Parish council submissions to the Oxfordshire County Council electoral review.
This PDF document contains 23 submissions from parish and town councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 April 2011 16:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received
- Custom Form Submission Notification
Custom Form Submission Received
Contact us Email,
A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:
Submission Information
Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 434 Time of Submission: Apr 1st 2011 at 3:47pm IP Address:
Form Answers
Your name: Mr Nigel Warner on behalf of Abingdon Town Council Your email: I am: a parish clerk Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: Local Government Boundary Commission – Electoral Review of Oxfordshire
1. Abingdon Town Council note that using the 2016 projected population data there are expected to be 522, 455 electors in Oxfordshire and 25,915 in Abingdon. At first sight it seems appropriate that Abingdon Town should be represented by 3 County Councillors, whose average division size would be 8,638 which is very close to the County–wide average (assuming 64 County councillors) of 8,163 2. The town of Abingdon is a distinct local entity – indeed the present situation of where one County Division consists of two wards in Abingdon plus the adjacent and much smaller village of Drayton is not satisfactory. Therefore the possibility of having three County Councillors representing only the town has great appeal. 3. However, the Council notes that the Commission normally use parish wards as building blocks which causes a problem – currently Abingdon is warded into 7 wards (Dunmore, Northcourt, Peachcroft, Abbey Barton, Fitzharris, Ock Meadow, and Caldecott). Each of these 7 wards elects 3 town councillors and 2 district councillors. Thus re-warding the town into 9 wards to allow 3 wards per new County Division, would mean that the parish and district wards would no longer be co-terminous. 4. The Town Council also understands that the Vale of White Horse District Council has recently proposed its size be reduced from 51 councillors to around 34. If this suggestion was adopted and a pro-rata reduction applied to Abingdon, the number of district councillors would reduce from 14 to about 9 or 10. Should this proposal proceed then it is possible that 9 single member district council wards could be created. However, the Town Council notes that a County Council boundary review is not able to alter
district council ward boundaries, which poses a dilemma. This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Contact us Email
From: Tian Davidson Sent: 08 March 2011 15:57 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: Oxfordshire Electoral Review
Dear Jessica , Appleton with Eaton Parish Council met and discussed this issue last night.
The Parish Council concluded that they are in agreement with the number of County Councillors (64) and that their preferred option would be:
1. To keep the Parish as a whole rather than split up;
2. The Parish relates to Cumnor more than any other Parish;
3. The children of the Parish go to Matthew Arnold Secondary School; which is also the same for Cumnor.
In conclusion, the Parish Council would like to remain in the division with either Cumnor or Cumnor and Wytham.
The Parish Council would disapprove of connections with Kingston Bagpuise or Southmoor or North Hinskey as the relationships are not as strong.
Please acknowledge receipt of this response.
Kind regards
Tian
Mrs T Davidson Parish Clerk Appleton with Eaton Parish Council
From: Clerk to Begbroke Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 February 2011 13:20 To: Reviews@ Cc:
Subject: Electoral review of Oxfordshire
Comment from Begbroke PC
The committee do not identify with Abingdon but more with West Oxfordshire. We are located in Oxford West and Abingdon.
Regards
Jeffrey Wright
Clerk to Begbroke Parish Council
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT (2000)
Recipients should be aware that all emails received or sent by The Clerk to Begbroke Parish Council are subject to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and therefore may be disclosed to a third party.If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender immediately. If you are not the person for whom it is intended you must not copy, distribute or disclose the contents of the email or take any action in reliance on it.
From: Sue Cooper Sent: 12 January 2011 13:29 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Cc: Subject: RE: OCC review
If OCC goes down to 64, please can you give us an apportionment (presumably on the basis of population) between the 5 districts? In particular I’d like to know how many OCC councillors South Oxfordshire would have.
Given that there is to be a census soon, wouldn’t it make sense to wait until we have up to date population figures to deal with?
Sue Cooper Clerk to Benson Parish Council
BODICOTE PARISH COUNCIL
Mrs V J Russell Clerk to the Council
Tel. No.: e-mail: [email protected]
Ms J Metheringham-Owlett Review Officer (Oxfordshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill St London EC1M 5LG 28 March 2011 Dear Ms Metheringham-Owlett
Electoral Review of Oxfordshire
Thank you for your letter of 11 January regard ing the above. We have given this matter some thought and are all in agreem ent that there m ust be no suggestion of Bodicote village being taken into the Banbury division. This is a complete non-starter for us.
