Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrat Party support in general the proposals made by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) relating to the Wiltshire Council Divisions to be elected in 2024.

We comment on each individual divisional proposal that sit wholly within the Devizes Parliamentary Constituency. We are aware that several divisions to the south of our Constituency sit mainly in the Salisbury Parliamentary Constituency. We have seen our colleagues submission on these divisions and endorse the views that they express in their response to you.

We comment on the divisions that sit in the Devizes Constituency in alphabetical order as follows:

Bromham, Rowde and Roundway The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals.

The integration of the Roundway parish into the size Devizes parish means that the new parish has to be divided. The area of Roundway is a distinct area with good links to the parishes to the west of Devizes. Community cohesion and good connectivity means Roundway should join with the parishes of Bromham and Rowde to deliver electoral equality.

Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Bromham, Rowde and Roundway.

Devizes East The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals.

The Commission’s proposals place the area west of Windsor Drive into this division. The housing is similar to much of the existing division. This move supports community cohesion while maintaining good electoral equality.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Devizes East.

Devizes North The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals.

The Commission’s proposals sustain both community cohesion and electoral equality in our view.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Devizes North.

Devizes South The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals.

The Commission’s proposals sustain community cohesion and electoral equality..

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Devizes South.

East Tidworth and South Ludgershall The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals but have a strong preference for a different order to the division name.

The Commission propose dividing the divisions in Tidworth by the main road running north to south. We support that approach on the basis of better community cohesion than the original proposal from Wiltshire Council. The combination with Ludgershall is both historic and appropriate on grounds of good local governance and community cohesion. However we do not think that placing the geographic designation before the town name is helpful for residents in identifying their Wiltshire Councillor. Consequently we urge the Commission to reverse the order to place the town first in the division name.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Tidworth East and Ludgershall South.

Ludgershall North and Rural The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals.

The Commission’s proposal reflect that put forward originally by Wiltshire Council. We supported that proposal and endorse this one. Electoral equality requires a combination of smaller parishes with an area of Ludgershall. The northern part of the town lends itself to this combination as it has the strongest road and transport connections with the parishes. Based on the principle of community cohesion, this division is correctly constructed in our view. We also believe that consistency in naming of rural divisions is important. The generic “rural” is a good term to cover such parish areas.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Ludgershall North and Rural.

Marlborough East The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The size of Marlborough requires the town to be divided for reasons of electoral equality. The Commission’s proposals endorse the Council’s original proposals for this division being on an east or west basis. We endorse that approach on the basis of community cohesion. Electoral equality also require the two sections of Marlborough to unite with the parishes that relate most closely to those neighbouring parishes that have strong links to the town.In this case that is the two small parishes to the east of Marlborough. Neither are of sufficient size to warrant inclusion in the division name in our view.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Marlborough East.

Marlborough West The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposals reflect the Council’s original proposals for the west part of Marlborough. This links large number of small parishes are of similar character to the part of Marlborough that they link with via road and transport conections.

We are aware that two parishes in the Devizes Constituency are proposed to move into the Lyneham division. We support the movement of both Broad Hinton and Winterbourne Bassett into that division not least for better electoral equality. But the matter of community cohesion also suggest this approach. Broad Hinton directly connects to Broad Town, is a joint parish with Winterbourne Bassett, therefore on balance the pair go together

We do not believe any of the remaining parishes are of sufficient size to warrant their inclusion in the division name.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Marlborough West.

Pewsey The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposals endorse the Council’s original proposal which we support. This creates a division based on the large village community of Pewsey. This generates strong community cohesion and good governance.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Pewsey.

Pewsey Vale East The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal for this area endorses he Council’s original proposal which we support. The Pewsey Vale has a very strong identity, community connectivity and clear boundaries. As the parishes in the eastern part are of a similar sizes we propose the name of the division should reflect the Pewsey Vale as a whole.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Pewsey Vale East.

Pewsey Vale West The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal for the western part Pewsey Vale supports the Council’s original proposal which we support. As with the eastern part of the Vale, no parish is of sufficient size to warrant inclusion in the division name but all share in the strong sense of identity and community cohesion.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Pewsey Vale West.

