emery, hannah - stroud district council elections · eastington parish council (november 2018) page...

1

Emery, Hannah

From: Bill Harvey [[email protected]]Sent: 10 January 2019 12:42To: Emery, Hannah; Martin WhitesideSubject: Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish boundary review.

Hannah

B and T parish is seeking a review of the boundaries with the neighbouring parishes of Stroud and Minchinhampton because the residents have shown in each case more of an affinity with B and T than either Stroud or Minchinhampton as well as the financial benefits.

The boundaries used in the diagrams are the simplest we could use, such as field boundaries, roads etc. trying to avoid splitting properties of small size.

Residents of both Gunhouse Lane and Brimscombe ward in the Minchinhampton have indicated in past questionairres that B and T can offer them better opportunities to comment and a say over their views of the Port and canal areas. They have also been given the opportunity to comment upon the port reconstruction.

We currently have a Parish Councillor from Brimscombe Ward in Minchinhampton and have had them from there in the past.

The mill areas of Knapp Lane, effectively in B and T parish, have been allowed development opportunities by Minchinhampton PC without reference to B and T PC and this has resulted in B and T parish being dominated by matters outside our influence with B and T picking up all of the problems of traffic and services and Minchinhampton receiving all of the financial benefits.

B and T parish is very small in numbers of residents and homes compared to both Stroud and Minchinhampton and has a very small comparable income to them but B and T parish has similar expenditure on road verges and parish maintenance etc. It would also allow the parish to provide traffic speed measuring devices on the A419.

Adding these areas to B and T PC would make a large difference to services we could offer to paritioners and would go some way to balancing the sizes of parishes.

Further information can be supplied if required.

Bill Harvey Chairman B and T PC

Suggested Chalford Parish Boundary Amendments

Introduction

These notes relate to two accompanying maps. One map is of the north of the Parish where it meets

Eastcombe. The other is of the south-east of the Parish along the valley from Valley Corner.

On both maps, the existing Parish boundaries are in blue, with the proposed changes in red. The

numbers in red on the maps relate to the numbered details below.

Boundary at north of Bussage to Eastcombe

Rationale

There are three significant anomalies in the boundary between Bussage at its north edge and

Eastcombe. They are:

The boundary passes through the buildings of Aberlink (labelled Saw Mill on map)

The boundary passes through the Thomas Keble playing field

The boundary excludes part of Stonecote Ridge in Manor Village

These and other anomalies can be fixed by simple realignments of this section of the boundary

Details

1. Toadsmoor/Vatch Lane rationalisation

Toadsmoor Road/Vatch Lane is in Chalford Parish from Merlin’s Mill in the valley, but becomes

part of Bisley with Lypiatt about 130m above the garage. It would simplify the boundary if, as

part of resolving the anomaly of Aberlink buildings being part in Chalford and part in Bisley with

Lypiatt Parishes, if the boundary were moved to the north edge of Vatch Lane as shown at (1) on

the map

2. Aberlink

The Parish boundary runs through the buildings of Aberlink. ((2) (Saw Mill) on the map). Moving

the boundary as suggested in (1) to bring the whole of the Aberlink site into Chalford Parish

would resolve this anomaly.

3. Dwellings fronting The Ridge

The three dwellings at (3) on the map (White Gates, Choicelands and Vatch End) front onto the

north side of The Ridge, which is in Bussage/Chalford Parish. The newer dwellings on the south

side of The Ridge are in Bussage/Chalford. Moving the boundary between the two Parishes as on

the map would be reflective of the identity of these houses.

4. Manor Farm

The current boundary passes between Manor Farm house and its outbuildings. Moving the

boundary as at (4) on the map to put the house and outbuildings in Eastcombe/Bisley with

Lypiatt would resolve this anomaly.

5. Part of Stonecote Ridge

Fifty-seven of the dwellings on Stonecote Ridge are in Chalford Parish. Thirty-five are in Bisley-

with-Lypiatt. The postal address for all the dwellings is Bussage, and all have the same postcode.

The only vehicular access to the thirty-five dwellings is from The Old Common within the Manor

Village. The style, construction and age of these thirty-five dwellings is identical to those in

Chalford Parish. The dwellings are a matter of metres from Bussage Primary School, which is

accessible by tarmacked footpath. The identity of the dwellings is that of the remainder of

Manor Village. The thirty-five dwellings are a natural part of Chalford Parish.

Moving the Parish boundary as at (5) on the map would resolve these anomalies.

6. Thomas Keble School grounds

As with Aberlink and Manor Farm, the Parish Boundary passes though the grounds of a property.

Rerouting the Parish boundary so all of Thomas Keble School falls within Bisley-with-Lypiatt

Parish would resolve this.

7. New Homestead, Middle Hill

All of the properties on the east side of Middle Hill running north from Four Ways are in

Chalford, except for Newholme, adjacent to the Eastcombe sports ground. This anomaly would

be resolved by moving the Parish boundary to include Newholme as at (7) on the map.

Boundary at south of Chalford to Sapperton

Rationale

The Thames and Severn Canal stretches for roughly 2.8km close to the southern boundary of

Chalford Parish, from St Mary’s Mills in the west almost to Baker’s Mill Lower Lock in the east. Only a

short 265m section is not in Chalford Parish. The section also splits a property between Chalford and

Sapperton Parishes. A simple boundary realignment will resolve these issues.

Details

1. Canal as Parish boundary from Ashmead’s House east

Realigning the Parish boundary along the canal for approximately 265m east from Ashmead’s

House ((1) on the map of the south boundary of the Parish) would bring the canal towpath into

Chalford Parish for the whole 2.8km east from St Mary’s Mills. It would simplify maintenance

and management of the towpath.

2. Ashmead’s House and Ashmead’s Mill

Part of the ground of Ashmead’s House and part of the building of Ashmead’s Mill is in Chalford

and part in Sapperton. Realigning as in (1) would resolve this.

Peter Oakley

10 June 2018

Eastington Parish Council (November 2018) Page 1 of 4

COMMUNITY GOVERNANCE REVIEW OF THE STROUD DISTRICT

PHASE 1 CONSULTATION SURVEY

Response from Eastington Parish Council (1st November 2018)

EPC would like to explore the following options:

Increase the number of parish councillors to 10 or 11

EPC has been at 9 councillors for a number of years whilst the parish has continued to grow and has a number

of strategic allocations within its parish boundaries which will further increase the size of the parish in the near

future. One or two extra councillors will help to share the workload of managing additional facilities and

services. Our preference would be for 2 additional councillors to keep council at an uneven number which

helps with voting on decisions.

Amend the parish boundary:

EPC would like the parish boundary at Oldends Industrial Site to be amended so that the boundary follows the

Oldbury Brook watercourse; this means that the entire industrial site would then be within the Stonehouse

parish (blue line on map is current boundary, highlighted yellow is proposed amendment).


Options for boundary amendments at Great Oldbury (land West of Stonehouse)

EPC recognise that the development Great Oldbury is going to significantly change the character and identity

of Eastington parish and have considered various options of amending the boundary with Stonehouse.

However, EPC has not had enough time to carry out a survey with residents to be sure of local opinion so we

put forward all 4 options considered with reasons for consideration. Should any of the following options 1-3

be taken forward by Stroud DC, EPC would expect a comprehensive consultation with Eastington residents to

take place.

1. Great Oldbury absorbed entirely by Stonehouse excluding the hamlets of Westend, Nastend, Nupend.

We understand that Stonehouse TC considers Great Oldbury to be an extension of Stonehouse and wish to

manage that area as such. The increased housing would bolster Stonehouse town centre and the council

already has the number of councillors and staff in place to manage the large increase in population and

facilities whereas Eastington PC would need to employ additional staff and establish a permanent parish office.

Eastington PC would wish to retain the rural hamlets within the boundary of Eastington parish as those

hamlets have a historic identity within Eastington (unless residents there requested to join Stonehouse parish).

The numbers of housing / residents within Eastington would remain the same as currently, as only new (as yet

unoccupied) properties at Great Oldbury would move to be within Stonehouse. When any proposed changes

take effect in May 2020, there would be approximately 300 properties moving across to Stonehouse parish.

The new homes at the Westend side of the Great Oldbury development may have formed community

connections with Eastington parish and these would remain despite a boundary change. Apart from the main

access road off Grove Lane, there are no roads connecting Great Oldbury to the hamlets of Westend, Nastend

and Nupend. There is a landscaping buffer around Great Oldbury that would be ideal as a boundary. We

would envision the perimeter of the Great Oldbury development would form most of the new parish

boundary, the red line on the map below is intended to be indicative only of a possible new boundary:


2. Great Oldbury becomes a new parish

In May 2020, Great Oldbury will have exceeded the minimum required for a new parish council (150 electors).

