Worcestershire Final Recommendations

Malvern Hills

Malvern Link and Malvern Trinity

Councillor Whatley suggested further improvements could be made to our proposed Malvern Link division to better reflect community identities in this area. He proposed to remove the electors in Link district ward from Malvern Link division, although an alternative division for these electors was not suggested. This amendment would result in a -42% forecasted electoral variance for Malvern Link division. We consider this electoral variance to be exceptionally high and were therefore not persuaded to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

Councillor Whatley also proposed renaming Malvern Link division as he argued that the majority of the electors within the division lived outside of the settlement that this name is associated with. ‘Alfrick, Leigh & Rushwick’ was suggested to reflect the district ward name that is included in this division or a ‘neutral’ name of ‘Teme Valley’. We were not persuaded to adopt either of these suggestions as part of our final recommendations, as we did not consider them to be any more distinctive than our name of Malvern Link. Furthermore, a resident stated that some of Malvern Link division should be moved into Worcester to reduce its size. We cannot adopt this proposal as it is a statutory requirement that every division we propose must be entirely within a single district or borough.

We received no submissions directly relating to our proposed Malvern Trinity division and therefore confirm this division as part of our final recommendations. Malvern Chase and Malvern Langland

Malvern Town Council expressed support for the proposed parish warding arrangements in Malvern town, which we recommended as a result of our proposed division boundaries in this area. They did nonetheless suggest that the boundary between Pound Bank and Chase town council wards be amended to allow for an additional councillor to be allocated to Pound Bank ward. However, our recommendations for revised parish warding arrangements are required to reflect our proposed county division boundaries and determining county division boundaries upon town councillor allocation is not part of our statutory criteria. Furthermore, we concluded that insufficient community evidence had been provided for us to alter our proposed division boundaries for Malvern Chase and Malvern Langland divisions. Therefore, with no further submissions regarding these divisions received, we have decided to confirm them as final.

Croome and Powick & Longdon

Councillor Allen expressed support for our proposed Croome and Powick divisions. However, a resident proposed to rename Powick division to ‘Powick and Longdon’ to ‘recognise the historic Longdon Marsh which once covered a significant bulk of this area’. The resident also noted that this name is reflected in the names of roads and properties within this division. We were persuaded by this evidence that the name ‘Powick & Longdon’ is appropriate for this division and we have adopted this division name change as part of our final recommendations.

Hallow and Tenbury

We received no submissions directly relating to our proposed Hallow and Tenbury divisions. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Redditch

Redditch Central, Redditch East, Redditch South and Redditch West

Redditch Borough Council suggested amendments to our proposed divisions in order to achieve coterminosity with their new polling district boundaries. We were not persuaded to make these changes to our division arrangements, as the statutory criteria does not require us to consider coterminosity with polling districts when determining division arrangements. We also consider that the Council’s proposal moves away from using strong and locally recognisable boundaries.

Furthermore, a resident of Plymouth Road expressed that they did not want to be affected by a boundary change. This area is part of our proposed Redditch West division. This division reflects the existing arrangements, aside from a name change. We therefore did not make any amendments to this division and confirm it as final.

We did not receive any further submissions regarding our draft recommendations for Redditch and we therefore confirm these divisions as part of our final recommendations.

Worcester

Claines, Rainbow Hill & Fort Royal, St Stephen and Warndon & Elbury Park

A resident submission stated that Gorse Hill & Warndon division should be renamed to ‘Warndon & Elbury Park’ and Rainbow Hill division should be named ‘Rainbow Hill & Fort Royal’ to reflect the city ward names that make up these divisions. We were persuaded to adopt these suggestions as part of our final recommendations, as we agree that the use of locally recognisable names would help to promote effective and convenient local government.

We received no submissions in relation to Claines and St Stephen divisions during consultation. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these divisions as final.

Nunnery, St Peter and Warndon Villages

The Council, Warndon Parish Council, Councillor Cross and a resident opposed our proposals for St Nicholas & Leopard Hill division and advocated for coterminosity between the division boundary and the Warndon parish boundary. The submissions suggested that this arrangement would better reflect community identities and interests in this area. It was also proposed to change the name of St Nicholas & Leopard Hill division to ‘Warndon Villages’, stating that this would be a more locally recognisable name. While we note that this proposal would produce a -14% forecasted electoral variance for Nunnery division, we consider that, based on the evidence received, following the Wardon parish boundary better reflects the identities of local communities in this area and will help promote effective and convenient local government. We did not receive any submissions directly relating to our proposals for St Peter division and we therefore confirm this division as final.

