Agenda and minutes

To receive any apologies for the meeting.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Mark Connolly, Christine Crisp, Russell Hawker, Mike Hewitt, Jim Lynch, Melody Thompson, and Stuart Wheeler.

To receive any declarations of disclosable interests or dispensations granted by the Standards Committee.

There were no declarations.

To receive any announcements through the Chairman.

The Chairman presented Councillor James Sheppard with a commemorative  badge in recognition of his former role as Chairman of the Council.

The Chairman also noted the intended voting procedure for the meeting.

The Council welcomes contributions from members of the public. During the ongoing Covid-19 situation the Council is operating revised procedures and the public are able participate in meetings online after registering with the officer named on this agenda, and in accordance with the deadlines below.

As this is an extraordinary meeting convened to specifically consider Community Governance Reviews, in accordance with the Constitution questions, statements and petitions can only be accepted in respect of this item of business.

Guidance on how to participate in this meeting online.

Statements

Members of the public who wish to submit a statement in relation to an item on this agenda should submit this electronically to the officer named on this agenda no later than 5pm on 4 September 2020.

Each statement must:

·       State whom the statement is from (including if representing another person or organisation);

·       state points clearly, and;

·       be readable aloud in approximately 3 minutes.

The Chairman has agreed that up to 3 speakers may submit a statement for each recommendation that is scheduled to be considered under Item 7.

Questions

Those wishing to ask questions are required to give notice of any such questions electronically to the officer named on the front of this agenda no later than 5pm on 2 September 2020 in order to be guaranteed of a written response. In order to receive a verbal response questions must be submitted no later than 5pm on 4 September 2020.

Please contact the officer named on the front of this agenda for further advice. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman decides that the matter is urgent. Details of any questions received will be circulated to members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website; they will be taken as read at the meeting.

It was explained that as there would be separate debates and votes on each recommendation from the Electoral Review Committee under Agenda Item 7, up to three people had been able to register to speak in respect of each recommendation.

One question had been received for the meeting and would be considered under Recommendation 11.

No Notices of Motion have been received for this meeting.

No notices of motion had been received for the meeting.

As this is an extraordinary meeting of Council, and in accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions can only be accepted in relation to the items on this agenda.

Members were required to give notice of any such question in writing to the officer names on the first page of this agenda no later than 5pm nine clear working days before the meeting, 25 August 2020, in order to be guaranteed a written response.

Any question received after 5pm on 25 August 2020 and no later than 5pm four clear working days before the meeting, 2 September 2020, may only receive a verbal response at the meeting. Any questions received after this date will be received at the next meeting. Questions may be asked without notice if the Chairman determines the matter is urgent.

Details of any questions received will be circulated to Members prior to the meeting and made available at the meeting and on the Council’s website.

No questions from Members had been received for the meeting.

A report from the Director of Legal and Governance is attached.

To consider the Final Recommendations of the Electoral Review Committee for the Community Governance Review 2019-20 as follows:

The Chairman set out how the debate on the Final Recommendations of the Electoral Review Committee would be conducted. Following an introduction by the Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee each recommendation would be debated and voted upon in turn, and any public statements or questions taken under the relevant recommendation.

The Chairman also provided advice on the moving of any amendments, and confirmed that following guidance from the Monitoring Officer, the Council could only approve options which had been consulted upon. Any alternative options would need to be directed to be consulted upon before being determined at a later date.

The Chairman then invited Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, to present the council report and the Final Recommendations of the Electoral Review Committee.

Councillor Clewer set out the background to the Community Governance Review 2019-20, which had commenced on 1 November 2019. This had followed publication of the Final Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) for the Electoral Review of Wiltshire Council, which had amended the unitary Divisions for the council. This had also made consequential changes to many parishes, and received parliamentary approval in March 2020, to take effect at the next elections in May 2021.

The Electoral Review Committee had received requests for changes to parish boundaries and governance arrangements and determined which areas should be reviewed in advance of the May 2021 elections. It was noted some issues arising from the decisions of the LGBCE would need to be addressed after the elections.

