Parish and town council submissions to the County Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 26 submissions from parish and town councils.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 25 July 2011 09:04 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Co mpleted

From: ANITA SACH [ Sent: 25 July 2011 08:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire

Alkington Parish Council strongly objects to the proposal to move it from the Vale ward to the Wotton ward.

In your recommendations you claim that the revised divisions 'best reflect community identities in Gloucestershire'. You also state 'We have sought to reflect communication links, geographic factors and evidence of community identity.

In the case of Alkington Parish Council (and our immediate neighbour Ham & Stone parish), your recommendations have not reflected these points at all. We have no transport links with Wotton-under-Edge so people tend to go to Berkeley for doctors, post office, shopping, library etc. The country roads used to reach Wotton from Alkington are very steep and narrow and by no means direct.

There are no communication links with Wotton as Alkington parish adjoins Berkeley but not Wotton. In addition Wotton is not the automatic location for children to attend school. Children from the parish go to school in Berkeley, and Thornbury as well as Wotton. Wotton is in a different policing area from us so there would be no automatic contact with the police and County Councillor as exists now.

Geographically Wotton is a Cotswold town and Alkington is in the Severn Vale - there is an escarpment between us.

We feel that the boundary review has not taken into account the natural links we have with the Vale area and is trying to impose us on an area with which we have no affinity and would be difficult for the Wotton County Councillor to represent us fairly. As a parish council we work with the other parishes in the Vale area, and occasionally have joint meetings, because we often have issues of mutual interest as our parishes border each other.

We request that you rethink your proposals and keep Alkington within the Vale ward.

Anita Sach Clerk to Alkington Parish Council

26/07/2011

Arlingham Parish Council

22nd July 2011

Dear Sir / Madam

Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendation

The Parish Council has asked me to write to you regarding the Electorial Review of Gloucestershire. The Arlingham Parish Council is part of a group of Parishes called Severn Voice. This group comprises parishes which line the east bank of the ; Arlingham; Elmore; ; with Saul; Hardwicke; and Epney; Moreton Valence, Slimbridge and . The group represents the common views of the parishes on such matters as the Environment Agency’s proposals for the Severn Estuary.

The Council would like to suggest that any Electoral Boundary changes should ensure that the Severn Voice Parishes have one County Council representative to reflect the views of Severn Voice.

Yours sincerely

Andrea Welby Arlingham Parish Clerk On behalf of the Arlingham Parish Council ASHCHURCH RURAL PARISH COUNCIL

31st July 2011

Electoral Review of Gloucestershire County Council 2010 – 2011

Gloucestershire County Council - Division Boundaries

Ashchurch Rural Parish Council would request that the Local Government Boundary Comm ission consider our subm ission on t his important matter for our community.

Convenient and Effective Local Government The existing Count y Council Division Boundary for Ashchurch, Cleeve and Hill fits extremely we ll into our rural area and is co- terminus with both the Borough and Parish Wards which certainly helps in effective local government.

Prior to the last Boundary revi ew in 2005, the old county boundary for Ashchurch included Northway, which is a large buil t up urban area, which very clearly did not fi t into the rural nature of our parish. Due to the m any concerns over this at th is time local residents raised two petitions (one being presented to Par liament by our then M.P. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown) calling for the parish to be spl it so as to re cognise the separate identities of each area. Th is was ultimately approved and the new County Council Divisi on Boundary for Ashchu rch represents this rural identity.

Therefore we strongly believe that any proposal to re-introduce Northway back into t he County Boundary for Ashchurch would not only no l onger reflect the rural nature of this division but woul d be against two petitions that our local residents raised and we believe would in fact be very much against convenient and effective Local Government...... Continued

1

Community Identity Ashchurch Rural Parish Council cons ider that there are many areas of community identi ty that are good exam ples why t he current Gloucestershire County Council elector al division for Ashchurch, Cleeve and Oxenton Hill works so well.

Some examples of t his would be the very rural nature that this division covers – i.e. , Tred ington. Prescott, Oxenton, Walton Cardiff, Southam , Gotheringt on, Wood mancote etc. who all have very similar needs. Recently when rura l Post Offices and telephone boxes were under threat of closure/ rem oval, the knowledge and experience gained from across this division was invaluable to our Parish. Issues like the lack of rural bus services and hea lth care are also very similar across this current divi sion. Another excel lent example would be the floods of 2007 and the subsequent loss drinking of water, under the um brella of this current division the rura l vill ages and ham lets were very quickl y organised and identifies for help & distribution.

