Draft Recommendations for Cotswold District Council Are Based on a Council Size of 34

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Cotswold District Council

Electoral review

February 2014

Translations and other formats 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 2014 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 Cotswold 8 Central Cotswold 11 South-east Cotswold 12 Cirencester 13 South-west Cotswold 14 Conclusions 14 Parish electoral arrangements 15

3 What happens next? 18

4 Mapping 20

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for Cotswold District 21 Council

B Glossary and abbreviations 25

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 Cotswold District Council (‘the 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 May 2013.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 4 June 2013 Consultation on council size 3 September 2013 Invitation to submit proposals for warding arrangements to LGBCE 12 November 2013 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 12 February 2013 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 29 April 2014 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

During the preliminary stage of the review, the Council proposed a council size of between 32 and 36. Based on the allocation of electors between Cirencester and the remainder of the district, we considered that a council size of 35 was the best council size for Cotswold. A council size of 35 would mean a reduction of nine members from the existing council size of 44. During consultation on council size we received nine submissions. Respondents generally supported the proposed reduction of the council size from to 44 to 35. During consultation on warding patterns, we received 22 submissions including district-wide schemes from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on the Council. The remaining submissions provided localised comments on specific parts of the district. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

Cotswold District Council (‘the Council’) submitted electorate forecasts for 2019, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2014. This is prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (‘the 2009 Act’). These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 8% over this period. This growth was largely due to developments across the District.

1 We are content that the forecasts are the most accurate available at this time and have used these figures as the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

Cotswold District Council currently has a council size of 44. The Council originally proposed a council size of between 32 and 36. We consulted on a council size of 35; however, both district-wide schemes provided a pattern of wards which would have 34 members. We considered that having 34 councillors would result in a good balance between the statutory criteria across the district, and therefore amended our initial council size of 35 by one to 34.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received during consultation on warding arrangements, we have developed proposals based on a combination of the submissions received. In general, we have based our draft recommendations on the proposals from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on the District Council. The two schemes were identical in some areas, and were generally similar throughout, with the exception of the Bourton-on-the-Water area. In some areas of the district we have proposed some modifications in order to provide for improved levels of electoral equality and reflect the community identity evidence 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 Cotswold 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 28 April 2014. 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 Cotswold 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 Cotswold on our interactive maps at http://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 our decision to review Cotswold’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We wrote to Cotswold 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 Cotswold in autumn 2014.

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 Cotswold?

6 We are conducting this review following a request from Cotswold District Council. The Council requested that we undertake a single-member ward review. The Commission agreed to the request. The legislation makes clear that, when conducting such a review, we must continue to have regard to the statutory criteria that governs all electoral reviews, outlined in Chapter Two. This, in effect, means that we are not required to recommend a uniform pattern of single-member wards if to do so would conflict with the statutory criteria.

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

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

3 name may also change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in 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 28 April 2014. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in autumn 2014. 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 Cotswold 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 Cotswold is to achieve a level of electoral equality – 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  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 wards we put forward at the end of the review.

13 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral equality 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 equality over a five-year period.

14 Additionally, in circumstances where we propose to divide a parish between district wards or county divisions, we are required to divide it into parish wards so that each parish ward is wholly contained within a single district ward or county division. We cannot make amendments to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

15 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Cotswold District Council 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.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 Submissions received

16 During the initial stage of the review, we visited Cotswold District Council and met with members, parish council representatives and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance.

17 We received a preliminary submission on council size from the Council which favoured a council size of between 32 and 36. Based on the proportion of electors living in the urban Cirencester area and the rest of the district, we felt that a council size of 35 would provide the best allocation of councillors in the district. Therefore, we consulted on a council size of 35. We received nine submissions during this period of consultation. During consultation on proposed ward boundaries we received two district-wide submissions, from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups on the Council. We also received 13 submissions from town and parish councils and seven local residents. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

18 As part of this review, Cotswold District Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2019, projecting an increase in the electorate of just under 8% over the period from 2012–19. Much of the increase will be in the Cirencester area, however there are large developments in Tetbury and Great Rissington.

