New Electoral Arrangements for Wiltshire Council Final Recommendations October 2019 Translations and Other Formats

Home , Alderbury, Berryfield, Firsdown, Froxfield, Fugglestone St Peter, Landford

New electoral arrangements for Wiltshire Council Final recommendations October 2019 Translations and other formats:

To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

Licensing:

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2019

A note on our mapping:

The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Wiltshire? 2 Our proposals for Wiltshire 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Division boundaries consultation 7 Draft recommendations consultation 7 Further draft recommendations consultation 8 Final recommendations 8 Amesbury 10 Bradford-on-Avon 12 By Brook and Kington 14 Calne 16 Chippenham 18 Corsham 21 Devizes 24 Laverstock & Bourne Valley 27 Malmesbury 30 Marlborough 32 Melksham 35 Pewsey Vale 39 Royal Wootton Bassett 41 Salisbury 44 South-east Wiltshire 48 South-west Wiltshire 50 Tidworth 53 Trowbridge 55

Warminster 58 Westbury 61

Conclusions 63 Summary of electoral arrangements 63 Parish electoral arrangements 63 What happens next? 71 Equalities 73 Appendix A 74 Final recommendations for Wiltshire Council 74 Appendix B 83 Outline map 83 Appendix C 87 Draft recommendations: Submissions received 87 Further draft recommendations: Submissions received 90 Appendix D 92 Glossary and abbreviations 92

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

 Professor Colin Mellors OBE  Peter Maddison QPM (Chair)  Amanda Nobbs OBE  Andrew Scallan CBE  Steve Robinson (Deputy Chair)  Jolyon Jackson CBE  Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive)

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

 How many councillors are needed.  How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called.  How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

 Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents.  Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity.  Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Wiltshire?

7 We have conducted a review of Wiltshire Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in county council elections varies depending on where you live in Wiltshire. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

 The divisions in Wiltshire are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively.  The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the county.

Our proposals for Wiltshire

9 Wiltshire should have 98 divisions, the same number as there are now.

10 The boundaries of 89 divisions should change; 10 will stay the same. These are Brinkworth, By Brook, Cricklade & Latton, Mere, Minety, Pewsey, Purton, Redlynch & Landford and Westbury West.

11 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Wiltshire.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your division name may also change.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Wiltshire or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Review timetable 14 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Wiltshire. We then held three periods of consultation with the public on division patterns for the county. After consultation on our draft recommendations, we decided that a further limited round of consultation was required for division patterns in the south of the county. All of the submissions received during these consultations have informed our final recommendations.

15 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

21 August 2018 Number of councillors decided 28 August 2018 Start of consultation seeking views on new divisions End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 5 November 2018 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 5 February 2019 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 15 April 2019 forming final recommendations Start of further limited consultation seeking views on new 2 July 2019 divisions in south Wiltshire End of consultation; we began analysing submissions on 29 July 2019 south Wiltshire and forming final recommendations 1 October 2019 Publication of final recommendations

Analysis and final recommendations 16 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our divisions.

17 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create divisions with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

18 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2018 2024 Electorate of Wiltshire 367,686 417,228 Number of councillors 98 98 Average number of electors per 3,752 4,257 councillor

19 When the number of electors per councillor in a division is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the division as having ‘good electoral equality’. Ninety-three of our proposed divisions for Wiltshire will have good electoral equality by 2024.

Submissions received 20 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 21 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2024, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2019. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 14% by 2024.

22 Responding to our draft recommendations, Councillor Newbury and a local resident questioned the validity of the Council’s electorate forecast, believing them to

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

anticipate too great an increase in electorate. We have considered those representations but are not satisfied that the analysis contained in them is sufficient to alter our earlier reliance on the Council’s forecast.

23 The electorate forecasts reflect a number of large-scale housing developments under construction or to be commenced, particularly on the edges of Wiltshire’s towns and larger villages. Whilst we recognise that development on such sites may continue after the end of the forecast period, we were not able to take those later increases in electorate into consideration.

24 We carefully considered the information provided by the Council and remain satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

Number of councillors 25 Wiltshire Council currently has 98 councillors. The Council initially proposed that this number be retained. The Liberal Democrat group of councillors (‘the Liberal Democrats’) proposed that the total number of councillors be reduced to 86. After initial consideration of those proposals we invited the Council and the Liberal Democrats to provide us with further information about the number of councillors required to meet the needs of local government in the county. We looked at the evidence provided and concluded that maintaining a council size of 98 would ensure the Council can carry out its functions effectively.

26 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of divisions that would be represented by 98 councillors – for example, 98 one-councillor divisions, 49 two- councillor divisions, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor divisions.

27 We received four submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on division patterns. One parish council proposed a scheme for its area which would require a council size of 99. We do are not propose to adopt that scheme because it would result in a high electoral variance in an adjacent area. Two submissions made no specific proposal on a preferred number of councillors whilst the third proposed a reduction by 10%. We received a further submission in response to our draft recommendations consultation which proposed a reduction in the total number by, at least, 50%. None of these submissions provided us with evidence of how alternative numbers of councillors would ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively. We are not persuaded to alter our initial view on council size and our final recommendations are for the retention of a council size of 98.

Division boundaries consultation 28 We received 98 submissions to our consultation on division boundaries. These included two county-wide proposals, from Wiltshire Council and Trowbridge Town Council. The town council’s scheme included detailed boundary proposals for Trowbridge town and for most of the rural parts of the county, but more general proposals for towns other than Trowbridge. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for particular areas of the county.

29 The two county-wide schemes provided for a uniform pattern of single- councillor divisions for Wiltshire. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of divisions resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

30 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Wiltshire helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

31 Whilst we based our draft recommendations on the proposals made by the Council, our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

Draft recommendations consultation 32 We received around 640 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included a commentary on each of our proposed divisions by the Council. We also received submissions from over 40 town and parish councils, 30 county, town and parish councillors and 13 local organisations. We received a submission from James Gray MP (North Wiltshire) regarding division names. We also received around 550 representations from residents of Wiltshire. The majority of those submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals in Malmesbury and Laverstock, with a large number of representations commenting on our proposed division name for the Box and Colerne area.

33 Some submissions proposed that the county boundaries of Wiltshire or of particular parishes be amended. Some respondents expressed opposition to changes to parish boundaries. Changes to boundaries of the county are not a matter for this review and we can make no recommendations in this respect. Similarly, we have no power to make changes to external parish boundaries. Such changes can only be made following a community governance review, which would be undertaken

by the Council. We therefore make no recommendations regarding changes to external parish boundaries. However, where we have divided a parish between different divisions we must provide for wards for the election of that parished area. A town, parish or city ward must lie wholly within a single division.4 Our final recommendations therefore make provisions for electoral wards in 25 parishes. These are listed in detail at the rear of this report. Where a currently warded parish lies entirely within a division, we make no recommendations which would alter the current parish arrangements.

34 We decided that, for the south of the county, a further round of consultation was required in response to the evidence we received. We developed a revised division pattern in this area of the county to reflect the evidence received relating to Laverstock and its environs.

Further draft recommendations consultation 35 We received around 240 submissions during consultation on our further draft recommendations. These included five petitions which together bore several hundred signatures. Whilst acknowledging that the further draft recommendations addressed the concerns of some communities, the Council opposed them, restating its original proposal. We received submissions broadly supporting our further draft recommendations for Firsdown, Winterslow, Downton and Whiteparish. However, a greater number of respondents objected to our proposals for parishes in the Bourne Valley, Fovant & Chalke Valley and Nadder Valley areas, as well the recommendations for the western edge of the county.

36 Many representations at draft and further draft recommendation stages were expressed in terms of protection of the Council’s area board approach to localised decision-making. We recognise that the area board structure plays a part in achieving effective and convenient local government in Wiltshire. However, area board boundaries and responsibilities do not override our consideration of community identity or electoral equality. Area board arrangements are a matter for the Council to determine and we make no recommendations that the area board function or geography should be retained or amended.

Final recommendations 37 Having considered all of the representations we have received throughout the review, it is clear that no solution can satisfy all of the concerns of those who have expressed views to us. We must, however, make final recommendations for the whole of the county and they are that the Council should be formed of 98 councillors each representing a one-councillor division. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while best reflecting

4 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation. In making our final recommendations, we have modified our draft recommendations and our further draft recommendations, basing those changes on evidence we have received.

38 The tables and maps on pages 10–62 detail our final recommendations for each area of Wiltshire. They detail how the proposed electoral arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

 Equality of representation.  Reflecting community interests and identities.  Providing for effective and convenient local government.

39 A summary of our proposed new divisions is set out in the table starting on page 74 and on the large map accompanying this report.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Amesbury

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Amesbury East & Bulford 1 8% Amesbury South 1 -2% Amesbury West 1 8% Avon Valley 1 0% Durrington 1 -7% Till Valley 1 1%

Amesbury East & Bulford, Amesbury South and Amesbury West 40 The Council described Amesbury as a town which has seen significant growth over recent years and that is too large for two entirely urban divisions and too small for three entirely urban divisions. We based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposal for a division which combines the eastern part of Amesbury with Bulford. We made some small modifications to the Council’s proposals for Amesbury South and Amesbury West in order to provide for good electoral equality and clear

division boundaries. We received support for our proposed boundaries from the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party. The Council and Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party both suggested that the division which combines Bulford with the eastern part of Amesbury be named Amesbury East & Bulford. They argued that this would make clear to Amesbury residents the nature of electoral boundaries within the town. Subject to accepting this division name change, we confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Avon Valley and Durrington 41 The Council proposed that the town of Durrington form a division and in making our draft recommendations we accepted that proposal. We also agreed with the Council that the Larkhill area of Durrington parish (including the proposed development at The Packway) be combined with the parishes of Enford, Figheldean, Fittleton, Milston and Netheravon to form an Avon Valley division with the A345 as its spine. The Council confirmed its support for our proposed Avon Valley and Durrington divisions as did the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party. Given the above, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Till Valley 42 The Council initially proposed a Till & Wylye Valley division which would include Steeple Langford and Wylye parishes. In our draft recommendations, we proposed that those parishes be included in Nadder & East Knoyle division and that Great Wishford and South Newton parishes be transferred to a Till division taking its name from the River Till which runs through it from north to south. We received support for our proposed boundaries from the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party although they suggested that the division be named Till Valley. We accept that proposal as part of our final recommendations.

43 Durnford and Woodford parish councils, and Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting objected to the draft recommendations which would place Durnford in a different division to Woodford and Wilsford cum Lake. They argued that the Woodford Valley is a compact area in which communities share resources and work well together. They proposed that the three parishes be included in a single division. We accept this alternative proposal and recommend that Durnford parish be added to Till Valley division.

Bradford-on-Avon

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Bradford-on-Avon North 1 1% Bradford-on-Avon South 1 2% Holt 1 -7% Winsley & Westwood 1 -3%

Bradford-on-Avon North and Bradford-on-Avon South 44 No concerns were raised on community or governance grounds to the existing division boundaries. The Council did propose a minor change to the existing divisions at Wine Street and Wine Street Terrace which we accepted as part of our draft recommendations. When visiting Bradford-on-Avon, we considered that Masons Lane, south of its junction with Mount Pleasant, would form an appropriate division boundary, noting the high embankment on the northern side of Masons Lane.

45 In response to our consultation, the Council expressed its support for the draft recommendations which we have decided to confirm as final.

Holt and Winsley & Westwood 46 The Council proposed a Holt division comprising the parishes of Atworth, Holt and Staverton. It also proposed that the parishes of Monkton Farleigh and South Wraxall be added to the existing Winsley & Westwood division to achieve electoral equality. Trowbridge Town Council made a similar boundary proposal but would name the division Manor Vale. In the absence of supporting evidence, we were not persuaded to recommend this name.