Upon completion, Great Oldbury will have 1350 properties with its own community hall, local shops and

primary school. The development is separated from Stonehouse by a railway line with only one access road

into Stonehouse town; the residents at Great Oldbury may feel isolated from the Council at Stonehouse and it

may be desirable for Great Oldbury to govern the area themselves and form a parish council. In that situation,

EPC would wish to retain the rural hamlets of Westend, Nastend and Nupend within Eastington parish (unless

residents there requested to join Great Oldbury); there are no roads connecting the rural hamlets with the

development. EPC would envision the boundary to match that as indicated in Option 1 above.

3. Share Great Oldbury between Stonehouse / Eastington with boundary along the bridleway

Great Oldbury is being developed from either side with the first houses currently under construction at the

Westend side of the site; a parcel of land at Stonehouse side of the site is due to be constructed next based on

the planning consents currently in place. During construction, the households next to Westend and Nupend

are likely to feel a community connection to Eastington, and households at Stonehouse end will naturally feel a

connection to Stonehouse. The property styles at Westend/Nupend side will reflect a more village style, whilst

the Stonehouse side will reflect a town style. There is a natural boundary through Great Oldbury with a

bridleway that runs alongside what will be public open space. The proposed boundary is possibly a more

straight-forward line than allocating the whole of Great Oldbury to Stonehouse. The community cohesion of

Great Oldbury would not necessarily be affected by a parish boundary through the site, for example Coopers

Edge as a new development on the edge of Gloucester formed its own strong community despite the

boundaries of three parish councils through the development. The possible new boundary is shown on a red

line on the map below and is intended to be indicative only.


4. No change and let the residents of Great Oldbury decide in the future

In May 2020, when any changes from the community governance review take effect there is likely to be only

around 300 households occupied at Great Oldbury. In five more years there will be around 900 homes

occupied, Eastington Parish Council will need additional councillors to manage the doubling size of the parish

and the community at Great Oldbury may desire to vote for a Parish Ward or new council. With other SDC

strategic allocations under development in the next five years it is likely other areas will be in the same

position. In this situation we would suggest another community governance review is undertaken in 5 years

time.

KER response Page 1 of 4

14th November 2018 for Stroud DC Ed Davies and Tom Low

Discussion paper on Boundary Options available

for Stroud DC Community Governance Review

Response to November 2018 Consultation

by Ed Davies and Tom Low of Keep Eastington Rural (KER)

1. Management Summary

We recommend that Stroud DC examine the best means of integrating West Of

Stonehouse (WoS) in it’s entirety, into Stonehouse under the management of Stonehouse

Town Council.

The design of WoS, with enviromental buffer zones between the Traditional Hamlets of

Eastington and the new development, ensures that there is a viable boundary that meets

the Boundary Commision’s requirements. This is a direct result of the Stroud DC Local Plan

2015 – 31 calling WoS “an urban extension of Stonehouse” and the Eastington

Neighbourhood Development Plan desiring the historic identities of the Hamlets be

respected.

This recommendation is one of the options proposed by Eastington Parish Council and is

the same proposal favoured by Stonehouse Town Council. The boundaries proposed by the

two councils and by KER are identical.

2. Background

This response adresses the District-wide review of parish boundaries and governance being

carried out by SDC Elections Team, due to report in July 2019 to Full Council. Agreed

boundary changes would come into effect at the May 2020 Local Elections but a five-year

forward view of electorates will be considered where expansion is significant

Only a few boundaries are expected to be changed: clearly West Of Stonehouse (WoS)

must be considered a prime candidate.

3. Purpose of this paper

In earlier versions, this paper has been used by Eastington Parish Council and by

Stonehouse Town Council to inform their debates. We have attended, and contributed to,

both debates. This version dismisses the wide range of initial options, with reasons,

resulting in the conclusion that Stonehouse Town is the natural and logical community for

the in-coming electors to join.

The options dismissed and the logic behind this can be seen in section 5 below.

5.1 Eastington keeping all within it’s present boundary.

5.2 Any mention of merging the Hamlets of Eastington with WoS or Stonehouse

5.3 Creating WoS as its own parish (e.g. Great Oldbury)

5.4 Sharing of WoS between Eastington and Stonehouse in any way



4. KER preferred option

Eastington Parish Boundary if West of Stonehouse is absorbed by Stonehouse

4.1 Effect on Eastington

Eastington Parish comprises 750 homes with 23 planned for Claypits in 2019. There are no

housing development sites anywhere else in the draft Local Plan to 2040, apart from

Exception Sites in the Neighbourhood Development Plan. This would be a once-in-a-

generation change of boundary.

With no change in the electorate no change to the Parish Council would be needed.

The anomalous small area of Oldends industrial area, east of Nastend, is passed to

Stonehouse for clarity. As agreed by Stonehouse Town Council.

Redrow 68

Redrow 130

David Wilson

& Barratts 235

ECLT 23

application

Redrow 68

Barratts & David

Wilson 235



4.2 Effect on Stonehouse

Stonehouse would gain revenue from Council Tax on an increasing number of homes.

Redrow are building 68 homes which are already selling. By the election of 2020, David

Wilson, Barratts and Redrow (including some in the eastern sector) will also have

completed 162 homes, giving nascent WoS a scale of 230 homes.

Using the approved metric of 1.8 electors per dwelling, there would be 414 electors in May

2020, approximately deserving of 1 extra Town Councillor.

On a 5-year horizon, there would be over 600 homes, yielding 1080 electors, requiring 2 or

3 extra Town Councillors.

A key positive for us is that, in relation to over 5,000 electors currently, managed by 14

Town Councillors, this is a comfortable incremental increase.

By comparison, leaving WoS in Eastington would double the electoral roll in under 6 years

and treble it in 10 years.

4.3 Effect on West of Stonehouse

New residents will be arriving in WoS with no local services initially. As people who have

chosen to live in an urban-density environment, they will be expecting a level of services

already enjoyed by Stonehouse residents e.g. recreation, retail, restaurants, doctors,

dentists, legal services and an established town council staff with a Town Hall

With expanded revenue and size of council, Stonehouse can provide such services, where

Eastington cannot. All Eastington facilities are run by volunteers, with a Parish Clerk, part-

time.

By the mid 2020’s there will be a new community centre and playing fields to manage,

which can be added to Stonehouse Town Council staff at a marginal cost. To contemplate

setting up a new administration and staffing would seem un-sound economics.

Finally, the guidelines on Community Governance speak of the need to respect community

and cultural identity. Urban-dwelling residents of WoS will much more easily identify with

urban Stonehouse than with the ancient and rambling Hamlets of Eastington.

4.4 Effects on the Stroud Local Plan

If Stonehouse Town Council has the prospect of managing WoS, indeed one might say

being a nurse-maid to the nascent community, they will be better motivated to plan for

and argue for, better integration. This means better footpaths, cycleways, multi-user

paths, railway crossings and coherent bus services. This applies equally to providing

excellent walk/cycle-to-work routes to Oldends Lane Industrial Estate as it does to reaching

the retail and commercial heart of Stonehouse, its regional bus routes and its railway

station.



5. Earlier Options now discarded, with reasons given

5.1 Eastington keeping all within it’s present boundary.

For all the reasons stated in 4.3 above we feel that with it’s limited infrastructure

Eastington would not easily absorb this urban development. KER strongly believes that

WoS was designed by Stroud DC to be “an urban extension of Stonehouse”, as stated in the

2015-2031 Local Plan.

We see no logic in the 12 hamlets of Eastington (750 homes) being subsumed by an urban

mass with 1,350 homes by 2030 and 2,100 by 2040. Again, this would fail the community

cohesion test.

On the contrary, WoS as a nascent community would benfit greatly from the experience of

Stonehouse Town Council in managing large scale recreation facilities and other urban

issues of which Eastington PC has little experience.

5.2 Any mention of Nupend, Westend or Nastend leaving the parish of Eastington.

Niether KER nor Eastington Parish Council wish to see any hamlets being lost to the new

connurbation. KER understands that the Governance Review has to take account of

community cohesion and there is no common ground between ancient rural hamlets and a

new community of town-dwellers.

All three hamlets have access lanes separate from WoS and there are, by design, no roads

leading out of WoS into the three hamlets. Both the Stroud Local Plan and the Eastington

Neighbourhood Development Plan stress the aim of respecting the rural identity of all

hamlets.

As a result, there is a distinct environmental buffer between the hamlets and WoS. This

buffer meets the Boundary Commisions requirements as they are, and are likely to remain,

easily identifiable boundaries. Another of the viability requierments of the Governance

Review.

5.3 Creating a new parish of Great Oldbury

This may be a viable option in the future should the new residents wish it. However to do

so now would be premature. With no existing infrastructure it is unlikely to prove

workable.

5.4 Any consideration of a sharing of WoS by Stonehouse and Eastington

There has been some suggestion that the western portion of WoS be left as Eastington

Parish whilst the eastern part is absorbed by Stonehouse. This is dismissed as un-workable

since the whole development has been designed as a community with centralised retail

and recreation facilities. It would also mean that the parish boundary would be on roads

within the estate. With residents on the same road in different authorities it would not be

considered viable by the Governance Review.



