sign in sign up
<<
Home , Cold Ashton, Engine Common, Kendleshire

South Council Boundary Review Liberal Democrat Group Submission June 2017

This submission is from the Liberal Democrat group on Council. The Lib Dems are the second largest group on the council, and one of only two to ever have had an overall majority. As such, there is a good understanding of community links, and history, across much of the district. In our submission we have focussed upon the areas where we have deep community roots, stretching back over 40 years. In those areas we know the communities well, so feel we can make submissions which reflect the nuances of natural communities. However, there are some areas where we do feel others are better placed to identify the nuances. In those areas we have not sought to offer detailed solutions. We believe communities and individuals in those areas are best placed to provide their local solutions. We have submitted specific plans for the district over the areas where we have a good understanding, and believe our proposals are powerful, rooted in strong community identities, and efficient local government. All of the proposals are within the permissible variance from the new electoral quota with 61 Councillors, and we do not believe this needs to be modified up or down to make the map work. South Gloucestershire elects in an “all-up” manner, which means under Commission guidance, a mixture of 1, 2, and 3 member wards is appropriate, which we have proposed. We have proposed no ‘doughnut’, or detached wards, and many of the proposals allow for the reunification of communities which have previously been separated by imposed political boundaries.

The outside edge of South Gloucestershire can be considered a ‘hard’ border – although within the district, existing polling districts and wards can, and should be split, the external boundary cannot be moved. Three rural wards, up against this border, make up around a third of the land area of the entire authority. As some of their boundaries are unalterable by the parameters of the review, it seems sensible to start with these, and work inwards.

Rural Areas

Charfield Ward – Projected electorate 3,533. Variance -6%. 1 Member.

The existing Ward would be slightly undersized, but within the variance limits allowed. The existing community links are well established, and the ward is relatively compact for the area it covers, with a vaguely rectangular shape. Extensive development is planned for the Charfield area, in both the adopted core strategy, and the new draft joint strategic plan. The ward should be undersized at the time of adoption to allow for that, as there will be a rapid population increase in the future, both up to 2023 and beyond, and a larger ward would result in one well over the ideal size and would create an artificial boundary. This review is only considering population changes up to 2023, but even to that point, rapid planned expansion means that the existing ward is well within the deviation allowed from the new, larger, electoral quota. We propose no change to the existing borders, which would elect a single Councillor. This ward contains the four Civil Parishes of Charfield, , , and . The total borders of the four Parishes are coterminous with the borders of the ward, and aid efficient local government by meaning a single Councillor covers their entire areas, and no other.

Cotswold Edge – Projected electorate 4,132. Variance 10%. 1 Member.

Cotswold Edge is by far the largest geographical ward in the authority, stretching down the eastern border, and, as the name suggests, covering the Cotswold Edge, a dramatic escarpment separating the Cotswold Hills from the surrounding lowlands. It is has a very strong historic identity, being Cotswold villages all very much linked through a set of social and community networks of the escarpment communities, with their links to the Beaufort network. They have more in common with communities across the county border than to the communities to the west. The existing ward would be too small in terms of population to continue unchanged. We propose a relatively minor alteration, attaching the polling district of BVD, from the existing Boyd Valley ward. The addition of the town of Marshfield would give Cotswold Edge the population it needs to be a viable ward, without adding too much additional land area for a single Councillor to cover. The existing Cotswold Edge ward already goes south past the M4 motorway, to the village of West Littleton, whose primary road continues south to Marshfield. Marshfield is very much a Cotswold edge town, perched up on the escarpment. Marshfield has a population of around 1,200, very similar to which is the current principal settlement of the ward. This proposal would create a single member ward covering a variety of separate communities, but ones which all share common features to their identity, and a shared aspect of rural towns and villages, on the edge of the Cotswolds. The transport links between the communities run north-south entirely within the proposed ward, and there is no obvious reason to stop the ward where it currently does; there is no physical boundary, such as a major road, railway, or river. As most of the communities down the eastern border of the district are currently politically linked together, separating Marshfield at the southern edge into a different ward than the rest of the Cotswold Edge has been a historic anomaly which can now be repaired. The proposed new ward would mean South Gloucestershire’s area of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was almost entirely within a single ward, rather than being split between two as is currently the case.