47 Our draft recommendations included a Holt division and a Winsley & Westwood division as proposed by the Council. Whilst we particularly invited comments on the name of Winsley & Westwood division, the only comments we received about these divisions were from the Council which supported the draft recommendations. In light of this, we confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

By Brook and Kington

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors By Brook 1 -9% Kington 1 1%

By Brook 48 Wiltshire Council proposed a division which would combine the parish of Luckington with the parishes in the current By Brook division. This was in order to provide for good electoral equality. It described the area as entirely rural with a series of medium-sized parishes which share natural community links and characteristics. Trowbridge Town Council proposed a similar division but would exclude Biddestone & Slaughterford parish and place it in Kington division.

49 We were not persuaded to exclude Biddestone & Slaughterford parish from the proposed division and therefore adopted the Council’s proposed division as part of our draft recommendations. In response to our consultation, the Council reiterated its support for the proposal. We received objections to the inclusion of Luckington parish from a parish councillor and two local residents who argued that administrative, community and transport ties for Luckington and Alderton are with Sherston, and that residents of both parishes are mutually supportive when community initiatives are required.

50 We are persuaded by the evidence received to move away from our draft recommendations and include Luckington and Alderton parish in Sherston division. Accordingly, our final recommendations retain By Brook division’s current boundaries.

Kington 51 Wiltshire Council proposed a modification of the existing Kington division by including in urban Chippenham divisions, housing development areas which lie in the parish of Langley Burrell. The Council proposed this to ensure community cohesion by retaining the rurality of the division. This change would also be necessary if electoral equality is to be provided in Kington division. Trowbridge Town Council’s proposal would place the whole of Langley Burrell Without parish in a division with areas of Chippenham.

52 Our draft recommendations were for a Kington division broadly as proposed by the Council. In making our draft recommendations, we selected existing ground features such as field boundaries to mark the extent of Kington division. The Council and Langley Burrell Without Parish Council both supported the broad principles of our recommendations but objected to the detailed division boundaries we suggested. The parish council proposed that we use the line of a road to be constructed around the edge of housing development as a division boundary. Whilst we accept that we should not include more of Langley Burrell into Chippenham divisions than is necessary, we do not have enough detailed mapping information to allow us to accept the parish council’s suggestion. We have, instead, accepted Wiltshire Council’s suggestion that we identify boundaries according to the extent of land for which planning permission for the housing developments has been granted.

Calne

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Calne Central 1 -6% Calne Chilvester & Abberd 1 -3% Calne North 1 -5% Calne Rural 1 2% Calne South 1 -3%

Calne Central, Calne Chilvester & Abberd and Calne North 53 Wiltshire Council proposed very minor changes to current divisions involving few electors. We noted that these divisions have good levels of electoral equality both now and in 2024. Having visited Calne, we proposed one minor amendment to the Council’s proposal; that all of the properties which front onto The Green be included in Calne Central division. The Council proposed that Britannia Drive be included in its Calne South division. We considered, however, that it would relate better to Calne Chilvester & Abberd and therefore proposed that it form part of that division.

54 The Council supported the draft recommendations for these divisions. As we received no further direct comments, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Calne Rural and Calne South 55 The Council also proposed minor changes to Calne Rural and Calne South & Cherhill divisions. We considered, however, that housing in the Stockley Lane area would be better represented in a single division. As part of our draft recommendations, we proposed that the parish of Cherhill and the Lower Compton and Theobold’s Green areas be included in Calne Rural division. We also proposed that Heddington parish and the whole of the Stockley area be included in Calne South division. These variations from the Council’s proposals would maintain good levels of electoral equality. The Council supported our draft recommendations.

56 Some residents of the Cherhill View estate objected to our proposal to include their area in Calne South division. Their principal objection appeared to be that our recommendations would remove them from Calne Without parish. We have no power to amend parish boundaries and such a change would be beyond the scope of this electoral review. Our final recommendations include the Cherhill View estate in Calne South division.

57 Calne Without Parish Council supported our proposals for divisions, but asked that we retain existing parish wards, subject to small amendments to the West and Pewsham parish wards.

58 Our powers in respect of parish wards are set down in legislation.6 Where a parish is divided between divisions, we must provide parish wards which lie entirely within a single division. Consequentially, our recommendations for Calne Rural and Calne South divisions necessitate changes to Calne Without East and Calne Without Middle parish wards. Calne Without Pewsham parish ward is not affected by our recommendations for divisions and Calne Without Sandy Lane parish ward is affected in a very minor way, to maintain coterminosity with our division boundaries. We are unable to make amendments to Calne Pewsham parish ward at Devizes Road and Studley Hill, as requested by the parish council because such changes would not be a direct consequence of our recommendations for divisions.

6 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Chippenham

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Chippenham Cepen Park & Derriads 1 -2% Chippenham Cepen Park & Hunters Moon 1 0% Chippenham Hardenhuish 1 -2% Chippenham Hardens & Central 1 0% Chippenham Lowden & Rowden 1 -4% Chippenham Monkton 1 1% Chippenham Pewsham 1 -5% Chippenham Sheldon 1 2%

Chippenham Cepen Park & Derriads and Chippenham Cepen Park & Hunters Moon 59 The Council proposed that the Cepen Park North part of the existing Cepen Park & Redlands division, and the Derriads area of the existing Cepen Park & Derriads division, be combined to form a Chippenham Cepen Park & Derriads division.

60 The Council also proposed that the Cepen Park South area, the part of the existing Queens & Sheldon division which lies west of Hungerdown Lane, and the new Hunters Moon development be combined to form a Chippenham Cepen Park & Hunters Moon division.

61 In making our draft recommendations, we made minor modifications to the Council’s proposal in order to provide clear division boundaries. The Council supported our draft recommendations and we therefore confirm them as final.

Chippenham Hardenhuish, Chippenham Lowden & Rowden and Chippenham Sheldon 62 The Council proposed that the Birds Marsh development site (from the parish of Langley Burrell) be combined with a modified Chippenham Hardenhuish division. It also proposed a Chippenham Sheldon division which would combine parts of the current Cepen Park & Redlands, Lowden & Rowden and Queens & Sheldon divisions. The remainder of Chippenham Lowden & Rowden division would be combined with the area of proposed housing development at Showell Farm in the parish of Lacock.

63 In broadly accepting the Council’s proposals for this area, we put forward some modifications to the suggested boundaries as part of our draft recommendations at Bristol Road and Ashfield Road. We proposed a more substantial change to the south of Marshfield Road which we have included in Chippenham Hardens & Central division. Finally, we recommended boundaries at the Barrow Farm, Birds Marsh and Showell Farm developments which would be less likely to be defaced by new housing development than the Council’s suggested boundary.

64 The Council supported our proposal for Bristol Road which we now confirm as final. However, it calculated that our proposal for the area to the south of Marshfield Road would not provide for good electoral equality. We agree with the Council’s assessment and include that area in Chippenham & Lowden division as part of our final recommendations. Wiltshire Council, and Langley Burrell Without and Lacock parish councils, together with a number of residents of Notton, objected to our proposals to include land over and above that required for housing developments in Chippenham divisions. We are modifying our proposed divisions by following as closely as we are able, the boundaries of land given planning permission for those developments. As a consequence, Barrow Farm is included in Kington division and Notton is included in Corsham Without division.

Chippenham Hardens & Central and Chippenham Monkton 65 The Council proposed that the existing division of Chippenham Hardens & England (minus the area to the west of Webbington Road, the Station Hill area, and the Park Lane area associated with the town centre one-way system) be combined to form a Chippenham Hardens & Central division. The Council then proposed to modify the existing division of Chippenham Monkton by excluding the Ivy Lane, New Road and Station Hill area but including the new development at Rawlings Green which lies in the parish of Langley Burrell Without. We based our draft recommendations on the Council’s proposal, making minor modifications which the Council supported in response to our consultation.

66 During consultation on our draft recommendations, Chippenham Town Council and local councillors representing the Monkton parish ward reiterated their opposition to Wiltshire Council’s proposals. They were joined in their opposition by residents of Monkton Hill, Station Hill and St Mary’s Place individually and by petition. They argued that the issues related to Cocklebury Road, Station Hill, the railway station, Monkton Hill and St Mary’s Place are linked to the wider residential area of Monkton. We were persuaded by the additional evidence presented and are modifying our recommendation for Monkton Hill. In doing so, we have looked in close detail at the division boundary required to reflect residents’ evidence of community identity whilst retaining an identifiable division boundary.

Chippenham Pewsham 67 The Council proposed to add an area of housing which lies to the west of Webbington Road to the existing Chippenham Pewsham division. The division would lie wholly in Chippenham parish. We broadly accepted the Council’s assessment but proposed, as part of our draft recommendations, to modify its suggested boundary to include land to the east of London Road where it forms part of the A4. We considered that this area relates better to the area on the west side of the road than to the Chippenham Hardens & Central area. The Council supported this modification which we have decided to confirm as part of our final recommendations.

Corsham

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Box & Colerne 1 -2% Corsham Ladbrook 1 5% Corsham Pickwick 1 9% Corsham Without 1 -2%

Box and Corsham Without 68 The Council proposed that the community at Box Hill be added to the existing Box & Colerne division and that the division be named Box. Whilst one local resident objected to the combination of Box and Colerne parishes, we are not persuaded that Colerne has greater ties to North Wraxall than to Box. We therefore accepted the Council’s proposal as part of our draft recommendations but sought comments on the naming of the division.

69 We received a large number of objections to the name, but not to the boundaries of our proposed division. These objections were made by residents individually and in two petitions and by councillors, Colerne Parish Council, James Gray MP (North Wiltshire) and Wiltshire Council. All proposed retention of the current division name. We are therefore naming the division Box & Colerne in our final recommendations.

70 The Council proposed a Corsham Without division comprising the rural areas to the south and east of Corsham’s built-up area, Lacock parish (except the site of the Showell Farm housing development) and the Rudloe area of Box parish.

71 Whilst broadly basing our draft recommendation on the Council’s proposal, the Corsham Without division in our draft recommendations excluded Hudswell and the Notton area of Lacock parish.

72 During consultation on our draft recommendations, Wiltshire Council and Lacock Parish Council opposed our proposal for Notton, arguing that the identity of this small rural community lies with Lacock village rather than with Chippenham to the north. They were supported in this objection by around 20 residents of Notton who made submissions detailing the nature of their association with Lacock village. We are persuaded by the submissions we have received to modify our draft recommendations. We therefore propose that our division boundary follows, as closely as we are able, the boundaries of land given planning permission for the Showell Farm development.

73 Councillor Anderson proposed that we modify our proposed Corsham Without boundary in order to include the entirety of Ministry of Defence installations at Hudswell. We accept his suggestion and are modifying the boundary between Corsham Without and Corsham Pickwick divisions as part of our final recommendations.

Corsham Ladbrook and Corsham Pickwick 74 The Council proposed to modify the existing Corsham Pickwick division by including the Copenacre Way area but excluding the West Park Road area which would be added to Corsham Town division. Corsham Town would further be modified by adding the rural area around Easton and Westrop to the Corsham Without division.

75 In making our draft recommendations, we considered that the Katherine Park development at Freestone Way should not be divided between different divisions in the way proposed by the Council. We concluded that Valley Road would form an appropriate division boundary, as it marks distinct housing areas. We also considered that the area to the north of Pickwick Road would relate better to the area to the south of that road than to the Freestone Way area. Whilst Wiltshire Council accepted our conclusions, we also received objections from Corsham Town Council, local councillors and seven residents who supported Wiltshire Council’s original proposals. Objectors argued that there is not a community connection between those living in the Freestone Way area and those in the adjacent Hatton Way and West Park Road areas but in particular argued that Katherine Park is a distinct area without community interactions with other parts of the town. Objectors also argued that our proposed Corsham Town division would contain all of the town’s community facilities and that these should be divided between divisions in order that representatives of both divisions would have an input in decision making concerning those facilities. However, we consider the Council’s area board mechanisms provide a mechanism for that involvement. Furthermore, whilst we explained in our draft

recommendations report that a two-councillor division could embrace the whole of the town, there was strong opposition to the creation of such a division, which we note.

