Parish Councils submissions to the North Somerset Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 23 submissions from Parish Councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
Cooper, Mark
From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 12 March 2014 14:23 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed boundary changes
Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
Tel: 020 7664 8514 www.lgbce.org.uk
It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you.
How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views
From: Backwell Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 March 2014 14:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed boundary changes
Dear Sirs
Backwell Parish Council met last Thursday 6th March and discussed the proposed boundary changes.
The Council strongly rejected Map B on the basis no community of interest between Backwell and other parts of the proposed ward, and also as the largest community in that proposed ward considered the title of Gordano & Wraxall inappropriate.
The Council would prefer to revert to a ward based on Map A with the recommendation that Backwell and Winford combined into a single 2 member ward.
Yours faithfully
Jane Stone Clerk to Backwell Parish Council
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 March 2014 13:36 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation Attachments: BGPC 25-03-14 LGBCE ward boundary comment.pdf
From: Barrow Gurney Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 March 2014 13:34 To: Reviews@ Cc: Andy Robbins; Eric and Anne GATES; Geoff Coombs; Lesley Waldron; Rob Mckenzie Subject: Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
For the attention of the Review Officer (North Somerset)
Please find attached, the comments of the Barrow Gurney Parish Council in response to the draft ward boundary recommendations for North Somerset.
Thank you for the opportunity to submit representation on this matter and should further information or clarity be required, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours Sincerely,
Joanna van Tonder Clerk to the Barrow Gurney Parish Council
163 BARROW GURNEY PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Ms Joanna van Tonder
Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76 – 86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
25 March 2014
Dear Sir / Madam,
RE: Electoral Review of North Somerset: Barrow Gurney Parish Council comments on the further limited consultation
I refer to the draft recommendations for the ward boundaries of North Somerset and further limited consultation that commenced on 12 February of this year.
Barrow Gurney Parish Council is extremely disappointed to see the Boundary Commission's Map B, which appears to overturn the original recommendation (Map A) with which the Council were broadly content. Map B ignores the Council's previous comments and proposes an unacceptable solution in which the scale and population of Long Ashton heavily outweigh the surrounding rural areas.
As observed in relation to the original proposals, the Parish Council believes that Barrow Gurney is a rural community, with much in common with the village's rural neighbours. Service links tend to focus on Backwell, which provides rail communication, a secondary school and a leisure centre. The particular development issues that concern the village relate to the growth of Bristol Airport and its associated infrastructure, where Barrow Gurney and parishes surrounding the airport (predominantly Dundry, Winford and Backwell) have common interests.
The Parish Council believes that the solution offered by Map A for this immediate area was far preferable to the revised proposal set out in Map B, but a two member constituency which brought together Backwell and Winford would also offer an acceptable solution.
Yours Sincerely,
Joanna van Tonder Clerk of the Barrow Gurney Parish Council Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 March 2014 13:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Attachments: LGBC recommendations - response ideas.doc
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of parish clerk Sent: 25 March 2014 12:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset
I attach a response to the consultation on behalf of Blagdon Parish Council.
Regards
Peter
-- Peter Ballantyne Clerk Blagdon Parish Council
E: [email protected] W: www.blagdonpc.org.uk
If you have problems with waste collections, pot holes or dog fouling you can contact North Somerset Council's Streets and Open Spaces by visiting www.n-somerset.gov.uk/connect to report it online, or ring 01934 888 802.
167
Parish Clerk – Peter Ballantyne 66 Cox Way, Clevedon, North Somerset, BS21 5AD Tel: 01275 349098 Email: [email protected]
Review Officer (North Somerset) LGBCE Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 25th March 2014
Dear Review Officer,
Blagdon Parish Council has reviewed and discussed the “further Limited consultation” documentation produced by the LGBC and strongly opposes the recommendation for a new 3-member Churchill and Wrington Ward.
The original draft recommendation to retain the current single member Blagdon and Churchill ward was widely supported, including by all the main political groupings within North Somerset. Given this support, Blagdon Parish Council did not feel it necessary to make any formal submission.
We were therefore very surprised to find that major changes were now being proposed to those draft recommendations. In putting forward these changes, the LGBC states that they are being made “in the light of representations received during the consultation”. We have reviewed the representations made in the supporting documentation provided and can find no evidence to justify this position. In fact, the overall reactions to the revised recommendations suggest widespread concern and even greater numbers of objections to these.
One of the key justifications for the exercise was to address supposed “electoral inequalities”. From studying the electorate numbers supplied, we consider any changes resulting from the new ward structure to be of minimal impact. To go from a current variance to the North Somerset average of -8% to one of -5% under the proposed regime is hardly significant and cannot justify the major changes and costs involved in establishing and administering this new structure.
Blagdon and Churchill parishes have shared interests and facilities. Blagdon Parish Council does not feel that we have any social, educational, commercial or geographic links or affinities with the majority of the Councils that will comprise the proposed “super ward”. If anything, we feel that we will have much less of a voice if subsumed into a large Churchill and Wrington ward, and reduced representation at District and North Somerset levels.
At a time when we are being encouraged to become more resilient and a policy of increased localism is actively promoted, we feel that the proposed ward change is the wrong solution.
Blagdon Parish Council therefore wishes to lodge its objection to the revised recommendation. It is badly thought through, lacks support and further marginalises the rural parishes in general, and Blagdon in particular.
Yours sincerely,
Peter Ballantyne
Clerk Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 March 2014 11:40 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Churchill & Wrington Ward
From: Brockley Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 March 2014 14:53 To: Reviews@
Subject: Proposed Churchill & Wrington Ward
Sirs Brockley Parish Council met on 12 March and discussed the proposed 3‐member Churchill & Wrington Ward (Map B). It was felt Brockley had quite a lot in common with Wrington and Cleeve (Map A) but that making a very large ward would reduce the effectiveness of the district councillor.
WE THEREFORE OBJECT TO TO MAP B. We did not object to Map A last September.
Yours faithfully Gillian Rowley Clerk
168 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 01 April 2014 09:08 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of North Somerset : Further Limited Consultation Attachments: Boundary_Comm._LGBCE_23.03.doc
Hi Mark,
Please see the below submission for North Somerset.
Regards, Helen
From: Teresa Martin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 March 2014 08:27 To: Reviews@ Cc: Paul Keel; Roger Daniels Subject: Electoral Review of North Somerset : Further Limited Consultation
Please find attached comments from Burrington Parish Council on the above. A signed copy will be sent in the post today.
