Shropshire Final Proposals

North-Western Shropshire

Ellesmere Urban, Selattyn & Gobowen, St Martin’s and The Meres

46 The Council, Conservative Group, and Labour Group all supported our proposals for this area, which include a two-member division in order to avoid splitting the village of St Martin’s. This was further welcomed by the resident’s comments, Ellesmere Rural Parish Council, Cllr S. Davenport, Cllr C. Emery and Cllr N. Rowley, who suggested changing the name of the division, to include reference to Weston Rhyn and Ellesmere Rural. We considered this carefully, but concluded that the existing name was relatively clear and concise. If the Council wishes to change the name of this, or any other division, it can do so using the procedures in Section 59 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007.

47 Weston Rhyn Parish Council, in contrast, opposed our proposals, suggesting that the major links from Weston Rhyn village were to Oswestry, and that public transport links to St Martin’s were very limited. In contrast, the Labour submission suggested that there were links between the villages, based on their shared history in the mining industry. Weston Rhyn Parish Council did not provide any proposals for an alternative pattern of divisions across this area of the county

48 On balance, we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area. The broad support for the proposals, from residents, councillors and the Council suggests a degree of consensus for our decision to depart from the principle of single-member divisions in this area, in order to reflect the community identity of St Martin’s in particular. We considered the objections of Weston Rhyn Parish Council carefully, but were unable to devise an alternative pattern of divisions which would better reflect the statutory criteria.

Llanymynech, Ruyton & Baschurch, St Oswald, and Whittington

49 In our draft recommendations report, we noted a proposal for the Morda Bank area, to the south of Oswestry, to be added to a division based in the town. While not adopting this proposal as part of our draft recommendations, we invited comment on whether this would be a better reflection of community identity.

50 Oswestry Rural Parish Council, the Labour Group, and the Council provided evidence that there was a clear distinction of community identity between the Morda Bank area, and Oswestry itself. The resident also supported our draft recommendations. We are confirming our draft recommendations for St Oswald division, covering the whole of Oswestry Rural parish, as final.

51 Cllr D. Catmur-Lloyd repeated the proposal from the initial consultation for the boundary of Llanymynech & Pant parish, and hence Llanymynech division, to be expanded to take in the settlement of Crickheath. We are unable to alter parish boundaries as part of this review process. If a Community Governance Review, led by Shropshire Council, makes amendments to parish boundaries after the conclusion of this review, the Commission can amend the division boundaries to match the new parish boundaries. We received no other comments on Llanymynech division, and confirm our draft recommendations as final.

52 The Council, and Ruyton XI Towns Parish Council supported our proposals for Ruyton & Baschurch division, which included an extension into Pimhill parish in order to ensure that the settlement of Walford Heath is within a single division. The resident also supported this principle, but suggested going further to encompass the entirety of the very small settlement of Old Woods. We have not adopted this proposal, not only because it is unclear which dwellings consider themselves part of Old Woods, as opposed to isolated rural dwellings, but also because our proposed boundary used the railway line in this area as a clear and recognisable boundary. We are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations for Ruyton & Baschurch division, and we confirm it as final.

53 Other than general support from the Council and others, we received no specific comments on our proposals for Whittington division, and we confirm our draft recommendations as final.

Oswestry

Oswestry North, Oswestry North East, Oswestry South, and Oswestry South East

54 We received broad support for our draft recommendations for boundaries within Oswestry. One proposal was received for a change, for the boundary between Oswestry North and Oswestry North East to run along the railway line, rather than Gobowen Road. While either option offers a strong and clear boundary, removing the electors in this area from Oswestry North East division would leave this division with 11% fewer electors than average. While this is only a minor departure from good electoral equality, in the absence of any strong evidence as to the community identity of this area, and the broad support for our draft recommendations, we are not persuaded to amend the boundary in this area.

55 The Council, and the resident’s comments suggested that the name of Oswestry West division could be changed to Oswestry North, in order to mirror the names of the other divisions covering the town. We have adopted this proposal, and amended our draft recommendations accordingly. Apart from this name change, we confirm our other draft recommendations for Oswestry as final.