Bedwardine, Riverside and St John

The Council opposed our draft recommendations for Riverside and St John divisions. While we had largely adopted the Council’s proposals for this area, we had slightly amended the boundary between the divisions to follow Himbleton Road, instead of behind the properties along this road, as we considered it to be a stronger and more locally recognised boundary. The Council, however, reinforced their initial proposals. We have decided to adopt their proposal as part of our final recommendations as we are content that their proposed boundary represents a better reflection of the statutory criteria. A resident proposed to extend Bedwardine division to include the entirety of Bromyard Road and Ashford Road. We were not persuaded to adopt this proposal, as this would involve crossing district boundaries which we statutorily cannot do. Furthermore, two residents stated that our proposals for Riverside division grouped electors that had no community connections and had a lack of coterminosity with city wards. One of these residents presented alternative proposals for Riverside, Bedwardine and St John divisions. However, they resulted in an anticipated electoral variance of -14% for Bedwardine division. We were not persuaded that sufficient community evidence had been supplied to justify such a variance and we have not adopted this proposal in our final recommendations.

Wychavon

Bredon, Broadway and Littletons

Badsey & Aldington Parish Council opposed our draft recommendation to transfer Badsey parish from Littletons division to Broadway division. The parish council proposed to retain Badsey parish in Littletons division, asserting that it had stronger community connections with the parishes in Littletons division. Two residents advocated for Badsey and Aldington parishes to remain within the same division to reflect community identities and interests. One resident stated that the parishes were ‘entwined in many ways’ and shared many local services.   We are unable to adopt the request made by Badsey & Aldington Parish Council and retain Badsey parish within Littletons division, if we are to ensure a good level of electoral equality, as this would produce a 21% anticipated electoral variance for Littletons division. However, we were persuaded by the local evidence received that Badsey and Aldington parishes should remain in the same division. We were persuaded that the proposal to split the grouped parish council of Badsey & Aldington would not reflect community identities in this area nor aid effective and convenient local government. We have therefore transferred Aldington parish to Broadway division as part of our final recommendations.  

Councillor Eyre acknowledged that our draft recommendation for retaining Sedgeberrow parish in Broadway division improved coterminosity with district wards. However, they proposed to transfer the parish to Bredon division. We were persuaded to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations as we consider that the evidence supplied demonstrates that such a change would represent the most effective balance of our statutory criteria.

Evesham North West, Evesham South and Harvington

The Council, Mid Worcestershire & the Vale Green Party, Evesham Town Council, Councillor Raphael, Councillor Stokes, Councillor Goodge and eight residents objected to our draft recommendations for Evesham. These submissions broadly argued that transferring part of Evesham town centre into the predominantly rural division of Harvington did not reflect community identities and interests. We had previously adopted the Council’s proposal for our draft recommendations to ensure good electoral equality in this area. In response, several of these submissions proposed to retain the existing boundaries for Evesham North West and Evesham South divisions. However, we are unable to adopt this proposal, as it produces poor levels of electoral equality for both divisions. The Council proposed an ame/ndment to their initial proposal in order to retain key facilities and landmarks which local people associate with Evesham town in Evesham North West division. Although this modification results in an 11% anticipated electoral variance for the division, we have been persuaded by the local evidence received to adopt this suggestion as part of our final recommendations, as we consider that this change will better reflect community identities and interests in this area.

Pershore and Upton Snodsbury

Councillor Betteridge, Councillor Boatright-Greene, Bishampton & Throckmorton Parish Council and two residents supported our proposals for Pershore division, which reflects the existing arrangements. We therefore confirm this division as final.

We received support from Kington & Dormston Parish Council, Peopleton Parish Council and two residents for our proposal to retain Kington & Dormston parish in our proposed Upton Snodsbury division. We therefore confirm this division as final.

Bowbrook, Droitwich East, Droitwich West and Ombersley

Hindlip, Martin Hussingtree & Salwarpe Parish Council supported our draft recommendations for Bowbrook division and considered them to provide for effective and convenient local government. Councillor Morris also expressed support for our draft recommendations in this area, but proposed to extend the boundary of Droitwich West division further south to the Copcut Roundabout, to include electors on Lahn Drive and Monnow Close. They argued that this would provide for a more locally recognisable boundary. After consideration, we consider this amendment to better reflect our statutory criteria and have adopted it as part of our final recommendations.

Dodderhill Parish Council expressed support for our proposal to move Impney parish ward from Ombersley division to Droitwich East division. We received no further submissions relating to these divisions and we therefore confirm them as final.