Kind regards TeresaMartin Clerk to Burrington Parish Council
124 BURRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
CLERK TO BURRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Email: [email protected]
Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
by email to [email protected] 23 March 2014
Dear Sir/Madam,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET: FURTHER LIMITED CONSULTATION I write to conv ey th e comments o f Burri ngton Paris h Council on the Commission’s furth er pro posals for the C hurchill & Wrington Ward under which Bu rrington w ould be o ne o f 9 p arishes in a 3-member war d with a population of 9,722. We u nderstand the d ifficulties o f a chieving b roadly cons istent ratios of electors to district councillors in a mix ed ur ban and r ural area like North Somerset – whi lst r educing th e num ber of d istrict councillors. Ho wever, effective local democracy also depends on having electoral divisions that are small enough to all ow eff ective r elationships to dev elop between d istrict councillors, their electorates and the constituent parishes. Representation could easily be distorted by strong views and campaigning in one parish to the d etriment o f r epresentation of t he rest o f the ward. H ow would th e three cou ncillors d ivide th eir t ime between the regular parish council meetings and the other matters o f the nine parishes without reverting to something similar to the existing arrangements? Wards s hould also b e d efined according to geo graphical are as that the electorate perceives to be r elevant to local issues, based on communities of interest such as school catchment areas. Electoral divisions that are too large and p erceived to be remote are less likely to e ncourage v oting and participation in loca l g overnment. W e b elieve t hat t hree o ne-member w ards for the Churchill & Wrington a rea would provide m ore eff ective loca l representation in t his part of Nor th Som erset tha n the pr oposed 3-member ward.
/... .
/.....
Links between Churchill, Burrington and Blagdon are strong and the ward is a meaningful electoral division. We have noted the previous comments of other parish c ouncils an d understand that Bro ckley and Cleeve a re link ed more closely to Backwell than to Wrington. The addition of Butcombe to Churchill, Burrington and Bla gdon w ould i ncrease th e r atio of e lectors t o counc illors which is one of the aims of the Electoral Review. We are not in a position to su ggest alternative proposals covering the other wards, but it is clear that the Commission’s latest proposals are unsatisfactory in a number of ways. We hope the Com mission wil l f ocus on achi eving me aningful electoral divisions to which the e lectorate can relate and for which district councillors can provide effective representation, even if this results in more variation in the ratios of electors to district councillors. A greater degree of what the Commission calls ‘e lectoral inequality’ may be preferable to excessively large electoral divisions such as the Commission’s proposals for a 3-member, 9-parish Churchill & Wrington Ward. Yours faithfully,
Mrs Teresa Martin Clerk to Burrington Parish Council
2 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 April 2014 10:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Council - Boundary Review
From: Dick Whittington Sent: 07 April 2014 13:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Council - Boundary Review
Dear Sir/Madam
I am responding behalf of BUTCOMBE PARISH COUNCIL to your further consultation on Ward Boundaries in North Somerset.
We are pleased to note that Butcombe is now to be located in the same Ward as Blagdon – as noted in our previous submission, Butcombe is a very small Parish, with few local facilities, and residents make use of those in neighbouring Blagdon, with whom we have strong historic links.
However, we are concerned at the size of the proposed Wards, and the likelihood that three Councillors covering the proposed area will find it very difficult to gain the local knowledge which is a strength of the current arrangements. I think small rural Parishes like ours will be concerned that their interests may get overlooked in favour of the larger communities elsewhere.
Understanding and responding to the detail of local issues is a critical requirement of representation on the Unitary Authority, and we are concerned that this could be prejudiced by your focus on electoral equity.
R J Whittington
Chairman Butcombe Parish Council
Dick Whittington West of England Rural Network
Please consider the environment before printing
15 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 02 April 2014 09:41 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Review Officer (North Somerset) Attachments: LGBCE-Letter-BoundaryReview-310314.pdf
Hi Mark,
Please see below submission for North Somerset.
Regards, Helen
From: Cathryn Butler - Clapton-in-Gordano Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 April 2014 11:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: FAO: Review Officer (North Somerset)
Dear Review Officer
I attach a letter from the Clapton-in-Gordano Parish Council, in which it urges the LGBCE to abandon the revised draft proposals for ward boundaries (as represented by Map B) and revert to the original proposals of Map A.
I trust that the LGBCE will take this view into account in determining its final recommendations.
Yours faithfully Cathryn
Cathryn Butler Parish Clerk - Clapton in Gordano
118 CLAPTON-IN-GORDANO PARISH COUNCIL
Clerk Chairman Cathryn Butler Clive Roberts
E: [email protected] 31 March 2014
Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 78-86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG
Dear Sir
Electoral Review of North Somerset
At its meeting last week, the Clapton-in-Gordano Parish Council considered the LGBCE's revised draft recommendations for ward boundaries in the rural part of North Somerset, as represented by Map B. I write to advise that the parish council finds these proposals entirely unacceptable.
When the original consultation on revised ward boundaries was opened in March 2013, the parish council wrote to the LGBCE supporting the opportunity that this gave for rationalising boundaries and groupings of villages and towns. We advocated the establishment of wards that allowed a district councillor to represent similarly sized and located communities, keeping urban areas, small villages and larger villages in separate wards. We were pleased with the resultant original draft recommendations, as represented by Map A, feeling that these recognised community sizes and links, and would support effective local governance.
Map B, as published in February 2014, places the very small village of Clapton-in-Gordano in a two member ward that covers a huge area and includes the large village of Backwell, which is geographic distant and a community with which our village has no connection or relationship. The population of Backwell would comprise more than half of the entire ward. It feels inevitable that its interests and concerns would dominate over those of any other village within the ward, and that councillor time would be focussed on the southern part of the ward.
When publishing the original draft recommendations (Map A) in September 2013, the LGBCE described the characteristics of a good pattern of wards, citing electoral equality, evidence of community links, easily identifiable boundaries, and supporting effective and convenient local governance. We suggest that the proposals of Map B fail on all but the first of these – and would only achieve that by the establishment of a two member ward.
continued/… We note that our current district councillor, Nigel Ashton, is strongly opposed to the most recent recommendations. We endorse Councillor Ashton's views and urge the LGBCE to abandon the proposals of Map B and reinstate, and implement, the proposals represented by Map A.
