ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE DISTRICT OF COTSWOLD

WARDING PATTERNS

SUBMISSION TO THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR BY THE CDC CONSERVATIVE GROUP

1. Introduction

1.1 This submission is made in response to the announcement of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England that it was minded to recommend that Council should have 35 councillors in the future (from May 2015), and an invitation for interested parties to submit warding patterns based on that recommended future number of councillors.

1.2 It is, however, noted that some flexibility may be considered by the Commission (usually one additional or one fewer councillor) if such a proposal was to better reflect the key review criteria of (i) elector equality; (ii) community identity/interest; and (iii) effective and convenient local government.

1.3 This submission is also framed around the Council’s request for, and the Commission’s acceptance of, a desire to achieve a uniform pattern of single-member wards, if at all possible.

1.4 This submission also takes account of, and builds on, the outcome of the Community Governance Review of parish arrangements undertaken by the District Council (completed in advance of the warding proposals element of the District Review).

2. Our Approach

2.1 Commission Guidance

2.1.1 This submission seeks to reflect the Commission’s Guidance Document ‘How to propose a pattern of wards’.

2.1.2 In particular, regard has been had to the following three key criteria advanced by the Commission:

 electoral equality - any new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority;

 community identity/interest - ward patterns should, as far as possible, reflect community interests and identities, and boundaries should be identifiable;

 effective and convenient local government - the electoral arrangements should enable effective representation of voters.

2.1.3 It has not, however, been possible to put forward a boundary proposal which meets all of the above principles across all of the proposed wards. In such circumstances, we have set out our considerations and the rationale behind our recommendations.

2.2 Deliberations

2.2.1 The starting point for our deliberations was the recommended future Council size of 35, and the aim of achieving a uniform pattern of single-member wards.

2.2.2 A projected electorate in December 2019 of 74,210 gave rise to an average electorate per councillor (based on 35 councillors) of 2,120. In accordance with review guidance, it was noted that tolerances of plus or minus 10% could be factored into any scheme (giving a range between 1,908 and 2,332 electors for each new ward).

2.2.3 There are 115 Parishes in Cotswold District, represented by a mixture of Town/Parish Councils (87) and Parish Meetings (28). Given the urban/rural mix of the District, the actual number of Parishes in a Ward currently varies from 1 in some Wards to 9 in others. Governance across parishes varies dramatically, and ranges from large Town Councils covering over 18,000 electors to the smallest parish comprising just 21 electors.

2.2.4 Given that a reduction in councillor numbers and an increase in electorate can only lead to a greater number of voters being represented by each member, we have sought a scheme which is sympathetic to the challenges faced in our rural areas, and which seeks to ensure that no new ward is overly large, in order to provide effective representation.

2.2.5 In devising a new warding scheme, with the parishes being used as building blocks, we have sought to retain, wherever possible, the identities of individual parishes, particularly where parish warding has not been a feature, either currently or in the past. This has proved difficult in certain instances, given the electorates of some of our larger towns and villages, although we have sought to minimise artificial divisions.

2.2.6 We have approached this element of the review in various ways:

 starting from the north of the district and moving south;

 starting from the south-east of the district and moving west and north;

 starting from the south-west of the district and moving east and north;

 starting with Cirencester (our largest urban area) and working outwards.

2.2.7 From this preliminary work, it became clear that a scheme based on 35 councillors was unlikely to achieve a robust and equitable scheme which complied with the key criteria, particularly in respect of Cirencester and the larger towns/villages.

2.2.8 As a result, we re-appraised our proposals, but this time working to a possible scheme based on 34 councillors. In such a scheme, the projected 2019 electorate of 74,210 gave rise to an average electorate per councillor of 2,183, with a tolerance range between 1,965 and 2,401 electors for each new ward. Although not substantial in terms of numbers, the flexibility around scheme preparation was quite significant. In addition, it was not considered that the slightly increased electorate per councillor would give rise to problems in terms of representation or overall governance.