We therefore firm ly believe this im portant co mmunity identity m ust b e maintained. Should the Boundary Comm ission consider that an increase in elector al nu mbers is necessary then we wo uld suggest that the Commission consider the area east of Ashchurch due to its rural identity.

Name of Division We support the current name for the Ashchurch, Cleeve and Oxenton Hill Division.

Cathy Reid Parish Clerk Ashchurch Rural Parish Council

2

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Berkeley Town Clerk [ Sent: 18 July 2011 22:35 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: Gloucestershire County Council - Electoral Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d To Alex Skerten Local Government Boundary Commission

Berkeley Town Council considered the electoral review for Gloucestershire County Council and wishes to make the following comments

Berkeley has no connection with Cam. We are a rural community that is closer to other parishes in the Severn Vale. We will lose our distinctive historical identity if we are linked with Cam. We will be dominated by a larger urban conurbation. We have existing ties with surrounding parishes of Ham & Stone and Alkington. We would rather remain in a Severn Vale based electoral division

Regards

Debbie Spiers Town Clerk Berkeley Town Council

19/07/2011 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Sent: 19 July 2011 09:45 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: re boundary commission review-bishops cleeve Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Gloucestershire County Council Electoral Review

Bishops Cleeve Parish Council Submission to LGBCE

Bishops Cleeve Division

 We believe the electoral figures for Bishops Cleeve in 2016 are too low given tha t outline planning permission has been granted for up to 450 dwellings to the North of Bishops Cleeve. Full planning permission has recently been granted for the first phase by Borough Council and we anticipate that construction of all dwellings will be complete by 2016. This is inconsistent with the growth of only 100 electors betwee n 2011 and 2016 as indicated in the LGBCE figur es. Assuming an average of 2 electors per dwelling would increase the 2016 figure by a further 800 electors. It is further note d that this could be a significant underestimate as there are applications for around a further 1,000 dwellings which will be determined by a Planning Inspector in September 2011.

 We n ote that the Tewkesbury Borough Council Ward of Oxenton Hill has been spli t between the proposed electoral divisions of Tewkesbury Newtown (Oxenton Parish) and Bishops Cleeve (Stoke Orchard and Parishes). Bishops Cleeve is a large urban conurbation very different in character to the parishes contained within Oxento n Hill Ward.

 We would therefo re propose moving Got herington and Stoke Orchard Parishes from Bishops Cleeve Div ision to Tewkesbury Ne wtown Division. This would significantly improve coterminosity with the Borough ward boundaries. After accounting for the further 800 electors for 2016, Bishops Cleeve Di vision would still be larger than the proposed Tewkesbury and Churchdown Divisions and would not significantly increase the maximum variance for any division (15% as against current 14% proposal).

 The second tab on the attached spreadsheet includes the impact of our proposed changes to the current proposals.

Tewkesbury and District Divisions  We fail to see the rationale for allocating 7 electoral divisions to Tewkesbury District and 8 to . The sizes of the two Districts will be virtually identical in 2016 based on the review figures (68,042 versus 68,650) and would be virtually identical based on our above proposed 400 increase in the Bishops Cleeve 2016 projected electorate.

 We would therefore propose parity in the number of electoral divisions between Tewkesbury and Forest of Dean Districts.

Clerk to Council Bishops Cleeve Parish Council

19/07/2011 Page 1 of 3

Skerten, Alex

From: Clerk Sent: 19 July 2011 11:26 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: RE: re boundary commission review-bishops cleeve - received Attachments: County Divisions 2.xls Please find second document referred to in our submission – Bishops Cleeve Parish Council Clerk to the Council

From: Skerten, Alex [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 19 July 2011 10:58 To: Clerk Subject: RE: re boundary commission review-bishops cleeve - received

Dear Clerk of Bishops Cleeve Parish Council,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE

Thank you for your e-mail dated 19 July 2011 setting out your views in respect of the review of electoral arrangements in Gloucestershire.

