AUDIT COMMITTEE 25 March 2013

Subject: Community Governance Review 2012/13 Lead Officer: Darren Whitney Contact on 01789 260210 Lead Member/ Portfolio Holder: Councillor P Seccombe

Summary To consider each submission on its own merit and to either accept or reject these submissions giving reasons for doing so.

1 Background/Information 1.1 At its meeting on 17 October 2011, the Council agreed to carry out a Community Governance Review (CGR) under the terms of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 (LGPIH) starting at sometime in 2012/13. 1.2 A Terms of Reference document was drawn up and published on 23 July. The press, Parishes, the County Council, and District and County Councillors were informed and submissions were asked for, to be received at the District Council no later than 12 September 2012. 1.3 All Parishes were given notices and posters to display advertising the Review. 1.4 It was noted that this was not an ideal time to start the Review due to many Parish Councils not meeting during the summer. However, there had been a delay in employing a Parish Review Officer and there was a keenness to start the CGR as the District Council had made an application to the Local Government Boundary Commission for (LGBCE) to have its own Wards considered, and the CGR needed to be completed before this started. 1.5 The District Council did not initiate any changes (although individual District Councillors could make submissions) but must ultimately decide on any conflicting proposals. 1.6 The LGBCE initially rejected the District Council’s request for a Further Electoral Review (FER) but has since had a Council drop out of its programme and so SDC has now been added at an earlier time than that envisaged by the Council. Consequently, this means there is a tighter timetable to complete the CGR, which now must be completed by May 2013. There is also a statutory obligation to complete a CGR within 12 months of its commencement.

1.7 All submissions included here were considered by the Elections Reference Group which met on 24 September and were considered valid to go to the Audit Committee. 1.8 The LGPIH devolved the power to take decisions relating to the creation and abolition of parishes, the boundaries of parishes and the electoral arrangements of parish councils from the Secretary of State and the Electoral Commission to principal councils. With effect from February 2008, district councils have had the responsibility for undertaking CGRs and have been able to decide whether to give effect to recommendations made in those Reviews. In making that decision, councils need to take account of the views of local people, and the need to secure that community governance reflects the identities and interests of the community and is effective and convenient. They must also have regard to guidance issued by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the LGBCE. Members need to consider each submission on its merits in relation to the particular circumstances in the Parish and not attempt to find an apparently consistent approach to all parishes. 1.8.1 There were 61 submissions received at the first stage from Parish Clerks, Meetings or Chairs. 1.8.2 Five submissions were made from other parties – not including Henley and Beaudesert, where an online magazine asked electors to complete a short form and submit it to the District Council; 28 of these were received. 1.8.3 From those received, 39 submissions were for no change. 1.8.4 Audit Committee decided to proceed with consultation on all submissions apart from boundary changes in Priors Marston and Shotteswell parishes. 1.8.5 There was a consultation period until 7 February 2013 published by Parishes. Directly affected residents, where a boundary change may happen, were written to for their views. 1.9 The Elections Reference Group met on the 18 February to discuss the submissions and the consultation regarding these. Their recommendations are included in section two at the appropriate places. 1.10 The original full submissions are on the Council’s website https://www.stratford.gov.uk/council/community-governance- reviews.cfm and copies will be available at the meeting. 2 Matters for Consideration 2.1 Name Change 2.2 Parish Council proposes to change its name to Wellesbourne and Walton Parish Council. Originally, two of the District Councillors were happy with the recommendation and the other had no view regarding it. Wellesbourne re-iterated its comment but no further comments have been made. 2.3 This request was supported by the Elections Reference Group.

2.4 Change in Council Size 2.5 The Government’s guidance is that “each area should be considered on its own merits, having regard to its population, geography and the pattern of communities,” and therefore the Council is prepared to pay particular attention to existing levels of representation, the broad pattern of existing council sizes which have stood the test of time and the take- up of seats at elections in its consideration of this matter. 2.6 The number of parish/town councillors for each council must be not less than five but can be greater. The Aston Business School found the following levels of representation to the good running of a council: Electors Councillors Less than 500 5-8 501-2,500 6-12 2,501-10,000 9-16 10,001-20,000 13-27 More than 20,000 13-31