3. Our Recommended Warding Proposals

3.1 Based on our extensive deliberations, we are proposing a scheme of 34 councillors moving forward.

3.2 Although we have tried to secure a scheme which provides for a full pattern of single-member wards, this has proven exceptionally difficult to achieve in the northern-most part of the District when trying to balance elector equality with community identity. This is explained in more detail later on in this section.

3.3 As a result, the scheme that we commend to the Commission is based on 32 single-member wards and one two-member ward (although we do present a single- member ward alternative for this area).

3.4 Within such scheme, we have achieved elector equality in all but three of the proposed wards. However, in those three proposed single-member wards the electorates exceed the normal tolerance thresholds by what we would respectfully suggest are both relatively minimal and manageable (by +0.08%, -3.93%, and +5.44% in percentage terms or by +2, -86, and +119 by way of elector numbers) and also preserve the integrity and balance of the scheme as a whole and avoid forced and/or artificial combinations/splits of parishes with consequent negative effects/impacts. In such cases, we have provided a justification for our proposal.

3.5 Details of our proposals are set out in the spreadsheet attached at Appendix A. The spreadsheet identifies the proposed new wards, the parishes (or part- parishes) included in each, and electorate figures (including electorate variances against the average).

3.6 We would make the following comments on a ward-by-ward basis:

(i) Ward 1 (Campden and Vale) - Our Two-Member Ward Proposal

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward Ward from under/over 2019 Total Average average thresholds Aston Sub-edge 44 4697 2348.5 2021 Mickleton 1488 Saintbury 68 Weston-sub-Edge 369 107.58% n/a Willersey 707

This ward relates the area referred to in paragraph 3.2 above.

This parishes involved are situated at the northern-most point of the District and, as such, the options for dealing with those parishes are more limited than in other areas.

Along with , the parishes form part of the current three-Member Campden- Vale Ward. In the time prior to the 2001 Periodic Electoral Review (effective from May 2003), Mickleton was a ward in its own right; Chipping Campden and Ebrington were joined to form another ward; and the remaining four parishes were joined to form a further ward. As such, there are long-standing community ties between these areas.

We have explored a number of options for this part of the District.

While Chipping Campden could stand as a single-member ward in its own right, the combined electorate of the remaining parishes would exceed the single-member ward 10% threshold figure quite significantly, by 275. Whilst our proposals do contain wards with electorates outside the threshold figures, none are to the extent as would be the case here.

Similarly, whilst a combination of Mickleton and adjoining Ebrington would ‘work’, there is no natural solution for the remaining Vale parishes other than by way of a forced combination with part of Chipping Campden which, in itself, would lead to an artificial parish warding and consequent negative effects on neighbouring parishes, and the scheme as a whole.

The more rural parishes have natural synergies and strong community links and, together, form the southern limit of the Vale which lies between the Cotswolds and Evesham. All parishes are accessed by the B4362, which runs through the proposed ward. In addition, they all have close, strong and long-standing ties with Chipping Campden.

As such, we would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as a one-off exception to the single-member ward principle. We believe that such a solution would be supported locally, and is the most appropriate manner in which to meet all of the review criteria in this part of the District.

However, if the introduction of a two-member ward is not acceptable to the Commission, we would put forward the following single-member ward alternative. Although, we believe that this alternative does meet the community identity and governance elements of the criteria, the elector figures are significantly in excess of the threshold (by +12.58% or 275 electors).

ALTERNATIVE - Ward 1 (Mickleton and Vale)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Aston Sub-edge 44 2676 122.58% 275 over Mickleton 1488 Saintbury 68 Weston-sub-Edge 369 Willersey 707

ALTERNATIVE - Ward 2 (Chipping Campden)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Chipping Campden 2021 2021 92.58% n/a

(ii) Ward 2

As our submission provides for Ward 1 as a two-member ward, we have not included a specific Ward 2 in case the Commission wish to split our proposed Ward 1 into two single-member wards (allowing for the introduction of a new Ward 2 without affecting the remaining numbering within the scheme).

