sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bloxham, Fencott and Murcott, Fringford, Gosford and Water Eaton, Hardwick with Tusmore, Middle Aston

Parish council submissions to the Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 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.

6 January 2015 Parish Council Submission

BLOXHAM PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk & Responsible Financial Officer Theresa Goss

Bloxham Parish Council has considered the preferred option put forward in the documentation dated December 2014.

The growth projections (the number of planning applications approved) for , village, Bodicote Bankside and Bloxham, would result in this option showing the largest increase of electorate of all the wards and as such could place a disproportionate workload on the Councillors concerned.

It is the opinion of the Parish Council that the option below best serves the electorate of these Parishes.

The option for a ward consisting of Bloxham, Bodicote Village, Milton, , Wiggington, and this reflects the following.

The impact and overload of the A361 is of major concern to all villages listed.

The Villages share the same school catchment area.

Cherwell District Council Local Plan reflects this grouping as Milton, Milcombe and South Newington are classed as satellite villages of Bloxham and Wiggington a satellite of Hook Norton.

The villages of Bloxham, Milcombe and South Newington are in the same Beniface.

We have shown below that distribution among the remaining Parishes also reflect common aims.

1 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

WARD SUMMARY

Name of Ward Councillors Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 Variance 2020

Banbury 5 three member wards 15 35584 41262 6.6%

Bicester East 3 7212 7774 0.4%

Bicester North 3 6020 7167 ‐7.4%

Bicester South 3 5591 7405 ‐4.3%

Bicester West 3 7148 7432 ‐4.0%

Kidlington North 3 6955 7420 ‐4.1%

Kidlington South and 3 8125 8363 8.0%

Bloxham, Bodicote, Milton, Milcombe, 3 7302 8164 5.5% Wiggington, St Newington and Hook Norton and Adderbury 3 6972 7408 ‐4.3%

Fringford and Heyfords 3 5893 7196 ‐7.0%

Launton and 3 6156 7158 ‐7.5%

Wroxton 3 6686 7081 ‐8.5%

Total 48 109,644 123,830

2 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

BLOXHAM, BODICOTE VILLAGE, MILTON, MILCOMBE, WIGGINGTON, SOUTH NEWINGTON AND HOOK NORTON WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CBM1 Bloxham Bloxham & Bodicote 2794 3290 CBN1 Bodicote (Village Ward) Bloxham & Bodicote 1772 1929 CCQ1 Milcombe Bloxham and Bodicote 496 514 CDO1 Wigginton Hook Norton 155 160 CDF1 South Newington Hook Norton 259 268 CCJ1 Hook Norton Hook Norton 1676 1846 CCR1 Milton Adderbury 150 157 Total 7302 8164

3 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

DEDDINGTON WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CAA1 Adderbury Adderbury 2235 2458 CAY1 Barford St John and St Deddington 462 464 Michael CBW1 Deddington Deddington 1304 1461 CBX1 Deddington Deddington 190 198 CBY1 Deddington Deddington 229 236 CCA1 The Astons and Heyfords 408 415 CCE1 The Astons and Heyfords 536 541 CCO1 The Astons and Heyfords 105 114 CCV1 The Astons and Heyfords 158 160 CDD1 Somerton The Astons and Heyfords 243 245 CDE1 The Astons and Heyfords 322 323 CDG1 The Astons and Heyfords 780 793

Total 6972 7408

4 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

FRINGFORD AND HEYFORDS WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CAC1 Ardley 538 552 CBQ1 Bucknell Caversfield 198 204 CBS1 Chesterton (Village ward) and Chesterton 664 743 CBU1 Fringford 110 118 CCC1 Fringford 386 402 CCD1 Fringford Fringford 505 519 CCF1 Fringford 32 36 CCH1 Fringford 59 61 CCI1 Fringford 224 230 CHG1 Kirtlington 794 852 CCN1 The Astons & Heyfords 378 400 CCP1 Ambrosden and Chesterton 258 267 CCS1 Fringford 208 211 CCU1 with Fringford 78 81 CDH1 Caversfield 186 191 CDI1 Fringford 335 349 CDL1 Upper Heyford The Astons and Heyfords 940 1980 Total 5893 7196

