berryfield and semington road action group (basrag) response … · 2019-06-03 · berryfield and...

Berryfield and Semington Road Action Group (BASRAG)

Response to Boundary Commission proposals for new electoral arrangements

for Wiltshire.

BASRAG was formed in 2003 with the following aims

“to improve the quality of life of people living in the Berryfield and Semington

Road area and to enhance community spirit through involvement in social,

economic, environmental and cultural issues.”

In support of these aims BASRAG will undertake to

Develop the community’s needs as identified through consultation

Arrange social events

Access funding for consultation and social activities

Carry out activities which meet the main aims of the Group as the Group

shall from time to time determine

(BASRAG terms of reference)

BASRAG holds regular open meetings and distributes a newsletter at least

quarterly per year. Officers and committee members are elected at an AGM

although committee members may be co‐opted during the year. BASRAG is

open to all residents in the area and seeks to represent the majority view of

the community.

Electoral Equality

The joint proposal of Wiltshire Council, Melksham Without Parish Council and

Melksham Town Council for the divisions of the LGBCE number 45,46,47,48,49

& 50 show a much better equality, with each Wiltshire Councillor representing

a similar number of voters and a better split between the urban and rural than

the LGBCE proposal; therefore BASRAG support the proposals for Division

boundaries put forward by Wiltshire Council, Melksham Without Parish Council

and Melksham Town Council.

With regard to the resulting parish warding suggested by LGBCE, BASRAG

support the proposals put forward by Melksham Without Parish Council as

these show much better representation of electorate per councillor. BASRAG

support Melksham Without Parish Council and the Boundary Commission

allocation of 2 councillors per ward for Melksham Without Berryfield.

Community Identity

Berryfield and Semington Road has always had a distinct identity from the

town of Melksham, influenced by the development of the Wilts and Berks

Canal and married quarters for the Royal Air Force training establishment at

Bowerhill. Separated from Melksham town by the Western Way Bypass and

surrounded by farmland it has a rural aspect and therefore supports being

placed in a division with other rural villages and communities.

Effective Local Goverment

BASRAG suoport the names put forward by Melksham Without Parish Council

and not those proposed by Melksham Town Council and Wiltshire Council.

These are for both proposals of the LGBCE if they are minded to pursue their

proposal, and that of the divisions put forward by Wiltshire Council, Melksham

Without Parish Council, and Melksham Town Council. They also support the

names of the parish wards as proposed by Melksham Without Parish Council,

and particularly that impacting on Berryfield and Semington Road namely:‐

Division 45: Melksham Without West & Rural.

Response from Bowerhill Residents Action Group to Local Government

Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) for Wiltshire Council boundary

review consultation

Bowerhill Residents Action Group (BRAG) formed in 2008 from an amalgamation of Bowerhill

Residents Association and Bowerhill Action Group. The group has a Constitution and its aims are to

provide a means of discovering the needs of the Bowerhill residents and representing them to

official bodies and to increase awareness of future developments within the community. For

example, within the last year we have held public meetings so that residents can meet the

developers of housing in a new part of the estate and put forward their concerns and issues; we

have arranged litter picks over the estate and have recruited volunteers to litter pick their area all

year round and to look after the Bowerhill picnic area. We have also entered Bowerhill into the

CPRE Best Kept Village Competition and came joint 2nd for our area. We also work with the Parish

Council and Wiltshire Council in highlighting any issues brought to our attention by residents.

BRAG has an elected Committee and these following views were agreed by the committee during

our last meeting. We were given a copy of the “Wiltshire Council Draft recommendations on the

new electoral arrangements” and representatives from Wiltshire Council and Melksham Without

Parish Council showed, with the use of a map, the LGBCE recommendations and what the Councils’

views were. We understand that you are looking for new arrangements to deliver: ‐

Electoral Equality

Community Identity

Effective and convenient local government

Electoral Equality The joint proposal of Wiltshire Council, Melksham Without Parish Council and Melksham Town Council for the divisions the LGBCE number 45, 46, 47, 48, 49 & 50 show a much better equality, with each Wiltshire Councillor representing a similar number of voters, and a better split between the rural and urban areas than the LGBCE proposal; therefore BRAG support the proposals for Division boundaries put forward by Wiltshire Council, Melksham Without Parish Council and Melksham Town Council.