(iii) Ward 3 ( and Ebrington)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Blockley - Aston Magna 451 2294 105.08% n/a Blockley - Blockley 1051 Blockley - Paxford 268 Ebrington 524

These parishes have community synergies within the northern part of the District, along with good transport links.

A combination of the parishes would see an easily-identifiable ward, with an acceptable electorate figure.

(iv) Ward 4 (Moreton East)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Evenlode 135 2131 97.62% n/a Moreton-in-Marsh (East) 1780 216

Moreton-in-Marsh is the third largest town in the District, but its electorate is such that it is too large to provide for a single ward yet too small to deliver two wards - accordingly, some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required.

There is also further, extensive residential development is currently being undertaken in the town (which has been reflected in the projected electorate figure).

Various options have been considered, including town/outer; north/south; and east/west (based on (i) the Fosse Way and (ii) the railway line). These options have also been tested with potential combinations with adjoining parishes.

Against this background, a split of Moreton using the railway line as the boundary is considered to provide the best solution - it provides a readily identifiable boundary, and does not lead to a division along the middle of a major road. In addition, all of the new build development sits to the east of the railway line.

A viable eastern ward can then be created by the addition of the parishes of Todenham to the north and Evenlode to the south, both of which have direct road links into Moreton and regard the town as their key centre for retail, social and commercial activities.

(v) Ward 5 (Moreton West)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Batsford 99 2001 91.66% n/a Bourton-on-the-Hill 253 Moreton-in-Marsh (West) 1649

The same principles and lines of argument relating to Moreton-in-Marsh parish apply in respect of this ward as have been advanced in respect of Ward 4 above.

A viable western ward can then be created by the addition of the parishes of and Bourton-on-the-Hill, both to the west of Moreton, with a direct main road link into the town. As with Todenham and Evenlode, the residents of Batsford and Bourton- on-the-Hill also regard Moreton as their key centre for retail, social and commercial activities.

(vi) Ward 6 (Fosseridge)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Adlestrop 108 2054 94.09% n/a Bledington 395 Broadwell 305 Condicote 108 Donnington 62 Icomb 79 Longborough 413 Oddington 319 Sezincote 75 Westcote 190

This grouping of rural parishes forms a natural swathe between the major towns of Moreton and Stow. Although comprising two clusters either side of the A429, these parishes share issues of commonality and interest.

(vii) Ward 7 (Stow)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Maugersbury 128 2311 105.86% n/a Stow-on-the-Wold 1830 Swell 353

The smaller parishes of Maugersbury and Swell relate very closely and strongly with the more urban area of Stow-on-the-Wold, particularly as the respective residential areas are in such close proximity to that of Stow.

The residents of Maugersbury and Swell also use Stow as their larger, neighbouring centre for retail, social and commercial activities.

(viii) Ward 8 (Bourton Vale)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Bourton-on-the-Water (Outer) 739 2364 108.29% n/a Clapton 109 Cold Aston 242 Cutsdean 57 Guiting Power 255 Lower Slaughter 205 Naunton 284 Temple Guiting 314 Upper Slaughter 159

Bourton-on-the-Water is another of the District’s larger towns, with an electorate that it is too large to provide for a single ward yet too small to deliver two wards - accordingly, some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required.

Various options have been considered, including town/outer; north/south; and east/west based on the Fosse Way.

These options have also been tested with potential combinations with adjoining parishes. In this connection, a combination with parishes to the west is considered to be more appropriate because, although most of these parishes are on the opposite side of the Fosse Way, there are natural synergies for some with Bourton, and all recognise the town as their major centre for accessible facilities. Conversely, while a combination with Little Rissington to the east is viable in terms of community identities and interests, this in itself is insufficient to create two viable wards and to move further east to take in Upper Rissington is not considered to represent effective governance given the nature of that parish and the extensive new build earmarked for that village (centred on a former RAF base).

It is fair to say that there is no ideal split of, and combination with, Bourton - this, in fact, proved to be the most challenging of all new wards. However, on balance, and given the urban/rural mix of the parish, it is felt that a Bourton village ward could be created, with the remainder of the parish being combined with a number of rural parishes. Those rural parishes enjoy commonalities of interest and community inter- action, and have formed the nucleus of current and previous district wards.

