Agenda item

To consider responses to the consultation on the Draft Recommendations for the Community Governance Review 2023/24.

Public Participation

There were no registered speakers.

 

The Chairman provided details of the background of the ongoing Community Governance Review and presented a report on the consultation on the Draft Recommendations which took place from 12 February to 18 March 2024, and was then extended until 28 March 2024, which included a public meeting for the Mere and Zeals area.

 

For each recommendation the Chairman along with officers presented summaries of the responses to the consultation and issues that had been raised, before the Committee discussed the available options and determined what action to take.

 

Recommendation 1 – Mere/Zeals

Recommendation 1 had proposed changes to the boundary of Zeals Parish Council and Mere Town Council, to transfer a triangular field area which currently sat within Zeals, between the B3092 & A303 slip road, to Mere.

 

The site contained an area of land which had planning permission for business use, the Hill Brush Factory and Visit Hillbrush visit centre and one dwelling. There was also planning permission for a 70-bed care home on the site.

 

The Committee discussed their draft recommendation in the context of the representations which had been received.

 

It was noted that no response had been received from the resident of the single dwelling within the area of land it was proposed be transferred.

 

In discussion the Committee considered that it continued to believe that, on balance, the electors within triangular area which included a dwelling and permission for a 70-bed care home would most likely identify with the community of Mere than to Zeals, given its proximity and position on the in-road to Mere and access to the services and facilities there.

 

The Committee noted that people living in the areas under review tend to consider where they live based on features on the ground, such as street lighting. The site in question was a good example of this as heading out of Mere towards Zeals, street lighting stop after the site, which supported by representations, gave the impression that the site was already a part of Mere.

 

Considering all of the responses, and noting the vibrant public interaction received from Zeals and Mere residents and the parish and town councils during the review, the character of the area, lying between two main roads and on the historic approach into the town, whose built up area was adjoining the site, the Committee agreed that the draft recommendation met the statutory criteria and therefore upheld its recommendation.

 

Recommendation 2 – North Bradley

Recommendation 2 had proposed a change to the boundary of North Bradley Parish Council and Trowbridge Town Council, to transfer an area south of the A363, where existing properties accessed from Woodmarsh/Westbury Road were transferred to North Bradley, leaving the incoming expansion of housing and the open space which formed part of the development, with the town.

 

The Committee considered the consultation responses, which were all in agreement.

 

There had been no direct response from the Parish or Town Council during the consultation, however the Committee noted that the proposal had come from the Town council.

 

The Committee also discussed a proposed amendment which had been submitted in response to the consultation, which proposed moving the boundary line to incorporate part of the open space linked to the new housing development, from Trowbridge into North Bradley. The Committee had considered this option when making the draft recommendation and had rejected it, noting that the open-space area was part of the development site and was a provision linked to the houses which were in Trowbridge. It did not consider the representation provided sufficient reasons to change their view.

 

Following discussion, the Committee agreed that the draft recommendation met the statutory criteria and therefore upheld its recommendation.

 

 

Recommendation 3 – Salisbury

Recommendation 3 had been to amend the boundary of Salisbury Milford ward and Salisbury St Francis ward to transfer two properties which due to an anomaly were placed in the incorrect divisions.

 

No further information had been received and the Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 4 – Royal Wootton Bassett/Brinkworth

Recommendation 4 had been to amend the boundary of Brinkworth Parish and Royal Wootton Bassett Parish regarding a dwelling and farm buildings, which were felt to be more aligned with Brinkworth than Royal Wootton Bassett.

 

No further information had been received and the Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 5 – Clyffe Pypard and Broad Town

Recommendation 5 had been to amend the boundary of Clyffe Pypard Parish and Broad Town Parish regarding two properties at Broadtown Hill, currently divided between the parishes of Broad Town and Clyffe Pypard.

 

The Committee considered the consultation responses, including a response from the resident of the dwelling it was proposed to move from Clyffe Pypard to Broad Town.

 

The resident stated that they felt connected to Clyffe Pypard, which was a rural and dispersed community. They believed there would be no community governance benefit in a boundary change and that they had nothing in common with Broad Town. As part of the representation other areas where pockets of dwellings separated by the boundary were highlighted, suggesting that 103 and 101 Broadtown Hill were not the only instance in the parish where closely situated dwellings were in different parishes.

 

The Committee discussed the access to the dwelling via Broad Town and whether there would be benefits in terms of governance and community cohesion. Taking account of the representations received they agreed that to move the boundary to transfer 103 Broadtown Hill from Clyffe Pypard to Broadtown did not provide significant enough governance or community improvements under statutory criteria and therefore withdrew its recommendation.

 

The Committee then discussed two separate areas as set out in representation P6 in Appendix B of the report which had been highlighted as having dwellings of a similar split nature across a parish boundary and agreed to seek further information from Elections to establish the exact nature of which electoral divisions the dwellings were currently in, but to take no further action in respect of the community governance review.

