Vale of White Horse final recommendations

Faringdon and Ridgeway

We received six responses regarding our draft recommendations for the west of the district, as well as comments on this area from the Council. These comments concerned the large three-member Faringdon & Stanford ward as well as the parishes of Baulking and Uffington which we proposed be included in separate wards.

Faringdon, Ridgeway, Stanford and Watchfield & Shrivenham

As part of our draft recommendations, we proposed a new pattern of wards in the western area of Vale of White Horse. The Council’s submission during the initial consultation supported the maintenance of the existing warding arrangements in this area; however, at that time we noted the high forecast electoral variance of 14% for a Faringdon ward comprising only Great Faringdon parish. We considered that this was a relatively high electoral imbalance that was not supported by the evidence received. As part of our draft recommendations, we therefore proposed a three-member Faringdon & Stanford ward, as well as revised two-member Watchfield & Shrivenham and single-member Ridgeway wards.

In response to our draft recommendations we received submissions from Baulking Parish Meeting, Councillor Oldnall of Uffington parish and a resident of Baulking, who all emphasised the strong links between Baulking and Uffington. Baulking Parish Meeting described Uffington as a ‘mother’ village, noting that ‘our shop, our main church in the benefice, our vicar, our local school, and our Community Hall are all situated there.’ It added details about shared community projects, support groups, and newsletters in the area, as well as a Neighbourhood Plan which was jointly developed by the two villages. The resident mentioned the local community bus and the Uffington, Baulking and Woolstone (UBW) bus when referencing the strong links between these villages. The Uffington parish councillor further emphasised the community ties in this area, where Baulking and Woolstone rely on several services oriented around Uffington.

The Council supported these comments in its own submission, where it strongly opposed placing Baulking and Uffington into different district wards. It requested ‘that the Commission consider alternative arrangements which provide for [Baulking and Uffington] to be included in the same ward recognising that this may result in a compromise regarding electoral equality or a ward covering a larger geographical area”.

We additionally received submissions from a resident in Faringdon, a resident in Little Coxwell, and Stanford in the Vale Parish Council. The first resident questioned the addition of another councillor to Faringdon & Stanford ward while the second resident opposed the inclusion of Little Coxwell in a Faringdon ward, noting that ‘it is part of a network of villages and it should remain part of that rural network.” Stanford in the Vale Parish Council submitted extensive comments in opposition to the proposed Faringdon & Stanford ward. It suggested that residents of Uffington and nearby villages would use Stanford for certain services (such as larger shops or the post office) rather than Watchfield or Shrivenham. It additionally raised concerns regarding the pairing of a large market town with smaller villages in one large three-member ward, noting that a Faringdon & Stanford ward as proposed would be the only one of its type in the district.

We have carefully considered the submissions received and are persuaded by the evidence that Baulking and Uffington parishes should be in the same ward, and ideally also in the same ward as Woolstone parish. We note that an amendment to our proposed Watchfield & Shrivenham ward where it would also include Baulking parish would result in a forecast electoral variance of 14%. An alternative amendment to the draft recommendations where both Baulking and Uffington parishes are included in Ridgeway ward would increase the electoral variance of that ward to 16%.

In addition to the comments regarding Baulking parish, we are persuaded by the evidence from Stanford in the Vale Parish Council that it is best represented in a single-member ward, as under the existing arrangements. Because the only shortcoming of the existing pattern is the 14% forecast electoral variance of Faringdon ward, and because any pattern which includes Baulking and Uffington parishes in the same ward results in variances of 14+% anyway, we are proposing to retain the existing Faringdon, Ridgeway, Stanford and Watchfield & Shrivenham wards as part of our final recommendations.

In our draft recommendations report we said that we were particularly interested to hear local perspectives in this area, recognising that a departure from the existing warding pattern might prove contentious. We consider that the evidence received for this area during the second consultation has demonstrated the strengths of this pattern and we cannot suggest any reasonable alternatives that provide a better balance between our statutory criteria here. As part of our final recommendations, we therefore propose a two-member Faringdon ward, a single-member Ridgeway ward, a single-member Stanford ward, and a two-member Watchfield & Shrivenham ward, all aligning to existing ward boundaries.

Kingston Bagpuize and Vale North East

Botley & Sunningwell, Cumnor, Kennington & Radley and Kingston Bagpuize

We received one submission for these wards other than the general response from the Council, which fully supported the draft recommendations. This was from a member of public who suggested that Goosey parish has more natural ties to Faringdon, Stanford and Wantage than to Kingston Bagpuize. While we acknowledge these views, we were not persuaded that sufficient evidence had been received to amend our draft recommendations here.

