Vale Liberal Democrat proposals for the Re- warding of District Council

Introduction

The Liberal Democrat Group has worked closely with the other 4 groups on the Council to seek to achieve consensus on the review of the ward boundaries for our District. With goodwill on all sides and a little bit of compromise a great deal of common ground has been arrived at.

Unfortunately, the timescale for submissions to this review mean that we have to submit our evidence before the Council has voted on its final conclusion. Accordingly, any reference to the Council’s position in this submission should be taken to mean the proposals that are being submitted to Full Council. It also means that this submission is rather long because we have had to repeat some of the argument in the report to Council in case particular proposals do not survive that meeting and, therefore, the argument is not made in the Council submission. We would much rather simply say that we agree with the Council’s position where we do but that option is not open to us.

Generally we are content with the proposals that are being put to Council except for the / area which we will explore in some detail. There are also a few cases where, although we have no issue with the proposed boundaries, we think that the resulting wards could be further divided.

The Principles on which we worked.

Since no one is proposing that the Council move to election by thirds, three member wards are not desirable unless there is a very clear community interest in not splitting them further or there is no other way of making the maths work.

A similar argument applies to two member wards, though to a lesser extent. There are cases, like Winslow, where single member wards would split a community (the Town itself) and still leave wards needing surrounding villages to be added, which is undesirable. Aylesbury Town is more complex but the same approach applies. It has a strong identity but it is made up of many separate communities. We will expand on this in our proposals for the Town but, our principle is that three member wards generally force together different and differing communities with little in common save being Aylesburians. Numbers mean this will have to happen sometimes but its incidence can be reduced by having wards with fewer members.

Reducing the number of multi-member wards also improves democratic accountability. If a particular party has a small plurality in a three member ward, then they get all the seats. With three single member seats then the second party in the area could gain one of them, which would mean that the Council would more accurately reflect the popular will.

We have sought to minimise changes to existing wards where practical.

We have tried to keep to a minimum Wards that cross County Division boundaries. It is not possible to do this entirely because the allowable electorate for our District Wards does not divide equally into the actual electorate of County Divisions. However, it is clearly less confusing for people if they are associated with the same neighbours in District and County where that is practical.

Specific Proposals

South East of Aylesbury Town

This area currently contains the two three member wards - Wendover and Aston Clinton. Wendover itself has some 6,000 electors and is thus two large for a two member ward and too small for three members. It would be possible to ward Wendover Parish but, even if that could be done in a way that reflects communities within Wendover, which we doubt, it would still leave a part of the Parish that would have to be combined with other areas.

Traditionally Wendover has been combined with Halton Parish but, unfortunately, this still does not give enough electors for a three member ward. Furthermore, the area as a whole is surrounded by other Districts or the open space that divides it from urban Aylesbury.

The fact that there is no obvious answer here is well illustrated by the number of differing options that have been put forward during Council discussions on the matter.

We understand that the residents of Wendover and Halton would like to be in the same ward and we accept that there is a significant community of interest between the two Parishes – not least because Wendover is a clear destination for people serving or working at RAF Halton. This argument is weakened by the fact that much of the service accommodation associated with RAF Halton is actually in Wendover Parish anyway.

The trouble with keeping Wendover and Halton together (desirable though that is) is that there is, in our view, no sensible way of making up the additional 7-800 electors necessary to fulfil the quota for a three member ward. We are aware of three suggestions for achieving this:

* Adding the southern part of Village to Wendover/Halton; * Adding 7-800 electors from to Wendover/Halton; or * Adding Buckland and to Wendover/Halton together with a small portion of Aston Clinton Parish around Wendover Woods in order to connect the two bits of the proposed Ward together.

All have the disadvantage that, in order to keep the association between Wendover and Halton, a third Parish has to be split in an arbitrary way. The boundary between Halton and Wendover is clear on the ground and doesn’t divide streets or estates in a way that creates anomalies. Any division of Stoke Mandeville Village or Weston Turville would be wholly arbitrary and split identifiable communities between Wards. That is best that it is avoided.