Yours faithfully
Cathryn Butler Clapton-in-Gordano Parish Clerk
cc Councillor Nigel Ashton
Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:18 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of North Somerset - Long Ashton Ward - Response from Dundry Parish Council Attachments: DPC response revised ward boundaries.pdf
From: Judith Hoskin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 April 2014 12:57 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Holger Laux'; 'DOUGLAS, Ione'; 'Mike Jones (Electoral Services)' Subject: Electoral Review of North Somerset - Long Ashton Ward - Response from Dundry Parish Council
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please find attached Dundry Parish Council’s response to your revised proposals for ward boundaries in North Somerset.
I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt,
Regards,
Judith Hoskin, Clerk to Dundry Parish Council,
[email protected] www.dundry.org.uk
86 Dundry Parish Council
Judith Hoskin Clerk to the Council
Email:[email protected]
The Review Officer (North Somerset), Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG
3rd April 2014
Dear Sir/Madam,
Local Government Boundary Commission Electoral Review in North Somerset - consultation on revised proposal for ward boundaries (Long Ashton Ward).
Dundry Parish Council discussed your revised proposals for ward boundaries (Map B) with parishioners at our Annual Parish Meeting on 20th March and at our Parish Council meeting on 2nd April.
Councillors were broadly content with your first proposals for revised ward boundaries as shown on Map A, which grouped four small parishes with similar interests, to the extent that they did not feel it necessary to comment. However, they are very concerned at the revised proposal which suggests including Dundry, Winford and Barrow Gurney with Long Ashton in a two councillor Long Ashton ward.
Councillors do not think it would be in the interests of Dundry Parish to be linked in a ward with Long Ashton for the following reasons:
• Long Ashton has a totally different character from Dundry and the other small parishes. It is in effect a small town closely linked to Bristol whereas Dundry, despite being very near Bristol, has a rural character with many of
1
the advantages and disadvantages of rural parishes much further away from a large city.
• Although each parish is different and has different concerns Dundry has much more in common with the villages of Winford, Regil and Felton in Winford parish, and with Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton, all of which were proposed as constituents of the ward shown on Map A.
• The balance of electors between Long Ashton and the smaller parishes would disproportionately favour Long Ashton. Long Ashton would have approximately 60% of the total number of electors in the ward. The likelihood is that both ward councillors would be resident in Long Ashton and be more concerned with issues raised in that parish than with the smaller parishes.
• The letter sent to the Chief Executive of North Somerset Council on 26th March 2013, at the beginning of the consultation on warding arrangements, sets great store by understanding North Somerset’s communities. Unfortunately the warding pattern proposed on Map B shows a distinct lack of understanding of Dundry which is a parish on the edge of the District of North Somerset and therefore has strong cross-border links with communities in Bath and North East Somerset.
• Dundry has no particular link with Long Ashton. Historically it was part of the manor of Chew Magna and the ecclesiastical parish of Dundry was only separated from Chew Magna parish in the nineteenth century. Links with Chew Magna parish are still strong.
• Many services used by residents in Dundry are either in BANES or in Bristol. For example, a survey carried out for our Parish Plan in 2007 showed that 67% of residents were registered with the Chew Medical Practice and 20% in Bishopsworth.
• The majority of young people in state secondary education in the parish attend Chew Valley School.
2
• Our only bus service runs between the Chew Valley and Bristol – there is therefore no public transport to Long Ashton.
• Dundry, along with Winford and Felton, is on the flight path to Bristol Airport. This is of ongoing concern to residents and another matter in which we feel our concerns are unlikely to be represented in a Long Ashton ward.
In summary, Dundry Parish Council would urge you to revert to the warding arrangement shown on Map A or to some similar arrangement combining small parishes with similar interests.
Yours faithfully,
Holger Laux
Chairman, Dundry Parish Council
Judith Hoskin
Clerk, Dundry Parish Council
3
Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 March 2014 16:07 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: WARD BOUNDARIES NORTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL
From: Roger Higgins Sent: 18 March 2014 16:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: WARD BOUNDARIES NORTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL
This is a response to your Further Limited Consultation dated 12th February
Roger Higgins Chairman, Flax Bourton Parish Council
*************************************************************************************************************** **********
FLAX BOURTON PARISH COUNCIL
We were pleased to see the Commission’s result of the previous consultation with the inclusion of Flax Bourton Parish with our service village of Backwell – in the proposed ward of Gordano and Wraxall. (Suggest the name Backwell should be included in the Ward title)
Also, we believe other parishes local to us may submit to the Commission a revised proposal of a ward made up of Flax Bourton, Barrow Gurney, Dundry, Winford and Backwell. We are happy to support this alternative, it would be our preferred option.
Critical to Flax Bourton Parish, is that we are included with our service village of Backwell for the reasons stated in our response dated 7th October and copied below for reference.
Roger Higgins Chairman, Flax Bourton Parish Council
18.3.14
*************************************************************************************************************** ***************************
FLAX BOURTON PARISH COUNCIL
Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street
1 London EC1M 5LG
WARD BOUNDARIES NORTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL
Following the representations made by this Parish Council to the earlier consultation, we are very concerned to learn from your draft recommendations that our views have been ignored completely.
You have aligned us with the villages of Dundry, Felton and Winford - villages with whom we have no natural link and whose facilities are of no relevance to us.
We have no services in the village of Flax Bourton. The “service village” for us is Backwell – in terms of shops, post office, schools, medical centre, dentistry and public transport. Residents of Flax Bourton also belong to various activities asociated with Backwell – amateur dramatics, Womens’ Institute, tennis club, bowling club etc. Use of the Leisure Centre at Backwell also is important.
If we are to have meaningful representation by our district councillor(s), surely this must relate in part to the local services available to our residents and that representation should be by people who “live in the patch”.
We implore you to look at the local realities for our residents rather than lines on a map and include us with Backwell – if necessary in a continuing two member ward.
Roger Higgins Chairman, Flax Bourton Parish Council.
7.10.13
2 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 08 April 2014 10:21 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Electoral Review
Hi Mark,
Please see below a submission for North Somerset.
Helen
From: Eleanor Wade [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 April 2014 22:55 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Electoral Review
Kenn Parish Council gave consideration to this latest limited consultation and wish to comment with regard to the Yatton Ward:‐
Kenn Parish Council support the original proposals for this ward ie 3 wards made up of Yatton Ward, Congresbury & Puxton Ward, Wrington Ward, and do not support the new revised proposals for the overly large ward of Churchill & Wrington.
Regards Eleanor Wade Clerk of Kenn Parish Council ‐‐ Eleanor Wade, Kenn Parish Clerk, Tel: ‐ Web: www.kenn‐pc.org.uk ______This email, along with any files transmitted with it, originates from Kenn Parish Council and is for the intended recipient only. It may contain sensitive material and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient you may not copy, use, disclose, distribute, or print it to anyone else. If you have received this in error please notify the sender immediately. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender states with authority they are the views of Kenn Parish Council.