5 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

LAUNTON AND OTMOOR WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CAD1 Launton 702 804 CBL1 Blackthorn Launton 251 255 CHA1 Kirtlington 713 818 CHB1 Charlton-on-Otmoor Otmoor 326 331 CHC1 and Murcott Otmoor 214 216 CHD1 and Poyle Kirtlington 139 145 CHE1 Horton-cum-Studley Otmoor 387 391 CHF1 Islip Otmoor 529 532 CCM1 Launton Launton 957 1634 CHH1 Merton Otmoor 339 348 CHI1 Noke Otmoor 110 114 CHJ1 Oddington Otmoor 106 111 CCX1 Piddington Launton 298 312 CKI1 Shipton-on-Cherwell and Thrupp Kirtlington 315 330 CDN1 Ambrosden and Chesterton 340 351 CHK1 Weston-on-the-Green Kirtlington 430 466 Total 6156 7158

6 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

WROXTON WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CBO1 Bourton 565 593 CBP1 Broughton 252 263 CBT1 Claydon with Clattercot Cropredy 245 250 CBV1 Cropredy Cropredy 628 647 CBZ1 Drayton Wroxton 224 458 CCB1 Sibford 257 261 CCG1 Hanwell Wroxton 218 226 CCK1 Horley Wroxton 278 291 CCL1 Wroxton 274 278 CCT1 Mollington Cropredy 397 401 CCW1 Sibford 273 281 CCY1 Cropredy 8 8 CCZ1 with Alkerton Wroxton 355 364 CDA1 Wroxton 383 385 CDB1 Sibford 348 361 CDC1 Sibford 425 436 CDJ1 Sibford 175 176 CDK1 Sibford 483 486 CDM1 Cropredy 445 447 CDP1 Wroxton Wroxton 453 469 Total 6686 7081

7 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

BICESTER EAST WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CAZ1 Bicester East Ward (part) Bicester East 2760 2939 CBA1 Bicester East Ward (part) Bicester East 1753 1892 CBF1 Bicester Town Ward (part) Bicester Town 1452 1566 CBG1 Bicester Town Ward (part) Bicester Town 1247 1377 Total 7212 7774

BICESTER NORTH WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CBB1 Bicester North Ward (part) Bicester North 2025 2742 CBC1 Bicester North Ward (part) Bicester North 2867 2917 CBR1 Caversfield Caversfield 1128 1508 Total 6020 7167

8 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

BICESTER SOUTH WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CAB1 Ambrosden Ambrosden & Chesterton 1341 1673 CBD1 Bicester South East Ward Bicester South 2726 2992 (part) CBE1 Bicester South East Ward Bicester South 1246 1307 (part) CBH1 (Part) Bicester – New development at Bicester Town 0 1135 Kingsmere CBS2 Chesterton (North Ward) Ambrosden and Chesterton 278 298 Total 5591 7405

BICESTER WEST WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CBH1 Bicester Town Ward (part) Bicester Town 1383 1383 CBI1 Bicester West Ward (part) Bicester West 2821 2968 CBJ1 Bicester West Ward (part) Bicester West 1910 2005 CBK1 Bicester West Ward (part) Bicester West 1034 1076 Total 7148 7432

9 6 January 2015 Bloxham Parish Council Submission

KIDLINGTON NORTH WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CKC1 Kidlington - St Mary’s Ward Kidlington North 2257 2434 CKD1 Kidlington - Roundham Ward Kidlington North 1986 2072 CKE1 Kidlington – Orchard Ward Kidlington South 1706 1769 (part) CKF1 Kidlington – Orchard Ward Kidlington South 1006 1145 (part) Total 6955 7420

KIDLINGTON SOUTH AND YARNTON WARD

Polling Parish Existing Ward Electorate 2014 Electorate 2020 District CKA1 Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton 677 691 CKB1 Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton 1135 1180 CKG1 Kidlington – Dogward Ward Kidlington South 2427 2467 CKH1 Kidlington – Exeter Ward Kidlington South 1430 1522 CKJ1 Yarnton Yarnton, Gosford & Water Eaton 2456 2503 Total 8125 8363

10 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 05 January 2015 09:17 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cherwell - draft recommendations

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

From: Valerie Russell Sent: 29 December 2014 10:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cherwell - draft recommendations

Dear Ms Ward Re: Electoral Review of Cherwell - draft recommendations We have received the draft recommendations and are delighted to see that Bodicote Parish has been grouped with Adderbury, Bloxham and Milton, in accordance with our wishes. It also appears that your recommendations for the remainder of the district also accord with our suggestion, so we are very happy to support the draft recommendations overall and in particular with respect to Bodicote Parish. Yours sincerely Valerie Russell Clerk to Bodicote Parish Council

1

CAVERSFIELD PARISH COUNCIL Mrs Jane Olds, Parish Clerk

The Local Government Boundary Commission for 3rd Floor Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 3 February 2015

Dear Sirs,

Electoral review of Cherwell: draft recommendations

Caversfield Parish Council has asked me to make the following comment on the ward which encompasses Caversfield.