76 The town council proposed that the Corsham Town division be named Corsham Ladbrook reflecting the fact that there is a brook by that name running through the division and that it is not just the Town division that constitutes the town community. We accept this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

77 We are not persuaded to recommend that housing areas to the west of Valley Road should be split between divisions. We are, however, persuaded to move away from our draft recommendations in two respects. Objectors argued that our proposed divisions would create an imbalance in workload between councillors for the town. We propose to address that by including the western end of Beechfield Road in our Corsham Pickwick division.

78 We also received objections to the alignment of a division boundary along the A4, Bath Road from the Pickwick Association, local residents and Corsham Town Council. They argued that the historic Pickwick area stands astride the main road and that properties on both sides should be included in Corsham Pickwick division. The Pickwick Association proposed, in detail, a boundary to the south of the main road. Having regard to the character of the historic area, we accept the association’s proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Devizes

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Bromham, Rowde & Roundway 1 -1% Devizes East 1 5% Devizes North 1 -10% Devizes Rural West 1 -10% Devizes South 1 -2% The Lavingtons 1 -7% Urchfont & Bishops Cannings 1 -5%

Bromham, Rowde & Roundway, Devizes East, Devizes North and Devizes South 79 The Council proposed a Bromham, Rowde & Roundway division comprising the villages of Bromham and Rowde along with the northern part of Roundway. The Council considered that this would better reflect community identities than an alternative approach which would have added part of Bishops Cannings with a consequential splitting of Market Lavington parish. We broadly agreed with the Council’s conclusions but proposed a modification to its suggested boundary at London Road in order to provide a clearer division boundary.

80 The Council proposed divisions in Devizes town with which we broadly agreed. However, having visited the town, we proposed some changes to the Council’s suggested divisions. We considered that an area of housing to the west of Windsor Drive is likely to better relate to the housing immediately to the south which is also served by Windsor Drive than it would to the main part of the Council’s proposed Devizes North division. We therefore proposed that the whole of the area to the west of Windsor Drive be included in our Devizes East division.

81 We further considered that the Sheep Street and Bradwell Street area, on the periphery of the town centre, should be included in Devizes North and that Sleight Lane should join with Brickley Lane in Devizes East rather than Devizes South division.

82 Wiltshire Council and the Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats supported our draft recommendations for this area. Devizes Town Council argued, however, that we had placed too much emphasis on electoral equality and that a consequence of doing so would be to place urban residential and industrial parts of Devizes in the same division as the rural area to the north-west of the town. The town council further argued that our proposed names of town wards would be confusing to residents, and suggested alternatives.

83 Whilst we note the town council’s concern about our attention to electoral equality, we are not prepared to dismiss it from our considerations. We are content that we have recommended divisions that effectively balance our three statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identity and effective and convenient local government.

84 Whilst we acknowledge the concern that the town council has about the naming of divisions and town wards, we consider that our draft recommendations for both are similar to the existing designations and offer advantages of familiarity for local electors. We therefore confirm as final our draft recommendations for this area.

Devizes Rural West, The Lavingtons and Urchfont & Bishops Cannings 85 The Council proposed a Seend, Potterne & Poulshot division comprising the villages of Bulkington, Poulshot, Seend, Potterne, Erlestoke, Marston, Worton and

Coulston. The Council described community linkages between the villages in its proposed division. Whilst we noted that the division will have a relatively high electoral variance, we recognised the benefit of aggregating these whole parishes in a single division. We therefore accepted the Council’s proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

86 The Council proposed a division named The Lavingtons and comprising the parishes of Cheverell Magna, Cheverell Parva, Market Lavington, West Lavington and Easterton. Market Lavington Parish Council proposed that it be linked with Easterton parish in the new pattern of divisions. Wiltshire Council also proposed an Urchfont & Bishops Cannings division comprising the parishes of Bishops Cannings, Etchilhampton, Stert and Urchfont.

87 We accepted the Council’s proposals for these areas and included these divisions in our draft recommendations. Wiltshire Council and the Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats supported the recommendations for these divisions.

88 Seend Parish Council supported the boundaries of our proposed Seend, Potterne & Poulshot division, but suggested that as the division includes several parishes which are not included in the division name, it would be appropriate to name the division Devizes Rural West in order to reflect the geographic composition of the whole division. We are content to accept this suggestion as the only change to our draft recommendations for this area which, in other respects, we confirm as final.

Laverstock & Bourne Valley

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Laverstock 1 9% Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley 1 13% Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley 1 3%

Laverstock, Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley and Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley 89 The Council proposed a Laverstock division comprising Laverstock village, Ford, part of Old Sarum and Britford, Clarendon Park, Firsdown and Odstock parishes. The Council also proposed an Old Sarum division comprising the north- eastern part of Laverstock & Ford parish. This division includes the site of a large

housing development proposed at Longhedge Farm and a smaller development at Bishopdown Farm.

90 In our draft recommendations, we were not persuaded that Laverstock shares commonality with Britford and Odstock and recommended divisions which would combine the southern part of Laverstock village with the Milford area of Salisbury, and combine Firsdown with Ford and Old Sarum. We proposed draft recommendations which would then combine the Hampton Park area in a division with Bishopdown.

91 These proposals attracted the largest concentration of objections to our draft recommendations. Over 100 respondents objected to our proposed combination of Laverstock and Milford whilst a similar number objected to our proposed combination of Firsdown and Laverstock. Objections were accompanied by a great deal of evidence of community identity. The evidence demonstrated both the lack of interaction between Laverstock and Firsdown and close interaction between Firsdown and Winterslow.

92 Having considered the evidence received, we developed further draft recommendations for these divisions. In order to avoid electoral variances of almost 20%, our further draft recommendations combined Firsdown with Winterslow in a division which included parishes in the Bourne Valley. We also proposed a Laverstock division combining Laverstock Village with Hampton Park and an Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley division. The latter division would combine the whole of Old Sarum with the Ford area, Winterbourne parish and East and West Gomeldon. This division would have 13% more electors per councillor than the average for Wiltshire by 2024. While this is a higher variance than we would normally recommend, it presents greater equality than alternative single-member division options or ones which would result in arbitrary divisions of communities.

93 We considered the option of combining the suggested Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley and Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley divisions in a two-councillor division. We noted that this would provide greater electoral equality, having a variance of 8% by 2024, and avoid the splitting of Idmiston parish between divisions. However, we did not propose a two-councillor division having noted the evidence from the Council and others that single-member divisions were preferable for the area in terms of providing effective and convenient local government.

94 Whilst our further draft recommendations attracted support from Firsdown and Winterslow, Wiltshire Council, parish councils in Laverstock and the Bourne Valley, and local residents objected. Amongst the objections were arguments that the Council’s initial proposals should be adopted as part of our final recommendations. We remain of the view that our proposals provide for the best representation of

communities across the wider south-east Wiltshire area including Alderbury, Downton, Durnford, Whiteparish and extending as far as Coombe Bissett.

95 We have not been able to identify a division pattern that both reflects the objections expressed by residents of all areas which meets our statutory criteria. We therefore gave careful consideration to the specific nature of objections to our draft recommendations for Laverstock and the Bourne Valley.

96 We noted that many respondents argued that the further draft recommendations would require parishes in the Bourne Valley to be represented at the Council’s Southern Wiltshire Area Board. In developing our recommendations, we do not have regard to the existing area board boundaries. It would be for the Council, once this review is completed, to consider if it wishes to change area board boundaries.

97 We also noted assertions that the inclusion of all parishes in the Bourne Valley in a single division would undermine currently effective joint working relationships between those parishes and their representatives on Wiltshire Council. However, we also note that those relationships have been developed and currently operate whilst those parishes are divided between two divisions.

98 Residents and parish councils argued that there are no significant relationships between communities in the Bourne Valley and those of Firsdown and Winterslow suggesting that frequent closures of Winterslow Road, which crosses Porton Down, prevent access between those communities. We note, however, that whilst road closures are published, they are generally not 24-hour closures and do not apply at the times that the 287 bus service between Gomeldon and Winterslow operates.

99 Finally, objectors argued that the consequential splitting of Idmiston parish between two divisions will prevent the effective representation of the parish by Wiltshire councillors. While we acknowledge these concerns, we need to provide reasonable electoral equality for the area as a whole and reflect our statutory criteria. In these circumstances, we have not been persuaded to modify our further draft recommendations and have decided to confirm our proposals for Laverstock and the Bourne Valley as final. Our final recommendations provide for three divisions containing a total of 26 parishes, which is only four more than under the current arrangements. We are confident that parish councils and Wiltshire Council can ensure effective representation of communities even where parishes are split between more than one division.

Malmesbury

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Brinkworth 1 -8% Malmesbury 1 11% Minety 1 -3% Sherston 1 11%

Brinkworth and Minety 100 The Council proposed that the existing divisions of Brinkworth and Minety be retained. Both divisions offer good electoral equality and, the Council argued, comprise villages which enjoy good community linkages. We included these proposed divisions in our draft recommendations and, having received no objection to them, confirm them as final.

Malmesbury and Sherston 101 Our draft recommendations for these divisions prompted a large number of objections. The Council had recognised that the town of Malmesbury has now grown too large to sustain a single division which provides good electoral equality and that anticipated housing development will exacerbate this situation by 2024. It proposed that this be addressed by including part of the Tetbury Hill area, including a site of a substantial proposed housing development, in the neighbouring Sherston division.

102 We considered that the Council’s proposal would divide the community in the Tetbury Hill area and noted that the boundary the Council suggested would be defaced by a housing development to the west of the primary school.

103 In our draft recommendations, we proposed that the High Street area of Malmesbury be added to Sherston division as we considered that the communities at Burton Hill and Milbourne are more likely to engage with this part of Malmesbury than Tetbury Hill or with any other community in Sherston division.

104 We received around 200 objections to our draft recommendations. One respondent confirmed that residents of Burton Hill do relate closely to Malmesbury. However, we note that St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council, in which Burton Hill lies, was amongst the objectors to our draft recommendations.

105 Some objectors argued that the division should follow Malmesbury’s town boundaries. However, this would result in the town being significantly under- represented, with 18% more electors per councillor than the average for Wiltshire by 2024. We are not persuaded to recommend this electoral variance and have therefore reconsidered the Council’s initial proposition for which there was considerable supporting evidence. We have had regard to the extent of proposed residential developments in order that division boundaries do not become defaced as development progresses.

106 Whilst our proposed Malmesbury and Sherston divisions could be combined in a two-councillor division, thereby avoiding the subdivision of Malmesbury town and the creation of a “doughnut” division, there was no support for this. Therefore, we do not propose to deviate from our general pattern of single-councillor divisions in this area.

107 We recommend a division comprising the current Sherston division and the Backbridge Farm development of Malmesbury town. Malmesbury Town Council proposed that the name of the development be given to a town council ward and we accept that proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Marlborough

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Aldbourne & Ramsbury 1 10% Marlborough East 1 7% Marlborough West 1 9%

Marlborough East and Marlborough West 108 Marlborough Town Council proposed retaining the current Marlborough East and West divisions to reflect the distinctiveness of the town. The town council expressed its opposition to divisions that combined the town with adjacent rural parishes. However, both of these divisions currently have high electoral variances which, by 2024, will represent over-representation in the town by around 18%.

109 Wiltshire Council proposed that the electoral variances be addressed by adding Mildenhall and Savernake to Marlborough East division. These parishes are in close proximity to the eastern side of Marlborough, and lack easy geographic links to other parishes within the community area. The Council also proposed to add to Marlborough East, an area running south of St John’s Academy and containing a substantial housing development. This development is expected to add around 300 electors to the total electorate by 2024.

110 The Council proposed that the remaining part of Marlborough Town would therefore be included in a division containing the remaining parishes of the existing

West Selkley division, with the exception of the joint parish council of Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett.

111 We included the Council’s proposals for Marlborough East and Marlborough West divisions as part of our draft recommendations subject to modifications at Cherry Orchard and Upper Church Fields, at Herd Street, Elmswood Terrace and St David’s Way, and between London Road and the River Kennet.

