Parish and Town Council submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from Parish and Town Councils in Oxfordshire.

Some versions of Adobe Acrobat 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.

From: Tian Davidson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2011 23:50 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: Appleton with Eaton PC response to the Boundary reviews - 2nd consultation

Dear Jessica

The Council considered the draft recommendations and agreed this evening, the following:

1. Council is pleased that the Parish is linked to village because of various factors identified in the first consultation; 2. Council noted that the revised Cumnor division will consists of the hived off Cumnor village, Appleton with Eaton Parish and most of the rural parishes along the A420 to the boundaries before ; 3. Council agreed that the division will consist of rural parishes having various issues in common; 4. The division will have electoral equality for local voters of around 8,000 voters.

Council has been made aware of Cumnor Parish Council's proposals of a 2 member division.

Council is sympathetic to the impact of Cumnor community being divided as a result of this draft recommendation. Cumnor PC has proposed a big division of around 16,000 voters, represented by 2 members.

Council is concerned that the division would be too large, and that a 2 member division creates practical and logistical problems which will not exist in a one member division.

Therefore, after careful consideration, Council has decided that the interest of the Parish would be better served by a one member division than a 2 member division.

In conclusion, Appleton with Eaton PC agreed to support the draft recommendation of a one member division, consisting of 'rural parishes' and Cumnor village.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Kind regards Tian Davidson

Mrs T Davidson, Parish Clerk of Appleton with Eaton PC

From: Parish Council Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2011 10:14

Subject: Re: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire County Council - Draft Recommendations published

Dear Review Officer

Blewbury Parish Council asked me to respond to the electoral review on their behalf.

We support the proposal but our only objection is the proposed name of Harwell and Hendreds division. The combined electorate of East and is less than Blewbury. We therefor agree with the proposal EXCEPT the name which should be Blewbury and Harwell division.

Yours faithfully

Elaine de Ridder Part-time Clerk for Blewbury Parish Council

Dear Jessica

Please find attached Bloxham Parish Council's submission to the Oxfordshire County Council Review.

We understand that Cherwell District Council is making a response to the Boundary Commission's proposal, and that it is recommending changes to the original proposal for the creation of warded parishes of Bodicote and Bankside. Cherwell District Council states that the completion of any housing in Bankside may not occur in time to generate any electors for the new ward of Bankside, that would benefit from this review .

We feel that the observation (regarding building delays in Bankside) in Cherwell District Council's amendment actually reinforces Bloxham Parish Council's proposal.

Should the Boundary commission decide to not endorse Bloxham Parish Council's proposal, then Bloxham Parish Council would not wish to be known as Banbury Easington & Bloxham ward (as per Cherwell District Council's submission) as we feel that this enforces a link to Banbury, implying urbanisation, and removes the local identity of rural Bloxham.

Cover email to boundary Commission v2 (1) BLOXHAM PARISH COUNCIL SUBMISSION TO THE BOUNDARY COMMISSION 2011

Bloxham Parish Council endorse the Boundary Commission's criteria for assessing viable local divisions, and is keen to retain the local Identities of Communities and the resultant community spirit. The proposal put forward in the Boundary Commission's consultation document does not adhere to the above criteria. In addition it makes assumptions that are not born out by local views.

The Boundary Commission's proposal is reliant on the creation of not one, but two artificial boundaries - effectively splitting existing communities. The created boundaries would be along Queensway in Banbury dividing Easington, and along the Oxford Road dividing Bodicote.

Whilst Bloxham Parish Council appreciates the present perceived need to amalgamate either Bodicote or Bloxham into Banbury to create sufficient numbers to justify the change, it does not accept that Boundary Commissions proposal is a logical, forward planning decision. The proposed changes would be effective in 2013, and yet, plans are in place, that would by 2017 give Banbury additional housing to justify a contained Banbury Division.

The Boundary Commission assert that there is no evidence that their recommendations would have any adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car or house insurance premiums. But, equally, there is no evidence to the contrary, and the proposed change may well stimulate an increase in these categories for the electorate of Bloxham.

The Boundary Commission proposal raises the following potential issues: v Perceived loss of identity of Bloxham as a village. v The creation of an arbitrary boundary along Queensway in Banbury. v A wide Council Tax price range between the Bloxham and Easington components of the proposed Division. v The possible feasibility of the area of Bloxham, Milcombe and Easington being viable for future urbanisation.

Bloxham Parish Council considered a range of options and sought advice from existing District and County Councillors. Bloxham Parish Council feels that the following proposal enables all the Parishes concerned to retain their community identity and spirit. Does not require the creation of any artificial boundaries and allows for a solid foundation for any future growth. Bloxham Parish Council does not wish to be seen to be imposing it's view on any other Parish Council, but does feel that it is essential to demonstrate that the electoral numbers can be viewed in another constructive form.