INTRODUCTION

Stroud District Council are undertaking a review of all Parish/Town Councils and Parish Meetings in the

Stroud District. The review is being carried out in accordance with the Local Government and Public

Involvement in Health Act 2007, and other statutory provisions. This survey is intended to collect local

resident’s views about how well they think their Parish/Town Council or Parish Meeting works and any

information that you provide in this survey will be used for the purpose of this review and held in

accordance with the Data Protection Act 2018. The review is your opportunity to raise any local issues in

relation to your local Parish/Town Council or Parish Meeting in relation to governance. For example, the

number of Councillors, or whether you think the boundaries of your Parish/Town Council or Parish Meeting

may need to change.

Once this review has been completed it is unlikely that there will be another full review for between 10 to

15 years. We would therefore encourage you to think about the future of your local parish, as well as how

it operates now. We are undertaking the consultation in two phases; this first phase is essentially seeking

views from local residents and expressions of interest from Parish/Town Councils or Parish Meetings who

would like to explore changes to their governance arrangements. Stage two will involve a more in-depth

consultation with individual parishes and local residents to find the best solution to any issues which may

have been raised.

The consultation is open until Monday 26 November 2018. To view maps of the current boundaries and

the areas under review, or to find out more information about the community governance review, please

visit www.stroud.gov.uk/cgr

SECTION 1

Full name Kevin Lee Clerk to Hardwicke Parish Council

Post code GL2 4WT

Email address [email protected]

Phone number 07505663090

http://www.stroud.gov.uk/cgr

2 | P a g e Stroud District Council Community Governance Review Survey – Phase 1 Consultation

SECTION 2

Which areas of the Stroud District would you like to comment on?

Alderley Parish meeting

Ham and Stone Parish Council

Nympsfield Parish Council

Alkington Parish Council

Hamfallow Parish Council

Owlpen Parish Meeting

Arlingham Parish Council

Hardwicke Parish Council

X

Painswick Parish Council

Berkeley Town Council

Harescombe Parish Council

Pitchcombe Parish Council

Bisley-with-Lypiatt Parish Council

Haresfield Parish Council

Randwick & Westrip Parish Council

Brimscombe and Thrupp Parish Council

Hillesley & Tresham Parish Council

Rodborough Parish Council

Brookethorpe-with-

Whadden Parish Council

Hinton Parish Council

Slimbridge Parish Council

Cainscross Parish Council

Horsley Parish Council

Standish Parish Council

Cam Parish Council

Kings Stanley Parish Council

Stinchcombe Parish Council

Chalford Parish Council

Kingswood Parish Council

Stonehouse Town Council

Coaley Parish Council

Leonard Stanley Parish Council

Stroud Town Council

Cranham Parish Council

Longney & Epney Parish Council

Uley Parish Council

Dursley Town Council

Minchinhampton Parish Council

Upton St Leonards Parish Council

Eastington Parish Council

Miserden Parish Council

Whiteshill & Ruscombe Parish Council

Elmore Parish Council

Moreton Valence Parish Council

Whitminster Parish Council

Frampton-on-Severn Parish Council

Nailsworth Town Council

Woodchester Parish Council

Fretherne-with-Saul Parish Council

North Nibley Parish Council

Wotton-under-Edge Town Council

Frocester Parish Council


Please tell us about your connection to all of the areas within the Stroud District that you wish to

comment on

Resident District Councillor Local Community Group

Parish/Town Councillor County Councillor Local Business

Parish/Town Clerk X Member of Parliament Other (please specify)

SECTION 3

Do you think your Parish/Town Council may benefit from exploring any of the following options? (tick all

that apply):

X Increasing or decreasing the number of Parish/Town Councillors

Merging or splitting your Parish/Town Council

X Creating or changing your existing Parish ward boundaries (if applicable)

X Changing the name of your Parish/Town Council

Grouping or de-grouping together with a neighbouring Parish/Town Council

Changing the style of your Parish/Town Council (e.g from a Parish Council to a Town Council)

Abolishing your parish so that it becomes an un-parished area

None of the above

Please give your reasons for each response made above

At its meeting on November 5th 2018 Hardwicke Parish Council agreed that the boundary between

Hardwicke and Haresfield be modified so that the revised boundary becomes the M5. This would

ensure that;

Hunts Grove would be part of a single parish (Currently part of Hunts Grove falls within

Haresfield Parish)

As part of a single parish its identity would be more readily preserved

The boundary between the two parishes would be more sensibly defined

As the Development at Hunts Grove grows then establish Hardwicke as being made up of two

wards within the one parish with representation and financial separation for phase 2 onwards

commensurate with its size.

At a further meeting of the parish council on November 19th it was agreed that the Council be known

as Hardwicke and Hunts Grove Parish Council. This would ensure that the area of Hunts Grove would

have a clear identity with Hardwicke .


Do you have any additional comments you would like to make?

Please submit any supporting documents along with this form

Your information

The personal details that you provide in this survey will be held in accordance with the Data Protection Act

2018 and shall be used for the purpose of intending to collect local resident’s views about how well they

think their Parish/Town Council or Parish Meeting works and any information that you provide in this

survey will be used for the purpose of this review.

The review will last 12 months, during which the information that you provide will be shared with the

Community Governance Review working Members Group and Stroud District Council Officers, which include

Electoral Services and the Chief Executive of the Council.

All responses to the review must be published, however all personal details will be excluded upon

publication.

The information you provide shall be kept until the review has been completed and the recommendations

implemented in May 2020, after which time your information will be destroyed.

For further information about how your personal data is processed, please see sections 1-10 and section

13.5 of the Council’s privacy notice for details affecting Elections at www.stroud.gov.uk

X I consent to my personal information being used for the purposes outlined above

Please return this survey by the 26 November to:

Community Governance Review

Stroud District Council

Ebley Mill

Ebley Wharf

Stroud

GL5 4UB



INTRODUCTION









may need to change.


15 years. We would therefore encourage you to think about the future of your local parish, as well as how it

operates now. We are undertaking the consultation in two phases; this first phase is essentially seeking




have been raised.




SECTION 1

Full name King's Stanley Parish Council

Post code


Phone number 767384



SECTION 2




















Brookethorpe-with-







Cam Parish Council


x Stinchcombe Parish Council






Stroud Town Council



Uley Parish Council



















comment on



Parish/Town Clerk Member of Parliament Other (please specify)

SECTION 3


that apply):

Increasing or decreasing the number of Parish/Town Councillors


Creating or changing your existing Parish ward boundaries (if applicable)

Changing the name of your Parish/Town Council




None of the above


This document was circulated to Parish Councillors prior to the PC meeting and was discussed at the PC

meeting held on September 19th 2018.


Do you have any additional comments you would like to make? None


Your information



think their Parish/Town Council or Parish Meeting works and any information that you provide in this survey

will be used for the purpose of this review.





publication.





I consent to my personal information being used for the purposes outlined above




Ebley Mill

Ebley Wharf

Stroud

GL5 4UB

7th November 2018

New Rose Cottage Chapel Lane Hillesley Gloucestershire GL12 7RQ Clerk Mary Leonard 01453 844659 email: [email protected] website: www.kingswoodparishcouncil.gov.uk

Kingswood Parish Council Community Governance Consultation Response

It was proposed that Kingswood Parish Council (KPC) to ask Stroud District Council to amend the parish

boundary in line with the district ward boundary and include the whole of K5 within the Kingswood

Parish Boundary. The council is open to further consultation on whether K5 is split at Wortley Road with

Alderley Parish within K1.

Reasons

1. A sensible change that the parish and district ward boundaries are in alignment so that members of

the community are not spilt between Wotton Town council and Kingswood District ward.

2. Current Wotton boundary very close to the settlement of Kingswood. Wotton Town council (WTC)

consulted on issues that have a greater effect on the Kingswood Parish Council (KPC) area

3. There have been circumstances where resident have not known whether to go to Kingswood Parish Council or Wotton Town Council meeting.

4. Penwood Lodge Planning Application the official consultee was Wotton Town Council (WTC) not KPC

although it was located closer to Kingswood and the effects would be within Kingswood.

5. KPC are considering an Automated Number Plate Camera (ANPR) for Wotton Road. KPC would currently need permission from WTC.

6. Kathryn Lady Berkeley School (KLB) is located within Wotton Road and K5 currently within WTC area. The majority of the school buses and school traffic comes through KPC area. Once again KPC have no control and are not automatically consulted on highways and transport issues as they come under WTC.

7. Issues with parking on Wotton Road from KLB, Wotton Sport Centre, school events, cross country,

Rugby and Park Runs all have an effect on KPC.

8. The Local Plan Review has a proposal within K5. This would have more impact on KPC than WTC

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.kingswoodparishcouncil.gov.uk/

7th November 2018

CONSIDERATIONS

KPC considered if it was appropriate for the part of K5 from Wortley Road should be represented by

Alderley within K1.

KPC discussed if it was appropriate to take the whole of K5 within the Kingswood parish boundary or

whether it should be split with Alderley within ward K1.