2.7 On saying this, the National Association of Local Councils suggests the minimum number of councillors be seven and the maximum be twenty- five. 2.8 Long Compton : increase from six to eight councillors. Long Compton generally fills it seats and last had an election in 2000. Quote from clerk: “This Council is at present six in number the very minimum for our population. Raising this to eight would bring us more in line with recommended numbers, ensure we are always quorate at meetings, at present not easy, and help to spread the ever-increasing work load”. Supported by District Councillor. The Parish re-iterated its comments and added that extra councillors would lighten load and lead to more quorate meetings. 2.9 This request was supported by the Elections Reference Group. 2.10 Loxley : increase from five to six or seven, depending on boundary move. Loxley normally fill its seats and had been granted an extra member in 2007. This had to be reversed as SDC used old legislation so is recommended to accept. Nothing further added after consultation. 2.11 This request was supported by the Elections Reference Group in part: an increase to six Councillors 2.12 Napton-on-the-Hill : six to eight councillors. Napton Parish Council met on 4 March 2013 and decided to withdraw their submission. There had been no other comments regarding the submission from groups or individuals. 2.13 Priors Marston : reduce from six to five councillors. Since 2000, Priors Marston has had problems filling vacancies at election time; however has two by-elections this year. Supported by District Councillor (see also Boundary change 2.24). Nothing further added after consultation 2.14 This request was not supported by the Elections Reference Group.

2.15 : increase from seven to nine councillors. In the four cycles of elections since 2000, Salford Priors has had elections in three of the four cycles. Councillors Howse and Spence are happy for increase. Salford Priors Parish confirmed it had nothing further to add, no other comments were received. 2.16 This request was supported by the Elections Reference Group. 2.17 : increase from seven to eight councillors. Due to difficulty in getting councillors together regarding planning issues. Cllr Sir William Lawrence was happy with the proposal if Wilmcote wanted to proceed. Nothing further added after consultation. 2.18 This request was supported by the Elections Reference Group 2.19 Boundary Changes 2.20 It is important to note that Audit Committee asked that when affected electors were written to, precepts for the parishes be included. This was done and anecdotal evidence suggests electors have just voted for the lowest precept. 2.21 – Submission (involves transfer from Parish of ). Binton Parish Council would like to see the following properties included into Binton Parish: Hillcrest, Golden Lea, Grafton Lodge and The Nursery; ie left of Binton Hill going up the hill (see map 1). Justification: A more logical boundary. This would affect 14 electors. Other comments: County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Temple Grafton doubted if villagers would agree. Results from consultation: Councillor David Keays, Chairman of Temple Grafton Parish Council, said they have not been consulted by Binton PC and disagree with them that the proposed boundary would be "more logical". Furthermore, no residents have been in touch expressing a wish for change and the Parish Council strongly opposes it. Six electors (all that answered) of the thirteen involved wished to move to Binton. This is on the proviso that the 30 mph speed limit is extended. The electors would also like the area renamed ‘Upper Binton’. The Elections Reference Group recommended that Binton Parish Council be invited to speak at this Committee to explain further. 2.22 – Submission. One property currently in Welford (see map 2). Justification: Property address is Braggington Grange, Braggington Lane, and the only property on this lane outside Dorsington Parish. This would affect one elector. Clerk and Chairman visited property, “and she was in agreement that their property would link naturally into our Parish” (map 3). Other comments: Welford PC: The Parish Council also objects to the movement of this boundary: “This proposal only affects one property and we do feel that