Your views have been noted, and will be taken into account by the Local Government Boundary Commission in formulating its final recommendations. Please note that this stage of the review is a public consultation, and the Commission places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way it deals with all representations. Accordingly, at the end of this stage of the review, 1 August 2011, full copies of all representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices (by appointment), and at those of Gloucestershire County Council. Similarly, full copies of all submissions received will also be available for viewing on the Commission’s website, at www.lgbce.org.uk.

If you do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in reply to this letter and we will endeavour to respect your wish. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

In any event, on publication of the Commission’s report you will be sent a copy of the executive summary detailing its recommendations. The full report will be available for viewing on the Commission’s website. If you have any queries concerning the Commission’s approach to representations, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below.

Yours sincerely

Alex Skerten Review Officer

19/07/2011 Tewkesbury District Divisions 2011 Variance 2016 Variance

47 Bishops Cleeve 9,711 10% 9,811 6% 48 Brockworth 9,285 5% 10,365 12% 49 Churchdown 8,733 ‐1% 8,972 ‐3% 50 Highnam 9,662 9% 9,878 7% 51 Tewkesbury 8,460 ‐4% 8,985 ‐3% 52 Tewkesbury Newtown 8,826 0% 9,516 3% 53 & Woodmancote 10,045 14% 10,515 14%

Total 64,722 68,042

Tewkesbury Average per Division 9,246 5% 9,720 5%

County Average per Division 8,833 9,258

Forest of Dean District Divisions 2011 Variance 2016 Variance

19 Blakeney & Bream 9,320 6% 9,403 2% 20 7,919 ‐10% 8,644 ‐7% 21 Coleford 7,984 ‐10% 8,430 ‐9% 22 Drybrook & Lydbrook 8,255 ‐7% 8,392 ‐9% 23 7,567 ‐14% 8,451 ‐9% 24 8,659 ‐2% 8,789 ‐5% 25 7,923 ‐10% 8,336 ‐10% 26 Sedbury 8,160 ‐8% 8,205 ‐11%

Total 65,787 68,650

Forest of Dean Average per Division 8,067 ‐9% 8,464 ‐9%

County Average per Division 8,833 9,258 Tewkesbury District Divisions 2011 Variance 2016 Variance

47 Bishops Cleeve 8,554 ‐3% 9,454 2% 2011 2016 48 Brockworth 9,285 5% 10,365 12% 49 Churchdown 8,733 ‐1% 8,972 ‐3% Gotherington 826 835 50 Highnam 9,662 9% 9,878 7% Stoke Orchard 331 340 51 Tewkesbury 8,460 ‐4% 8,985 ‐3% Total 1157 1175 52 Tewkesbury Newtown 9,983 13% 10,673 15% 53 Winchcombe & Woodmancote 10,045 14% 10,515 14% Note that 800 electors have been added to Bishops Cleeve figures for 2016

Total 9,246 5% 9,835 6%

Average Electors 8,833 9,258

64,722 68,842 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 12 July 2011 16:05 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire - Draft Recommendations Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

From: Bourton on the Water Parish Council Sent: 12 July 2011 15:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire - Draft Recommendations

Dear Sirs

I’m responding to the consultation on behalf of Bourton on the Water Parish Council and wish to submit the following comments:

“Bourton on the Water Parish Council is supporting the proposed changes which will reduce the number of total councillors at GCC. The Council believes that these changes can lead to significant cost savings whilst improving efficiency. The changes also redress the balance between the number of councillors in the urban and rural areas of the county, where we feel that urban areas have enjoyed a disproportionately high representation in the past for a principally rural county.”

I’d be grateful if these comments were included within the consultation responses.

Regards.

Sue Cretney ouncil, Bourton on the Water

14/07/2011 PARISH COUNCIL

Alex Skerton Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for Layden House 76‐78 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

22 July 2011

Dear Alex

Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

With reference to our previous communications regarding a map of the Parish Boundaries, thank you for including a confirmation of the Parish boundaries and electoral arrangements in the review (section 121).

With regard to the review of the County Council divisions in our area, you have noted Cainscross Parish Council’s previous submission (section 102) that it wished the Parish to remain centrally placed within a division, however this does not appear to have been taken into consideration in the draft recommendations, as they propose splitting the parish between the two divisions of Stonehouse and .

Cainscross Parish Council’s main reason for wanting to stay within one division is to preserve its identity as a separate entity from the parishes of and Stonehouse.