We therefore propose to confirm our draft recommendations for Botley & Sunningwell, Cumnor, Kennington & Radley and Kingston Bagpuize wards as final. All of the wards are forecast to have good electoral equality by 2029. 16 Marcham & Wootton

In addition to the Council’s submission noted above, we received a submission from St Helen Without Parish Council. It supported the draft recommendations for Marcham & Wootton ward, noting that this configuration keeps St Helen Without parish entirely within one ward. It suggested that, due to forecast population growth beyond the extent of this review, St Helen Without could grow larger than both Marcham and Wootton villages and that the name of the ward could be changed to reflect that shift. It suggested that Shippon, where the new housing development is situated, be included in a renamed Marcham, Shippon & Wootton ward.

While we note the rationale for changing the ward name here, we are not persuaded that this name would best reflect the ward and its inhabitants as it currently exists. We consider that, should future electorate shifts outside of the five-year forecasting period substantially alter the character of the ward, a review could account for any changes at that time. Indeed, the legislation provides for the process by which a district council may change a ward name at the appropriate time. We therefore propose to confirm our proposed Marcham & Wootton ward as part of our final recommendations.

Vale South East

Blewbury & Chilton

One response we received suggested that Blewbury & Chilton would be a better name for the ward we originally proposed as Blewbury. This suggestion was supported by the Council, which noted that this name included both of the two largest settlements within the ward.

We received a submission from Chilton Parish Council, which argued that the Harwell Campus area of Harwell parish should be included in the Blewbury & Chilton ward. It suggested that Chilton has strong links with the Harwell Campus area (including Severn Road) and that they should fall within the same district ward.

We visited this area when preparing our draft recommendations for Vale of White Horse and noted that the Harwell Science and Innovation Campus is divided between parish boundaries. We consider that, as the campus contains no electors, it is still best to use parish boundaries as ward boundaries in this area. We consider the electors near the campus, namely those in the Chilton Field Way area and on North Drive, are better oriented to the parishes of Chilton and Harwell, respectively. We therefore propose to confirm our draft recommendations as final here.

We propose a Blewbury & Chilton ward comprising the parishes of Blewbury, Chilton and Upton, as in the draft recommendations. We are persuaded that the name of Blewbury & Chilton is more reflective of local communities in the ward and have adopted it as part of our final recommendations.

Drayton, Hendreds, Steventon & East Hanney and Sutton Courtenay

We received relatively few submissions for these four wards. Sutton Courtenay Parish Council submitted comments supporting the draft recommendations. A member of the public argued that Milton Heights represents a poorly connected spur of Hendreds ward, and that the area would be better included in a neighbouring ward.

We note the comments regarding Milton Heights but are not persuaded that excluding Milton Heights from Hendreds ward would provide for a good balance of the statutory criteria. Without electors from the Milton Heights area, the forecast electoral variance in Hendreds ward would be 36% below the average for the district. This would result in very high electoral inequality which is not supported by the evidence received.

We therefore propose to confirm our draft recommendations for Drayton, Hendreds, Steventon & East Hanney and Sutton Courtenay wards as final.

Harwell & Western Valley

We received several responses regarding our proposed Harwell & Western Valley ward, including comments from the Council in support of the draft recommendations. Councillor Pearson, of Harwell Parish Council, suggested that Harwell is a village (rather than a Didcot town extension like Western Valley) and that it has greater affinity with parishes to the south than with Western Valley.

Western Valley Parish Council submitted comments in favour of the proposed two-member Harwell & Western Valley ward.

A member of the public suggested that a single-member Western Valley ward would better reflect local ties, noting that the A34 acts as a boundary between Harwell and Didcot; this submission additionally advocated for a review of the external district boundary between Vale of White Horse and South Oxfordshire.

We still consider that a two-member Harwell & Western Valley ward represents the best balance of our statutory criteria in this area. We consider that a large three-member Blewbury & Harwell ward (comprising four different parishes) would not provide for effective and convenient local government. Additionally, the resulting imbalance in electoral equality of a single-member Western Valley ward (with a forecast variance of 13%) is not supported by the evidence received for this specific area. Additionally, this review cannot change the external boundaries between Vale of White Horse and adjoining authorities. This can only be done via a Principal Area Boundary Review, which is a separate process to the current electoral review.

We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for a two-member Harwell & Western Valley ward as final. This ward will have very good electoral equality by 2029.