity and there are few other options for warding arrangements other than to broadly maintain current warding pattern, acknowledging the significant barrier between Winterbourne and Frenchay posed by the A4174, as shown by the similarities in all submissions made on this area.

Southern Areas

Hanham, , and Parkwall & Warmley

117. is a constrained ward; the Authority boundary forms its Western and Southern boundaries. Given the constellation of overlapping community identities and Parish boundaries it is not possible to arrange a warding pattern which simultaneously offers optimal electoral parity, is coterminous with Parish boundaries, and recognises distinct communities, and as such, a pragmatic balance has to be struck. Moving Hanham’s boundaries further East makes an appropriate warding pattern for the rest of the Kingswood area very difficult, as Longwell Green would need to either shrink to a one‐member ward, leaving large parts of its natural community outside its boundaries, or else move Eastward into & , dismembering Bitton Parish in the process.

118. The strongest boundary in the area is the A4174 Ring Road and it is also the strongest basis on which to begin establishing a warding pattern. Between this Eastern boundary for Hanham, and the Authority boundary to the West and South, the ward becomes big enough for two and a half councillors, which can then either be resolved by shrinking to a two‐member ward, leaving parts of Hanham Parish outside the ward boundary, or by absorbing some of the more Hanham‐facing areas in the unparished community of the former Woodstock ward.

119. Many houses off Hanham Road in the former Woodstock Ward are equidistant between Hanham High Street and Kingswood High Street. Some are in fact closer to Hanham High Street, for example Oakfield Road is 0.8 miles from Kingswood High Street and 0.7 miles from Hanham High Street.

120. The proposed Longwell Green is broadly in line with our previous submission. As discussed above, it is effectively the only option for representing this area without dismembering either Longwell Green as a community or Bitton as a Parish.

121. We support the proposed Parkwall & Warmley ward, which not only offers excellent electoral equality, but also represents a coherent historic community.

122. Again the A4174 Ring Road is a strong boundary for the Western limits of the ward, and poses a clear barrier between the areas around Cock Road and the rest of Oldland Parish. Tower Roads North and South and Tower Lane form clear spine roads offering connectivity within the new proposed ward.

123. Historically the ‘Tower’ referred to in Tower Road, Lane etc. is the windmill tower at the Kingswood Heritage Museum, which forms a historic centre of gravity in the ward and a clear connection between Warmley and the other Parkwall communities of Barrs Court and .

Kingswood, New and Woodstock

124. We very much welcome the Commission’s agreement with us that A420 is not a dividing line, but a genuine area of community focus which would be harmed by using the A420 as a boundary.

125. With this logic on the A420 in mind it is therefore much more appropriate to have the Kingswood and Woodstock wards in an East/West arrangement, rather than the previous Kings Chase and Woodstock wards in a North/South configuration.

126. Whilst it did not form part of our original submission, we very much welcome the proposed New Cheltenham ward. This is a very distinct area within Kingswood with its own Post Office and well‐ used local shops on New Cheltenham Road (see Appendixes 1U and 1V).

127. The New Cheltenham shops are 0.4‐0.5 miles away from Kingswood High Street by foot, making them a useful facility available to locals in the New Cheltenham area and often a first port of call for basic groceries and services such as hairdressers and the Post Office.

South Eastern Areas

Bitton &

128. This warding pattern is perhaps the most ideal in the entire Authority ‐ comprising a whole Parish with coterminous boundaries, a clear and coherent community identity, with near perfect electoral equality and without dismembering any neighbouring communities.

Boyd Valley

129. This broadly accords with the original Conservative submission. It comprises the former Boyd Valley ward plus the rural areas of Dodington, , and Westerleigh Parishes, as well as Tormarton Parish. The former ward, despite large size has functioned well as a coherent identity to represent on the Council. Whilst the new proposal is for a larger ward, it does not alter fundamental essence of the ward, which maintains its three major centres of gravity in the larger villages of Marshfield, , and Wick.

130. Westerleigh village certainly has more in common in terms of character, identity, and the kinds of issues it faces with the other Boyd Valley villages than it does with the urbanised Coalpit Heath part of Westerleigh Parish.

131. Dodington Parish Council specifically requested that the rural parts of its parish be included in a rural ward, and given its location this ward is the only appropriate one in which this area could be included.

132. As Tormarton Parish spans both sides of the M4 it could reasonably be included in either the Boyd Valley or Costwold Edge/Sodbury Vale wards. However, as Sodbury Vale will now be taking in Wickwar Parish, it is perhaps most appropriate that Tormarton joins Boyd Valley.

Appendix 1 - Photos

A. Stoke Lodge Primary School

B. Parish sign in Little Stoke - Stoke Gifford Parish

C. Chipping Sodbury High Street

D. Wickwar High Street

E. Hawkesbury Upton High Street

F. The distinct communities of Yate

G. Mangotsfield United Football Club

H. Cleve Rugby Club, Cossham Street - Mangotsfield

I. Mangotsfield Secondary School, Rodway Hill

J. Mangotsfield Scout Group, Northcote Road

K. St James’ Place shopping parade - Mangotsfield

L. Tesco Express, St James Place - Mangotsfield

M. St James Street Public Car Park - Mangotsfield

N. Public toilets, St James Place - Mangotsfield

O. Mangotsfield Post Office, St. James Street

P. St James Church, St James Place - Mangotsfield

Q. United Reform Church, Cossham Street - Mangotsfield

R. Red Lion Public House, St James Street - Mangotsfield

S. The Lamb Inn – Windsor Place, Mangotsfield

T. War Memorial, St James Place - Mangotsfield

U. Parade of shops on New Cheltenham Road (taken from Google Street View)

V. Additional shops opposite those in 1Q on New Cheltenham Road (taken from Google Street View)