You appear to have accepted Stroud Constituency Labour Party’s proposals for the area surrounding the town (section 41). The Stroud Labour Party did not consult Cainscross Parish Council (or Stonehouse Town Council to my knowledge) on this matter and we do not accept that our parish should be split in two at the suggestion of a political party for their own political advantage. Parish councils are by their very nature parochial and will fight to preserve and enhance their own individual areas and identities.

The Council agrees that is logical to make the Stroud Town Council area a division in its own right rather than split it down the middle as at present.

Cainscross Parish Council proposes that it would also be logical and more appropriate to combine the area to the south east and west of the town i.e. the parishes of Cainscross and Rodborough (which comprise the remaining parts of the Stroud Urban Area before being parished in 1990) into another complete division.

You state that the Labour Party’s proposal for a Stonehouse division which would include part of Cainscross, considers that ‘new developments create a shared identity and make a more easily identifiable boundary’ (section 106). However, as representatives of the local community, it is the Parish Council’s view that residents naturally associate more with Stroud than Stonehouse. Cainscross Parish has always been designated as part of the Stroud Urban area for planning/development purposes but equally it has always had a distinct separation from Stonehouse.

You go on to note that during a tour of the area you found that ‘the developments are in progress and that the development had effectively bridged the two separate areas’. This appears to conclude that this in itself is reason to merge the two separate areas. I should point out that both Cainscross Parish Council and Stonehouse Town Council vigorously opposed this development for a large variety of reasons, not least that it would erode the separate identities of the two parishes. This view was also supported by Council who refused the application, which was only approved on appeal, because the developer was able to argue that SDC had made an error in its housing supply target figures. We would not expect the local Labour Party, the County Council or the Boundary Commission to compound this error by further eroding parish boundaries.

The Parish Council does not support the principle of the reduction in the number of councillors as this reduces the amount of access to democratic representation. However since that will inevitably be a result of this review, it is appreciated that the divisions need to be as evenly balanced as possible in the number of electorate per division.

Therefore in order to be constructive in our response and mitigate the resulting imbalance in numbers in our proposal to include the whole of Cainscross Parish within the Rodborough division, we would propose that Standish could be included in the Hardwicke and Severn Division and that the resulting reduction in numbers in the Stonehouse division would then allow for King’s Stanley and , both of which villages use Stonehouse as their service centre, to be included in Stonehouse division rather than Dursley to which they have no connection.

The electorate is confused enough about which council provides which services and who represents them at the different tiers of local government. To include part of the parish in a different division from the rest of it so that Ebley residents are in the same area as Cainscross and Cashes Green for parish and district council matters but a different one for County Council issues will not do anything to improve the electorate’s engagement with local democracy.

Yours sincerely

Hilary Dowdeswell Clerk to the Council

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Cam Parish Council [ Sent: 06 June 2011 11:54 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: Electoral review - Gloucestershire Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d Cam Parish Council has considered the draft proposals for the electoral review for Gloucestershire and, whilst it supports single member divisions, is concerned that the reduction in the total number of Councillors is a retrograde step in the democratic process, with Councillors consequently having to represent too high a number of people, spread over a large geographical area which means that there can be a wide range of interests involved (e.g. one division can consist both urban and very rural areas, where the issues can be very different).

In the local context, regarding proposals for Divisions 38 and 39, there is concern that there is little common identity between Cam and the Berkeley/Sharpness area or between Dursley and /Leonard Stanley. However, given the proposed reduction in the total number of Councillors, the requirement for single member divisions and the need to produce equality of representation, it is difficult to find a local solution that would better reflect community identity.

As for a possible name for the 38 Division, this also posed a problem, given that there is little common identity between the two sections. Suggestions included Vale West, Severn South and Cam Valley.

Regards

Sue Hanman Clerk to Cam Parish Council

17/06/2011

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 22 July 2011 14:27 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Co mpleted

From: Dursley Town Council [ Sent: 22 July 2011 11:41 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Dursley Town Council' Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

Good morning,

I am writing to inform you that Dursley Town Council has considered the Commission’s report on the new electoral arrangements for Gloucestershire County Council and concur with the draft recommendations.