Bloxham Parish Council Proposal

Create a Division comprising of: Adderbury, Barford, Bloxham, Bodicote (inc. Bankside), Milcombe and Milton. This division would have an electorate of 7498 in 2011 (a variance of -4%) and 9087 in 2016 (a variance of 9%). Easington would remain as part of Banbury and be a whole division without the need for an arbitrary boundary.

This proposal:- v Acknowledges the Natural boundary between the rural villages to the south of Banbury and urban Banbury itself. v Groups the common concerns of rural parishes, notably - provision of effective rural transportation services, local facilities for young people, bad weather and flood provision. v Endorses the senior school catchment area. v Reflects the similarity of Council Tax banding within the areas. parish councils sub to the bound com 2011 final #1

From: Jo Donoghue [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 October 2011 10:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: OCC Division Boundary Review

To whom it may concern,

CHALGROVE PARISH COUNCIL

Chalgrove Parish Council are unanimously against the proposed changes for the new Chalgrove/Watlington division.

At present the Chalgrove division extends over 10 parishes from Chalgrove in the South to Tiddington in the North, a wide area to cover. The proposed changes would create a new Chalgrove/Watlington division extended over 19 parishes making it extremely difficult for one County Councillor to remain effective.

At present our County Councillor, Cllr. David Turner, attends 112 evening meetings per year which equates to approx. 2.2 evening meetings per week. Your proposed changes would increase the number of evening meetings to 172, equating to 3.3 per week. This is sure to reduce the contact and level of service.

You may wish to consider the effect the Core Strategy will have on your proposed changes. Villages will be getting bigger creating more need for our County Councillor to be able to attend all Parish Council Meetings - something which will not happen if your go ahead with the boundary changes.

J

JO DONOGHUE Clerk to the Parish Chalgrove Parish Council

Review Officer (Oxfordshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Ms Metheringham-Owlett,

Electoral Review of Oxfordshire Draft Recommendations

Please find attached Didcot Town Council’s response to the Oxfordshire draft recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Dominic Stapleton Town Clerk 7th October 2011

Attachment: Didcot Town Council response to the Oxfordshire draft recommendations.

Didcot Town Council

Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for England Draft recommendations for Oxfordshire County Council July 2011 Deadline for submissions “by 10 October 2011”

Error Didcot Town Council challenges the erroneous data for Division 33 Didcot Ladygrove (Table C1 p.42). The base data from South Oxfordshire District Council has been confirmed as deriving from planning and housing trajectories for “housing at Didcot”. This data uses “at Didcot” in planning terms with Didcot as a hub and does not depend on parish boundaries. In fact most of the proposed housing to the North of Didcot Ladygrove lies in Long Wittenham parish, for which you have other proposals which you may wish to review. When this base data was used by Oxfordshire County Council it had its own incorrect parish boundary assumptions and arrived at an increased electorate in Didcot Ladygrove between 2011-2016 of 1594, divided by 2.3 = 693 dwellings. These dwellings must be properly allocated, mainly to Long Wittenham parish. To remedy the electoral inequality we propose that Didcot All Saints RF polling district, which currently has an electorate of 1,639 and is a stable population with little development planned, is added to Didcot Ladygrove. This would provide a Ladygrove electorate total of 7,366 in 2011 (5,727 + 1,639) and very little development will be added in that area of our parish by 2016. These figures are more in line with the County average of 2011-7,820 and 2016-8,321. Until about 8 years ago this polling district (RF) formed part of the same division as Ladygrove and shares a parish church. Our proposal addresses the anomaly of Didcot Ladygrove being the smallest Division in the County in 2011 and 2016 and meets your criterion of ensuring electoral equality. It also corrects the errors that have been made so far.

Dominic Stapleton Town Clerk 7th October 2011

Steventon facilities used by Drayton residents include their MUGA (multiple games area), cricket club, school and cub pack. facilities used include the Brownies and Scout packs. There are joint church activities including a joint vicar for Milton/Steventon.

Traffic routes pass through the village: Drayton major crossroads leads to Steventon and Milton in one direction and Sutton Courtenay in the other. The national cycle (SUSTRANS) route passes through the villages. is not directly linked to Drayton by any significant accessible routes.

Drayton Parish Council asked me to convey to you that the current boundary arrangements are , they feel, the most satisfactory arrangement for Drayton, and the preference is that they remain unchanged.

Yours sincerely

David Perrow Parish Clerk

Copies to Parish Clerks of Steventon, Milton and Sutton Courtenay

From: Alison Hardisty - Parish Clerk Sent: 26 September 2011 12:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire County Council

To Whom it May Concern

Re the Electoral Review of Oxfordshire County Council ‐ East Hendred Parish Council strongly supports the proposed boundary of the Hendreds and Harwell electoral division of Oxfordshire.