We accept that the area that would have to be split off Aston Clinton () is not strongly linked to the rest of the Parish, though we do wonder whether it would be sensible to create a Parish Ward with a small handful of electors within Aston Clinton. Here, the bigger objection is the splitting of Buckland and Aston Clinton between two wards. While the boundary between Wendover and Halton is very clear, that between Buckland and Aston Clinton is not. It crosses the Road in significantly different places on each side and splits the cul-de-sac Dean Way so as it would not be possible for folk in one part of it to leave it without passing through a different ward!

The second problem is that they all result in two wards that are split between two county divisions (Wendover, Halton and Stoke Mandeville are in one, the other Parishes in another). Clearly, on the numbers, one of the wards has to be split that way but they don’t both have to be and such splits are better avoided where possible.

Unfortunately, the only way to overcome these objections is to take Halton out of the Wendover and Stoke Mandeville County Division leaving a ward (which could reasonably still have that name) with an acceptable number of electors. Adding Halton to the existing Aston Clinton Ward would also deliver an acceptable electorate for three members (7,158). That is what we propose should happen. It causes disruption but we hope that we have demonstrated that it is the minimum disruption achievable.

Given local sensitivities and the fact that Aston Clinton Parish would no longer be the majority of the ward, there might be a case for changing the ward name to, say, Akeman Street, which is the Roman name for the A41 that passes through it.

We also invite the Commission to consider splitting the Akeman Street Ward further. There is a small part of Weston Turville Parish that is immediately adjacent to Aston Clinton but separated from the rest of Weston Turville. This is essentially part of New Road, one side of Aylesbury Road and a close off it (168 electors). If these electors are excluded, the remaining electorate of Weston Turville Parish (2.605) is small enough to be a single member ward.

There is, in our view, a significant benefit to a largish Parish, like Weston Turville, having its own dedicated Council representative. The small part of the Parish that would have to remain with the two member Aston Clinton/Akeman Street Ward (4,553 electors) has far more in common with Aston Clinton than with Weston Turville Village, which is a mile or so away.

Aylesbury East &

Bierton Village is part of the same County Division as Aston Clinton but is separated from it by open countryside. It is much more sensible to consider it together with the Oldhams Meadow Ward of Bierton Parish and the Oakfield area which it abuts.

Bierton Village and cannot justify a single member ward (it was created in preparation for development that never happened). However, taken with the new development which is now planned, it would be too big. There is also a much smaller development (Circus Field) adjacent to this proposal but in Aylesbury Parish. The two adjacent sites should be in the same ward. Adding all this to Oakfield Ward gives a number of electors within the Commission’s parameters. Indeed, there is sufficient space to also include the Oldham’s Ward of Bierton Parish. We think that this opportunity to unite Bierton Parish in a single ward should be taken.

The rest of Aylesbury East Division is two Polling Districts of the current Ward. This has the correct number of electors for a two member ward and, coincidently, would be the same (save for a couple of roads) as the three-member Bedgrove Ward that existed before the last boundary revision. Bedgrove was, when built, the largest private housing estate in Europe and it has its own specific planning regulations. Having the estate as a ward would be ideal but numbers do not allow. These two PDs taken together do, however, include the estate and a significant part of the modern housing built since. The other PD (which is in a different County Division) is largely housing that pre-dates Bedgrove and, in any event, considers itself to be part of the historic Walton ecclesiastical parish. This was recognised by the Commission during the County review when it established a Town Council Ward of Walton for this area.

Our proposal for this area is:

* A three member Oakfield and Bierton Ward, consisting of the existing Oakfield Ward, the existing Bierton Ward (Bierton Village and Hulcott) and the Oldhams Meadow Ward of Bierton Parish (7835 electors). * A two member Bedgrove Ward consisting of that part of the existing Bedgrove Ward that is in the Aylesbury East County Division. 5,129 electors)

We believe that the Council will also put forward this proposal.

The existing Elmhurst & Watermead

The current three member ward consists of the Elmhurst Ward of Aylesbury TC, Watermead Parish and the Oldhams Meadow Ward of Bierton. We have already proposed moving the last into Oakfield and Bierton. Watermead is in the Wing County Division, Elmhurst is in the Aylesbury North Division. Elmhurst is also the right size for a two member ward (4,810). So splitting Watermead off and joining it with other parishes that are in Wing Division and close to Aylesbury (which not all of that division is) makes sense.

Unfortunately, the obvious candidate for this, the new development at Park, is too big and Watermead by itself is too small. So, we propose that the Parishes of Weedon and Hardwick be added to Watermead to form a new Watermead Ward. (2,416 electors)

We understand that the Council will put forward this proposal too (though possibly with a different name for the Watermead Ward).

Whilst the two-member Elmhurst Ward is acceptable, we believe that it would be sensible to break it down further into two single member wards. Alfred Rose (2,436 electors) – which would contain the Victorian part of the Ward in the Town Centre, all the pre 60s development and the majority of the Elmhurst Estate (excluding the part off Elmhurst Road or Hilton Avenue. And Cleveland Park (2,374), which includes all the building after the 60s (north of Elmhurst Road) and the bit of the Elmhurst Estate best accessed from Elmhurst Road or Hilton Avenue.

We believe that there is little or no connection between the Town Centre part of the ward, which effectively surrounds the Mosque and the more modern developments close to the Elmhurst Road ring road. Whilst a perfect split is, as ever, impossible, we believe that there is a clear boundary on the ground as is shown by the map of our proposals Annex 1 and 2 respectively.

Aylesbury North West, Buckingham Park and

Buckingham Park, a Parish in its own right, is a new development on the banks of the across the Buckingham Road from Watermead. It is also part of Wing Division. It is currently in Weedon Ward. However, it has grown too large for that to be sustained and removing Whitchurch from the ward (the only other geographically feasible option) would not be sufficient to solve the problem. As explained above, combining with Watermead does not work either. In the long term, combining with the new Berryfields development would be ideal but that development is new, growth rates are uncertain and the link road has not yet opened between them. In practice, therefore, Buckingham Park has to be joined to some part of the Aylesbury North West County Division.

A similar argument applies to Berryfields, which is in & Stone County Division. In addition, were it to be combined with Waddesdon and/or other adjacent villages, it would essentially swamp them. Accordingly, it must be joined to part of Aylesbury North-West as it is at the moment.

The rest of that Division comprises the current and Gatehouse Wards. The area west of Weedon Road and north of Bicester Road (with the exception of the Savernake and part of Meadowcroft and Abbey and Stonehaven Roads) comprises the . Most was built in the sixties with a subsequent extension at the north-west side some thirty years later. All was built as Council Housing. The ward boundary runs through the estate. The rest of Gatehouse Ward (east of Weedon Road) is predominantly older private housing (with the exception of Whaddon Chase and an isolated area around Oxford Road and Gatehouse Road). There is a development that has not yet been completed off the Bicester Road between these two parts of the ward and all the forecast growth for Gatehouse Ward is in this area.

Whilst it is unfortunate that Buckingham Park has to be combined with parts of Aylesbury – it has a separate identity and the river would form a good boundary - , as explained above, there is no alternative. We believe that the best option is to join it to the Savernake Estate (which is on the opposite bank of the river and is relatively modern private housing) and the northern end of Gatehouse Ward. The small commercial development on Buckingham Road and the southern edge of Whaddon Chase and Cromwell Avenue form a natural boundary for the ward. This would have the added advantage of leaving Gatehouse Ward as a more cohesive area (particularly if our later proposal is adopted). To avoid singling out a particular community in the ward name, we have called this ward Holman’s Bridge after the civil war battle that is believed to have taken place in it. The ward is illustrated in Annex 3 and we believe that the map shows well why our suggested boundaries make sense. It would have 2,619 electors.

The Berryfields (Quarrendon Parish) development is due to grow by over 4,000 by 2019 and the current rate of development indicates that that projection is quite reasonable. However, it is a projection and that, taken together with its sheer size, means that the only practical option is to create a three member ward and, for once, the numbers work out well. At the moment, there is a part of Quarrendon Ward south-east of Meadowcroft. The boundary runs across that part of the Quarrendon estate cutting a number of roads in two and in a way that is difficult to identify on the ground. If the boundary were moved to the middle of Meadowcroft, that would remove sufficient electors from the current two member Quarrendon Ward for it to be the right size for a three member ward following growth to 2019 (7,873 electors). The new Gatehouse Ward (taking account of the moves into Holman’s Bridge) would also have the right number of electors for a two member ward (4,866).

We also suggest a small change on the south-west side of Bicester Road. At the moment, the boundary runs down the middle of Griffin Lane. We suggest that it be moved to run south-east of Devereaux Place, moving the whole Broadfields shopping development into Gatehouse and putting the whole of the Gatehouse/Griffin Lane commercial estate in the same ward. This only affects one dwelling, The Charter on Griffin Lane but, if it is not done, that dwelling will be across the road from Gatehouse Ward in two directions but hundreds of yards from any other dwelling in the ward in which it is.

We also support changing the name of Quarrendon Ward to Riverside. Quarrendon Parish is becoming known as Berryfields because of the development and the shift of the boundary means that at least half of the Quarrendon Estate (including Quarrendon Avenue) will be in Gatehouse Ward. This seems rather confusing! Riverside is a neutral name and the river does run through the middle of the ward.

We believe that the Council will agree these proposals but we would suggest going one stage further by splitting Gatehouse Ward in two.

As explained above, the north-west part of Gatehouse Ward (after the creation of Holman’s Bridge Ward) is comprised of part of the Quarrendon Estate. Adding Priory Crescent and Close (which is very similar housing) to this would create a homogenous ward with 2,546 electors), which we have called St Peters after the Church at its centre. This is illustrated at Annex 4.

This would then leave the Victorian part of the ward around West St and Northern Road together with the Gatehouse area of the town in a more homogenous single member Gatehouse Ward with 2,333 electors – illustrated at Annex 5. We believe that this makes sense both from our desire to encourage single member wards and from the fact that the two wards this creates really don’t have a lot in common.

Aylesbury West & South West

This is the part of Aylesbury south of the railway line from Aylesbury Vale Parkway, though Aylesbury to together with Coldharbour Parish. It is clearly physically separated from the rest of the town and its electorate justifies 7 councillors, which is what it has now. Accordingly, we have based our proposals on the existing wards.

Coldharbour is too big for one councillor but not large enough for two. It is possible to make a two member ward by adding a portion of Aylesbury Town to the Parish but there is no obvious coherent community that could be added in this way and any electors so added would be swamped by the Parish. In this particular case, we think that a three member ward provides a more acceptable balance between Town and Parish and a better boundary on the ground.

So we recommend keeping Coldharbour Ward unchanged apart from a small alteration to correct an anomaly. The current boundary with runs along Lavric Road although the flats on the Coldharbour side on the corner of Alham Road are in Walton Court. At the time of the last revision the area between those flats and Russell Avenue was an empty field and the fact that the boundary was drawn so as to put it in Coldharbour Ward was not a problem. However, since then, the Chestnuts Nursing Home and Willow Court Flats have been built on the site. They are in Coldharbour Ward. However, it is not possible to reach the rest of that ward either by road or on foot without going through Walton Court Ward. Thus, though not technically detached, this area is effectively so. Accordingly, the boundary should be moved to the other side of the field, transferring these electors into Walton Court Ward, which helps with the shortfall in that ward.

The other change needed to improve the councillor elector ratio in the area is to move some 300 electors from to Walton Court. We propose that this be done by moving the existing boundary between Southcourt and Walton Court northward. The new boundary would run down the middle of Churchill Avenue west to the junction with Grenville Road and then down the middle of Grenville Road till the junction with Hannon Road and then between the backs of the houses in Grenville Road and Evenlode and Plym Closes till it joins the existing boundary south of Nursery Close.

This particular boundary change has the advantage that it moves all the roads off Hannon Road from Southcourt to Walton Court. These roads abut the Walton Court Centre and were built as part of the Walton Court estate. They are not part of the much older Southcourt development and fit better in their proposed new home.

We believe that the council will support these proposals for Coldharbour (6,930 electors), Walton Court (4,711 electors) and Southcourt (4,727 electors) Wards. Aylesbury South

This is the current Mandeville and Elm Farm ward and the Walton Polling District of Bedgrove. The latter has been mentioned in the Aylesbury East section above and is better considered with Central Ward, which we do in the next section.

Mandeville and Elm Farm Ward has an acceptable electorate for a three member ward (7,043) and we do not believe that anything needs to be added to it or taken from it. We believe that the Council will support that view.

However, we would go further and sub-divide this area into three single member wards. In no sense can the current Ward be considered to represent a community. It is V-shaped with only one road connection where the two arms of the V join. Otherwise the two halves of the Ward are split by the railway to London. There is one footpath between them. It runs from Elm Farm Road but comes out at the Guttmann Stadium and, consequently, cannot really be said to connect communities.

However, assuming that the growth in the Mandeville PD is all on the Hospital site, which seems likely, it is possible to create three single member wards that better reflect community identities.

Firstly, a ward consisting of everything north of the railway and east of (and including) Mellstock Road, Claremont Close, Ringstead Way and Linden End/Pentland Road would encompass virtually all the modern build that side of the railway – that is to say the Stoke Grange, Elm Farm and Wendover Park Estates. It would have an electorate of 2375. The newer parts of this area aren’t in the Elm Farm estate, so it might be better to call the ward William Harding as they are all in the catchment area of that school and that is where they vote.

On the other side of the railway there isn’t quite such an obvious break but the Stoke Leys, Westcott, Hospital and Mandeville estates taken together could form a ward of 2363 electors. The boundary would run west from the railway north of the houses in the closes off Harvey Road and then east along the backs of the houses in Mandeville Road till just short of Bateman Drive before turning west again to the other railway line. Resisting the name Hospital Ward for obvious reasons, this could be called Guttmann Ward since it is where the late Ludwig Guttmann worked and first championed the Paralympic games.

This leaves some new build and the much older parts of the Ward near the town centre, where the fact that the only road connection is at the point of the V isn’t anything like the some problem. This ward would have an electorate of 2335. Most of this area is part of the old parish of Walton (see next section) and the Ward could be named Walton South.

The electorates of the three wards would be nearly identical, so there would be no material effect on equality of representation and the suggested boundaries do not split communities in an unacceptable fashion. Indeed, it would avoid the current problem that the three member ward puts together communities that are, in fact, unconnected.

We apologise for not having an annexed map for this proposal.

Walton & Aylesbury Central

This is the final part of Aylesbury Town consisting of the current Central Ward and the Walton PD of the current Bedgrove Ward. Taken together, these could form a two member ward and we think that the Council will agree that.

We would not add to or subtract from that proposed ward but this is another case where we feel that the ward could be further split. Indeed, we think that of all our proposals to split wards, this is the most important.

Central Aylesbury has a character, issues and problems of its own. It has benefitted over the years from having a single councillor who can become familiar with its very special nature. No one else represents a significant Town Centre and we would like to keep it that way and not dilute that special need by adding lots of traditional residential housing to the ward. This unique nature was specifically recognised in the last revision when the boundary commission explicitly commented on this in their report and retained it as the only single member urban seat.

Historically Walton was a separate community from Aylesbury. Indeed, the former Conservative Club used to be the Manor House for Walton. It is a separate ecclesiastical parish from Aylesbury and is centred on Walton Pond on the borders of the current Walton PD of Bedgrove, Central and Mandeville and Elm Farm Wards. We have already recommended that the part of Walton in the current Mandeville and Elm Farm Ward be separated out. We now do the same for this area too.

If some 500 electors were to be moved from Central into Walton, those electors would have to come from an area that is historically part of Walton rather than the Town Centre and that would actually mean that the new Central Ward would be even more concentrated on the actual Town Centre and would even better reflect its special nature.

Equality would involve moving 527 electors. The most obvious bits to move are:

* The gyratory system (Stoke Road, Walton Green, Wendover Road) and Walton Terrace – 70 electors

* Walton Road (inc Landon Court) – 103 electors

* Laurel Way, Redwood Drive and William Harding Close (which only have road outlets to Walton Road) – 98 electors

* Kings Park, Queens Park and Princes Road – 230 electors.

* High Street from 154 upwards (The Queens Park junction to the Tesco Roundabout - inc Marland and Landor Courts).

If you include the High Street that is 553 electors, without it there are 501. This is either 26 above or 26 below equality. Mathematically, it makes no material difference. However, including that part of the High Street leads to a more logical boundary.

It is, perhaps, unfortunate that the numbers do not allow for the inclusion of that part of Highbridge Road east of Princes Road but needs must.

This proposal would move the whole of the core of old Walton into Walton North Ward together with Queens Park, which is a coherent and identifiable residential area separate from the Town Centre. The boundary would run from east of Florey Gardens (there are no dwellings on that side of the High Street) along the backs of the houses in Queens Park and Princes Road to the town side, along the backs of the houses on each side of Highbridge Road (leaving that road in Central) turning south east to pass along the “country” side of the backs of Pennefather Court and Croft Road crossing Walton Street and travelling down the footpath that runs behind the Conservative Party HQ. There are no dwellings on the SW side of Walton Street but running the boundary down this footpath includes the former Conservative Club in Walton, which is appropriate, since it used to be the Walton Manor House.

This division produces a better sense of community than the suggested two member ward. Walton is gathered together in a single ward together with the equally identifiable Queens Park area and the quite different character of the town centre is contained within a different ward with little that is not of town centre character in it. Each ward would have approximately 2483 electors depending on the exact number of electors moved.

Ivinghoe and Wing Divisions

Like Wendover, the Division is bounded on three sides by other Districts. It is also cut off from the rest of Aylesbury Vale by the relatively large Parishes of Wing and ; so options are limited.

Pitstone has grown and at 2,503 electors can justify a Ward of its own. Consequently, Ivinghoe Parish has to be moved elsewhere and the geography and numbers mean that joining it with and is the only option that works. The knock on effect of this is that Slapton Parish has to be added to Wingrave. The new Cheddington Ward would have 2,570 electors and Wingrave 2408. Wing Parish is too small to remain as a single ward and, again, it seems to us that there is only one neighbouring Parish that can be added to it that does not either cause knock on problems or make it too big. That Parish is and that is what we propose. The new Wing Ward would have 2,524 electors.

This leaves Whitchurch and of the Wing County Division and they are considered later.

We believe that these proposals will be agreed by the Council.

North East Aylesbury Vale.

There is a new development, Newton Leys, which is in the Parish but adjacent to and more appropriately associated with that Parish. Adding Newton Leys to the existing Newton Longville therefore makes sense and gives an electorate of 2,657.

The removal of Newton Leys from means that that ward can be left otherwise unchanged at 2,558 electors.

Stewkley is the third ward in this area. It is proposed that be removed from this ward and Whitchurch and Creslow added. This area is particularly difficult because of the significant number of largish parishes with small populations. However, it is felt that this combination of Parishes gives the best fit given the road layout. It is certainly the case that Granborough is far more closely related to or even Winslow than to any of the Parishes in the proposed , which would have an electorate of 2,712.

We believe that the Council will support these proposals.

Buckingham & North Bucks.

Unfortunately Buckingham Town has grown too much for four Councillors. It, therefore, needs to lose some electors to surrounding wards, which will, itself, have knock on effects. Currently the boundary between Buckingham North and South is the river and we would really like to keep it that way. Unfortunately, we haven’t found a workable way of doing that. So we are prepared to go with a proposal to transfer the area bordered by the river and Road (including Fishers Field) from South to North and transferring the area to the north of Moreton Road (including Whitehead Way, Hill Radnor etc) together with land north of this development as far as the Town Boundary to Ward.

This leaves North at 5,348 electors and South at 5,426.

Luffield Abbey is a geographically large ward with a significant number of Parishes and no community centre or real identity but, in that part of the District, that is inevitable. The addition of electors from Buckingham means that it needs to lose some elsewhere for the sake of electoral balance. The best way to do this would seem to be to add to . This would leave Luffield Abbey at 2,619 electors and Great Horwood at 2,676.

This would also enable Tingewick Ward, on the north-west flank of the District to remain unchanged at 2,672 electors

We believe that this proposal will be acceptable to the Council.

Winslow

Winslow is currently forecast to have 5,023 electors at 2019 which is pretty much exactly the quota for two seats. There seems to be no merit in changing the boundaries of this ward.

We believe that this proposal will be acceptable to the Council.

West Bucks

Marsh Gibbon and Steeple Wards between them currently have the right number of electors for two Councillors but the former will be over the limit for one by 2019. Following the principle of least change practical, the transfer of Parish from the former to the latter brings them both within 4% of target at 2,603 and 2,478. This seems acceptable, especially as nothing better can be done without a wholesale re-organisation of wards.

Quainton is currently too small but we still have to allocate Granborough – the final part of the old Stewkley Ward. Granborough is very similar in nature to the other small Parishes in this ward and fits well. It would bring the electorate up to 2,533. We believe that these proposals are acceptable to the Council

Bernwood

Waddesdon is a large Parish and, inevitably, will dominate any ward in contains it. It is currently too small but adding Berryfileds, Stone or to it would send it way over the top. So, in practice, the only option is to add Westcott (which adjoins it along the A41) and , which is closely associated with the other small parishes in the south-west of the ward. The new Waddesdon would have some 2,489 electors.

Stone is the remainder of the Waddesdon and Stone County Division. It was previously in a County Division with Haddenham and is currently in a District Ward with that Parish too. They are very distinct places and their combining in the last District review was never popular with the people of Stone. The new County Boundaries provide a further reason for divorcing them and the growth of Stone makes this possible. Stone with Bishopstone & Hartwell Parish and Dinton with Ford & Upton Parish (less Ford PD) comes in at 2,646 electors and is about as cohesive a unit as you could get for a ward in the rural part of the District.

It is unfortunate that Ford needs to be included in Haddenham Ward but the numbers require it. Indeed, Cuddington, which also neighbours Haddenham Parish, needs to be added as well but that still leaves a pretty cohesive two member ward at 4,800 electors.

The existing Ward has, under these proposals, already “lost” Dorton and Westcott. The only practical way to restore the balance is by adding Brill to it. We are reluctant to do that because Brill fits better with the villages to its south and west but we see no alternative. We understand that there is a move to call the new ward Brill rather than Grendon Underwood and we have no issue with that. It would have an electorate of 2,559

That leaves the remains of the old Brill Ward and less Cuddington. With 5,027 electors, this could form a to member ward.

We understand that these proposals are acceptable to the Council. However, we would like to go further. We see no reason for a multi- member rural ward where there is no component Parish that is, itself, too big for a single member ward.

Oakley has traditionally been in a separate ward from Long Crendon and we believe that that should continue with the Parishes of Borstall, , Oakley, and forming a new Oakley Ward, which would be a collection of similar and like- minded villages. Long Crendon together with Chilton and would form a separate Long Crendon Ward.

Alan Sherwell on behalf of Aylesbury Vale Liberal Democrats

Alfred Rose Ward

Date: 2 July 2013

Author: Jo Sara

Notes ²

0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Meters

OS Copyright License Number 100019797 2012

Printed from AVDC LocalView GIS Browser Elmhurt Ward

Date: 3 July 2013

Author: Jo Sara

Notes ²

0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Meters

OS Copyright License Number 100019797 2012

Printed from AVDC LocalView GIS Browser Holmans Bridge

OS Copyright License Number 100019797 2012

Date: 3 July 2013

Author: Jo Sara

Notes ²

0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Meters

Printed from AVDC LocalView GIS Browser St Peters Ward

Date: 4 July 2013

Author: Jo Sara

Notes ²

0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Meters

OS Copyright License Number 100019797 2012

Printed from AVDC LocalView GIS Browser Gatehouse

Date: 4 July 2013

Author: Jo Sara

Notes ²

0 87.5 175 350 525 700 Meters

OS Copyright License Number 100019797 2012

Printed from AVDC LocalView GIS Browser