The process for the Community Governance Review was detailed, which had included periods of information gathering and discussion with potentially affected parishes, a pre-consultation survey of potentially affected residents including some public meetings, and a statutory period of consultation on Draft Recommendations of the Committee, which was extended due to Covid-19 and included writing to residents involved. Following consideration of responses from parishes, partners and the public, the Committee produced its Final Recommendations.

Councillor Clewer thanked the Committee and supporting officers for their work, which had involved attending a great many meetings and sessions, and consideration of a significant amount of information and consultation responses. In particular, he thanked Councillor Gavin Grant, Vice-Chairman of the Committee, for his work throughout the process.

Councillor Clewer also highlighted that because some of the proposals involved areas which had seen consequential changes to parishes as a result of changes to unitary Divisions, consent would be required of the LGBCE should Council approve the recommendations. The Committee had noted issues regarding parish council warding arrangements, the need for appropriately sized and viable wards, and that where a parish was split between multiple Divisions that the parish was required to be warded. Therefore, some parishes had been been divided, and elements were included in a Division which might be considered of a different character, even if council did not approve the recommendations before it.

Councillor Clewer also confirmed that advice had been received clarifying that a Community Governance  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 1 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer an area of land within the parish of Netherhampton to the parish of Salisbury, with associated governance changes.

The proposals aligned to the incoming Salisbury Harnham West unitary Division, and with slight amendment followed the line of an allocated housing site with outline permission for at least 650 dwellings. Both parishes supported the proposal, noting the scale of development would transform the small, rural parish of Netherhampton, and the character and interests of the community would be more appropriate with Salisbury, with full reasoning set out in the Final Recommendations document.

During debate it was stated there had been consultation and support for the proposals, and that it was appropriate to transfer the area proposed given its character and had not been objected to by the parish council.

Councillor Clewer responded to a query confirming that as the council was seeking to amend a parish boundary which had been subject to consequential warding changes by the Local Government Boundary Commission within the last five years, their consent would be required before it could be enacted.

Resolved:

1.1  That the area of the Netherhampton East Ward be transferred to the parish of Salisbury City as part of the Salisbury Harnham West Ward.

1.2  That the Salisbury Harnham West Ward be increased from two city councillors to three.

1.3  That the total number of councillors for Salisbury City Council be increased from 23 to 24.

1.4  That the parish of Netherhampton be comprised of five councillors, without wards.

Reasons: Paragraphs 73, 78, 80, 83, 84, 85 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Note: A recorded vote is attached to these minutes. There were 75 votes in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 2 of the Committee.

The proposal was to merge two incoming city council wards into a single ward, which would align with the incoming Salisbury Milford unitary Division. This would be in keeping with every other city ward, which were or would be coterminous with the associated unitary Division.

It was explained that as the decision to impose the two wards within the Division was only announced with the Final Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), there had been no opportunity to comment on the proposal before it had been enacted. The Committee had regarded the situation as clearly anomalous, and the city had requested the change, with full reasoning set out in the Final Recommendations document.

During debate it was stated that coterminous boundaries between parish and unitary wards and divisions was sensible, although it was noted some did not agree with the boundaries of the unitary Division which the LGBCE had decided upon, although these could not now be changed.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

2.1     To merge the Salisbury City wards of Salisbury Milford and Salisbury St Mark’s and Bishopdown into a single ward of three councillors, coterminous with the Salisbury Milford Electoral Division. The city ward would also be called Salisbury Milford.

Reason: Paragraph 85 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Note: A recorded vote is attached to these minutes. There were 75 votes in favour, 0 against, 2 abstentions.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 3 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer areas of within the parishes of Langley Burrell Without and Lacock to the parish of Chippenham, with associated governance changes.