19 Having considered the information provided by the Council, we are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time and these figures form the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

20 Cotswold District Council currently has 44 councillors elected from 28 wards, comprising 15 single-member, 10 two-member and three three-member wards. During preliminary discussions on council size, the Council had considered reducing the council size to between 32 and 36 members. We considered that, based on the evidence received from the Council, and by considering the best allocation of councillors between Cirencester town and the remainder of the district, that a council size of 35 was most appropriate.

21 During the consultation on council size we received nine submissions. In general, respondents supported a reduction from the current council size of 44, with several submissions supporting a reduction to a council size of 35.

22 We considered that the Council’s initial submission had sufficient regard to the governance and management structure which would exist under reduced council size, and to the scrutiny of the council, work on outside bodies, members’ representational role and the Council’s other statutory functions. We were therefore minded to adopt a council size of 35 elected members as the basis of this electoral review. A consultation on warding arrangements began on 3 September 2013 and ended on 11 November 2013.

23 We explained to all interested parties from the outset that the council size figure adopted at this stage of the review provided context for local stakeholders to submit 6 their views on the wider electoral arrangements. We also explained that this council size figure could be slightly adjusted in order to provide for warding patterns that provide a better balance between the statutory criteria.

24 In response to the consultation on warding patterns, both the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups proposed warding patterns based on a council size of 34. They both argued that this council size would result in warding patterns that achieved better levels of electoral equality across the district.

25 We considered the responses received and investigated whether a council size of 34 would provide for a pattern of wards which provided for the best balance between the statutory criteria. Our investigations indicated that a council size of 34 would provide for a better allocation of councillors between the main towns and the rural area and would provide for a scheme which would better meet our statutory criteria.

26 We are of the view that a council size of 34 members would not impact adversely on governance arrangements, member workload or councillors’ representational role. Therefore, our draft recommendations for Cotswold District Council are based on a council size of 34.

Electoral fairness

27 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 will provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

28 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 of the district (68,723 in 2013 and 74,211 by 2019) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 34 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 2,021 in 2013 and 2,183 by 2019.

29 Under our draft recommendations, all of our proposed wards will have electoral variances of less than 10% from the average for the district by 2019. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness for Cotswold.

General analysis

30 During consultation, we received 22 submissions on warding arrangements for Cotswold. We received two district-wide submissions, from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat groups on the Council. We also received 13 submissions from town and parish councils and seven from local residents.

31 The two district-wide proposals were very similar and generally resulted in good levels of electoral equality across the district. Both warding patterns generally used recognisable boundaries. The remainder of the submissions we received were focused on particular local areas.

32 We have largely adopted the wards proposed by the two district-wide schemes. However, in the north of the district we have chosen to adopt the Conservative proposals, rather than the Liberal Democrat ones. We considered that the Conservative Group’s pattern of wards provided for better levels of electoral equality and reflected community identities. We have departed from both schemes in some areas, and proposed modifications to some of the boundaries suggested in both warding patterns. These modifications improve electoral equality and provide for more easily identifiable ward boundaries.

33 Our draft recommendations are for 32 single-member wards and one two- member ward. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good levels of electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

34 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 21–24) and the large map accompanying this report.

35 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations. We also welcome comments on the ward names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

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

 North Cotswold (pages 8–10)  Central Cotswold (pages 10–12)  South-east Cotswold (pages 12–13)  Cirencester (pages 13–14)  South-west Cotswold (page 14)

37 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table A1 on pages 21–24 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

North Cotswold

38 North Cotswold is a largely rural area, and includes the main settlements of Stow-on-the-Wold, Moreton-in-Marsh and Bourton-on-the-Water.

39 In the north of the district, the Liberal Democrat Group proposed a single- member Mickleton & Willersey ward, which would have 23% more electors than the district average by 2019. This level of electoral equality is far higher than what we would normally be prepared to accept as part of our recommendations.

40 We considered whether it was possible to create single-member wards in this area, while ensuring that a pattern of wards had acceptable levels of electoral equality and reflected community identities. However, given that the majority of electors in this area live in the parishes of Willersey and Mickleton, a district ward without either of them would have too few electors to provide for a reasonable level

8 of electoral equality.

