`

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse District Council

Electoral review

October 2012

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2012 Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 7 Electoral arrangements 8 North and West 8 Central and South 9 Abingdon 11 East 11 North-East 12 South-East 13 Conclusions 15 Parish electoral arrangements 15

3 What happens next? 18

4 Mapping 20

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for Vale of White 21 Horse District Council

B Glossary and abbreviations 24

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of Vale of White Horse District Council to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in March 2012.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 27 March 2012 Consultation on council size 19 June 2012 Information gathering – invitation to submit proposals for warding arrangements to LGBCE 29 August 2012 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 13 November 2012 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 8 January 2013 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

In addition to the Council’s proposal, we received 12 submissions on council size. These proposed council sizes of 38 and 45, as well as retention of the current council size. During the first consultation on warding patterns, we received 24 four submissions on ward arrangements, including a district-wide scheme from the Council. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

Vale of White Horse District Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2018, a date five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations. These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 4% over this period. The majority of growth in the electorate is focused around developments in the south and south-east of the district. Elsewhere, growth is predicted to be modest. We are content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time.

1 Council size

Vale of White Horse District Council proposed a council size of 38, a reduction of 13 from the current council size of 51.

The Council’s original submission, as well as subsequent information provided during discussions, set out the proposed reduction in council size in the context of the political management structure, the streamlined nature of the decision-making process, and the representational role of councillors. The Council considered how to provide sustainable, efficient and representative governance for the district and we have therefore based our draft recommendations on a council size of 38 members.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received on warding arrangements, we have developed proposals which use the Council’s scheme as a starting point, with modifications to reflect our statutory criteria and take account of submissions received. Our proposals will provide good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and transport links in the district.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse District Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 7 January 2013. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

Review Officer Vale of White Horse Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

You can also view our draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse District Council on our interactive maps at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/

2 1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following a request made by Vale of White Horse District Council. We aim to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We wrote to Vale of White Horse District Council, as well as other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals first on council size and then on warding arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse District Council in spring 2013.

What is an electoral review?

4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in Vale of White Horse?

6 We decided to conduct a review of the district of Vale of White Horse following a formal request from the District Council. Furthermore, based on the December 2011 electorate figures, one ward, Marcham & Shippon, has 30% more electors per councillor than the district average. Overall, 24% of wards vary by over 10% from the average number of electors per councillor in the district.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward and, in some instances, which parish council wards you vote in. Your ward name may also change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

3 the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change as a result of our recommendations.

8 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft recommendations are evidence based and we would therefore like to stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will be accepting comments and views until 7 January 2013. After that point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in spring 2013. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 18 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

9 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations

10 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse District Council we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries, ward names and parish or town council electoral arrangements. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

11 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

 secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  have regard to the boundaries of district and borough wards in drawing boundaries for county divisions  ensure that proposed county divisions do not cross external district and borough boundaries  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

12 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward at the end of the review.

13 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral fairness over a five-year period.

14 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the district of Vale of White Horse or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

15 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act. The Schedule provides that if a parish

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 is to be divided between different divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

Submissions received

16 Prior to, and during, the initial stage of the review, we visited Vale of White Horse District Council (‘the Council’) and met with members, parish council representatives and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 12 submissions on council size and 24 submissions during the first consultation on warding patterns. All representations received may be inspected both at our offices (by appointment) and those of the Council and can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

17 As part of this review, the Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2018, projecting an increase in the electorate of approximately 4% over the period from 2012 to 2018.

18 The majority of growth in the electorate is focused in the south and south-east of the district. Elsewhere in the district, growth is expected to be reasonably modest. Having considered the information provided by the Council, we are content to use their figures as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

19 The Council currently has 51 councillors elected from 11 single-member wards, 14 two-member wards and four three-member wards and operates a Leader and Cabinet model of political management. At the outset of the review, the Council proposed a council size of 38.

