The need for Boundary changes, a local issue too? Options

[On the edge]

Parliamentary boundary changes, designed to make the size of constituencies more fair were blocked by the LibDems in the last government.

Rather interesting then to have a quick look locally. For instance, our Town Council wards are around 4,000 electors. However, a couple at least, Brummell Grove and Pyle Hill are significantly smaller.

Similarly, the size of some of the wards well exceeds the size of a good few 'parishes' elsewhere in the West Berkshire district.

Coupled with the present government's implicit aim of delivering devolved powers to English regions - we need a serious debate on the future structure of our local government.

For instance, should we not attach Pyle Hill to Greenham Parish, Brummell Grove to Speen, create parishes for Falkland, Clay Hill etc, leaving just Victoria and say Northcroft as a parish for the Town. Yes, and perhaps a similar arrangement for Thatcham.

This would eliminate the operational differences between rural and urban 'parishes', truly serve a locality and mostly stop the petty squabbling and empire building by the pseudo town councils.

Any views?

[blackdog]

The relative size of the wards is reflected in the number of councillors they elect - 1 for Brummell Grove, 2 for Pyle Hill, 4 for Northcroft etc.

You propose removing over half the population of Newbury to adjoining or new parishes - do you not think that inhabitants of Wash Common should have a say over what is going on in Newbury?

At least it's not the more common demand for the built-up areas of Greenham, Shaw & Speen to be amalgamated into a larger Newbury and pay the higher precept.

[On the edge]

I don't think the inhabitants of Wash Common should have any more interest in what happens in the centre of Newbury than the inhabitants of Victoria ward would have in what happens in Clay Hill. In all cases, the 'voice' that counts is West Berks the unitary authority.

So, the proposal is both. Absorb some small wards into existing parishes and create some new ones out of the carcass of NTC. I appreciate the effect of size is mitigated by the reduced number of councillors, even so, the number of electors per councillor is still very low in the small wards.

Further reasons are demonstrated by the example of Sandleford. A good many local residents don't want it, understandably. So it becomes a strategic planning issue - WBC. All the Town Council does is add another, potentially muddled discordant voice. All that does is add cost and confusion.

In reality; given its very limited powers and limited ability, it would make far better sense to focus advisory and intimate collective service delivery on real neighbourhoods.

The precept issue is interesting. Arguably, on a logical basis, the parish precept for Newbury town should be far lower than that for a rural parish. That's because there are rather more people to share the costs of the parish / town council's statutory provisions.

I wholly agree, the parish freeloaders on the edge of the towns would loose out slightly. The same as prevails in Reading. When I lived there a few years back, there was a fair resentment of the freeloaders who lived at the back of Tilehurst / Calcot, who expected Reading services at Newbury prices.

Perhaps it's time the majority were made aware of the free ride they are giving to their rural neighbours...

[James_Trinder]

I wholly agree, the parish freeloaders on the edge of the towns would loose out slightly. The same as prevails in Reading. When I lived there a few years back, there was a fair resentment of the freeloaders who lived at the back of Tilehurst / Calcot, who expected Reading services at Newbury prices.

Perhaps it's time the majority were made aware of the free ride they are giving to their rural neighbours...

It's very much the same with freeloaders from across the border in Basingstoke & Deane. I know this because I used to be one of said people and it definitely continues these days. For example, I was at Northcroft today and there was a guy from just over the border, who was not only making use of the facilities, which is fair enough, but also trying to obtain the West Berkshire Card for free and was obviously declined. To be fair, a lot of it is probably ignorance because people don't even know what county/district their house is in half the time. There was a proposal to transfer all of these parishes to West Berkshire a while back on common sense grounds but obviously it was rejected on not wanting to pay a higher rate of council tax grounds in a very similar situation to the eastern parishes next to Reading.

[mush]

This is an urgent subject. Next Thursday West Berks Council will decide to ask the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to undertake an Electoral Review of the whole District in time for the 2019 local elections. But this will only look at District Wards. It won't look at parish boundaries or the potential to merge parishes or create new ones - which is called a Community Governance Review (CGR).
With 2500 more homes due to be built in South Newbury / Greenham (Sandleford Park) between now and 2030, surely the present boundary between Newbury and Greenham is not fit for purpose: it will put 40% of those homes in Newbury (plus almost all the traffic problems they create) but the rest of the homes in Greenham.
Up to 25% of "developers contributions" (money) goes to the town/parish council, not West Berks District. So it really matters which parish / town this new development is in. Newbury will be starved of funds to cope with the traffic unless the boundary is re-drawn.
It is up to the District itself - not LGBCE - to undertake any review of parish boundaries. It ought to do this BEFORE LGBCE reviews District Wards, which use parishes as 'building blocks'. There is plenty of time to do both before 2019 but the District doesn't want to bother, because it will cost them money (about £50k) to do it.

We could petition to demand a CGR. If 10% of electors in any area of more than 2500 voters demand a CGR, the District MUST do one.

Anyone interested in doing such a petition?

[Simon Kirby]

Newbury will be starved of funds to cope with the traffic unless the boundary is re-drawn.

Mercifully, our Numpty Town Council is not responsible for roads and so the parish boundaries really only affect the divvy of loot that each can spend on mayoral regalia and such, which I acknowledge to be of the greatest importance to our elected councillors, but not of any great significance to anyone else.

[On the edge]

This is an urgent subject. Next Thursday West Berks Council will decide to ask the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) to undertake an Electoral Review of the whole District in time for the 2019 local elections. But this will only look at District Wards. It won't look at parish boundaries or the potential to merge parishes or create new ones - which is called a Community Governance Review (CGR).
With 2500 more homes due to be built in South Newbury / Greenham (Sandleford Park) between now and 2030, surely the present boundary between Newbury and Greenham is not fit for purpose: it will put 40% of those homes in Newbury (plus almost all the traffic problems they create) but the rest of the homes in Greenham.
Up to 25% of "developers contributions" (money) goes to the town/parish council, not West Berks District. So it really matters which parish / town this new development is in. Newbury will be starved of funds to cope with the traffic unless the boundary is re-drawn.
It is up to the District itself - not LGBCE - to undertake any review of parish boundaries. It ought to do this BEFORE LGBCE reviews District Wards, which use parishes as 'building blocks'. There is plenty of time to do both before 2019 but the District doesn't want to bother, because it will cost them money (about £50k) to do it.

We could petition to demand a CGR. If 10% of electors in any area of more than 2500 voters demand a CGR, the District MUST do one.

Anyone interested in doing such a petition?

Yes, this should be the way to eliminate the 'lets pretend' town councils who waste so much resource and money yet have so little effect. For instance, Wash Common, Clay Hill, East Fields etc. have very little in common at 'base level' but do have cohesive communities. If they were Parishes in their own right, 'Newbury Town would loose much of its assumed power because its precept take would drop. Similarly for Thatcham. The UNITARY authority should provide the local government services leaving the parishes (as they are for the most part) advisory only.