AUDIT COMMITTEE ELECTIONS REFERENCE GROUP

18 February 2013 Held at Room 002, Elizabeth House, Stratford-upon-Avon Meeting commenced: 9.30 a.m. Meeting ended: 11.00 a.m.

MINUTES

Present: Councillor Philip Seccombe (Chairman), Councillors I Fradgley, C Saint, H Wright and R Wright

10. Disclosures of Interests

Councillor P Seccombe declared a Personal Interest as his wife was a Ward Member for Loxley and .

Councillor I Fradgley declared a Personal Interest as a Stratford-upon-Avon Town Councillor.

Councillor H Wright declared a Personal Interest as Ward Member for Studley.

Councillor R Wright declared a Personal Interest as Ward Member for .

11. Minutes

The Minutes of the meeting held on 5 December 2012 were confirmed and signed.

12. Community Governance Review

The Group considered a report from the Democratic Services Manager attached to these Minutes and made the following comments. Name change Wellesbourne Parish Council : proposal to change its name to Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council – this request was supported; Change in Council size 1. Beaudesert & Henley-in-Arden JPC suggested by Henley Independents : requested an extra councillor if boundary changes are accepted – this request was not supported (see paragraph 14); 2. Long Compton : requested an increase from six to eight councillors – this request was supported; 3. Loxley : requested an increase from five to six or seven depending on boundary move – this request was supported in part with an increase to six councillors; 4. Napton-on-the-Hill : requested an increase six to eight councillors – this request was supported but further information requested to confirm the number; 5. Priors Marston : requested a reduction from six to five councillors – this request was not supported; 6. : requested an increase from seven to nine councillors - this request was supported;

7. : requested an increase from seven to eight councillors - this request was supported. Boundary Changes 8. : recommended that Binton Parish Council be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 9. : this submission was not supported; 10. Exhall : this submission was not supported ; 11. Loxley : this submission was not supported; 12. Quinton : Understood there was a need for change but recommended that this submission be investigated at a later review; 13. : a. Arrow- this submission was supported; b. Oversley Wood - this submission was supported; and c. – further information required; The Group requested that Arrow, Kinwarton and Alcester be invited to make any further submissions at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 14. Beaudesert and Henley : the part of the submission made by both parties involving was not supported. It was recommended that Beaudesert and Henley-in-Arden Joint Parish Council, Henley Independents and the Ward Members, Councillors Matheou and Thirlwell, be invited to make comment. A slight preference for the Joint Parish Council submission was made. 15. Old Stratford and Drayton : a. Luddington – this submission was supported; b. Wilmcote – this submission was supported as amended by Wilmcote Parish Council; and c. - Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council Town Council and Snitterfield Parish Council to be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 16. Preston-on-Stour : this submission was not supported; 17. Coughton : was thought to be a reasonable submission; and Coughton Parish Councils to be asked to provide any extra information and be invited to provide further information at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 18. Studley : the submissions were not supported but Studley Parish Council, Mappleborough Green Parish Council and Sambourne Parish Council to be invited to speak at the next meeting of the Audit Committee; 19. Welford - this submission was supported.

RECOMMENDED

(1) That the comments in the pre-amble to this Minute be forwarded to the next meeting of the Audit Committee for its consideration and

(2) That where councils and councillors were invited to speak, that a three minute time limit be imposed.

13. Future meetings

Councillor Philip Seccombe, as Chairman of the Audit Committee, moved that the next meeting of the Audit Committee scheduled for 25 March 2013 should commence at 4.00 p.m. with the item on the Community Governance Review to start at 6.00 p.m.

CHAIRMAN

This page has been left intentionally blank Minute Item 12

Elections Reference Group 18 February 2013

Subject: Community Governance Review 2012/13 Lead Officer: Darren Whitney Contact on 01789 260210 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor P Seccombe

Summary The Group are being asked to forward comments to Audit Committee or to ask officers for further information on the proposals which have been consulted on.

1 Background/Information 1.1 At its meeting on 17 October 2011, the Council agreed to carry out a Community Governance Review (CGR) under the terms of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 starting at sometime in 2012/13. 1.2 A Terms of Reference document was drawn up and published on 23 July. The press, parishes, the County Council and District and County Councillors were informed and submissions were asked for to be received at the District Council no later than 12 September 2012. 1.3 All parishes were given notices and posters to display advertising the Review. 1.4 It was noted that this was not an ideal time to start the Review due to many parish councils not meeting during the summer. However, there had been a delay in employing a Parish Review Officer and there was a keenness to start the CGR as the District Council had made an application to the Local Boundary Commission for to have its own Wards considered, and the CGR needed to be completed before this started. 1.5 The District Council did not initiate any changes (although individual District Councillors could make submissions) but must ultimately decide on any conflicting proposals. 1.6 The LGBCE initially rejected the District Council’s request for a Further Electoral Review (FER) but has since had a Council drop out of its programme so SDC has now been added at an earlier time than that envisaged by the Council. Consequently, this means there is a tighter timetable to complete the CGR, which now must be completed by May 2013. 1.7 All submissions included here were considered by the Electoral Reference Group which met on 24 September and were considered valid to go to the Audit Committee.