Kind regards

Alison Hardisty Clerk to East Hendred Parish Council

From: DAVID COOPER Sent: 11 October 2011 11:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County Council Boundary Review - Submission from Ewelme Parish Council

I understand that the consultation formally closed yesterday, but hope that you will take our comments into account nevertheless.

Ewelme Parish Council is concerned that the review will split this parish from Benson, which is its nearest large village and on which it depends for many shopping, social, cultural and medical facilities. We also share a District Council Ward with Benson. There are numerous advantages to keeping District Ward and County Division boundaries as far as possible the same. Links between our Parish and the other parishes in the proposed Watlington Division are very much weaker.

We also believe that the sheer geographical size of the proposed Watlington division and the number of parishes contained within it will make it extremely difficult for the Councillor to represent the area effectively.

As a small village, it will make very little difference to the overall number of electors in either the Watlington Division or the Benson one. However, we are also opposed to the incorporation of Cholsey and Moulsford into this Division, as there is little natural contact with those parishes, mainly because of the River Thames in between and the consequent lack of any direct route between them.

David Cooper Vice-Chairman, Ewelme Parish Council

From: Jane Simcox Sent: 09 October 2011 12:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire CC Boundary Review

Attempted to upload comments via the website but unsure if it worked. Comments given below:

Great Haseley Parish is currently a member of the Chalgrove Division of Oxfordshire County Council and proposed changes would make it a member of Chalgrove and Watlington District.

While Great Haseley Parish Council understands the philosophy behind this boundary review we have serious concerns as to its effect on local democracy. Our County Councillor like many, attempts to attend as many of the Parish Council meetings on his patch as possible. Currently this involves 11 Parish Councils/Parish Meetings, many of which meet monthly, often on the same day. The proposed new division that our parish will be a member of, will almost double the number of parishes to 19. Clearly this makes it impossible for the Councillor to regularly attend all the Parish meetings and deal with County Council business as well. This would place an unreasonable and in our view, unnecessary burden on an unpaid volunteer. As a result it will damage local democracy by limiting the often forthright exchanges with our County Councillor and will inevitably reduce further the willingness of people to take on this responsibility.

We ask Commission to review its proposal sin thi light

Jane Simcox Clerk Great Haseley Parish Council

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 October 2011 15:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

Custom Form Submission Received

Contact us Email,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 695 Time of Submission: Oct 10th 2011 at 2:44pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Your name: John Melling Your email: I am: a parish clerk Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: My comments relate to the current review of Oxfordshire

This submission relates to the proposed Division 47 - Kingston & Cumnor.  with Parish Council notes the proposal for this division. In part this reverts to the situation before the last review. The Parish Council wishes to see a Division following the A420 corridor, as per the existing Division or that proposed by the Commission.  The Parish Council is aware of a proposal from Cumnor Parish Council to form a two-member Division stretching to the suburbs of Oxford. The Parish Council strongly objects to this proposal. A change from a dedicated member for this largely rural area would be extremely detrimental to the democratic representation of electors in

LITTLE TEW PARISH MEETING LITTLE TEW, OXFORDSHIRE

Review Officer Clerk's address for correspondence Oxfordshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Thursday 6th October 2011

Dear Review Officer

Little Tew Parish Meeting held an extraordinary parish meeting on 3rd October where the Commission's draft recommendations for Oxfordshire, specifically the proposal that Little Tew become part of the Chipping Norton division, was unanimously rejected.

The well attended meeting concentrated upon the second and third of the key factors you ask us to consider when making submissions - namely that the new divisions should reflect the natural communities of Oxfordshire and help deliver effective government.

Residents expressed the view that Little Tew had a strong affinity with the other rural parishes of the Woodstock division. Our needs, whether we are discussing transport, schools, winter preparations or a variety of other parish matters tally with those of our neighbouring rural parishes not with those of an urban settlement. Effective and convenient government is achieved more easily where a councillor represents a homogeneous constituency in which all communities have similar needs and the councillor can specialise in understanding the particular requirements of his or electorate.

In addition, Little Tew has close community links with other settlements in the Woodstock division. Some residents were themselves born and brought up in neighbouring villages and have family there thus creating shared community ties. Our church, which is a significant community focus, is associated pastorally with Over and Nether Worton - being in the same benefice and having a shared vicar and many shared services. The facilities in Middle Barton (shop, Post Office, several pubs and hairdressing salon) are used by Little Tew residents and some village families have, in the recent past, elected to send their children to Middle Barton School.

The intake of our local school, Great Tew Primary, includes many pupils from the villages in the Woodstock division and hence children's friendship groups tend to be geared in this direction.

