The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South West
Gloucestershire and Wiltshire
Initial proposals
Of the 13 existing constituencies in the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire sub-region, five were within the permitted electorate range and the remaining eight were above the range. Furthermore, an increase in the total number of constituencies in the sub-region unavoidably results in significant change to many existing constituencies. We therefore proposed a cross-county boundary constituency that extended along most of the boundary between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. This constituency comprised wards that were considered to be similarly rural in nature, from the existing The Cotswolds and North Wiltshire constituencies. Additionally, we proposed retaining the existing constituency of Forest of Dean, with minor modifications only to reflect changes to local government ward boundaries.
The electorate of the existing constituency of Gloucester is too large to form a single constituency, and had to be modified in order to bring it within the permitted range. We examined the possibility of including three wards comprising the Quedgeley community in The Cotswolds constituency, but considered that including wards from the northern area of Gloucester in a Tewkesbury constituency would better reflect the statutory factors. The City of Gloucester ward of Longlevens is not included in the existing current Gloucester constituency; our initial proposals retained this ward in the Tewkesbury constituency, as well as the City of Gloucester wards of Elmbridge and Barnwood.
The electorate of the existing Cheltenham constituency exceeded the permitted electorate range. The Borough of Cheltenham wards of Prestbury and Swindon Village are currently included in the existing Tewkesbury constituency, and we additionally included the Borough of Cheltenham ward of Springbank in the Tewkesbury constituency, in order to bring the Cheltenham constituency within the permitted range.
With an electorate of 83,818, the existing Tewkesbury constituency was above the permitted range. In formulating our proposals for Gloucester and Cheltenham, we had increased the electorate of the Tewkesbury constituency further. To bring it within the permitted range, we proposed the inclusion of seven District of Tewkesbury wards from the existing Tewkesbury constituency to the adjacent The Cotswolds constituency, including the Winchcombe and Isbourne wards, together with five wards that form the geographical area between our proposed Gloucester and Cheltenham constituencies.
The electorate of the Stroud constituency, at 84,573, required modifications as it considerably exceeded the permitted range. We therefore proposed the inclusion of four Stroud district wards, namely Hardwicke, Painswick & Upton, Bisley, and Chalford, in our proposed The Cotswolds constituency. We also proposed the inclusion of the two Stroud district wards of Kingswood and Wotton-under-Edge in the Stroud constituency. Apart from the changes previously mentioned, we proposed significant changes to the boundaries of the existing The Cotswolds constituency with the inclusion of 20 wards from the existing The Cotswolds constituency, which included the town of Cirencester, as well as seven wards from the North Wiltshire constituency, which included the town of Malmesbury.
One of our objectives was not to cross the boundary with the unitary authority of Swindon. Currently, the unitary authority of Swindon has two constituencies. However, the North Swindon constituency has an electorate of 82,561, while the South Swindon constituency’s electorate of 72,994 falls within the permitted range. Changes to local government wards result in the Mannington and Western, and Covingham and Dorcan wards being split between the two existing constituencies. We therefore proposed the inclusion of the whole of the Mannington and Western, and Covingham and Dorcan wards in the South Swindon constituency, which would bring the North Swindon constituency within the permitted range. However, this resulted in the South Swindon constituency having too large an electorate and needing to be reduced. To address this, we included the Borough of Swindon wards of Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway in our proposed East Wiltshire constituency.
Our proposed Chippenham constituency included the towns of Chippenham, Royal Wootton Bassett, and Calne. The ward of Bromham, Rowde & Roundway was also included. We proposed a Melksham and Devizes constituency encompassing the towns of Corsham, Melksham, Bradford-on-Avon, and Devizes and consequently renamed the existing Devizes constituency East Wiltshire. Apart from the inclusion of the two Swindon wards, we also included in East Wiltshire the wards that comprise the town of Amesbury, to avoid its division between constituencies.