The proposals aligned to the incoming Chippenham Monkton, Chippenham Hardenhuish and Chippenham Lowden and Rowden unitary Divisions. Each broadly followed the line of allocated housing sites. All three parish and town councils supported the proposals, considering that the character and interests of the incoming communities as urban extensions of the town would be more appropriate within Chippenham, with full reasoning set out in the Final Recommendations document.

Councillor Clewer noted objections had been raised by residents of the Rowden Lane hamlet currently within the parish of Lacock, and the incoming Showell ward, which was a more rural area. However, on balance of the evidence and arguments, and in considering the statutory criteria for Community Governance Reviews and taking account of the changing nature of the area as a whole, the Committee had concluded it was appropriate to transfer the area. The need to create viable and appropriate wards also constrained available options. It was considered that whilst it was appropriate to transfer the Showell ward in advance of the May 2021 elections, the precise line of the wards and requesting an amendment of the Division line might be appropriate to consider in future.

During debate the proposals for Lacock were discussed, noting the changing situation for the area of the Showell ward within the period required to be considered during the review, and the particular character of the existing hamlet. It was suggested it could be recommended that the Committee examine the area again in future, when the boundary and development issues might have been clarified or changed.

Other comments raised connections of Rowden with Chippenham Town, and noting that the parish councils supported the proposals, and that it was appropriate that new housing developments on the edge of the town were transferred into the town.

The Chairman then moved a motion to suspend Paragraphs 22.6.2-22.6.4 of Part 4 of the Constitution, which would mean recorded votes would not be automatically taken on the items before the meeting. This was seconded by the Vice-Chairman.

Following a vote, the motion to suspend the above sections of the Constitution was carried.

At the conclusion of debate, it was therefore,

Resolved:

3.1 That the area of the Barrow Farm Ward of Langley Burrell Without be transferred to Chippenham Town Council and merged with the Chippenham Hardenhuish Ward, to continue to contain three councillors.

3.2 That the area of the Rawlings Farm Ward of Langley Burrell Without be transferred to Chippenham Town Council and merged with the Chippenham Monkton Ward, to continue to contain three councillors.

3.3 That the area of the Showell Ward of Lacock be transferred to Chippenham Town Council and merged with the Chippenham Lowden and Rowden Ward, to continue to contain three councillors.

3.4 That Lacock Parish Council be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67c)

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 4 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer a small area of land within the parish of Kington St Michael to the parish of Chippenham Without.

The proposals involved only a single property and was supported by both parish councils, with full reasoning as detailed in the Final Recommendations document.

No comments were received in debate on the proposal.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

4.1 That the area including Cedar Lodge, Allington, as detailed in the Final Recommendations be transferred from Kington St Michael to Chippenham Without.

Reason: Paragraph 84 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 5 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer an area of land within the parish of Manningford to the parish of Woodborough.

The proposals involved a small area of built up land distant from the community in Manningford and close to Woodborough. The proposal was supported by both parish councils, with full reasoning as detailed in the Final Recommendations document.

During opportunity for debate a comment was made that the local communities and the parish councils were supportive of the proposals, and it should therefore be approved.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

5.1 That the area shown as detailed and described in the Final Recommendations be transferred from the parish of Manningford to the parish of Woodborough.

Reason: Paragraph 84 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 6 of the Committee. The proposal was to remove the warding arrangements for the parish of Pewsey, which would result in a council of 21 councillors with no wards.

It was stated that the parish council had requested the change, arguing that the warding arrangements were anomalous, and it was noted that there had been no objections raised during consultation.

No comments were received in debate on the proposal.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

6.1 That the parish of Pewsey be represented by a parish council comprising 21 councillors, without warding arrangements.

Reasons: Paragraphs 84, 85 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 7 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer a small area of land within the parish of Pewsey to the parish of Wilcot. It would be proposed under Recommendation 8 that the parish of Wilcot be renamed Wilcot, Huish and Oare.