(ix) Ward 9 (Bourton Village)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Bourton-on-the-Water (Inner) 2235 2235 102.38% n/a

The arguments relating to Bourton-on-the-Water have been set out in respect of Ward 8 above.

This ward represents the closer-knit village envelope, with a boundary identified by a natural gap in the built environment.

(x) Ward 10 (The Rissingtons)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Great Rissington 301 2121 97.16% n/a Little Rissington 226 Upper Rissington 1491 Wyck Rissington 103

This ward creates a logical combination of all of the Rissington parishes. Although the individual parishes are not identical in nature, and Upper Rissington is seeing large-scale development, they do provide a natural cluster.

(xi) Ward 11 (Sandywell)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Andoversford 613 2201 100.82% n/a Dowdeswell 126 Hampnett 46 Hazleton 150 Notgrove 75 Sevenhampton 301 Shipton 313 Turkdean 68 Whittington 87 Withington 422

This ward provides a natural extension of the current Sandywell Ward by taking in the adjacent rural parishes of Dowdeswell, Hampnett and Withington.

All of the parishes are served by the A40.

(xii) Ward 12 (Coln Valley)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Barnsley 118 2237 102.47% n/a Bibury 509 Coln St Aldwyns 208 Coln St Dennis 168 Eastleach 280 Hatherop 158 Quenington 496 Southrop 236 Winson 64

This group of parishes form a natural cluster running from the Fosse Way to the eastern boundary of the District, closely aligned to the natural features of the Rivers Coln and Leach.

A similar ‘progression’ can be achieved by using existing roads, which link the parishes and the main village settlements.

(xiii) Ward 13 (Lechlade)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Lechlade 2520 2520 115.44% 119 over

This is the ward with the second greatest variance from the elector average.

This ward is at the most south-easterly point of the District and, as such, the options for dealing with the parish are more limited than in other areas.

Lechlade is another of the District’s larger towns, with an electorate that exceeds the threshold to ordinarily provide for a single ward yet significantly too small to deliver two wards - which would tend to suggest, therefore, that some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required.

We are also very conscious of the considerable local opposition to the proposed combination of Lechlade with Kempsford as part of the 2001 Periodic Electoral Review (effective from 2003), and have been made aware that such opposition remains, notwithstanding the fact that such combination did go ahead in the absence of other viable alternatives, and in order not to have a consequential negative effect on the remainder of the scheme. It should be remembered that there remains no direct road link between the two parishes; and even if such a combination was pursued under this scheme, the elector totals would be insufficient to create either a two-member ward or an area which we could attempt to sub-divide.

We have explored other options in this part of the District. However, there would appear to be no natural solution - it would require an artificial division of Lechlade (one large area and one quite small) and then a forced combination with consequent negative effects on neighbouring parishes, and the scheme as a whole. We are firmly of the view that such a solution would not be supported locally.

As such, we would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as an exception, notwithstanding the larger than normal variance. In terms of elector numbers, we would respectfully argue that the variance is not huge, particularly as the figure identified does already cater for residential expansion.

However, if this was not acceptable, we would suggest (albeit reluctantly) that this ward is combined with the proposed Coln and Leach Valley Ward, to create a two- member ward. This would be more in keeping with local ties and avoid the need for any artificial division of Lechlade parish.

(xiv) Ward 14 (Northleach)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Aldsworth 190 2312 105.91% n/a Barrington 170 Farmington 87 Northleach with Eastington 1510 Sherborne 262 Windrush 93

This ward see a combination of the market town of Northleach and its linked neighbour Eastington with a number of parishes that run to the east along the north side of the A40.

These rural parishes themselves have a minor road which links all settlements, and have close local ties.

(xv) Ward 15 (Fairford North)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Fairford (North) 2077 2077 95.14% n/a

Fairford is another of the District’s larger towns, with an electorate that it is too large to provide for a single ward yet too small to deliver two wards - accordingly, some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required.