To increase the electorate of the Salisbury constituency, we included the whole of the Fovant & Chalke Valley ward and the Tisbury ward, which also allowed for the South West Wiltshire constituency to fall within the permitted range. We proposed that this constituency be renamed Trowbridge and Warminster.
There was support for our proposals in this sub-region, but considerable objection and a number of counter proposals were submitted.
The initial proposals for the Forest of Dean, which had effectively remained the same as the existing constituency, did not elicit a large number of representations.
Our proposals to include the Springbank ward in the Tewkesbury constituency were overwhelmingly opposed, with approximately 350 objections. Representations suggested the ward had no real connection to Tewkesbury and should remain in the Cheltenham constituency. Counter proposals suggested that the ward to be included in the Tewkesbury constituency (thereby not in the Cheltenham constituency) should be either Battledown, Pittville, or more particularly, St. Paul’s. This latter ward is in the same county division as the Swindon Village ward, currently in the existing Tewkesbury constituency, and it was argued that St. Paul’s should be included in the Tewkesbury constituency instead of Springbank. However, these suggestions came to the notice of many respondents who strongly opposed the exclusion of the St. Paul’s ward from Cheltenham and claimed that the counter proposals with respect to the St. Paul’s ward would see much of Cheltenham High Street excluded from the Cheltenham constituency.
Our initial proposals for Gloucester attracted a great deal of opposition, with over 400 representations opposing the inclusion of either the Elmbridge or Barnwood wards in the Tewkesbury constituency. Furthermore, there were numerous representations calling for the Longlevens ward to be returned to the Gloucester constituency. Some suggested an alternative configuration that would place all three wards in question in the Gloucester constituency and include the three wards containing the community of Quedgeley in The Cotswolds constituency or Stroud.
Concerns were raised that our proposals would result in an irregularly-shaped Tewkesbury constituency, with the town of Tewkesbury isolated in a relatively small area in the far north of the constituency. However, there was both opposition and support for the inclusion of the Winchcombe ward in The Cotswolds constituency. There were also calls for the entirety of the town of Churchdown to be included in The Cotswolds constituency: the initial proposals had divided the town into two separate constituencies with the Churchdown St. John’s ward included in the Tewkesbury constituency, and the Churchdown Brookfield with Hucclecote ward included in The Cotswolds constituency.
There was considerable opposition to our proposed Stroud constituency, with numerous representations received suggesting alternate wards that should be included. We received approximately 110 representations objecting to the inclusion of the Chalford ward in The Cotswolds constituency, with proposals for the ward, and Minchinhampton ward to be included in Stroud. The inclusion of the Hardwicke ward in The Cotswolds constituency was opposed, with it being suggested that the Nailsworth ward would be a better fit in The Cotswolds constituency and that Hardwicke’s links with Stroud were stronger than those of Nailsworth. However, this position was opposed in many representations which suggested that Nailsworth should not be included in The Cotswolds, and that, of the two wards, Hardwicke’s inclusion in The Cotswolds constituency was more appropriate. There was also opposition to the inclusion of the Bisley, and the Painswick & Upton wards in The Cotswolds, but support for the inclusion of the Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood wards in the Stroud constituency.
A significant number of representations were received in opposition to the proposed The Cotswolds constituency, but there was some support with the suggestions that it be renamed North Cotswolds. The Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency was also opposed. The widely expressed sentiment was that the town of Cirencester, known as ‘the Capital of the Cotswolds’, could not be in a constituency with parts of Wiltshire. A counter proposal to include the Chedworth & Churn Valley ward in the same constituency as Cirencester was supported. A number of representations opposed the inclusion of Coln Valley ward, and in particular Northleach ward, in the cross-country constituency, which it was said looked towards the north Cotswolds. A number of representations suggested that the constituency would be more acceptable if the name were changed, with South Cotswolds being a popular and widely suggested option.
The decision to treat Swindon as a separate entity and not to cross the county boundary between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire drew widespread support. Nevertheless, there were representations both supporting and opposing the initial proposals for the two Swindon constituencies, with objections raised about the inclusion of two Swindon borough wards in the East Wiltshire constituency.