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 March 2014 16:38 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
From: L ALLDAY Sent: 20 March 2014 15:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
Kingston Seymour Parish Council notes that no further changes are proposed relating to Yatton Ward, the proposal remaining for a slightly smaller geographical area and a reduction of the number of ward members from three to two. It is content with this and has no further comment to make.
Leonie Allday Clerk, Kingston Seymour PC
182 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:17 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset FER Attachments: LGBCE letter 2.docx
From: Janet Turp (LAPC) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 April 2014 15:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset FER
Dear Sirs
Please find attached a response to the consultation from Long Ashton Parish Council. A hard copy has also been sent in the post.
Regards
Janet Turp Clerk to Long Ashton Parish Council
01275 393551 PO Box 3102 Long Ashton Bristol BS41 9XA (Monday to Thursday 09:00 to 13:00 and some afternoons)
89 LONG ASHTON PARISH COUNCIL
Clerk Janet Turp MA DPhil PO Box 3102 Telephone (01275) 393551 Long Ashton Email: [email protected] Bristol BS41 9XA The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
3rd April 2014
Dear Sirs
Long Ashton Parish Council Comments on LGBCE Proposals for Wards in North Somerset.
At its meeting on the 17th March Long Ashton Parish Council resolved to support the Ward boundaries as described in your Map A.
The Parish Council recognises that the initial driving force behind your reorganisation was to remove marked imbalances within North Somerset wards and that one of your main considerations when drawing up ward boundaries is to equalise the number of electors that each councillor represents. However, there are other factors that you take into account i.e. the reflection of community identity and providing for convenient and effective local government.
It is the Parish Council’s contention that, though your plans as shown in Map A and Map B, serve to equalise elector numbers, Map B does not fulfil the other two criteria. The present ward, which includes the parishes of Long Ashton (Long Ashton Ward) and Wraxall and Failand works well and the present councillors feel able to represent the electorate from the whole area.
The two Parishes, though distinct communities share many commonalities. They are both semi-rural, share many public transport routes and roads, use the same main retail areas and they are served by the same secondary schools. The boundaries between the two parishes represent areas of interest to developers and to have the same District Councillors representing the interests of both parishes is invaluable. This was demonstrated recently when the two parishes jointly opposed development to the east of Failand village, on land in the Long Ashton parish. Each of the two parishes has an interest in the wellbeing of the other, as any major change occurring in one would have an impact on the other, and indeed councillors from Wraxall and Failand have contributed to Long Ashton’s Neighbourhood Development Plan. This is not true of the group of Parishes which have been suggested to form the ward of Long Ashton in map B. Dundry and Winford are small communities separated from the Long Ashton Parish boundary by the A38 – a major arterial route and a real barrier, and additionally from the village by the A370 and the mainline railway. These villages and Long Ashton are not linked by public transport, use different shops, send their children to different schools and have no shared vision. Though the people of Long Ashton would feel sympathetic to the problems of Dundry or Winford, anything happening there would have little impact on Long Ashton. Although Long Ashton and Barrow Gurney do have concerns in common, Barrow Gurney has always had much stronger ties to Backwell than to Long Ashton.
The impact of the proposals in Map B on convenient and effective local government should also be considered. Winford and Dundry are small communities and they would feel that the proposed ward would be very Long Ashton centred. This is not a problem for Long Ashton but would not provide for effective Local Government. Barrow Gurney and Long Ashton have very different needs in respect of some local projects (South Bristol Link Road for example) and it would not be easy for them to be represented by the same Councillors.
The wellbeing of individual councillors also needs to be taken into account. The ward in Map A requires councillors to attend the meetings of two parish councils – that in Map B would require attendance at four. Travelling within the ward would not be easy as the roads joining Long Ashton with the A38 and the villages beyond are very minor, single track in places, and journeying between the two is unlikely to be attractive in inclement weather.
The Long Ashton members of the Parish Council note that, although there is logic in Leigh Woods being included in the Long Ashton ward, the residents there would prefer to be included in a ward with the other villages along the A369.
In summary although the pattern of wards in map B will equalise numbers for each councillor it does not meet your other criteria as it does not reflect community patterns and will have a negative impact on effective local government. Consequently Long Ashton Parish Council urges the LGBCE to adopt Map A as its pattern of wards in this area.
Yours faithfully Janet E Turp
Janet Turp
Copy also sent by email Cooper, Mark
From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 11 March 2014 13:38 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset FER Attachments: LGBCE letter.docx
Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
Tel: 020 7664 8514 www.lgbce.org.uk
It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you.
How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views
From: Janet Turp (LAPC) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 March 2014 12:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset FER
Please find attached Long Ashton Parish Council’s comments on your latest proposals.
Janet Turp Clerk to Long Ashton Parish Council
PO Box 3102 Long Ashton Bristol BS41 9XA (Monday to Thursday 09:00 to 13:00 and some afternoons)
1 LONG ASHTON PARISH COUNCIL
Clerk Janet Turp MA DPhil PO Box 3102 Telephone Long Ashton Email: [email protected] Bri stol BS41 9XA The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 11th March 2014
Dear Sirs,
I have been asked to write to you to express Long Ashton Parish Council’s dismay at the plans currently being consulted on. The majority of the Parish Council was content with your initial proposals which provided for a two member ward based on the current position but with the addition of Leigh Woods. This seemed sensible as there are strong similarities and connection between Long Ashton, Wraxall and Failand and Leigh Woods is part of the Parish of Long Ashton. (It was noted that Leigh Woods was not happy about the arrangement as they feel connected to the other villages along the A369, however the majority of the Council was in full support of the plans.)
Your new recommendations (as shown in Map B) place Long Ashton in a ward with Barrow Gurney, Winford, Winford Regil and Dundry. The last 3 villages are separated from Long Ashton by the A38, are very rural and are small conurbations. Their concerns and issues will be very different to those in Long Ashton and they will be worried that their views will be lost if they are in a ward with a much larger parish. The A38 is a real barrier and there is no connection between parishes either side of it - there are no public transport connections without travelling into central Bristol and changing bus, and only minor almost single track roads connect Long Ashton to the A38 and villages beyond. Barrow Gurney has diametrically opposite views to Long Ashton on several major projects which will make it difficult for District Councillors to represent the views of both communities.