Western & Central Shropshire

Bayston Hill

56 Our draft recommendations for Bayston Hill were for a two-member division that combined Bayston Hill parish with a number of parishes to the south. We had been persuaded not to include Bayston Hill with any part of Shrewsbury itself and wished to test the community identity links with the more rural parishes.

57 Our draft recommendations did not attract support. The Council, and political groups, provided comprehensive evidence about the community of Bayston Hill. This provided evidence that Bayston Hill is a self-contained community, with shopping, leisure, community and social facilities which are not widely used by any other areas. This position was supported by Cllr M. Underwood.

58 No proposals were received for any split of Bayston Hill which would allow for a single-member division with good electoral equality based on the village with a minority of electors from Bayston Hill parish moved into a neighbouring division. We considered various options for a split that would provide for good electoral equality. However, based on our observations on our tour of Shropshire, we concluded that no split which moved a sufficient number of electors into an alternative division would respect the community identity of Bayston Hill, or provide for a clear and recognisable boundary. One resident suggested that the northern boundary could be moved to the A5 ring road – while this offers a strong and clear boundary, there are very few electors to the north of this road in Bayston Hill parish – primarily on Bestune Way. A future Community Governance Review which changes the boundaries of the relevant parishes could place these electors in Shrewsbury parish, but this would still leave a single-member Bayston Hill division with 21% more electors than average.

59 Cllr R. Wintle, Cllr S. James, and Cllr D. Morris all argued against the joining of Bayston Hill to rural areas in the existing Burnell division, arguing that there was no shared community identity between the “urban” Bayston Hill area and the rural parishes to the south. This view was echoed by Acton Burnell, Frodesley, Pitchford, Ruckly & Langley Parish Council, and Condover Parish Council.

60 Bayston Hill Parish Council also supported the principle of a single-member division covering the parish only, arguing that a single member could best focus on effectively representing the village.

61 Cllr D. Morris and the resident’s scheme proposed joining Bayston Hill to the southern portion of Shrewsbury. Neither of these proposals offered substantial evidence of any shared community identity between Bayston Hill and southern Shrewsbury, and would be based purely on meeting one of the three statutory criteria – electoral equality – while providing a poor reflection of the other two, as well as providing another departure from the principle of single-member divisions.

62 The evidence received made it clear that the vast majority of stakeholders around Bayston Hill preferred a single-member division, covering only Bayston Hill parish. Such a division would have 22% more electors than the average across Shropshire. Despite this large inequality, we are proposing this division as part of our final recommendations. We consider that such a division offers an excellent reflection of community identity and effective & convenient local government, as well as providing additional single-member divisions.

63 We acknowledge that it is wholly exceptional to propose a division with this degree of electoral inequality. We have carefully considered all of the evidence, and concluded that any attempt to place Bayston Hill in a two-member division, or to split off a significant portion of the village into a neighbouring division would be addressing only one of our statutory criteria; would offer a very poor reflection of community identity, would not provide for effective and convenient local government, and would not offer the best available balance of our criteria.

Bishop’s Castle, Burnell, Chirbury & Worthen, Rea Valley, and The Strettons

64 We received evidence from Church Pulverbatch Parish Council, providing evidence of community identity both within the parish, and in relation to the remainder of the existing Burnell division, citing social groups, agricultural and commercial links that suggest the existing division should be retained in order to reflect communities. Evidence was also provided of links to the north, with many residents using medical and retail facilities in Pontesbury. Several residents also expressed opposition to our draft recommendations, arguing that there were few if any links to parishes to the south, and also expressing concern over the accessibility of transport to the south, particularly in winter.

65 Cllr D. Morris provided evidence supporting the retention of the existing Burnell division with no changes. This included a copy of the 1840 Hundred of Condover, covering a broadly similar area to the existing Burnell division. While interesting, we do not consider that historical evidence of this type can be given great weight when compared to evidence regarding the community identity of the area now. The Council also supported returning Church Pulverbatch to Burnell division, suggesting that it could be placed in Longden division as an alternative.

