South Gloucestershire Council Boundary Review Liberal Democrat Group Submission June 2017 This submission is from the Liberal Democrat group on South Gloucestershire Council. The Lib Dems are the second largest group on the council, and one of only two to ever have had an overall majority. As such, there is a good understanding of community links, and history, across much of the district. In our submission we have focussed upon the areas where we have deep community roots, stretching back over 40 years. In those areas we know the communities well, so feel we can make submissions which reflect the nuances of natural communities. However, there are some areas where we do feel others are better placed to identify the nuances. In those areas we have not sought to offer detailed solutions. We believe communities and individuals in those areas are best placed to provide their local solutions. We have submitted specific plans for the district over the areas where we have a good understanding, and believe our proposals are powerful, rooted in strong community identities, and efficient local government. All of the proposals are within the permissible variance from the new electoral quota with 61 Councillors, and we do not believe this needs to be modified up or down to make the map work. South Gloucestershire elects in an “all-up” manner, which means under Commission guidance, a mixture of 1, 2, and 3 member wards is appropriate, which we have proposed. We have proposed no ‘doughnut’, or detached wards, and many of the proposals allow for the reunification of communities which have previously been separated by imposed political boundaries. The outside edge of South Gloucestershire can be considered a ‘hard’ border – although within the district, existing polling districts and wards can, and should be split, the external boundary cannot be moved. Three rural wards, up against this border, make up around a third of the land area of the entire authority. As some of their boundaries are unalterable by the parameters of the review, it seems sensible to start with these, and work inwards. Rural Areas Charfield Ward – Projected electorate 3,533. Variance -6%. 1 Member. The existing Charfield Ward would be slightly undersized, but within the variance limits allowed. The existing community links are well established, and the ward is relatively compact for the area it covers, with a vaguely rectangular shape. Extensive development is planned for the Charfield area, in both the adopted core strategy, and the new draft joint strategic plan. The ward should be undersized at the time of adoption to allow for that, as there will be a rapid population increase in the future, both up to 2023 and beyond, and a larger ward would result in one well over the ideal size and would create an artificial boundary. This review is only considering population changes up to 2023, but even to that point, rapid planned expansion means that the existing ward is well within the deviation allowed from the new, larger, electoral quota. We propose no change to the existing borders, which would elect a single Councillor. This ward contains the four Civil Parishes of Charfield, Cromhall, Tortworth, and Falfield. The total borders of the four Parishes are coterminous with the borders of the ward, and aid efficient local government by meaning a single Councillor covers their entire areas, and no other. Cotswold Edge – Projected electorate 4,132. Variance 10%. 1 Member. Cotswold Edge is by far the largest geographical ward in the authority, stretching down the eastern border, and, as the name suggests, covering the Cotswold Edge, a dramatic escarpment separating the Cotswold Hills from the surrounding lowlands. It is has a very strong historic identity, being Cotswold villages all very much linked through a set of social and community networks of the escarpment communities, with their links to the Beaufort network. They have more in common with communities across the county border than to the communities to the west. The existing ward would be too small in terms of population to continue unchanged. We propose a relatively minor alteration, attaching the polling district of BVD, from the existing Boyd Valley ward. The addition of the town of Marshfield would give Cotswold Edge the population it needs to be a viable ward, without adding too much additional land area for a single Councillor to cover. The existing Cotswold Edge ward already goes south past the M4 motorway, to the village of West Littleton, whose primary road continues south to Marshfield. Marshfield is very much a Cotswold edge town, perched up on the escarpment. Marshfield has a population of around 1,200, very similar to Hawkesbury Upton which is the current principal settlement of the ward. This proposal would create a single member ward covering a variety of separate communities, but ones which all share common features to their identity, and a shared aspect of rural towns and villages, on the edge of the Cotswolds. The transport links between the communities run north-south entirely within the proposed ward, and there is no obvious reason to stop the ward where it currently does; there is no physical boundary, such as a major road, railway, or river. As most of the communities down the eastern border of the district are currently politically linked together, separating Marshfield at the southern edge into a different ward than the rest of the Cotswold Edge has been a historic anomaly which can now be repaired. The proposed new ward would mean South Gloucestershire’s area of the Cotswolds Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty was almost entirely within a single ward, rather than being split between two as is currently the case. It is important to note that although Cotswold Edge is near to other settlements, such as Chipping Sodbury, the character of community found within them is extremely different. Chipping Sodbury is an old market town, largely integrated with the Yate urban area. In community terms, it has nothing in common with the small towns and villages of the Cotswold edge. Although Cotswold residents may access services in Chipping Sodbury, the communities within Cotswold edge have identities built on their rural character. This should be preserved, in accordance with the Commission guidelines for wards to reflect community identity. Efficient government is provided in large part by links such as the A46, which runs north to south through almost the entire new ward, centrally in the top half, and as the western border for the lower half. The ward boundary would shift to the east of the A46 a few miles above the southern boundary of the district, in order to exclude Cold Ashton and Pennsylvania (Polling District BVA) which would remain in the Boyd Valley rural ward. The new ward would be at the upper limit of population for a single Councillor. Considering the strong community of interests represented in this area, the relatively large – and entirely permissible – number of electors seems a reasonable compromise. Severn – Projected electorate 4072. Variance 8%. 1 Member. Severn ward as it stands is dramatically undersized; with an electorate of 3,046, projected to remain substantially unchanged, it would be some 20% under quota. Because its border cannot be moved to the north east (Severn river, boundary with Wales), or the north west (boundary with Gloucestershire), the only legal options are to expand into the town of Thornbury, or to continue down the coast, taking in additional towns and villages similar to those already within the ward. As Thornbury is a distinct unit and community, and substantially larger than any other settlement in the area (see below), it would make no sense to merge these two together. This would result in disparate communities lacking commonality of interests, and the small communities of the Severn estuary would find their voices entirely drowned out by the larger town. Instead, the ward should be expanded towards the villages of Pilning and Severn Beach, down the A403 corridor. This road runs from Aust, in the existing Severn ward, to both of the two villages of Pilning and Severn Beach. This would create a single member ward, comprised mainly of current Polling Districts SEA, SEB, SEC, SEE, PSA and PSB, which ran in a broadly rectangular manner down the entire Severn coast of the district. The villages involved are all small, coastal or just inland, and have similar characteristics and concerns. This would aid in both community cohesion and efficient local government, as issues related to the mud flats, or coastal flooding would be entirely contained within a single ward, with one member. It is important that this rural area, of Vale communities is kept together as a ward, and not submerged into urban Thornbury, which has a different focus and different needs. The vale communities clustered along the Severn are very distinctive, and have a long tradition of electing very local candidates to reflect their distinctiveness. This should not be lost. We propose the removal of two sections. Polling district SED, which is entirely inland, would be moved to Ladden Brook ward to reflect their communities’ links to the non-coastal interior of the district, and a small portion of polling district PSA would be moved to Almondsbury ward. The affected properties are all on the other side of the railway line from Pilning, and largely on a road leading away from Pilning, towards the interior. Aust, Hill, Oldbury on Severn and Rockhampton Parishes are totally enclosed in the new proposed ward, as is the overwhelming majority of Pilning and Severn Beach, with the exception of 148 electors, who are separated from the rest of the community by the railway line.