the proposed new line simply around that property takes a rather simplistic approach to the situation. As stated in your email, the parish boundary should be readily identifiable and we feel that this proposal does not fulfil that requirement. We have been in contact with the owner of the property concerned and they (like us) can see no benefit in moving the boundary”. County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Results from consultation: Margaret Lindsay, Dorsington Parish Clerk, said that, having considered comments from Welford, Dorsington Parish Council would like to suggest two further properties are included in the transfer by re-defining the boundary west of Braggington Lane to run along the public footpath. The properties have a natural affinity with the Parish. Councillor Peter Barnes responded in support. Officers have written to the other properties but have not as yet received a reply. If Audit Committee wishes to consider this, there would have to be a formal consultation. The decision would need to made and confirmed by Council before July 2013. Vanessa Lowe, Welford-on-Avon Parish Clerk, said the Parish Council voted on 5 February 2013 to object to this proposal; it does not feel that the proposed boundary change is readily identifiable being simply an extension around the boundary of one particular dwelling and the dwelling is in an isolated position but closer to Welford. In addition, the residents, whilst neutral, feel they have been well supported by the Parish Council in the past. The residents have not responded to the consultation. The Elections Reference Group recommended the status quo. 2.23 Exhall – Submission (involves transfer to Parish of Temple Grafton). The anomaly of part of Ardens Grafton existing in Exhall, whilst the majority exists as part of Temple Grafton, was felt worthy of examination (see map 4). Justification: It being felt that it was most likely that those residents of Ardens Grafton would feel themselves to be more a part of Temple Grafton than of Exhall. This change affects 74 electors. Other comments: County Councillor was willing to let locals decide. Results from consultation: Dr Emma Martineau, Exhall Parish Clerk, expressed concern that some residents in Ardens Grafton were upset by the implication in SDC's letter that the Parish Council actually wanted to move them to Temple Grafton; this has caused some ill-feeling with the Parish Council (on 31/01/13, the Parish Review Officer replied, asking what the Parish Council's opinion was and whether they would like, for instance, to make another submission to the Audit Committee). Exhall Parish Council's opinion is that: “the general consensus of opinion is that we feel the boundary between Temple Grafton and Exhall should

stay as it is or if it is to be changed should include all of Ardens Grafton. The boundary could then follow the line of the road". Out of 68 residents, there were 24 replies. Twelve wished to move to Temple Grafton, eleven wanting to stay and one did not vote as they hadn’t enough information. The following individual comments were received: • We use the school and church in Temple Grafton. X 2 • Parishes will only be effective if district councils take more notice of them particularly in planning matters. This request was not supported by the Elections Reference Group. 2.24 Loxley - Submission (involves transfer from ). Would like to suggest a change in the parish boundary between Loxley and Alderminster. Parish view is that the boundary should be the Stratford to road (map 5). Justification: The area of land between this road and the village of Loxley is detached from Alderminster and we believe has more affinity to Loxley. Geographically and administratively, the suggested new boundary would seem more appropriate. If the size of our Parish is increased, then we would request that the number of councillors be increased to seven. This change affects 65 electors. Other comments: Alderminster PC was initially in agreement with the proposal. District Councillor: I am aware of the proposal that has been put forward and have spoken to both Parish Councils about it. It makes sense to me to adopt the change and I would support it. Results from consultation: Mike Moody, Parish Clerk of Alderminster said that, following the receipt of a petition from residents of Goldicote requesting to stay in Alderminster, the Parish Council has withdrawn support for the proposals of Loxley Parish Council. Out of 68 consulted, 28 replied, 25 were against a move, whilst 3 were for it. Comments received: • Alderminster is close and has more amenities. • Feel we will be disadvantaged. • Have you considered absorbing Loxley into Alderminster? • Would this change the schools for Goldicote? • Very active village and good village hall activities. X 2 • Not aware of dissatisfaction with Alderminster and Goldicote residents are welcome at Alderminster functions should they wish to attend; no benefit in moving. • No wish to move as Alderminster completely fills my needs. The Elections Reference Group recommended no change.