KPC noted that this may not be acceptable as currently there is no parish council in Alderley just a parish

meeting. This would result in the people at this location losing access to parish council representation.

Consideration was also given to access to Kingswood village hall and the polling station by this population.

Councillors considered that currently members of the community at this location possibly already use a car

to access the polling station in Wotton. There is parking at Kingswood village Hall so access may be easier

at Kingwood than Wotton.

Increase number of councillors KPC would like to increase the number of councillors from 7 to 9 as part of this review. Considerations A Community Governance Review is the official process for changing the number of councillors. In 2010 KPC

investigated increasing the numbers but was unable to without triggering an expensive Community

Governance Review.

Councillors discussed the difficulty of remaining quorate with the number of interests held by councillors.

Councillors thought it would be an opportunity to increase the number of councillors and to encourage

younger councillors and new residents to stand for parish council. Concerns were raised on the difficult of

getting councillors to stand. However councillors considered that this is the only opportunity since 2010 to

increase numbers and it would be a risk to not take this opportunity.

Recommendations

To increase the number of Councillors for Kingswood Parish Council from 7 to 9

The parish council do not wish to consider any other options as part of this review.

Signature

Mary Leonard Mary Leonard Parish Clerk for Kingswood 21st November 2018

1

Emery, Hannah

From: rwpc-clerk [[email protected]]Sent: 23 October 2018 18:02To: Emery, HannahSubject: Community Governance ReviewAttachments: Randwick - Community Governance Review - Phase 1 survey.docx

Dear Hannah, Attached is Randwick and Westrip Parish Council’s response to the phase 1 survey. The form didn’t appear to expand very well to accept the Council’s submission so I include it here in case the form has cut any of it off. “In 2014 The Local Government Boundary Commission held a review of electoral wards in Stroud District and proposed a change to the wards for Randwick Parish.

Randwick is divided into two wards for parish council elections, Randwick (Randwick Ward) returning four councillors, and Cainscross (Lower Westrip Ward) returning five councillors.

The LGB Commission's aims were to provide “good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters” and proposed three wards for Randwick - Randwick, Randwick South East and Randwick South West. In 2015 the Council had pointed out to the Commissioners that their proposal produced a poorer ratio of electors to councilors than the status quo and the Commission had agreed that its figures were wrong and decided to not implement their proposal.

The Parish Council has discussed its response to the current SDC review and resolved to inform SDC that it prefers to retain the current arrangement of the Parish into two wards, but that if this is not acceptable Randwick and Westrip Parish Council would support the division of the Parish into three wards with the ratios of electors to councilors accepted by The Local Government Boundary Commission in 2015.

The figures accepted by the LGBC and reported to SDC for future consideration if the area is to be rearranged into three wards would be

Randwick Ward 4 councillors

Randwick South East 2 councillors

Randwick South West 3 councillors”

Regards

Barry Parsons Clerk Randwick and Westrip Parish Council Rising Sun Cottage Randwick Stroud Gloucestershire GL6 6HT 07803 373 678

2

www.randwickandwestrip-pc.gov.uk

If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. We do not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this email or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free.

This email is not intended nor should it be taken to create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. Any views or opinions expressed within this email or attachment are solely those of the sender, and do not necessarily represent those of Randwick and Westrip Parish Council unless otherwise specifically stated. If verification is required, please request a hard-copy version. We are not bound by or liable for any opinion, contract or offer to contract expressed in any email.

The Council is committed to ensuring your privacy is protected. To view our privacy notice please visit the Council’s website http://randwickandwestrip-pc.gov.uk/data-protection/



INTRODUCTION









may need to change.







have been raised.




SECTION 1

Full name B Parsons Clerk to Randwick and Westrip Parish Council

Post code GL6 6HT


Phone number 07803 373 678



SECTION 2

















�




Brookethorpe-with-







Cam Parish Council








Stroud Town Council



Uley Parish Council



















comment on



�Parish/Town Clerk Member of Parliament Other (please specify)

SECTION 3


that apply):








�None of the above



In 2014 The Local Government Boundary Commission held a review of electoral wards

in Stroud District and proposed a change to the wards for Randwick Parish.

Randwick is divided into two wards for parish council elections, Randwick (Randwick

Ward) returning four councillors, and Cainscross (Lower Westrip Ward) returning five

councillors.

The LGB Commission's aims were to provide “good electoral equality, with each

councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters” and

proposed three wards for Randwick - Randwick, Randwick South East and Randwick

South West. In 2015 the Council pointed out to the Commissioners that their

proposal produced a poorer ratio of electors to councilors than the status quo and the

Commission had agreed that its figures were wrong and decided to not implement

their proposal.

�

�

�



Your information









publication.





�I consent to my personal information being used for the purposes outlined above




Ebley Mill

Ebley Wharf

Stroud

GL5 4UB

As proposed in fi

1

Emery, Hannah

From: Joy Jackson, Deputy Clerk RPC [[email protected]]Sent: 11 January 2019 13:17To: _WEB_ElectionsSubject: FAO Hannah Community Governance Review Attachments: minutes meeting 151018 amended 201118.pdf

Hi Hannah.

I understand Karen McKeown has spoken to you about the Community Governance Review and Rodborough Parish

Council’s (lack of) response.

I can confirm that the Community Governance Review was discussed at October Full Council and the council were

content with the current situation in Rodborough with regard to boundaries and warding:

9a/1018. To consider Stroud District Council’s Community Governance review and agree any actions

De-warding was considered and rejected. Review noted.

Unfortunately it appears that this was not sent in to you. We realise it is too late for this to be added to the formal

consultation but would be grateful if those carrying out the assessment could be made aware that the parish is

happy with the existing structure.

I understand one of the comments related to problems filling councillor vacancies. This has not been the case for

some time – in fact we have had competition for both co-option (3 applied for the last time we co-opted in

September) or for elections. It is several years since we had an unfilled vacancy.

I hope this can be taken into account when undertaking the review.

Thank you

(PS. I’m not sure if you are aware but Daphne Dunning has now left the council. We are recruiting for a new clerk

but the position is unlikely to be filled before the end of March.)

--

Joy Jackson Deputy Clerk to Rodborough Parish Council

Office open to the public - Mon, Wed and Fri 9am-12 noon Tel: 01453 762686 Rodborough Community Hall, Butterrow West Rodborough, Stroud GL5 3TZ Rodborough Parish Council will never pass on your details to any individuals or third parties without your consent. Names and telephone numbers of Councillors are available in the Commoner, on the website www.rodborough.gov.uk<http://www.rodborough.gov.uk> and on notice boards across the parish. Disclaimer: This email contains privileged and/or confidential information. If you receive this in error, please notify the sender immediately and do not use, rely upon, copy, forward or disclose its contents to any other party. And views or opinions expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Rodborough Parish Council. It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus free before using it.

Proposed Boundary ChangesChanges proposed November 2018 to include West of Stonehouse (14/810/OUT), land toNorth of Oldends Lane Recreation Ground, land to West of Oldends Lane industrial estate

Date Created: 13-11-2018 | Map Centre (Easting/Northing): 379904 / 206125 | Scale: 1:13453 | © Crown copyright and databaseright. All rights reserved (0100057393) 2018 © Contains Ordnance Survey Data : Crown copyright and database right 2018

Stonehouse CP

Legend

Proposed ParishBoundary ChangeNov 2018

Parishes

OS 25,000 SCR



INTRODUCTION









may need to change.







have been raised.




SECTION 1

Full name Helen Bojaniwska, Town Clerk, Stroud Town Council

Post code GL5 2AD


Phone number 01453 762817



SECTION 2




















Brookethorpe-with-







Cam Parish Council








Stroud Town Council



Uley Parish Council



















comment on



Parish/Town Clerk Member of Parliament Other (please specify)

SECTION 3


that apply):








None of the above


We would like to explore all options to ensure quality service delivery.




Your information









publication.





I consent to my personal information being used for the purposes outlined above




Ebley Mill

Ebley Wharf

Stroud

GL5 4UB

As local authority spending is diminishing and cuts to services begins to adversely affect our population, it is wise to consider the Council’s position and place within the community to assist in the areas which may need it most. The recent Subscription Rooms transfer is a key example of a central service being cut and the electorate’s support for keeping it in public hands. However, the Subscription Rooms provides a service to more than just the population of Stroud Town and therefore it is wise to consider the Council’s role in bringing about a more robust funding structure as well as a stronger position when negotiating asset transfers.

Q7. Do you think your Parish/Town Council may benefit from exploring any of the following options? (tick all that apply):

Q6.1. Resident Q6.2.

Parish/Town

Councillor

Q6.3.

Parish/To

wn Clerk

Q6.4.

District

Councillor

Q6.5.

County

Councillor

Q6.6.

Member

of

Parliamen

t

Q6.7. Local

Communit

y Group

Q6.8.

Local

Business

Q6.9.

Other:

Q7.1.

Increasing or

decreasing

the number

of

Parish/Town

Councillors

Q7.2.