Whilst the Parish Council has no comment about the size or make up of the ward, they have requested that the Bicester North Ward be named 'Caversfield and Bicester North'.

Caversfield is the only village to be included within the Bicester North Ward and the Parish Council is concerned that the village should not lose its identity.

I trust that this information is of help to the consultation.

Yours faithfully,

Jane Olds KIDLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk: Mrs Patricia Redpath D.M.A.

Lucy Ward Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Ms Ward, 21st January 2015

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: KIDLINGTON

The Parish Council has serious concerns about the draft proposals relating to Kidlington, in particular the very substantial changes proposed to the arrangements for Kidlington Parish Council. The proposal to reduce the parish wards from five to four and change the number of parish councillors per ward does not appear to be in keeping with the rationale of community identity; it seems to confuse it, and makes it more difficult for elected members accurately to represent their communities. This proposal is not supported at District or Parish level.

The existing boundary between Roundham and Exeter parish wards, with which the existing District wards and County divisions are also aligned, follows at its western end the natural boundary between two estates of very different character, an City Council development to the south of the boundary and a private development to the north. The proposed adjustment to the boundary cuts the City Council estate in half, along a line for which there is no obvious logic. The consequent change to Parish Council wards involves the creation of a minuscule ward (Fernhill) representing no identifiable community and with a grossly disproportionate representation on the Parish Council relative to its size.

Even on the basis of the existing boundary, the resulting District wards would still be well within the normal tolerance (see attached Excel file). The small benefit gained by equalising the size of the District wards is grossly disproportionate to the consequent wholesale disruption of the electoral arrangements for Kidlington Parish Council. The Council therefore strongly urges the LGBCE to adopt the suggested wards attached and to retain the existing Kidlington Parish Council wards.”

The Council has serious concerns about the draft proposals relating to Kidlington, in particular the very substantial changes proposed to the arrangements for Kidlington Parish Council. The proposal to reduce the parish wards from five to four and change the number of parish councillors per ward does not appear to be in keeping with the rationale of community identity; it seems to confuse it, and makes it more difficult for elected members accurately to represent their communities. This proposal is not supported at District or Parish level.

The existing boundary between Roundham and Exeter parish wards, with which the existing District wards and County divisions are also aligned, follows at its western end the natural boundary between two estates of very different character, an Oxford City Council development to the south of the boundary and a private development to the north. The proposed adjustment to the boundary cuts the City Council estate in half, along a line for which there is no obvious logic. The consequent change to Parish Council wards involves the creation of a minuscule ward (Fernhill) representing no identifiable community and with a grossly disproportionate representation on the Parish Council relative to its size.

Even on the basis of the existing boundary, the resulting District wards would still be well within the normal tolerance (see attached Excel file). The small benefit gained by equalising the size of the District wards is grossly disproportionate to the consequent wholesale disruption of the electoral arrangements for Kidlington Parish Council. The Council therefore strongly urges the LGBCE to adopt the suggested wards attached and to retain the existing Kidlington Parish Council wards.

Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 19 January 2015 14:00 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Wards in Cherwell District Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

From: Edward Dowler [mailto Sent: 19 January 2015 12:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review for Wards in Cherwell District Council

On behalf of the parish of Middle Aston, I am writing to support the submission already made by our very near neighbours, Steeple Aston Parish Council, opposing the separation of our villages from the ward containing the Heyfords. We fully support the arguments they have put forward, which were:

Equalising the number of voters in each constituency:

The number of voters in 5 new proposed rural wards:

Current Voters Forecast Voters Deddington (incl SA) 7323 7738 Fringford/Heyfords 5893 7196 Launton/Otmoor 6156 7158 Cropredy/Wroxton, etc 6686 7081 Adderbury/Bloxham 6956 7839

Steeple Aston has 779 voters currently and this could be increased by about 20 by 2031 ifd lan becomes available.