Ramsbury The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal reflects the original set out by the Council which is one that we support. The connection between the large and small villages at the edge of the county make for a cohesive community of similar character. We do however believe that the size of Aldbourne parish is such that it should join Ramsbury in the name of the proposed division..

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Aldbourne and Ramsbury.

Seend, Potterne and Poulshot The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal endorses the original set out by the Council which is one that we support. There is greater connectivity between the parishes of Seend, Potterne and Poulshot than in the current division. These main parishes are of similar size and character. We believe all three should be referenced in the name of the proposed division.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Seend, Potterne and Poulshot.

The Lavingtons The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal reflects that of the Council’s original proposal which we support. The villages concerned have very strong connections and community links especially between the two Lavingtons. That should, in our view be acknowledged in the division name.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being The Lavingtons.

Tidworth North and West The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

As noted above, the Commission proposed an east west dividing line in Tidworth. We endorse that approach as against the one set out in the Council’s original proposal. We do so as we believe it represents greater community cohesion. The areas to the west and north of that divide should, in our view, be reflected in the division name as they are of sufficient size to warrant such an approach.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Tidworth North and West.

Urchfont and Bishops Cannings The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats broadly accept the Commission’s proposals

The Commission’s proposal reflects the Council’s original proposal for this area and that is one which we support. The proposed division combines the two large parishes of Urchfont and Bishops Cannings along with the neighbouring smaller parishes that look to these two. The substantial development has been the subject of a recent governance review. That placed it clearly within the Bishops Cannings parish.

The Devizes Constituency Liberal Democrats support the division name being Urchfont and Bishops Cannings.

Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party Submission to the Local Government Boundary Review of the Wiltshire Unitary Authority

This submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is made on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Party for the Salisbury Parliamentary Constituency.

We are one of five Liberal Democrat Parties in Wiltshire. Our boundaries form along those of the Parliamentary Constituency of Salisbury. As such they are not entirely contiguous with the Wiltshire Council divisional boundaries as currently constituted or those proposed by the Commission for the 2024 Council elections.

Scope and structure of our submission In this submission we have commented on those Wiltshire Council divisions that are wholly or partially within the Salisbury Parliamentary Constituency boundaries

In general we support the proposals set out for the Wiltshire Council Divisions in our area by the LGBCE proposals for Wiltshire for public consultation.

However we object very strongly to the Commission’s proposals made for the parish of Laverstock and the eastern part of the city of Salisbury. Our reasons for so doing are anchored in community cohesion and good local government.

The detail for each area is set out under the divisional name suggested by the Commission. Our arguments, counter proposals for more appropriate names for our proposed divisions and our counter proposal for their boundaries are to be found there.

Our comments on the proposed divisions are in alphabetical order as follows:

Alderbury and Winterslow We support the Commission proposal for this division.

Given the constraints of the county boundary and the requirements for electoral equality, we believe this proposal provides for community cohesion and good governance.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Alderbury and Winterslow.

Amesbury South We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

This part of Amesbury will see very substantial growth in new housing in the coming years. The creation of this new division will ensure that an area of common housing characteristics will be represented at Wiltshire Council so fulfilling the principles of community cohesion and good local governance.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Amesbury South as it reflects the geography of the town.

Amesbury West We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The Commission’s proposal provides for better electoral equality than the original proposals put forward by Wiltshire Council. It also has the merit of retaining the town centre in one division so promoting community cohesion.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Amesbury West as it reflects the geography of the town.

Avon Valley We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The rural parishes of the Avon Valley are similar in character and well connected by road with each her. We note the inclusion of Larkhill for electoral equality reasons and that it links well with the northern parishes in the Avon Valley. We welcome the separation of this area from Amesbury itself.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Avon Valley as it better reflect the geography of this area.

Bulford and Amesbury East We support the Commission’s proposal for this division but propose a change to the division’s name set out below.