2.25 Quinton - Submission (involves transfer to Marston Sicca). Would like to suggest that the parish boundary ended along the length of the Campden Road (A4632) which would mean that some of the ‘Long Marston Camp’ site would be removed from Quinton Parish and put into Marston Sicca Parish (map 6). Justification: Gives a more effective boundary between the two Parishes. Currently affects 16 electors but may have planning issues. Other comments: Marston Sicca PC: “We cannot support this proposal at the present time. As you are no doubt aware, there are major planning concerns ongoing in the area of the majority of this proposal and we think it would be unwise to "muddy the waters" until most of these planning issues are resolved. In fact, there may be boundary changes brought about by the creation of this new area of housing which will, in fact, have a larger population than Marston Sicca when it is completed” District Councillor supports status quo. Members also need to consider the brownfield development site at Long Marston. Results from consultation: Joan Matthews, (Chairman and Acting Clerk), of Marston Sicca Parish Council submitted a response of the Council following a recent meeting: "We are very concerned over the issues of services to be provided at this new settlement if the boundary changes were to be approved. When all planning matters were discussed and approved for this area of housing, all provision and financial assistance (including the s.106 agreement) for schools, medical services etc for new residents was to be provided either in Quinton Parish or at Shipston High School". Richard Hickman, Planning Management, St Modwen, said his company has planning permission to develop its estate which currently straddles the boundary; in the longer term there may be justification for a new parish but as the review is currently seeking to reduce the number of parishes, they would support the view of Quinton PC and see sense in locating the site wholly within Marston Sicca parish. Eight out of sixteen replied; all of these wanted to stay in Quinton Individual comments received: • We moved to Quinton for its sense of community and do not have a connection with Long Marston at all. • We serve an active part of Quinton and use its facilities. • We rarely drive into Long Marston; our connection has always been with Quinton. • I cannot understand that there can be advantages in moving the boundary; in a recession, it is totally inappropriate to spend money like this. • As a past parish councillor, I can see no gain or sense in spending money altering the boundary .

Despite comments received and the vote of residents, Councillors will need good reasons for not changing the boundary to the road – bearing in mind boundaries need to be on identifiable boundaries, which is not currently the case. The Elections Reference Group understood there was a need for change but recommended that this submission be investigated at a later review. However, the statutory guidance does state that boundaries should be easily identifiable on the ground and consequently the Committee will leave itself open to potential challenge if it maintains the status quo. 2.26 – Submission (involving transfer from PC, Arrow PC, Coughton PC, Exhall PC and Haselor PC) Alcester Town would like to transfer areas of Kinwarton (map 7) and Arrow (map 8), becoming part of Alcester. This would mean a new ward of Kinwarton, changing the number of councillors to be one extra in total. Suggested Warding would be: Alcester Ward 7 @ 353 electors Oversley Ward 6 @ 363 electors Oversley Green 1 @ 347 electors Kinwarton Ward 3 @ 290 electors Total No Councillors = 17 The affected number of electors is 909 from Kinwarton and 36 from Arrow. Justification: Alcester Town Council has, for a long period, considered that certain areas currently in neighbouring parishes would benefit to be included in Alcester, both by the services provided and by financial efficiencies created by a common approach. The further request is that Oversley Wood is wholly within Alcester which means transferring land from Haselor and Exhall Parish Councils (map 9). No electors are affected. When considering this item, what happens to the remaining part of Kinwarton should be considered if the submission becomes a proposal. Members also need to consider housing already being built in the disputed area.

Results from consultation: Margaret Moore, (Kinwarton Parish Council Chairman), said the general feeling of parishioners was that it was unfortunate that the consultation document arrived just before or after Christmas. However, residents were, in the majority, unhappy at the idea of losing the identity of Kinwarton to Alcester. The Chairman's comments in the 22 October response, and at the meeting in Elizabeth House, still apply. The Parish Council wishes to remain independent. The whole exercise has ruined the good relations with Alcester Town Council.

At the meeting of Parish Council on 14 January, it was decided that the comments of the Parish Council on 8 November still stand. Out of the 61% returned from electors in the Kinwarton area, 94% wished to remain in Kinwarton and, of 78% returned from electors in Arrow area, 89% wished to remain there. Individual comments are included on separate sheet (Appendix 2). There were no comments received regarding the changes at Oversley Wood. The Elections Reference Group concluded that: In regards to Arrow- this submission was supported; Oversley Wood - this submission was supported; and Kinwarton – further information required; The Group requested that Arrow, Kinwarton and Alcester be invited to make any further submissions at the next meeting of the Audit Committee. 2.27 Beaudesert and Henley Beaudesert and Henley JPC – submission (transfer from ) - Map 10 The Parish Council felt consideration of the following changes should be made: ARDEN ROAD All Beaudesert, not part Henley & part Beaudesert. MEADOW ROAD All Beaudesert, not part Henley & part Beaudesert. BELDESERT CLOSE Beaudesert not Henley. BLACKFORD CLOSE Beaudesert not Henley. BLACKFORD HILL Beaudesert not Henley. EDGE LANE Beaudesert not Henley. BIRMINGHAM ROAD Beaudesert not Ullenhall. (between Buckley Green & Camp Lane) This would affect 236 voters. This suggestion was echoed by a number of individuals. The JPC did also mention becoming a Town Council but this would mean merging and becoming a single council. Beaudesert and Henley, the Henley Independents – submission (transfer from Ullenhall) – Map 11 The submission is not too different from the JPC and suggests all west of the River Alne to be Henley and east to be Beaudesert. Birmingham Road from Ullenhall Birmingham Road (B95 5QA) from Beaudesert Birmingham Road (B95 5QD) from Beaudesert Beaudesert Park from Beaudesert

