Gloucestershire County Council single member ward review Response from Stroud Constituency Labour Party Introduction On 30 November the Local Government Boundary Commission started its second period of consultation for a pattern of divisions for Gloucestershire. Between 30 November and 21 February the Commission is inviting comments on the division boundaries for GCC. Following the completion of its initial consultation, the Commission has proposed that the number of county councillors should be reduced from 63 to 53. The districts have provided the estimated numbers for the electorate in their areas in 2016; the total number for the county is 490,674 so that the average electorate per councillor would be 9258 (cf. 7431 in 2010). The main purpose of this note is to draw attention to the constraints imposed on proposals for a new pattern of divisions in Stroud district, which could lead to anomalies, particularly in ‘bolting together’ dissimilar district wards and parishes in order to meet purely numerical constraints. In it own words ‘the Commission aims to recommend a pattern of divisions that achieves good electoral equality, reflects community identities and interests and provides for effective and convenient local government. It will also seek to use strong, easily-identifiable boundaries. ‘Proposals should demonstrate how any pattern of divisions aids the provision of effective and convenient local government and why any deterioration in equality of representation or community identity should be accepted. Representations that are supported by evidence and argument will carry more weight with the Commission than those which merely assert a point of view.’ While a new pattern of ten county council divisions is suggested in this note, it is not regarded as definitive but does contain ways of avoiding some possible major anomalies. New county council divisions in Stroud district The electorate in the SDC area is estimated to rise from 90689 in 2010 to 93735 in 2016. The number of councillors will reduce from 12 to 10, and the number of divisions from 11 to 10 single member divisions (the current Cam & Dursley division has 2 councillors). Most SDC wards show little change in expected electorate but the following contribute largely to the increase: Haresfield from 321 to 2152 (Hunts Grove development); Upton St. Leonards from 1724 to 2106; and Dursley (Central) from 1949 to 2242 (Littlecombe development). Dividing the forecast electorate of 93735 into 10 divisions of about 9300 each would seem at first sight a relatively easy task. However, the condition of providing effective and convenient local government means that the new county divisions should be made up entirely – or as many as possible - of whole district electoral wards (coterminosity). The current 11 divisions have a coterminosity of 67% but this has been achieved with a lower mean electoral number (about 7400) and by including a two member division (Cam & Dursley). A second constraint is that county divisions must be wholly within the district boundary. In the Stroud district this means for example that the geographical position of the current Wotton-under-Edge division provides limited sensible opportunities for creating new divisions in the south of the district. If Wotton could be included with the adjacent Cotswold district wards, as it is for the parliamentary constituencies in the county, a better pattern of county council divisions might be possible. Similarly, in the north of the district, for the purpose of constructing new county divisions the wards of Hardwicke (now), Haresfield and Upton St Leonards (in 2016) will have more in common with the wards in the south of Gloucester city than the rural wards to which they have to be joined to accommodate 9300 electors. A new division that includes Stroud district wards around the southern periphery of Gloucester city might overcome this, but would reduce the coterminosity considerably. The pattern of new divisions shown below represent a least-worst solution for the district, but cannot be regarded as entirely satisfactory; but neither can any other pattern that has been explored within the constraints. The scheme aims to retain the unity of the small towns in the district so that each appears in one division. This pattern has a coterminosity of 60%, which is comparable to the current figure. Possible county divisions for Stroud (see Annex 1) SDC 1 Includes the current county division of Wotton-under-Edge, which includes two district wards, plus the district ward of Vale and therefore coterminous. Most of Vale ward looks towards Wotton and Berkeley (but see below), as the nearest small towns and service areas in the division. There are no topographical or communication problems. SDC 2 The Cam/Dursley area is major service centre for the Berkeley ward The Berkeley ward is within the catchment area for the only secondary school in the area (in Dursley). Cam has been a major housing area for employees at the Berkeley nuclear power station and centre Easy communications between the two areas via the B4066 The new Berkeley Vale hospital will be on the Cam/Dursley border Retains the integrity of Cam parish in one division The division is coterminous. A caveat for these two divisions is that Stinchcombe parish is principally associated with Cam & Dursley rather than Wotton. The parish council made a convincing case on this to the Boundary Commission at the last boundary review. SDC 3 The Coaley & Uley district ward is in the natural service area of the market town of Dursley, and the village schools are in the Rednock (Dursley) secondary school catchment area The B4066 provides a good communication route to Uley and Nympsfield and there are good roads between Coaley and Dursley Inclusion of Frocester and Leonard Stanley in this division is less justifiable. While communications to the rest of the division are easy, these two parishes are more naturally associated with Kings Stanley and part of a county division that includes Stonehouse. The pattern of divisions in the south of the district is complicated by the geographical position of Wotton. Any other pattern involves splitting Cam parish into different divisions, or including one Dursley ward into a separate division. SDC 4 Includes parishes lying mostly between the M5 motorway and the river Severn Easy communications between each ward The combination of mostly rural parishes with the urban areas of Hardwicke and (in 2016) Haresfield leads to a division with dissimilar parts. For much of the area the main shopping area would be Quedgeley and Gloucester. The division is coterminous. SDC 5 Stonehouse is a principal shopping and service area for this division. Communications with Eastington, Standish and Ebley are easy via the A419 and B4008. Ebley is included here because new housing development between Stonehouse and Ebley effectively links the two areas. SDC 6 Includes current county division of Upton St Leonards, Painswick and Bisley with the district ward of Over Stroud and is coterminous. This division is made up of small towns and rural parishes that will mostly depend on Stroud as their service and shopping centre. New housing in Upton St Leonards could make the northern part of this division more Gloucester oriented in future. SDC 7 Combination of three similar mostly urban wards and parishes, Thrupp, Rodborough and Cainscross, to the south and west of Stroud town. Not coterminous only because Ebley in Cainscross district ward has been included with in SDC 5. All areas have Stroud town as their principal service and shopping area. SDC 8 Stroud town is a natural division that includes the six district wards. Although the variance of its forecast electorate is slightly over 10%, the division is coterminous SDC 9 Combines the district wards of Nailsworth, Amberley & Woodchester with the parish of King’s Stanley. This is a coherent geographical and topographical division of mostly rural areas and the market town of Nailsworth The A 46 provides a link between the various areas. SDC 10 Combines the district wards of Minchinhampton and Chalford; Two centred division with common communications via the A419 with the principle service and shopping areas of Stroud and Cirencester. The division is coterminous Summary A new pattern of ten county council divisions in the Stroud district has to comply with constraints imposed by current local government boundaries, the size of the electorate in each ward and local geography. The scheme developed in this note has a coterminosity of 60%, and one ward with an elector variance greater than 10%: Stroud, where the coherence of the proposed Stroud town division compensates for the small difference. However even though the scheme shows a possible set of new boundaries, some relaxation of constraints would allow a more rational division. In particular for divisions that are concerned with county council matters the county division boundaries would be better in some instances if they could cross district council boundaries. In Stroud district there is a strong argument for allowing Wotton and surrounding parishes to be in a division involving Cotswold district wards; and for wards in the north of Stroud district to be considered with Gloucester city wards. Stroud CLP has one major reservation to the whole boundary review at this time. The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill has now received Royal Assent and has become an Act. In the review of parliamentary boundaries constituencies