112 In response to our consultation, the Council and Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats supported our draft recommendations.

113 Broad Hinton & Winterbourne Bassett Parish Council opposed Wiltshire Council’s proposal that its area be included in a Lyneham division, arguing that it should be retained in West Selkley division. However, Wiltshire Council proposed that much of Selkley West be included in Marlborough West division. Including Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett in the Marlborough West division proposed by Wiltshire Council would result in an electoral variance of 24% by 2024. This would be a much higher level of inequality than we are normally prepared to recommend, and we are not persuaded that we should do so in this instance. In response to our draft recommendations, the parish council proposed alternative approaches. First was a suggestion that council size be increased to 99 and a configuration of divisions in the Marlborough which would leave Lyneham division with a variance of 24%. This, again, is a level of electoral inequality we are not prepared to accept. The Parish Council’s alternative scheme would include Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett in Marlborough West division and modify the composition of Marlborough East, Aldbourne & Ramsey, Pewsey Vale West and either Pewsey or Pewsey Vale East divisions.

114 The principal argument raised by the Parish Council was that it wished to retain its place as part of the Marlborough Area Board. The Commission has no power to determine the configuration or operation of Wiltshire’s Area Board system.

115 Marlborough Town Council objected to our draft recommendations, arguing that divisions should not combine the town with rural parishes. The Town Council also argued that excluding parishes from Marlborough’s divisions would provide good electoral equality despite our indication in our draft recommendations that we would not be prepared to recommend the high level of inequality which would result.

116 We are not persuaded by the evidence and arguments presented to us to move from our draft recommendations for this area, which we confirm as final.

Aldbourne & Ramsbury 117 The Council proposed that the parishes of Ogbourne St Andrew and Ogbourne St George be added to the existing Aldbourne & Ramsbury division and the parish of

Froxfield be removed from it and added to its proposed Pewsey Vale East division. It regarded these changes as desirable to achieve good electoral equality throughout the area and considered that they reflected community identity. The proposed changes were consistent with comments submitted by a local resident. We agreed that these changes would reflect an appropriate balance of our statutory criteria and included the Council’s proposed Ramsbury division as part of our draft recommendations. The Council supported the boundaries of the division in our draft recommendation but proposed that the current division name, Aldbourne & Ramsbury, be retained.

118 We received almost 20 objections, including that of Froxfield Parish Council, to the inclusion of the parish in Pewsey Vale East division. Whilst objectors proposed that the parish should be included in Ramsbury division, we note that were we to make this change, our Aldbourne & Ramsbury division would have 17% more electors than the average for Wiltshire by 2024, a degree of inequality we are not normally prepared to recommend.

119 Objectors argued that Froxfield is part of the Whitton Benefice in the ecclesiastical structure of east Wiltshire and that residents of Froxfield access NHS services in Ramsbury. However, they also argued that inclusion of the parish in Pewsey Vale East would weaken the management of traffic on the A4 by the Marlborough Area Board. We note, however, that the A4 between Froxfield and Marlborough passes through Little Bedwyn parish which, in our draft recommendations, would also lie in Pewsey Vale East division. We consider that the management of traffic issues should be facilitated by our draft recommendation which places Froxfield and Little Bedwyn in the same division. For this reason, and to provide for acceptable electoral variances, we confirm as final our draft recommendations, subject to the acceptance of the Council’s proposal that the division be named Aldbourne & Ramsbury.

Melksham

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Bowerhill 1 -6% Melksham East 1 -2% Melksham Forest 1 -1% Melksham South 1 -3% Melksham Without North & Shurnhold 1 -8% Melksham Without West & Rural 1 -10%

Bowerhill and Melksham Without West & Rural 120 Melksham is a town which has increased in size in recent years and which is expected to see further growth due to the development of large housing sites in Melksham Without parish on its southern periphery. Whilst we note Melksham Without Parish Council’s support for the proposal of Wiltshire Council, we proposed some modifications to the Council’s scheme for Melksham.

121 The Council proposed a Melksham Berryfield & Rural division comprising the parishes of Semington, Steeple Ashton, Keevil, Great Hinton, Broughton Gifford and the Berryfield area of Melksham Without parish. It described its proposed division as rural in nature and meeting electoral equality requirements. It also allows for a Bowerhill division, keeping that community in a single division which it considered very important. The Council acknowledged that Broughton Gifford parish is separated from the remainder of the proposed division by the River Avon, but we note that the A350 Western Way provides a convenient connection between the two areas. We accepted the Council’s assessment of this area and included its proposed Melksham Berryfield & Rural division as part of our draft recommendations.

122 The Council’s proposed Melksham Bowerhill division would contain the defined community of Bowerhill and the southern part of the Sandridge area of Melksham Without parish. We proposed to modify the Council’s division by excluding from it the Sandridge area, which we include in our Melksham East division. Furthermore, we proposed that the site of a large housing development to the south of Eastern Way be included in our Melksham Bowerhill division. We considered that the inclusion of this development complements the inclusion of the housing development site to the south of Western Way.

123 In response to our draft recommendations, Wiltshire Council reiterated its preference for the boundaries it originally proposed. It was supported in that regard by Melksham Without and Semington Parish Councils, Berryfield & Semington Road Action Group and Bowerhill Residents’ Action Group. However, there were points of difference about division names.

124 We are persuaded by the evidence submitted in response to our draft recommendations to make changes to them. We confirm the boundaries of our proposed Melksham Berryfield & Rural division but recommend the name Melksham Without West & Rural.

125 We propose to include the site of development to the east of Snowberry Lane in Melksham East division. This requires the creation of a parish ward for that area. We also recommend a Bowerhill division largely as proposed by Wiltshire Council but include in it the site of development to the north of Sandridge Common which, if included in Melksham East as proposed by the Council, would result in an electoral variance of 11% by 2024 and require the creation of a further parish ward.

Melksham East, Melksham Forest, Melksham South and Melksham Without North & Shurnhold 126 The Council proposed a Melksham East division which we proposed to modify by including the Sandridge and Woodrow Road areas of Melksham Without parish. We have further modified it by excluding the proposed housing development at Eastern Way, as described in paragraph 125, but including the site at Sandridge Common. This provides an acceptable level of electoral equality.

127 The Council’s Melksham Forest division would encompass the north-eastern part of Melksham. Whilst broadly accepting the Council’s division, we proposed to modify it by excluding the area to the east of Bank Street. We proposed this change in order to bring the areas either side of Bank Street into a single division, and include that area in our Melksham North division. This change means that our proposal to include the part of Melksham Without parish which lies to the east of the River Avon in Melksham East division can be achieved whilst maintaining an acceptable level of electoral equality.

128 Our proposal for the Bank Street area would remove from the Council’s Melksham South division the area to the west of Bank Street. We also decided to include odd numbers 1-29 Coronation Road in Melksham South division. In all other respects, our Melksham South division replicated the Council’s proposal.

129 During consultation, Wiltshire Council reiterated its preference for the boundaries it originally proposed, and was supported in that regard by Melksham Town Council, Melksham Without Parish Council, Berryfield & Semington Road Action Group, Bowerhill Residents’ Action Group and Shaw Village Hall Committee. There were, again, points of difference about division names.

130 We are persuaded by the evidence submitted in response to our draft recommendations to make changes to them. Our final recommendations are for boundaries which reflect the Council’s initial proposals, but we recommend the

inclusion of Coronation Road, between Milton Avenue and Spa Road, in Melksham South division. The site of development at Sandridge Common and the southern part of New Road will form part of Bowerhill division in our final recommendations.

131 We are persuaded by representations to incorporate the name Melksham North Without & Shurnhold into our final recommendations as we consider that it reflects the full extent of our recommended division, but we are not persuaded to incorporate the name Melksham Spa or Melksham Forest & Central as we have not received sufficient evidence to justify these names.

Pewsey Vale

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Pewsey 1 -2% Pewsey Vale East 1 7% Pewsey Vale West 1 0%

Pewsey, Pewsey Vale East and Pewsey Vale West 132 The Council described this area as a large and almost entirely rural community, without any towns and largely covered by a designated Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. It proposed that the existing Pewsey division be retained, citing good electoral equality and strong community links. The Council considered that governance would not be improved through the addition of further parishes around the largest village in the area, Pewsey.

133 The Council proposed to add the parishes of Froxfield and Tidcombe & Fosbury to the current Burbage & the Bedwyns division. It described Tidcombe & Fosbury as isolated by physical geography from the rest of its current division. Froxfield would be included on a community basis and to assist with the achievement of overall electoral equality across all council divisions. The Council proposed that this re- configured division be named Pewsey Vale East.

134 Finally, the Council proposed that the parish of All Cannings be combined with the parishes of the current Pewsey Vale division. This would ensure good electoral equality and reflect community identity as All Cannings sits at the head of the Pewsey Vale. The Council proposed that the division be named Pewsey Vale West.

135 This area was the subject of a number of other submissions. Burbage Parish Council supported Wiltshire Council’s proposal for its area whilst Woodborough Parish Council sought retention of the existing Pewsey Area Board and the associated community areas. Pewsey Parish Council argued for the retention of area board geography whilst accepting that some minor changes may be necessary in order to provide for reasonable levels of electoral equality.

136 Chirton & Conock, Manningford and Marden Parish Councils proposed the retention of the existing Pewsey Vale division. They cited the Vale parishes’ working relationships, with councillors and clerks having got to know each other over many years of commitment to serving their own villages. Alton Parish Council proposed that the parish be retained in a Pewsey Vale division.

137 We accepted Wiltshire Council’s assessment of, and proposals for, this area and therefore included them as part of our draft recommendations.

138 The Council reiterated support for its proposals for this area and was supported by the Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats, by Chirton & Conock, Manningford, Rushall and Woodborough Parish Councils and by the Pewsey Community Area Partnership.

139 As indicated above, we received objections to the inclusion of Froxfield parish in the Pewsey Vale East division but are not persuaded to include that parish in our Aldbourne & Ramsbury division as to do so would result in a variance of 17% in Aldbourne & Ramsbury division, which we are not prepared to recommend, and/or a series of consequential changes to divisions which are supported by other respondents to our consultation. We therefore confirm, as final, our recommendations for this area.

Royal Wootton Bassett

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Cricklade & Latton 1 0% Lyneham 1 -2% Purton 1 10% Royal Wootton Bassett East 1 -6% Royal Wootton Bassett North 1 5% Royal Wootton Bassett South & West 1 11%

Cricklade & Latton and Purton 140 The Council proposed retaining the existing Cricklade & Latton division, subject to it being renamed Cricklade. It described the area as comprising parishes having a good connection to each other and bordered by the large, distinct parish of Purton to the south. The Council, having assessed the impact of anticipated housing development, also concluded that the entirety of Purton together with Braydon parish, could be included within a single division. We accepted Wiltshire Council’s assessment of these divisions and therefore proposed them as part of our draft

recommendations. The Council confirmed its support for our draft recommendations for these divisions and a local resident added support for the Purton division. James Gray MP (North Wiltshire) proposed that the current Cricklade & Latton division, unchanged in our draft recommendations, retain its name. We have accepted this proposition in making our final recommendations.

Lyneham 141 The Council described Lyneham & Bradenstoke, Tockenham and Clyffe Pypard as parishes with shared connections, a view supported by Clyffe Pypard Parish Council. The parish council added that the inclusion of Broad Town in Lyneham division would be appropriate. We noted that Broad Town’s road connections are to Broad Hinton, Clyffe Pypard and Royal Wootton Bassett but not to Lydiard Tregoze.

142 In proposing that Winterbourne Bassett and Broad Hinton be included in a Lyneham division, Wiltshire Council said that the parishes, served by a joint parish council, look to both Clyffe Pypard and Broad Town. Broad Hinton & Winterbourne Bassett Parish Council disagreed, arguing that its community links lie between the villages along the Winterbourne and with the town of Marlborough. Including Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett in Wiltshire Council’s proposed Marlborough West division would result in a division with 24% more electors than the average for Wiltshire, representing a considerable degree of under-representation. As we have described above, the parish council reiterated its objection to the inclusion of Winterbourne Bassett and Broad Hinton in Lyneham division. Whilst the parish council has offered alternative proposals which would include the parishes in Marlborough West division, we are not persuaded that the consequences of either of its approaches are desirable. We therefore confirm Winterbourne Bassett and Broad Hinton as part of our recommended Lyneham division.