It is important to note that although Cotswold Edge is near to other settlements, such as , the character of community found within them is extremely different. Chipping Sodbury is an old market town, largely integrated with the urban area. In community terms, it has nothing in common with the small towns and villages of the Cotswold edge. Although Cotswold residents may access services in Chipping Sodbury, the communities within Cotswold edge have identities built on their rural character. This should be preserved, in accordance with the Commission guidelines for wards to reflect community identity. Efficient government is provided in large part by links such as the A46, which runs north to south through almost the entire new ward, centrally in the top half, and as the western border for the lower half. The ward boundary would shift to the east of the A46 a few miles above the southern boundary of the district, in order to exclude and Pennsylvania (Polling District BVA) which would remain in the Boyd Valley rural ward. The new ward would be at the upper limit of population for a single Councillor. Considering the strong community of interests represented in this area, the relatively large – and entirely permissible – number of electors seems a reasonable compromise.

Severn – Projected electorate 4072. Variance 8%. 1 Member.

Severn ward as it stands is dramatically undersized; with an electorate of 3,046, projected to remain substantially unchanged, it would be some 20% under quota. Because its border cannot be moved to the north east (Severn river, boundary with Wales), or the north west (boundary with Gloucestershire), the only legal options are to expand into the town of Thornbury, or to continue down the coast, taking in additional towns and villages similar to those already within the ward. As Thornbury is a distinct unit and community, and substantially larger than any other settlement in the area (see below), it would make no sense to merge these two together. This would result in disparate communities lacking commonality of interests, and the small communities of the Severn estuary would find their voices entirely drowned out by the larger town. Instead, the ward should be expanded towards the villages of and , down the A403 corridor. This road runs from , in the existing Severn ward, to both of the two villages of Pilning and Severn Beach. This would create a single member ward, comprised mainly of current Polling Districts SEA, SEB, SEC, SEE, PSA and PSB, which ran in a broadly rectangular manner down the entire Severn coast of the district. The villages involved are all small, coastal or just inland, and have similar characteristics and concerns. This would aid in both community cohesion and efficient local government, as issues related to the mud flats, or coastal flooding would be entirely contained within a single ward, with one member. It is important that this rural area, of Vale communities is kept together as a ward, and not submerged into urban Thornbury, which has a different focus and different needs. The vale communities clustered along the Severn are very distinctive, and have a long tradition of electing very local candidates to reflect their distinctiveness. This should not be lost.

We propose the removal of two sections. Polling district SED, which is entirely inland, would be moved to Ladden Brook ward to reflect their communities’ links to the non-coastal interior of the district, and a small portion of polling district PSA would be moved to ward. The affected properties are all on the other side of the railway line from Pilning, and largely on a road leading away from Pilning, towards the interior.

Aust, Hill, Oldbury on Severn and Rockhampton Parishes are totally enclosed in the new proposed ward, as is the overwhelming majority of Pilning and Severn Beach, with the exception of 148 electors, who are separated from the rest of the community by the railway line. Moving them to share a representative with Almondsbury, where there is no such physical barrier, makes logical sense.

Ladden Brook – Projected electorate 8114. Variance 7.5%. 2 Members.

Ladden Brook can and should, in our view, be expanded to include nearby communities which have a great deal in common with the existing area. This would predominantly involve the attachment of (currently in Thornbury South), (currently in Severn), and (currently in ) to Ladden Brook. These are three small, inland settlements, surrounded by rural greenery. They have a great deal in common with communities such as Tytherington, , and which make up the bulk of the existing Ladden Brook, and are connected by the B4059, and a dense network of country lanes and minor roads. Adding these communities to Ladden Brook, joining them to similar communities, would strengthen their voice, and help preserve their interests. They would have Councillors working for them who were devoted to small, inland, rural communities, instead of their current representation, which is largely focused on relatively urban, or coastal issues. We propose the addition of Polling Districts TSC, SED, and FCD to the Ladden Brook ward. The total population of around 8,100 would be entitled to two Councillors. Although the land area would increase somewhat, by doubling Ladden Brook from a single member ward to two members, the aim of effective governance would be improved, as the residents would potentially have greater choice over who to contact, and increased likelihood of a Councillor living near them.