Page 1 1.8 The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act (LGPIH) 2007 devolved the power to take decisions relating to the creation and abolition of parishes, the boundaries of parishes and the electoral arrangements of parish councils from the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission to principal councils. With effect from February 2008, district councils have had the responsibility for undertaking Community Governance Reviews and have been able to decide whether to give effect to recommendations made in those Reviews. In making that decision, councils need to take account of the views of local people and are required to have regard to guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. Members need to consider each submission on its merits in relation to the particular circumstances in the parish and not attempt to find an apparently consistent approach to all parishes. 1.8.1 There were 61 submissions received at the first stage from Parish Clerks, Meetings or Chairs. 1.8.2 Five submissions were made from other parties – not including Henley and Beaudesert where an online magazine asked electors to complete a short form and submit it to the District Council; 28 of these were received. 1.8.3 From those received, 39 submissions were for no change. 1.8.4 Audit Committee decided to proceed with consultation on all submissions apart from boundary changes in Priors Marston and Shotteswell. 1.8.5 There was a consultation period until 7 February 2013 published by Parishes. Directly affected residents where a boundary change may happen were written to for their views. 2 Matters for Consideration 2.1 Name Change 2.2 Wellesbourne Parish Council proposes to change its name to Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council. Originally two of the District Councillors were happy with recommendation and the other had no view regarding it. Wellesbourne re-iterated their comment but no further comments have been made. 2.3 Change in Council Size 2.4 The Government’s guidance is that “each area should be considered on its own merits, having regard to its population, geography and the pattern of communities,” and therefore the Council is prepared to pay particular attention to existing levels of representation, the broad pattern of existing council sizes which have stood the test of time and the take- up of seats at elections in its consideration of this matter. 2.5 The number of parish/town councillors for each council must be not less than five but can be greater. However, each parish grouped under a common parish council must have at least one parish councillor. The Aston Business School found the following levels of representation to the good running of a council: Electors Councillors

Page 2 Less than 500 5-8 501-2,500 6-12 2,501-10,000 9-16 10,001-20,000 13-27 More than 20,000 13-31

2.6 On saying this, the National Association of Local Councils suggests the minimum number of councillors be seven and the maximum be twenty- five. 2.7 Henley Independents have requested an extra councillor if boundary changes are accepted. 2.8 Long Compton: increase from 6 to 8 councillors. Long Compton generally fills it seats and last had an election in 2000. Quote from clerk: “This Council is at present six in number the very minimum for our population. Raising this to eight would bring us more in line with recommended numbers, ensure we are always quorate at meetings, at present not easy, and help to spread the ever increasing work load”. Supported by District Councillor. The Parish re-iterated their comments and added would lighten load on Councillors had lead to more quorate meetings. 2.9 Loxley: increase from 5 to 6 or 7 depending on boundary move. Loxley normally fill its seats and had been granted an extra member in 2007. This had to be reversed as Stratford DC used old legislation so is recommended to accept. Nothing further added after consultation. 2.10 Napton-on-the-Hill: 6 to 8 councillors. Napton-on-the Hill has had contested elections since 2000, a good sign of active democracy. Comments: “With the Localism Act coming into force, an increase in councillors from 6 to 8 may be beneficial to the overall aims and desires for representation of the local community.” Re-iterated their comments Nothing further added after consultation 2.11 Priors Marston: reduce from 6 to 5 councillors. Since 2000, Priors Marston has had problems filling vacancies at election time; however has two by-elections this year. Supported by District Councillor (see also Boundary change 2.24) Nothing further added after consultation 2.12 Salford Priors: increase from 7 to 9 councillors. In the four cycles of elections since 2000, Salford Priors has had elections in three of the four cycles since 2000. Councillors Howse and Spence are happy for increase. Salford Priors Parish confirmed they had nothing further to add, no other comments were received. 2.13 Wilmcote: increase from 7 to 8 councillors. Due to difficulty in getting councillors together regarding planning issues. Cllr Sir William Lawrence was happy with the proposal if Wilmcote wanted to proceed Nothing further added after consultation. 2.14 Boundary Changes

Page 3 2.15 Audit Committee asked that when affected electors were written to that precepts for the parishes be included. This was done and anecdotal evidence suggest electors have just voted for the lowest precept. 2.16 Binton – Submission (involves transfer from Parish of ). Binton Parish Council would like to see the following properties included into Binton Parish: Hillcrest, Golden Lea, Grafton Lodge and The Nursery. ie left of Binton Hill going up the hill (see map 1). Justification: A more logical boundary. This would affect 14 electors. Other comments: County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Temple Grafton doubted if villagers would agree. Results from consultation: Councillor David Keays, Chairman of Temple Grafton Parish Council said they have not been consulted by Binton PC and disagree with them that the proposed boundary would be "more logical". Furthermore, no residents have been in touch expressing a wish for change and the parish council strongly opposes it.

Six electors (all that answered) of the thirteen involved wished to move to Binton this is on the proviso that the 30mph speed limit is extended. Would also like the area renamed ‘Upper Binton’

2.17 Dorsington – Submission. One property currently in Welford (see map 2). Justification: Property address is Braggington Grange, Braggington Lane, and the only property on this lane outside Dorsington Parish. This would affect one elector. Clerk and Chairman visited property “and she was in agreement that their property would link naturally into our Parish”. Other comments: Welford PC: The Parish Council also objects to the movement of this boundary. This proposal only affects one property and we do feel that the proposed new line simply around that property takes a rather simplistic approach to the situation. As stated in your email, the parish boundary should be readily identifiable and we feel that this proposal does not fulfil that requirement. We have been in contact with the owner of the property concerned and they (like us) can see no benefit in moving the boundary. County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Results from consultation: Margaret Lindsay, Dorsington Parish Clerk, said that having considered comments from Welford, Dorsington Parish Council would like to suggest two further properties are included in the transfer by re-defining the boundary west of Braggington Lane to run along the public footpath. The properties have a natural affinity with the parish. Councillor Peter Barnes responded in support.