143 In our draft recommendations, we proposed to modify the Council’s proposed Lyneham division by the addition of Broad Town parish. In response, Councillor Bucknell opposed this, commenting that the addition of Broad Town to Royal Wootton Bassett South & West would deliver far better electoral equality and offers good connections, as Marlborough Road, the main road out of Royal Wootton Bassett, leads directly to Broad Town. We are persuaded to modify our recommendations in respect of Broad Town parish by including it in Royal Wootton Bassett South & West division in our final recommendations.

Royal Wootton Bassett East, Royal Wootton Bassett North and Royal Wootton Bassett South & West 144 The Council’s proposed Royal Wootton Bassett East division combined the east of the town with a series of rural parishes in close proximity to the town. It said that those parishes share many characteristics and challenges including facing new growth arising from Swindon. Councillor Groom proposed retention of the existing Royal Wootton Bassett East division. Whilst we broadly accepted the Council’s

assessment, we modified the Council’s proposed division by excluding Broad Town parish from it. The Council, and Councillor Groom, supported our recommendations for this division, which we confirm as final.

145 The Council proposed modifications to the existing Royal Wootton Bassett North and South divisions in order to ensure electoral equality due to significant growth particularly in the south division. It said that including the area to the east of Station Road between Old Court and Coxstalls will ensure electoral equality across the town.

146 We accepted the Council’s assessment of this area and therefore included its proposed division boundaries as part of our draft recommendations. We proposed the name Royal Wootton Bassett South & West which we consider to be a better reflection of the geography of the division. In responding to our draft recommendations, the Council opposed this name, but we are not persuaded to change it in our final recommendations.

147 As outlined above, Councillor Bucknall objected to the inclusion of Broad Town in Lyneham division. However, we consider that the parish has better links to Royal Wootton Bassett South & West than to Royal Wootton Bassett East as the Council had originally proposed. We have therefore been persuaded to modify our recommendations in respect of Broad Town parish by including it in Royal Wootton Bassett South & West division in our final recommendations. To ensure good electoral equality, we recommend that North Bank Rise be included in Royal Wootton Basset North division.

Salisbury

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Salisbury Bemerton Heath 1 -2% Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village 1 6% Salisbury Harnham East 1 -1% Salisbury Harnham West 1 1% Salisbury Milford 1 4% Salisbury St Edmund’s 1 3% Salisbury St Francis & Stratford 1 3% Salisbury St Paul’s 1 5%

Salisbury Bemerton Heath and Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village 148 The Council proposed Salisbury Bemerton Heath and Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton divisions, lying to the north-west of Salisbury city centre. Its Bemerton Heath division would include a large housing development in an area known as Fugglestone Red and the older part of the Bemerton Heath estate, a defined community with a vibrant community centre and church. The Council’s proposed Fisherton & Bemerton division contains parts of Bemerton Heath and Fisherton Village which is defined as a distinct community.

149 Whilst we broadly accepted the Council’s assessment of this area, we proposed some modifications to its suggested boundaries as part of our draft recommendations. We proposed that the whole of Rawlence Road, Westwood Road and Woodside Road be included in Salisbury Bemerton Heath division, along with Hazel Close and Rowan Close. We also proposed that Heath Road, Herbert Road, Queen Mary Road and Tournament Road be included in Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton division. We considered that these changes would reflect the composition of local areas whilst maintaining good electoral equality.

150 Whilst Salisbury City Council expressed support for Wiltshire Council’s initial proposal, Wiltshire Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supported our proposed boundaries subject to the inclusion of the area around the church of St Michael in Bemerton Heath division. We are content to make that change to our recommended boundaries. The Council further proposed that Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton division be named Salisbury Fisherton & Lower Bemerton whilst the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party proposed the name Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village. Whilst the boundaries of our recommended division differ from the current Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village, we are incorporating that name in our final recommendations.

Salisbury Harnham East and Salisbury Harnham West 151 The Council proposed Salisbury Harnham East and Salisbury Harnham West divisions which would essentially replace the existing Salisbury Harnham and Salisbury St Martin’s & Cathedral divisions. The East division would comprise the eastern part of Harnham along with the area around the Cathedral. The Cathedral and Friary Estate are included to achieve electoral equality. These areas are defined as small communities which could sit with any neighbouring division. A local resident proposed that the Cathedral and Friary Estate areas are of such distinctiveness that they should form a division of their own. Whilst we accept that this is a distinctive area we consider that, with only around 1,200 electors, such a division would have the unacceptably high electoral variance of approximately 70%.

152 The Council’s proposed Harnham West division would combine the western part of Harnham with the site of proposed housing development at Netherhampton. By 2024, this development will contribute to a large increase in the electorate of this

area rendering the current division boundaries incompatible with the achievement of good electoral equality. The Council’s proposed division also includes the Wellworthy Drive/Halfpenny Road estate as suggested to us by a local resident.

153 Our draft recommendations modified the Council’s Harnham West proposal, having regard to the need to find boundaries which would not be obscured by new development. The Council broadly supported our draft recommendations but argued that the Harnham West division should include only that part of Netherhampton parish which is to be the location of new housing development, together with Harnham Hill. The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party proposed that the whole of Netherhampton parish be included in Wilton division. The consequence of doing so would be an electoral variance of 17% in Harnham West division and 15% in Wilton division. We are not prepared to recommend those levels of inequality.

154 However, we have had regard to the extent of land subject to planning consents for residential development in Netherhampton parish and now propose boundaries of our Harnham West division to reflect those consents.

Salisbury Milford 155 The Council proposed a Salisbury Milford division comprising the Bishopdown and Milford areas of Salisbury. In our draft recommendations, we proposed very different divisions in which the current St Mark’s & Bishopdown division would be retained and parts of the current Salisbury St Edmund & Milford and Salisbury St Martin’s & Cathedral divisions would be combined with part of Laverstock & Ford parish.

156 Our draft recommendations for this area received a large degree of opposition and attracted no expressions of support. Conversely, support for the Council’s initial proposal was expressed by many.

157 We have considered the substantial evidence contained in the very many submissions we received and are persuaded to incorporate the Council’s proposed Salisbury Milford division in our final recommendations.

Salisbury St Edmund’s and Salisbury St Paul’s 158 The Council’s proposed Salisbury St Edmund and Salisbury St Paul’s divisions comprise the area to the north and north-west of the Cathedral Close together with the Churchfields area. The St Edmund’s division would bring the city’s main shopping centre area into one division.

159 We agreed with the Council’s assessment of this area and included its proposed divisions as part of our draft recommendations. In response, the Council expressed its support but suggested the name Salisbury St Edmund’s. The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supported our recommended divisions. We

note the general support for our proposed divisions and are content to accept the minor modification to the division name. Subject to the change in division name, we confirm as final our draft recommendations for this area.

Salisbury St Francis & Stratford 160 The Council proposed that the existing Salisbury St Francis & Stratford division should be retained. We recognise that it both offers good electoral equality, as well as being a physically distinct area. We therefore proposed the retention of this division as part of our draft recommendations with a minor modification, in order to align the division with the parish boundary. The Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supported our recommendations which we confirm as final.

South-east Wiltshire

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Alderbury & Whiteparish 1 10% Downton & Ebble Valley 1 -2% Redlynch & Landford 1 -9%

Alderbury & Whiteparish and Downton & Ebble Valley 161 The Council proposed an Alderbury & Winterslow division comprising the parishes of Alderbury, Grimstead, Pitton & Farley and Winterslow, citing good links between the villages in this area. Grimstead Parish Council supported Wiltshire Council’s proposal.

162 The Council also proposed a Downton & Whiteparish division comprising Downton, Whiteparish and West Dean parishes. It recognised that Whiteparish, whilst having strong ties with West Dean, could be seen to have greater links to Landford than Downton. It also noted that there are good links between Redlynch

and Downton but concluded that the provision of single-councillor divisions consisting of whole parishes would be preferable to the creation of a two-councillor division or the creation of divisions with high levels of electoral inequality.

163 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on the Council’s proposals. In response to our consultation, the draft recommendations were supported by the Council and the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party. However, we received over 100 submissions which opposed Firsdown being placed in a different division from Winterslow. Many of those respondents also objected to placing Winterslow and Alderbury in the same division. Some respondents, including West Dean and Whiteparish Parish Councils, argued that those areas should be included in a division with Alderbury rather than with Downton. Coombe Bissett Parish Council argued that it should be included in a division with Downton whilst a local resident argued that Britford should also be included in a Downton division.

164 The submissions we received contained substantial evidence of the community relationships between parishes and we were persuaded to consult on further draft recommendations in the light of that evidence. We proposed that the existing Downton & Ebble Valley division be substantially retained. We also proposed that the current Alderbury & Whiteparish division, which would have an electoral variance of -16% by 2024, be augmented by the addition of Clarendon Park, Pitton & Farley and West Dean parishes.

165 We received support for our further draft recommendations from parish councils and residents of the area. Wiltshire Council, whilst acknowledging that they more closely reflected community identity than would the draft recommendations, argued that the consequential effects on other areas would be unacceptable in terms of effective and convenient local government.

166 While noting the Council’s observations, we are not persuaded that our further draft recommendations will hinder effective and convenient local government either here or in the wider area. We agree that the further draft recommendations for Alderbury & Whiteparish and Downton & Ebble Valley do reflect community identity in those areas and have decided to confirm them as final. We have addressed the consequential impact on community identity in adjoining areas elsewhere in this report.

Redlynch & Landford 167 The Council proposed that the existing Redlynch & Landford division be retained. Landford Parish Council supported the retention of the division. We accepted this proposal in making our draft recommendations and, having received no objection to it, confirm it as final.

South-west Wiltshire

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Fovant & Chalke Valley 1 -11% Mere 1 -9% Nadder Valley 1 -10% Tisbury 1 -10% Wilton 1 -3%

Fovant & Chalke Valley 168 The Council proposed a Fovant & Chalke Valley division based on the existing division of that name. It proposed modifications to the existing division by the inclusion of Coombe Bissett parish. The inclusion in Salisbury Harnham West of an area of housing development in Netherhampton parish would further alter the existing division. Berwick St John Parish Council stated that its area should remain in Fovant & Chalke division.

169 In our draft recommendations, we proposed to include Britford and Odstock parishes in Fovant & Chalke Valley division, in part because we were not persuaded that the communities in those parishes share active links with those of Laverstock. We also proposed to include Tollard Royal parish in Tisbury division.

170 We responded to objections to our draft recommendations for the Britford, Odstock and Coombe Bissett areas by putting forward alternative proposals for a Chalke & Lower Nadder division which excluded the westerly parishes of Alvediston, Berwick St John, Ansty and Swallowcliffe. This proposal in its turn attracted substantial opposition from those areas with respondents illustrating their objections with evidence of community identity.

171 We are persuaded by the evidence we have received to move away from the further draft recommendations by including those westerly parishes in Fovant & Chalke Valley division. The proposed division will ensure a reasonable level of electoral equality. Additionally, we note that Barford St Martin and Burcombe Without parishes are well connected to adjoining communities to the west by the A30.

Mere, Nadder Valley and Tisbury 172 Wiltshire and Mere Town Councils proposed that the existing Mere division be replicated with no changes as it would continue to offer good electoral equality and is a well-defined community bounded by the edges of the county. We adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

173 As part of our decision to modify our proposals for divisions in southern Wiltshire, we proposed further draft recommendations in which West Knoyle would be replaced in Mere division by Maiden Bradley. In the light of a large number of objections from both of those parishes and the confirmation by Mere Town Council that the current division most closely reflects community interactions in south-west Wiltshire, we are restoring the current division as part of our final recommendations.