Almondsbury – Projected electorate 3440, Variance -9%. 1 Member.

We propose very minor alteration to the Almondsbury ward from its current arrangement. We believe the current community representation is quite good, however the population is too small to remain a single member ward. This can be repaired by altering Polling District PSA. The current PD is heavily divided by two motorways, a mainline railway line, and a main road. We propose moving households on the ‘wrong side’ of the railway line, which are therefore divided from the rest of Pilning, into Almondsbury Ward.

Although Severn ward is over quota, and the adjoining Almondsbury is under quota, a more substantial population transfer between the two would not meet the Commission’s criteria for community cohesion, or effective, efficient government. Polling District PSB covers the communities of Pilning and Severn Beach, but the villages are closely built up. Moving the entire PD would result in the wards being substantially further out of quota, so is not an option, and drawing arbitrary lines to separate communities would go against the guidelines. We have proposed that the hard lines currently in place be used, which will only affect scattered roads outside of the built-up areas.

Thornbury – Projected electorate 11,631. Variance 2.6%. 3 Members.

Thornbury is a market town with a distinct sense of identity, which relates to, but is distinct from, the surrounding countryside. It is currently covered by two two-member wards, which include both the town, and some of the surrounding countryside, including the village of Alveston. It is facing a major expansion through new housing development. We know from our experience as councillors in Yate, that when dramatic growth in a town happens it puts serious pressure on infrastructure, and on community cohesion. It is vital that Thornbury has members who can focus entirely on Thornbury and contribute to the work of ensuring community cohesion is retained through the very big pressures it is facing as a result of new housing. We propose bringing the borders in slightly, to encompass the existing polling districts of TNA, TNB, TNC, TSA and TSB. This would create a more compact three member ward, focused entirely on the town of Thornbury, removing the substantial rural hinterland and village of Alveston, in polling district TSC. While Alveston is near to Thornbury, it is a separate village rather than the town, and is separated by green space from Thornbury. In addition, there is no proposed development on that side of Thornbury which could ever link the two. It would more properly belong in an expanded Ladden Brook (see above), where it would sit with similar communities across central South Gloucestershire. The new three member ward of Thornbury would be better focused on representing the needs and identity of the town. With the development planned for the area immediately adjacent to the town, the area would be almost perfectly sized for a three-member ward. This is one of the clearest cases in the district of a distinct entity, which should be entirely self-contained. Adding other areas to it from the outside would necessarily involve a dilution of identity for the area, and a reduction in a community of interests.

Frampton Cotterell & – Projected electorate 8,071, Variance 7%. 2 Members.

Frampton Cotterell is heavily linked to the village of Coalpit Heath. Although the two are separate villages, they face many of the same challenges and issues, and this is distinct from the extremely rural areas surrounding them. There is substantial development planned for the edge of Coalpit Heath, which will exacerbate this, and increase the differentiation between the two increasingly urbanised villages and the surrounding countryside. It can be difficult when moving between Frampton and Coalpit Heath to be sure where one has ended and the other has begun. Whilst the current efforts, of taking two relatively urban communities, and two relatively rural ones, and pushing them together to make two wards of mixed character, has worked until now, it is time to put an end to the mixed character of these areas, and to embrace the identities the communities have themselves.

We propose removing the extremely rural Polling District of FCD, mainly meaning the village of Iron Acton, from Frampton Cotterell in order to attach FCD to an enlarged Ladden Brook (see above). We would attach the Polling District of WEA, unmodified, to Frampton Cotterell, in order to bring the village of Coalpit Heath together with Frampton Cotterell, where they both belong. At the same time, we would add the Polling District of WEB, which is the relatively urban extension along the A432 towards Yate, encompassing the village of Nibley. This would mean that both the existing communities with links would be together, and extensive planned development to be attached to the communities would still be included in the same ward after construction. This would improve community cohesion adding the new developments to the existing communities, and help with efficient government. At the same time, we would move the small Polling District of WIF into Frampton Cotterell, where it belongs. The properties are all on a road dividing Frampton Cotterell from Winterbourne, and are on the Frampton side of this road. Cul-de-sacs off the road are already included in the Frampton side, and the properties are an integral part of the Frampton Cotterell community. Finally, a small section of the WEC polling district should be removed, and added to the existing WEA. The border between the two currently runs down to Bitterwell Close, turning west along The Hollows, immediately south of the Golf Club. We propose that the boundary instead continue in a straight line all the way down Ram Hill/Henfield Road to Road. There are a small number of homes in this area, along The Hollows, Henfield Road, and Cooks Lane, which are currently linked to Coalpit Heath, and should be allowed to remain that way. This is the final extension of Coalpit Heath, and the links to the rest of the village are much stronger than to the nearby, but separate village of Westerleigh. If the polling districts are kept as they are, this area will be cut off from their natural community with Coalpit Heath, and indeed from houses on just the opposite side of the road, which happen to be in the Polling District which would stay with Coalpit Heath. This would make no sense at all. The combined area would be entitled to two Councillors, who would be able to effectively represent the coherent unit of the multiple villages strung together along a single linear road.