Merging

or

splitting

your

Parish/To

wn

Council

Q7.3.

Creating

or

changing

your

existing

Parish

ward

boundari

es

Q7.4.

Changing

the name

of your

Parish/To

wn

Council

Q7.5.

Grouping

or de-

grouping

together

with a

neighbou

ring

Parish/To

wn

Council

Q7.6.

Convertin

g you

Parish/To

wn

Council

into a

Parish

Meeting

Q7.7.

Changing the

style of your

Parish/Town

Council

Q7.8.

Abolishin

g your

parish so

that it

becomes

an un-

parished

area

Q7.9.

None of

the above

Q7.10. Please give your reasons for each response made above

CGRP141 Alkington No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No YesAlkington Parish councillors feel that the parish works well as it is and see no reason to consider any of the other options.

-

CGRP11 Berkeley Yes No Yes No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No Merging and grouping Paris and Town Councils would enable them to increase their budgets and allow for them to take

over the services such as road maintenance and rubbish collections that are being cut and ignored in rural areas.

No

CGRP135Bisley-with-Lypiatt &

ChalfordNo Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No

The current parish boundary excludes Eastcombe (this comes under Bisley-with-Lypiatt) but the settlements of Chalford

Parish and Eastcombe are geographically close and share the same amenities and transport links. There are roads on

Manor Farm estate, Bussage where parish boundaries change part way along, this is nonsensical. Parish governance

would be more coherent and seamless if Eastcombe was included within Chalford Parish. This might mean a change of

name as well.

-

CGRP114Brimscombe &

ThruppYes Yes No No No No Yes No Work from home Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

I don't think that any of the above are necessary but do think that options are always worth exploring. Nothing stays the

same forever so a regular review of the current with a view to what might be best for the future makes complete sense. I

am not convinced the current arrangement works particularly well for the parish but I don't have a better solution for

you either!

-

CGRP124Brimscombe &

ThruppYes Yes No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No Yes No No No No No No

The Parish is defined by the valley/A419 corridor and a new boundary could/should reflect this. Eg Wimberley Mill

development is within Minchinhampton however the residents and consequences are largely represented by

Brimscombe and Thrupp. Similarly Brimscombe school largely serves Brimscombe and Thrupp yet is in Minchinhampton

Parish. Residents on north/west of Thrupp Lane going up to Clay Pits Lane are currently represented by Stroud Town,

however they identify with Thrupp and their neighbours on the other side of the lane. A parish border on the settlement

boundary would be more sensible with the green space of the heavens dividing Thrupp and Stroud Town. Residents of

Gunhouse lane and Bowbridge, agin have an affinity to our prish, with a residents committee regularly making

representations to parish and NDP meetings.

-

CGRP1102Brimscombe &

ThruppNo Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No

CGRP17 Cainscross Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No There seems to be too many councillors for each ward my own has 3 this could be reduced to 2 -

CGRP132 Cainscross No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes We have questioned the name of the Council in the past as it does not seem to be inclusive of the four wards. However

in the absence of something more appropriate we have chosen to stick with the name Cainscross

-

CGRP133 Cam No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No YesCam Parish Council considered its response to the consultation and agreed that at present would not welcome any

change to the current arrangements.

-

CGRP134 Cam Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Because there is nothing wrong with the way things are at the moment None

CGRP1111 Cam & Dursley Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No NoCam & Dursley are effectively one community and so merging or grouping them together would produce cost savings

and ensure that there was one consistent voice for the whole community.

-

CGRP12 Dursley No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No NoI believe Dursley Town Council should have one additional Councillor to accommodate the increased number of residents

now housed within the Littlecombe development.

-

CGRP1110 Dursley & Uley Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No

With our parish being so small with very few facilities it feels it would be much better if it was merged with Dursley.

Our local shops are in Dursley, so are our banks, leisure facilities etc.

It would seem much more logical and far more resourceful to merge.

Small village politics always play a part when it comes to small

parish council's. Under merged councils there is a much more

varied and diverse range of people involved.

CGRP129 Eastington Yes No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No NoThe new West of Stonehouse urban development should not be included within the rural Eastington Parish. It should

either come under Stonehouse, or become a new Parish.

-

CGRP137 Eastington Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No

The new Great Oldbury development west of Stonehouse is within the Eastington Parish boundary.

I believe it should remain so and that Eastington Parish Council should be expanded to accommodate the larger

population.

I see no merit in transferring Great Oldbury from Eastington into Stonehouse.

-

CGRP138 Eastington Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

I am very concerned about the impact of the new West of Stonehouse housing development and its likely impact on

Eastington. The village has long striven to retain its identity as a village and particularly in recent years, has been praised

and commended on its engaged and thriving community. There have been significant improvements of many sorts, both

physical and social, during the past decade or so. I feel that the new large development will effectively swamp the

existing community and destroy the existing village, effectively turning much of it into a suburban commuter

development. As such, I feel that it would make more sense for WOS to become part of Stonehouse. Although this would

mean the loss of part of the present village, it would make more sense to become part of the town of Stonehouse, with

all its existing developments and facilities. I feel that it is simply too large for Eastington to absorb in an effective and

meaningful way. It would essentially spell the end of the village and negate the attractions of living in such a community -

reasons that have attracted many newcomers in recent years.

-

CGRP143 Eastington Yes No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No No

The new development at Great Oldbury will triple the population of the Parish of Eastington. When complete, this

development will form a community on it own. This will not happen for some considerable time. The Developers are

unlikely to complete the school, surgery communiity centre until all the dwellings are built and occupied and may even

delay completion of all the dwellings in order to delay spend on these facilitoes. When, however, this does happen, then

it should be formed into a new Parish on its own to provide the necessary governance structure for its own community.

Until this happens it is probably best for it to form a separate ward of Stonehouse Town Council. To make it a part of

Eastington Parish would create a significant imbalance on Eastington Parish Council to the possible detriment of the

inhabitants of both areas.

-

CGRP145 Eastington Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No

Our Councillors already have more people to deal with within the existing boundaries especially when the Claypits

Affordable Houses are built, and so I believe that Eastington should not merge with any other Parish or Town Council ,

but should be given more bodies to help.

-

Q6. Please tell us about your connection to all of the areas within the Stroud District that you wish to comment onQ8. Do you have any additional comments you would like to

make?

Reference Q5.2. Which

Parish/Town Council

would you like to

comment on?

CGRP180 Eastington Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No

There is an area of Eastington Parish, north of A419, which is outside of the existing hamlets of Nastend, Nupend &

Westend, and which will become high density, large scale, urban development. The first phase of development will be

approx. 1300 homes and will subsequently increase. This development will need facilities and amenities in-keeping with a

modern urban development and will need representation at the first level of government - Parish or Town Council.

The existing Parish Council of Eastington is well experienced in supporting the central rural village of Alkerton and its 10

hamlets. EPC is inexperienced in governance of urban / town residences, and to attempt to run and provide the

amenities for both rural and urban residents at the same time is bound to create conflicting interests. Such urban and

rural requirements are incompatible. however there is an obvious solution.

Stonehouse Town Council is very experience in providing those facilities appropriate for urban developments and it will

be vital to the residents of the 'West of Stonehouse' housing development, that it is integrated into the main town of

Stonehouse with all of its higher tier facilities. Eastington only has facilities and amenities appropriate to smaller, lower

tier rural settlements.

The solution to this problem is to change the boundary of Eastington Parish such that it retains only the hamlets of

Nastend, Nupend and Westend. While the remaining high density development becomes part of Stonehouse Town, to

enjoy all of the facilities appropriate to such a higher tier settlement.

-

CGRP181 Eastington Yes No No No No No Yes NoAdviser on planning to the parish council on the Strategig Planning Working Group.Yes Yes Yes No No No No No No The extensive new development in the parish will unbalance it. -

CGRP1113 Eastington Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

the West of stonehouse (great oldbury) development is so large it should form it's own parish, or be part of Stonehouse

town council. the latter option is feasible in the short term, and as a larger, existing parish could greater serve the new

development. the parish of eastington could not realistically facilitate this

-

CGRP1101Eastington &

StonehouseNo No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No

Eastington Parish Council has been at 9 councillors for a number of years whilst the parish has continued to grow and has

a number of strategic allocations within its parish boundaries which will further increase the size of the parish in the near

future. One or two extra councillors will help to share the workload of managing additional facilities and services. Our

preference would be for 2 additional councillors to keep council at an uneven number which helps with voting on

decisions.

Please refer to emailed document regarding boundary

amendments between Eastington and Stonehouse.

CGRP140 Elmore Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No No

Elmore is already part of the Severn Voice Group of Parishes.

However, with a population of only +/- 220 and only 90 houses we have been having great difficulty recruiting Councillors

and therefore has caused succession problems for the Chair. The problem is compounded by new arrivals in the village

who work elsewhere and do not take an active part in village life. Add to that the other voluntary bodies that exist (WI,

Church Council, Village Hall Committee) which seem to have the same people doing the various jobs.

Our adjacent village, Longney, has a similar population and has already joined with Epney and there may be value in in

combining our resources with them.