Bodicote is mentioned in the Dom esday Book and remains to this day a village with its own identity, notwithstanding its proxim ity to Banbury, which, over the years, has pushed nearer to our village. Our lives, co mmunity and concerns are rural and we feel very strongly that we must retain our rural identity.
Also, while we understand the reasons for the possible reduction in the num ber of County Councillors, we are concerned at the suggestion that our County Councillor may take on the responsibility for several other Parishes as well. For many years, our County Councillor has looked after our interests and concerns very well, but we feel that he may become overstretched if he were to repres ent several other Parishes in addition to those for which he already has responsibility.
However, there is a large-scale housing development planned for Bodicote Parish, on the eastern side of the Oxford Road, adjacent to Ban bury. Bodicote Parish C ouncil has not yet had time to consult the existing residents of Bodicote as to whether they wish the new housing to remain in Bodicote Parish or to become part of Banbury. If there is any suggestion of splitting Bodicote into two Wards, please be aware that the residents of the existing houses which f orm a ribbon developm ent along the east side of the Oxford Road and along Canal Lane have m ade it clear to us that they wish to rem ain in Bodicote, so we would request that the new boundary be drawn around this existing housing so that these residents can remain in Bodicote.
We hope t hat you will take our comments into consideration when looking at the electoral representation for Bodicote.
Yours sincerely
Valerie J Russell (Mrs) - Clerk to the Council
From: Chris Goodwin Sent: 25 November 2010 09:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chadlington, Oxfordshire
Dear Sirs,
In reponse to the proposed review to parish boundaries, Chadlington Parish Council would like the boundaries to remain as they are and no changes be made.
Kind regards
Chris Goodwin Clerk to Chadlington Parish Council
PARISH COUNCIL OF DRAYTON (OXON)
David Perrow Clerk n Tel. E-mail: [email protected]
The Review Officer (Oxfordshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
21st March 2011
Dear Sirs,
Response from Drayton Parish Council to Consultation on Electoral Review of Oxfordshire
At its meeting held on Monday 7th March 2011 Drayton Parish Council considered its response to the questions posed in your consultation on the electoral boundaries in Oxfordshire, and I have been instructed to respond as follows:
1. Which areas do you identify as your local community? Drayton identifies with South Abingdon, Sutton Courtenay and Steventon, and is associated with the Abingdon secondary schools and Abingdon facilities such as Tilsey Park and the NET.
2. Do you have any suggestions about where your electoral division boundaries should be? - with any of the above.
3. How many councillors should there be in your division? Preference is to keep the number of councillors as now. Drayton Parish Council opposes any reduction in the number of councillors representing its ward.
4. Are there any areas that you don’t identify with? Drayton does not identify with Marcham or the Hendreds.
Yours sincerely
David Perrow Parish Clerk
From: A SERMON Sent: 17 March 2011 22:57 To: Reviews@ Subject: Response to Local Govt Boundary Review
Dear Sirs, As clerk to Eye & Dunsden Parish Council I have been asked to respond with the Parish Council's views:
With the recommended changes it is clear that extra work will fall on the shoulders of a reduced number of councillors. The Parish Council would like to support the idea of making Henley a 2 member division. This would help to share the burden of the extra rural parishes. However, due to its position on the Reading borders Eye & Dunsden Parish Council would not like to be subsumed into Henley division. Thank you Yours faithfully Marilyn Sermon Clerk to the Parish Council
KIDLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Exeter Hall, Oxford Road, Kidlington, Oxon. OX5 1AB
Parish Council: 01865 372143; Exeter Hall: 01865 373691 Fax: 01865 842308 E-Mail - [email protected] Clerk: Mrs Patricia Redpath D.M.A.
Electoral Review – Oxfordshire County Council
The parish of Kidlington is one of a smal l group of paris hes in the south-west corner of Cherwell Dis trict separated from the remainder of the Dis trict by the River Cherwell. Initially, we had hoped to contain two divis ions wholly within this group of parishes , because of the strong boundary provided by the Riv er Cherwell. Howev er, when the electo ral forecast for 2016 was published, it became apparent this group of paris hes was no longer large enough t o comprise two divisions.