41 We also considered the possibility of dividing parishes in order to balance elector numbers between single-member wards. However, we considered that dividing parishes in this part of the district would not reflect community identities.

42 We gave consideration to the two-member Campden & Vale ward proposed by the Conservative Group. This ward would have 8% more electors than the average for the district by 2019. While we acknowledge that the aim of a single-member ward review is to achieve a uniform pattern of single-member wards, we consider that it has not been possible to establish single-member wards in this area of the district that would provide for a good balance between our statutory criteria. Therefore, we propose to adopt the two-member Campden & Vale ward as part of our draft recommendations. We consider this ward provides for a good level of electoral equality and reflects community identity as it does not divide any parish between district wards.

43 Both of the two district-wide schemes we received proposed the same Blockley ward. This ward comprises the parishes of Ebrington and Blockley and would have 5% more electors than the district average by 2019. We consider this ward, to be named Blockley, provides a good balance between the statutory criteria and have adopted it as part of our draft recommendations.

44 To the south of this ward is the town of Moreton-in-Marsh. Both district-wide schemes proposed the town be divided along the railway line to create two single- member wards with parts of the town and neighbouring parishes. Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council stated that it would prefer for the town to be represented by two councillors, and not divided between district wards. However, there are too few electors in the town to create wards which are solely contained within the boundaries of the town. Therefore, we propose that the town is divided between two district wards. Having visited the town, we consider the railway to be a strong, recognisable boundary and we have decided to use this boundary as part of our draft recommendations.

45 The Conservative Group included the parish of Evenlode in its proposed Moreton East ward, while the Liberal Democrat Group did not. Evenlode Parish Council stated that it would prefer to be in a ward with the parishes to its south and west. The Parish Council indicated the shared interests and concerns that it has with its neighbouring parishes. While we are not adopting the ward that Evenlode Parish Council suggested, we are proposing to include it in a largely rural ward, Fosseridge. Included in this ward are several of the parishes with which Evenlode Parish Council stated it had community links.

46 Our proposed single-member Moreton East and Moreton West wards would have 9% fewer and 8% fewer electors respectively than the district average by 2019.

47 Both the two district-wide submissions proposed a Stow ward, based on the town of Stow-on-the-Wold and the parishes of Swell and Maugersbury. A local resident commented that Lower and Upper Swell associate with Stow ‘in trade and facilities’. This ward would have 6% more electors per councillor than the district average by 2019. We have decided to adopt the proposed Stow ward as part of our draft recommendations.

9 48 The two district-wide schemes proposed different warding patterns for Bourton- on-the-Water and the surrounding rural area. Given the knock-on effects to the warding pattern in this part of the district, it would not be possible to adopt specific wards from both of the two district-wide schemes as part of our draft recommendations. Doing so would result in wards with poor levels of electoral equality and not reflect community identities. In formulating our draft recommendations for this part of the district we considered both of the district-wide schemes as well as investigating our own warding pattern. Following these investigations, we considered that the Conservative Group’s warding pattern provides for better levels of electoral equality than the Liberal Democrat Group’s warding pattern, while also reflecting community identities. Therefore, we have largely adopted the Conservative Group’s warding pattern in this part of the district as our draft recommendations.

49 Our proposed Fosseridge ward includes Evenlode parish, as mentioned above in paragraph 45. This was based on evidence received from Evenlode Parish Council. With this exception, our proposed Fosseridge ward is the same as that proposed by the Conservative Group. This ward would have a number of electors equal to the average for the district by 2019.

50 We have decided to adopt the Conservative Group’s proposed Bourton Vale and Bourton Village wards as part of our draft recommendations. Bourton-on-the- Water parish has too many electors to have a single councillor representing it and both the district-wide schemes we received proposed dividing the parish between two wards in an almost identical way.

51 Our proposed Bourton Village ward, which was put forward by the Conservative Group, comprises most of the urban area of Bourton-on-the-Water. This ward would have 2% more electors than the district average by 2019. Nethercote, on the edge of the village, would be in the Bourton Vale ward as part of our draft recommendations. We are aware that this area does not have any road links to the remainder of the proposed ward. However, we consider this proposal provides for the best balance between the statutory criteria. The remainder of the ward includes the parishes of Clapton, Cold Aston, Cutsdean, Guiting Power, Lower Slaughter, Naunton, Temple Guiting and Upper Slaughter. Our proposed Bourton Vale ward would have 8% more electors than the district average by 2019.

52 To the east of Bourton Village, the Conservative Group proposed a ward named The Rissingtons. We received a submission from Wyck Rissington Parish Council which stated that the parish would prefer to be in a ward with Westcote and Icomb parishes, as it is under the existing arrangements or, if not, then with Lower Slaughter. Our proposed ward includes Wyck Rissington parish in a ward with the parishes of Great Rissington, Little Rissington and Upper Rissington. We consider that the road links between these parishes are good, and that this ward would represent a recognisable community. We are adopting the Conservative Group’s scheme as part of our draft recommendations and this ward is projected to have 3% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

Central Cotswold

53 The central area of Cotswold is a large, sparsely populated area, north of Cirencester, which contains a large number of rural parishes.

10 54 To the south of Bourton-on-the-Water, the Liberal Democrat Group proposed a Northleach ward which would have 11% more electors than the district average by 2019 which is a higher variance than we would normally propose. The Conservative Group proposed a different arrangement for this area which provided for a better level of electoral equality. Under the Conservative Group’s proposal, Aldsworth parish would be included in its Northleach ward, while the Liberal Democrats included Great Rissington parish in its Northleach ward.

55 The Northleach ward proposed by the Conservative Group would have 6% more electors than the district average by 2019. We are proposing to adopt the Conservative Group’s Northleach ward as part of our draft recommendations. We consider the ward has a good level of electoral equality and recognisable boundaries.

56 To the south of this ward, the Conservative Group proposed a Coln Valley ward. The Liberal Democrat Group proposed a similar ward, Coln & Leach. However, adopting the Liberal Democrat Group’s proposed Coln & Leach ward would require a number of consequential changes to the warding pattern proposed in north Cotswold. Therefore, we have decided to adopt the Conservative Group’s proposed Coln Valley ward as part of our draft recommendations subject to one modification. We propose this ward does not include Barnsley parish. We propose instead that this parish be included in our The Ampneys & Hampton ward (discussed below). This modification would result in our Coln Valley ward having -3% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

57 In the west of this part of the district the Conservative Group proposed a single- member Sandywell ward. We propose that this ward should include the parish of Compton Abdale. Under the Conservative Group proposal this parish was included in the Chedworth & Churn Valley ward. We consider that Compton Abdale has stronger links to those communities included in the Sandywell ward. This modification results in the Sandywell ward having 5% more electors than the district average by 2019.

58 To the south of Sandywell ward is our proposed Chedworth & Churn Valley ward. We received a submission in this area of the district from Baunton Parish Council, which stated that it would like to be a part of a rural ward, rather than with Cirencester. Under our draft recommendations Baunton is included in this largely rural ward. As a result of our modification relating to Compton Abdale parish, our Chedworth & Churn Valley ward would have 8% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

59 The final ward in this area that we are proposing is Ermin. This ward runs north- south along the western edge of the district. The two district-wide schemes proposed slightly different wards in this part of the district. The Ermin & Sapperton ward proposed by the Liberal Democrat Group included Cherington parish, but did not include Coberley parish. The Ermin ward proposed by the Conservative Group included Coberley, but not Cherington. We consider that Cherington has stronger links with Avening (detailed in paragraph 76) and have proposed Cherington is not included in the Ermin ward. We do propose that the parish of Coberley should be included in the Ermin ward.

60 In this part of the district, we also received a submission from Cowley Parish Council which stated that it would like to be part of a rural ward, so it could be in a 11 ward with parishes which had similar needs. It also indicated that it has strong links with Brimpsfield parish. Under our draft recommendations both of these parishes are included in our rural Ermin ward. Our proposed Ermin ward is projected to have 1% more electors than the district average by 2019.

South-east Cotswold

61 The south-east of the district contains the towns of Lechlade and Fairford, as well as a number of rural parishes.

62 In the south-east corner of the district, both the district-wide schemes we received proposed identical wards. These were single-member wards for Lechlade and Fairford South & Kempsford, which were projected to have 15% more and 14% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively. Both of these variances are higher than we would normally propose. Accordingly, we considered alternative warding patterns. Both district-wide schemes also proposed the same Fairford North ward, which would have 5% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

63 As this is a single-member ward review, we are obliged to seek a pattern of single-member wards which meet our statutory criteria. Both of the district-wide submissions referred to the unpopularity of the present two-member ward comprising Lechlade and Kempsford. We also received a submission from a resident of Kempsford who argued that Kempsford was part of the same community as Fairford, not Lechlade. Fairford Town Council proposed having two wards based on Fairford, and suggested using the A417 as the boundary between the wards. One ward would be the area of Fairford north of the A417 with Quenington parish and the other would be the area south of the A417 with Kempsford parish. The submission did suggest that boundaries other than the A417 could be used; however, it did not specify one. Additionally, if Quenington parish was removed from our proposed Coln Valley ward, its electoral variance would become -26%, which is too great an imbalance for us to propose.

64 Lechlade Town Council stated in its submission that it believed Lechlade parish should comprise a single ward, ‘with one councillor representing Lechlade’. A single- member Lechlade ward would, as mentioned above, have 15% more electors than the district average by 2019.

65 The Conservative Group suggested the possibility of a two-member ward combining its proposed Lechlade and Coln Valley wards. This ward would have 9% more electors than the district average by 2019. However, we are obliged to, in the first instance, consider if there could be a viable pattern of single-member wards in the area. We are proposing to amend the suggested boundary between the Lechlade and Fairford South & Kempsford wards as put forward in the two district- wide submissions. Our proposed Fairford South & Kempsford ward would include an area of housing on the A417 on the edge of Lechlade, as well as the streets of Moorgate and The Wern. The boundary would run north along Bryworth Lane to Hambidge Lane, following it to the parish boundary between Lechlade and Southrop. This boundary would result in the Lechlade and Fairford South & Kempsford wards having 10% more and 8% fewer electors than the district average by 2019, respectively. This proposal would not require modifications to the proposed Fairford North ward. This ward would have 5% fewer electors than the district

12 average by 2019.

66 We consider that this pattern of wards covering Lechlade and Kempsford provides for a better balance between the statutory criteria, while also meeting the objective of delivering single-member wards. We welcome views on this proposal in response to our consultation.

67 The two district-wide schemes proposed similar wards in the Ampneys area. As detailed in paragraph 56, we are proposing to include Barnsley parish in our The Ampneys & Hampton ward. This was also proposed by the Liberal Democrat Group. Under our draft recommendations, The Ampneys & Hampton ward would have 1% more electors than the district average by 2019.

68 To the west of The Ampneys & Hampton, and to the south of Cirencester, both district-wide schemes proposed the same two wards based around the village of South Cerney, although the two proposals suggested different names for the wards. Both submissions also recognised the fact that South Cerney village needs to be divided between wards, given the size of its electorate. We also received a submission in this area from South Cerney with Cerney Wick Parish Council which expressed its disagreement with dividing the village between wards in any way.

69 Given the high electoral inequality in the suggested ward based on South Cerney village (10% more electors than the district average by 2019 in both district- wide submissions), we are proposing an amendment to the boundary between the two proposed wards here. Our proposed boundary between South Cerney Village ward and Siddington & Cerney Rural ward would follow the river, running south of School Lane, and then along Bow-Wow, meaning that properties on Silver Street, School Lane and Church Lane would be in the Siddington & Cerney Rural ward. This modification results in our South Cerney Village and Siddington & Cerney Rural wards having 2% more and 1% more electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

Cirencester

70 Cirencester is the largest settlement in the district. Both of the district-wide schemes proposed identical warding patterns for the town. Cirencester Town Council also submitted a proposal for wards in the town. We also received a submission from a local resident suggesting reducing the number of wards in the town from five to four.

71 The Town Council’s proposals were very similar to those proposed by the two political groups on the District Council, the only difference being to the proposed boundary in the Chesterton area.

72 We are proposing one modification to the wards proposed by these three submissions for Cirencester. The Beeches South ward proposed by the two political groups on the District Council would have 10% fewer electors than the district average by 2019. We are proposing to amend the boundary between this ward and Beeches North so that all electors on Golden Farm Road are included in Beeches South. This modification would result in our Beeches South and Beeches North wards having 6% fewer and 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2019,

13 respectively.

73 The other wards in the town would be Chesterton East, Chesterton West, Park & Whiteway, St Michael’s, Stratton and Watermoor all single-member wards. These wards would have 7% more, 4% more, 5% more, 5% fewer, 4% fewer and 1% more electors than the district average by 2019, respectively.

South-west Cotswold

74 The area to the south-west of Cirencester consists mainly of rural parishes, but also contains the large villages of Tetbury and Kemble.

75 Both district-wide schemes proposed a Kemble ward, consisting of the town of Kemble and the parishes of Coates, Poole Keynes, Rodmarton and Somerford Keynes. The submissions indicated the strong links between the communities in this area. Somerford Keynes Parish Council’s submission stated that it would prefer to be in a ward with similarly sized parishes, rather than with the larger South Cerney. Our proposed Kemble ward would have 2% fewer electors than the district average by 2019.

76 The two district-wide schemes proposed similar wards in the south-west corner of the district although, as mentioned in paragraph 59, the two warding patterns proposed Cherington parish be included in different wards. We are proposing that Cherington parish be included in the Grumbolds Ash with Avening ward put forward by the Conservative Group. The Group cited community links between Avening and Cherington as a reason for including the two parishes in the same ward. This ward would have 1% fewer electors than the district average by 2019. We have decided to adopt this ward as part of our draft recommendations.

77 Tetbury town has too many electors for two district councillors, and so needs to be divided between three district wards. The two district-wide schemes that we received both proposed the same pattern of wards in this area. The proposal was for three single-member wards based around Tetbury town and some of its neighbouring parishes. The three wards – Tetbury East & Rural, Tetbury Town and Tetbury with Upton – would have 3% fewer, 4% fewer and 9% fewer electors than the district average by 2019. We are proposing to adopt these wards as part of our draft recommendations.

Conclusions

78 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2013 and 2019 electorate figures.

14 Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2013 2019

Number of councillors 34 34

Number of electoral wards 33 33

Average number of electors per councillor 2,021 2,183

Number of wards with a variance more 9 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Cotswold District Council should comprise 34 councillors serving 33 wards, as detailed and named in Table A1 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Parish electoral arrangements

79 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.

80 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 District Council in the area) has the powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

81 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 Bourton-on-the-Water parish.

Draft recommendation Bourton-on-the-Water Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, the same as at present, representing two wards: Bourton Village (returning eight members) and Bourton South-East (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

82 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 Cirencester parish.

Draft recommendation Cirencester Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, the same as at present, representing eight wards: Beeches North (returning two members), Beeches South (returning one member), Chesterton East (returning two members), Chesterton West (returning two members), Park & Whiteway (returning two members), St Michael’s (returning two members), Stratton (returning two members) and Watermoor (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

83 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 Fairford parish.

Draft recommendation Fairford Town Council should comprise 13 councillors, the same as at present, representing two wards: Fairford North (returning nine members) and Fairford South (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

84 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 Lechlade parish.

Draft recommendation Lechlade Town Council should comprise 13 councillors, the same as at present, representing two wards: Lechlade Town (returning 12 members) and Lechlade Town West (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

85 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 Moreton-in-Marsh parish.

Draft recommendation Moreton-in-Marsh Town Council should comprise 11 councillors, two more than at present, representing two wards: Moreton East (returning six members) and Moreton West (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

86 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 South Cerney & Cerney Wick parish.

Draft recommendation South Cerney Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, the same as at present, representing two wards: South Cerney Village (returning eight members) and South Cerney Rural (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

87 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 Tetbury parish.

Draft recommendation Tetbury Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, the same as at present, representing three wards: Tetbury East (returning four members), Tetbury Town (returning six members) and Tetbury West (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

3 What happens next?

88 There will now be a consultation period of 11 weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for Cotswold District Council contained in this report. We will fully take into account all submissions received by 28 April 2014. Any submissions received after this date may not be taken into account.

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

90 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer Cotswold 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, consultation.lgbce.org.uk

91 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 the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations made during consultation will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Cotswold 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.

92 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, irrespective of whom they are from.

93 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.

94 After the publication of our final recommendations, the review will be implemented by order subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. When made, the draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for Cotswold District Council in 2015.

Equalities

95 These draft recommendations have 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.

4 Mapping

Draft recommendations for Cotswold

96 The following map illustrates our proposed ward boundaries for Cotswold District Council:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed ward boundaries for Cotswold.

You can also view our draft recommendations for Cotswold on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for Cotswold District Council

2 Beeches South 1 1,870 1,870 -8% 2,048 2,048 -6%

3 Blockley 1 2,254 2,254 12% 2,294 2,294 5%

4 Bourton Vale 1 2,213 2,213 9% 2,364 2,364 8%

5 Bourton Village 1 2,241 2,241 11% 2,235 2,235 2%

6 Campden & Vale 2 4,561 2,281 13% 4,697 2,349 8% Chedworth & Churn 7 1 1,999 1,999 -1% 2,005 2,005 -8% Valley 8 Chesterton East 1 2,115 2,115 5% 2,326 2,326 7%

9 Chesterton West 1 2,061 2,061 2% 2,267 2,267 4%

10 Coln Valley 1 2,109 2,109 4% 2,119 2,119 -3%

11 Ermin 1 2,166 2,166 7% 2,196 2,196 1%

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Cotswold District Council

Number of Variance from Number of Variance from Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name Electors per Average Electors per Average Councillors (2013) (2019) Councillor % Councillor % 12 Fairford North 1 1,834 1,834 -9% 2,077 2,077 -5% Fairford South & 13 1 1,894 1,894 -6% 2,006 2,006 -8% Kempsford 14 Fosseridge 1 2,179 2,179 8% 2,189 2,189 0% Grumbolds Ash with 15 1 2,139 2,139 6% 2,167 2,167 -1% Avening 16 Kemble 1 2,026 2,026 0% 2,130 2,130 -2%

17 Lechlade 1 2,250 2,250 11% 2,393 2,393 10%

18 Moreton East 1 1,778 1,778 -12% 1,996 1,996 -9%

19 Moreton West 1 1,793 1,793 -11% 2,001 2,001 -8%

20 Northleach 1 2,233 2,233 10% 2,312 2,312 6%

21 Park & Whiteway 1 2,082 2,082 3% 2,290 2,290 5%

22 Sandywell 1 2,233 2,233 10% 2,301 2,301 5% Siddington & 23 1 2,047 2,047 1% 2,203 2,203 1% Cerney Rural South Cerney 24 1 1,976 1,976 -2% 2,219 2,219 2% Village 22

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Cotswold District Council

26 Stow 1 2,217 2,217 10% 2,311 2,311 6%

27 Stratton 1 1,913 1,913 -5% 2,104 2,104 -4% Tetbury East & 28 1 1,626 1,626 -20% 2,112 2,112 -3% Rural 29 Tetbury Town 1 1,609 1,609 -20% 2,094 2,094 -4%

30 Tetbury with Upton 1 1,898 1,898 -6% 1,979 1,979 -9% The Ampneys & 31 1 2,148 2,148 6% 2,203 2,203 1% Hampton 32 The Rissingtons 1 1,400 1,400 -31% 2,121 2,121 -3%

33 Watermoor 1 2,010 2,010 -1% 2,211 2,211 1%

Totals 34 68,723 – – 74,211 – – Averages – – 2,021 – – 2,183 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Cotswold District Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each ward 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

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 county 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 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 Committee 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 any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward 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