The Parish Council is consulting with neighbouring Parish Councils and anticipates providing further comments.
Yours faithfully, Janet E Turp
Janet Turp
Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 14 April 2014 10:41 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Parish boundary changes - North Somerset Attachments: details.txt; Letter response to boundary changes to Puxton Parish; Letter - boundary charges Apr 2014.docx
Importance: High
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 April 2014 23:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: Parish boundary changes ‐ North Somerset Importance: High
Dear sir/madam
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in sending Puxton's response to the boundary changes. As you will see from the email below it didn't reach you as I had taken down your email address incorrectly. I did send it on 6th April, the day before the deadline so wondered if you would be so kind as to accept the attached letter from Puxton parish council despite it now being outside of the deadline.
Many thanks and kindest regards
Nanette Clarke Clerk to Puxton Parish Council
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mail Delivery System [mailto:MAILER‐DAEMON@412402‐app2.mig.webglu.com]
Sent: 06 April 2014 23:25 To: [email protected] Subject: Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender
This is the mail system at host 412402‐app2.mig.webglu.com.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.
For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.
If you do so, please include this problem report. You can delete your own text from the attached returned message.
The mail system
1
Puxton Parish Council Clerk to the Council: Miss Nanette Clarke,
Email [email protected] Chair: Cllr Peter Jones
Review Officer (North Somerset) LGBCE Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
6th April 2014
Dear Sir or Madam
At a meeting of the Puxton Parish Council on 3rd April, a resolution was passed to submit the following response from the Council to the North Somerset boundary review consultation.
Puxton Parish Council did not have any objections or comments on the original proposal, that of a new single member ward of “Congresbury Puxton” as it appears to be a sensible proposal because of the current links with Congresbury and the Puxton parishes. The council felt the original was logical and acceptable to them.
With regard to the revised proposal Puxton Parish Council finds it to be an unacceptable change to the original and can see no justification whatsoever in a three-member, nine parish ward. Looking at the replies to the initial consultation, this mega-ward cannot be supported by the evidence submitted. At the commencement of the review there was a general consensus within North Somerset Council that they did not want to see any three- member wards as these do not work well, even in close proximity communities.
Hewish and Puxton are villages with a strong community spirit and to be part of a large nine- parish ward does not make any sense, unlike the original proposal of a “Congresbury Puxton” ward. Puxton and Hewish have always had very close relations with Congresbury which is reflected in the two parish churches, schools, families and the roma/gypsy communities. There are natural links which are not apparent with any of the other seven parishes.
We see the importance of representation is to both understand local issues and champion at a local level. The council feel there will be a loss of accountability by having 3 ward councillors representing the parish. They feel that not having a dedicated ward councillor attending regular meetings will detrimentally affect the ability for local issues to be dealt with quickly and efficiently.
Should this revised proposal be adopted it will undoubtedly bring local democracy into question and the current high level of local election votes cast in the rural areas will reduce dramatically, which is not the purpose of the boundary review.
We therefore strongly recommend that the original proposal of a single member ward of “Congresbury Puxton” be retained in the final recommendations.
Yours faithfully
Nanette Clarke Parish Clerk Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 10:42 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: NORTH SOMERSET BOUNDARY REVIEW FURTHER CONSULTATION: Plan A/Plan B
Importance: High
From: Vena Prater Sent: 26 March 2014 18:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: NORTH SOMERSET BOUNDARY REVIEW FURTHER CONSULTATION: Plan A/Plan B Importance: High
Dear Sirs,
Tickenham Parish Council considered the proposal for North Somerset boundaries at its last meeting and could see absolutely no advantage in Plan B over Plan A:
1. Plan B proposes splitting parish councils that have worked together very successfully and placing them with parishes with which they have no geographical, cultural or community links. For example, Failand has no link with Long Ashton, neither does Backwell with the Gordano Valley. In short Plan B proposes to link communities of various shapes, sizes and cultures with no regard for historic or tangible boundaries. Furthermore, the natural boundaries of main roads and a railway line have been ignored!
2. Plan B proposes to establish wards with up to nine parishes: it is the view of my council that such wards would be completely impractical, unworkable, with no real representation offered to residents and no in‐depth understanding of local needs.
Tickenham Parish Council therefore urges that Plan B is disregarded and that Plan A, although perhaps not perfect, should be accepted.
Yours faithfully,
VENA PRATER Clerk, Tickenham Parish Council
148 Cooper, Mark
From: Malcolm L Nicholson - Town Clerk
Importance: High
Dear Mark, As discussed on the phone Weston‐super‐Mare Town Council is concerned about the name of town (i.e.”parish”) wards, referred to in an appendix to your original recommendations. The Town Council feels very strongly that there could not sensibly be a parish “Kewstoke” ward when Kewstoke is a separate parish and a distinct village from Weston. This would confuse the public, to name a ward in one parish after a different parish. The Town Council therefore requests:
1. The parish “Kewstoke” ward should be renamed “Worlebury” ward rather than be named after a different parish. 2. The district “Kewstoke” ward should be renamed “Kewstoke and Worlebury” ward to recognise that most of its population lives in the Worlebury area of Weston not in the parish of Kewstoke. 3. The parish and district “Ashcombe” ward should be renamed “West” ward as it is covers a different area from that known to the local community as “Ashcombe”. 4. The parish “Bournville” ward should be renamed “South” ward as it included other areas which were separate from Bournville 5. To request that town warding be revisited and reviewed with a view to smaller wards.
Please can you or your colleague advise me what consideration can be given to these requests.
I should be grateful for an early reply.
Regards,
Malcolm L Nicholson LLB DMS AILCM Town Clerk Weston‐super‐Mare Town Council tel. 01934 632567 fax 01934 642794 www.weston‐super‐maretowncouncil.gov.uk
This email is private and confidential. If you have received this message in error, please notify us and remove it from your system. The Town Council uses a virus checker but cannot guarantee that this email is virus free and it is the recipients' responsibility to check and delete viruses. The contents of this email do not constitute a legally binding contract on behalf of the sender or the Town Council.
253 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:02 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Winford Parish Council objection to 2014 Ward Boundary Proposals
Hi Mark,
Please see the below sub for NS.
Helen
From: The Clerk - Winford Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 April 2014 19:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Winford Parish Council objection to 2014 Ward Boundary Proposals
To the Local Government Boundary Commission.
Objection to recent 2014 Boundary Proposals.