Winterbourne – Projected electorate 7,606. Variance 1%. 2 Members.

We propose the existing Winterbourne Ward remain broadly as it, encompassing Polling Districts WIA, WIB, WIC, WID and WIE. This is a nearly perfect two member ward, and we believe it represents a sensible community unit. As above, we would remove WIF, which presumably was added in the past to provide correct numbers. There is no reason for this polling district to be in the Winterbourne ward, when they form part of the Frampton Cotterell community.

Boyd Valley – Projected electorate 6,876. Variance -9%. 2 Members.

We would expand Boyd Valley to the north and west, to take in the rural areas from Westerleigh, and . These areas should not be attached to urban areas, as they are largely made up of countryside, and small settlements scattered throughout the district. The addition of Polling Districts WEC, WED, and BIB would mean a total population of around 7,000, which would allow for a two member ward. This would help the representation of the increased land area. The population cannot be reasonably expanded without taking in areas which either would substantially alter the character of the area, by making it much more urban, or by drawing arbitrary lines through settlements which would artificially divide rural towns between wards.

Bitton and Common – Projected electorate 7,402. Variance 2%. 2 Members.

Bitton and can be united into a single two-member ward, covering Polling Districts BIA, BID, OCA and OCB. This would represent the south-eastern extremity of the rural area, before it starts becoming part of the urban fringe of Bristol. Placing them together as a two member ward would both recognise, and help to preserve their distinctive rural identity, focused on the Parish of Bitton. The transport links provided by the A431 and the A4175 join the two communities together well, and mark the distinctive edge of the rural area, and the start of the urban fringe. It would be wrong to force the relatively rural communities of this area to be drowned out by joining them to the edge of a city.

Siston – Projected electorate 3,783. Variance 0%. 1 Member.

We do not propose any changes to the ward of . This is a clear rural community, focused on the of Siston, near the boundary with the urban east fringe. It would be wrong to merge it with the urban area next door, and there is neither need for any population transfers in the rural areas to make the numbers work, nor is there evidence of the local population calling for this. In addition, this is a perfect size for a single member ward on the new electoral quota.

Yate Sodbury area

The Yate Sodbury area is an urban area which is substantially built up, and is one of the major settlements of the West of . It is the largest single built-up area in South Gloucestershire out of the greater Bristol fringe. Within that, there are specific communities and locations which mean it needs to be divided up sensitively, with respect to both historic identity, and current economic and community links. There are very strong historic identities, in particular a distinction between Yate and Chipping Sodbury, which goes back 1,000 years and is still reflected in community identities.

Chipping Sodbury – Projected electorate 3,794. Variance 1%. 1 Member.

Chipping Sodbury is a medieval market town, connected on the eastern side of the Yate urban area. Chipping Sodbury has its own distinct character and identity; it retains features like the wide market street where mediaeval markets were held since around 1200. The services people use in Chipping Sodbury are focussed around that High Street. A good example of the distinctiveness, is the effort the community has put into keeping the library in the High Street open, even though there is a library in Yate less than a mile away. It physically adjoins Yate, but the community focus of the two is very different. There are many community groups which have a Yate branch and a Sodbury branch for example. We feel the new numbering model can better reflect this than the current model. There is a Chipping Sodbury Festival, very much focussed on the high street, and it still has its Mop Fairs twice a year. Whilst it has had some modern development, its focus has continued to be the historic centre and the identity that comes from that. It has its own primary and secondary schools. Yate in contrast has Saxon origins, but is now overwhelmingly a modern town focussed on Yate Town Centre. It has its own primary and secondary schools. It has its own facilities, health centre, library, youth, community halls etc. and has a completely different identity. Indeed Sodbury councillors have been heard to say that Yate people have no right to have a say on parking in Sodbury High Street and vice versa. Neighbours can sometimes be the strongest rivals, and that is true in this case. It would be a mistake to force the two communities together on the belief they were the same entity. The new quota is nearly perfect for the Chipping Sodbury Town Council (town) area to be a single member ward. That area is reflected in Polling Districts CSB and CSC. It no longer needs to include the Birds (CSA) which is not in Sodbury Parish and can best revert to its historic boundaries. This would be ideal to reflect both the specific community of Chipping Sodbury, and its position in the district.

Dodington – Projected electorate 8,063. Variance 7%. 2 Members.

Dodington Parish is currently split between two wards, and this review provides an opportunity to reunite them into a single community. Dodington is a distinct suburban community within the bigger town. Its residents chose to live there because they have access to the urban facilities of both Yate and Sodbury, but can live in a quieter area, close to the countryside. It was all built at the same time (literally going from one farm to a fully built up community between 1972 and 1979). As a result it is characterised by Radburn layout development and has considerable similarities in the character of the area. Whilst those up the hill, in the Birds are larger houses, the layout and green nature of the development is the same. It is quiet and a distinct form of development, with green routes through the development linking it to the countryside, and giving a very rural feel to the development. It is separated from Chipping Sodbury by the A432 which is a dual carriageway with few pedestrian crossing points. By car it is impossible to get from Dodington into Chipping Sodbury without going into Yate (as the Heron Way / A432 junction does not allow right hand turns for safety reasons). At the last review, for numbers reasons, the eastern part of Dodington (The Birds) has been separated into Chipping Sodbury ward (Polling District CSA). A ward made up of Polling Districts DOA, DOB, and CSA would be a much more sensible focus on the Parish of Dodington, and would ensure Dodington Parish retained its identity. This would continue to include a small part of Yate Parish, around Abbotswood. However this makes sense, as Abbotswood is one of two community focal points for the Dodington area and sits well with Dodington. It makes sense to include some of the southern Yate communities which are currently in a priority neighbourhood with Dodington. It is helpful for the communities with shared experiences and challenges of the priority neighbourhood to be represented by the same people, as they share commonalities of interest. This ward would be an appropriate size to be a two member ward, as the current Dodington ward is as well.

Yate North – Projected electorate 11,184. Variance 1.3%. 3 Members. Yate Central – Projected electorate 6,903. Variance 8.5%. 2 Members.

The town of Yate itself is currently split between two wards, and it makes sense that this split remains. The town would have an electorate of approximately 18,000, meaning that it qualifies for five Councillors representing it. Substantial development is planned for the north of Yate, and future development in the area is also likely to be concentrated in that area. There are very strong identities associated with north Yate and south Yate. They are different communities, linked by the shopping centre and central facilities. They go to different secondary schools. Brimsham Green serves north Yate and Yate Academy south Yate, have different community centre focal points, have different bus routes, different youth clubs, different parks (Brimsham Fields / Kingsgate Park) - so there is a real north / south difference reflected in strong community identities. As a result, the appropriate split continues to be two Councillors for Yate Central, and three Councillors for Yate North. This would allow the north of Yate area to absorb the coming development. Our experience of coping with massive new development is that this is best done when the councillors represent a clear existing community, and can promote links to integrate the new development into the existing community. We think it would be a disaster if the identity of the north of the town were fragmented at this crucial moment when work is about to commence on the biggest expansion the town has seen in a generation. We need a unifying identity for the north of the town, who can work across the whole northern area and maximise the integration of the new into the existing. This approach also requires less boundary changes than any other solution. We propose minor alterations to the current border between Yate Central and Yate North, in order to better meet the requirements of an equal ratio of electors. Fortunately, there are roads which are currently not attached to the most appropriate polling district/ward, and correcting this allows for the numbers to be made more appropriate. There is a small area behind the Morrison’s shop, which is only accessible from the double roundabout off Station Road. It is inappropriate for this to be in Yate North ward, when it can only be accessed through Yate Central. Moving this to Yate Central would allow for the numbers to meet the equality criteria, at the same time as the community links and effective governance criteria are already met.