With regards to the resulting parish warding suggested by LGBCE, BRAG support the proposals put forward by Melksham Without parish council as these show much better representation of electorate per councillor; namely:

Proposal for the number of parish councillors per ward: ‐ Melksham Without Berryfield LGBCE: 2 councillors MWPC: 2 councillors Melksham Without Bowerhill LGBCE: 8 councillors ) MWPC: 8 councillors Melksham Without Sandridge LGBCE: 1 councillor ) Melksham Without Whitley LGBCE: 2 councillors MWPC: 3 councillors Number of electors represented by parish councillor: Melksham Without Berryfield LGBCE: 491 MWPC: 491 Melksham Without Bowerhill LGBCE: 434 MWPC: 517 Melksham Without Sandridge LGBCE: 660 MWPC: 517 Melksham Without Whitley LGBCE: 715 MWPC: 477

Community Identity An additional 447 dwellings planned for “Melksham East” will be in addition to the 800 dwellings built over the last few years. The residents of these new houses, still to be built, need cohesive and strong civic leadership with one Wiltshire Councillor, and not split as per the LGBCE proposal with the 447 dwellings grouped in with the very separate community of Bowerhill. These 447 dwellings do not have a community link with those who live in Bowerhill; which the LGBCE proposal puts together within the same division. Bowerhill was built on the historic site of the 1940s RAF School of Technical Training and the RAF housing remains, as do the married quarters in the neighbouring village of Berryfield. The hangers and other RAF buildings are now used commercially as part of Bowerhill Industrial Estate. Accessed from the A365, this Bowerhill community has no identity ties with the new 447 dwellings being built in the east, the other side of the A365. In fact, in BRAG’s Constitution, Bowerhill (residential) is defined as the area of land bounded to the north by the A365 Melksham to Devizes road, bounded to the South by the old railway line, bounded to the West by the Bowerhill Industrial Estate and bounded to the East by the boundary of Bowerhill Lane. It does have a good connection with the 235 houses currently being built at Pathfinder Way with the planning officer, developers, residents and parish council clearly viewing this development as being the entrance to the Bowerhill residential area. Plans for some of the public art contribution through the Section 106 legal agreement are to mark the entrance with some gates and the historic gate badge to acknowledge the history of this site. Whilst this development will be new housing, it does not have a cohesive link with the 447 dwellings being built in the east; but is very firmly rooted in Bowerhill. All the roads in Bowerhill, both residential and industrial are named after RAF planes (Hurricane, Halifax, Lancaster), bases such as Duxford, Manston, and figures such as Dowding, Trenchard and Ludlow Hewitt; the roads in the new housing development are named after Air Vice Marshalls etc, such as Chamier who founded the ATC (to reflect the request of the ATC squadron based in Bowerhill). The community has its own primary school and several pre‐schools, and the residents of the new housing development will be contributing to a new primary school within the site under the Section 106 agreement. There is a multitude of clubs and societies run from Bowerhill Village hall including its own Scout Group and the successful picnic area we run adjacent to the Kennet & Avon canal, which consistently wins “outstanding” in the annual RHS “It’s your neighbourhood” competition as part of the Britain in Bloom campaign. Bowerhill has two play areas run by the parish council, and its own sports field (originally the RAF playing field) which has room for 5 football pitches and has its own sports pavilion with changing rooms. Those residents to the east have their own playing field, next to the new Forest & Sandridge school as well as shops and a pub. Bowerhill has its own shop and hairdresser/beauty salon, aptly named “The Base”, and pub, aptly named “The Pilot”. This strong sense of identity and community would mean that the voices of those in the new 447 dwellings to the east would be lost and underrepresented if in the same Wiltshire Council division. As per the LGBCE technical guidance the community of Bowerhill is very clearly “defined and distinct from others”.