Dear Sir / Madam
On behalf of Winford Parish Council I am writing to object strongly to the new proposals to add Winford into a two councillor ward under Long Ashton. This new proposal will in no way represent the views and concerns of residents in Winford. Long Ashton electorate will numerically dominate the proposed ward by 4250 of the 6900 votes, and it must follow that it is unlikely any councilor not based in Long Ashton will obtain a majority at the next local election. This cannot serve the rural parishes of Dundry, Barrow Gurney and Winford well, when it will be dominated by Long Ashton, a semi urban suburb of a major city like Bristol. As rural parishes we differ from Long Ashton in so many ways :- i) Our direct links to Long Ashton are blocked by two busy main roads( A38 and A370 ) and a railway line. ii) Long Ashton is almost a small town compared with our rural green belt villages, requiring different priorities. iii) Long Ashton does not have 108 acres of Felton Common to manage and cherish. iv) Long Ashton has no airport to deal with in terms of the immediate environmental effect it has in both Winford and Dundry. v) We do not share the same local authority in terms of where our children are educated and where we might receive our NHS services.
30 These are a few of the major conflicts of interest that your present proposals highlight, and whilst they may be a numerical fit, they do not represent the views of residents of Winford ward, and Winford Parish Council therefore request that the 2013 proposal be reinstated to ensure a fair and just village based representative for the new ward.
Yours sincerely
Alison Clark
Clerk to Winford Parish Council Serving Felton, Regil and Winford
Email: [email protected]
31 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 10:41 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Submission to LGBCE March 2014 Attachments: Submission to LGBCE Mar 2014.pdf; Annex to Submission to LGBCE Mar 2014 vc.pdf
From: Freda Shattock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 March 2014 22:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Submission to LGBCE March 2014
This e‐mail has attachments which have also been sent by Hard Copy.
Wraxall & Failand Parish Council.
150 ANNEX TO W&F PC’s DATED 25 MARCH 2014
Key Points for the Commission to consider in respect of North Somerset Electoral Review
History The parish included the chapelries of Nailsea and Flax Bourton until 1811.1 Same parish boundary since 1818 Secular Parish Council from 1894 From 1894 to 1974 the parish was part of the Long Ashton Rural District in the county of Somerset.2 Between 1 April 1974 and 1 April 1996, the parish was part of the Woodspring district of the county of Avon3 After 1996 the parish was part of the ‘Wraxall & Long Ashton’ ward in North Somerset.4
Natural or constructed features which should be used as boundaries Tickenham / upper Wraxall / Failand Ridge running east-west to the north
M5 motorway acts as a boundary on a North East / South West axis further north Access constrained by railway further south – main line to the West Country
Road links Main routes run east-west, the main commuter routes to Bristol o B3128, the ‘Upper Road’ running through Wraxall and Failand along the Failand Ridge with bus services to Bristol and Clevedon5 o B3130, the ‘Lower Road’ through Wraxall bordering Land Yeo river valley with bus services to Long Ashton, Bristol and Nailsea6
only narrow lanes run north-south, with weight restrictions and no bus services
1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wraxall_and_Failand 2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wraxall_and_Failand 3 As above 4 As above 5 First Bus X9 through West Hill and Failand only 6 ABus X54 and 55 through Wraxall and Long Ashton; First Bus X9 through Wraxall only
Sense of Community Civic parish shares the same area as the ecclesiastical parish of ‘Wraxall with Failand’. Two churches: All Saints’, Wraxall; St Bartholomew’s, Failand. Combined Services are held on the Patronal Festivals of both Churches and for the Carol Service which alternates between churches.7 Christians Together in Nailsea & District includes the parish of ‘Wraxall with Failand’ Wraxall and Failand share the same area for the beat for Avon & Somerset police. 8 Wraxall CEVA Primary School is within the parish. 9 Parish Council and Annual Parish Meetings are held alternately in the Cross Tree Centre, Wraxall and Failand Village Hall Old Barn, Wraxall on the south east edge of the parish has a walled garden and hosts annual church summer fete. The carol singing sessions held there are very popular.10 Failand Village Hall is the venue for monthly Parish Lunches11, which includes residents from Wraxall, also hosts local societies: o Failand Society o Failand Drama Circle o The Failanders' Club o Failand Women's Institute
Wraxall Village Association (the Village Club) hosts local skittles teams from all neighbouring parishes Pantomime held in Wraxall Church draws actors from both Wraxall and Failand. North Somerset Showground is to the south of the B3130 between Wraxall and Long Ashton. Principal event is the annual show held in May.12 Food and crafts markets are held at Tyntesfield13 Three pubs across the parish are well supported: The Failand Inn, The Battleaxes and the Barn in Wraxall The National Trust at Tyntesfield organises and hosts a wide variety of events, ranging from outdoor theatre to military enactments and craft workshops. Volunteers are drawn from across the parish and beyond. 14
7 http://www.wraxallwithfailand.org.uk/Parish%20Profile%20(1).pdf 8 https://www.avonandsomerset.police.uk/your-area/failand-and-wraxall/ 9 http://www.wraxallprimary.co.uk/site
10 http://www.wraxallwithfailand.org.uk/Parish%20Profile%20(1).pdf 11 http://www.wraxallwithfailand.org.uk/Parish%20Profile%20(1).pdf 12 http://www.nsas.org.uk/north-somerset-show/ 13 http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/tyntesfield/eating-and-shopping/
Play areas – three in the Elms, Wraxall and one in the Grove, Wraxall Ashton Hill plantation is a popular site for walking, cycling and horse-riding for both parishes.15 Residents from across the parish contributed to the Parish Plan between 2007 and 2009.16
Nearby areas with which our area shares a community identity and interests The Parish Council has a good working relationship with adjacent Parish and Town Councils, particularly Nailsea and Long Ashton. A few years ago residents in the area of the parish which adjoins Nailsea (The Elms) voted by a substantial majority not to be part of Nailsea or to change any boundaries. There are a wide range of clubs and societies in Nailsea There has been collective engagement to counter the proposals of National Grid (NG) now under the auspices of Nailsea Against Pylons17, which is made up of members of the anti-pylon campaign groups Save our Valley and Save Nailsea West, together with representatives of Nailsea Town Council and Wraxall Parish Council, which has been instrumental in leading the challenge to NG.18 W&F PC has contributed to Neighbourhood Plans for Long Ashton and Backwell. Concern over reduction in the frequency of bus services operated by First Bus between Bristol and Clevedon via Long Ashton and Wraxall. 19
14 http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/tyntesfield/things-to-see-and-do/events/ 15 http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/recreation.nsf/LUWebDocsByKey/EnglandBathandNorthEastSomersetNo ForestBristolWoodlandsAshtonHill 16 http://www.wraxallandfailand-pc.gov.uk/Parish-Plan.aspx 17 http://www.nailsea-against-pylons.co.uk/aboutus.html 18 http://www.wraxallandfailand-pc.gov.uk/Pylons.aspx 19 http://www.wraxallandfailand-pc.gov.uk/Minutes.aspx Minutes Dec 2013 and Jan 2014