Regards

Leah

Leah Wellings Town Clerk's Assistant Dursley Town Council

26/07/2011 Skerten, Alex

From: Dunkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 25 July 2011 12:08 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary Review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

-----Original Message-----

To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review

Dear Sirs, my council wish to make comments about the Review:

Ham & Stone Parish will be affected by the proposed changes and are very much against the proposals. This area has no affiliation with Wotton-under-Edge which is in the and we are in the Severn Vale. There is no transport link with Wotton and residents don't go there for Doctors or the Library. It is in a differnet policing area and also a different Parliamentary Constituancy which would add to even further confusion at Local and General Elections. Our Parish Appraisal confirmes how little residents here use Wotton. It would make sense to keep the current County Council Ward as it is a natural area of representation along the banks of the River Severn. Any changes should reflect the historical and natural ties of the area.

Yours Sincerely, Jenny Nichols, Clerk

------mail2web.com – Enhanced email for the mobile individual based on Microsoft® Exchange - http://link.mail2web.com/Personal/EnhancedEmail

1

Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Sent: 07 July 2011 11:43 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral boundaries

Hinton Pc do not want the electoral Boundary changed. This will be a terrible change to the Parish and the parishioners do not want it either

Parish Clerk

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: Tue, 5 Jul 2011 10:06:59 +0100 Subject: RE: Electoral boundaries

Hi Lesley

I suggest you forward your comments to the Boundary Commission who are consulting on the proposals. The contact is Alex Skerten ([email protected]). Regards Julie

From: Lesley Yeomans [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 July 2011 10:15 To: HILL, Julie (Democratic Services) Subject: Electoral boundaries

Hi Julie

I have got your email address from Berkeley Town Clerk. I just wanted some info on these new electoral boundaries. Hinton PC does not want the boundary to include Dursley, Wotton,Cam etc, we want to stay as we are please.

Lesley Yeomans Parish Clerk

C/O 9 New Street Newtown Berkeley Glos GL13 9NN

07837 924285

07/07/2011 Page 2 of 2

______

Think before you print - only print this email if absolutely necessary.

This email and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee only. If you are not the named addressee you must not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance of this transmission and you should notify us as soon as possible.

This email and any attachments are believed to be free from viruses but it is your responsibility to carry out all necessary virus checks and Gloucestershire County Council accepts no liability in connection therewith.

07/07/2011 KEMPSFORD PARISH COUNCIL

Mr Nigel Adams Council Trinity Road Glos. GL7 1PX

27th May 2011

Dear Mr Adams

Re: Boundary Review and Electoral Divisions

Further to the recent elections the Parish Council have been reviewing the current warding i.e. Kempsford/ and have come to the following conclusions:

 Not only are Kempsford and Lechlade considerably different in size, but issues of importance to each community are widely varied and dissimilar. The recent Second Issues Core Strategy consultation demonstrates some of the key issues faced by Lechlade as a market town, for example, tourism, retail issues, commercial development and parking; all very different from the village needs of Kempsford.

 The Lechlade boundaries border those of Kempsford, but the boundary is in fields and the Coln Park development, leaving very little by way of common interests.

 Kempsford would be more suited to pairing with other rural villages of a similar size, ie.Down Ampney and Meysey Hampton. Both these villages have similar limited facilities and similar issues surrounding primary schools, village halls, public transport and recreational facilities.

 The disproportionate size in electorate between Kempsford and Lechlade makes it extremely difficult for a Kempsford representative to succeed in being elected at district level.

 Kempsford Parish is a village and, in terms of electorate, fairly small. However it incorporates the Air Base and, perhaps more importantly, an area of ever-increasing gravel extraction. These two elements raise the issues and profile of the Parish far above other parishes of similar size and facilities. On these grounds alone it is essential that Kempsford has a voice at CDC.

We would be grateful if the above points can be raised at the appropriate stage of any such review.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Teresa Griffin Clerk

Response to the District Boundary Review

Kingswood Parish Council has reviewed the draft recommendation and have reservations on the recommendations.

The recommendation of 53 Councillors seems to be an arbitrary figure. There appears to be no evidence of any other number of Councillors being considered. The proposal of the reduction from 63 to 53 is a 16% decrease and seems to be driven by the desire to cut costs and not on what would be the best number of the County. In our opinion 53 Councillors would not be the best option for the County and would have serious implications for the Wotton Under Edge Division in which we are part of. We would like to see the boundary commission put forward some alternatives for consideration that put the best solution for the County at the fore not the desire to cut cost.