Only two options appeared to have potential - town/outer; and north/south based on the A417 - however, the first could not realistically be achieved without a ‘doughnut’ solution.

The north/south split does have merit, although the figures that flow from a logical split do not achieve elector equality across both Fairford wards. A solution might be capable of being achieved, but this would lead to an artificial boundary within the town. The inclusion of Quenington into the equation would also not give rise to a workable solution.

We know that Kempsford Parish Council would welcome a combination with Fairford, and that Fairford Town Council would be happy with such combination plus a possible further combination with Quenington (N.B. although this latter approach would create an electorate within a two-member ward threshold, there is no logical division to secure two single-member wards).

However, the electorate of the proposed ward of Fairford North is within the elector equality thresholds.

(xvi) Ward 16 (Fairford South and Kempsford)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Fairford (South) 898 1879 86.07% 86 under Kempsford 981

The arguments relating to Fairford have been set out in respect of Ward 15 above.

However, the electorate for this proposed ward is not within the elector equality thresholds.

As such, we would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as an exception, notwithstanding the larger than normal variance. In terms of elector numbers, we would respectfully argue that the variance is not huge (86).

However, if this was not acceptable, we would suggest (albeit reluctantly) that this ward is combined with the proposed Fairford North Ward, to create a two-member ward. This would be more in keeping with local ties and avoid the need for any artificial divisions.

(xvii) Ward 17 (Chedworth and Churn Valley)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Bagendon 221 2105 96.43% n/a Baunton 248 Chedworth 650 Colesbourne 129 Compton Abdale 100 North Cerney 462 Rendcomb 199 Yanworth 96

These parishes are served by the A435 and The Whiteway, and include a combination of existing, long-standing parish clusters, with common issues and challenges.

(xviii) Ward 18 (Ermin)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Brimpsfield 193 2196 100.60% n/a Brimpsfield - Caudle Green 48 Coberley - Part 1 128 Coberley - Part 2 159 Cowley - Div 1 117 Cowley - Div 2 211 Daglingworth 235 Duntisbourne Abbotts 203 Duntisbourne Rouse 53 Edgeworth 75 Elkstone 186 Sapperton (incl. Framp. Mansell) 364 Syde 21 Winstone 203

This ward is predominantly the existing District ward with the addition of Coberley at its northern extremity and Sapperton to the south.

Coberley shares common issues with Cowley and such a combination is logical from a community interest perspective.

Local road and forestry links exist on the western side of this ward from Frampton Mansell and Sapperton in the south through to Caudle Green and Syde.

(xix) Ward 19 (The Ampneys and Hampton)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Ampney Crucis 519 2085 95.51% n/a Ampney St Mary 96 Ampney St Peter 61 Down Ampney 542 Meysey Hampton 504 Poulton 363

This ward links the three Ampney parishes with a cluster of parishes that are currently grouped together within the same ward and existed as a stand-alone ward prior to 2003.

This provides a natural combination.

(xx) Ward 20 (Siddington and Cerney Rural)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Driffield 138 2019 92.49% n/a Preston 261 Siddington 1130 South Cerney (Outer) 490

This ward provides for the combination of a group of three parishes to the south-east of Cirencester with the rural part of the South Cerney parish (which is recommended for warding for the reasons set out in respect of Ward 21 below.

There are natural links between the rural parishes and some common interests given their proximity to the urban area of Cirencester.

(xxi) Ward 21 - South Cerney Village

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

South Cerney (Village) 2403 2403 110.08% 2 over

South Cerney is another of the District’s larger towns, with an electorate that it is too large to provide for a single ward yet too small to deliver two wards - accordingly, some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required.

Various options have been considered, including village/outer; north/south; and a boundary based on the river.

These options have also been tested with potential combinations with adjoining parishes.

We are also conscious of the strong desire of South Cerney Parish Council that the village identity should be retained at all costs.

In this connection, a village/outer split is considered to be the most appropriate. The village envelope would be maintained, and this area will also incorporate the new build development identified.