The proposals involved only one property and part of a property, where the parish boundary divided a line of houses. It was considered that the area in question had far closer and more appropriate links with Wilcot, where the majority of the properties were located, than Pewsey. The proposal to unify the area was supported by both parish councils, with full reasoning as detailed in the Final Recommendations document.

if the proposal were approved, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England would be requested to amend the electoral Divisions of Pewsey Vale West and Pewsey to be conterminous with the parish boundary.

During opportunity for debate a comment was made that the proposal was logical, supported by local residents and the councils involved and as such should be approved.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

7.1 That the area shown as detailed in the Final Recommendations be transferred from the parish of Pewsey to the parish of Wilcot, Huish and Oare (see Recommendation 8.3 under Minute 67h).

7.2 To request that the Electoral Divisions of Pewsey Vale West and Pewsey be amended to be coterminous with the parish boundaries of Pewsey and Wilcot, Huish and Oare.

Reason: Paragraph 84 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 8 of the Committee. The proposal was to merge the parishes of Wilcot and Huish.

It was explained that following a request from Wilcot Parish Council to remove its warding arrangements, it had been determined that the parish of Huish, which has around 37 electors, had not been formally merged with Wilcot as they had thought was already the case, as the two were in a longstanding joint arrangement. The Committee therefore explored a merger of the two parishes to give effect to their request. It was considered that the communities were closely connected with combined interests, and in effect had been operating as a single parish for some time. The parish name was requested to be changed to reflect the nature of the communities.

The proposal to merge the parishes was supported by the parish council, with full reasoning as detailed in the Final Recommendations document.

During opportunity for debate a comment was made in support of the proposal as endorsed by the parish council.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

8.1 That the parishes of Wilcot and Huish be merged into a single parish.

8.2 For the combined parish to have no warding arrangements, with nine councillors.

8.3 For the combined parish to be called Wilcot, Huish and Oare.

Reasons: Paragraph 80, 81 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 9 of the Committee. The recommendation related to a petition which had been received requesting creation of a new parish at Derry Hill and Studley, currently part of the parish of Calne Without.

It was explained that the Committee had considered that a strong case under the statutory criteria had been made in support of creation of a new parish at Derry Hill and Studley, and a petition requesting that had received significant support. However, the Committee had noted the significant impact on the remainder of Calne Without parish should a new parish be formed, and received representations that it might not be viable as a cohesive community in that case, and perhaps could be divided with other parishes in the area if appropriate. As those areas were not included in the areas under review, the Committee had been unable to explore such an option during the 2019-20 Community Governance Review.

As a petition for a Community Governance Review was required to be determined within a year, the Committee therefore recommended that Council determine that a new parish not be created at this time, but that the Committee should undertaken a further review when practicable, to include surrounding parishes, so that all options could be fully considered in context. This would mean no changes ahead of the May 2021 local elections.

The proposal for creation of a new parish was not supported by the current parish council, but it had supported the proposal for there to be a further review as recommended by the Committee, with full reasoning in the Final Recommendations document.

During a short debate a comment was made highlighting that the arguments in favour of a new parish had not been rejected by the Committee, which noted the high number of petition signatures and arguments made in support, but that appropriate solutions for parish arrangements in the area might require a wider review than had been able to be undertaken at the present time. Another comment supported the retention of the existing parish arrangements.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

9.1 To not recommend creation of a new parish at Derry Hill and Studley during the 2019/20 Community Governance Review.

9.2 To undertake a further Community Governance Review when practicable, to include Calne Without, Calne Town, and other surrounding parishes, so that all potential options and impacts could be considered.

Reasons: Paragraphs 63, 73, 74, 80 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 10 of the Committee. The recommendation involved amending the warding arrangements of the parish of Calne Without.

It was explained that the boundary between the existing Pewsham and West wards of the parish council were clearly anomalous and ineffective, and the Committee had sought to adjust the boundary line to a more logical one. The proposal was supported by the parish council, with full reasoning in the Final Recommendations document.

No comments were received in debate on the proposal.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

10.1 To amend the boundary between the West and Pewsham Wards of Calne Without Parish Council as detailed in the Final Recommendations.