Arden Road from Henley Beldesert Close from Henley. Blackford Close from Henley. Blackford Hill from Henley Edge Lane from Henley. Meadow Road from Henley Kite Green from Henley This would affect 263 voters. If this goes ahead, the Henley Independents suggest the number of Henley councillors be also increased by one. Other comments: one District Councillor supported the Parish Council view: the other supported the status quo. Individual view: “We should be applying for Town Council status as we are a town and we think this would be a good opportunity to make this decision. We also believe we shouldn't be a joint parish council as we end up doing things twice (ie the town assembly meetings) and this just seems a waste of time. Our time would be spent far more productively if we all represented the whole town. This would stop there being any need to change parish boundaries”. Ullenhall PC: “The Parish Councillors of Ullenhall would resist any proposed boundary changes until they have more detailed information and are able to discuss as a Parish Council”. Results from consultation: JPC reaffirmed its position but requested transfer of two cottages on Road from to Beaudesert. Residents have been asked informally but Audit Committee would have to request formal consultation to go ahead. Pat Hughes, Clerk of Ullenhall, said the Parish Council met on 5 February 2013 and voted unanimously against the proposed boundary change. "We consider the proposal for boundary change would not in any way improve facilities nor amenities nor the democratic rights of the residents affected. The recent consultation exercise by Stratford-on-Avon District Council surely confirms that the residents affected wish to remain in Ullenhall Parish." Only 15% of electors asked, returned their forms and, of those, 57% were in favour of the Henley Independents’ submission. Those canvassed currently in Ullenhall were 57% in favour of remaining there. Twenty-four per cent of those asked would like the JPC to be a Town Council. Relevant comments received were: • Put the wishes of the voters first, not their pet hates. • I don't care, as long as I have council services it makes no difference; what a waste of paper.

• There should be no change; this is wasting taxpayers' money and parish councils should be non-political. • I was not given the option of saying whether I would like to see a town council, which I do, as well as casting my vote for a location. • A town council would properly reflect the market town of Henley. • The number of voters per council is more important – boundaries matter less because the Council operates as a joint parish. Henley Independents have requested an extra councillor if boundary changes are accepted. Wootton Wawen PC on the request above from the JPC - further consideration was discussed at our recent Parish Council meeting held on 25 February 2013. The Parish Council has no objection to the transfer of Blackford Hill Cottage and Blackford Mill Cottage to Beaudesert and Henley-in-Arden JPC. Nothing was received from Residents. The Elections Reference Group made the following comments: The part of the submission made by both parties involving Ullenhall was not supported. It was recommended that Beaudesert and Henley-in- Arden Joint Parish Council, Henley Independents and the Ward Members, Councillors Matheou and Thirlwell, be invited to make comment. A slight preference for the Joint Parish Council submission was made. 2.28 Old Stratford and Drayton – Submission. The Parish Council considers that it should be disbanded and amalgamated with Stratford Town Council and the Parishes of Luddington, and Wilmcote, (map 12). Justification: the Parish is today something of an anachronism and parishioners consider themselves as belonging to the town rather than the Parish. Extract from Chairman’s letter, “Indeed, the name of Old Stratford and Drayton only exists as an administrative title for the Parish Council. There is no village centre, shop, church or sports club. The only pub (currently closed) is a roadside hostelry and has never acted as a focal point of the community. It is not therefore surprising that it has been difficult over very many years to get parishioners interested in council/community affairs. Community-minded parishioners think of themselves as belonging to the town (or in the case of residents of Stannells Close and parts of Luddington Road to Luddington) rather than to the Parish. There is resentment/bewilderment among some residents living close to the town (e.g. the Packhorse Road estate) that they are not considered to be part of the town and are unable to vote in town referenda etc. Parishioners tend only to attend Parish Council meetings when they are directly affected by an issue (usually a planning application) under discussion, but otherwise take little interest in the work of the Council”. Other comments: Luddington PC, “It was agreed that many residents of Luddington Road and Stannells Close already take an active part within the community at