The ‘outer’ area (see Ward 20 above) comprises the more outlying properties, Cerney Wick village and the Barracks. It also includes the various lakes, with their associated holiday home developments.

That said, the electorate for this proposed ward is not within the elector equality thresholds - being over by 2. However, we would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as an exception, given that the variance is so small and the fact that this is a tightly-drawn ward where further development could only be negligible.

(xxii) Ward 22 (Kemble)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Coates 377 2130 97.57% n/a Kemble 890 Poole Keynes 162 Rodmarton 314 Somerford Keynes 387

This ward provides for two groupings of rural parishes - one centred on Kemble, the other associated with the water park lakes.

Both groupings have, individually, featured as part of current and previous warding patterns, and a combination is seen as a logical progression given their rural nature and location on the southern fringes of Cirencester.

A central feature is the active railway line.

(xxiii) Ward 23 (Grumbolds Ash with Avening)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Avening 948 2167 99.27% n/a Beverston 107 Boxwell-with-Leighterton 207 Cherington 110 Didmarton 368 Kingscote 243 Ozleworth 43 Westonbirt-with-Lasborough 141

This ward provides for an extension of the major part of the current Grumbolds Ash Ward to take in the Avening and Cherington parishes which, themselves, have strong and long-standing local ties.

(xxiv) Ward 24 (Tetbury with Upton)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Tetbury - Part 1 (TB) 1738 1979 90.66% n/a Tetbury Upton 241

Tetbury is the second largest town in the District, and its electorate is such that it is too large to provide for two single wards but too small to deliver three stand-alone wards, even with the extended parish boundary arising out of the recent Community Governance Review and the new build permissions granted.

However, whilst some form of division and/or combination with an adjacent parish or parishes is required, this is made easier by the fact that Tetbury Town has historically been divided into polling districts for election purposes (which are therefore well known and accepted). Furthermore, the ‘lines’ of such polling districts were able to be easily extended to reflect the extended town boundary and development sites.

This ward sees Polling District TB joined with Tetbury Upton Parish.

(xxv) Ward 25 (Tetbury Town)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Tetbury - Part 2 (TC) 2094 2094 95.92% n/a

The arguments relating to Tetbury have been set out in respect of Ward 24 above.

Given its electorate, Polling District TC is able to be used as a stand-alone ward.

(xxvi) Ward 26 (Tetbury East and Rural)

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Ashley 111 2112 96.75% n/a Long Newnton 166 Shipton Moyne 247 Tetbury - Part 3 (TD) 1588

The arguments relating to Tetbury have been set out in respect of Ward 24 above.

This ward sees Polling District TD joined with three adjacent and similar rural parishes, all of which have common interests and rely on Tetbury as their main centre for community facilities.

(xxvii) Wards 27 to 34 (Cirencester)

Our starting premise was to seek a solution for Cirencester that was contained within the parish boundary, thereby avoiding the need for combinations with adjoining rural parishes given the clear differences from a community identity perspective.

Attempts have been made to respect existing warding arrangements where possible, particularly where strong communities of interest have developed, where clusters already exist, and where there are clearly identifiable boundaries.

However, we have also had to acknowledge the large scale of development underway in the southern part of the Beeches Ward; together with the allocation of 600 houses that we have been allowed to reflect on the strategic site identified within the current Chesterton ward.

With the above in mind, we have devised a pattern of eight wards for Cirencester, all of which are within elector tolerances. Brief comments are as follows:-

 Ward 27 comprises the existing Stratton area of the town, which is a natural community;

 Ward 28 combines the residential cluster to the north of the town centre and that located off The Whiteway, together with the more open areas associated with Cirencester Park and the flood plain to the north of the town;

 Ward 29 is the northern ‘half’ of the current Beeches Ward, comprising established residential development;

 Ward 30 is the southern ‘half’ of the current Beeches Ward, comprising not only established residential development but incorporating the more recent, and continuing, Kingshill South development area;

 Ward 31 includes the traditional core of the town, focussing on the Market Place and St Michael’s Park;

 Ward 32 includes the majority of the current Watermoor Ward;

 Ward 33 includes part of the current Chesterton Ward, together with 35% of the allocation allowed for the strategic development site (such allocation based on an assumption in respect of development constraints);

 Ward 34 includes part of the current Chesterton Ward, together with (i) part of the former Park Ward which has a natural link and identity with, Cirencester Chesterton and (ii) the remaining 65% of the allocation allowed for the strategic development site.