Reasons: Paragraph 84, 85 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 11 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer two areas of land within the parish of North Bradley to the parish of Trowbridge, with associated governance changes.

The proposals aligned to the incoming Trowbridge Park and Trowbridge Drynham unitary Divisions, and with slight amendment broadly followed the line of allocated housing sites with, in some instances, outline planning permission for significant urban extension, including up to 2500 dwellings. North Bradley Parish Council strongly objected to the proposals. It was stated that nearly all consultation responses received had been in objection to the proposals. Full reasoning for the proposals was set out in the Final Recommendations document.

The Committee had considered that the character and interests of the areas in question would increasingly align more to the town within the period required to be considered according to information received, a transfer would provide a more effective and convenient governance arrangement with simpler warding arrangements, and that to not transfer the area would, among other effects, see the parish increasingly dominated by urban expansion rather than the village respondents to the consultation had stated they wished it to remain.

The Committee had considered all responses and factors, and on balance of the current evidence had not agreed that the proposals were premature as some had suggested. It also noted that the outcome of the Community Governance Review would not affect the delivery of housing within the area, and that the Committee had considered issues of governance and community, not issues of support or objection for plans for housing development.

Attention was drawn to the report detailing advice regarding the use and proper consideration of electorate projections for the area within a five-year period from the commencement of the review. It was also emphasised that incoming or adopted Neighbourhood Plans did not prevent, if appropriate, the transfer of an area from one parish to another, nor would such a transfer invalidate or otherwise affect the plan. Members were also reminded that council tax was not a relevant consideration.

Given the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) had initially proposed including a larger section of North Bradley within the Trowbridge Drynham unitary Division, among other considerations as detailed fully in the report, the Committee did not consider that it was viable to seek amendment of the Division which would be required to transfer a different area. This was relevant in particular regarding a very small number of properties accessed off the road of Woodmarsh which were within the incoming Trowbridge Drynham unitary Division, and therefore the area proposed to be transferred. However, the Committee did consider the precise line could possibly be looked at again in future, though to delay a transfer now would be inappropriate given the impact on the rest of the proposed area.

A question was then received from Amanda Bocker as detailed in the Agenda Supplement, who made an additional comment. Councillor Clewer provided details of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67k)

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 12 of the Committee. The Committee had considered proposals to merge the parishes of Melksham and Melksham Without.

The Committee was recommending the merger, or any partial merger, not be supported. It did not consider that sufficient grounds had been provided to justify such a proposal under the statutory criteria, with strong reasons to reject the proposal in particular noting the effective and viable governance of the existing parishes, which retained their own identities.

It was noted in the report that the suggestion of merging the two parishes had also been reviewed in 2015-16.

A statement was then received from Richard Wood, Chairman of Melksham Without Parish Council, in opposition to any merger proposal.

During debate several comments were made supporting the intention to not merge the parishes, which it was said was not supported by residents of Melksham Without. Other comments agreed with the Committee’s view that there should not be a further review of the area for a considerable time and the situation changed significantly. It was noted that those areas on the edge of the town which might appropriately be joined with the town were to be considered under Minute 67m.

It was stated by some Members that the Town Council had informally discussed the proposal in recent months and would not be supporting a merger any further at this time.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

12.1 To not recommend a merger of Melksham and Melksham Without Parishes.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, presented Final Recommendation 13 of the Committee. The proposal was to transfer two areas of land within the parish of Melksham Without to the parish of Melksham, with associated governance changes.

The proposals aligned the incoming Melksham East unitary Division with the parish by transferring the incoming Hunters Wood ward of Melksham Without. This followed the line of an allocated housing site and incoming development which was an extension of the existing development in Melksham. The proposals also sought to transfer an area previously referred to as the ‘Land north of Sandridge Common’ which was also an allocated housing site and partially constructed development which formed part of the wider conurbation. As this was not part of the incoming Melksham East Division, to transfer it as part of that Division and town ward would require consent of the Local Government Boundary commission for England, which could be declined. If accepted, it would then be requested that the Division be made coterminous with the parish. There were also associated governance changes to both councils as a result.