Page 4 Officers have written to the other properties but haven’t as yet received a reply, if they do Audit Committee would have to have formal consultation on this. Vanessa Lowe Welford on Avon Parish Clerk said the parish council voted on 5 February 2013 to object to this proposal; they do not feel that the proposed boundary change is readily identifiable being simply an extension around the boundary of one particular dwelling and the dwelling is in an isolated position but closer to Welford. In addition, the residents, whilst neutral, feel they have been well supported by the parish council in the past.

The residents never responded to the consultation.

2.18 Exhall – Submission (involves transfer to Parish of Temple Grafton). The anomaly of part of Ardens Grafton existing in Exhall, whilst the majority exists as part of Temple Grafton, was felt worthy of examination (see map 3). Justification: It being felt that it was most likely that those residents of Ardens Grafton would feel themselves to be more a part of Temple Grafton than of Exhall. Affects 74 electors. Other comments: County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Results from consultation: Dr Emma Martineau, Exhall Parish Clerk expressed concern that some residents in Ardens Grafton were upset by the implication in SDC's letter that the Parish Council actually wanted to move them to Temple Grafton; this has caused some ill-feeling with the parish council (on 31/01/13, the parish review replied, asking what the Parish Council's opinion was and whether they would like, for instance, to make another submission to the Audit Committee). Exhall parish council's opinion is that "the general consensus of opinion is that we feel the boundary between Temple Grafton and Exhall should stay as it is or if it is to be changed should include all of Ardens Grafton. The boundary could then follow the line of the road." Out of 68 residents there were 24 replies 12 wished to move to Temple Grafton 11 wanting to stay and one did not vote as they hadn’t enough information. The following individual comments were received: • We use the school and church in Temple Grafton. X 2 • Parishes will only be effective if district councils take more notice of them particularly in planning matters.

2.19 Loxley - Submission (involves transfer from Alderminster). Would like to suggest a change in the parish boundary between Loxley and Alderminster. Parish view is that the boundary should be the Stratford to road

Page 5 Justification: The area of land between this road and the village of Loxley is detached from Alderminster and we believe has more affinity to Loxley. Geographically and administratively, the suggested new boundary would seem more appropriate. If the size of our Parish is increased, then we would request that the number of councillors be increased to seven. Affects 65 electors. Other comments: Alderminster PC is in agreement with the proposal. District Councillor: I am aware of the proposal that has been put forward and have spoken to both Parish Councils about it. It makes sense to me to adopt the change and I would support it. Results from consultation: Mike Moody, Parish Clerk of Alderminster said that following the receipt of a petition from residents of Goldicote, requesting to stay in Alderminster, the Parish Council has withdrawn support for the proposals of Loxley Parish Council. Out of 68 consulted 28 replied 25 were against a move whilst 3 were for it

Comments received: • Alderminster is close and has more amenities • Feel we will be disadvantaged • Have you considered absorbing Loxley into Alderminster? • Would this change the schools for Goldicote? • Very active village and good village hall activities. X 2 • Not aware of dissatisfaction with Alderminster and Goldicote residents are welcome at Alderminster functions should they wish to attend; no benefit in moving. • No wish to move as Alderminster completely fills my needs.

2.20 Quinton - Submission (involves transfer to Marston Sicca). Would like to suggest that the parish boundary ended along the length of the Campden Road (A4632) which would mean that some of the ‘Long Marston camp’ site would be removed from Quinton Parish and put into Marston Sicca Parish. Justification: Gives a more effective boundary between the two Parishes. Currently affects 16 electors but may have planning issues. Other comments: Marston Sicca PC: “We cannot support this proposal at the present time. As you are no doubt aware, there are major planning concerns ongoing in the area of the majority of this proposal and we think it would be unwise to " muddy the waters" until most of these planning issues are resolved.

Page 6 In fact, there may be boundary changes brought about by the creation of this new area of housing which will, in fact, have a larger population than Marston Sicca when it is completed” District Councillor supports status quo. Members also need to consider the brownfield development site at Long Marston. Results from consultation: Joan Matthews (Chairman and Acting clerk) of Marston Sicca Parish Council submitted a response of the council following a recent meeting: "We are very concerned over the issues of services to be provided at this new settlement if the boundary changes were to be approved. When all planning matters were discussed and approved for this area of housing, all provision and financial assistance (including the 106 agreement) for schools, medical services etc for new residents was to be provided either in Quinton Parish or at Shipston High School." Richard Hickman, Planning Management, St Modwen, said his company have planning permission to develop their estate which currently straddles the boundary; in the longer term there may be justification for a new parish but as the review is currently seeking to reduce the number of parishes they would support the view of Quinton PC and see sense in locating the site wholly within Marston Sicca parish. 8 out of 16 replied all of these wanted to stay in Quinton Individual comments received: • We moved to Quinton for its sense of community and do not have a connection with Long Marston at all. • We serve an active part of Quinton and use its facilities. • We rarely drive into Long Marston; our connection has always been with Quinton. • I cannot understand that there can be advantages in moving the boundary; in a recession, it is totally inappropriate to spend money like this. • As a past parish councillor I can see no gain or sense in spending money altering the boundary . Despite comments received and the vote of residents Councillors will need good reasons for not changing the boundary to the road – bearing in mind boundaries need to be on identifiable boundaries which is not currently the case.