Percentage Elector Variance Variance Electorate Ward from under/over 2019 Total average thresholds

Ward 27 - Cirencester (1) 2104 2104 96.38% n/a (Stratton)

Ward 28 - Cirencester (2) 2290 2290 104.90% n/a (Park and Whiteway)

Ward 29 - Cirencester (3) 2251 2251 103.11% n/a (Beeches North)

Ward 30 - Cirencester (4) 1967 1967 90.11% n/a (Beeches South)

Ward 31 - Cirencester (5) 2070 2070 94.82% n/a (St Michael’s)

Ward 32 - Cirencester (6) 2211 2211 101.28% n/a (Watermoor)

Ward 33 - Cirencester (7) 2326 2326 106.55% n/a (Chesterton East)

Ward 34 - Cirencester (8) 2267 2267 103.85% n/a (Chesterton West)

4. Analysis and Conclusions

4.1 In conclusion, having conducted a comprehensive evaluation of potential warding patterns, we believe that the optimum scheme for Cotswold District is one which provides for 34 members, with a predominance of single-member wards.

4.2 We are proposing one two-member ward, and would ask the Commission to accept this proposed ward as a one-off exception to the single-member ward principle. We believe that such a solution is the most appropriate manner in which to meet all of the review criteria in the northern-most part of the District.

4.3 However, in case the introduction of a two-member ward is not acceptable to the Commission, we have put forward a single-member ward alternative. Although, we believe that this alternative does meet the community identity and governance elements of the criteria, the elector figures are significantly in excess of both the average electorate figure and the extended 10% threshold.

4.4 Although the scheme put forward does also contain a small number of variances in terms of elector equality, we believe that such scheme strikes a balance between the desire to achieve electoral equality and the need to reflect community identity/interest. In addition, we consider that the scheme as a whole provides for effective and convenient local government and meets the needs of democracy in the District.

4.5 We reiterate our belief that a general move to single-member wards will help members to improve focus, represent a single community of interest and make most effective use of their time, while avoiding duplication from both public and officer perspectives. At the same time, this will lead to even greater accountability in the eyes of the electorate. That said, if the Commission does not accept any electorate outside of the thresholds, we would ask that consideration be given to the introduction a small number of two-member wards rather than seek to impose artificial boundaries which could impact negatively on communities.

4.6 We would therefore respectfully request the Commission to look favourably upon the contents of this submission, and support a warding pattern that is reflective of the arguments put forward.

(END) CONSERVATIVE New Ward Polling District Electorate 2019 Ward Total Variance 34 Elector Variance 2183 Under Min/Over Max 1965-2183-2401 Threshold

1 Aston Sub-edge 44 4697 Campden and Vale Chipping Campden 2021 Mickleton 1488 Saintbury 68 Ward Average Weston-sub-Edge 369 2348.5 107.58% n/a Willersey 707

N.B. There is no Ward 2 (as Ward 1 is a two-member ward)

3 Blockley - Aston Magna 451 2294 105.08% n/a Blockley and Ebrington Blockley - Blockley 1051 Blockley - Paxford 268 Ebrington 524

4 Evenlode 135 2131 97.62% n/a Moreton East Moreton-in-Marsh (East) 1780 Todenham 216

5 Batsford 99 2001 91.66% n/a Moreton West Bourton-on-the-Hill 253 Moreton-in-Marsh (West) 1649

6 Adlestrop 108 2054 94.09% n/a Fosseridge Bledington 395 Broadwell 305 Condicote 108 Donnington 62 Icomb 79 Longborough 413 Oddington 319 Sezincote 75 Westcote 190 7 Maugersbury 128 2311 105.86% n/a Stow Stow-on-the-Wold 1830 Swell 353