Road links across the River Cherwell exist at Enslow, where the A4095 crosses into Bletchingdon paris h and at Gosford where the A34 and the former A34 (now dec lassified) cross into Hampton Gay & Poy le parish. Both of these parishes lie withi n Kirtlington district ward, which is in c onsequence the only district ward east of the River Cherwell that is directly connected to the parishes on the western side.
Two parishes in Kirtlington Ward have par ticularly close links with Kidlington. Shipton-on-Cherwell & Thrupp lies on th e western side of the river, and shares with Kidlington the sense of being separated by the river from the rest of Cherwell District. Hampton Gay & Poyl e lies directly across the river from Kidlington, and the public footpaths connecting Hampton Poyle with Kidlington are well used by residents of both co mmunities in the summer months. Hampton Poyle is also unique among villages on the eastern side of the river, in that the village magazine Kidlingt on News circulates widely in Hampton Poyle, and regular reports of events in Hampton Poyle are published in the magazine.
We would like to r eiterate our oppositio n to multi-member divis ions; in particular we feel that, in rural and semi-rural areas, t he area en compassed by such divisions is too large for e ffective representation. We therefore recommend two single-member divisions to cover Kidlington and the surrounding parishes. We also feel that, as far as is reasonably possible, it is better to separate divisions of an urban character from those of a rural or semi-rural character. We have therefore sought to contain one division wholly within the predominantly urban area of Kidlington and Gosford.
Traditionally, district wards and c ounty divisions in Kidlington have separated the north of the par ish from the south. We therefore considered an arrangement in which Kidlington South district ward was linked with Gosford & Water Eaton parish to form one divis ion, whilst Kidlington North district ward was linked to Kirtlington district ward and Begbroke and Yarnton parishes to form the other division. Howev er, t he electoral equality provided by that arrangement is less than satisfactory . We have theref ore opted for an alternative arrangement in whic h Kidlingt on North district ward is linked to Exeter and Dogwood parish war ds, whilst Kirtlington and Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton district wards are linked to Orchard parish ward. The forecast electorate in 2016 for these proposed di visions is 7,820 in the former and 8,450 in the latter, for which the varianc es are -4.2% and 3.5% respectively . We therefore submit these as our re commended divisions for Kidlington and the surrounding area.
Patricia Redpath Clerk (April 2011)
From: On Behalf Of Linda Martin Sent: 16 March 2011 11:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire Review
Dear Sirs, The Parish Council believes that for effective representation to take place, it should be algined with the adjacent parish of St. Helen Without which is a village of slightly smaller size than Marcham, but which shares common issues and where businesses are sited on the common boundary.
Yours faithfully, Linda Martin Clerk Marcham Parish Council
From: Andrew Hickman Sent: 14 January 2011 12:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire
I write on behalf of Middleton Stoney Parish Council.
I refer to the recent communications concerning the next stage of the review in which you ask for comments before 3 April 2011.
Our parish council members briefly discussed this issue at our meeting of 12 January. It was our understanding from our local County Councillor that there would be a number of 'rural' divisions within Oxfordshire and it was the view of our members that Middleton Stoney parish should, within any redefined boundaries, be a part of such a 'rural' division rather than be attached to an urban conurbation such as Bicester Town.
It may be that before the deadline of 3 April we will make further comments but would ask, initially that you note our preference with regard to this parish.
Thank you.
Andrew F Hickman Clerk to the Council
From: Mollington Parish Council Sent: 17 January 2011 15:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire
Attention: Jessica Metheringham‐Owlett
1. Identity is with: a. Mollington b. North Oxfordshire Cluster (Clayden, Cropredy, The Bourtons and Hanwell) c. Banbury d. Cherwell. 2. Boundary? North Oxfordshire Cluster. 3. # of C Councillors? 1 4. No none identification. Alan GH
Alan Greenslade-Hibbert Chairman ~ Mollington Parish Council
Tel:
www.mollingtonvillage.co.uk
NORTH HINKSEV PARISH COUNCIL
Alan Stone. Clerk to the Council nhlnkseyparish@:n-tsn.com
Web-site: www.northhinksey-pc.gov.uk 24'" March 20 II
Jessica Metheringham-Owlett, Review Officer (Oxfordshire), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Layden House, Lt;>~ lEe lE ~VlE iD 76-86 Tummill Street, London 28 MAR 2011 ECIM5LG ------
Dear Jessica Metheringham-Owlett,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF OXFORDSHlRE
I am replying to your letter dated Illh January 20 II, where you ask for proposals for a new pattern of divisions based on a council size of64 members. North Hinksey Parish Council met this evening to consider your request and after taking into account the identities and interest of local communities in the area ask that the following proposals are considered.