Mrs F Shattock Clerk Wraxall & Failand
Parish Council
The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London. EC1M 5LG 25 March 2014
Dear Sirs, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET: OBJECTION TO REVISED PROPOSAL (MAP B) Wraxall & Failand Parish Council passed a resolution at their meeting on11th March 2014 that the revised proposal made on 12th February 2014 (Map B) is an unacceptable change to the initial recommendations (Map A) on the grounds set out below. Wraxall & Failand Parish Council has discussed this at Public Meetings held on 18th March 2014 in Failand and 19th March 2014 in Wraxall. Residents unanimously supported the Parish Council view. It is noted that the response to the initial consultation from the Chair of Pill & Easton-in- Gordano Parish Council dated 3rd June 2013 makes the case for a community along the A369 corridor, but it only includes Failand as their second option in order to achieve electoral equality. Although the parish boundary to Pill & Easton-in-Gordano is close to Lower Failand, the A369 does not pass through Failand. His subsequent letter dated 5th November 2013 makes a good case for a ‘strong sense of community’ and ‘shared identity’ between Pill and Easton-in-Gordano but it omits to say that it destroys a ‘strong sense of community’ and ‘shared identity’ between Wraxall and Failand. Essentially, the main preference of Pill and Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council is for a single member ward, and the inclusion of Failand simply made up the numbers. Your Map B proposes this second option which is to the detriment of Wraxall & Failand and its close relationship with Long Ashton. This Council believes that maintaining community identity and local democracy should prevail over electoral equality. During the Commission’s tour in the ‘Rural North and Gordano Valley’ in spring 2013 you made the following relevant observations: the predominantly rural character shared by the parishes of Wraxall & Failand and Long Ashton. (We wish to maintain this positive link.) the common character of the parishes in Gordano Valley which border the town of Portishead. (Wraxall has little in common with the Gordano parishes.)
Walton-in-Gordano and Weston-in-Gordano are only accessible via Clevedon or Portishead. (Access to these parishes from Wraxall & Failand is difficult.)
The Commission’s initial draft recommendations on 10th September 2013 (Map A) were for a two-member ‘Long Ashton’ ward and mirrored the proposals by the Leader’s Group. This was strongly supported by both the parishes of Long Ashton and Wraxall & Failand. It had the advantage that this new ward would not vary from the average number of electors for the district by 2018 by more than 10%. The second set of draft recommendations (12th February 2014, Map B) no longer divides the parish of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano but now divides the parish of Wraxall & Failand. The relevant features of the topography for the ‘Rural North and Gordano Valley’, which were considered in the initial recommendations, appear to have been ignored in the latest recommendations and run counter to community identity. These were: the M5 motorway acts as a boundary on a North East / South West axis the west country main line railway acts as a barrier for north-south access. the Tickenham / upper Wraxall / Failand Ridge running east-west only narrow lanes run north-south, with weight restrictions and no bus services main commuter routes run east-west to Bristol, with: o B3128, the ‘Upper Road’, running through Wraxall then Failand along the Failand Ridge, with bus services to Bristol and Clevedon o B3130, the ‘Lower Road’ running through Wraxall and Long Ashton, with bus services to Bristol and Nailsea
Your guidance cites that community identity is important. This was demonstrated by Wraxall & Failand residents enthusiastically supporting the formulation of the Parish Plan between 2007 and 2009. The civil parish is practically the same as the ecclesiastical parish of ‘Wraxall with Failand’, where members of both churches have a strong sense of community, having a shared Priest-in-charge and shared parish activities, such as a pantomime, fete and monthly parish lunches. Historically, the current civil parish boundary is believed to have remained unchanged since 1818, and preceding that the ecclesiastical parish from the 15th century. The Tyntesfield Estate in the heart of the parish owned much of the land in both Wraxall and Failand, also both village pubs (The Battleaxes in Wraxall and the Failand Inn). The National Trust now owns the house and some of the estate. The House, gardens and estate are supported by local volunteers from across the parish. Local craft fairs and farmers’ markets are held at Tyntesfield along with outdoor theatre and other events. Agricultural land spans both parishes of Wraxall & Failand and Long Ashton. The North Somerset Agricultural Society Showground lies to the south of the B3130 in Wraxall and between the villages of Wraxall and Long Ashton. The principal event is the annual show held in May. Councillors from Wraxall & Failand have contributed to Long Ashton’s Neighbourhood Plan. Sustainable development within the Green Belt is a key common issue. Recently, Long Ashton and Wraxall & Failand parishes jointly opposed development to the east of Failand village, on land in the Long Ashton parish. The appeal by developers was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspector.
Transport is another of the main issues in common with both parishes. The reduction in the frequency of bus services operated by First Bus between Bristol and Clevedon via Long Ashton and Wraxall has been a recent concern, as are issues with regard to the South Bristol Link and the forthcoming repair of the Yanley viaduct on the A370. The Ashton Hill plantation, part of the Forest of Avon in the parish of Long Ashton but close to Failand, is managed by the Forestry Commission. It is best known for its giant sequoia (redwood) grove and is a popular site for walking, cycling and horse-riding for both parishes. We believe that District Councillors should understand and be advocates for local issues. Should the new recommendations be implemented, then Wraxall & Failand would no longer be with Long Ashton and we would lose the input of our current North Somerset Councillors who have much experience and affinity with our parish. Instead 4 unfamiliar Councillors from 2 wards could attend our meetings and would have to be briefed about all the issues affecting our parish. This would significantly impair good local government in our parish. The large number of parishes within the wards shown in Map B implies that District Councillors would have to attend up to 8 Parish Council meetings per month to fulfil their duties. This is not a practical proposition. We believe that paragraph 33 of section 5 of the report by LGCE published in March 1998 ‘Final Recommendations on Future Arrangements for North Somerset’ is still relevant: “However, our function is not merely arithmetical. First, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electoral figures, but also on assumptions as to changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place within the ensuing five years. Second, we must have regard to the desirability fixing identifiable boundaries and to maximising the local ties, which might otherwise be broken. Third, we must consider the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the interests and identities of local communities.”