20 The Council’s case for a reduction focused on two key arguments. Firstly, it argued that as a result of implementing the Leader and Cabinet governance model, it was able to operate a streamlined decision-making process. The Council stated that most councillors were not involved in the day-to-day business of the council and that an extensive system of delegation ensured that a low percentage of decisions were made in Full Council or committees.

21 The Council’s second argument focused on reduced councillor casework. It stated that the district’s relative affluence and the increased use of electronic communications meant that casework did not place significant workload pressures on councillors. The Council argued that residents often used email or web services to contact the authority directly and bypassed their local councillors when seeking services or information.

22 We received 12 submissions during the consultation on council size. These were from seven parish and town councils, a county councillor, and four local residents. Four town and parish councils and two local residents argued against the reduction in council size. However, no other council size was adequately promoted. Drayton Parish Council argued for a council size of 45, but did not produce 6 supporting evidence for this figure. We consider that the Council has clearly considered how to provide sustainable, efficient and representative governance for the district, and are content to base our draft recommendations on a council size of 38.

Electoral fairness

23 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the prime aim of an electoral review is to achieve electoral fairness within a local authority.

24 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations should provide for electoral fairness whilst ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

25 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The district average is calculated by dividing the total electorate (94,786 in 2012 and 98,802 by 2018) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 38 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 2,494 in 2012 and 2,600 by 2018.

26 Under our draft recommendations, no wards would vary by more than 10% from the average number of electors per councillor in the district by 2018. Overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse.

General analysis

27 We received one district-wide submission on ward patterns for Vale of White Horse from the Council. In addition, we received localised submissions from the Liberal Democrat Group, district councillors for Harwell, 19 town and parish councils and two local residents.

28 Broadly speaking, the Council’s proposals would provide good electoral quality, with the notable exceptions of its proposed Faringdon, Harwell and Blewbury wards.

29 The Council’s scheme, in places, was supported by only limited evidence of community identity. However, where possible, it used parishes as the ‘building blocks’ of the proposed wards. We propose a number of modifications to the Council’s scheme, largely to improve electoral equality and, where possible, further reflect community ties.

30 Our draft recommendations would result in two three-member divisions, 11 two- member divisions and 10 single-member wards. A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 21–2) and the large map accompanying this report.

31 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly in relation to those areas where we have modified the proposals submitted by the

7 Council. We also particularly welcome comments on the ward names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

32 This section of the report details the proposals we have received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Vale of White Horse. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

 North and West (page 8)  Central and South (page 9)  Abingdon (page 11)  East (page 11)  North-East (page 12)  South-East (page 13)

33 We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council scheme, with the exception of parts of the north-west, north-east and south-east. In these areas, we departed from the Council’s scheme to better reflect the statutory criteria.

34 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table A1 on pages 21–2 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

North and West

35 This area covers the towns of Watchfield, Faringdon, Shrivenham and surrounding parishes, as well as the parishes extending east from Faringdon to Cumnor. The Council’s scheme was based on whole parishes in this area.

36 The existing wards in the area are the three-member Faringdon & The Coxwells ward, the two-member Shrivenham ward, and the single-member Longworth ward. These wards are projected to contain 12% more, 5% fewer and 4% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

37 In the north-west, the Council proposed a single-member Watchfield ward comprising the parishes of Buscot, Eaton Hastings, Coleshill, Great Coxwell, Little Coxwell, Fernham, Longcot and Watchfield. The Council also proposed a two- member Faringdon ward entirely coterminous with the parish of Great Faringdon. The proposed Watchfield and Faringdon wards would contain 4% fewer and 13% more electors than the district average by 2018, respectively.

38 The Council justified the high variance in its Faringdon ward by stating that it considered Faringdon to be a natural community and that to split it would represent an ‘artificial sub-division’. We acknowledge the Council’s argument about Faringdon. However, we propose to improve electoral equality by including the parish of Great Faringdon in a three-member Watchfield & Faringdon ward which would contain 7% more electors than the average for the district by 2018. This would avoid dividing the town of Faringdon whilst providing for good electoral equality. The parishes contained within our proposed Watchfield & Faringdon ward would all have good communication links.