Comment North Hinksey is a thriving community on the outskirts of Oxford serving a wide area that provides services to all the residential areas within or bordering the current parish council boundaries. The justification for this revised ward is based on the simple, but logical premise that all electors now shown within the revised ward(s) look to North Hinksey for their essential and every day services. As such they should be able to have a say in how those services are run and develop.
Essential Services provided include: - Doctors, schools, shops, library service, Post Office, Dentists, banks, mixed churches and petrol station. All local transport from the areas included run through North Hinksey. We would prefer a combined North Hinksey/Wytham & Cumnor enlarged Ward because of the essential services that many in the Cumnor area use in North Hinksey (Botley) area. Although this would have more than 10% higher numbers that currently being sought it would be a compact area for a County Councillor to represent and involve less travel that a spread out ward.
The following two preferred options have been arrived at based on this reasoning: -
Vale Ward Parish Electorate based on Estimated 2016 figures
Option 1 ('Wider Area') (NHPC option for the wider area) This produces figures that are slightly higher than the suggested electorate, but fully embraces a revised ward of electors who look to North Hinksey for their essential and every day services, and as such would be able to have a say in how those services are run and develop).
North Hinkseyl Wytham & Cumnor North Hinksey 4,296 Wytham 108 Cumnor 2.290 Farmoor 581 Dean Court 2,183 9,458 Option 2 {NHPC option giving an electorate near the suggested average of 8,200)
North Hinksey/ North Hinksey 4,296 & Cumnor East Wytham 108 & West Dean Court 2,183 Farmoor 581 Cumnor Hill to A420 1,140 8,208 The Knock-on Affect
The following are suggestions for possible ward changes bordering a revised NHPC ward.
WARD (This is relevant to Option 1 above the 'Wider Area') Kingston & Appleton Appleton 742 Kingston Bagpuize & South moor 1,790 Hanneys 1,892 Longworth, Charney Bassett, Denchworth, Goosey, Hinton Waldrist, Pusey 1,268 Wootton 2,245 Garford 146 Lyford -22.. 8,122
WARD (This is relevant to Option 2 above the NHPC preferred option) Appleton/Cumnor Appleton with Eaton 742 Kingston Bagpuize Cum nor Village 709 Besselsleigh 57 Kingston Bagpuize with 1,790 Southmoor Longworth (East) 39 Fyfield & Tubney 411 Frilford 168 Garford 146 Lyford 39 Wootton
WARD Kennington & Kennington XP 1,690 South Hinksey Kennington XQ 1,700 South Hinksey 304 Radley XS 1,412 Radley XT 629 Sunningwell 797 St. Helen Without (Shippon) 938 St. Helen Without (Dry Sandford) 501 7,971
Yours sincerely,
A. J. Stone Clerk to the Parish Council
Cc Oxfordshire County Council and Cumnor Parish Council
From: Andrew Wise Sent: 14 March 2011 09:53 To: Dunn, Rachel - Corporate Core - Democratic Services Cc:
Subject: Electoral Boundaries
Dear Rachel
North Moreton Parish Council has the following views on revisions to Electoral Boundaries.
(a) We have close natural ties with South Moreton with a shared school and several shared community organisations.
(b) We are a rural community and have shared views and concerns with most of our neighbouring villages/parishes in addition to being entirely in N Wessex Downs AONB and we also have to manage Conservation Area issues.
(c ) We do not see any natural affinity with neighbouring towns, whether Didcot or Wallingford, which have different priorities. Although we recognise the difficulties of managing the numbers, we would therefore strongly prefer to be grouped with other rural villages rather than with elements of either of the nearest towns.