Luddington, both in a social and more community-based sense. There are also physical features which make the suggested change logical and practical – more so than the current brook which forms the boundary between the two existing parishes. I note that the plan you have provided does not include a few properties on the north side of Road at Bordon Hill, although other properties within the Dodwell community are within the Luddington Parish a short distance to the west. Subject to that comment the suggested changes would be welcomed by Luddington Parish Council.” Snitterfield PC: “The Council has had the opportunity to consider the proposals by Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council and has no objection to the boundary changes as they affect the Parish area of Snitterfield”. Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council: “Council reserved the right to consider further any proposals or recommendations resulting from the Review, the Council at present was unanimously AGREED: (1) To concur with the proposal put forward by Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council, and would accept a partial amalgamation of their parish into the boundaries of Stratford-upon-Avon parish. (2) That it would wish to see the recommendations of parishes abutting the boundary of Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council parish before making any further comment on the question ‘make boundary alterations between existing parishes’. (3) That Council would wish to see proportional representation in the ‘allocation of councillors to wards’ in order to ensure that all residents have equal representation on council.” Results from consultation: Wilmcote had suggested an alternative boundary at Audit Committee and this was duly consulted on (Map 13). Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council met on 22 January and notes and concurs with comments made by both Old Stratford and Drayton and Wilmcote PCs. The former gives assurance that their proposal would see both the parkway station and recycling centre at Burton Farm within Stratford. Stratford TC wishes to affirm that it would prefer these major facilities and any developments here to lie within their area. Ian Wilkins, Clerk to Snitterfield Parish Council, said, “the Council has had an opportunity to consider the proposals and has no objection to the boundary changes as they affect the parish of Snitterfield. However, should the counter-proposals of Wilmcote PC be accepted, we submit that those changes relating to Snitterfield should be included in the area of Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council” (Map 14). John Madge, Clerk to Luddington Parish Council, said: “I am writing to confirm the comments previously made that the Parish Council welcomes the proposal resulting from the possible disbanding of Old Stratford and Drayton Parish Council, and the incorporation into Luddington Parish Council of the area and properties along Luddington Road between the current boundary and the brook running parallel to Luddington Road

from Evesham Road to the race course entrance, with the new northern boundary of the Parish following the B439 back from the Evesham Road entrance to Luddington Road towards Dodwell. The Parish Council believe that many of the residents in this geographical area already feel more of an affinity to either Luddington or Dodwell within the parish. As there has also been one vacancy on Luddington Parish Council for the past few years, it is felt that the increase in the population in the parish, whilst being modest and manageable from an administrative perspective, could lead to greater interest in the most local level of democracy”. Overall, electors accepted the abolition of Old Stratford and Drayton and to move to the various parishes. Only four of the thirty-three electors affected by the change of boundary between Stratford and Wilmcote replied and that came to two votes each. Electors were asked a supplementary question that, if Old Stratford and Drayton were to remain, would they consider standing for Council. Only eight said they would consider it. Members should also bear in mind the Neighbourhood Plan currently under review which will have a bearing on this area. The Elections Reference Group made the following comments: • Luddington – this part of the submission was supported; • Wilmcote – this part of the submission was supported as amended by Wilmcote Parish Council; and • Snitterfield - Stratford-upon-Avon Town Council Town Council and Snitterfield Parish Council to be invited to speak this meeting of the Audit Committee. 2.29 – Submission (involves Atherstone Parish Meeting) . Consideration should be given by the District to amalgamating Preston- on-Stour with the neighbouring Atherstone-on-Stour village and greater parish area to form a 'Stour' Parish Council (Map 15). There are 57 electors in Atherstone-on-Stour. Justification: “ The Parish benefits from having a council and should continue to do so. It is a very large area spanning several square miles, with a small population. The electoral roll of fewer than 200 people in the Parish is too low to allow the Council to raise much revenue or effect some of its ambitions.” The District Councillor has informed officers that there is no Parish Meeting held at Atherstone-on-Stour. If Members do not decide to go forward with a proposal to merge the two Parishes, they must consider what to do with Atherstone-on-Stour Parish. Results from consultation: Councillor Will Hanrahan said Preston-on-Stour is not viable without expansion but, if Atherstone-on-Stour were to be embraced, it would be sensible to have a resident from there on the newly-formed Council. Twenty out of sixty electors replied, fifteen of which wanted to remain as Atherstone Parish Meeting