2.21 Alcester – Submission (involving transfer from Kinwarton PC, Arrow PC, Exhall PC and Haselor PC). Alcester Town would like to transfer areas of Kinwarton and Arrow becoming part of Alcester. This would mean a new ward of Kinwarton changing the number of councillors to be one extra in total. Suggested Warding would be: Alcester Ward 7 @ 353 electors

Page 7 Oversley Ward 6 @ 363 electors Oversley Green 1 @ 347 electors Kinwarton Ward 3 @ 290 electors Total No Councillors = 17 The affected number of electors is 909 from Kinwarton and 36 from Arrow. Justification: Alcester Town Council has for a long period considered that certain areas currently in neighbouring parishes would benefit to be included in Alcester, both by the services provided and by financial efficiencies created by a common approach. The further request is that Oversley Wood is wholly within Alcester which means transferring land from Haselor and Exhall Parish Councils. No electors are affected. When considering this item what happens to the remaining part of Kinwarton should be considered if the submission becomes a proposal. Members also need to consider housing already being built in the disputed area.

Results from consultation: Margaret Moore (Kinwarton Parish council chairman) said General feeling of parishioners was that it was unfortunate that the consultation document arrived just before or after Christmas. However, residents were, in the majority, unhappy at the idea of losing the identity of Kinwarton to Alcester.

The chairman's comments in the 22 October response and at the meeting in Elizabeth House still apply. The parish council wishes to remain independent.

The whole exercise has ruined the good relations with Alcester Town Council. At the meeting of Parish Council on 14 January it was decided that the comments of the parish council on 8 November still stand. Out of the 61% returned from electors in the Kinwarton area 94% wished to remain in Kinwarton and of 78% returned from electors in Arrow area 89% wished to remain there. Individual comments included on separate sheet.

There were no comments received regarding the changes at Oversley wood. 2.22 Beaudesert and Henley Beaudesert and Henley JPC – submission (transfer from Ullenhall). The Parish Council felt consideration of the following changes should be made:

Page 8

ARDEN ROAD All Beaudesert, not part Henley & part Beaudesert. MEADOW ROAD All Beaudesert, not part Henley & part Beaudesert. BELDESERT CLOSE Beaudesert not Henley. BLACKFORD CLOSE Beaudesert not Henley. BLACKFORD HILL Beaudesert not Henley. EDGE LANE Beaudesert not Henley. BIRMINGHAM ROAD Beaudesert not Ullenhall. (between Buckley Green & Camp Lane) This would affect 236 voters. This suggestion was echoed by a number of individuals. The JPC did also mention becoming a Town Council but this would mean merging and becoming a single council. Beaudesert and Henley, the Henley Independents – submission (transfer from Ullenhall). The submission is not too different from the JPC and suggests all west of the River Alne to be Henley and east to be Beaudesert (map 8a and c). Birmingham Road from Ullenhall Birmingham Road (B95 5QA) from Beaudesert Birmingham Road (B95 5QD) from Beaudesert Beaudesert Park from Beaudesert Arden Road from Henley Beldesert Close from Henley. Blackford Close from Henley. Blackford Hill from Henley Edge Lane from Henley. Meadow Road from Henley Kite Green from Henley This would affect 263 voters. If this goes ahead, the Henley Independents suggest the number of Henley councillors be also increased by one. Other comments: One District Councillor supported the Parish Council view: the other supported the status quo. Individual view: “We should be applying for Town Council status as we are a town and we think this would be a good opportunity to make this decision. We also believe we shouldn't be a joint parish council as we end up doing things twice (ie the town assembly meetings) and this just seems a waste of time. Our time would be spent far more productively if we all represented the whole town. This would stop there being any need to change parish boundaries”.

Page 9 Ullenhall PC: “The Parish Councillors of Ullenhall would resist any proposed Boundary changes until they have more detailed information and are able to discuss as a Parish Council.” Results from consultation: JPC reaffirmed it’s position but requested transfer of two cottages on Road from to Beaudesert. Residents have been asked informally but Audit Committee would have to request formal consultation to go ahead. Pat Hughes, Clerk of Ullenhall said the parish council met on 5 February 2013 and voted unanimously against the proposed boundary change. "We consider the proposal for boundary change would not in any way improve facilities nor amenities nor the democratic rights of the residents affected. The recent consultation exercise by Stratford-on-Avon District Council surely confirms that the residents affected wish to remain in Ullenhall Parish." Only 15% of electors asked returned their forms and of those 57% were in favour of the Henley Independents submission. Those canvassed currently in Ullenhall were 57% in favour of remaining there. 24% of those asked would like the JPC to be a Town Council. Relevant Comments received were: • Put the wishes of the voters first, not their pet hates • I don't care, as long as I have council services it makes no difference; what a waste of paper. • There should be no change; this is wasting taxpayers' money and parish councils should be non-political. • I was not given the option of saying whether I would like to see a town council, which I do, as well as casting my vote for a location. • A town council would properly reflect the market town of Henley. • The number of voters per council is more important – boundaries matter less because the council operates as a joint parish.