To represent “roughly the same number of voters” SA should be added to Fringford/Heyfords thus producing: Deddington 6544 6939 Fringford/Heyfords 6672 7995

The number of current voters across the 5 wards would then be 6544, 6672, 6156, 6686, 6956, with an average of 6603 – so thew ne Fringford/Heyfords (including SA) would be very close to the Average number of voters and the median of those 5 numbers is 6672 Forecast voters would be 6959, 7995, 7158, 7081, 7839 with an average of 7406, so the new Fringford/Heyfords would be at the top of the list (which ought to include Heyford Park and thus include forecasts of extra voters who might otherwise be added to the SA forecast in Deddington new ward – up to an additional 50).

1 Ward boundaries reflecting the interests and identities of local communities

Again, I think we can make a good case for changing to Fringford/Heyfords, certainly on the “interests” part of the declared aims of LGBCE. It appears that the “historical connections” aspects do not carry as much weight.

I believe our best hope of a challenge is via the shared interest of the LNDP, which would draw us in closer to Fringford/Heyfords than to Deddington Ward. We are part of the LNDP with The Heyfords and as facilities become available at Heyford Park we will be involved not only with the planning and development of those facilities but also the on‐going future of the facilities. Amongst current suggestions are one that children from Steeple Aston will be expected to apply for secondary schooling at Heyford Park as the Free School expands and we will be counted on to provide public transport from Steeple Aston to The Heyfords, Heyford Park and to Bicester. We have very little involvement with Deddington other than the provision of a health centre which we fully expect will be also provided at Heyford Park by the same Deddington Practice. We have no other shared interests or identity with Deddington or any other communities in that proposed Ward apart from a main road and bus route towards Oxford or . As well as sharing a neighbourhood development programme up to 2031, it would seem iniquitous and perverse for our ward boundaries which are supposed to “reflect the interests and identities of local communities” to be represented by a different 3 councillors than would the remainder of the LNDP parishes. This would lead to a duplication of effort, to possible conflicts of interest if any three in one ward took up positions which were at odds with the other three in the next ward, and to loss of effective representation at Cherwell District Council level. Since SA is a Category A village for development purposes, it is all the more imperative that we are properly represented in the Fringford/Heyfords Ward.

LGBCE have included the parishes of Barford St John & St Michael, Deddington, Duns Tew, Hook Norton, Fritwell, Middle Aston, Milcombe, North Aston, Somerton, Souldern, South Newington, Steeple Aston and Wigginton in the Deddington ward. “Although including Souldern, Fritwell and Somerton results in the ward including areas both sides of the , we consider that this provides the best balance of the statutory criteria. Access between the two parts of the ward is provided by a bridge at Somerton.” On the same principle, access between Steeple Aston and the rest of the proposed ward is also provided by a bridge at the Rousham crossing of the River Cherwell. The statutory criteria include, of course, the balancing of voter numbers, which I have addressed above.

I hope that CDC will also make their views known about the physical area encompassed by the rural wards, compared with the much more compact urban wards, the multiplicity of parish councils in each of those wards which will expect to be spoken for and visited each month by a District Councillor, the mileage to be covered and the likelihood that CDC councillors will not be able to attend all PC or parish meetings and so fail to reflect the interests and identities of their local communities.

Please would you confirm safe receipt of this email.

Regards, Edward Dowler Chairman, Middle Aston Parish Meeting

2 Middleton Stoney Parish Council

7 January 2015

Electoral Review of Cherwell: Draft Recommendations

The members of Middleton Stoney Parish Council have reviewed the latest draft recommendations. We are disappointed to note the proposals to divide the district into no more than 16 wards, each represented by 3 Councillors.

Cherwell District Council (CDC) chooses to hold elections ‘by thirds’. However, we fail to see why it is necessary to do this. We do not believe that CDC is obligated in any way to do this, it merely chooses to do so and has presumably observed the requirements defined within Chapter 1 of Part 2 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 in order to achieve this.

Notwithstanding the seeming necessity of electing ‘by thirds’ we still do not understand why it is proposed to restrict the number of Wards to 16 and object to that proposal. As indicated in our submission of 26 June 2014, we believe that it should be perfectly possible to create 48 Wards of broadly equal population thus ensuring that residents of those Wards are represented by one Councillor only. Electing ‘by thirds’ will still be possible under that arrangement.

A F Hickman Clerk to Middleton Stoney Parish Council 7 January 2015 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 January 2015 08:46 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Cherwell District Council Boundary Review Attachments: WARDING SCHEME option 1 Jan 2015 BPC submission.doc; new boundaries option 1 Jan 2015.jpg

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Milcombe Parish Council Sent: 07 January 2015 20:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: Cherwell District Council Boundary Review

Dear Sirs,

With regard to the above, Milcombe Parish Council strongly supports all of the recommendations made by Bloxham Parish Council, and the details are attached.

Please could you acknowledge receipt of this email.

Thanks, Theresa Goss Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer to Milcombe Parish Council

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: John Coley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Steeple Aston Parish Council

Comment text:

Steeple Aston Parish’s Consultation Submission“Our review aims to ensure that each Cherwell councillor represents roughly the same number of voters and that ward boundaries reflect the interests and identities of local communities.” Quote from LBGCE on Cherwell Review. Ward boundaries do not reflect the number of voters In 5 new proposed rural wards are the numbers are: Deddington (incl Steeple Aston) 7323 Fringford/Heyfords 5893 Launton/Otmoor 6156 Cropredy/Wroxton, etc 6686 Adderbury/Bloxham 6956 To represent “roughly the same number of voters”, Steeple Aston Parish, which has 779 voters currently, should be added to the proposed Fringford/Heyfords Ward thereby generating: Deddington 6544 voters Fringford/Heyfords 6672 voters The number of voters would then be roughly the same at 6544, 6672, 6156, 6686, and 6956. The new revised Fringford/Heyfords Ward (including Steeple Aston) would be very close to the Mean number of voters, 6603. The Median of those 5 numbers is 6672, which is the exact position of our proposals for the new Ward. The revised new Ward would the central value of all the voters in the rural wards listed above. Ward boundaries do not reflect the interests and identities of local communities Steeple Aston Parish Council also challenge being placed in the new Deddington Ward on the grounds that a move to another ward would not reflect the interests and identities of local communities Steeple Aston Parish is a Category A parish for the purposes of Cherwell’s Local Plan. In the draft Local Plan, Lower Heyford is listed as a "satellite" of Steeple Aston reflecting Lower Heyford's common interest in Steeple Aston's school, shop, and other village organisations. In addition Steeple Aston is part of a Local Neighbourhood Development Plan (LNDP) together with seven parishes which LGBCE have included in the proposed Fringford/Heyfords Ward. As the LNDP moves forward to referendum Steeple Aston will be involved not only with the planning and development of services including transport, affordable housing, education, environmental impact on surrounding villages, and community facilities but also the on-going opportunities offered by those facilities. Amongst current suggestions are that we will be counted on by parishioners to provide public transport from Steeple Aston to The Heyfords, Heyford Park and to Bicester to enable people to benefit from those extra opportunities. We have no shared interests or identity with Deddington or any other communities in that proposed Ward apart from a main road and bus route towards Oxford or Banbury. We have no involvement with Deddington’s facilities other than their provision of a health centre, an offshoot of which we fully expect will be provided at Heyford Park. Through sharing a neighbourhood development programme up to 2031, it would then seem iniquitous and perverse for our ward boundaries which are supposed to “reflect the interests and identities of local communities” to be represented by a different and possibly disinterested three District Councillors than would the remainder of the LNDP parishes. This would lead to a duplication of effort, to loss of effectiveness, to inefficiencies and delays, and to a real potential for conflicts of interest if councillors in one ward took up positions which were at odds with the others in the next ward. It would also lead to loss of effective representation by our parish at Cherwell District Council level on the LNDP. Since Steeple Aston is a Category A village for development purposes, it is all the more imperative that we are properly represented within the Fringford/Heyfords Ward. LGBCE have included the parishes of Fritwell, Middle Aston (which is also regarded by Cherwell District Council as a satellite of Steeple Aston), Somerton, Souldern, in the Deddington ward. “Although including Souldern, Fritwell and Somerton results in the ward including areas both

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4467 26/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

sides of the River Cherwell, we consider that this provides the best balance of the statutory criteria. Access between the two parts of the ward is provided by a bridge at Somerton.” On the same principle, access between Steeple Aston and the rest of the proposed Fringford/Heyfords Ward is also provided by a bridge at the Rousham crossing of the River Cherwell which is the preferred and safer route used by most vehicular traffic. The historic connections between The Heyfords and villages to the east of Steeple Aston is far greater than that of Deddington, Hook Norton and villages to the North and West and as explained, future development of housing and facilities around Heyford Park require the village to be involved in every possible way with that more relevant ward of Cherwell District.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4467 26/01/2015