The Committee considered both areas, as new urban development, would be more appropriately located within the town, and this was supported by the town council and the parish council, with the full reasoning set out in the Final Recommendations document.

A statement was received from Alan Baines, a Member of Melksham Without Parish Council, supporting the recommendations of the Committee.

No comments were received in debate on the proposal.

It was therefore,

Resolved:

13.1 That the area of the Hunters Wood Ward be transferred to the parish of Melksham as part of the Melksham East Ward.

13.2 That the area known as the ‘Land north of Sandridge Common’ as shown in the report be transferred to the parish of Melksham as part of the Melksham East ward.

13.3 That the Melksham East Ward continue to contain four town councillors.

13.4 To request that the LGBCE amend the Melksham East Division to be coterminous with the proposed revised Melksham East Ward.

13.5 That the Beanacre, Shaw and Whitley Ward be increased to four parish councillors, and be renamed Beanacre, Shaw, Whitley and Blackmore.

Reasons: Paragraph 73, 78, 80, 83, 84, 85 of the Guidance on Community Governance Reviews.

At the conclusion of debate on the Community Governance Review and taking account of the outcomes of the votes on the above recommendations, it was therefore,

Resolved:

1)      To approve the changes to community governance arrangements as set out below as recommended and detailed by the Electoral Review Committee in the Final Recommendations:

i.        Recommendation 1 - Salisbury and Netherhampton;

ii.       Recommendation 2 - Salisbury;

iii.      Recommendation 3 - Chippenham, Langley Burrell Without and Lacock;

iv.      Recommendation 4 - Kington St Michael and Chippenham Without;

v.       Recommendation 5 - Manningford and Woodborough;

vi.      Recommendation 6 - Pewsey;

vii.      Recommendation 7 - Wilcot and Pewsey;

viii.     Recommendation 8 - Wilcot and Huish;

ix.      Recommendation 9 - Calne Without: Derry Hill and Studley;

x.       Recommendation 10 - Calne Without: Warding;

xi.      Recommendation 11 - North Bradley and Trowbridge;

xii.     Recommendation 12 - Melksham;

xiii.     Recommendation 13 - Melksham Without and Melksham.

2)      To authorise the Solicitor of the Council to take all necessary measures to make and approve the Community Governance Order(s) to bring into effect for 1 April 2021 all of the changes detailed under Resolution 1, subject to any required consents by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England;

3)      To authorise the Electoral Registration Officer to make any necessary changes to polling districts to bring them into line with the agreed governance changes, to be reported to the Electoral Review Committee.

A report from the Director of Legal and Governance is attached.

To consider recommendations from the Electoral Review Committee to change the names of three parishes.

Councillor Richard Clewer, Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee, introduced a report on proposals to amend the names of three parishes or parish councils. Each request had been made by the relevant parish council and a survey made available for any responses, details of which were provided in the report.

Councillor Clewer moved that the proposals be approved, which was seconded by Councillor Gavin Grant, Vice-Chairman of the Electoral Review Committee.

Group leaders were given the opportunity to comment on the proposals.

During a short debate support was expressed for the proposals to change the name of Fittleton to recognise the larger settlement of Haxton, that as the settlement of Lockeridge was not included in the name of the current joint parish council of Fyfield and West Overton then a new name of Kennet Valley was appropriate to encompass all three, and that there was no objection to amending the name of Cheverell Parva.

At the conclusion of debate, it was,

Resolved:

1)    To approve name changes for the following parishes and parish councils:

a)    Fittleton to be changed to Fittleton cum Haxton;

b)    Fyfield and West Overton Parish Council to be changed to Kennet Valley Parish Council;

c)    Cheverell Parva to be changed to Little Cheverell.

2)    To authorise the Solicitor to the Council to make any necessary legal orders and notifications to enact the above changes.