66 We visited Church Pulverbatch on our tour of Shropshire, and drove south from this area towards Ratlinghope. We concluded that, while possible, the access was limited, with Cothercott Hill presenting a significant barrier; and that it would provide a better reflection of both community identity, and effective and convenient local government, to place Church Pulverbatch parish within our revised Burnell division. This leaves the remainder of our proposed Bishop’s Castle division with 9% fewer electors than average – just within the bounds of good electoral equality.

67 The Council proposed to place Cound parish within Severn Valley division, and Cardington parish in Corvedale division, arguing that the latter was geographically large and might be challenging to represent effectively. However, this proposal would leave both Corvedale and Severn Valley divisions with poor electoral equality, at -14% and +14% respectively. We do not consider that this departure from electoral equality is justified by the evidence provided.

68 Pontesbury Parish Council supported our proposed Rea Valley division, and the consequent split of Pontesbury parish. This division, together with Chirbury & Worthen was supported by the Council and political groups. Further support for our proposed Chirbury & Worthen division came from Worthen with Shelve Parish Council, Westbury Parish Council and Cllr H. Kidd. Cllr E. Potter expressed regret at the move of Westbury into Chirbury & Worthen division, but accepted that there were no other alternatives. Accordingly, we are confirming our draft recommendations for this division as final.

69 We received no proposals for changes to the boundary of our draft Strettondale division. The Council, and political groups, suggested that a name of ‘The Strettons’ might be more appropriate to the character of the division. While we are aware that the parish (but not the village) of All Stretton lies outside this division, we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations, and include the name of ‘The Strettons’ as part of our final recommendations.

Longden, Loton, and Tern

70 Ford Parish Council expressed opposition to our draft recommendations which includes Ford parish in Loton division. It provided evidence of community links with the remainder of Longden division. Evidence was provided of school links, and the divide between the Hereford and Lichfield dioceses of the Church of England.

71 The Council agreed with the proposal to move Ford parish to Longden division, and also provided evidence that Bicton shared community links with Loton rather than Longden, with the A458 road described as a barrier between Bicton village and the remainder of Longden division. It also noted that placing the bulk of Bicton parish in Loton division would allow the entire settlement of Montford Bridge to be in a single division. This proposal was supported by several residents, and Montford Parish Council.

72 We have considered these points carefully, and are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations to essentially swap Ford parish and the rural part of Bicton parish between Loton and Longden divisions. Both divisions will continue to have good electoral equality.

73 We received relatively few comments directly addressing our proposed Tern division, which was supported by the Council, the full set of comments from the resident, and the political groups. Hadnall Parish Council noted that our proposal did not reflect the latest proposals for revised Parliamentary constituencies, but did not oppose the draft recommendations. We do not directly consider Parliamentary constituencies when formulating electoral arrangements for local government. We confirm our draft recommendations for Tern division as final.

Shrewsbury

Abbey, Belle Vue, Bicton Heath, Column & Sutton, Copthorne, Meole, Oteley & Reabrook, Porthill, and Radbrook

74 The Council, and political groups, supported the majority of these divisions, but proposed modifications to the boundary between Copthorne and Radbrook divisions, and to the boundary between Column & Sutton and Abbey divisions. We have adopted the former of these changes, but not the latter as part of our final recommendations.

75 The Council proposed moving the boundary between Copthorne and Radbrook to run along the Radbrook watercourse itself, with all streets to the north of this placed into Copthorne division. This improves the electoral equality of our draft Radbrook division, which had 12% more electors than average. The Council’s submission provided limited evidence of community identity, but this was supplemented by submissions from Cllr C. Lemon, and the Labour Group, which suggested that electors who would move into Radbrook division as part of this proposal saw the retail and medical facilities on Bank Farm Road as part of, if not the hub, of their community.

76 The resident suggested that a small area around the Nuffield Hospital could transfer from Radbrook to Meole division, in order to balance the respective electorates. No evidence of community identity was provided, and we have not adopted this proposal.

77 While the Radbrook watercourse is not, of itself, a particularly strong boundary, it is clearly recognisable. We are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations, and adopt the proposal of the Council and political groups in this area.

78 The Council also proposed moving the triangle formed by London Road, Wenlock Road and Ebnal Road into Column & Sutton division rather than Abbey division, together with Shrewsbury College of Arts & Technology, and a number of electors living on the north side of London Road. We considered this carefully, but noted that, while improving the electoral equality of Abbey division, this would leave Column & Sutton with 15% more electors than average. We do not consider that this departure from electoral equality is justified by the relatively limited community evidence provided, and we have therefore not adopted this proposal.

79 The Labour Group submission, and that of Cllr R. Dartnall suggested that Column & Sutton division should be re-named as Wenlock & Sutton Park, noting that the Lord Hill Column, which gives its name to the division, is located at an extreme edge of the division. We considered this carefully, but concluded that the limited evidence provided did not justify a change of name from that supported by the Council. As previously mentioned, division names (but not boundaries) can be amended through a locally-led process if desired.

80 A resident suggested that The Old Meadow, Railway Lane and Horsefair were part of the Abbey community, leading to the Town Centre. No specific evidence of community identity was provided, and making this change would leave both Abbey and Underdale divisions with very poor electoral equality (+22% and -19% variances respectively). We have therefore not adopted this proposal.

81 Great Hanwood Parish Council opposed the proposal to place the area north of the A5 and A488 into Radbrook division rather than retaining this area within a division based on Great Hanwood. While this area has only a small number of electors at present, significant development is anticipated during the forecast period, such that a parish ward in this area would be viable, even if a future Community Governance Review makes no alteration to parish boundaries, and we are satisfied that our draft recommendations do not risk effective and convenient local government in this area.

82 The Council and political groups welcomed both the boundaries, and name of our proposed Bicton Heath division, while noting that, again, this encroaches beyond the existing boundaries of Shrewsbury parish in order to incorporate significant development. We confirm our draft recommendations for this, and the other divisions in this area, as final.

Bagley, Battlefield, Castlefields & Ditherington, Harlescott, Monkmoor, Quarry & Coton Hill, Sundorne & Old Heath, and Underdale

83 We received no comments regarding the boundaries of these divisions, other than general support from the Council and political groups, and specific support for Monkmoor division from Cllr P. Molesey. The Council suggested that our proposed Sundorne division be re-named Sundorne & Old Heath, in order to recognise the separate communities within this division. We have adopted this proposal, and subject to this change, we confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

84 Shrewsbury Town Council provided a submission which, while commenting on proposals for divisions in the south of the town, focused largely on the external boundary of the town council area, arguing strongly for the parish of Shrewsbury Town to follow the A5 and A49. While we appreciate the arguments in favour of this boundary, we do not have the power to alter the external boundaries of Shrewsbury, or any other parishes, as part of this electoral review. If a future Community Governance Review, led by Shropshire Council chooses to alter the boundaries of parishes, we can adjust division boundaries to match, without the need for a further full electoral review.

Southern Shropshire

Broseley, Much Wenlock, and Severn Valley

85 Broseley Town Council provided strong evidence that the splitting of the town between two different divisions, as with the existing division and our draft recommendation, did not reflect the community identity of the town. The Town Council argued for the town to be placed in a single division, notwithstanding the fact that this division would have 17% more electors than average.

86 The Council proposed an alternative split of Broseley parish, which would see the settlement of Jackfield, and the rural eastern section of Broseley parish, placed in Much Wenlock division. This would allow Broseley to have good electoral equality, but would mean that a number of electors in Jackfield and the surrounding area would have no direct access to the remainder of Much Wenlock division. The Town Council also argued against this potential boundary, noting that, while the main settlement of Jackfield was in the neighbouring authority of Telford & Wrekin, the Town Council worked hard to integrate those living in Shropshire into the community of Broseley.

87 We visited Broseley on our tour of Shropshire. We considered that the existing boundary, separating the Broseley Wood area from the remainder of the town, was not a particularly strong boundary, and that there did not appear to be a clear distinction of community identity between Broseley Wood and the remainder of the town. This was reflected in the submission from Much Wenlock Town Council.

88 We considered the position of Broseley very carefully. On balance, we concluded that the strong evidence provided of community identity, alongside our observations on tour, meant that the best available balance of our statutory criteria is to recommend a Broseley division comprising the whole of Broseley parish. We recognise that this division is forecast to have 17% more electors than average by 2028. However, we consider that the strong evidence of community identity justifies this poor electoral variance.

89 The Council proposed reverting to the existing northern boundary of Much Wenlock division, particularly with regard to using the boundary between Much Wenlock parish and Hughley and Harley parishes as a division boundary. This boundary broadly follows the line of Wenlock Edge.

90 We visited this area on our tour of Shropshire. We considered that Wenlock Edge does form a clear and recognisable boundary. Further, using Wenlock Edge as a division boundary allows the grouped parishes of Easthope, Shipton and Stanton Long to be placed together in Much Wenlock division. This was requested by both the grouped parish council and Much Wenlock Town Council, citing shared community and particularly educational links.

91 The Council proposed that Cound parish should be placed in Severn Valley division, rather than in an amended Burnell division without Bayston Hill. While the Council did not offer specific community evidence in this area, Berrington Parish Council provided evidence of links between Cound and Cressage parishes, specifically a shared local magazine.

92 Cllr S. James, of Cound Parish Council, expressed opposition to the draft recommendation proposal to join Cound to Bayston Hill, and expressed a desire that the parish should be placed in a rural-based division.

93 We considered this area carefully, and concluded that, while Cound has sufficient community links to be placed within Severn Valley division, the evidence is not strong enough to justify a variance of 15% which would be the case if we included both Cound and Harley parishes within Severn Valley division. We therefore propose to retain Cound within Severn Valley division as part of our final recommendations, and place Harley parish within Much Wenlock division. We note that this moves away from the use of Wenlock Edge as a boundary, but consider that the A458 Harley Hill offers a good connection between the village of Harley and Much Wenlock.

Brown Clee, Highley, and Stottesdon, Kinlet & Hopton Wafers

94 With the exception of placing Easthope, Shipton and Stanton Long parishes in Much Wenlock division (see para 90), the Council and political groups supported our proposals for the remainder of Brown Clee division and Highley division. Chelmarsh Parish Council confirmed that they would rather stay within a Brown Clee division, as opposed to being placed in a division based on either Highley, or Bridgnorth. Burwarton Parish Council also wished to stay in Brown Clee division, although they would prefer that the neighbouring parish of Aston Botterell remained in Brown Clee as well. It is not possible to remove Aston Botterell from Stottesdon, Kinlet & Hopton Wafers division while retaining good electoral equality, and we were not persuaded to adopt this suggestion.

95 Cllr R. Tindall provided a submission opposing changes to the existing Brown Clee division. While some evidence of community identity was provided, this submission did not offer any alternative proposals, or explain how a retained Brown Clee division could fit into alternative patterns of neighbouring divisions and we were not persuaded to adopt this proposal.

96 Billingsley Parish Council expressed opposition to being placed in a different division from its neighbouring parishes of Deuxhill, Glazeley and Middleton Scriven, citing shared community links and facilities within these parishes. The submission expressed a keen desire for these parishes to be represented by a single county councillor, and a secondary desire to be placed in a rural-based division.

97 Highley parish is forecast to have 3,082 electors by 2028. As a division on its own, this would be 14% below the average number of electors. In order to achieve good electoral equality, it is therefore necessary for Highley to be linked to one or more neighbouring parishes.

98 We propose, as part of our final recommendations, to retain the links between Billingsley, Deuxhill, Glazeley and Middleton Scriven parishes, and place these parishes into a division with Highley. We accept that this is an imperfect reflection of the community identity of these parishes, but we believe that it is the best available balance of our criteria given the evidence before us.

99 The Council, and political groups supported the boundaries of our proposed Stottesdon division, but suggested that the name of “Stottesdon” did not adequately reflect the range of communities within this divisions. This view was also reflected by Cllr I. Smith, Cllr P. Blakeaway, Doddington & Hopton Wafers Parish Council, Farlow Parish Council, and Coreley Parish Council. Alternative names were suggested, including ‘South Shropshire Rural’, and ‘Cleobury Mortimer Rural’.

100 Neen Savage Parish Council expressed opposition to our draft recommendations, and wished to remain in a division with the town of Cleobury Mortimer. Farlow Parish Council, and Cleobury Mortimer Town Council also expressed a desire to retain the existing, two-member division in this area. We considered this carefully, but consider that given the formal request for single-member divisions across Shropshire, and the support expressed for the principle of the draft recommendations, we do not consider that we should retain a two-member division in this area as we consider there is a single-member division that reflects the other statutory criteria.

101 While we accept that the name of ‘Stottesdon’ does not fully reflect the communities within this division, we do not consider that either of the names suggested offers a clear improvement. “South Shropshire Rural” could apply to a wide range of areas, while the name of ‘Cleobury Mortimer Rural’ has the potential to be confusing for a division which contains neither the town nor parish of Cleobury Mortimer. We therefore propose the name ‘Stottesdon, Kinlet & Hopton Wafers’ as part of our final recommendations, taking the names of three of the largest settlements from different parts of the division.

Clee, and Cleobury Mortimer

102 Discussion of these divisions focused on the placement of Nash and Boraston parishes. These parishes are in the existing Clee division, and were proposed to be placed in Cleobury Mortimer under our draft recommendations. Bitterley Parish Council provided a submission noting the draft recommendations, but neither supporting nor opposing them.

103 We received a significant number of responses regarding the parish of Nash, including from Cllr C. Morris, Nash Parish Council, and Nash Village Hall. These submissions provided evidence of community links between Nash, and neighbouring parishes of Burford and Caynham, citing cultural, recreational and economic links. The Parish Council submission provided more specific evidence, noting key employment links with Burford, and retail and medical facilities in the village of Clee Hill.

104 The Council, and political groups, supported Nash and Boraston parishes remaining within Clee division. However, this would leave Cleobury Mortimer division with 14% fewer electors than average. In light of this poor variance and the fact that little evidence was offered about how Boraston parish in particular has community links with Clee, we are proposing to include only Nash in a Clee division with Boraston parish being included in Cleobury Mortimer division. Clun, Corvedale, and Craven Arms

105 The Council and political groups, supported our draft recommendations for Clun and Craven Arms divisions. Mainstone with Colebatch Parish Council expressed opposition to the two parishes being placed in different divisions, but did not provide any possible alternative which would maintain good electoral equality for Clun and Bishop’s Castle divisions respectively. We confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

106 The Council expressed concerns over our proposal to place Cardington parish in Corvedale division, citing the already large geographic size of the division, and the lack of public transport links. We are aware that public transport links across many areas of rural Shropshire are, at best, sporadic; however, we do not consider that this is necessarily a barrier to creating divisions in these areas.

107 Combined with our decision around Cound parish (para 67) placing Cardington in Burnell division, as suggested by the Council would leave both Burnell and Corvedale divisions with poor electoral equality (+17% and -14% respectively). While we recognise the views presented regarding of representing a large rural area, we do not consider that variances of these sizes are justified by the evidence presented. We confirm our draft recommendations for Corvedale division as final.

Ludlow East, Ludlow North, and Ludlow South

108 We received relatively few comments on our draft recommendations for Ludlow. The Council and political groups proposed two relatively modest changes from our draft recommendations, placing the Rockgreen estate, in Ludford parish, in Ludlow East division, and moving Vashon Close, Ballard Close, and Baker Close into Ludlow South in order to retain good electoral equality.

109 Some evidence of community identity, primarily based around transport links, was provided. We consider that the change proposed is likely to reflect community identity, and we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations, and adopt the two modest changes proposed by the Council. Apart for this, we confirm our draft recommendations for Ludlow as final.