The proposed option will result in a split division with no links other than it looks a good option on a map . There is no joint community identity and the new additions do not share the same services such as schools, bus services and trade. The additional parishes are located nearer to both Berkeley and Dursley not Wotton. The Wotton Division has a clearly defined identity with the parishes sharing the same schools bus services and the market town of Wotton with its shops library and police. The parishes in this division work together on shared issued this would not be the case with the additions . I see no community identity within the new division.

The proposal will drastically reduce the amount of time our County Councillor would have to spend on the issues of the current division. This seems contrary to government policy where the government is looking to Localism to give more power and involvement at a local level. This proposal would reduce the access the people of Kingswood would have with their elected representative. This is of serious concern especially when the County is cutting services, a greater need for access to our Councillor could be required not less.

Currently our County Councillor attends almost all of our Parish Council meetings. Under the proposal this would be impossible. His attendance at the meeting is welcomed and essential . Our Councillor frequently answers questions from the public and the Parish Council. He also takes away concerns that have been raised at the meeting and reports back. Our Councillor gives us a monthly report on County activities and answers question on these. Reliance solely on a written report would be a poor substitute. The new division would reduce his attendance to at most 4 meetings a year which would have a big impact.

Kingswood Parish Council ask that the recommendation of 53 Councillors is reviewed and a new proposal considered

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 11 July 2011 16:26 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

From: Derek Hyett [ Sent: 11 July 2011 15:44 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

Review Officer (Gloucestershire)

The Members of Mitcheldean Parish Council are totally opposed to any change to the existing division/arrangements areas.

Derek Hyett Clerk to the Parish Council

12/07/2011

Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 27 July 2011 14:33 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Co mpleted

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 July 2011 12:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 591 Time of Submission: Jul 27th 2011 at 11:29am IP Address: ::ffff:195.188.41.154

Form Answers

Name: JOHN MCGUFFIE

Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Gloucestershire refers to: Organisation you other public sector belong to: Your feedback: I AM CHAIRMAN OF OXENTON PARISH MEETING

WE OBJECT TO YOUR PROPOSAL BECAUSE GOTHERINGTON PARISH AND OURSELVES SHARE SEVERAL FACILITIES 1 WOOLSTONE PARISH CHURCH IS THE CHURCH FOR

04/08/2011 Page 2 of 2

GOTHERINGTON AND OURSELVES 2 OXENTON AND GOTHERINGTON PARISHES SHARE A RECTOR 3 WE SHARE AND PAY FOR PART OF THE EXPENSES OF THE GOTHERINGTON PLAYING FIELDS 4 OUR LOCAL CLUBS AND SOCIETIES INCLUDE MEMBERS FROM OXENTON AND GOTHERINGTON 5 OXENTON PARISH LOOK TO BISHOPS CLEEVE FOR OUR SHOPPING BANKING DOCTOR AND DENTIST 6 WE HAVE NOTHING IN COMMON WITH NORTHWAY AND ASHCHURCH AS THEY ARE PART OF TEWKESBURY File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

04/08/2011

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: D unkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 29 July 2011 11:26 To: S kerten, Alex Subject: FW: Proposals for New Electoral Arrangements for Gloucestershire () Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Co mpleted Attachments: im age002.png; New wards.pdf

From: Peter Richardson [m Sent: 29 July 2011 11:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposals for New Electoral Arrangements for Gloucestershire (Quedgeley)

Dear Sir/Madam

Proposals for New Electoral Arrangements for Gloucestershire (Quedgeley)

The Quedgeley Parish Council has given careful consideration to the current proposals regarding the re‐ warding of the parish and would wish the following amendments be made:

1. The parish should be made up of three wards i.e. Quedgeley Severn Vale, Quedgeley Central and Quedgeley Fieldcourt.

2. The boundary between Quedgeley Severn Vale and Quedgeley Central should follow the Dimore Brook from the River Severn to where it passes under School Lane, up School Lane, across the Bristol Road and up to the underpass leading to Valley Gardens (as on the attached map).

3. That Quedgeley Brook and Quedgeley Fieldcourt should be combined to form a single ward

The Council believes that this will better reflect the future growth of housing in the areas known as Kingsway and Copelands Park to the east of the A38.