The Commission’s proposed division improves on that of the electoral equality as set out in the Council’s original proposal for this area. We believe that there are considerable similarities in housing types of those parts of Amesbury proposed to be united with the parish of Bulford. The eastern part of Amesbury town has good transport links with Bulford. We believ these factors are relevant when considering community cohesion.

However we believe for a point of consistency and the principle of good governance of the Amesbury residents in the eastern part of the town knowing who their Wiltshire Councillor is that the name should be changed from that proposed by the Commission. Consequently we propose to reverse the order of the division name as set out in the Commission proposal.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Amesbury East and Bulford for this division.

Downton and Whiteparish We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

We believe the Commission is correct in seeking to place the parish of Odstock into this division. This change recognises the links between the parish and Downton, while maintaining good electoral equality.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Downton and Whiteparish.

Durrington We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

We agree with Commission’s proposal and back both Wiltshire Council’s original proposal as endorsed by the Town Council that the current parish of Durrington is simply too big to be maintained in a single division. The Commission’s proposal keeps the historic centre of Durrington in this division. We believe that this is an important principle that should be applied across the County as it represents both strong community cohesion and go0d governance.

Similarly Larkhill is a distinct and coherent community area. As noted earlier Larkhill sits well with the parishes of the Avon Valley. The main road through the parish of Durrington is a suitable dividing line to mark the divisional boundary.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Durrington.

Fovant and Chalke Valley We support the Commission’s proposal for this division but with minor changes to the boundaries as set out below, and the division name.

The Commission’s proposal included the parish of Britford and excluded the parishes of Compton Chamberlayne and Tollard Royal as set out in Wiltshire Council’s original proposal. Britford is not part of the Chalke Valley and shares no community cohesion. We do not believe this parish should sit in this division.

We do accept the Commission’s case for the exclusion of the parish of Tollard Royal on the basis of electoral equality, inasmuch as it relates to any Wiltshire areas, this parish fits better with the Tisbury division. We believe that the parish of Compton Chamberlayne relate better to the other parishes in the Nadder and East Knoyle division and should sit there on grounds of community cohesion.

Finally we believe that the parish of Netherhampton looks to and relates with the town of Wilton with which there is greater community connection.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being the Chalke Valley. This creates a consistency among the rural divisions based on the river valleys that their parishes occupy.

Nadder and East Knoyle We support the Commission’s proposal for this division but with minor changes to the boundaries as set out earlier.

We accept the Commission’s proposals to amend the original proposals made by Wiltshire Council broadly accepted the Council’s proposal namely the inclusion Wylye and Steeple Langford in this division, plus the parish of Compton Chaberlayne for the reasons set out above.

For consistency the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Nadder Valley.

Old Sarum and Laverstock North We object strongly to the Commission’s proposal for this division.

There is simply no case to create this division based on the principles of community cohesion and good local governance.

The Commission’s proposals argue for not sub-dividing the Old Sarum area, which is a section of the parish of Laverstock & Ford. In order to avoid sub-dividing the Old Sarum. Yet the impact of that is to both separate the Bishopdown Farm area of the parish from any other section of the parish, and subdivide the Laverstock village part of the parish.

It cannot be unacceptable to subdivide Old Sarum but acceptable to subdivide the other two areas of the same parish. The Commission’s proposal also divides the historic village in what seems an arbitrary manner to the sever detriment of both community coherence and good governance.

We support the case made by Wiltshire Council to dividing an area of predominately newer housing. By doing this, all the parish is contained within only two divisions. The established and settled established communities of Bishopdown Farm and Laverstock are consequently maintained in their own divisions.

The Commission’s proposals also go against a clear and strongly expressed view of the residents of Laverstock & Ford parish that they did not want to be part of Salisbury city in any way. Dividing the parish in only two avoids that “unacceptable” outcome. Laverstock and Ford have a very strong sense of their own identity entirely separate to that of city.

By contrast Wiltshire Council’s proposals keep a division entirely made up of a single parish that includes the Longhedge and the Bishopdown Farm areas. While Longhedge is new development, it is not a simple urban extension of the city but rather relates to other parts of Laverstock & Ford parish. The same applies to Bishopdown Farm where the established established housing is part of Laverstock & Ford parish.

We join Wiltshire Council, Laverstock & Ford Parish Council and Salisbury City Council support the Wiltshire Council’s proposals in this area. There has been a long disagreement between the city and parish. There unoity on this matter is of consequence.

Salisbury Liberal Democrats object strongly to the Commission’s proposals for this division, and support the alternative set out by Wiltshire Council, Salisbury City Council and the Parish Council of Laverstock and Ford. We believe the name of Laverstock and Ford West would be a better description of our proposed division. Redlynch and Landford We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The two parishes are very closely linked by their location in the National Forest. We oppose in principle any suggestion of the creation of a two member division. We do not believe that such division create goo accountability or goverance from the resident point of view.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as being Redlynch and Landford.

Salisbury Bemerton Heath We support the Commission’s proposal for this division with a minor boundary change.

The church of St Michael has a very long and historic link with the Bemerton community, one that should not be broken. Therefore be appropriate to include it.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division being Salisbury Bemerton Heath.

Salisbury Fisherton and Bemerton We support the Commission’s proposal for this division with a minor boundary change.

For the reasons set out above, we believe the church f St Michael should sit in the Bemerton Heath divisions.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division being Salisbury Fisherton and Bemerton Village.

Salisbury Harnham East We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The requirements of electoral equality require the division of the wider Harnham area. However the geography of Harnham suggests a more coherent community based division is east and west not north and south; This better reflects the reality of local road and transport links.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division being Salisbury Harnham East.

Salisbury Harnham West We support the Commission’s proposal for this division with one minor change.

Our proposal removes he parish of Netherhampton parish from this city division. That community looks to Wilton and should be included in that division. This change improves the cohesion of this city community and the interests of good governance as it aligns the division completely within the city. The Harnham Hill is a feature of this community and should be included in the division.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as Salisbury Harnham West.

Salisbury Milford and Laverstock South We strongly object to the Commission’s proposal.

The Commission proposal divides the parish of Laverstock & Ford multiple times by dividing the historic village of Laverstock in two, so destroying community cohesion. This is further exacerbated by attaching an area of the separate city to the proposed division, The Commission refer to this area of the city as a parish. There is no “parish of Milford”. Community cohesion argues against all aspects of this proposal and in favour of a division formed by the communities know as Milford as outlined below and the inclusion of Laverstock in a division with Ford that forms the same parish.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports a division, including Laverstock, Firsdown, Clarendon Park and Britford and supports the name of this division as Laverstock and Ford.

Salisbury St Edmund We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The area concerned is a defined and cohesive community in the broad centre of the city.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as Salisbury St Edmund.

Salisbury St Francis and Stratford We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

The area concerned is a defined and cohesive community between major rivers leading into the city.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as Salisbury St Francis and Stratford.

Salisbury Milford We strongly object to the Commission’s proposal.

We support Wiltshire Council’s creation an entirely city based division of two distinct communities that form Milford. As such this proposal reflect the principles of both community cohesion and good governance.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as Salisbury Milford Division.

Salisbury St Pauls We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

This proposal reflects the defined and cohesive community in the broad centre of the city.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division as Salisbury St Pauls. Till We support the Commission’s proposal for this division but with a change to the proposed name.

The Commission’s proposal removes the parishes of Steeple Langford and Wylye and includes the parishes of Great Wishford and South Newton. We believe these changes improve the cohesion of the division.

For consistency the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party also supports the name of this division being Till Valley.

Winterbourne We support the Commission’s proposal for this division.

Having all of the Bourne Valley communities in a single division enhances their community identity and cohesion. The inclusion of the parish of Durnford with its strong links with many of the other parishes in the proposed division provides good electoral equality.

For consistency the Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division being Bourne Valley.

Wilton We support the Commission’s proposal for this division with one additional parish.

The changes outlined above enable the inclusion in this division of the parish Netherhampton. This parish looks to Wilton and sits outside of the city. This move creates greater community cohesion both for this division and the Harnham West division.

The Salisbury Constituency Liberal Democrat Party supports the name of this division being Wilton.