Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
“Steps”, Trotton, Nr Petersfield, West Sussex, GU31 5JS Response by Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council to the LGCBE Draft Recommendations for Chichester District Trotton with Chithurst Parish Council considered the draft recommendations at a meeting held on Wednesday 14th. September 2016. We are delighted that the proposal to move Trotton from Harting ward was rejected. However, we continue to have grave concerns regarding the proposal to move Elsted and Treyford Parish from Harting ward to Midhurst ward. Our response to the initial consultation included four points relating directly to Elsted parish, and we would repeat and strengthen these here: 1. Trotton no longer has a school, shop, village green, sports ground, village hall or public house and must rely on its neighbours' facilities. Our population centre (albeit a small one) is situated to the south of our parish, about a mile from the public house at Lower Elsted, which hosts events for Trotton residents each month. The Village hall and sports ground at Elsted give a good view across Trotton and are often used by Trotton residents. Trotton and Elsted Parishes are similar in size and nature and the two Parish councils have recently been exploring options for closer working, including the potential for a Common Parish Council. We have strong links to Elsted, which in turn has strong links with Harting Parish. 2. Like our neighbours in Elsted parish, Trotton also has strong links to its larger neighbour Rogate as the two parishes share a Rector across the four churches which make up the United Benefice. Given the small size and sparse facilities of our parish, we also value our links with Rogate for its school and for allowing us to combine with them for celebrations such as the recent Queen’s birthday. 3. Midhurst is closer, but much smaller than Petersfield. Trotton people look to Petersfield for their main weekly shopping, and services, as do Rogate, Harting and Elsted residents. 4. We welcome the addition of Rogate to the Harting ward, where we already have strong links, notably with Elsted parish. We object to the proposal to move Elsted parish from the ward. We do not believe that moving Elsted parish into the Midhurst Ward will bring any benefits to (and will indeed disadvantage) residents in Elsted, Harting and Midhurst parishes. Those disadvantages have been clearly stated by residents and councillors in those parishes and we heartily endorse their objections. The proposed move would clearly impede potential sharing of services between – or even possibly mergers of - Elsted parish council and its neighbouring parishes of Trotton and Harting – we would be in separate wards with distinct district councillors – and would almost certainly make moving to a common parish council unworkable. The only advantage to moving Elsted from Harting ward to Midhurst ward appears to be to keep variances in wards below a 10% threshold for the supposed benefit of District Councillors. No-one appears to support this move. We understand that the inclusion of Elsted into Midhurst ward would reduce the variable on Harting ward from +11% to +3%, and increase the variable on Midhurst ward to +8% (the greatest variable of any ward according to the LGBCE draft proposals). However, Midhurst Town Council has already highlighted that housing development around the town is likely to take them past the 10% benchmark in a relatively short time. By contrast there is a far lower likelihood of any significant growth in the population of the Harting ward, including Elsted parish. Our 11% variable would be highly likely to remain static, which could easily balance the supposed variance benefit. We would respectfully submit that the District Council ought to be configured so as best to serve its residents' needs, and not the other way round. For the reasons given we continue to object to the proposal to move Elsted parish from the ward. .