Wraxall & Failand Parish Council urges the Commission to reconsider the revised recommendations and to revert to the initial recommendations as shown at Map A and revert to the current title of the ward, ie ‘Wraxall & Long Ashton’ recognising the historical context. Yours sincerely,
David Robinson Mrs Freda Shattock Chairman, Wraxall & Failand Parish Council Clerk to Wraxall & Failand Parish Council
Annex: Key Points for the Commission to consider in respect of North Somerset Electoral Review Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 08 April 2014 11:36 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of North Somerset - Further Limited Consultation Attachments: WPC response to LGBC further limited consulation - April2014.docx; LGBC responseA - April2014.pdf
Hi mark,
Please see the submission below for North Somerset.
Helen
From: Clerk Wrington [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 April 2014 16:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of North Somerset - Further Limited Consultation
Dear Sirs,
In response to your invitation to submit views on the 'further limited consultation' on North Somerset ward boundaries we have attached our letter dated 1 April 2014 together with a spreadsheet.
The spreadsheet shows our own proposals for what we see as a practical and rational arrangement for eleven North Somerset district councillors in eight new electoral wards.
Please let is know if you require any further information.
Regards
Fiona Burke, Clerk on behalf of Wrington Parish Council
1 WRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL - Submission to Local Government Boundary Commission Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
New ward Parish/Polling District Code now Electors 2018 Cllrs Ratio Variation Pill Abbots Leigh AAA 673 1 3467 4.15% Pill ABB 2794 3467 Long Ashton& Wraxall Long Ashton 1 ABW 2375 2 3350.5 0.65% Long Ashton 2 ABX 1865 Leigh Woods 1 ABU 515 Failand ABE 771 Wraxall ADS 1175 6701 Winford Flax Bourton ABI 554 1 3379 1.50% Barrow Gurney AAD 259 Dundry AAY 717 Winford Felton ABH 742 Winford Winford ADR 904 Winford Regil ADA 203 3379 Backwell Backwell Backwell AAB 3431 1 3684 10.66% Backwell Oatfield AAC 253 3684 Gordano Clapton iG AAQ 279 1 3452 3.69% Tickenham ADH 779 Walton-in-Gordano ADM 275 Weston-in-Gordano ADP 249 Portbury ACX 753 Easton iG ABC 1117 3452 Wrington & Blagdon Wrington North East AEA 405 1 3316 -0.39% Wrington South West AEB 1787 Butcombe AAI 181 Blagdon BAD 943
3316 Congresbury & Churchill Churchill BAJ 1804 2 3203 -3.78% Burrington BAH 423 Congresbury BAT 2869 Puxton BBA 311 Cleeve AED 758 Brockley AAH 241 6406 Yatton Yatton Clav AEC 930 2 3406 2.31% Yatton N AEG 1810 Yaton Horse AEH 1757 Yatton S AEI 1626 Kenn AEE 330 Kingston Seymour AEF 359 6812
64155 11 March 2014 WRINGTON PARISH COUNCIL The John Locke Room, Silver Street, Wrington BS40 5QE Tel 01934 863984 Email: [email protected]
1 April 2014
The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
Dear Sir
Electoral Review of North Somerset: Further Limited Consultation
We are writing in response to your invitation to submit comments on the further limited consultation related to the proposed ward boundaries as described in the Boundary Commission’s letter to North Somerset Council dated 12 February 2014.
While we appreciate having been given the opportunity to comment, we have to advise that the Council objects to the ward boundaries and arrangements as currently proposed. In fact the Council is unanimously and resolutely opposed to the suggestion of any physically large three member ward which would include Churchill, Congresbury and Wrington. We feel that this arrangement is likely to result in an undemocratic representation across the proposed ward. This is because an election in such a large and diverse ward, with parishes which aren’t in reality that well connected in terms of interests, activities or needs, might produce two or even three ward councillors from one of the larger population centres, Congresbury for example. This wouldn’t be very democratic and might well lead to frustration and dissatisfaction with the electoral process.
With this real possibility in mind we have revisited the population data and guidance provided and now offer an alternative proposal which we feel would be far more suitable for the wider area and communities involved. However, before commenting further on this we would like to make some general observations.
We have of course discussed the Boundary Commission’s proposals and options both within the Council and with others across the parish and ward. It was then agreed that one principal response would be submitted on behalf of the local community, our objective being to focus the Commission’s attention on what we see as a fundamental issue with what has been proposed, with this being democratic representation. We have also sought the views of other communities and, on balance, suggest that our own proposals would resolve the concerns of most of the other interested parties in North Somerset. Of
course, we do realise that it might not be possible to satisfy the wishes of every small parish.
Our own position was explained in our original submission dated May 2013, and then with more justification in our letter dated 15 November 2103. Our views remain unchanged. As a result, we have analysed the data in detail and now propose eight new wards, with three of these having two members and the other five wards one member each. This arrangement would offer far better representation than the five ward multiple representation arrangement suggested by the Commission. A spreadsheet detailing our proposals is attached.
You will see that the ratio of ward councillors to electors broadly fits with the Commission’s guidelines, with the only noticeable variation for Backwell at 10.66%. However, this is broadly in line with the original consultation guidelines and it is felt that Backwell would be well served by a single member. The two member wards are Long Ashton & Wraxall, where the local community’s preferences would be maintained, Yatton, which fits with the Commission’s proposal, and Congresbury & Churchill. The remaining four wards are more rural and much more suited to a single member representation.
We are aware that Butcombe Parish, which is currently joined with Wrington Parish in the existing Wrington ward, is supportive of our proposal, which is to link with Butcombe and Blagdon to create a new single member rural ward. We would refer you to our letter dated 15 November 2013 which highlights the shared features, issues and interests which should help to justify this arrangement.
As we have emphasised previously, the Wrington, Redhill and Butcombe communities look more to the east and south across Wrington Vale towards Blagdon and not west to Congresbury. In fact, there is little in the way of any direct relationship with Congresbury, no matter how it might appear to an outside observer.
Finally, we feel strongly that Wrington should have a single ward member representation and we would urge you to reject both the previous three member proposal and any possible two member alternatives. However, should our own carefully considered eight ward proposal not be acceptable for some reason then we could accept the previous single member ward proposal with Wrington linked to Cleeve.
Please let us know if you require further information or clarification of the points made above.
Yours faithfully
(submitted by email)
Fiona Burke, Clerk On behalf of Wrington Parish Council