I'm sure residents are entirely in agreement with the Commission's aim to create electoral equality. If I am reading the statistics correctly, it would appear that the Chipping Norton division is -2% variance from average and the Woodstock's is -1%. Given that Little Tew's electorate is roughly 130 and I assume Great Tew (which we would

From: On Behalf Of Linda Martin Sent: 18 September 2011 16:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire Review

For the sake of the record, I write to advise you that Marcham Parish Council has considered the recommendations of the Commission in connection with the Oxfordshire review, and does not wish to make any comment on the proposals for its area. Linda Martin Clerk Marcham Parish Council

From: Nuneham Courtenay [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 October 2011 13:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Nuneham Courtenay Parish Council submission

Nuneham Courtenay Parish Council supports the revised number of councillors across the County and the local ward boundaries that achieve an enlargement of the Current County ward in which Nuneham Courtenay is locate to include the Baldons and Garsington parishes. This is a much more logical grouping of Parishes who share a boundary and enjoy a strong community identity.

Yours sincerely, Jane Dymock Clerk to the Council

From: Sent: 13 September 2011 14:27 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: New Electoral Arrangements for OXFORDSHIRE

From Pyrton Parish Council, Oxfordshire

Dear Ms Metheringham-Owlett, Following a recent Parish Council Meeting, I have been asked to write to say this Parish Council welcomes the proposed reduction in the number of County Councillors. The Parish wishes to remain in a ward where rural priorities will be given consideration, rather than linked with large town(s), even if this will entail a larger geographical area.

With best wishes,

Catherine Pinney Clerk to Pyrton Parish Council

From: Barbara Marston Sent: 10 October 2011 07:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF OXFORDSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION BY ROTHERFIELD GREYS PARISH COUNCIL:

The parish council is fortunate in having a county councillor who attends most of its meetings, and keeps it up to date with county council issues – he is conscientious in this respect and is greatly valued by the parish council.

Under the draft proposals, Oxfordshire County Council’s size will be reduced from 74 to 63, and our county councillor with a bigger ward and an increase in parish council meetings, would be unable to serve the parish council as well as he does at the moment. A great shame when the parish council has had the benefit of a dedicated county councillor for a number of years now.

ROTHERFIELD GREYS P.C.

From: George Edmonds-Brown Sent: 15 September 2011 13:03 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Cc:

Subject: RE: Oxfordshire Electoral Review

Jessica

The Parish Council met on 5th September and discussed the Local Government Boundary Commission Review dated July 2011 and I was instructed to write to you with councillors’ comments.

St Helen Without Parish Council is strongly opposed to the proposal to divide the Parish into three wards. Recommendation 142 would not be acceptable. Spey Road is in fact occupied by MOD families from Dalton Barracks. Dalton Barracks is in the heart of and many of the residents on the electoral roll of Shippon are in MOD married quarters. It would not make sense to separate Spey Road from similar roads elsewhere in Shippon. The Parish Council works very closely with Dalton Barracks and a representative always attends Parish Council meetings and is able to bring to the attention of the Parish Council any points relating to MOD families. The families are of course also able to contact Shippon councillors direct.

We should be most grateful therefore if the recommendation could be deleted and if you could confirm that the Parish Council’s view has been accepted.

I have taken over a Clerk from Christine Kerry – please note my contact details below.

Best regards

George

George Edmonds-Brown Clerk St Helen Without Parish Council 4 The Willows

ill 5LD

From: Dee Bixley Sent: 30 September 2011 11:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Response to the Electoral Review of Oxfordshire draft proposals

Dear Sirs

At the Planning & Environment Committee meeting of Thame Town Council on 13 September 2011, the Electoral Review was considered:

The subsequent relevant Minute reads:

“Members agreed that this scheme was an improvement on the previous one. Whilst it was unfortunate that Thame would remain a two‐member division, there didn’t seem to be a way around this. The layout of the area did not lend itself to being a one councilor division.

RESOLVED That it be recommended to Full Council on 27 September 2011 that Thame Town Council should endorse the draft recommendations on the Electoral Review of Oxfordshire.”

At the following meeting of Full Council on 27 September, Members ratified the recommendation that Thame Town Council should endorse the draft recommendations.

I hope this meets your requirements.

With best wishes Dee Bixley Civic & Democratic Services Officer

From: Ken Poyser Sent: 06 October 2011 18:15 To: Reviews@ Cc: David Turner Subject: BOUNDARY COMMISSION

Dear Sirs I write to inform you that this Parish Council does not support changes which will increase the workload of County Councillors. The effect will be to spread their efforts for small parish councils, to the detriment of any beneficial influence they may be able to exert on our behalf. Yours faithfully Ken Poyser – Clerk to Tiddington with Albury Parish nCouncil