The local government ward boundary changes in Wiltshire had posed challenges in maintaining as best we could the existing pattern of constituencies, and our initial proposals in Wiltshire were almost universally opposed. Nevertheless, there was some positive feedback regarding the proposed Chippenham constituency, and some support for the Melksham and Devizes constituency. A counter proposal was received that made substantial changes to the Chippenham, Melksham, and Devizes constituencies, with the primary objective to include the town of Corsham in the same constituency as Chippenham. It proposed the inclusion of the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward in a Melksham and Devizes constituency alongside the Calne wards, Lyneham ward, and the three Royal Wootton Bassett wards. The reconfigured Chippenham constituency would comprise two Bradford-on-Avon wards, three Corsham wards, Box & Colerne, Hilperton, Holt, Melksham Without West and Rural, and the Winsley & Westwood wards. However, there was significant opposition to this counter proposal, with it being claimed that the links between Corsham and Chippenham were overemphasised, and that Calne had closer ties with Chippenham. There were also concerns about the counter proposed Melksham and Devizes constituency, running from Royal Wootton Bassett south to Devizes and beyond.
The perceived separation of the rural wards surrounding Devizes from the town also elicited widespread opposition, particularly from the Urchfont & Bishops Canning, and The Lavingtons wards. Devizes was located at the eastern end of the newly formed Melksham and Devizes constituency, and many representations from the renamed East Wiltshire constituency appeared to believe it was their areas that had been moved between constituencies and not the town of Devizes. The inclusion of the town of Amesbury in the East Wiltshire constituency was opposed, with it being suggested that Amesbury identifies more closely with Salisbury than with the towns to the north of Salisbury Plain. There was a suggestion for the East Wiltshire constituency to be renamed Vale of Pewsey.
From the proposed Trowbridge and Warminster constituency there were few representations, but there was some support. The main issue was the call for a return of the existing constituency name of South West Wiltshire constituency. Although both the Nadder Valley and Tisbury wards attracted very little attention in the representations, among those that did mention the wards were proposals that they be included in the Salisbury constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited various areas in Cheltenham to investigate the conflicting evidence. From their observations they concluded that the St. Paul’s ward was an essential component of the town centre and excluding it from the Cheltenham constituency would be disruptive, as would the exclusion of either the Pittville or Battledown wards. They considered that the Springbank ward’s connections with the town centre were weaker than those of St. Paul’s, Battledown, and Pittville. We agreed with them and did not revise our proposals for the Cheltenham constituency. Given the support for our initial proposals we did not revise the Forest of Dean constituency.
We noted that it was not necessary to include a further two Gloucester wards in the Tewkesbury constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners noted that, as the Longlevens and Elmbridge wards lay adjacent to each other, and Longlevens is already part of the Tewkesbury constituency, these two wards should remain included in the Tewkesbury constituency, and that the Barnwood ward would now remain in the Gloucester constituency. The Assistant Commissioners also considered the counter proposals suggesting the exclusion of the three southern wards of Gloucester comprising the town of Quedgeley. They visited the areas and considered that, while the counter proposals had some merit, they were not persuaded that it should be part of The Cotswolds constituency rather than Gloucester, despite its relatively newer and self-contained nature. We agreed.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the re-inclusion of the Isbourne and Winchcombe wards in the Tewkesbury constituency again was appropriate, and that this would also allow for the inclusion of the two wards encompassing the town of Churchdown within the same constituency.