One change that might make a difference is the fact that we don’t have a Settlement Boundary and that fact, combined

with the lack of mains drains and the local flood risk has meant that no new houses have been built here for many years

apart for those rebuilt on he footprint of existing properties.

Being a small rural community we always seem to be at the

bottom of any priority lists - be they for road repairs, snow

clearance, gritting, mobile reception or broadband. However, the

average level of Council Tax for local houses is higher than the

norm because of the quiet rural setting but we get very little

return for our money! We can’t even hope for any income from CIL

to improve our amenities as no new houses are permitted! Even if

we did, we cannot afford a Parish Plan so would only get a limited

return.

Our precept is very small and we do not have a shop, pub, post

office or school. There are no street lights, a slim-lined bus service

& no bus shelters, no white lines on the roads and whenever there

are icy or snowy conditions the refuse collections are disrupted.

Even the local Police rarely appear in our area despite a spate of

burglaries.

But we seem to be a popular cycling route and route for learner

driver as well as s ‘go-to’ location for watching the Severn Bore.

The emergency services also take forever to get to call-outs in our

area therefore we bought and installed 2 defibrillators in our

sprawling village only to be told by South West Ambulance Service

a year later that they wouldn’t give the box code to anyone living

more than 200m from the defibrillator! We would need 9 such

pieces of medical equipment to cover our area!

CGRP139 Ham and Stone Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No Bevington has nothing in common with Stone or Ham and would be better aligned with Berkeley due to demarcation of

land area and local amenity centre. Therefore logically Ham would also be better as part of Berkeley Town/Parish area.

-

CGRP147 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

Now that Hunts Grove is finally having Phase 2 built it seems ridiculous that some of the development is currently in

Haresfield Parish. It would make more sense for all of the land there being developed came under Hardwicke Parish This

would then allow Hardwicke Parish Council to fully represent all Hardwicke Residents when required and be able to

distribute funding to all groups in the area who may apply for it.

-

CGRP156 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

We are currently part of Hardwicke yet all the tax we pay goes to the parish council and is spent on Hardwicke village on

the other side of the dual carriageway, not on Hunts Grove which is maintained by a private management company paid

for by residents. We would like to have a Hunts Grove parish council separate from Hardwicke parish council so that the

tax money paid by Hunts Grove residents gets spent on things that benefit Hunts Grove residents and not spent on

people in a different area. Failing this option Hunts Grove residents should have their council tax reduced by the

deduction of the amount given to parish councils and the amount so far taken from the residents of Hunts Grove over

the last 6 years should be refunded by Hardwicke parish council.

-

CGRP159 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No NoThe rapid growth of the Hunts Grove Estate needs to be proportionally represented and get the service and support the

residents pay for.

-

CGRP164 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No

Hunts Grove should have its own parish council to serve the needs of this new village and unify the community split into

two parishes. Hunts Grove has its own evolving identity and it is significantly different to that of Hardwicke and

Haresfield. We, the residents need to be able to have a say in the control of funding and scope of our own parish council,

this is currently democratically impossible under current arrangements.

In coming years Hunts grove will massively expand by 6,000 residents and being part of Hardwicke and Haresfield is

unsustainable from a governance perspective.

Hunts Grove parish boundary should include at least the key area by the current infrastructure features, the M5

motorway to the South, the railway to the East, the B4008/A38 bypass to the West and the Stroud district boundary to

the north.

-


Hunts Grove should have its own parish council to serve the unique needs of this new village, to unify an area that is split

between two parishes, and recognise that with a management company in place for the majority of maintenance tasks,

the residents should be allowed to control the funding and scope of its parish council in a way that is democratically

impossible under the current arrangements. Hunts Grove has its own identity and that is significantly different than

Haresfield or Hardwicke.

With more than 6,000 residents moving to Hunts Grove in the coming years, being part of Haresfield (379 residents) or

Hardwicke (3,901 residents) is unsustainable from a governance perspective.

Hunts Grove parish boundary should include at least the area contained by the current key infrastructure features, the

M5 Motorway to the south, the railway to the east, the B4008 / A38 bypass to the west and the Stroud District boundary

to the north.

-

CGRP166 Hardwicke No No No No No No Yes No No No No Yes No No No No No No Changing the parish boundaries will be good -


1. Hunts Grove must have its own parish council to serve the local needs of this new village which will unify an area that

is split between two parishes.

2.A management company is in place for the majority of the upkeep of the common areas. The residents of Hunts Grove

should be allowed to control the Precept funding and scope of its parish council in a way that is democratically impossible

under the current arrangements.

3. Hunts Grove should have its own identity and that is significantly different than Haresfield or Hardwicke.

4.There will be more than 6,000 residents residing at Hunts Grove in the future, being part of Haresfield with only 379

residents or Hardwicke with circa 4000 it is unsustainable from a governance perspective.

5.

-

CGRP178 Hardwicke Yes Yes No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No NoMoney paid by me for managing Hunts Grove is being spent in Hardwicke. So my selections above become self-evident.

-

CGRP187 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No NoI think it would be beneficial for Hunts grove to have its own Parish council so our council tax funds can be directed

towards services within Hunts Geove and not Harfwicke

-

CGRP192 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Split the existing parish and create a new hunts grove one, so benefits to all residents -

CGRP193 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No NoHuntsgrove as a separate Parisians named appropriately. Independent funding and decision making from other parishes.

-


The development on Hunts Grove is currently estimated to have 6,000 residents, once the building works are completed.

It will be larger than the existing parishes of Haresfield and Hardwicke which currently split the development. It is

therefore preferable and logical to take the opportunity of this consultation to state that those residents in Hunts Grove

would be better served by the setting up of a new Hunts Grove Parish Council, which would work with the residents and

management company and identify areas for spending the precept raised specifically by the Hunts Grove residents, for

the specific benefit of those residents. A Hunts Grove Parish Council would specifically oversee this area, working with

the management company to supplement and enhance facilities for the residents and community who will enjoy the

facilities and open spaces which form a large part of the development. It is also important that those residents who do

also have to pay management charges (not all residents or users of the facilities or open spaces will do so) feel that by

paying the precept as well as the management charge, that their money is going directly into the area they live in and

enjoy and it will give a renewed sense of belonging and community to know that on a parish council level, it’s governance

is looked after by a council specifically set up for their area. The natural boundary of the M5/A38 ideally lends itself to

the proposal for establishing a Hunts Grove Parish Council.

-


I have recently moved into a new build property in phase 2 on the Huntsgrove development.

I attended a meeting of Hardwicke Parish Council last night and was surprised to learn that the phase on which I live is

split between Hardwicke and Haresfield Parish Councils. In addition, because of the way the Huntsgrove development is

managed it would appear that Hardwicke Parish Council are limited as to what they are able to spent the precept on for

the benefit of Huntsgrove.

When Huntsgrove is completed it will consist of 2500 house, a primary school, community centre and retail units.

Given the size, my preference would be for Huntsgrove to be split from both Hardwicke and Haresfield Parish Councils

and establish its own Parish and Parish Council.

If that is not feasible for any reason, then I would be in favour of changing the Parish boundaries in order that The

Huntsgrove development in its entirety falls within the boundary of a single Parish Council

-

CGRP196 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Creating new Hunts Grove Parish No

CGRP197 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No Create a new local parish council for hunts grove. -

CGRP198 Hardwicke Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No Yes No No No No The money we pay in tax pays for the amminties and up keep of our area. -







CGRP144Hardwicke &

HaresfieldNo No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No

The first phase of Hunts Grove is already completed and the next two phases plus the school are well underway. It is

going to be a vey large development of 3,000 plus homes and is separated from Hardwicke by the A38. It already has a

very active Residents Association HGRA (Hunts Drove Resident Association) and 3 parish councillors who sit on the

Hardwicke PC

This is an opportunity to set up a new Parish Council for Hunts Grove residents and after discussion with the three

councillors and fellow district councillors we feel this is the right way forward.

Changing existing Parish Boundaries

The parish boundaries of Haresfield and Hardwicke should be changed so that all properties in Hunts Grove come under

the new Hunts Grove Parish Council.

As Ward Councillor for the Hardwicke ward, and working with the

Residents Association of Hunts Grove and the three Hardwicke

Parish Councillors that live in Hunts Grove it is felt that this

suggestion is the right way forward to best serve both the

residents of Hardwicke and the new Hunts Grove. It is an

opportunity that will not present itself again for many years and

will enable the 5,000 plus (when all houses built and sold)residents

to manage their own affairs. This community will have its own

school, shops and doctors surgery and would seem logical to have

its own parish council serving the needs of the local people.

CGRP146Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes Yes No No No No Yes No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No










to the north.

-

CGRP148Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No No

“Hunts Grove should have its own parish council to serve the unique needs of this new village, to unify an area that is

split between two parishes, and recognise that with a management company in place for the majority of maintenance

tasks, the residents should be allowed to control the funding and scope of its parish council in a way that is

democratically impossible under the current arrangements. Hunts Grove has its own identity and that is significantly

different than Haresfield or Hardwicke.





to the north.”

-

CGRP149Hardwicke &











to the north.”

-

CGRP150Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No

The new housing development on which I live (Hunts Grove) is split between Hardwicke Parish and Haresfield. Although

it has not been in existence for very long Hunts Grove has its own distinctive feel and an established community which

has no real links to Haresfield and little to the rest of Hardwicke from which it is separated by the A38. (Even the

Hardwicke Matters free paper refers to its readership as Hardwicke and Hunts Grove - a sign that Hardwicke does not

really see us as part of their parish) I feel a new Hunts Grove parish would give our community a voice in the right place

so that Hunts Grove residents may have a say in Hunts Grove decisions. We are set to out number Haresfield and

Hardwicke populations once the development is complete, so I am sure it would be a benefit to all three areas that each

controls its own location.

-

CGRP151Hardwicke &


A newly created Hunts Grove Parish would better serve this growing community. Rather than the existing two parishes.

In a few years Hunts Grove will dwarf the current parishes of Hardwicke and Haresfield, by sheer numbers of residents

alone.

The funding created by the Hunts grove residents, would be better served being spent in the Hunts Grove community

rather than split between two parishes. This would enable the residents to have more saw in how funding is best spent.

New boundaries from the M5 to the South up to the Northern Limit of Shroud district and between the A38 and the rail

line to the East would make a more logical boundary for the formation of Hunts Grove Parish. This would encompass the

whole of Hunts Grove as it develops.

-

CGRP152Hardwicke &











to the north.

-

CGRP153Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove should have its own parish council to serve the unique needs of this new village,to unify an area that is split

between two parishes, and recognize that with a management company in place for the majority of maintenance tasks,


impossible under current arrangements. Hunts Grove has its own identity and that is significantly different than


NO

CGRP154Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove needs to have its own parish council to allow the area to spend the money raise d for the local Hunts Grove

community instead of Hardwicke and Haresfield.

-

CGRP155Hardwicke &



between tow parishes, and recognize that with a management company in place for the majority of maintenance tasks,






NO

CGRP157Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove residents are not benefitting from the payments they are making due to boundary lines. To this end Hunts

Grove should have its own parish council, given the recent and projected growths in populations and the future

communal areas being maintained by a private maintenance company. As there will undoubtedly be payments to the

private company, the sum paid to local authority should be reflective of this.

-

CGRP158Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No

As a Hunts Grove resident I do not feel that I am benefiting from taxes I am paying to the authorities because it is not

being spent here. We are becoming a village in our own right and need the monies to be spent here and not somewhere I

never see. I feel that Hunts Grove should have its own parish council to determine 'local' matters and should be an area

from Marconi drive all the way down to the M5 (south), the railway (east) and the A38 bypass (west). That way we can

become a 'whole' community, not a split village. What would happen if, currently, Hardwicke wanted one thing and

Haresfield wanted another, we would end up with roads/neighbours being treated differently and that would not help

with a community spirit

-

CGRP160Hardwicke &


I live in Hunts Grove development which when completed will cross over two different parishes, Haresfield and

Hardwicke. I feel being split between the two could cause future problems, and Hunts Grove would benefit from having

its own parish, especially as the parishes are currently smaller than Hunts Grove will be once completed. There is a

distinct community feeling in Hunts Grove, quite different from Haresfield or Hardwicke, which would be best served

with the local residents being able to have their own voice for their own area.

-

CGRP161Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No

Hunts Grove will be a large development which I feel would benefit from its own parish council. There are also existing

parish boundary’s which would benefit from a review to reflect the Hunts Grove Development.

-

CGRP162Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No No

Hunts Grove is a growing community all of its own and needs a focus relevant to it’s own residents -

CGRP163Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes










to the north.”

-

CGRP167Hardwicke &











to the north.

-

CGRP168Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove is a growing community that is currently split between 2 Parrish councils, a new single council would better

serve the commuinities needs

-

CGRP170Hardwicke &


Currently our estate comes under hardwicke and Haresfield councils, however we are due to be far larger than either of

those two areas. Money that goes to the current council doesn’t currently get spent on our estate due to management

company issues. If we had our own parish council we would have more of a say in what happens here in the best

interests of our community. The whole estate should be under the same council - it makes no sense to have some in one

and some in another when we all use the same things.

-

CGRP171Hardwicke &


Why does the parish have to be split -

CGRP172Hardwicke &











to the north.

-

CGRP173Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

Currently we are very detached from our governing parish. The village feel of Hunts Grove Estate is unique in the

immediate area and will grow significantly in the coming years and will eventually dwarf the two areas it currently plans

to inhabit. I feel it should have it's boundary redefined to encompass the proposed areas of land already set aside for its

development so that it becomes its own parish with the powers to make decisions for its own residents.

As Crest Nicholson plan to have a management company to manage communal areas we need to have a separate parish

to work closely with the management company for the benefit of all residents.

-

CGRP174Hardwicke &


The Hunts Grove Estate is unique and will grow rapidy in the next ten years and will eventually outnumber the current

resident inhabitants of the two parishes it currently plans to inhabit.

I feel it should have it's boundary redefined to the obvious boundaries of the M5 and railway line and include the estate

as a whole with the powers to make decisions for its own residents.

As Crest Nicholson plan to have a management company to manage communal areas we need to have a separate parish

to work closely with the management company for the benefit of all residents without having to be included within

issues for another parish.

Currently there is no natural inclusion within the village of Hardwicke as the estate is neighboured by industrial units and

a busy dual carriageway (A38) which acts as a barrier between Hardwicke village and Hunts Grove Estate.

-

CGRP175Hardwicke &


We are physically detached from our governing parish with The A38 dual carriageway making a natural boundary.

The lack of facilities in Hardwicke village make reasons to travel there non-existent. I do not describe my residency as

Hardwicke, but describe myself as a resident of Hunts Grove.

Hunts Grove Estate will grow significantly in the coming years it makes sense to split from Hardwicke Parish council and

create a new parish.

-

CGRP176Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No Yes No No Yes Yes No No No No No No










to the north.

-

CGRP177Hardwicke &











to the north.

-

CGRP179Hardwicke &


Due to the planned expansion of Hunts Grove to 6,000 residents over the coming years and the current size of Hardwicke

and Haresfield, which encompass Hunts Grove, at 3,901 and 379 residents respectively, I think Hunts Grove requires its

own parish council. The existing boundaries criss-cross through the Hunts Grove development and, as I'm sure you'll

agree, now appear illogical.

The creation of a new council would allow more residential control over spending in this area, possibly with resident

approved/run management company in place.

I've heard that it is not currently possible for Hardwicke or Haresfield parishes to use funding for Hunts Grove despite

mandatory contributions from its residents.

The new Hunts Grove parish should, at a minimum, encompass all of the current key infrastructure features, the M5

Motorway to the south, the railway to the east, the B4008 / A38 bypass to the west and the Stroud District boundary to

the north.

-

CGRP182Hardwicke &





impossible under the current arrangements.

Hunts Grove has its own identity and that is significantly different than Haresfield or Hardwicke. With more than 6,000

residents moving to Hunts Grove in the coming years, being part of Haresfield (379 residents) or Hardwicke (3,901

residents) is unsustainable from a governance perspective.



to the north

-

CGRP183Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove is a unique village which when completed will have far more residents than either of the two existing

parishes it is divided between namely Hardwicke PC and Haresfield PC. We deserve a say as to how our council tax funds

are being spent.

-

CGRP184Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove is a unique village which when completed will have far more residents than either of the two existing

parishes it is divided between namely Hardwicke PC and Haresfield PC. We deserve a say as to how our council tax funds

are being spent.

-

CGRP185Hardwicke &


Hunts Grove should have its I want parish council so that the council tax element awarded to the parish Council can be

spent in Hunts Grove, not Hardwicke and or Haresfield.

-

CGRP186Hardwicke &








Hardwicke (3901 residents) is unstantainable from a governance perspective.


M5 motorway to the south, the railway to the east, the B4008/A38 bypass to the west and the Stroud District Boundary

to the north.

-

CGRP188Hardwicke &


With the ever growing population of Hunts Grove, it’s becoming imperative that Hunts Grove has its own Parish Council

set up.

With a further 6,000 residents expected to move to the area in the coming years, the population of Hunts Grove will

eventually be larger than both Haresfield (379 residents) and Hardwicke (3,901 residents). It is therefore only right and

fair that Hunts Grove have their own Parish Council to decide how the substantial amount of money raised through

council tax is spent, and it should directly benefit those of the estate, which the current situation does not allow for. This

is democratically unjust and unsustainable given the increasing number of people living in Hunts Grove. Hunts Grove is

distinct from both Haresfield and Hardwicke, with its own identity and has different spending requirements.

I suggest that the Hunts Grove parish boundary should include at the very least least: the area contained by the current

key infrastructure features, the M5 Motorway to the south, the railway to the east, the B4008 / A38 bypass to the west

and the Stroud District boundary to the north.

-

CGRP189Hardwicke &


I believe that Hunts Grove should have their own parish council that is entirely separate from Haresfield and Hardwicke.

This new Parish council should represent Hunts Grove as its own identity rather than being split between Hardwicke and

Haresfield, allowing residents paying the parish to democratically determine the policies and funding of its own parish

council. Any tax paid by residents of Hunts Grove is spent in Hunts Grove.

Currently the situation is somewhat ridiculous and completely unjust. The parish boundaries are a zig-zag that split Hunts

Grove in two and when complete Hunts Grove will be half in Haresfield Parish and half in Hardwicke Parish. However, no

money paid by Hunts Grove residents is put towards the upkeep of our estate, so Hunts Grove residents essentially fund

the upkeep of Hardwicke and Haresfield and see no local benefit themselves.

Hunts Grove population is set to dwarf that of Haresfield and Hardwicke in the coming ten years, with more than 6,000

residents. By comparison, Haresfield has 378 and Hardwicke has 3,901. Again proving it is time Hunts Grove had their

own Parish council as residents will be putting in a huge amount of money that they will never reap the benefits of, its

completely undemocratic.

Over £55,000 has been paid by by Hunts Grove residents over to Hardwicke Parish Council since 2011. It has been used

to pay for play areas and cut the grass of that side of the village. It’s not right and needs to change now.

The parish boundaries are old and outdated, they no longer stand as they were likely drawn hundreds of years ago -

before the current features of the M5, railway line and A38 bypass were constructed - all features that define the edge of

Hunts Grove now.

-

CGRP190Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No No No No No










to the north.”

-

CGRP191Hardwicke &

HaresfieldYes No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

I believe the huntsgrove estate should be able to create its own parish council.

Currently the estate is between 2 parishes and the divide is easy to see. Also as an estate that has to pay management

fees for up keep as the council refused to adopt public spaces I believe a parish council that focused on huntsgrove would

mean the money residents paid would be put back into the neighbourhood.

-

CGRP1103Hardwicke &











to the north.

-

CGRP1105Hardwicke &

HaresfieldNo Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No No No

With the advent of so many houses and more being built, it will be only sensible to merge parts of Haresfield parish and

hardwicke parish to form Hunts Grove Parish

-

CGRP117 Hinton Yes No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

Things are fine with in the Parish as they are. Ie boundaries, names joining etc -

CGRP119 Hinton No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes As a parish councillor I see no reason or benefits to change -

CGRP126 Hinton Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes I would like it to remain unaltered -

CGRP128 Hinton Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Everything is fine as it is !!! -

CGRP1104 Longney & Epney Yes Yes No No No No No No No Yes Yes No No Yes No No No NoSmall rural community maybe would benefit from synergies of combining with other similar immediately adjacent Parish

Councils to form a larger Council body to ensure that all issues are considered in more detail, as councillors are currently

spread to thinly to address all issues with the appropriate degree of vigour.

-

CGRP130 Minchinhampton No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

the council is very happy with the boundaries as they stand. The railway line in Brimscombe forms a natural boundary

and the parish council can see no reason why that should change. However, and you would need to check on a map, we

are aware of a minor anomaly at the bottom of Scar Hill (in our Box Ward) which in fact sits - in our belief wrongly - in

Nailsworth. It is not a problem if Nailsworth wish to leave things as they are. But it may be worth while taking the

opportunity to tidy things up.

Yes. When Brimscombe and Thrupp sent out their proposed

Neighbourhood Plan questionnaires they included the estate in

our Brimscombe Ward south of the railway line. they had no right

to do that, and it might indicate that they have an ambition to

change their parish boundary to include what is in effect a

significant part of this parish, especially in terms of raising income.

We will strongly resist any attempt to alter the northern boundary

of the parish.

CGRP1109 Moreton Valence No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes We feel the status quo is suitable No

CGRP120 Painswick No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes As a Gold Standard Council it is obvious that the system in place works well. -

CGRP15 Randwick & Westrip Yes Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No YesI believe the system works well at the moment -

CGRP16 Rodborough Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No Yes No No No NoGiven the proximity of much of Rodborough to Stroud Town, I would suggest merging the urban parts of the parish to

Stroud Town Xouncil and the rural parts to join with Amberley.

-

CGRP112 Rodborough Yes No No Yes No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No

The number of parish councillors seems to be disproportionate with the size of the parish and it struggles to fill

vacancies. Constant recruitment means that valuable resources are used ineffectively.

-

CGRP122 Rodborough Yes Yes No Yes Yes No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No

Boundaries - the bottom of our parish (bath road and going into cainscross) is geographically and socially very distinct

from the (wealthier) houses up the hill, and many ppl living at the bottom of the hill would feel more aligned with the

town council or cainscross/stroud town parish councils rather than rodborough

I think a lot of resident like myself don't really know the different

between the town, district and county councils and where there

electoral area is or what they manage. I think it would be

beneficial to make these differences more clear which I think

would increase local engagement and possibly electoral turnout.

CGRP121 Slimbridge Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes None of the above - it would benefit from not having to being part of diverse catchment areas. Parish council meetings

are attended by a district councillor from Berkeley Vale and a County Councillor from Hardwicke and Severn.

-

CGRP131 Slimbridge No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Slimbridge Parish Council noted this Community Review, but had no further comments -

CGRP136 Standish No No Yes No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No

We want to increase the number of parish councillors since there have been 19 new homes built in the parish and there

are plans for an additional 153 proposed properties at Standish House and Stagholt. The electorate will more than

double, workload will increase and we want to represent new areas of the parish.

-

CGRP18 Stonehouse Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No Yes No No No No No No N/A N/A

CGRP110 Stonehouse Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No To save money. -

CGRP113 Stonehouse Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No NoI wonder if the significant housing development between Stonehouse and the M5 [around Nupend, etc.,] should really

be part of Stonehouse - but I understand that it is in the parish of Eastington.

-

CGRP1112 Stonehouse Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No NoMerge all of them and become a unitary authority Why is this hidden of buckface and nit communicated to

residents?

CGRP111 Stroud Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes Scrap the district council, Gloucestershire county to become unity authority and town council left as it is -

CGRP115 Stroud Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes I believe the current arrangement works well. -

CGRP1106 Stroud Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

I have heard no discussion or debate in my community that indicates that any changes need making.

Paganhill, where I live, is close to all services. If it receives less from the Town Council compared to other areas then that

is because we are not being served well enough by our elected representatives, and residents are not involving them

sufficiently.

The new Paganhill Community Group (soon to become a PCG CIC) is a group I believe will stir the community and I would

like to see the support of all the councillors for the group and its activities.

I would like Paganhill to remain part of STC, which I think is an

active council with excellent policies that reflect the characteristic

of the town. It has dynamic policies that I hope will help to make it

a resilient town.

CGRP1107 Stroud Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No

Cainscross Council is nearer the Paganhill/Farmhill area in which I live.

It is said by longer-term and more knowledgeable residents that that our area would benefit from moving to Cainscross

council - it is already in that parish.

No other comments.

CGRP1108 Stroud Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No No No -

CGRP1100 Uley No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes After due consideration, the Parish Council agreed that there is no need for any of the above changes -

CGRP13Whiteshill &

RuscombeYes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

It seems fine as it is. -

CGRP14Whiteshill &


Options too unspecific for decisions .

Each has serious implications

-

CGRP19Whiteshill &


More waste of public money -

CGRP127Whiteshill &

RuscombeNo No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

Whiteshill and Ruscombe parish Council have considered the Governance review and wish for Whiteshill and Ruscombe

Parish to remain as it is with no changes. this is so that it does not become absorbed in Stroud Town, but remains its own

parish with green borders.

-

CGRP123 Whitminster Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes Yes Yes Yes No Yes No No A parish should be able to make its own localised decisions as per the wishes of its residence. -

CGRP125 Whitminster Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No Yes

See comments below I’ve only contracted them once about a noise nuisance and I was

really upset by their lack of understanding and their general

response. They could have helped direct my query much better

(even if it wasn’t a matter they could take full ownership of) and as

result I’ve lost a lot of faith in the whole team

However, I did eventually get hold of someone at Stroud Council

who is really helping

CGRP118 Woodchester No No Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No YesCouncillors agree that the current arrangements work well in the Parish and see no reason why that need change over

the next 10-15 years.

-

CGRP116 Wotton-under-Edge Yes No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No No YesMaintain the status quo -

CGRP142 Wotton-under-Edge No No Yes No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No

Wotton Town Council was split a few years ago to become warded - this was to satisfy district warding numbers.

However this is unsustainable and has led to problems with elections in Wotton, since the small one councillor warded

parish comprises only about 100 residents the majority of whom are in an elderly care home. The situation needs to

return to same as previously ie no warding in the town council at all for town councillors in the parish of Wotton.

Furthermore 13 councillors currently is adequate for Wotton.

Town Councillors have no desire to merge town boundaries with adjacent parishes.

-

emery, hannah - stroud district council elections · eastington parish council (november 2018) page...

Documents