It is hoped that it will prove possible to introduce these changes.

Yours faithfully

Peter Richardson

Parish Clerk

Quedgeley Parish Council, 9C The Old School House, School Lane, Qu

Tel: 01452 721552 E-mail: quedgeleypc@btconne

02/08/2011

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 18 July 2011 13:36 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

From: Helen Hook Sent: 18 July 2011 12:54 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review

Dear Sir/Madam,

Council determined that they have no reason to object.

Helen Hook Clerk to the Council

Ruspidge and Parish Council,

19/07/2011

UP HATHERLEY PARISH COUNCIL , Gloucestershire

30th May, 2011

Mr Alex Skerten Review Officer (Gloucestershire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Laydon House 76 – 86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG

Dear Mr Skerten,

Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

Thank you for your letter advising m e that the draft recom mendations for electoral arrangements for Gloucestershire County Council have been published.

I am writing to say that we welcom e the proposed changes as they affect this Parish, and that we are particularly pleased to note your recommendation to reduce the overall size of the council to 53 members.

We sincerely trust that f ollowing the further consultation period these draft proposals remain unchanged.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Fowler

Chairman Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 29 July 2011 12:06 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Co mpleted

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 29 July 2011 12:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Contact us Email,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 596 Time of Submission: Jul 29th 2011 at 11:03am IP Address: ::ffff:81.152.144.231

Form Answers

Your name: West Dean Parish Council Your email:

I am: a parish clerk Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: The West Dean Parish Council is concerned that the Parish will be split three ways under the draft recommendations. Bream is attached to Blakeney and , to which it has no community affinity, and the rest of the Parish is hived off to Coleford and Drybrook & Lydbrook.

The proposed reduction of County Councillors from 63 to 53 is believed to be the driver behind the creation of boundaries which create wards with no discernible community identity.

It is clear that the principle of community affinity is very much subordinate to numerical equality in the preparation of these draft recommendations.

02/08/2011 Page 2 of 2

If the principle of preserving the identity of the West Dean Parish had been considered more seriously in the deliberations of the Review Commission, then the proposed outcome would have been different.

Dave Kent

West Dean Parish Clerk This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Contact us Email

02/08/2011 Skerten, Alex

From: Dunkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 01 August 2011 08:36 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

-----Original Message----- From: Wotton-under-Edge Town Council [mailto Sent: 29 July 2011 18:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucestershire: Draft Recommendations

Wotton-under-Edge Town Council have considered the Draft Recommendations for Gloucestershire and consider that the proposals in relation to the area surrounding the town are not satisfactory.

The decision to work out a scheme for an arbitrary number of only 53 Councillors appears to be at the root of the difficulties in identifying appropriate WArd boundaries. It does not appear that the number was based on the drawing up of suitable wards, resulting in the number of Councillors required but starting from the opposite point on first defining the numerical basis and then seeking the fit communities into that which has produced unsatisfactory results. This scheme simply does not work, particularly in rural areas such as this where the situation is very different from large towns and cities.

The proposed new Ward of which Wotton-under-Edge is the main town is not in any sense a community, whereas previously the ward did reflect existing social and community ties. The wards should be based on market towns and their surrounding villages, as this ward previously was. All of the various proposals which were subsequently put forward to meet the numbers required were unsatisfactory as they included areas with no social or close links with the town. The present proposal has the same defect.

The areas proposed to be added do not look to or interact with Wotton-under-Edge in any respect, their residents have long standing loyalties to other towns and they shop, use schools and doctors and travel to those towns as their social centres, usually on a long term historical basis. Pubic transport usually reflects this reality. Some of the proposed areas to be added look to Thornbury, or to Berkeley or possibly to Dursley. Some of them are separated from this area by the physical and psychological barriers of the M5 and the A38. They are not part of a natural community here and as such do not fit in with the criteria understood to be pertinent to your brief. Adding them to the existing ward will add greatly to the travelling and burden of the elected member and will not create a cohesive and effective County Ward. It appears that this has simply been an exercise in playing with numbers of electors until they approximate to the desired sum, rather than an attempt to create a meaningful social and communal ward.

These are the unanimous views of the members of this Council and I would be grateful if you would take them into account.

Glenys Sykes Town Clerk 1 Wotton-under-Edge

2