174 Our draft recommendations for Nadder & East Knoyle and Tisbury modified the Council’s proposals for those areas. However following consultation on our draft recommendations, we substantially modified our proposed divisions across all of southern Wiltshire. In our further draft recommendations we proposed an Upper Nadder & the Deverills division which attracted a considerable amount of objection from parishes throughout that proposed division. Wiltshire Council proposed that we re-instate our draft recommendations for the area. Whilst we are persuaded by the new evidence of community interactions received, we are unable to return entirely to our draft recommendations. This is because we need to reflect the evidence received that relates to the wider area and, in particular, Downton & Ebble Valley and Fovant & Chalke Valley.

175 As part of our final recommendations, we propose to modify the current Tisbury division by including Fonthill Gifford parish and modifying the current Nadder & East Knoyle division by replacing Barford St Martin, Burcombe Without and Fonthill Gifford parishes with Wylye and Steeple Langford parishes (those parishes being included in Nadder & East Knoyle division in our draft recommendations). In our final

recommendations, we accept the name Nadder Valley as suggested by Wiltshire Council.

Wilton 176 The Council proposed a Wilton division comprising Wilton and Quidhampton parishes, consistent with Quidhampton Parish Council’s preference. We considered that Wiltshire Council’s proposal offered good electoral equality, provided for distinct boundaries and reflected community ties. We therefore included it as part of our draft recommendations.

177 We received submissions from The Council and a local resident which proposed that the part of Netherhampton parish which is not to be the subject of proposed housing development be included in Wilton division. We are accepting the principal of this proposal as part of our final recommendations but include Harnham Hill along with the housing development area in our Salisbury Harnham West division.

Tidworth

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Ludgershall North & Rural 1 2% Tidworth East & Ludgershall South 1 5% Tidworth North & West 1 -5%

Ludgershall North & Rural, Tidworth East & Ludgershall South and Tidworth North & West 178 The Council proposed that villages to the north and east of Tidworth and Ludgershall be combined in a division with the northern part of Ludgershall. The Council described them as sharing community facilities and other connections, particularly in the case of the Collingbournes and Everleigh. Whilst one resident of Chute parish proposed that the parish be included in a division to the north, a resident of Chute Forest parish supported the inclusion of that parish in Ludgershall North & Rural division. We considered that Chute and Chute Forest parishes should be in the same division and noted that their inclusion in Ludgershall North & Rural provides for good electoral equality throughout the area.

179 The Council then proposed that the southern part of Ludgershall continues to be included in a division with the eastern part of Tidworth. The remainder of Tidworth would form another division. The Council described Ludgershall and Tidworth as well-linked, with similar characteristics as expanding and military-focused towns.

180 Whilst broadly accepting the Council’s analysis of this area, we proposed to modify its suggested boundaries by including St James Street and the site of a substantial housing development in Ludgershall North & Rural division. We also proposed that the full length of Andover Road form the boundary between Ludgershall North & Rural and East Tidworth & South Ludgershall divisions.

181 We also proposed modifications to the Council’s division boundaries in Tidworth. We proposed to include Beech Hill Road, Forest Drive and Hawthorn Road in East Tidworth & South Ludgershall and use Salisbury Road, south of its junction with Station Road, as a boundary between east and west Tidworth. We considered that this provides a stronger and clearer boundary than would Lowa Road and would bring the whole of west Tidworth together in a single division.

182 During consultation, the Council and the Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats supported our draft recommendations for this area, subject to the name Tidworth East & Ludgershall South being used. We are content to adopt this name as part of our final recommendations.

183 Councillors Connolly and Williams opposed our recommendations, arguing that the Beech Hill Road and Forest Drive areas of Tidworth should be added to our Tidworth North & West division. However, we consider that Kennett Road provides a link between these areas and the southern parts of Tidworth and Perham Down.

184 Subject to accepting the proposed division name of Tidworth East & Ludgershall South, we confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

Trowbridge

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Hilperton 1 -7% Southwick 1 -8% Trowbridge Adcroft 1 0% Trowbridge Central 1 7% Trowbridge Drynham 1 -4% Trowbridge Grove 1 1% Trowbridge Lambrok 1 0% Trowbridge Park 1 10% Trowbridge Paxcroft 1 2%

Hilperton, Trowbridge Adcroft, Trowbridge Central, Trowbridge Lambrok, Trowbridge Park and Trowbridge Paxcroft 185 The Council proposed to modify the existing Adcroft, Central, Lambrok, Paxcroft and Hilperton divisions to achieve good electoral equality, reflect the impact of recent and proposed housing development, and the results of local community governance reorganisation. In proposing a Hilperton division coterminous with the boundaries of the parish, the Council had the support of Hilperton Parish Council. Trowbridge Town Council proposed boundaries which were similar to those suggested by Wiltshire Council. We considered that Wiltshire Council’s proposals would result in good electoral equality and we were persuaded that they reflected community identities in the area. We therefore included them as part of our draft recommendations.

186 We received no objections to the draft recommendations for these divisions which we now confirm as final.

Southwick and Trowbridge Drynham 187 North Bradley, Southwick and West Ashton parishes lie immediately to the south of Trowbridge and are expected to experience a very large amount of development in the period up to and beyond 2024. This development, and the number of electors it will accommodate by 2024, has heavily influenced the development of electoral boundaries for this area. A North Bradley parish councillor commented that the parish council and West Ashton Parish Council have a history of working together and should be included in the same division but did not propose that Southwick parish be included.

188 Wiltshire Council proposed that the larger sites of expected housing development on the edge of Trowbridge be included in divisions of an urban character and that the villages of North Bradley, Southwick and West Ashton should be included in a single, rural division.

189 Our draft recommendations were based on the Council’s proposals. We considered that the urban character of the White Horse Business Park should be reflected by its inclusion in Trowbridge Drynham division. This was supported during consultation on our draft recommendations. In its forecast of electoral change, the Council indicated two sites for housing development in North Bradley parish; to the north of Drynham Lane and west of Woodmarsh. We proposed that both sites should also be included in Trowbridge Drynham division. In order to ensure that the division boundary would not be obscured by development, we proposed that Woodmarsh and Westbury Road should form the boundary between Trowbridge Drynham and Southwick divisions.

190 North Bradley Parish Council objected to the inclusion of any of the area between the business park and North Bradley Village in Trowbridge Drynham

division. It argued that the development to take place would form part of the village community. Wiltshire Council argued that whilst the housing development should, as part of the urban extension of Trowbridge, be included in Trowbridge Drynham, the existing housing to the east of Woodmarsh and Westbury Road should remain in Southwick division.

191 We are persuaded by Wiltshire Council to modify our draft recommendations. In referring to areas for which planning consent for development has been granted, we propose a division boundary which we believe will not be obscured by development.

Trowbridge Grove 192 We proposed a minor change, at Cavell Court, to the Council’s proposal for this division. The Council and Trowbridge Town Council supported our draft recommendation, which we confirm as final.

Warminster

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Warminster Broadway 1 3% Warminster East 1 9% Warminster North & Rural 1 2% Warminster West 1 8% Wylye Valley 1 -6%

Warminster Broadway, Warminster East, Warminster North & Rural and Warminster West 193 The Council proposed a modification to the existing Broadway division by the addition of housing at Cobbett Place and The Maltings. The Council then proposed to add the Chalk Hill area and new housing at the Home Farm development to the existing Warminster Copheap & Wylye division and extend the existing Warminster Without division to Cradle Hill.

194 When we visited the area, we considered that the Council’s proposals would divide community areas rather than unite them. We proposed a Warminster Rural division which includes the rural east and north of Warminster parish, Chapmanslade, Corsley and Upton Scudamore. Our division would retain the use of the railway line as a division boundary and avoid splitting communities at Imber Road, Sack Hill, Copheap Lane, Elm Hill and Westbury Road. Our division would

include the Bath Road, Manor Gardens and Portway Lane areas in order to provide for good electoral equality.

195 The western periphery of Warminster is expected to be the subject of a large amount of new housing up to 2024 and we proposed to modify the existing Warminster West division to reflect the addition of electors which will result from this development. Good electoral equality will be achieved by including the Bath Road, Portway Lane and Westbury Road areas in our Warminster Rural division, as described above.

196 Our Warminster Broadway and Warminster East divisions would, with the exception of Manor Gardens, be similar to the existing Broadway and East divisions.

197 Wiltshire Council and Warminster Town Council supported our draft recommendations for Warminster Broadway and Warminster West divisions and we confirm them as final. Both councils proposed that our Warminster Rural division be named Warminster North & Rural and we are content to adopt that name in our final recommendations. However, they took issue with our proposed boundary between Warminster North & Rural and Warminster East in the Ash Walk area. We accept the arguments made about community identity and have modified our proposals accordingly, including Manor Gardens and Rectory Close in Warminster East division.

198 The two councils also proposed that the parishes of Horningsham and Maiden Bradley be included in Warminster North & Rural division but offered little evidence of community identity in support of that proposal. Making the change suggested would increase electoral inequality in divisions to the south of Warminster and, in the absence of clear evidence of community identity, we were not prepared to recommend the inclusion of the two parishes in Warminster North & Rural division.

199 Warminster Town Council proposed an increase in the number of town councillors from 13 to 14. We consider that such a change would not be a direct result of our recommendations for Wiltshire Council and therefore not within our powers to recommend. Such changes can be made following a community governance review undertaken by Wiltshire Council.

200 We published further draft recommendations for southern Wiltshire which proposed considerable changes to our earlier proposals. Responding to those further draft recommendations, residents of Horningsham and Maiden Bradley parishes provided us with evidence of community connections between them and areas to the west of Warminster. That evidence had not previously been supplied. We are persuaded by the representations received and accordingly include both Horningsham and Maiden Bradley in Warminster North & Rural division as part of our final recommendations.

Wylye Valley 201 The Council’s initial proposal for Wylye Valley division included the eastern parts of Warminster parish whilst the rest of the division would comprise a number of small parishes in the Wylye Valley leading toward the Salisbury Plain area.

202 Our draft recommendations for Warminster required a modification to the Council’s proposals for Wylye Valley in order to maintain good electoral equality. We proposed to do this by adding communities which form the southern part of the existing Warminster Without division to Wylye Valley & Warminster North division.

203 In response to the objections to our draft recommendations, we proposed changes to our Wylye Valley division by removing the parishes of Brixton Deverill, Horningsham, Kingston Deverill, Longbridge Deverill and Maiden Bradley. Additionally, we included Steeple Langford and Wylye parishes in our proposed Wylye Valley division.

204 Our further draft recommendations attracted a considerable amount of objection from Brixton Deverill, Kingston Deverill and Longbridge Deverill and from Wiltshire Council. The Council proposed that the Wylye Valley division, as proposed in our original draft recommendations, be modified by excluding Horningsham and Maiden Bradley. Having regard to all representations received, we are persuaded to modify our recommendations. As a consequence, our final recommendations for Wylye Valley division are based on the proposals put forward by the Council.

Westbury

Number of Division name Variance 2024 councillors Ethandune 1 -7% Westbury East 1 2% Westbury North 1 1% Westbury West 1 9%

Ethandune 205 The Council proposed to modify the existing Ethandune division by including that part of Heywood parish which lies in the existing Westbury North division and by including Coulston parish in Seend, Potterne & Poulshot division.

206 Heywood Parish Council commented that it wished to see its current parish wards abolished. Because we recommended that the whole of Heywood parish be included in a single division, we are unable to recommend changes to the parish electoral arrangements. However, those arrangements can be amended by a community governance review.

207 When we visited the area, we did not consider that Dilton Marsh parish sits well in the Ethandune division. We noted that the parish, and Dilton Marsh Village in particular, has no direct connection to the remainder of Ethandune division but has direct connections with and proximity to the Westbury Leigh area. We therefore proposed to include Dilton Marsh parish in a division with the western parts of Westbury.

208 In order to provide electoral equality, we proposed to include that part of Westbury which lies immediately to the south of Heywood parish in Ethandune division.

