Agenda item

To consider a report from the Director, Legal and Governance.

The Chairman provided details of the background of the ongoing Community Governance Review and presented a report on the consultation on the Additional Draft Recommendations, agreed by Committee on 20 April 2023.

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.

It was noted that 19 responses were received on the online consultation portal during the consultation period of 10 May 2023 – 7 June 2023. There were also 8 further representations provided by email. All responses were included within Appendix A of the report.

Additional Draft Recommendation 1

Proposed changes to the boundaries and internal arrangements of Heywood Parish Council and Westbury Town Council, around the area of the Ham, currently divided between two parishes.

A statement was received from Mr Morland noting his comments on the Westbury Town Council submission and regarding neighbourhood plan details.

A statement was received from Cllr John Masson, Chairman of Heywood Parish Council regarding the reason for Heywood’s original scheme proposal, and disputing the submissions made by Westbury Town Council.

A statement was received from Cllr Philip Harcourt of Westbury Town Council clarifying how the Town Council’s proposals had come about, and that it was felt that the process had not gone smoothly and therefore the Town Council was now of the opinion that its preferred outcome would be for the boundaries to remain as they were.

A statement was received from Cllr Mike Sutton of Westbury Town Council, further confirming that the Town Council had submitted its proposal to initiate a debate on possible options for boundary changes. Attention was drawn to the previous inclusion of Vivash Urban Park in a recommendation by the Committee due to insufficient information.

The Unitary Division Member for Westbury East, Cllr Gordon King, noted that in addition to being the division member, he was also a Westbury Town Council Member, clarifying that he had made his own submission, separately to that of the Town Council. He contended that the Ham had always been part of Westbury and the old industrial estate of Westbury was locally known as Westbury Area Trading Estate, not West Wilts Trading Estate. Cllr King confirmed that he supported the position of the Town Council.

The Unitary Division Member for Ethandune which included Heywood, Cllr Suzanne Wickham, commented on the local referencing of the West Wilts Trading Estate, and that there were no voters in that area. Cllr Wickham raised concern regarding the tone and content of the Town Council’s latest submission in its comments relating to Heywood.

In response to the public statements, the Chairman noted that the Committee welcomed comments and ideas from all involved, receiving information as part as an evolving process enabled the Committee to make a judgement in line with the set criteria. The matter of Vivash Park came to light through the first consultation process as it had not been provided as part of the initial submissions. The Committee sought further information and legal advice before making additional draft recommendations as the review moved on through the process.

In discussion, the Committee considered that it continued to believe that on balance the area of the Ham represented a distinct community and that leaving it divided would not be in accordance with the statutory criteria for governance reviews.

The Committee confirmed its view that the Ham was an established community with some separation from and more limited connectivity with the rest of the town, and with a very clear boundary in one of the railway lines to exclude Vivash Urban Park, they considered that the character was sufficiently different from the main urban area of the town as to be a community in its own right.

Considering all the responses, the character of the area, the larger
part of the existing properties being within Heywood, the Committee upheld its
additional draft recommendation.

Additional Draft Recommendation 2

Recommendation 2 had been to reduce the number of councillors for Tidworth and reallocate the existing ward councillor numbers across two wards, with the wards to be named North & West Ward and East & South Ward.

The Committee noted there had been no representations to the consultation. The Committee however agreed to support additional draft recommendation 2 with no amendments, noting it had been the request of the Town Council itself.

Additional Draft Recommendation 4

Recommendation 4 had been to amend the boundaries of Grittleton, Nettleton, and Castle Combe, in response to a request to unify the area known as The Gibb. The amendment was to the proposed boundary line to incorporate one additional property named the Lodge, currently in Castle Combe.

The Committee noted the parish council representations were in support of the additional draft recommendation, however the submission from the owners of the property had highlighted that the proposed new boundary line, although was drawn around their dwelling, did not also include the entirety of their estate, which included out buildings and gardens. The owners also stated a preference to remain wholly in Castle Combe.

The Committee considered the options available which included reverting to the original draft recommendation for the boundary to follow the road line, thus excluding the Lodge from Grittleton, or to extend the boundary line to encompass the entirety of the Lodge estate and grounds, bringing it into Grittleton.

Discussion points included the impact of both options, noting the criteria and that dividing an estate across two parishes would not be in line with the Committees approach to community cohesion and may also raise future issues in terms of planning. It was agreed that depending on the scope of the area of the Lodge estate, it should be included within the area known as the Gibb. The Committee requested that the matter be further investigated and following consultation with the relevant parish councils and resident, the final draft recommendation be delegated to the Director of Legal and Governance, in consultation with the Chairman, for further consultation if appropriate.

Additional Draft Recommendation 5

Recommendation 5 had proposed transfers of land between Yatton Keynell and Biddestone & Slaughterford, mostly involving the area known as Giddea Hall and additionally amended to include one property called Lower Long Dean Mill.

The Committee noted the support by Yatton Keynell parish council. The Committee agreed to support additional draft recommendation 5 with no amendments.

In relation to further recommendations. where the Committee had requested further investigation on a matter, it was agreed to undertake a short consultation with the relevant parties only.

It was therefore,

Resolved:
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 1/2/5), and preparation of an Additional Draft Recommendations for consultation (Recommendations 4).