2.23 Old Stratford and Drayton – Submission. The parish council considers that it should be disbanded and amalgamated with Stratford Town Council and the Parishes of Luddington, Snitterfield and Wilmcote . Justification: the Parish is today something of an anachronism and parishioners consider themselves as belonging to the town rather than the Parish. Extract from Chairman’s letter: “Indeed, the name of Old Stratford and Drayton only exists as an administrative title for the Parish Council. There is no village centre, shop, church or sports club. The only pub (currently closed) is a roadside hostelry and has never acted as a focal point of the community. It is not therefore surprising that it has been difficult over very many years to get parishioners interested in council/community affairs.

Page 10 Community-minded parishioners think of themselves as belonging to the town (or in the case of residents of Stannells Close and parts of Luddington Road to Luddington) rather than to the Parish. There is resentment/bewilderment among some residents living close to the town (e.g. the Packhorse Road estate) that they are not considered to be part of the town and are unable to vote in town referenda etc. Parishioners tend only to attend Parish Council meetings when they are directly affected by an issue (usually a planning application) under discussion, but otherwise take little interest in the work of the Council. Other comments: Luddington PC: “It was agreed that many residents of Luddington Road and Stannels Close already take an active part within the community at Luddington, both in a social and more community-based sense. There are also physical features which make the suggested change logical and practical – more so than the current brook which forms the boundary between the two existing parishes. I note that the plan you have provided does not include a few properties on the north side of Road at Bordon Hill, although other properties within the Dodwell community are within the Luddington Parish a short distance to the west. Subject to that comment the suggested changes would be welcomed by Luddington Parish Council.” Snitterfield PC: “The Council has had the opportunity to consider the proposals by Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council and has no objection to the boundary changes as they affect the Parish area of Snitterfield” Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council: “Council reserved the right to consider further any proposals or recommendations resulting from the Review, the Council at present was unanimously AGREED: (1) To concur with the proposal put forward by Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council, and would accept a partial amalgamation of their parish into the boundaries of Stratford-upon-Avon parish. (2) That it would wish to see the recommendations of parishes abutting the boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council parish before making any further comment on the question ‘make boundary alterations between existing parishes’. (3) That Council would wish to see proportional representation in the ‘allocation of councillors to wards’ in order to ensure that all residents have equal representation on council.” Results from consultation: Wilmcote had suggested an alternative boundary at Audit Committee and this was duly consulted on. Stratford upon Avon Town Council met on 22 January and notes and concurs with comments made by both Old Stratford and Drayton and Wilmcote PCs. The former gives assurance that their proposal would see both the parkway station and recycling centre at Burton Farm within Stratford. Stratford TC wish to affirm that it would prefer these major facilities and any developments here to lie within their area.

Page 11 Ian Wilkins, Clerk to Snitterfield Parish Council, said the council has had an opportunity to consider the proposals and has no objection to the boundary changes as they affect the parish of Snitterfield. However, should the counter-proposals of Wilmcote PC be accepted we submit that those changes relating to Snitterfield should be included in the area of Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council. John Madge, Clerk to Luddington Parish Council, said I am writing to confirm the comments previously made that the Parish Council welcomes the proposal resulting from the possible disbanding of Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council, and the incorporation into Luddington Parish Council of the area and properties along Luddington Road between the current boundary and the brook running parallel to Luddington Road from Evesham Road to the race course entrance, with the new northern boundary of the Parish following the B439 back from the Evesham Road entrance to Luddington Road towards Dodwell. The Parish Council believe that many of the residents in this geographical area already feel more of an affinity to either Luddington or Dodwell within the parish. As there has also been one vacancy on Luddington Parish Council for the past few years, it is felt that the increase in the population in the parish, whilst being modest and manageable from an administrative perspective, could lead to greater interest in the most local level of democracy. Overall electors accepted the abolition of Old Stratford and Drayton and to move to the various parishes. Only 4 of the 33 electors affected by the change of boundary between Stratford and Wilmcote replied and that came to two votes each. Electors were asked a supplementary question that if Old Stratford and Drayton were to remain would they consider standing for Council only 8 said they would consider it. Members should also bear in mind the Neighbourhood Plan currently under review which will have a bearing on this area.

2.24 – Submission (involves Atherstone Parish Meeting) . Consideration should be given by the District in amalgamating Preston- on-Stour with the neighbouring Atherstone-on-Stour village and greater parish area to form a 'Stour' Parish Council. There are 57 electors in . Justification: “ The Parish benefits from having a Council and should continue to do so. It is a very large area spanning several square miles, with a small population. The electoral roll of fewer than 200 people in the Parish is too low to allow the Council to raise much revenue or effect some of its ambitions.” The District Councillor has informed officers that there is no Parish Meeting held at Atherstone-on-Stour. If Members do not decide to go forward with a proposal to merge the two Parishes, they must consider what to do with Atherstone-on-Stour Parish.

Results from consultation:

Page 12 Councillor Will Hanrahan said Preston-on-Stour is not viable without expansion but if Atherstone-on-Stour were to be embraced it would be sensible to have a resident from there on the newly-formed council. 20 out of 60 electors replied 15 of which wanted to remain as Atherstone Parish Meeting

Comments received • Concern that (i) the opinions of the wider community have not been taken into account (ii) boundaries are not readily identifiable/logical (iii) there is no indication of what the funding from the precept would be used for and would like warding to apply (iv) a name like “Alscot” would be far more appropriate than “Stour”. • Would prefer the name “Alscot” to “Stour”. • E-mailed comments on 06/02/13: Preston is divided and autocratic with several factions trying to run it; most of Atherstone prefer to go to Waitrose than the village shop and although we have co-operated with Preston on various projects such as the Millennium Hall, we would lose more than we gain by amalgamating with them. • As far as I can see this will only cost us money. • Why change it if it's not broken? • No point, no gain, no councillor.