With regard to the Stroud constituency, and following the site visit to the area by our Assistant Commissioners, we agreed with their recommendations and proposed a revised configuration for the Stroud constituency. We included the Chalford ward in the constituency, but not the Minchinhampton ward, which we considered was somewhat separated from Chalford and was not currently included in the existing Stroud constituency, nor the Bisley ward. Our Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence for the retention of the Nailsworth ward in the Stroud constituency to be stronger than that of the Hardwicke ward. We agreed and proposed that Hardwicke would continue to be included in The Cotswolds constituency, with the adjacent Painswick & Upton ward. Additionally, although we proposed that the Wotton-under-Edge ward continue to be included in the Stroud constituency, we included the Kingswood ward in the cross‑county constituency between Gloucester and Wiltshire to accommodate the changes made. Both are District of Stroud wards but currently part of The Cotswolds constituency. Despite our thorough consideration of all the wards, we acknowledged that there is no perfect solution that would satisfy all residents of the District of Stroud.
We revised our initial proposals to include the Northleach and Coln Valley wards in The Cotswolds constituency rather than Cirencester and North Wiltshire. Although we acknowledged the historical connections between the Chedworth & Churn Valley ward and the town of Cirencester, including it in the cross-county boundary constituency would result in an abnormal shape for The Cotswolds, with a narrow strip of land linking its two parts, and that its non-inclusion would result in a Cotswolds constituency with an electorate below the permitted range. We also renamed The Cotswolds, and Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituencies as the North Cotswolds and South Cotswolds, respectively.
Following the Assistant Commissioners’ site visits to the area and their recommendations, we made some significant revisions to our proposed constituencies in Swindon and Wiltshire. We aimed at producing a set of constituencies that sought to reflect the community identity evidence received. However, our Assistant Commissioners identified that no counter proposal received fully achieved this, so they investigated alternative configurations. They proposed a revised Chippenham constituency, which would include Royal Wootton Bassett, Calne, and Corsham within the same constituency as Chippenham. They considered this would address many concerns raised in the representations and partially satisfy the conflicting counter proposals received. Although they recognised the clear distinction between the urban area of Devizes and the rural wards of Urchfont & Bishops Canning, and The Lavingtons, we acknowledged the large number of representations that suggested that these wards looked to Devizes. Amending the Chippenham constituency, as suggested above, allowed for both wards to be included in the Melksham and Devizes constituency, and the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward could also be included without the need for a split. The Assistant Commissioners also proposed including the Calne South ward in the Melksham and Devizes constituency. We agreed with the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners and considered the configuration of constituencies they had formulated better reflected the community identity evidence received.
Including the Urchfont & Bishops Cannings, and The Lavingtons wards in the Melksham and Devizes constituency meant we had to find an alternative ward to include in the East Wiltshire constituency to bring it within the permitted range. Given that the electorates of all the constituencies in the county were so close to the minimum permitted, accomplishing this was a difficult task. However, we proposed the inclusion of the Till Valley ward in the East Wiltshire constituency from the Salisbury constituency. Our revised proposal maintained the town of Amesbury in the East Wiltshire constituency, despite the concerns in various representations. To accommodate these further changes, the Nadder Valley and Tisbury wards were included in the Salisbury constituency, as suggested in some of the representations, and to bring the Trowbridge and Warminster constituency – which we proposed revert to its existing name of South West Wiltshire – within the permitted electorate range, we included the Hilperton ward in this constituency, which, it could be argued, is a part of Trowbridge.
Following the site visit by our Assistant Commissioners to Swindon and their recommendations, we proposed that there be no revisions to the Swindon North constituency, for which we received relatively few representations. However, we had received a number of representations regarding the Swindon South constituency with support for the inclusion of each of the three wards of Wroughton and Wichelstowe, Chiseldon and Lawn, and Ridgeway in the constituency, instead of in East Wiltshire. However, due to the size of the ward electorates, and in order to allow for the other changes we were proposing, this was not possible. The Assistant Commissioners had considered that, while the Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway wards were mostly rural in nature and should be included in the East Wiltshire constituency, the Chiseldon and Lawn ward, while also having a rural extent, had a significant urban element in the north of the ward that was in close proximity to the Lawn and Badbury areas and Swindon Old Town. They therefore recommended that the ward be split, with three urban polling districts (CLA, CLC, and CLD) lying to the north of the M4 motorway included in Swindon South, while the rural polling district of CLB would be included with the other two Swindon wards in the East Wiltshire constituency. We agreed with their recommendations and considered that the split of the Chiseldon and Lawn ward allowed for greater benefits for the pattern of constituencies across the sub-region.
Although we received some support for not including the St. Paul’s ward in the Tewksbury constituency instead of the Springbank ward, there was still some opposition, albeit much less, to the continued inclusion of Springbank in the Tewkesbury constituency. A small number of representations continued to suggest that Battledown ward should be excluded instead of Springbank, as an affluent area with a lower population density may be a better fit for Tewkesbury than Springbank. Elsewhere, we received support for the re-inclusion of the Barnwood ward in the Gloucester constituency in our revised proposals. However, there was still opposition to the exclusion of the Elmbridge and Longlevens wards from the Gloucester constituency.
A limited number of representations were received regarding the Forest of Dean constituency, with some suggesting name changes of Forest of Dean and North Gloucestershire, or West Gloucestershire, and regarding the Tewkesbury constituency, which, it was suggested, be renamed North Gloucestershire. Only two representations were received in relation to the re-inclusion of the Isbourne and Winchcombe wards in the Tewkesbury constituency.
We received some support for the Stroud and North Cotswolds constituencies, as well as for the inclusion of the Nailsworth, Chalford, and Wotton-under-Edge wards in the revised Stroud constituency. However, a number of representations continued to suggest that the wards of Hardwicke, Minchinhampton, Bisley, and Painswick & Upton, which are currently part of North Cotswolds, should be included in the Stroud constituency instead. Unfortunately, it is not possible to include all District of Stroud wards within the Stroud constituency. One counter proposal suggested that the Severn ward should be included in the North Cotswolds constituency instead of the Stroud constituency. There was little feedback regarding the reuniting of the two Churchdown wards in the North Cotswolds constituency.
Objections were received regarding the South Cotswolds constituency. It was suggested by respondents that the Kingswood ward is closely linked with Wotton-under-Edge and should also be included in the Stroud constituency, as we had done in our initial proposals. A representation that included the Kingswood ward in the Stroud constituency affected three constituencies.
The revised proposals for the Chippenham, and Melksham and Devizes constituencies garnered little support. Most representations were in favour of keeping Chippenham as it is and there was significant opposition, with a large number of representations opposed, in particular, to the inclusion of the Box & Colerne ward in the Melksham and Devizes constituency. The majority of these respondents proposed that the ward be included in the South Cotswolds or Chippenham constituencies instead. A number of representations opposed the inclusion of the Calne South ward in the Melksham and Devizes constituency and drew attention to the fact that its inclusion in the constituency would separate the ward from the rest of Calne. We had included this ward in the Melksham and Devizes constituency as this enabled the configuration of constituencies that we had proposed in Wiltshire. A counter proposal suggested that the Calne Rural ward be split and partly included in Melksham and Devizes, while the Kington ward should be included in Chippenham. There were also calls to reverse the name of the Melksham and Devizes constituency. Although both towns are similar in size population-wise, Melksham remains marginally the larger of the two.
While there was some minor support for including the Hilperton ward in South West Wiltshire, there was a slightly greater opposition, and little mention of the constituency name reverting back to the existing constituency name. There was some opposition to the inclusion of the Nadder Valley and Tisbury wards in the Salisbury constituency, but this was overshadowed by the opposition to the inclusion of the Till Valley ward in the East Wiltshire constituency. Some representations suggested that all the areas of the Wylye Valley, including Nadder Valley and Till Valley, should be in the same constituency. A further counter proposal was received suggesting that Nadder Valley could be retained in the South West Wiltshire constituency, while the Urchfont & Bishops Canning ward could be split between the constituencies of Melksham and Devizes, and East Wiltshire. At the initial proposals, almost all the representations from this ward supported its inclusion in the same constituency as Devizes, and, although few representations mentioned the ward in this consultation, those that did were mostly in support. Another counter proposal stated that the Chiseldon and Lawn ward be wholly located in Swindon South, with either Urchfont & Bishops Canning being split between the constituencies of Melksham and Devizes, and East Wiltshire, or the Wylye Valley ward being split between the constituencies of South West Wiltshire and East Wiltshire.
Few representations were received with regard to Swindon North. Some support was received for the inclusion of the northern part of the split Chiseldon and Lawn ward in Swindon South. Proposals to split the Wroughton and Wichelstowe ward received some support. Several representations considered that none of the three southern Swindon wards – Wroughton and Wichelstowe, Chiseldon and Lawn, and Ridgeway – should be included in the East Wiltshire constituency. While this approach may not be feasible, any further changes to the proposed boundaries would have significant consequences across Wiltshire.
We considered that no significant new evidence had been received with respect to the proposed Swindon North and Swindon South constituencies that would not have significant knock-on effects and we propose no further changes to these two constituencies.
We considered also that no significant or new evidence had been received with respect to the Forest of Dean, Tewkesbury, Cheltenham, or Gloucester constituencies that would lead us to consider altering the configuration or names of these constituencies. We note the support for the inclusion of the Chalford and Wotton-under-Edge wards in Stroud and acknowledge the issues concerning the Stroud constituency and the desire from residents of each of the wards in the District of Stroud to be included in the Stroud constituency. However, this is not possible and we propose no further changes to this or the North Cotswolds constituency.
We note the concerns about the inclusion of the Kingswood ward in the South Cotswolds constituency but, although not ideal, we note that the ward is not currently included in the existing Stroud constituency.
We note and, to a degree, share the concerns about the inclusion of the Box & Colerne ward in the Melksham and Devizes constituency, but have not identified an alternative configuration that does not have a significant impact on the other constituencies in Wiltshire. The same applies to the inclusion of the Calne South ward within the Melksham and Devizes constituency. The constituencies in Wiltshire have very low electorates – often barely above the permitted minimum – and any change of just a single ward would result in knock-on effects on other constituencies.
We noted the concerns about the inclusion of the Nadder Valley ward in the Salisbury constituency, but the electorate of the Salisbury constituency is already only 70,242 and could not accommodate the loss of a ward and remain within the permitted range.
With regard to the proposed inclusion of the Till Valley ward in the East Wiltshire constituency in our revised proposals, whereas we had included the ward in the Salisbury constituency (where it is currently located) in the initial proposals, we noted the significant degree of opposition, and decided that a site visit should be undertaken to see if any alternatives could be adopted. We had noted that it would be possible, numerically, to exchange the Till Valley between constituencies with the Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley ward from Salisbury.
It was observed that the villages of the Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley, and Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley wards were linked along the A338 into Salisbury. It was also observed that, although areas of the Till Valley in the south of the ward closest to Salisbury no doubt looked to the city, further into the ward was open countryside, in contrast to what had been observed in the other two wards under consideration. Also, the A36 was a much more significant road than the A338, and provided very good transport links to the north, and east and west along the A303. The A360 was considered to be a more minor road with no discernible communities along it until Salisbury itself.
From the observations we considered that, despite some links to Salisbury in the south, Till Valley is a large rural ward and the links to Salisbury are not as evident as those of the Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley, and Old Sarum & Lower Bourne Valley wards. Although not an ideal solution, we considered that the inclusion of the Till Valley ward in the East Wiltshire constituency rather than in Salisbury was more appropriate than the inclusion of the Winterslow & Upper Bourne Valley ward in East Wiltshire.
Our final recommendations for Gloucestershire and Wiltshire are therefore for constituencies of: Cheltenham; Chippenham; East Wiltshire; Forest of Dean; Gloucester; Melksham and Devizes; North Cotswolds; Salisbury; South Cotswolds; South West Wiltshire; Stroud; Swindon North; Swindon South; and Tewkesbury. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
