18th September 2014 The Review Officer () The Local Government Boundary Commission for Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir/Madam,

Review of Bristol City Council Boundaries

I write as one of the two current councillors for the Stoke Bishop ward in Bristol. I have spoken to my colleague, Cllr Peter Abraham, who will be submitting his own letter with a similar recommendation.

Firstly, I think the proposed number of 70 councillors makes sense. Given increased councillor workloads seen in recent years with the introduction of Neighbourhood Partnerships and Neighbourhood Fora together with an increasing population in Bristol, reducing the number of councillors would detract from our ability to provide a quality service to our constituents, so I support retaining the number of councillors at 70.

In terms of ward representation my preference is for single or a maximum of 2 member wards. Single member wards provide for direct accountability for a closely knit community. However, the downside is that there is no cover for holidays, sickness etc and some communities are quite large and from a numerical perspective will require 2 members. My concern with 3 member wards is that direct accountability is diluted and hence I would oppose 3 member wards.

Looking at the mooted ideal number of electors per member, my own ward of Stoke Bishop is now slightly ‘under populated’ for a 2 member ward, but clearly too large for a single member ward. There is little new housing planned in Stoke Bishop ward, apart from a new 327 student block at Hiatt Baker Hall, which opens in October 2014, so the ward boundary needs to expand.

The Downs form a southern barrier to expansion and the ward cannot expand westwards, as this forms the border with District Council. Expanding eastwards would encroach on the quite distinct community of Westbury on Trym. Prior to the previous boundary review, Stoke Bishop ward took in the community of Sea Mills to the north and this would appear the most logical expansion route.

There is already considerable inter-action and inter dependence between the two communities of Stoke Bishop and Sea Mills and I detail some examples of this below.

The last remaining post office in Stoke Bishop closed a few years ago and Stoke Bishop residents now use the post office in Sea Mills, which is the nearest alternative and has the advantage of parking. Additionally, Stoke Bishop does not have a public library – our nearest local library is Sea Mills library, which is well used by Stoke Bishop residents.

Equally there are services, which are not available in Sea Mills, which are located in Stoke Bishop – the nearest supermarkets for Sea Mills residents, Tesco and the Co- Op, are in Stoke Bishop on Road. The nearest greengrocer and barber/hairdresser are in Stoke Bishop. Likewise, Stoke Bishop also offers a pharmacy, dentists, restaurants and other specialist shops and services, which do not exist in Sea Mills.

The only public house in Stoke Bishop and Sea Mills is located on the boundary of Stoke Bishop and Sea Mills. The Mill House public house is used by residents from both communities and indeed is the only public house in either area.

There are primary schools in both Sea Mills and Stoke Bishop. Stoke Bishop Primary School is the larger of the two and a good proportion of the pupils at Stoke Bishop Primary School live in Sea Mills.

There is a shared open space along the Trym Valley. This area links the two communities and within a short distance there are numerous bridges across this small river; the rail bridge, the crossing over the main A4 Portway, the footpath bridge over the weir and two further road bridges at Trym Cross Road and Shirehampton Road. Stoke Bishop and Sea Mills residents also share use of the increasingly popular Sea Mills railway station (which is ironically located in Stoke Bishop – not Sea Mills). This is located at the end of Sea Mills Lane, which is also in Stoke Bishop ward. This underlines the closeness of the 2 communities.

In summary, I believe that, given the natural community boundaries, Stoke Bishop should remain a two member ward. I accept that this means it may need to include a few more electors and that this provides an opportunity to correct an anomaly, which has artificially divided Stoke Bishop from Sea Mills, since the last boundary review. These two communities are interlinked in numerous ways and would sit well together in a single 2 member ward. Accordingly, my recommendation is for Stoke Bishop to be a 2 member ward with any expansion to be northwards into Sea Mills.

Yours faithfully

John Goulandris Bristol City Councillor Stoke Bishop ward