8 Bourton-on-the-Water (Outer) 739 2364 108.29% n/a Bourton Vale Clapton 109 Cold Aston 242 Cutsdean 57 Guiting Power 255 Lower Slaughter 205 Naunton 284 Temple Guiting 314 Upper Slaughter 159

9 Bourton-on-the-Water (Inner) 2235 2235 102.38% n/a Bourton Village

10 Great Rissington 301 2121 97.16% n/a The Rissingtons Little Rissington 226 Upper Rissington 1491 Wyck Rissington 103

11 Andoversford 613 2201 100.82% n/a Sandywell Dowdeswell 126 Hampnett 46 Hazleton 150 Notgrove 75 Sevenhampton 301 Shipton 313 Turkdean 68 Whittington 87 Withington 422 12 Barnsley 118 2237 102.47% n/a Coln Valley Bibury 509 Coln St Aldwyns 208 Coln St Dennis 168 Eastleach 280 Hatherop 158 Quenington 496 Southrop 236 Winson 64

13 Lechlade 2520 2520 115.44% 119 over Lechlade

14 Aldsworth 190 2312 105.91% n/a Northleach Barrington 170 Farmington 87 Northleach with Eastington 1510 Sherborne 262 Windrush 93

15 Fairford (North) 2077 2077 95.14% n/a Fairford North

16 Fairford (South) 898 1879 86.07% 86 under Fairford South and Kempsford Kempsford 981

17 Bagendon 221 2105 96.43% n/a Chedworth and Churn Valley Baunton 248 Chedworth 650 Colesbourne 129 Compton Abdale 100 North Cerney 462 Rendcomb 199 Yanworth 96 18 Brimpsfield 193 2196 100.60% n/a Ermin Brimpsfield - Caudle Green 48 Coberley - Part 1 128 Coberley - Part 2 159 Cowley - Div 1 117 Cowley - Div 2 211 Daglingworth 235 Duntisbourne Abbotts 203 Duntisbourne Rouse 53 Edgeworth 75 Elkstone 186 Sapperton (incl. Framp. Mansell) 364 Syde 21 Winstone 203

19 Ampney Crucis 519 2085 95.51% n/a The Ampneys and Hampton Ampney St Mary 96 Ampney St Peter 61 Down Ampney 542 Meysey Hampton 504 Poulton 363

20 Driffield 138 2019 92.49% n/a Siddington and Cerney Rural Preston 261 Siddington 1130 South Cerney (Outer) 490

21 South Cerney (Village) 2403 2403 110.08% 2 over South Cerney Village

22 Coates 377 2130 97.57% n/a Kemble Kemble 890 Poole Keynes 162 Rodmarton 314 Somerford Keynes 387 23 Avening 948 2167 99.27% n/a Grumbolds Ash with Avening Beverston 107 Boxwell-with-Leighterton 207 Cherington 110 Didmarton 368 Kingscote 243 Ozleworth 43 Westonbirt-with-Lasborough 141

24 Tetbury - Part 1 (TB) 1738 1979 90.66% n/a Tetbury with Upton Tetbury Upton 241

25 Tetbury - Part 2 (TC) 2094 2094 95.92% n/a Tetbury Town

26 Ashley 111 2112 96.75% n/a Tetbury East and Rural Long Newnton 166 Shipton Moyne 247 Tetbury - Part 3 (TD) 1588

27 Cirencester (1) 2104 2104 96.38% n/a Stratton

28 Cirencester (2) 2290 2290 104.90% n/a Park and Whiteway

29 Cirencester (3) 2251 2251 103.11% n/a Beeches North

30 Cirencester (4) 1967 1967 90.11% n/a Beeches South 31 Cirencester (5) 2070 2070 94.82% n/a St Michael's

32 Cirencester (6) 2211 2211 101.28% n/a Watermoor

33 Cirencester (7) 2326 2326 106.55% n/a Chesterton East

34 Cirencester (8) 2267 2267 103.85% n/a Chesterton West

74210 (END)