2.25 Coughton – submission by individual (involves transfer from Sambourne and Alcester). (i) Coughton may wish to include houses (presently in Sambourne) somewhat up Haydons Way towards Studley (47 electors) and (ii) house at the junction of Coughton Lane and Alcester Heath (presently in Alcester) may want to join Coughton (1 elector). (See map 13). Justification: (i) would presumably include land to the east of A435 to the river where the boundary with Spernal runs. This is not an outlandish proposal as residents have strong social links with Coughton and some similar issues e.g. A435 (ii) This also makes some sense. On the other hand, there is another house on Alcester Heath Road (B4090) towards Sambourne on the northern side of the road which is in a similar position. Perhaps having Alcester's boundary join the B4090 somewhere before Coughton Lane and run along the centre line of the road till it meets Wychavon on the Ridgeway (A441) would make sense. Other comments: Coughton PC: (i) Although Haydon Way, to the north of the village, is included within the proposal, it appears to include properties on the eastern side of the A435 only. Number 49 Haydon Way is a cottage on

Page 13 the western side of the A435 that falls within the area of land between the Cain Brook and the A435 and should fall within Coughton. (ii) As intended, 55 Coughton Lane is included within the proposal, with the proposed boundary following this particular stretch of the Alcester Heath highway. However, the proposed boundary continues along the centre of the highway as far as its junction with Whitemoor Rd at the extreme eastern end of the parish. We are unlikely to have a problem with this proposal, but as a result the Parish would also include Bunkers Barn Farm that is currently part of Alcester. District Councillor, Sambourne: I would not support any change where both Parishes did not agree to the change. I would not support any change unless a majority of those individuals affected demonstrate their desire for this to happen. Results from consultation: Of the 33% of electors who made a preference 53% wished to move to Coughton Individual comments made: • I was a member of the traffic group for the Coughton Village Plan; the Coughton community could not be more welcoming unlike Sambourne which has been hostile to some of our concerns. It makes geographical sense to remain. • I feel as if I'm in Nomansland as Sambourne seems unaware of our existence. • Since parish councils supply no services I can see no point in paying an extra £32 per year for nothing!

2.26 Studley/Individual Submission (involves transfer from Sambourne and Mappleborogh Green), (see map 13a). (i) PC: Subject to agreement with Sambourne PC to take back Kiln Close, John Close, Part of Green Lane and Part of the Slough. Individual: One thought on this is whether to consider where the boundary runs along this (and the rest) of the A448. Along the centre line as presently or behind the property line to the South i.e. making all houses South of A448 (presently Sambourne) would affect in the region of 230-240 electors depending on which area was chosen. (ii) Studley PC: Subject to agreement with Mappleborough Green PC to take back that Parish or part thereof. Individual: There is some sense in including Washford Mill and Abbeyfields (presently Mappleborough Green) in Studley due to proximity. 157 electors affected. Justification: These areas would sit more comfortably within Studley Parish due to their location. Other comments: District Councillor, Sambourne: My main concern is that all parishes and the residents directly concerned in any realignments are consulted and hopefully an outcome agreed. Mappleborough Green PC does not see any need for boundary change but has not as yet commented on the submission.

Page 14 Results from consultation: Councillor Shaun Regan of ‘Mappleborough Green said the parish council have rejected the proposals in favour of the current structure on grounds of (i) parish identity, (ii) efficiency and value for money for residents and (iii) elector representation; note also that there has been no joint working which might impact on continuing the current arrangements. Teresa Murphy (Sambourne Clerk) said the Parish Council have no wish for parish boundaries to be moved (as per communication in August 2012). Of the 37% return from electors 90% wished to stay in their current Parish 2.27 The following two submissions arrived a long time after the closing date. Audit Committee decided that they should be considered. 2.28 – Officers could not get an agreed submission from Radway Parish Council in time for consultation.. 2.29 Welford - Since making our original response to the Community Governance Review, we have been approached by residents asking if consideration could be given to moving our boundary north to include the swathe of land from the river up to the B439. This land is currently in the parish of Binton but to everyone who lives here, it is part of Welford. It includes the Millennium project which was created by Welford-on-Avon Parish Council and is run by Welford villagers. It also includes the caravan site which is called Welford Riverside Park. There are on-going issues regarding HGV traffic travelling over the Binton Bridges (contrary to the weight limits) and we would hope that if the entire bridges were within our Parish it might enable us to address these concerns more effectively. Results from consultation: Vanessa Lowe (parish clerk) said the parish council voted on 5 February 2013 to support this proposal; it is an anomaly that this swathe of land is within Binton parish; land nearby is maintained by Welford Millennial Project Trust, a caravan site close by is known as Welford Riverside Caravan Park and the parish council could manage the current problems with HGVs on the bridge more effectively if it were within one parish. Also, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee intend to include this land in the Plan area. 4 electors involved 3 replied 2 in favour of Welford one for Binton, nothing was received from Binton Parish. 3 What happens next? 3.1 Elections Reference Group is asked to make comments for Audit Committee to consider. These may include options/reason for acceptance or rejection. 3.2 In addition the Group may wish to ask for clarification/extra information from individuals or organisations to help Audit Committee make it’s decisions. 3.3 Audit Committee makes the final recommendation in March 2013 which goes to Council in April 2013.

Page 15 4 Implications of the Proposal 4.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 4.2 There are no legal or human rights implications in this report. 4.3 Financial 4.3.1 None outside of current budget. 4.4 Environmental 4.4.1 There are no environmental implications. 4.5 Corporate Strategy 4.5.1 None directly but underpins all by Parishes considering their own identifies and interests 5 Risk Assessment 5.1 If proposals are not drawn up for Audit Committee there is a danger of not completing the Review before the FER begins.

Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Background papers: Guidance on Community Governance Reviews (published jointly by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England) – 2010

Page 16 Minute Item 12 Appendix 1

Comments from electors affected in Kinwarton and Arrow

No benefit in changing boundaries.

Alcester Town Council's assertion offers no advantages to Kinwarton residents and would leave Kinwarton Parish completely unviable. At a time of cuts why is money being spent on this?

I consider it important for Kinwarton to retain its unique identity. Would prefer to member a member of Kinwarton Parish

Wish to stay because parish council fought against building of houses which would have spoiled her view.

Was born in Alcester and always felt an Alcester resident. Do not want to pay Alcester Town Council's increased taxes for no extra benefit.

Kinwarton has served us well – see no advantage in changing.

Has held various official positions locally and strongly against the proposal; we do nicely under the present council. Very happy to remain. Kinwarton say council tax will go up with no benefit so would like to stay with them.

Makes sense to use Kinwarton talent to give Alcester Town Council more effective power.

Happy to remain in a caring parish. No – just another way to get more rates from us.

Would it not make sense to merge Kinwarton and Great Alne parish councils if review goes ahead?

Page 17 If review goes ahead there would be more more than a dozen houses or o in Kinwartons.

Any benefit from changing? Is there any Kinwarton representation on Council or will fate be decided by bias Alcester Council? (sic)

SDC has responded to concerns: (i) There are serious questions about value for money in the increase in precept for Arrow residents, (ii) Is a former Arrow Councillor who was canvassed by Alcester but Arrow's minutes show reluctance of residents to move, (iii) Asks what weight is given to residents' views and why Alcester TC has not approached affected residents, (iv) Queries streetlighting, fencing and tree maintenance issues if the move went ahead. Object strongly; firmly believe interests are best served by Kinwarton PC. Kinwarton is Kinwarton; local govenance is always best. Strongly oppose this proposal! Nothing to gain by changing.

Kinwarton PC preserves identity and serves community interests; unlike Alcester TC, it represented local opinion by opposing development on Kinwarton Farm Road.

It is disgraceful that Alcester TC think they can simply move the boundary. I feel really strongly; let me know if I can campaign if necessary.

I strongly oppose the proposal; the service by Kinwarton PC is first class!

Kinwarton PC do an excellent job and I strongly oppose the proposal. We support the views of the parish council.

Page 18 Why have these forms been sent out at the holidays? How many people will have forgotten to respond? Why change when the precept would nearly double for the same amenities?

Alcester is large enough and as for financial efficiencies why would we have to pay a higher precept? Proposal does not address the remainder of Kinwarton Parish, residents pay for town benefits through SDC and the town benefits from services given by Kinwarton residents.

This doesn't seem to have been adequately thought through.

Against changing the boundary which has existed for many years.

Can only see higher rates and loss of identity if swallowed up by Alcester.

I have lived here for 30 years and the system has worked well. Spend taxpayers' money where it is needed rather than change for political ends. We think Kinwarton PC's comments express our views. No benefit or advantage; Arrow Parish needs us! Could be the decline of Arrow – I think they need us.

We are wholeheartedly against. Is it a tactical move to send this communication at Christmas? There is something “individual” about Arrow, we have enjoyed parties in the village hall and reserved places in the churchyard. The amendment is paltry and we are proud to live in Arrow. We most certainly do not wish to be moved from Arrow.

Page 19 I feel part of Arrow and have strong connections with the church. Why is the new boundary not the bypass if it has to go?

As secretary of Arrow Church I am proud to be an Arrow resident.

Historical parishes should be protected; Kinwarton PC does an excellent job and there is no benefit in changing something that works. Please note residents' remarks.

Why chance something that has worked perfectly for years? it would be a pity for individual rural parishes to lose their identity.

Small historic parishes should maintain independence. Alcester councillors on SDC voted for the development on Kinwarton Farm Road – an inconvenience to Kinwarton parishioners.

I strongly object and can only see a reduction in standards if this takeover goes through; Kinwarton is active and meets monthly. We're more than happy with our council. Little information received and possible loss of rural priority and focus. I resent being bullied into this and prefer “Rural” to “Town”.

How does Alcester do this? They have lost all credibility and ruined the good relationship built up over many years.

Cannot see any reason for changing; we've had excellent services from Kinwarton for many years. I have liked living in Kinwarton for 50 years.

Is Redrow house building the reason for wanting to change boundaries?

Page 20 I have long been happy here; if this goes through I will consider moving as it will involve more expenses; the proposal is only to obtain budget money to spend on things not needed or consulted about.

I have always lived in Kinwarton Parish and feel very strongly about the parishes remaining as they are. Under no circumstances would I ever choose to change from Kinwarton to Alcester. I went to school at Great Alne and feel part of Kinwarton more than Alcester.

I have no reason to believe Alcester would act in our interests; they supported the development of Kinwarton Farm Road against the wishes of most residents and I want to be served by a parish council which listens and acts on our best interests. I am disgusted this is even being considered; our council tax would increase yet we would get no extra services.

Rates will go up yet we will receive no extra advantages/services; Kinwarton PC have always looked after this area well and I see no reason to change.

It is odd that this has only been approached since the building by Redrow Homes has commenced.

I see no point in moving from a council which serves us well to one which sells us down the river; how was permission granted for houses in Kinwarton Farm Road? The building of “affordable” houses is an absolute disgrace; the infrastructure will creak under the strain.

Page 21 Alcester is only seeking additional funding by absorbing Kinwarton residents for financial gain and more inefficiency; this is a waste of money.

Under the proposal, Kinwarton will cease to exist; there is no reason to warrant change other than Alcester wanting additional income.

Kinwarton parish is very efficient; it is a waste of money to change this situation.

I sincerely hope Kinwarton remains unchanged and does not lose its identity and spirit and we will not be subject to another fait accompli like the development on Kinwarton Farm Road.

Kinwarton Parish Council has a dedicated team of councillors whom I trust far more than Alcester Town Council.

I strongly disagree that any improvements in Alcester would be accrued by Kinwarton Parish becoming part of Alcester.

Alcester Town Council would achieve far more by dialogue than “big brother”; this question could have been asked at local elections and saved cost.

Spending £25,000 on Stratford Road footpaths and £50,000 proposed on the High Street are ego trips for officers at Alcester Town.

Not forgotten that Alcester councillors voted for 125 houses to be built in Kinwarton to the disregard of Kinwarton's residents. Can see no advantages in amalgamating with Alcester.

Page 22 Kinwarton PC represents my interests well unlike Alcester TC which opposes them; I do not want a town to represent me.

Against my human rights to remove me against my wishes. I consider I live in Alcester not Kinwarton.

Although I would be sad to see Kinwarton go I feel it would benefit the people if we were all one parish. I am perfect OK in Kinwarton; no need to waste time and money on unnecessary ideas.

Alcester TC cannot manage their finances without extra parishes added to squander income from them.

No benefit to Kinwarton residents; there would be more income to Alcester from the Redrow developement and there is too much centralisation of government already.

The Redrow development will attract the wrong type of person and has destroyed a green area; keep Alcester rural with no more housing. Mo more change for change sake involving spending more money for nothing gained.

Leave well alone, big is not always better; another way to spend money for nothing gained.

I have lived in this historic parish for three years and our children were christened and brought up here; it is not in our interests to move. Kinwarton PC do a marvellous job and I feel are more dedicated than Alcester TC.

Kinwarton PC listens to and fights for residents' views; I do not wish to move from this rural democratic community to Alcester.

Page 23 Prefer the smaller parish of Kinwarton. Our parish is of historic value and it would be wrong to move the boundary.

Alcester TC wastes its precept on artwork and councillors' vanity projects; cheaper council tax please.

Without doubt, services under Kinwarton would be reduced under Alcester and there are no financial benefits to Kinwarton residents.

Have been sold down the river in regard to housing developments that locals did not want. We are part of, and closer to, Kinwarton; they have enough to deal with in Alcester.

Do not wish to be associated with those care little about residents' views over housing developments. Nobody listens to local wishes regarding local housing developments.

We feel part of both Kinwarton and Alcester parishes and use Great Alne School; I feel let down that Kinwarton PC were not consulted prior to this letter being sent out and that “Old Kinwarton” residents were not consulted.

Concerned about inclusion of green belt land and egress into a larger estate and merging ultimately into Great Alne; industrial estate should not be increased whilst units are empty and there is no argument for change. Even after 32 years in Kinwarton Parish I identify overwhelmingly with Alcester. No to paying more.

Stop wasting time and money; why change for the sake of change? Love living in Arrow. Lived here for 50 years; wish to remain.

Page 24 Location to full submission is wrong and requests to have it corrected were ignored. No benefits in moving, just extra charges. I do not want to pay extra taxes for no benefit.

There are no reasonable benefits to this proposal; perhaps Alcester residents would benefits from voluntary councillors like Kinwarton.

Kinwarton offers a rural environment which I moved here 37 years ago to enjoy; changing boundaries swallows small regions and English hamlets. Alcester TC cannot control their rates – they only want ours and it will cost us more.

The support of Alcester TC of building in Kinwarton Parish instead of their own area shows they would not support the area if boundaries were changed.

I object strongly; I am very happy with Kinwarton facilities and feel Alcester TC have acted in a very high-handed fashion. Why change something that already works well? I am completely satisfied with Kinwarton PC; change is not always for the best.

The suggestion is totally unnecessary and I believe it is down to the greed of Alcester TC in their bid to generate extra income. Kinwarton PC have always looked after the area and there is no need to change.

Changing the boundaries would effectively leave the parish of Kinwarton with very little. How would we benefit by joining Alcester?

Page 25 Alcester TC has not told us what benefit there would be – perhaps there is some ulterior motive. Kinwarton PC does a good job and I see no benefit to us in moving to Alcester.

This seems a bit hasty and I would like to see full pros and cons.

The four reasons given need to be explained; I cannot see how this will improve community engagement, cohesiveness, democracy or services. I would like my children to remain in the catchment area of Great Alne School. I strongly oppose a move as there is no advantage; I have lived in Kinwarton for over 32 years and the parish council has served the parish well.

Page 26