 

 

Recommendation 6 – Chippenham (Ray Close)

Recommendation 6 had been to amend the boundary of Chippenham Town Council in relation to Ray Close which was split across Chippenham Pewsham and Chippenham Hardens & Central Divisions, to correct an anomaly and unify properties in Ray Close which were split between two divisions.

 

The Committee considered the Chippenham Town Council response which was in agreement to the recommendation and confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 7 – Trowbridge (Frampton Court)

Recommendation 7 had been to amend the boundary of Trowbridge Town Council in relation to Frampton Court which was split across Trowbridge Grove and Trowbridge Lambrok.

 

The Committee noted that both unitary division members were in agreement with the recommendation and that no further responses had been received.

 

The Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 8 – Calne

Recommendation 8 had been to amend the boundary of Calne Town Council and the existing Calne Without Parish Council, in relation to a development area to the south the town of Calne which extended just over the boundary into the Calne Without. The transfer would unify the development and part of a single property.

 

The Committee noted that Calne Without had indicated support at pre-consultation and that no further responses had been received.

 

The Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 9 – Wilcot, Huish and Oare

Recommendation 9 had been to amend the boundary between Wilcot, Huish and Oare Parish and West Overton Parish, to address an anomaly which had been highlighted by Elections, relating to a single property at the far north of the parish separated from any community or access within the parish itself.

 

The Committee noted the survey responses, from each parish council, where opinion was divided, with Wilcot Huish and Oare in disagreement, and Kennet Valley in agreement with the recommendation.

 

In addition, there had been a response in disagreement from the resident concerned.

 

The local division member highlighted the strong disagreement of Wilcot Huish and Oare parish council that they felt they had not been consulted at the start of the review; however, it was clarified that as the request had been submitted by the Elections team during a later stage of the review process as a minor anomaly, there had not been the availability to consult any earlier.

 

Following discussion, and taking account of the strong representations from the local resident in particular, the Committee agreed to withdraw its recommendation.

 

Recommendation 10 – Bradford on Avon

Recommendation 10 had been to amend the boundary of Bradford on Avon Town Council, to address an anomaly which had been highlighted by Elections, relating to a single property in Kingston Road, which was in the Bradford-on-Avon North ward and Division, with all other properties in Kingston Road in the South ward and Division.

 

The Committee noted that no further responses had been received and  confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 11 – Melksham

Recommendation 11 had been to amend the boundary of Melksham Town Council between Melksham Forest division and Melksham South Division to transfer properties in a block of flats in Bolwell Place which due to an anomaly were split between two divisions.

 

The recommendation also sought to amend an anomaly which had been brought to light, where a polling district line but not the unitary line formed the boundary between the High Street and Lowbourne Road addresses. The proposal would aligning the unitary boundary to the addresses by moving a small area from Forest ward to South ward.

 

The Committee considered the written response and noted that there had been no objection from Melksham Town Council.

 

The Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Recommendation 12 – Westbury and Dilton Marsh

Recommendation 12 had been to amend the boundary between Westbury and Dilton Marsh to correct an anomaly at the area of Millstream Cottages in Westbury, where the boundary line did not follow the stream as it appeared was intended and ran cut through one dwelling.

 

The Committee confirmed their proposal for recommendation to Full Council.

 

Additional Areas

The Committee then considered additional anomaly requests which had been submitted since the last meeting.

 

Area 13 - Melksham 

Melksham Town Council had raised an anomaly in Coronation Road, where it appeared the opposite sides of the street were in different divisions.

 

The Committee agreed to conduct a short consultation on a draft recommendation to move the boundary to unify both sides of Coronation Road within one division.

 

Area 14 - North Bradley

North Bradley Parish Council had raised an anomaly regarding the boundary between Southwick Parish Council and North Bradley Parish Council. The anomaly related to the boundary line around the areas of Scotland and Ireland which appeared to run through the middle of the settlement. A map was shown indicating an option to unify the settlements. 

 

The Committee was advised that North Bradley Parish Council was due to meet to consider the boundary review for the area and would provide a response following that meeting.

 

The Committee agreed to delegate to the Director Legal & Governance in consultation with the Committee, to form a draft recommendation following consideration of the Parish Council response.

 

Where the Committee had made additional draft recommendations, it was agreed to undertake a shorter online consultation and to consider them further at their next meeting.

 

It was therefore,

 

Resolved:

 

As set out in the report, to delegate to the Director, Legal and Governance, in consultation with the Chairman, the preparation of a detailed Final Recommendations document for consideration of Full Council (Recommendations 1,2,3,4,6,7,8,10,11) and preparation of an Additional Draft Recommendations document for consultation (Recommendations 13,14).