Urban areas

The urban area around Bristol contains many communities which run into each other, and have varying levels of separate identity. Some of these have been pushed together in the past to meet the imperatives of effective government and parity of numbers, and this review provides an opportunity to repair some of those links, whilst taking account of future development. The densification of the fringe will be particularly pronounced in the north, on the old airfield site near .

Cribbs – Projected electorate 12,190. Variance 7.6%. 3 Members.

We propose that the Polling Districts of PCA and PCD be separated from the rest of Patchway, in order to create a new ward of Cribbs. This contains the road (A4018), and shopping centre, as well as the old Airfield. This location is going to be one of the most heavily developed areas of South Gloucestershire in the near future, and the only way to realistically cope with the rate of development, and community identity, is to create a new ward to take account of that. By 2023, it would have some 12,000 residents, and be entitled to three Councillors. This level of development cannot be accommodated within an existing ward, and a new one must be created in order to take account of it. The development at has already taken place, and the new neighbourhood on the airfield site, and near the Cribbs Causeway shopping centre is proceeding apace.

Patchway – Projected electorate 3,509. Variance -7%. 1 Member.

We would preserve the existing community of Patchway in polling districts PCB and PCC. This would be a single member ward, to represent the area which would not be changing significantly. The existing community is strong, as was shown in recent years when roadways were altered around the north fringe to allow for the metrobus project, and hundreds of residents came to first committee, and then full council to contribute their views. This proposal would allow that community identity to continue to be represented, with a single clear voice on South Gloucestershire.

Bailey’s Court – Projected electorate 3,469. Variance -8%. 1 Member.

This review presents an opportunity to right a historic wrong, and reunite the original parts of . Although the development is a new town, and grew in size by several orders of magnitude in the 1980s and 1990s, it did not appear out of nowhere, or instantaneously. By putting Polling Districts BSA, BSB, and SGA together, we can reunite the historic centre of Bradley Stoke into a single one-member ward, known as Baileys Court, taking the name from one of the ancient farms. This community has been kept apart by previous local government organisations, and local residents, including a former local representative, strongly feel that it should be put back together. As the numbers required now allow it, the strength of community identity and feeling is an imperative to move this forwards, as a single ward.

Filton – Projected electorate 8,175. Variance 8.5%. 2 Members.

We propose that Filton be kept as is, covering the Polling Districts of FIA to FIE, in order to preserve the current community. Although this would lead to a relatively large ward, entitled to 2.17 Councillors, this variance is within the permissible limit, and is an acceptable price to pay in order to keep the current sense of community identity. The area is compact and tightly clustered on the boundary with Bristol, centred on the A38 road running north-south. Filton has its own leisure centre, library, schools, shopping centres and medical facilities, as well as a clear history, with a particular focus on its contribution to British aerospace history, and forms an undeniable community. The entire Town Council area is coterminous with the existing South Gloucestershire ward.

Bradley Stoke Central and – Projected electorate 8,291. Variance 10%. 2 Members.

Bradley Stoke Central and Stoke Lodge would be modified to include the existing Bradley Stoke Central and Stoke Lodge, with the addition of the Woodlands area, which is currently a separate ward of Bradley Stoke North. This new ward would be bounded by the A38 road to the north-west, and the M5 and M4 motorways to the north and north-east. It covers the central parts of Bradley Stoke, including the town centre. The leisure centre, library, and shopping centre would be linked together with the residents who use those facilities. Although this would be a large two member ward, it is within the variance allowed, and will allow for the unification of the community, which no longer needs to be split apart.

Bradley Stoke South – Projected electorate 7,040. Variance -6.5%. 2 Members.

Due to the recreation of the historic community of Baileys Court described above, substantial modifications are needed to the ward of Bradley Stoke South. The ward would be based around the existing Polling Districts of BSC, BSD, and SGC. In addition, we would add in the adjacent block of housing next door to these polling districts, from SGD. This would include the roads off Braydon Avenue, and backing onto it (from Stoke Lane), to keep the community together with the exception of Kilminster Close, which is isolated in the middle of playing fields, and faces towards .