Comments received • Concern that (i) the opinions of the wider community have not been taken into account, (ii) boundaries are not readily identifiable/logical, (iii) there is no indication of what the funding from the precept would be used for and would like warding to apply, (iv) a name like “Alscot” would be far more appropriate than “Stour”. • Would prefer the name “Alscot” to “Stour”. • E-mailed comments on 6 February 2013: “Preston is divided and autocratic with several factions trying to run it; most of Atherstone prefer to go to Waitrose than the village shop and although we have co-operated with Preston on various projects such as the Millennium Hall, we would lose more than we gain by amalgamating with them”. • As far as I can see this will only cost us money. • Why change it if it's not broken? • No point, no gain, no councillor. The Elections Reference Group recommended no change. 2.30 Coughton – submission by individual (involves transfer from and Alcester). (i) Coughton may wish to include houses (presently in Sambourne) somewhat up Haydons Way towards Studley (47 electors) and (ii) house at the junction of Coughton Lane and Alcester Heath (presently in Alcester) may want to join Coughton (1 elector). (See maps 16 and 17). Justification: (i) would presumably include land to the east of A435 to the river where the boundary with Spernal runs. This is not an outlandish proposal as residents have strong social links with Coughton and some similar issues e.g. A435. (ii) This also makes some sense. On the other hand, there is another house on Alcester Heath Road (B4090) towards Sambourne on the northern side of the road which is in a similar position. Perhaps having Alcester's boundary join the B4090 somewhere before Coughton Lane and run along the centre line of the road till it meets Wychavon on the Ridgeway (A441) would make sense. Other comments: Coughton PC: “(i) Although Haydon Way, to the north of the village, is included within the proposal, it appears to include properties on the eastern side of the A435 only. Number 49 Haydon Way is a cottage on the western side of the A435 that falls within the area of land between the Cain Brook and the A435 and should fall within Coughton. (ii) As intended, 55 Coughton Lane is included within the proposal, with the proposed boundary following this particular stretch of the Alcester Heath highway. However, the proposed boundary continues along the centre of the highway as far as its junction with Whitemoor Rd at the extreme eastern end of the parish. We are unlikely to have a problem with this proposal, but as a result the Parish would also include Bunkers Barn Farm that is currently part of Alcester”.

District Councillor, Sambourne: “I would not support any change where both Parishes did not agree to the change. I would not support any change unless a majority of those individuals affected demonstrate their desire for this to happen”. Results from consultation: Of the 33% of electors who made a preference, 53% wished to move to Coughton. Individual comments made: • I was a member of the traffic group for the Coughton Village Plan; the Coughton community could not be more welcoming unlike Sambourne which has been hostile to some of our concerns. It makes geographical sense to remain. • I feel as if I'm in Nomansland as Sambourne seems unaware of our existence. • Since parish councils supply no services I can see no point in paying an extra £32 per year for nothing! The Elections Reference Group thought this to be a reasonable submission; Sambourne and Coughton Parish Councils to be asked to provide any extra information they thought relevant. 2.31 Studley/Individual Submission (involves transfer from Sambourne and Mappleborough Green), (see map 18). (i) PC: Subject to agreement with Sambourne PC to take back Kiln Close, John Close, Part of Green Lane and Part of the Slough. Individual: One thought on this is whether to consider where the boundary runs along this (and the rest) of the A448. Along the centre line as presently or behind the property line to the South i.e. making all houses South of A448 (presently Sambourne) would affect in the region of 230-240 electors depending on which area was chosen. (ii) Studley PC: Subject to agreement with Mappleborough Green PC to take back that Parish or part thereof. Individual: There is some sense in including Washford Mill and Abbeyfields (presently Mappleborough Green) in Studley due to proximity. 157 electors affected. Justification: These areas would sit more comfortably within Studley Parish due to their location. Other comments: District Councillor, Sambourne: My main concern is that all parishes and the residents directly concerned in any realignments are consulted and hopefully an outcome agreed. Mappleborough Green PC does not see any need for boundary change but has not as yet commented on the submission. Results from consultation: Councillor Shaun Regan of Mappleborough Green said: “the Parish Council have rejected the proposals in favour of the current structure on grounds of (i) parish identity, (ii) efficiency and value for money for residents and (iii) elector representation; note also that there has been no joint working which might impact on continuing the current arrangements.