Effective local government BRAG supports the names of divisions put forward by Melksham Without Parish Council and not those proposed by Melksham Town Council and Wiltshire Council. These are for both the proposals of the LGBCE if they are minded to pursue their proposal, and that of the divisions put forward by Wiltshire Council/Melksham Without Parish Council and Melksham Town Council. They also support the names of the parish wards as proposed by Melksham Without Parish Council, namely:

For the Wiltshire Council proposed scheme, MWPC recommends the following names:

Division 45: Melksham Without West & Rural (to give a compass name to this division in line with the other Melksham divisions)

Division 46: Melksham Without South (as existing name)

Division 47: Melksham East (Melksham Without Parish Council rejects the name proposed by Melksham Town Council and Wiltshire Council of “Melksham Sandridge” as the name Sandridge only relates to Sandridge Road in the division which leads to the settlement of Sandridge which is in the parish of Melksham Without)

Division 48: Melksham Forest & Central (Melksham Without Parish Council requests the addition of “Central” to give a compass name to this division in line with the other Melksham divisions)

Division 49: Melksham Without North & Shurnhold (as existing name with the addition of Shurnhold)

Division 50: Melksham South (Melksham Without Parish Council rejects the name proposed by Melksham Town Council and Wiltshire Council of “Melksham Spa” as the name “Spa” only relates to Spa Road in the division which leads to the settlement of The Spa which is in the parish of Melksham Without).

For the LGBCE proposed scheme, MWPC recommends the following names:

Division 45: Melksham Berryfield & Rural : Melksham Without West & Rural

Division 46: Melksham Bowerhill : Bowerhill (Bowerhill is not part of the town of Melksham)

Division 47: Melksham East : Melksham Sandridge (to reflect the settlement of Sandridge in the division)

Division 48: Melksham Forest : Melksham Forest & Central

Division 49: Melksham North: South Brook & Melksham Avonside (to reflect the river valley names that Wiltshire Council have proposed elsewhere)

Division 50: Melksham South : Melksham South

For the changed parish wards, MWPC recommends the following names:

Melksham Without (Berryfield) : No change

Melksham Without (Bowerhill) : No change

Melksham Without (Sandridge) : No change

Melksham Without (Whitley) : Beanacre, Shaw & Whitley (as existing)

Pauline Helps

(Secretary, Bowerhill Residents Action Group)

1

Owen, David

From:Sent: 12 March 2019 13:12To: reviewsSubject: Re Box and Colerne Ward, North Wilts Constituency

Dear Sirs, I write on behalf of the Colerne Neighbourhood Plan Group concerning your intention to change the name of our Ward from Box and Colerne to Box. Colerne is itself designated a Large Village, with a population of approximately 3,000, and Box is a similar size. Geographically, although the villages are less than 2 miles apart,as the crow flies, we are separated by a double dip slope that ensures Box exists in a very different valley to that viewed from Colerne Village or its two connected hamlets. There are only two narrow tracks connecting us directly with the Box valley. Culturally this has meant that direct connections, including clubs, societies and transport do not exist,and the communities share only the same Councillor and Local Authority. The residents actually travel towards Bristol and Bath when they leave for work and many would have no reason to relate to Box at all. I would like to suggest that reducing the Ward title to “Box” could actually have a detrimental effect on democracy in this area, leading many people to believe that our current Councillor no longer represents our village. Colerne is a very distinct parish right on the border of three Local Authorities, and yet not on any major road network. As the renaming is supposed to reflect community interests and identities, I am clear that removing Colerne from the title is NOT a reflection of those factors. The neighbourhood Plan Group has been working in depth on local issues for the past two years, and nowhere in the course of that work has a closer connection with Box arisen! Please accept this email as our unanimous disapproval of this change. Jane Mellett Chair of CNPSG.

A far better solution would be to retain a single Malmesbury Division representing all the

currently-built areas of the town. I understand that that this will mean the number of voters

in this Division will exceed the normal upper limit of voters permitted by the Commission by

a small amount. However, there are precedents for this and the arguments for community

cohesion and effective and efficient governance warrant such an exception.

I hope you will consider my comments, as I cannot express enough our opposition to this

proposal.