8 39 To the south-west, the Council proposed a single-member Shrivenham ward comprising the parishes of Bourton, Shrivenham, Ashbury and Compton Beauchamp. These parishes share reasonable communication links. This ward would contain 3% more electors than the district average by 2018.

40 We examined the possibility of keeping the parishes of Shrivenham and Watchfield within the same ward, given their geographical closeness and apparently strong ties. However, if Faringdon is to be combined with the parishes to its west in a three-member ward (as discussed in paragraph 38), it is necessary to include Watchfield in that ward in order to achieve good electoral equality. Watchfield and Faringdon are linked by the A420. The alternative would be to include Faringdon in a very large ward with the parishes to its east.

41 To the east of Faringdon, the Council proposed a single-member Thames ward comprising the parishes of Littleworth, Buckland, Pusey, Hinton Waldrist, Longworth, Fyfield & Tubney, Appleton-with-Eaton and Besselsleigh. This ward would contain an equal number of electors to the district average by 2018.

42 The Liberal Democrat Group expressed a concern over the size of the Council’s proposed Thames ward, but acknowledged that ‘there is almost certain to be a large rural ward somewhere in this part of Vale’. The parishes in the Council’s proposed Thames ward are all linked by the A420. In addition, Hinton Waldrist Parish Council’s submission mentioned community links with Longworth parish. We have adopted the Council’s proposed Thames and Shrivenham wards.

43 Our recommended Watchfield & Faringdon, Shrivenham and Thames wards would contain 7% more, 3% fewer and equal to the average number of electors for the district by 2018, respectively.

Central and South

44 This area covers the villages of Stanford in the Vale, Uffington, Steventon, Kingston Bagpuize and surrounding parishes, as well as the towns of Grove and Wantage and the southern parishes to their west.

45 The existing wards in the area are the three-member wards of Grove and Wantage Charlton, the two-member ward of Wantage Segsbury and the single- member wards of Greendown, Hanneys and Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor. These wards are projected to contain 20% more, 4% more, 17% fewer, 1% fewer, 7% fewer and 6% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

Kingston Bagpuize, Stanford and Ridgeway 46 In the centre of the district, the Council proposed a single-member Stanford ward comprising the parishes of Hatford, Stanford-in-the-Vale, Shellingford, Baulking, Uffington and Woolstone. This ward would contain 4% more electors than the district average by 2018. We received no other submissions regarding the area covered by the proposed ward.

47 The Council proposed a single-member Kingston Bagpuize ward comprising the parishes of Goosey, Charney Bassett, Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor, Lyford,

9 Garford and Frilford. This ward would contain 5% fewer electors than the district average by 2018.

48 The Council’s proposed Kingston Bagpuize ward has good internal access. In addition, we received a submission from Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor Parish Council which stated that while it identified with the parishes to its north, it would also be content to be combined in a ward with the parish of Charney Bassett. We are therefore adopting this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

49 In the south of the district, the Council proposed a single-member Ridgeway ward, comprising the parishes of Kingston Lisle, Sparsholt, Childrey, Letcombe Bassett, Letcombe Regis, West Challow and East Challow. This ward would contain 9% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018. We received no other submissions regarding the area covered by the proposed ward.

50 We noted that while the parishes of Woolstone and Uffington were linked to the parish of Baulking and the rest of the Council’s proposed Stanford ward by Baulking Road, they seemed to have stronger road connections to the parishes in the Council’s proposed Ridgeway ward. We therefore examined the possibility of including Uffington and Woolstone in a ward with the parishes to their east.

51 Including Uffington and Woolstone in a single-member Ridgeway ward would result in an unacceptably high electoral variance in that ward. We looked at the possibility of remedying this by including the parishes of East and West Challow in one of the Grove and Wantage urban wards but decided against this as East Challow Parish Council requested in its submission that it not be included in any of the Grove or Wantage wards. Therefore, we have adopted the Council’s proposed Stanford and Ridgeway wards as part of our draft recommendations.

Grove and Wantage 52 The Council proposed three two-member wards covering the towns of Grove and Wantage. The Council’s proposed Grove North ward would comprise the majority of the parish of Grove and would contain 7% more electors than the average for the district by 2018. The Council’s proposed Wantage & Grove Brook ward would comprise part of the parish of Grove and part of the parish of Wantage and would contain 6% more electors than the district average by 2018. The Council’s proposed Wantage Charlton ward would comprise the majority of the parish of Wantage.

53 We received a submission from Grove Parish Council asking that the whole parish be contained within a single district ward, as at present. However, this would require an allocation of three councillors in Grove, and a departure from the agreed council size of 38 in order to achieve good electoral equality across the district.

54 We toured the towns of Grove and Wantage and noted that the Council’s proposed wards reflected the apparent divide between the older and newer parts of Wantage. We also noted that residents in north-west Wantage are able to access the rest of the Council’s proposed Wantage & Grove Brook ward via Grove Road. We have therefore adopted the Council’s proposed wards in Grove and Wantage.

Hanneys and Steventon 55 The Council proposed a single-member Steventon & the Hanneys ward, comprising the parishes of Denchworth, West Hanney, East Hanney and Steventon. This ward would contain 6% fewer electors than the district average by 2018. As the 10 Council’s proposed Steventon & the Hanneys ward has good communication links between parishes, we are adopting it as part of our draft recommendations.

56 Our recommended Stanford, Ridgeway, Grove North, Wantage & Grove Brook, Wantage Charlton, Steventon & the Hanneys and Kingston Bagpuize wards would contain 4% more, 9% fewer, 7% more, 6% more, 0%, 6% fewer and 5% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

Abingdon

57 The existing wards in the town are the two-member wards of Abingdon Abbey and Barton, Abingdon Caldecott, Abingdon Dunmore, Abingdon Fitzharris, Abingdon Northcourt, Abingdon Ock Meadow and Abingdon Peachcroft. These wards are projected to contain 14% more, 14% fewer, 6% fewer, 11% fewer, 5% fewer, 3% fewer and 11% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

58 The Council proposed five two-member wards, while the Liberal Democrat Group proposed 10 single-member wards. Abingdon Town Council proposed a pattern of five two-member wards based on the Council’s proposals, with one minor modification to take account of the town ward boundary. One local resident wrote in support of single-member wards in Abingdon.

59 None of the proposals for Abingdon provided strong evidence of community identities. However, each scheme provided for good electoral equality, with none of the proposed wards varying from the district average by more than 10% by 2018. In addition, the proposals from the Liberal Democrat Group and Abingdon Town Council took account of the current parish wards.

60 During our tour of the area, we viewed the boundary between the Council’s proposed Central and Northcourt wards. We found that the properties in Shelley Close looked to the south, as there was no access north. We also noted that the Council’s proposed boundary ensured that the schools and sports facilities which looked south onto Northcourt Road were all included to the south.

61 We note that Abingdon Town Council supported the Council’s preference for two-member wards. On balance, we consider that the Town Council’s proposal provides for strong boundaries, as well as taking account of electoral divisions in the town, and have therefore decided to adopt these wards as part of our draft recommendations.

62 Our recommended Caldecott, Central, Fitzharris, Northcourt and Peachcroft wards would contain 5% more, 4% fewer, 2% fewer, 10% fewer and 6% more electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

East

63 This area covers the towns of Wootton, Marcham, Drayton, Milton, Sutton and Sutton Courtenay. The Council proposed four single-member wards.

64 The existing wards in the area are the two-member wards of Sunningwell & Wootton and Marcham & Shippon and the single-member wards of Drayton and

11 Sutton Courtenay & Appleford. These wards are projected to contain 7% fewer, 23% more, 3% fewer and 28% more electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

65 In the south of this area, the Council proposed a Drayton ward comprising the parish of Drayton and part of the parish of Milton, containing 9% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018. To the east, the Council proposed a Sutton Courtenay ward comprising the parishes of Sutton Courtenay and Appleford-on- Thames, containing 5% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018. We received a submission from Drayton Parish Council stating that it wished to be represented by a single district councillor. We also received a submission from Sutton Courtenay Parish Council stating that it wanted to be included in a ward with the parish of Appleford-on-Thames.

66 We note the strong communication links between Drayton, Milton and Sutton Courtenay, and consider that Milton appears to look towards Sutton Courtenay rather than Drayton. We have therefore decided to combine the Council’s proposed Sutton Courtenay and Drayton wards in a two-member Sutton Courtenay ward which would contain 7% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018.

67 To the north of Drayton, the Council proposed a Marcham ward comprising the parish of Marcham and the southern part of the parish of St Helen Without. The Council also proposed a Wootton ward comprising the parish of Wootton and the northern part of St Helen Without. The Council’s proposed Marcham and Wootton wards would contain 8% fewer and 6% more electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

68 We received a submission from St Helen Without Parish Council, stating that it was in favour of retaining the status quo, whereby the parish is divided between Marcham and Wootton district wards. The Parish Council argued that the northern Dry Sandford area identified with Wootton and the southern Shippon area identified with Marcham. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposed Wootton and Marcham wards.

69 Our recommended Wootton, Marcham and Sutton Courtenay wards would contain 6% more, 8% fewer and 7% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

North-East

70 This area covers the parishes of Cumnor, Wytham, North Hinksey, South Hinksey, Kennington, Radley and Sunningwell. In addition to the Council’s scheme, the Liberal Democrat Group’s submission included a number of suggestions relating to the area. We also received submissions from Cumnor Parish Council, North Hinksey Parish Council, Kennington Parish Council, Radley Parish Council and a local resident.

71 The existing wards in the area are the three-member ward of Appleton & Cumnor, the two-member wards of North Hinksey & Wytham, Kennington & South Hinksey and the single-member ward of Radley. These wards are projected to contain 2% more, 2% more, 6% fewer and 5% more electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

12

Cumnor and Botley 72 In the far north of this area, the Council proposed single-member Cumnor North and Cumnor South wards containing 2% more and 2% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively. The Council also proposed a single- member Botley ward, which it believed would contain 2,610 electors by 2018, equal to the average for the district. We used the register provided by the Council to count the electors contained within the proposed ward and found that it would actually contain 3,115 electors by 2018, 20% more electors than the average for the district.

73 The Council provided no rationale to support its proposed wards in Cumnor. Cumnor Parish Council argued that a two-member Cumnor ward would avoid the unnecessary division of communities. We therefore recommend a two-member ward coterminous with the parish of Cumnor, which would contain an equal number of electors to the district average by 2018.

74 To the north-east of Cumnor, the Council proposed a Botley ward comprising the parish of Wytham and part of the parish of North Hinksey. In its submission, the Liberal Democrat Group argued that the Council’s proposed ward divided the parish of North Hinksey arbitrarily.

75 It is not possible to include the whole of North Hinksey in a single district ward. We have adopted the Council’s proposed Botley ward with a modification to its southern boundary so that it runs along the backs of properties on Sycamore Road, Yarnell’s Hill and Stanley Close. This would result in a Botley ward with 4% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018.

Kennington and Radley 76 To the south of Botley, the Council proposed a Sunningwell & the Hinkseys ward comprising the parishes of South Hinksey and Sunningwell and the remainder of the parish of North Hinksey. The Council also proposed a two-member Kennington & Radley ward that comprised the parishes of Kennington and Radley.

77 We were concerned that the Council’s proposed Sunningwell & the Hinkseys ward included a ‘bottle-neck’ with no internal access between South Hinksey and Sunningwell. We therefore propose combining the Council’s proposed Sunningwell & the Hinkseys and Kennington & Radley wards, with the modification to the boundary with Botley described above, to make a three-member Kennington ward with good internal access, containing 1% more electors than the average for the district by 2018.

78 Our recommended Botley, Cumnor and Kennington wards would contain 4% fewer, equal to and 1% more electors than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

South-East

79 This area covers the villages of Blewbury, Upton, Chilton, Harwell, Lockinge, Ardington, the Hendreds and the parish of Milton. The existing wards in the area are the two-member wards of Harwell and Hendreds and the single-member ward of Blewbury & Upton. These wards are projected to contain 15% more, 15% fewer and

13 13% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

80 The Council proposed a single-member Harwell ward comprising the parish of Harwell, with the exception of the Harwell Oxford campus area, and a single-member Blewbury ward comprising the parishes of Chilton, Upton and Blewbury. These wards would contain 12% fewer and 13% more electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018, respectively.

81 We were not persuaded by the Council’s rationale for its proposed Harwell ward. The Council argued that over-representation in this ward would be mitigated by rapid growth. However, according to the Council’s figures, the proposed Harwell ward would still contain 12% fewer electors than the average for the district by 2018.

82 We therefore recommend that the Council’s proposed Blewbury and Harwell wards be combined to make a two-member Blewbury & Harwell ward containing an equal number of electors to the district average by 2018. This ward would unite the parishes of Chilton and Harwell, which have strong communication links along the A34.

83 The Council proposed a single-member Hendreds ward comprising the parishes of Lockinge, Ardington, West Hendred, East Hendred and parts of the parishes of Harwell and Milton. This ward would contain 2% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the district by 2018.

84 We note that the Harwell Oxford campus would be divided between our proposed Blewbury & Harwell ward and the Council’s proposed Hendreds ward. The Council justified the inclusion of the part of Harwell parish covering Harwell Oxford campus in its proposed Hendreds ward by arguing that it was ‘distant from the main village’. Councillors Waite and Turner, representing Harwell, made submissions arguing that Harwell Oxford campus was equally distant from East Hendreds and contended that Harwell parish should not be divided. The only alternative to dividing the Harwell Oxford Campus between wards would be to create a three-member ward covering Hendreds, Blewbury and Harwell, for which we have no evidence at present.

85 Under the Council’s proposal, the parish of Milton would be divided between district wards, as is currently the case. Milton Parish Council said that it wished to be contained within a single district ward. However, in order to achieve acceptable levels of electoral equality, it is necessary to include part of Milton parish in the Council’s proposed Hendreds ward. The Council argued that ‘the communities of Milton Village and Milton Heights are separated by a business park, railway and the A34 and are distinct from each other’. We consider that the Council’s proposed boundary following the A34 is a strong boundary.

86 Having considered the representations regarding Milton parish and the Harwell Oxford campus, we have decided to adopt the Council’s proposed Hendreds ward. Our recommended Hendreds and Blewbury & Harwell wards would contain 3% fewer than and equal to the average number of electors per councillor for the district by 2018, respectively.

14

Conclusions

87 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2012 and 2018 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations 2012 2018 Number of councillors 38 38 Number of electoral wards 23 23 Average number of electors per councillor 2,494 2,600 Number of wards with a variance more 6 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Vale of White Horse District Council should comprise 38 councillors serving 23 wards, as detailed and named in Table A1 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

88 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between divisions or wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division or ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

89 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make such changes as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority division arrangements. However, the respective principal authority (the district or borough council in the area) has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

90 To meet our obligations under the 2009 Act, we propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Abingdon, Harwell, Grove, Milton, North Hinksey, St Helen Without and Wantage. We would particularly welcome comments on these proposals from the parish councils concerned and local residents during this consultation stage.

15 91 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Abingdon parish.

Draft recommendation Abingdon Town Council should return 21 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards: Caldecott (returning three members), Central (returning three members), Dunmore (returning three members), Fitzharris North (returning three members), Fitzharris South (returning three members), Northcourt (returning three members) and Peachcroft (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

92 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Grove parish.

Draft recommendation Grove Parish Council should return 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Grove Brook (returning four members) and Grove North (returning 12 members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

93 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Harwell parish.

Draft recommendation Harwell Parish Council should return 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Harwell (returning seven members) and Harwell Oxford Campus (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

94 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Milton parish.

Draft recommendation Milton Parish Council should return seven councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Heights (returning four members) and Village (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

95 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for North Hinksey parish.

16

Draft recommendation North Hinksey Parish Council should return 14 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Botley (returning eight members) and South Hinksey (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

96 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for St Helen Without parish.

Draft recommendation St Helen Without Parish Council should return 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Dry Sandford (returning five members) and Shippon (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

97 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we propose revised parish electoral arrangements for Wantage parish.

Draft recommendation Wantage Parish Council should return 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Segsbury (returning 10 members) and Wantage Charlton (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

17 3 What happens next?

98 There will now be a consultation period of eight weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse District Council contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 7 January 2013. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

99 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Vale of White Horse and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors, ward names and parish electoral arrangements. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during the consultation. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

100 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer Vale of White Horse Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, www.lgbce.org.uk or by emailing [email protected]

101 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations we take into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all Stage Three representations will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Vale of White Horse District Council and at our offices in Layden House (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

102 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

103 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

18 104 After the publication of our final recommendations, an Order – the legal document which brings our recommendations into force – will be laid in draft in Parliament for 40 sitting days, after which it will be made. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for Vale of White Horse District Council in 2015.

105 This report has been screened for impact on equalities; with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

19 4 Mapping Draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse

106 The following map illustrates our proposed ward boundaries for Vale of White Horse District Council:

Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for Vale of White Horse District Council.

You can also view an interactive map of our draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/

20 Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2012) (2018) councillor % councillor % Blewbury & 1 2 4,326 2,163 -13 5,210 2,605 0 Harwell

2 Botley 1 2,367 2,367 -5 2,506 2,506 -4

3 Caldecott 2 5,537 2,769 11 5,467 2,734 5

4 Central 2 4,956 2,479 -1 4,968 2,484 -4

5 Cumnor 2 4,776 2,388 -4 5,200 2,600 0

6 Fitzharris 2 5,096 2,548 2 5,100 2,550 -2

7 Grove North 2 4,357 2,179 -13 5,574 2,787 7

8 Hendreds 1 2,070 2,070 -17 2,530 2,530 -3

9 Kennington 3 7,707 2,569 3 7,915 2,638 1

Kingston 10 1 2,505 2,505 0 2,475 2,475 -5 Bagpuize

11 Marcham 1 2,426 2,426 -3 2,392 2,392 -8

21 Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2012) (2018) councillor % councillor %

12 Northcourt 2 4,721 2,361 -5 4,663 2,332 -10

13 Peachcroft 2 5,609 2,805 12 5,528 2,764 6

14 Ridgeway 1 2,322 2,322 -7 2,359 2,359 -9

15 Shrivenham 1 2,532 2,532 2 2,520 2,520 -3

16 Stanford 1 2,718 2,718 9 2,706 2,706 4

Steventon & the 17 1 2,464 2,464 -1 2,434 2,434 -6 Hanneys

Sutton 18 2 4,610 2,305 -8 4,838 2,419 -7 Courtenay

19 Thames 1 2,602 2,602 4 2,591 2,591 0

Wantage & 20 2 5,231 2,616 5 5,520 2,760 6 Grove Brook

Wantage 21 2 5,069 2,536 2 5,194 2,597 0 Charlton

Watchfield & 22 3 8,009 2,676 7 8,366 2,789 7 Farringdon

22 Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse District Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2012) (2018) councillor % councillor %

23 Wootton 1 2,776 2,776 11 2,746 2,746 6 Totals 38 94,786 – – 98,802 – – Averages – – 2,494 – – 2,600 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Vale of White Horse District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

23 Appendix B

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the District Council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

24 Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

25 Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision–making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

26

27