Frenchay and – Projected electorate 6,817. Variance 9%. 2 Members.

Frenchay and Stoke Gifford is primarily based on Stoke Gifford, taking in a small part of Polling District FSA, then SGB, SGC, and SGD, excluding the areas removed from SGD for Bradley Stoke South (see above). This is the area north of the ring road, which is a hard barrier; it is a dual carriageway with few areas for pedestrian crossings, and no housing alongside it. The other apparent barrier in the area is the railway line, but that has numerous bridges and tunnels, allowing easy links between either side. The proposed ward is entirely contained within the Parish of Stoke Gifford, including all of the Parish’s wards (north, central, and south). This is a relatively small two member ward, which will allow for effective and efficient communication between the elected representatives and their constituents.

University – Projected electorate 6,805. Variance -10%. 2 Members.

University would include the areas surrounding and focused on the University of the West of England, in polling districts FSA to FSD (with Swallows Court and New Road removed from FSA, to go to Frenchay & Stoke Gifford). UWE is an institution with a growing reputation, and is integral to the identity of South Gloucestershire as a whole. The surrounding communities are linked to the university, through the presence of students, support staff, lecturers, and many other jobs which touch, directly or tangentially, on the university, and the proposed name acknowledges its importance to the locality. The existing community is well linked together, and there is little reason to break it apart. This would be a two member ward.

Emerson’s Green – Projected electorate 10,641. Variance -8.4%. 3 Members.

Emerson’s Green can be preserved as is, covering Polling Districts EGA, EGB, EGC, EGD, EGE and EGF. This would mean a three member ward, reflecting the current community identity and links. They have their own shopping centre, park, and library, and a distinct sense of local identity. We see no reason to break up something which is currently working.

Hanham and Abbots – Projected electorate 11,064. Variance -2.3%. 3 Members.

Hanham and Hanham Abbots nestles in the south east corner of the District, at the southern end of Bristol’s east fringe. By uniting the two closely linked, and similar, though separate, communities, a three-member ward can be created. Although failing to unite them in a single ward could allow a better representation of the separate community identities, the resulting numbers would not allow for a viable warding pattern.

Oldland – Projected electorate 11,819. Variance 4.3%. 3 Members

Oldland is one of the clearest wards to create in South Gloucestershire. The Parish of Oldland is well established with an identity, and it is compact, on the edge of the urban area. Historically a separate settlement, there is now no doubt that it makes up part of the east fringe. A single three-member ward covering the current Polling Districts of BIC, LGB, LGC, OCC, PAA, PAB, PAC and PAD will allow for the Parish to be represented in South Gloucestershire as a discrete, coherent unit. This will respect a strong community identity, and allow for effective governance, both because of the size, shape, and population of the ward, and because of the obvious reflection of, and links to, the Parish Council.

Downend and Bromley Heath – Projected electorate 10,497. Variance -7.3%. 3 Members

Downend and Bromley Heath would be a minor extension of the existing Downend Ward, DWA to DWF, with the addition of SHD Polling District, extending to include the parts of the community down North Street and Park Road. This would create a rectangular-shaped ward, entitled to three Councillors, allowing for effective and efficient representation of the area.

Kingswood area – Projected electorate 31,259. Variance 3.5%. 8 Members

Kingswood is an area where we must acknowledge we are not in the best place to propose a warding pattern. There is an area covering the current wards of Rodway, Staple Hill, Kings Chase, and Woodstock. Whilst it appears that Rodway could be made a three member ward separate from the rest, we would not want to create lines around communities without being sure where they are. We strongly encourage that the Polling Districts be used as an area, to allocate 8 Councillors, but would suggest that local residents, and other groups, and parties representing the area would be better placed to suggest exactly how the wards should be drawn, and representation allocated. This would be an area covering the PDs of KCA, KCB, KCC, KCD, KCE, ROA, ROB, ROC, ROD, ROE, ROF, SHA, SHB, SHC, WSA, WSB, WSC, WSD, WSE, and WSF.