Yours faithfully

Laurence Mussett

Chair of Governors

Malmesbury Church of England Primary School

1

Owen, David

From:Sent: 25 March 2019 12:56To: reviewsCc:Subject: Objection to changes to Malmesbury's electoral boundaries

To Whom it May Concern Re: Proposed changes to Malmesbury’s Electoral Boundaries I am writing in my capacity as Chair of Malmesbury Town Team. Our remit is to enhance the quality of services in the town, strengthen the retail offer, maximize visitor footfall, promote and advance the vitality and vibrancy of commerce, culture, community life, recreation, and tourism. The Wiltshire Council representative for Malmesbury is a member of the Town Team and plays a vital role linking our work with the wider issues of the Town as well as being our voice and contact at County level. Under the new arrangements, this councillor would represent the majority (but not all!) of the population of the Town but not the commercial and cultural centre of the Town, which is the very thing we are promoting. It is unlikely that a Sherston Division Councillor for whom the centre of Malmesbury is less than 10% of their largely rural, dispersed division would have the capacity and focus to commit their resources to supporting the work of the Town Team in the way that a Malmesbury Division Councillor would. The interests of businesses on our High Street and neighbouring areas, and those of our major visitor attractions of the Athelstan Museum, the Abbey and Abbey House Gardens would no longer be the concern of the Wiltshire Councillor for the new Malmesbury Division. It makes no sense for the work we carry out in promoting the Town not to be under the care of the Malmesbury Division Councillor. As an example, car parking is a key issue for visitors and local people alike and so is a major consideration for the Town Team. The recent issue of Sunday car parking charges would, under the proposed arrangements, be dealt with by not one but potentially two Wiltshire Councillors. Specifically, the parking in the very centre of the Town, Cross Hayes Car Park, would not be covered by the Malmesbury Division Councillor. In terms of coherent and effective governance, this makes no sense. Liaison with Wiltshire Council on planning matters, promotion of tourism and commerce, other public services and other important matters is best served by having a single voice from our Town to Wiltshire Council and vice versa. I cannot stress enough how this proposal make no sense at all and is disastrous in terms of the Town Team’s work; it separates a population from the centre of its community. We would urge you to reconsider and accept the proposal from Malmesbury Town Council to place the proposed Backbridge Farm development into the Sherston Division. Yours faithfully Sarah Wilde Chair‐ Malmesbury Town Team

1

Owen, David

From:Sent: 23 March 2019 12:27To: reviewsSubject: Malmesbury proposed boundary changes

To Whom it May Concern

Re: Proposed changes to Malmesbury’s Electoral Boundaries

I am writing in my capacity as Trustee of Malmesbury Town Team and resident. Our remit is to enhance the quality of

services in the town, strengthen the retail offer, maximize visitor footfall, promote and advance the vitality and

vibrancy of commerce, culture, community life, recreation, and tourism.

The Wiltshire Council representative for Malmesbury is a member of the Town Team and plays a vital role linking our

work with the wider issues of the Town as well as being our voice and contact at County level. Under the new

arrangements, this councillor would represent the majority (but not all!) of the population of the Town but not the

commercial and cultural centre of the Town, which is the very thing we are promoting.

It is unlikely that a Sherston Division Councillor for whom the centre of Malmesbury is less than 10% of their largely

rural, dispersed division would have the capacity and focus to commit their resources to supporting the work of the

Town Team in the way that a Malmesbury Division Councillor would. The interests of businesses on our High Street

and neighbouring areas, and those of our major visitor attractions of the Athelstan Museum, the Abbey and Abbey

House Gardens would no longer be the concern of the Wiltshire Councillor for the new Malmesbury Division. Liaison

with Wiltshire Council on planning matters, promotion of tourism and commerce, other public services and other

important matters is best served by having a single voice from our Town to Wiltshire Council and vice versa.

I cannot stress enough how this proposal make no sense at all and is disastrous in terms of the Town Team’s work; it

separates a population from the centre of its community. We would urge you to reconsider and accept the proposal

from Malmesbury Town Council to place the proposed Backbridge Farm development into the Sherston Division.

