:al Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 581 Principal Area Boundary Review ELECH )l 3 Al_ C( )NSEQUENTI ALS : TY OF GLOUCEST THOUGH OF CHELTENHAM } STRICT OF COTSWOU THOUGH OFTEWKESBim LOCAL GOVEHN1CTT BOUNDARY COMMISSION ENGLAND REPORT NO .581 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE FRICS FSVA Members Me K F J Ennals CB Me G R Prentice Mrs H R v sarkany THE RT HON CHRIS PATTEN MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT PRINCIPAL AREA BOUNDARY REVIEW; CITY OF GLOUCESTER/BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM/DISTRICT OF STROUD/BOROUGH OF TEWKESBURY/DISTRICT OF COTSWOLD FINAL PROPOSALS FOR CHANGES TO ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS CONSEQUENTIAL TO PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES INTRODUCTION 1. On 25 March 1988, we submitted to your predecessor our Report No 547, which contained our final proposals for changes to the administrative boundaries of the City of Gloucester, the Boroughs of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and the Districts of Cotswold and Stroud. 2. In that report, we stated that we had made no proposals to deal with the electoral conseguences of the proposed boundary changes, and that our final proposals for consequential changes to electoral arrangements would be the subject of a separate report. In view of the nature and extent of the electoral consequences, we decided that they ought to be advertised separately in order to give local authorities and residents affected by them a full opportunity to comment. 3. In your Department's letter of 13 June 1989, we were informed of the then Minister for Local Government's decision, on behalf of the Secretary of State, to modify the proposals made in our Report No 547. We also noted that his decisions in respect of the boundary between the Boroughs of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury in the Up Hatherley, Leckhampton, Prestbury and Swindon areas would be subject to any comments received by him during a period of three months from the date of his letter. In your Department's subsequent letter of 26 June 1989, we were asked to submit our final proposals for consequential changes to electoral arrangements, based on the modified proposals for boundary changes, by Christmas 1989, so that the Order giving effect to the boundary changes may take effect on 1 April 1991. 4. Since we understand that the final district boundaries in the areas of Up Hatherley, Leckhampton, Prestbury and Swindon have not yet been determined, we cannot at this stage put forward final proposals for changes to the ward and electoral division boundaries in those areas. This report therefore deals with the consequential changes to electoral arrangements for the areas where the district boundaries have been determined, as detailed in your Department's letter of 13 June 1989. The remainder of the electoral consequences in respect of the provisional boundary changes between the Boroughs of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury will be the subject of a separate report. 5. To minimise delay in making the Order giving effect to the proposed boundary changes, we decided to publish our own scheme for consequential changes to electoral arrangements, and to invite comments, rather than to follow our usual procedure of inviting the local authorities concerned to submit draft schemes. We accordingly published our draft proposals for electoral consequences on 6 October 1989, by means of a letter addressed to the County Council of Gloucestershire, the City Council of Gloucester, the Borough Councils of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury, and the District Councils of Cotswold and Stroud. A copy of that letter is attached. Copies were sent at the time to all those persons and bodies who had received a copy of our Report No 547. The County, City, Borough and District Councils were asked to publish a notice giving information about our draft proposals, and to put copies of this on display at places where public notices are customarily displayed. They were also asked to place copies of our draft proposals on deposit for inspection at their main offices. Comments were invited by 17 November 1989. 6. The district wards affected by our draft proposals are dealt with below: BOROUGH OF CHELTENHAM Hatherley - The Reddings area of the Parish of Badgeworth, at present within Crickley Ward of the Borough of Tewkesbury, to be transferred to the Hatherley Ward of the Borough of Cheltenham, which would become a 4-member ward. We recognised that this proposal could create some difficulty for the Borough Council in arranging elections by thirds, but we understood that the Council had already agreed in principle to change to whole council elections which would resolve the issue. At county level, The Reddings area to be transferred to Hatherley electoral division. As explained above the district wards and electoral divisions affected by the provisional boundary changes in the Up Hatherley, Leckhampton, Prestbury and Swindon areas cannot be finalised, as the administrative boundaries have not yet been determined. CITY OF GLOUCESTER QUEDGELEY - A new ward to be created with that name, to consist of the whole parish, with a present electorate of 4986, to be represented by two councillors. At county level, Quedgeley to constitute a new electoral division, UPTON ST LEONARDS - That part of Upton St Leonards proposed for transfer to the City of Gloucester to be included in Matson Ward of the City of Gloucester, At county level, this area to be transferred to Matson electoral division. BOROUGH OF TEWKESBURY Crickley - The Reddings area to be transferred to Hatherley Ward in the Borough of Cheltenham, and the Parishes of Coberley and Cowley, now in this ward, to be transferred to the District of Cotswold. Crickley Ward, thereby reduced in size, to become a 1-member ward. DISTRICT OF STROUD Quedgeley and Hardwicke The Quedgeley part of this ward to be transferred to the City of Gloucester to form a 2-member ward in the City, and a county electoral division of the same name. The remainder of this ward, comprising the Parishes of Elmore, Hardwicke and Longney, to form a new 2-member ward (to be called Hardwicke) in the District of Stroud and, at county level, to be transferred to Severn electoral division. DISTRICT OF COTSWOLD Ermin - The Parishes of Coberley and Cowley to be transferred from the Borough of Tewkesbury to the 1-member Ermin Ward of the District of Cotswold, and to the county electoral division of South Cotswold. 7. Our draft scheme also included proposals for electoral consequentials in respect of the provisional boundary between the Districts of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury in the Up Hatherley, Leckhampton, Prestbury and Swindon areas. As mentioned in paragraph 4 above our final proposals for those areas must form the subject of a further report. In addition, our draft scheme included changes in the electoral arrangements to reflect the minor boundary changes affecting the Parishes of Brookthorpe-with-Whaddon, Elmore, Great Witcombe, Innsworth, Longford, Maisemore, Southam, and Uckington. RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS 8. In response to our draft proposals, we received representations from the County Council of Gloucestershire, Gloucester City Council, the District Councils of Cotswold and Stroud, the Borough Council of Cheltenham, the Parish Councils of Hardwicke and Quedgeley, a Member of Badgeworth Parish Council, Gloucester Rural Conservatives, The Rotary Club of Tewkesbury and the Police Federation of England and Wales. Tewkesbury Borough Council confirmed by telephone that it had no comments. 9. Gloucestershire County Council was concerned about the effects of our draft proposals on the county electoral divisions of Mid Tewkesbury and Severn, and felt that within Mid Tewkesbury division there was a lack of geographical relationship between Teddington in the north and Great Witcombe in the south. However, they had .decided to offer no formal observations, in the expectation that a further electoral review of the whole county would be conducted by the mid 1990s. 10. Gloucester City Council suggested that the proposed 2- member Quedgeley Ward should have three councillors, since it envisaged that by April 1991 the electorate would be well above 5000. 11. Cheltenham and Tewkesbury Borough Councils and Cotswold and stroud District Councils all confirmed that they had no comments on our draft proposals. 12. Hardwicke Parish Council opposed our proposal to transfer its parish to the county electoral division of Severn, on the grounds that the division would become too large. Quedgeley. Parish Council and the Gloucester Rural Conservatives both considered that the proposed 2-member Quedgeley Ward merited three councillors. The Member of Badgeworth Parish Council suggested that since The Reddings area was being transferred to the Hatherley Ward of the Borough of Cheltenham, this ward should be renamed "Hatherley and The Reddings,11 to preserve the identity of The Reddings village. The Rotary Club of Tewkesbury and the Police Federation of England and Wales had no comments to make on our draft proposals. OUR FINAL PROPOSALS 13.'As required by Section'60(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have;considered the representations made to us in response to our draft proposals. We dealt first with the suggestion from the City Council to increase the number of councillors ""for the proposed Quedgeley Ward of the City-of Gloucester. We noted that while on the basis of the existing electorates, the-degree of under-representatidn -for the proposed12-member ward would be within acceptable limits, an extra councillor would result in a higher degreee^of over- representation "in ttiat'^ward. We therefore concluded that, in the context of the current principal" area boundary review,' there'-was insufficient justification for us-to-modify-our draft "proposal'for a 2-member ward. "However, we have "-before us a request from the City Council for a further electoral review of the City of Gloucester.