Teresa Murphy (Sambourne Clerk) said the Parish Council have no wish for parish boundaries to be moved (as per communication in August 2012). Of the 37% return from electors, 90% wished to stay in their current Parish. The Elections Reference Group recommended no change. 2.32 – a late request was made to Audit Committee in November to consider a boundary change with Tysoe – Officers could not get an agreed submission from Radway Parish Council in time for consultation. 2.33 Welford – a late request was made to Audit Committee in November to consider a boundary change with Binton – The following request was made by Welford Parish Council: “Since making our original response to the Community Governance Review, we have been approached by residents asking if consideration could be given to moving our boundary north to include the swathe of land from the river up to the B439. This land is currently in the parish of Binton but to everyone who lives here, it is part of Welford. It includes the Millennium project which was created by Welford-on-Avon Parish Council and is run by Welford villagers. It also includes the caravan site which is called Welford Riverside Park. There are on-going issues regarding HGV traffic travelling over the Binton Bridges (contrary to the weight limits) and we would hope that if the entire bridges were within our Parish it might enable us to address these concerns more effectively.” Results from consultation: Vanessa Lowe (Parish Clerk) said the Parish Council voted on 5 February 2013 to support this proposal; it is an anomaly that this swathe of land is within Binton parish; land nearby is maintained by Welford Millennial Project Trust, a caravan site close by is known as Welford Riverside Caravan Park and the Parish Council could manage the current problems with HGVs on the bridge more effectively if it were within one parish. Also, the Neighbourhood Plan Steering Committee intend to include this land in the Plan area. Four electors involved, 3 replied - 2 in favour of Welford, one for Binton; nothing was received from Binton Parish Council. The Elections Reference Group supported this submission. 3 Options 3.1 The Audit Committee needs to consider each matter within paragraphs 2.1 to 2.34 above taking into account the submissions and results of consultation bearing in mind the guidance given Communities and Local Government and The LGBCE (Appendix 1) and make a decision whether to accept or reject the submission. 3.2 Audit Committee may, in certain cases, want to ask for more information but it needs to be borne in mind that the review needs to be completed by mid-May for the commencement of the District Electoral Review. 3.3 Audit Committee will need to make the decision on when the orders come into force. 3.4 Audit Committee needs to be able to give strong reasons for accepting or rejecting a proposal.

4 What happens next? 4.1 Final decisions go to Council in April for ratification and instruction for Legal to make the specific orders. 4.2 The (LGBCE) needs to be informed of any changes to boundaries so they can consider the changes regarding the Further Electoral Review of the District Wards. 4.3 There are a number of other statutory bodies that need to be informed of outcomes of the review. 5 Implications of the Proposal 5.1 Legal/Human Rights Implications 5.2 Legal will need to produce relevant orders once confirmed by Council. 5.3 There are no human rights implications in this report. 5.4 The Council is obliged to have regard to the statutory guidance issued by the Secretary of State and the need to secure that community governance reflects the identities and interests of the community and is effective and convenient 5.5 Financial 5.5.1 None outside of current budget. 5.6 Environmental 5.6.1 There are no environmental implications. 5.7 Corporate Strategy 5.7.1 None directly but underpins all by Parishes considering their own identifies and interests 6 Risk Assessment 6.1 If proposals are not drawn up for Audit Committee, there is a danger of not completing the Review before the FER begins.

Paul Lankester CHIEF EXECUTIVE

Background papers: Guidance on Community Governance Reviews (published jointly by the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Local Government Boundary Commission for England) – 2010