Regards
Andrew Wise
North Moreton Parish Clerk
From: The Clerk Sent: 23 March 2011 19:24 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: RE: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire.
Old Marston Parish Council
The Parish Council would like to propose that Old Marston Parish is increased in size. At the moment the boundaries are confusing and unclear. The Parish Council believes that the boundary, which currently stops at the end of Beechey Avenue where the Old Marston Road becomes the Oxford Road should instead carry on to the end of Oxford Road, and should include all of the Oxford Road and Ousley Close (both currently in New Marston). Then, from the top of the Oxford Road, the parish should also include the Marston Road from the Friar PH down to the mini roundabout (odd numbers only), with the boundary ending in the middle of the road but would include those houses and shops on the left hand side as you go towards the mini roundabout. Then from the mini roundabout, ALL of Cherwell Drive (both sides of the road) should be included, together with ALL of Marsh Lane including all of the right hand side up to Dent’s Close.
It is our belief this would form a logical boundary, be easy to recognise and give the whole community a sense of belonging.
It would also increase the size of the parish slightly, bringing it more into line with other parishes in the city.
Regards
Kate Kate Stratford Clerk to Old Marston Parish Council
From: Jane Dymock On Behalf Of Radley Parish Council Sent: 03 April 2011 10:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Oxfordshire Boundary review
From: Radley Parish Council Sent: Sunday, April 03, 2011 10:45 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Oxfordshire Boundary review
Dear Sirs,
Radley Parish Council proposes that a larger division should comprise Radley, Kennington, South Hinksey, Sunningwell and Wootton Parish; this would achieve a homogenous grouping of similar rural communities. While close to Abingdon, Radley Parish has completely different concerns and councillors fear the parish being submerged in urban issues.
Yours faithfully, Jane Dymock Clerk to the Council
From: On Behalf Of Linda Martin Sent: 16 March 2011 09:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire Review
Dear Sirs, Sutton Courtenay Parish Council would submit the following comments in regard to the Oxfordshire review. 1. There are distinct differences between rural villages and towns, and the issues arising in each are not necessarily the same. Fair representation could be difficult to achieve as the needs of towns differ from the need of rural areas. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council would therefore request that the village of Sutton Courtenay not be merged with a town e.g. Didcot to the South or Abingdon to the North. 2. Sutton Courtenay should be aligned with other nearby rural villages.
Yours faithfully, Linda Martin Clerk Sutton Courtenay Parish Council
From: Dee Bixley Sent: 10 February 2011 09:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Thame Town Council response Importance: High
Please find below Thame Town Council’s response to your consultation. I would be most grateful if you could let us know that you have received it safely. With many thanks, Dee Bixley, Civic & Democratic Services Officer.
“This council believes that the needs of a community such as Thame are best served by having only one County Councillor for the town and any attempt to include Thame in a larger rural division will be opposed vehemently.
Thame is a market town with its own identity and needs, which are different to the rural areas alongside it. This need for an urban identity, and a single county councillor, has been recognised in Henley so why not in Thame.
A councillor must be able to speak up for the area that they represent and this should not be hampered by a dual allegiance to the rural areas as well as the needs of the town. The town county councillor must be able to speak for Thame and not be hindered by issues in other areas.
Two member divisions in rural communities do not work!
Two member divisions are a mathematical expedient that takes no regard of the requirements of the community or the work load put on councillors.
Two member divisions place unnecessary demands on a councillor who has responsibility for twice the number of electors and twice the geographical area. It is not the case that work is shared, especially where there is no political affiliation; each councillor is still expected to cover the whole area.
Two member divisions over large geographical areas also discriminate against the smaller parties and independent members who are not able to participate in elections due to the costs and work involved in getting to the larger electorate. This could be described as gerrymandering.
Two member divisions in rural communities do not work!”
From: Wheatley Parish Clerk Sent: 28 March 2011 16:00 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: RE: Oxfordshire Electoral Review
Dear Ms Metheringham-Owlett
At its meeting on 7th March 2011 Wheatley Parish Council agreed that the Parish Council’s response should be that the Wheatley Ward (within Oxfordshire County Council) should include: Wheatley, Holton, Forest Hill, Garsington and Cuddesdon.
Yours Sincerely
Gareth Morris Clerk to Wheatley parish Council