Conclusions

This proposal would create 27 wards across South Gloucestershire, and leave work to be done as appropriate in the Kingswood area. There would be a total of 61 Councillors as recommended by the council size decision, and all proposed wards are within 10% of the central quota. There is a combination of 1, 2, and 3 member wards in order to keep communities together, and provide effective and efficient local government. Most of the changes are relatively minor, and where larger ones are taken, it is to unite, or reunite communities which should not have been split apart in the first place. We believe this submission would be an appropriate solution to South Gloucestershire’s warding requirements in the near future, and look forward to it being adopted for the 2019 elections.

Technical notes: Although the proposed wards have been created out of existing Polling Districts, either entirely, or by modification, it is clear that new PDs will need to be created to cover the new wards. Maps of the proposed wards are attached in appendix 1, created out of the maps of the existing PDs. In some cases, such as WIF, the PD is so small as to be invisible on the map enclosed. Effort was made to use the Boundary Commission website mapping software for ultra-high detail, but that only allowed a maximum of 20 ‘objects’ to be added, which did not permit the submission of a 27 ward (plus Kingswood area) pattern. We are indebted to Natalie Carr of South Gloucestershire’s Electoral Services for the provision of PD maps, and calculating the impact of moving streets, as well as for electorate forecasts to the 2023 limit. All seats were calculated based on the new electoral quota for 61 seats, and the projected 2023 electorate.

Appendices: A: Maps B: Electorate figures by Polling District, showing splits where necessary.

Excluding Bank Road (Old School House, Station Villas, Kimani, Bell Lane, Bell House, Marsh Common Road (3-135)+Marsh Cottage, Chequers Farm, Pilning St [Greystones, Pilning Farm, Pilning and Severn Pilning and Severn PSA Severn Pilning Conningsby House, Torrs Farm, Elm Beach Beach Villa, Rosemont, The Plough Inn] Rookery Lane 2, Rose Cottage, Rookery Farm, Station Road Grooms Cottage, Swanbrook House, 1-23 Station Road, Station Farm, Greenways, Gils Lake Farm, 1043 0.28 Meadow Cottage, Pampers Court) Pilning and Severn PSB Severn Severn Beach Beach 1679 0.45 SEA Severn Aust Severn 423 0.11 SEB Severn Hill Severn 102 0.03 SEC Severn Oldbury-on-Severn Severn 667 0.18 SEE Severn Rockhampton Severn 158 0.04 SIA Siston Siston Siston 1174 0.31 SIB Siston Siston Siston 995 0.26 SIC Siston Siston Siston 1397 0.37 SID Siston Siston 217 0.06 TNA Thornbury Thornbury North West Thornbury North 3222 0.85 TNB Thornbury Thornbury North East Thornbury North 2982 0.79 TNC Thornbury Thornbury Central Thornbury North 1789 0.47 Thornbury South and TSA Thornbury Thornbury East Alveston 1565 0.41 Thornbury South and TSB Thornbury Thornbury South Alveston 2073 0.55 Frenchay and Stoke FSA University Stoke Gifford South Park 1393 0.37 excluding New Rd & Swallows Court Frenchay and Stoke FSB University Stoke Gifford University Park 3199 0.85 Frenchay and Stoke FSC University Stoke Gifford University Park 279 0.07 Frenchay and Stoke FSD University Winterbourne Frenchay Park 1934 0.51 Winterbourne WIA Winterbourne Winterbourne Down and Winterbourne 1838 0.49 Winterbourne WIB Winterbourne Winterbourne Down and Winterbourne Hambrook 76 0.02 WIC Winterbourne Winterbourne Winterbourne 2083 0.55 WID Winterbourne Winterbourne Winterbourne Winterbourne 2323 0.62 Winterbourne WIE Winterbourne Winterbourne Down and Winterbourne Hambrook 1286 0.34 YCA Yate Central Yate South East Yate Central 3607 0.96 YCB Yate Central Yate Central Yate Central 1324 0.35 YCC Yate Central Yate Central Yate Central 590 0.16 YCD Yate Central Yate Central Yate Central 1107 0.29 YNB Yate Central Yate North Yate North 275 0.07 The Leaze and Home Orchard YNA Yate North Yate North Yate North 6872 1.82 Existing YNB excluding The Leaze YNB Yate North Yate West Yate North 2379 0.63 and HomeOrchard YNC Yate North Yate West Yate North 1933 0.51 as per Natalie's road number 230180 changes