Yours faithfully

Gordon MacPherson

Member Malmesbury Town Team

Gordon MacPherson

2

______________________________________________________________________ This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______________________________________________________________________

3 April 2019

The Review Officer (Wiltshire), Local Government Boundary Commission for England Dear Sir,

Electoral Boundary Changes / Malmesbury On behalf of Malmesbury Civic Trust, I wish to object strongly to the Boundary Commission’s proposed changes to the local Electoral Divisions. Malmesbury’s historic core lies on a headland between two rivers, so has expanded westward and northward, giving the community an asymmetrical shape. Thus, the social, commercial, spiritual and administrative centre lies in the south‐east corner of the roughly rectangular parish with residential areas progressively newer to the west and north. The geographical centre is NOT the centre of the community and the proposed boundary will split the actual centre from its associated community, to the severe detriment of both by destroying community cohesion: an effective decapitation. In addition, the Town has a considerable and historically valuable Conservation Area, in which most buildings are listed Grade II or higher. The proposed boundary change cuts this in two so that its management will be shared between two County Councillors, making this aspect of good governance more difficult to achieve. Malmesbury Civic Trust fully supports the alternative proposals by Malmesbury and Wiltshire Councils, that dwellings west of Tetbury Hill would most fruitfully be assigned to the Sherston Electoral Division, notably the yet‐to‐be‐built Backbridge Development, comprising 201 dwellings but having limited connectivity to Historic Malmesbury. This should provide enough voters to balance the requirements of the Electoral Divisions. The older properties accessed from Tetbury Hill, such as Tetbury Hill Gardens, identify with, and should remain as, Malmesbury. At some time in the foreseeable future, a review of Parish Boundaries will be made. To re‐draw the electoral boundary in the way proposed by the Commission would provide a dangerous precedent and jeopardise the sustainable future of the ancient town and its environs. It must not happen. Yours faithfully, Barry Dent, Chairman, Malmesbury Civic Trust.

2/11/2019 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/15786 1/1

Wiltshire

Personal Details:

Name: Dawn Wilson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Pewsey Community Area Partnership

Comment text:

Please see the attached. As a resident of Pewsey Vale I support the addition of contiguous parishesto enable us to retain the 3 wards across the Vale of Pewsey.

Uploaded Documents:

Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download document?file=draft%2F1549639064 Boundary+Consultation+Reply.docx)

PCAP includes the parishes of

Alton, Beechingstoke, Burbage, Buttermere, Charlton and Wilsford, Chirton & Conock, Easton, Grafton, Great

Bedwyn, Ham, Little Bedwyn, Manningford, Marden, Milton Lilbourne, North Newnton, Patney, Pewsey,

Rushall, Shalbourne, Stanton St Bernard, Upavon, Wilcot and Huish (with Oare), Woodborough, Wootton Rivers

www.pewseycap.org.uk

www.facebook.com/pewseycap

@pewseycap

To Whom it May Concern RE: Electoral Review of Wiltshire Council - Area Boards/Pewsey Vale On behalf of Pewsey Community Area Partnership (PCAP), we would like to submit a representation regarding the electoral review and possible changes to electoral divisions. The parishes that make up the Pewsey Vale hope that we remain as an effective, successful and cohesive community and electoral unit, represented by our own Ward Councillor. PCAP is representative of the Pewsey Vale in that we are available to represent the three Proposed wards: Pewsey Vale East, Pewsey Vale West and Pewsey, which are spread over many square miles. Like the other 30 odd villages and hamlets making up the 26 or so parishes across the Pewsey Vale divisions, we are rural, disparate but united by common characteristics – not just our uniquely rural topography. Much of The Pewsey Vale is designated as a Conservation area and sit within the North Wessex Downs AONB. There are sites of archeological, historical and environmental significance. Visit Pewsey Vale, a sister organisation, is a partnership that represents the economic aspects of the Vale of Pewsey with some considerable success. It has forged links with Visit Wiltshire and the NWDAONB and Great Western Railway and a brand identity that is becoming widely recognised. Changing the boundaries might seem like just redrawing the lines on a map but it has a profound impact on those who live and work there and how they identify their sense of “place”. No-one in Pewsey would consider that they were part of Marlborough Downs or Devizes. They are the wooded “Vale” and its surrounding chalkland hills. The member parishes and electorate share common concerns and interests regarding tourism, transport links, youth services, health and well-being and the elderly; activities for all ages in the communities, upkeep of roads and verges, the environment and rural policing – to name but a few. The Vale of Pewsey community area has two railway stations at Pewsey and Great Bedwyn yet the Unitary Council didn’t even mention these in the Core Strategy! It was down to our local rural partnerships to again take up the banner and fight for better services, most effectively I might add. This work is now under threat. The Pewsey Community Area Partnership (PCAP) was part of Wiltshire becoming a Unitary Council process in 2009 and represents the voice of the community at the local level. Pewsey Vale has one of the most successful areas of active partnerships. The PCAP meetings are regularly and fully attended by parish representatives and our extremely effective Wiltshire County Councillor, who understand their value. Our Area Board meetings with the Unitary Councillors are also fully attended in their rotating locations across the Vale, as are Community Area Transport Group (CATG) meetings. The Pewsey Community Area which covers the whole of the Vale of Pewsey, considers itself fortunate not to have a town at its centre and is proud to be the only area in Wiltshire that does not. We have witnessed the dysfunctional, political infighting that takes place where Town Councils and smaller Parish Councils compete to engage with the Unitary might of a larger collection of Area Board Councillors promoting the Cabinets agenda. The solutions for

PCAP includes the parishes of

Alton, Beechingstoke, Burbage, Buttermere, Charlton and Wilsford, Chirton & Conock, Easton, Grafton, Great

Bedwyn, Ham, Little Bedwyn, Manningford, Marden, Milton Lilbourne, North Newnton, Patney, Pewsey,

Rushall, Shalbourne, Stanton St Bernard, Upavon, Wilcot and Huish (with Oare), Woodborough, Wootton Rivers

www.pewseycap.org.uk

www.facebook.com/pewseycap

@pewseycap

a market town are not necessarily the solutions for a rural parish. That is not a fate we wish to contemplate. It is inconceivable that we could be as well represented if our electoral division was enlarged. Likewise, as rural parishes, we would be far less likely to be able to represent ourselves at important meetings such as Area Board and CATG if distances increased. This affirms section 4.20 of the Electoral Reviews Technical Guidance (April 2014) which emphasises, ‘the representational role of councillors in the local community and how they engage with people, conduct casework and represent the council on local partner organisations’. Even if we were ever to lose our current representative, we would presume that any future councillor would be less likely to give us such outstanding support should divisions alter and distances expand even further. We noted with interest that section 4.58 (of the same document) states, ‘some argue that rural areas should have proportionally more councillors as populations are more dispersed and harder to contact’ – which we would agree with. However, the document then suggests that, ‘increasing use of electronic communications methods generally makes no distinction between urban and rural areas’. Email is clearly extremely useful but we refute a reliance on electronic communications. We need our Councillor to be available in person providing the increasingly important link between our rural community parishes and the Council. We agree with how the section concludes: ‘However, there may be exceptions where local characteristics, including topography, lead to an acceptance of a particular variance in electoral ratio for one or more wards’. Furthermore, we feel that we already suffer disproportionately because we are not along the A350/303 corridors where the majority of the Unitary Councils ambitions lie. Yet Pewsey Vale will feel the significant impact of the Army Rebasing because this is where many will choose to live either during their careers or when they retire, regardless of what the planners choose to believe. We believe Pewsey Vale is a notable and allowable exception to the recently updated average elector to councillor ratio of 4291. In Pewsey Vale our ratio is forecast an increase to 3765 (from 3539 conservatively) – we are closing the gap! Given the disparate nature of our parishes, topography, common rural interests, hugely successful existing partnerships and our excellent, practicable working relationship with our Councillors, we beg that you consider our case for remaining as one cohesive and effective electoral unit and preventing distances that would be unmanageable for all those concerned. We therefore support the addition of some contiguous parishes to enable us to remain the successful collective of rural parishes and wards that we are. Yours sincerely, Dawn Wilson Chair of PCAP



Wiltshire

Personal Details:

Name: Tony Clark

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Pickwick Association

Comment text:

The Pickwick Association is a community group which represents the interests of the residents of Pickwick,on the outskirts of Corsham, Wiltshire. The Association has considered the boundary changesrecommended by the Commission and is concerned that A4 boundary proposed between the wards ofCorsham Pickwick and Corsham Town is inappropriate. Our comments are contained in the attacheddocument. Please give our views due consideration. Sincerely, Tony Clark, Vice Chairman.

Uploaded Documents:

Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download document?file=draft%2F1550743747 Submission+to+Local+Government+Boundary+Commission+for+England+-+proposed+Corshm+Pickwick+boundary.pdf)

The Pickwick Association

Local Government Boundary Commission for England: proposals for Wiltshire Unitary Authority

Submission by the Pickwick Association on the proposed boundary for the Corsham Pickwick Ward

The Pickwick Association is a local residents’ group which represents the interests of the residents of Pickwick on matters of mutual interest. We are concerned solely with one aspect of the recommended divisions’ boundaries contained in the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s electoral review of Wiltshire Council. That concerns the proposed boundary along the A4 road. The Commission’s proposals would split the village of Pickwick between two wards and, therefore, two Councillors thereby diluting the ability of either to properly represent our residents.

With respect, we suggest amending the Commission’s proposals as regards the A4 boundary as indicated

below.

The Commission’s proposals

The Commission proposes to amend the Corsham Pickwick ward boundary as follows:-

Our proposal

The Georgian village of Pickwick straddles the A4 and extends north to the 1751 Chippenham/Bath coach

road. We have no difficulty with the northern aspect of the Commission’s proposals.

The southern boundary of the village, however, should be incorporated within the same ward as the rest of

the village.

The 1900 map of Pickwick (below left) clearly shows the settlement. The present area of Pickwick Village is

shown below right.

Whilst post-war development has filled the fields between Pickwick Village and Corsham, the identity of the

Pickwick community remains unchanged. The dwellings on either side of the A4 are part of the same

community. We request that they be treated as such by the Commission.

Hence we request that the Commission revise its proposed boundary of the Corsham Pickwick ward along

the A4 in accordance with the plan below.

Sincerely

David Taylor (Chairman, Pickwick Association)

Tony Clark (Vice Chairman, Pickwick Association)

Response to LGBCE proposals for new electoral boundaries for Wiltshire on behalf of both CAWS and Shaw Village Hall Committee Background of the respondents CAWS (Community Action: Whitley & Shaw) CAWS was set up n 2015 to g ve a vo ce to the res dents of Shaw & Wh t ey v ages n the par sh of Me ksham W thout. Funded part a y by a MWOPC grant, the e ected comm ttee has a const tut on and meets month y. S nce t s ncept on CAWS has:

• Fathered the CEG (Commun ty Emergency Group) wh ch prov des a fast response to oca emergenc es nc ud ng f ood ng and natura d sasters.

• Coord nated responses to oca p ann ng app cat ons where those proposed deve opments wou d have an mpact on oca fe.

• Entered both v ages nto the Best Kept V ages compet t on. • Coord nated regu ar tter p cks. • Adopted the two d sused BT phone Boxes n the v ages and are n the process of convert ng them nto

a brary and museum. • Staged over 10 commun ty events nc ud ng 4 v age fa rs. • Supported Shaw Pr mary Schoo at the r events.

Shaw Village Hall Committee The current Shaw V age Ha was constructed n 1976 however the comm ttee was formed n 1962. S nce then they have acted as custod ans of the v age ha and the p ay ng f e d where t s ocated. The ha s funded part a y by a MWOPC grant, the e ected comm ttee has a const tut on and meets month y. The fac t es are hosts to a number of commun ty act v t es nc ud ng:

• Shaw Pr mary Pre-Schoo • Fr endsh p C ub • WI • V age fa rs and events • Footba and W tsh re Counc Fun n the Sun events • Pr vate h re of the ha for part es and c asses such as Yoga and P ates

CAWS and Shaw Village Hall Committees response to the proposals Community Identity The committees on behalf of the communities that they represent feel that the LGBCE proposal, whilst keeping the numbers of electorate proportionate between the divisions, does not give those electorate fair representation. The W tsh re Counc proposed “Me ksham North” d v s on has the e ectorate res dents of the rura v ages of Shaw, Wh t ey and Beanacre w th the adjacent urban areas of Shurnho d and the new hous ng deve opment of George Ward Gardens, who together do have a cohes ve commun ty, examp es of th s nc ude:

• Res dents of Shurnho d and George Ward Gardens to send the r ch dren to Shaw pr mary schoo , the pre-schoo run at Shaw V age Ha and the todd er group at Wh t ey Read ng Rooms. The p ay ng f e d at Shaw s a so where the younger ch dren and footba ers congregate from that area.