209 Our draft recommendations attracted opposition from Wiltshire Council, Dilton Marsh, Bratton and Heywood Parish Councils, individual councillors and around 40 residents of Dilton Marsh. All argued that the rural nature of Dilton Marsh should be reflected in a division comprised entirely of rural parishes and that the parish shares no community identity with Westbury. They further argued that a consequential inclusion of part of Westbury Town in Ethandune division would detract from the focus on rural matters in the division.

210 We are persuaded by the evidence we have received to modify our draft recommendations and our final recommendation is that Dilton Marsh parish be included in Ethandune division.

Westbury East, Westbury North and Westbury West 211 The consequence of our draft recommendations for Ethandune division mean that we modified the Council’s proposals for the town of Westbury. As described above, however, our final recommendations include Dilton Marsh parish in Ethandune division. It is a benefit that in doing so, Westbury Town can be provided with three divisions which lie wholly within the town.

212 We are basing our final recommendations for Westbury on the Council’s initial proposals, but are modifying them in order to provide for good levels of electoral equality. The Council’s proposal would have resulted in electoral variances of 11% in both Westbury North and Westbury East divisions. Our final recommendations include the part of Westbury which lies to the West of Station Road in our Westbury West division and the town centre in Westbury North division.

Conclusions 213 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Wiltshire, referencing the 2018 and 2024 electorate figures. A full list of divisions, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the divisions is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2018 2024 Number of councillors 98 98 Number of electoral divisions 98 98 Average number of electors per councillor 3,752 4,257 Number of divisions with a variance more than 31 5 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more than 6 0 20% from the average

Final recommendations

Wiltshire Council should be made up of 98 councillors representing 98 single- councillor divisions. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Mapping

Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed divisions for the Wiltshire Council. You can also view our final recommendations for Wiltshire Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

214 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

215 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority electoral arrangements. However, Wiltshire Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

216 As a result of our proposed division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Amesbury, Box, Bradford-on-Avon, Calne, Calne Without, Chippenham, Corsham, Devizes, Durrington, Idmiston, Lacock, Langley Burrell Without, Laverstock & Ford, Ludgershall, Malmesbury, Marlborough, Melksham, Melksham Without, Netherhampton, North Bradley, Royal Wootton Bassett, Salisbury, Tidworth, Trowbridge, Warminster and Westbury.

217 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Amesbury parish.

Final recommendations Amesbury Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Amesbury East 2 Amesbury South 7 Amesbury West 7

218 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Box parish.

Final recommendations Box Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Box 9 Rudloe 6

219 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bradford-on-Avon parish.

Final recommendations Bradford-on-Avon Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bradford-on-Avon North 6 Bradford-on-Avon South 6

220 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Calne parish.

Final recommendations Calne Town Council should comprise 19 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Calne Central 5 Calne Chilvester & Abberd 5 Calne North 5 Calne South 4

221 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Calne Without parish.

Final recommendations Calne Without Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Calne Without East 3 Calne Without Middle 4 Calne Without Pewsham 1 Calne Without Sandy Lane 1 Calne Without West 6

222 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Chippenham parish.

Final recommendations Chippenham Town Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing eight wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Chippenham Cepen Park & Derriads 3 Chippenham Cepen Park & Hunters Moon 3 Chippenham Hardenhuish 3 Chippenham Hardens & Central 3 Chippenham Lowden & Rowden 3 Chippenham Monkton 3 Chippenham Pewsham 3 Chippenham Sheldon 3

223 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Corsham parish.

Final recommendations Corsham Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Corsham Gastard 1 Corsham Ladbrook 8 Corsham Neston 3 Corsham Pickwick 8

224 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Devizes parish.

Final recommendations Devizes Town Council should comprise 21 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Devizes East 7 Devizes North 6 Devizes Roundway 2 Devizes South 6

225 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Durrington parish.

Final recommendations Durrington Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Durrington 10 Larkhill 5

226 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Idmiston parish.

Final recommendations Idmiston Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Gomeldon 5 Idmiston & Porton 10

227 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Lacock parish.

Final recommendations Lacock Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards:

Parish ward Number of parish councillors Lacock 10 Showell 1

228 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Langley Burrell Without parish.

Final recommendations Langley Burrell Without Parish Council should comprise five councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Langley Burrell 3 Langley Burrell Barrow Farm 1 Langley Burrell Rawlings Farm 1

229 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Laverstock & Ford parish.

Final recommendations Laverstock & Ford Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bishopdown Farm 5 Ford, Old Sarum & Longhedge 6 Laverstock & Milford 5

230 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Ludgershall parish.

Final recommendations Ludgershall Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Ludgershall North 8 Ludgershall South 7

231 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Malmesbury parish.

Final recommendations Malmesbury Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Backbridge 1 Malmesbury 15

232 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Marlborough parish.

Final recommendations Marlborough Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Marlborough East 9 Marlborough West 7

233 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Melksham parish.

Final recommendations Melksham Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Melksham East 4 Melksham Forest 5 Melksham North 2 Melksham South 4

234 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Melksham Without parish.

Final recommendations Melksham Without Parish Council should comprise 13 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Melksham Without (Beanacre, Shaw & Whitley) 3 Melksham Without (Berryfield) 2 Melksham Without (Bowerhill) 7 Melksham Without (Hunters Wood) 1

235 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Netherhampton parish.

Final recommendations Netherhampton Parish Council should comprise five councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Netherhampton East 1 Netherhampton West 4

236 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for North Bradley parish.

Final recommendations North Bradley Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors North Bradley (Park) 1 North Bradley (Village) 9 North Bradley (White Horse) 1

237 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Royal Wootton Bassett parish.

Final recommendations Royal Wootton Bassett Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Royal Wootton Bassett East 3 Royal Wootton Bassett North 7 Royal Wootton Bassett South & West 6

238 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Salisbury parish.

Final recommendations Salisbury City Council should comprise 23 councillors, as at present, representing nine wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Salisbury Bemerton Heath 3 Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village 3 Salisbury Harnham East 3 Salisbury Harnham West 2 Salisbury Milford 2 Salisbury St Edmund’s 3 Salisbury St Francis & Stratford 3 Salisbury St Mark’s & Bishopdown 1 Salisbury St Paul’s 3

239 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Tidworth parish.

Final recommendations Tidworth Town Council should comprise 19 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Tidworth East & South 6 Tidworth North & West 13

240 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Trowbridge parish.

Final recommendations Trowbridge Town Council should comprise 21 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Trowbridge Adcroft 3 Trowbridge Central 3 Trowbridge Drynham 3 Trowbridge Grove 3 Trowbridge Lambrok 3 Trowbridge Park 3 Trowbridge Paxcroft 3

241 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Warminster parish.

Final recommendations Warminster Town Council should comprise 13 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Warminster Broadway 3 Warminster East 4 Warminster North 2 Warminster West 4

242 We are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Westbury parish.

Final recommendations Westbury Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Westbury East 5 Westbury North 5 Westbury West 5

What happens next? 243 We have now completed our review of Wiltshire Council. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2021.

Equalities 244 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

Appendix A Final recommendations for Wiltshire Council Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Aldbourne & 1 1 4,458 4,458 19% 4,675 4,675 10% Ramsbury

Alderbury & 2 1 4,403 4,403 17% 4,665 4,665 10% Whiteparish

Amesbury East & 3 1 4,000 4,000 7% 4,597 4,597 8% Bulford 4 Amesbury South 1 2,753 2,753 -27% 4,176 4,176 -2% 5 Amesbury West 1 4,368 4,368 16% 4,593 4,593 8% 6 Avon Valley 1 3,284 3,284 -12% 4,253 4,253 0% 7 Bowerhill 1 3,209 3,209 -14% 3,990 3,990 -6% 8 Box & Colerne 1 4,000 4,000 7% 4,171 4,171 -2% Bradford-on-Avon 9 1 3,762 3,762 0% 4,301 4,301 1% North

Bradford-on-Avon 10 1 4,185 4,185 12% 4,357 4,357 2% South

11 Brinkworth 1 3,710 3,710 -1% 3,930 3,930 -8%

Bromham, Rowde 12 1 3,926 3,926 5% 4,219 4,219 -1% & Roundway

Calne Chilvester 15 1 3,936 3,936 5% 4,109 4,109 -3% & Abberd

16 Calne North 1 3,361 3,361 -10% 4,039 4,039 -5% 17 Calne Rural 1 4,040 4,040 8% 4,363 4,363 2% 18 Calne South 1 3,296 3,296 -12% 4,110 4,110 -3% Chippenham 19 Cepen Park & 1 4,030 4,030 7% 4,187 4,187 -2% Derriads

Chippenham 20 Cepen Park & 1 3,468 3,468 -8% 4,241 4,241 0% Hunters Moon

Chippenham 21 1 2,924 2,924 -22% 4,157 4,157 -2% Hardenhuish

Chippenham 22 Hardens & 1 3,954 3,954 5% 4,252 4,252 0% Central Chippenham 23 Lowden & 1 2,595 2,595 -31% 4,076 4,076 -4% Rowden

Chippenham 25 1 3,882 3,882 3% 4,030 4,030 -5% Pewsham Chippenham 26 1 4,017 4,017 7% 4,323 4,323 2% Sheldon Corsham 27 1 4,249 4,249 13% 4,490 4,490 5% Ladbrook

28 Corsham Pickwick 1 3,644 3,644 -3% 4,656 4,656 9% 29 Corsham Without 1 3,607 3,607 -4% 4,159 4,159 -2% 30 Cricklade & Latton 1 3,900 3,900 4% 4,245 4,245 0% 31 Devizes East 1 4,254 4,254 13% 4,469 4,469 5% 32 Devizes North 1 3,301 3,301 -12% 3,820 3,820 -10% Devizes Rural 33 1 3,644 3,644 -3% 3,823 3,823 -10% West 34 Devizes South 1 3,888 3,888 4% 4,158 4,158 -2% Downton & Ebble 35 1 3,796 3,796 1% 4,152 4,152 -2% Valley

36 Durrington 1 3,639 3,639 -3% 3,971 3,971 -7%

37 Ethandune 1 3,732 3,732 -1% 3,965 3,965 -7%

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Fovant & Chalke 38 1 3,640 3,640 -3% 3,805 3,805 -11% Valley 39 Hilperton 1 3,413 3,413 -9% 3,941 3,941 -7% 40 Holt 1 3,711 3,711 -1% 3,980 3,980 -7% 41 Kington 1 4,061 4,061 8% 4,307 4,307 1% 42 Laverstock 1 4,312 4,312 15% 4,658 4,658 9% Ludgershall North 43 1 3,642 3,642 -3% 4,363 4,363 2% & Rural 44 Lyneham 1 3,954 3,954 5% 4,167 4,167 -2% 45 Malmesbury 1 4,161 4,161 11% 4,724 4,724 11% 46 Marlborough East 1 3,932 3,932 5% 4,576 4,576 7% 47 Marlborough West 1 4,326 4,326 15% 4,624 4,624 9% 48 Melksham East 1 3,168 3,168 -16% 4,183 4,183 -2% 49 Melksham Forest 1 4,002 4,002 7% 4,196 4,196 -1% 50 Melksham South 1 3,917 3,917 4% 4,128 4,128 -3% Melksham Without 51 North & 1 3,355 3,355 -11% 3,907 3,907 -8% Shurnhold

Melksham Without 52 1 3,366 3,366 -10% 3,845 3,845 -10% West & Rural

53 Mere 1 3,470 3,470 -8% 3,875 3,875 -9%

55 Nadder Valley 1 3,657 3,657 -3% 3,811 3,811 -10%

Old Sarum & 56 Lower Bourne 1 3,629 3,629 -3% 4,805 4,805 13% Valley 57 Pewsey 1 3,837 3,837 2% 4,161 4,161 -2% 58 Pewsey Vale East 1 4,311 4,311 15% 4,547 4,547 7% Pewsey Vale 59 1 4,012 4,012 7% 4,272 4,272 0% West

60 Purton 1 4,333 4,333 15% 4,668 4,668 10% Redlynch & 61 1 3,724 3,724 -1% 3,877 3,877 -9% Landford

Royal Wootton 62 1 3,682 3,682 -2% 4,015 4,015 -6% Bassett East

Royal Wootton 63 1 4,231 4,231 13% 4,461 4,461 5% Bassett North

Royal Wootton 64 Bassett South & 1 4,494 4,494 20% 4,724 4,724 11% West

Salisbury 66 Fisherton & 1 4,342 4,342 16% 4,510 4,510 6% Bemerton Village

Salisbury 67 1 3,870 3,870 3% 4,218 4,218 -1% Harnham East

Salisbury 68 1 3,414 3,414 -9% 4,320 4,320 1% Harnham West

69 Salisbury Milford 1 4,271 4,271 14% 4,436 4,436 4%

Salisbury St 70 1 3,645 3,645 -3% 4,381 4,381 3% Edmund’s

Salisbury St 71 Francis & 1 4,087 4,087 9% 4,383 4,383 3% Stratford Salisbury St 72 1 3,862 3,862 3% 4,457 4,457 5% Paul’s 73 Sherston 1 4,019 4,019 7% 4,727 4,727 11% 74 Southwick 1 3,371 3,371 -10% 3,917 3,917 -8%

75 The Lavingtons 1 3,617 3,617 -4% 3,977 3,977 -7%

Tidworth North & 77 1 3,320 3,320 -12% 4,056 4,056 -5% West 78 Till Valley 1 4,130 4,130 10% 4,308 4,308 1% 79 Tisbury 1 3,694 3,694 -2% 3,847 3,847 -10% Trowbridge 80 1 4,056 4,056 8% 4,253 4,253 0% Adcroft

Trowbridge 81 1 4,317 4,317 15% 4,550 4,550 7% Central

Trowbridge 82 1 3,350 3,350 -11% 4,086 4,086 -4% Drynham 83 Trowbridge Grove 1 3,997 3,997 7% 4,282 4,282 1% Trowbridge 84 1 4,081 4,081 9% 4,242 4,242 0% Lambrok 85 Trowbridge Park 1 2,887 2,887 -23% 4,681 4,681 10% Trowbridge 86 1 3,940 3,940 5% 4,323 4,323 2% Paxcroft

Urchfont & 87 1 3,377 3,377 -10% 4,055 4,055 -5% Bishops Cannings

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2024) councillor average % councillor average % Warminster 88 1 3,722 3,722 -1% 4,401 4,401 3% Broadway 89 Warminster East 1 4,144 4,144 10% 4,634 4,634 9% Warminster North 90 1 4,102 4,102 9% 4,357 4,357 2% & Rural 91 Warminster West 1 3,335 3,335 -11% 4,595 4,595 8% 92 Westbury East 1 3,547 3,547 -5% 4,345 4,345 2% 93 Westbury North 1 3,615 3,615 -4% 4,300 4,300 1% 94 Westbury West 1 3,909 3,909 4% 4,652 4,652 9% 95 Wilton 1 3,569 3,569 -5% 4,119 4,119 -3% Winsley & 96 1 3,951 3,951 5% 4,112 4,112 -3% Westwood

Winterslow & 97 Upper Bourne 1 4,099 4,099 9% 4,379 4,379 3% Valley

98 Wylye Valley 1 3,840 3,840 2% 4,009 4,009 -6%

Totals 98 367,686 – – 417,228 – –

Averages – – 3,752 – – 4,257 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Wiltshire Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Aldbourne & Ramsbury 2 Alderbury & Whiteparish 3 Amesbury East & Bulford 4 Amesbury South 5 Amesbury West 6 Avon Valley 7 Bowerhill 8 Box & Colerne 9 Bradford-on-Avon North 10 Bradford-on-Avon South 11 Brinkworth 12 Bromham, Rowde & Roundway 13 By Brook 14 Calne Central 15 Calne Chilvester & Abberd 16 Calne North 17 Calne Rural 18 Calne South 19 Chippenham Cepen Park & Derriads 20 Chippenham Cepen Park & Hunters Moon 21 Chippenham Hardenhuish 22 Chippenham Hardens & Central 23 Chippenham Lowden & Rowden 24 Chippenham Monkton 25 Chippenham Pewsham 26 Chippenham Sheldon 27 Corsham Ladbrook 28 Corsham Pickwick 29 Corsham Without 30 Cricklade & Latton 31 Devizes East 32 Devizes North 33 Devizes Rural West 34 Devizes South 35 Downton & Ebble Valley 36 Durrington 37 Ethandune 38 Fovant & Chalke Valley 39 Hilperton 40 Holt 41 Kington

42 Laverstock 43 Ludgershall North & Rural 44 Lyneham 45 Malmesbury 46 Marlborough East 47 Marlborough West 48 Melksham East 49 Melksham Forest 50 Melksham South 51 Melksham Without North & Shurnhold 52 Melksham Without West & Rural 53 Mere 54 Minety 55 Nadder Valley 56 Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley 57 Pewsey 58 Pewsey Vale East 59 Pewsey Vale West 60 Purton 61 Redlynch & Landford 62 Royal Wootton Bassett East 63 Royal Wootton Bassett North 64 Royal Wootton Bassett South & West 65 Salisbury Bemerton Heath 66 Salisbury Fisherton & Bemerton Village 67 Salisbury Harnham East 68 Salisbury Harnham West 69 Salisbury Milford 70 Salisbury St Edmund’s 71 Salisbury St Francis & Stratford 72 Salisbury St Paul’s 73 Sherston 74 Southwick 75 The Lavingtons 76 Tidworth East & Ludgershall South 77 Tidworth North & West 78 Till Valley 79 Tisbury 80 Trowbridge Adcroft 81 Trowbridge Central 82 Trowbridge Drynham 83 Trowbridge Grove

84 Trowbridge Lambrok 85 Trowbridge Park 86 Trowbridge Paxcroft 87 Urchfont & Bishops Cannings 88 Warminster Broadway 89 Warminster East 90 Warminster North & Rural 91 Warminster West 92 Westbury East 93 Westbury North 94 Westbury West 95 Wilton 96 Winsley & Westwood 97 Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley 98 Wylye Valley

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south- west/wiltshire/wiltshire-unitary-authority-ua

Appendix C Draft recommendations: Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-west/wiltshire/wiltshire-unitary-authority-ua

Local Authority

 Wiltshire Council

Political Groups

 Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats  Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party

Councillors

 Councillor B. Anderson (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor P. Bishop (Chippenham Town Council)  Councillor J. Buckley (Luckington & Alderton Parish Council)  Councillor A. Bucknell (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor C. Cape (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor B. Clarkson (North Bradley Parish Council)  Councillor M. Connolly (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor B. Dalton (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor J. Davies (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor J. Durrant (Lacock Parish Council)  Councillor N. Farmer (Corsham Town Council)  Councillor J. Farquhar (Salisbury City Council)  Councillor G. Grant (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor M. Groom (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor S. Hocking (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor R. Hopkinson (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor J. Ligo (Bratton Parish Council)  Councillor T. Lindley (Salisbury City Council)  Councillor B. Mathew (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor I. McLennan (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor I. Moody (Winterslow Parish Council)  Councillor N. Morris (Bratton Parish Council)  Councillor N. Murry (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor C. Newbury (Wiltshire Council)

 Councillor P. Robinson (Winterslow Parish Council)  Councillor C. Rogers (Salisbury City Council)  Councillor M. Smith (Sherston Parish Council)  Councillor F. Vandelli (Malmesbury Town Council)  Councillor P. Whalley (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor C. Williams (Wiltshire Council)

Members of Parliament

 James Gray MP (North Wiltshire)

Local Organisations

 Berryfield & Semington Road Action Group  Bowerhill Residents’ Action Group  Colerne Neighbourhood Plan Group  Governors of Malmesbury Church of England Primary School  Malmesbury River Valleys Trust  Malmesbury St Paul Without Residents’ Association  Malmesbury Town Team  Malmesbury Civic Trust  Pewsey Community Area Partnership  Pickwick Association  Shaw Village Hall Committee  Trustees of Duchess of Somerset’s Hospital  Warden & Freemen of Malmesbury

Parish and Town Councils

 Bishopstrow Village Meeting  Bratton Parish Council  Broad Hinton & Winterbourne Bassett Parish Council  Calne Without Parish Council  Chippenham Town Council  Chirton & Conock Parish Council  Clarendon Park Parish Council  Codford Parish Council  Colerne Parish Council  Coombe Bissett Parish Council  Corsham Town Council  Devizes Town Council

 Dilton Marsh Parish Council  Durnford Parish Council  Froxfield Parish Council  Heywood Parish Council  Lacock Parish Council  Landford Parish Council  Langley Burrell Without Parish Council  Laverstock & Ford Parish Council  Malmesbury Town Council  Manningford Parish Council  Marlborough Town Council  Melksham Town Council  Melksham Without Parish Council  Mere Town Council  North Bradley Parish Council and Trowbridge Town Council  Rushall Parish Council  Salisbury City Council  Seend Parish Council  Semington Parish Council  St Paul Malmesbury Without Parish Council  Warminster Town Council  West Dean Parish Council  West Knoyle Parish Council  Westbury Town Council  Whiteparish Parish Council  Wilcot & Huish Parish Council  Winterslow Parish Council  Woodborough Parish Council  Woodford Parish Council

Local Residents

 551 local residents

Petitions

 Colerne Parish Council  Colerne Women’s Institute  Monkton Residents

Further draft recommendations: Submissions received

Local Authority

 Wiltshire Council

Councillors

 Councillor P. Appleyard (Idmiston Parish Council)  Councillor P. Boyles (Chilmark Parish Council)  Councillor A. Bridges (Berwick St John Parish Council)  Councillor R. Britton (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor V. Brockway (West Knoyle Parish Council)  Councillor F. de Rhe-Philipe (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor K. Exton (Idmiston Parish Council)  Councillor A. Filleau (West Knoyle Parish Council)  Councillor D. FitzGerald (Horningsham Parish Council)  Councillor E. Hames (Kilmington Parish Council)  Councillor J. Hill (Allington with Boscombe Parish Council)  Councillor G. Jeans (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor S. Keyse (Berwick St John Parish Council)  Councillor N. Lefroy (Burcombe Council)  Councillor M. Hewitt (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor T. Martin (Ansty Parish Council)  Councillor I. McLennan (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor K. Plastow (Longbridge Deverill Parish Council)  Councillor M. Randall (West Knoyle Parish Council)  Councillor D. Robertson (Hindon Parish Council)  Councillor C. Sawyer (Longbridge Deverill Parish Council)  Councillor C. Sharman (Barford St Martin Parish Council)  Councillor C. Smith (Dinton Parish Council)  Councillor P. Smith (Allington with Boscombe Parish Council)  Councillor K. Symonds (Mere Town Council)  Councillor I. Tait (East Knoyle Parish Council)  Councillor B. Wayman (Wiltshire Council)  Councillor R. Yuill (Wiltshire Council)

Local Organisations

 Malmesbury Church of England Primary School

Parish and Town Councils

 Allington with Boscombe Parish Council  Berwick St John Parish Council  Britford Parish Council  Chilmark Parish Council  Cholderton Village Meeting  Coombe Bissett Parish Council  Dinton Parish Council  Durnford and Woodford Parish Councils and Wilsford cum Lake Parish Meeting  Firsdown Parish Council  Hindon Parish Council  Idmiston Parish Council  Kilmington Parish Council  Laverstock & Ford Parish Council  Longbridge Deverill Parish Council  Mere Town Council  Newton Toney Parish Council  Sedgehill & Semley Parish Council  Stourton Parish Council  Swallowcliffe Parish Council  Upper Deverills Parish Council  West Dean Parish Council  West Knoyle Parish Council  Whiteparish Parish Council  Winterbourne Parish Council  Winterslow Parish Council  Zeals Parish Council

Local Residents

 183 local residents

Petitions

 Cholderton Parish Meeting  Idmiston Parish Council  Maiden Bradley Residents  Newton Toney Parish Council  Winterbourne Parish Council

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 conducting boundary, electoral and Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE