Local Government Commission England No. 5 74. B^vievyL_Ql_N-QOr:Metropolitan Counties- COUNTY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE BOUNDARIES WITH AVON HEREFORD AND WORCESTER OXFORDSHIRE WARWICKSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION t'QU ENGLAND REPORT NO. 5?^ LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMG MBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE FRICS FSVA Members Professor G E Cherry BA D.Sc FSTPI FRICS Mr K F J Ennals CB Mr G R Prentice Mrs H R V Sarkany Mr B Scholes QBE THE RT. HON. NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT REVIEW OF NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES COUNTY OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE: BOUNDARIES WITH AVON, HEREFORD AND WORCESTER, OXFORDSHIRE, WARWICKSHIRE AND WILTSHIRE COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS INTRODUCTION 1. On 27 January 1986 we wrote to Gloucestershire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the County under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities, and parishes, in Gloucestershire and in the surrounding counties of Avon, Hereford and Worcester, Oxfordshire, Warwickshire and Wiltshire; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to the Members of Parliament with constituency interests and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to government departments with an interest; regional health authorities; the public utilities; the English Tourist Board; the editors of the Municipal Journal and Local Government Chronicles; the Police Superintendants' Association of England and Wales, and to local television and radio stations serving the area. 2. The County Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with each other and with the District Councils concerned, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The County Councils were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of the police and to services in respect of which they have a statutory function, such as the administration of justice. 3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the adjoining counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable and, if so, what they should be and how they would serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid dovn in the 1972 Act. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US: OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS 4. In response to our letter of 27 January 1986 we received representations from the principal local authorities concerned and a number of parish councils, from interested organisations and from members of the public. 5. The submissions made to us included various recommendations for changes to Gloucestershire's boundaries with Avon, Hereford and Worcester and Wiltshire. No submissions were received regarding changes to Gloucestershire's boundaries with Oxfordshire or Warwickshire and we made no draft proposals in respect of those boundaries. The submissions made to us expressing views about the future of the County of Avon as a whole were dealt with in our Report No. 568 dated 22 September 1988 on the review of that county. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE COUNTIES OF GLOUCESTERSHIRE AND AVON 6. The review of this boundary aroused considerable public interest, particularly in th3 parishes of Hawkesbury and Badminton. One of the features of the letters from local residents of Hawkesbury was the enduring sense of grievance at the way in which the parish had been separated from Gloucestershire at the time of local government reorganisation. It was claimed that the views of residents had been either ignored or misrepresented; it was suggested that a Parliamentary debate on the matter had been influenced by a telegram purporting to show that residents supported the inclusion of the parish within the new county of Avon. 7. The letters also carried complaints about the planning policies which were being pursued in the rural parishes adjoining the boundary and which were considered inappropriate to areas of the Cotswolds, while the prospect of encroaching development was clearly of concern to many people. It was claimed that such issues would be more sensitively handled within a more rurally- orientated county. The predominant theme of most of the letters, however, was the assertion of a continuing loyalty to Gloucestershire and of a sense of separation from what were perceived as the more urban concerns of Avon. 8. We were well aware of the value to effective local government of county loyalty and a strong sense of local identity. One of the three main criteria in our guidelines is the wishes of the local inhabitants and we had some sympathy with those residents who had not as yet identified themselves with a comparatively new county. However, except in the parish of Hawkesbury, there were few expressions of dissatisfaction with the pattern of local government established in 1974, possibly as a result of the strengthening links between the rural Northavon parishes and the growth areas of Avon. We were, moreover, bound to take into account the effective operation of local government and associated services, for which the operational links to the south seemed equally strong. As regards the criticism of Avon's planning policies, our task was to establish the geographical framework most conducive to effective and convenient local government, rather than to respond to dissatisfaction with particular policies currently adopted by authorities. The Parish of Hawkesbury 9. We noted that this large rural parish was divided into three wards, Hawkesbury, Hillesley and Tresham, with the Hawkesbury ward containing a number of settlements, including part of the Badminton estate, and the two other wards centred on the villages of Hillesley and Tresham. Gloucestershire County Council suggested that the whole parish should be returned to Gloucestershire in accordance with local wishes. It argued that the residents looked to Wotton- under-Edge in Gloucestershire for most services and that the parish was closely linked socially, and related topographically, with Gloucestershire. With regard to education, the County Council said that secondary school pupils attended schools in either Wotton-under-Edge or Tetbury, and that although Hawkesbury and Hillesley had their own primary school, Tresham children looked to Wotton for primary education also. The County Council pointed out that Tresham could only be reached from within Gloucestershire. Hawkesbury Parish Council supported the idea of a transfer, having taken account of the results of polls conducted in each ward by Northavon District Council. A statement detailing the many ways in which the Hillesley and Tresham wards, in particular, had a close affinity with Gloucestershire wa.s submitted by the parish councillors for those wards. 10. Avon County Council and Northavon District Council were opposed to the transfer of the whole parish of Hawkesbury to Gloucestershire. The County Council pointed out that travel-to-work statistics demonstrated that at least as many parish residents worked in other parts of Avon as those who crossed into Gloucestershire. It emphasised the social and economic significance of Bristol, as confirmed by the existence of bus services to the City from Hawkesbury Upton. The County Council accepted that the transfer of the Tresham ward to Gloucestershire would probably be justified but maintained that the return of the whole parish would create a remote salient of Gloucestershire which would be very distant from the local authority centres in that County; it would also create new anomalies, particularly in the Badminton area. The County Council also pointed out that the poll in the Hawkesbury ward had shown only a small majority in favour of a transfer. 11, Objections to the suggested transfer of Hawkesbury were also submitted by the Governors and staff of Hawkesbury Primary School, on the grounds of the need for continuity, and by Frenchay Health Authority, which considered that changes would complicate the co-ordination of health care with the work of social services and voluntary agencies. Letters received from residents of the Hillesley and Tresham areas were however unanimously in favour of change. In the case of Hawkesbury, although a majority of letters wanted the whole parish to be transferred,!several residents expressed satisfaction with the existing arrangements. 12. We considered all the arguments very carefully. It was apparent to us that the transfer of Treshara to Gloucestershire would reflect the pattern of community life, accord with the wishes of the local inhabitants and be conducive to the effective operation of local government services. The arguments were less clear-cut in relation to Hillesley, but the details supplied by the parish councillors and the support from residents seemed to suggest that the village had a particularly close affinity with Wotton-under-Edge and neighbouring areas of Gloucestershire, and on balance we decided that Hillesley too should be transferred. We were not'persuaded that such changes would cause as severe difficulties as feared by the district health authority. 13. We decided to propose that Hillesley and Tresham should form a new parish within the District of Stroud, with a parish council of seven members. At district level, the new parish should be part of the Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood ward, and at county level, it should be part of the Wotton-under-Edge division. 14. We accepted that the Hawkesbury ward had some ties with Wotton-under-Edge in that it depended upon Wotton-under-Edge for primary medical services and for secondary education. However such links were common to a number of parishes adjoining the boundary.