• O der res dents part c pate n events he d at Shaw V age ha (fr endsh p c ub, soc a events), Wh t ey Read ng Rooms (yoga, art c asses, mob e brary), Wh t ey Method st Church (commun ty café, book swop), Shaw Church and St Barnabas Church n Beanacre.

• Adu ts tend to congregate at the Pear Tree pub and Toast Off ce (post off ce, commun ty shop and censed café) n Wh t ey and Lowdens and The Go den F eece n Shaw.

• The jo nt project of Me ksham Town Counc (MTC) and MWPC to take over the former George Ward schoo p ay ng f e ds (now known as “Shurnho d F e ds”) and turn nto a m n country park has ntegrated th s commun ty further w th a new vo unteer group be ng formed “Fr ends of Shurnho d F e ds” w th members of both the v ages of Shaw and Wh t ey, p ann ng and work ng a ongs de the ex st ng res dents of Shurnho d and Dunch Lane and m x ng we w th the res dents of the very new y bu t George Ward Gardens. Th s group has had representat ves from both MTC and MWPC, CAWS (Commun ty Act on: Wh t ey & Shaw), Shaw Church w th res dents of Dunch Lane and George Ward

1

Owen, David

From:Sent: 10 April 2019 14:53To: reviewsSubject: Objection to Proposed Local Authority Boundary Changes, Froxfield

I am emailing on behalf of the Trustees of the Duchess of Somerset’s Hospital, Froxfield, to formally lodge an objection to the proposed Local Authority boundary changes. The changes will have a significant effect on the way Froxfield is represented at both local and Wiltshire County levels. Additionally, the changes will take no account of historic connections of the areas affected and we would strongly object to the boundaries being redrawn to remove us from the Diocese of Salisbury. We wish to remain with the parishes of Ramsbury, Axford, Chilton Foliat, Baydon and Aldbourne so as not to sever our historical and parochial connections between these villages and as part of the Whitton Benefice. The Duchess of Somerset’s Hospital is an Almshouse Charity providing affordable housing to 49 single ladies. It has been in existence since 1696 and the Trustees and residents of the ‘College’ as it is fondly known would very much like to continue to be represented by Parish Councillors from the Marlborough Area and for Froxfield to remain linked with Ramsbury and Aldbourne. Thankyou for your kind consideration of this email. For and on behalf of the Trustees, Yours sincerely Laurie Caterer (Mrs) Steward



Wiltshire

Personal Details:

Name: Margaret Lamb

E-mail: [email protected]

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Warden and Freemen of Malmesbury

Comment text:

We are writing to express the concerns of The Warden and Freemen of Malmesbury re the changesto Malmesbury's Electoral Boundaries. Our views are exactly in line with those expressed byMalmesbury Town Council. We are completely against the plan on the following grounds 1. We ownconsiderable property in the heart of Malmesbury and are concerned that the proposal effectivelyremoves the historic,cultural, retail and religious sectors of Malmesbury from the MalmesburyDivision and places them in the Sherston Division. This effectively splits in half one of the oldestBoroughs in England. On ground level this makes little sense to the people of the town who seethemselves as all belonging to Malmesbury. 2. We are concerned that this would dilute the voice ofMalmesbury at Wiltshire Council level with no single point of contact for Malmesbury in WiltshireCouncil. 3. Key interests of businesses and our major visitor attractions would no longer be theconcern of the Wiltshire Councillor for Malmesbury. 4. We are currently working jointly on many keyprojects to promote the town such as the creation of a statue to King Athelstan, the VirtualMalmesbury project under the auspices of the Town team and MTC - these and other significantprojects would suffer from not being under the care of the Malmesbury Division Councillor. Wewould like you to re examine the proposal and try and find a way to retain a single MalmesburyDivision representing all the currently built up areas of the town. We recognise that the maths maynot exactly fit the history of our town but a somewhat clumsy divide we fear makes little sense andwill have a negative impact. Could we suggest that you look at the area historically defined by theancient town walls as being the centre of Malmesbury and then work out in concentric circles fromthe Town Wall until you have roughly the right amount of electors. Some of the more outlying areasof Malmesbury and new/yet to be built developments would then be re-aligned to the SherstonDivision. This proposal more accurately recognises Malmesbury's history and the importance of itshistoric centre.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded