Revised proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South West region

3 Revised proposals for the South West

3.1 After the consultation on the initial proposals in 2021, we arranged for the appointment of two Assistant Commissioners for the South West – Anita Bickerdike and Vicky Smith – to assist us with the analysis of the representations received during the first two consultation periods. This included chairing public hearings held in the region to collect oral evidence, as follows:

• • Exeter: 21-22 March 2022
  • Gloucester: 24-25 March 2022
  • Bath: 28-29 March 2022
  • Dorchester: 31 March-1 April 2022

3.2 Following Ms Smith’s resignation, John Feavyour was appointed Assistant Commissioner for the region.

3.3 We asked the Assistant Commissioners to consider all the written and oral representations, and to make recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, in light of evidence provided in the representations. It is important to stress that the Assistant Commissioners had no involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open to viable alternative proposals supported by evidence. We are very grateful for the thorough and methodical approach the Assistant Commissioners have taken to their work.

3.4 What follows in this chapter is:

• • a brief recap of our initial proposals;
  • a description of the views and counter-proposals put forward during the consultations;
  • the Assistant Commissioners’ analysis of the strength of the arguments for adoption of any of those counter-proposals; and
  • our decision on whether or not to make changes to our proposals in the given area.

3.5 A tabular summary of the revised constituencies we now propose appears in the Appendix to this report.

3.6 Throughout this chapter, where we refer to a respondent’s response, we do so by using the reference number, i.e. BCE-12345 (we only include an individual’s name if they gave permission for it to be published). This reference number corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website at www.bcereviews.org.uk. All representations received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this website. The representations received in response to these revised proposals will be published at the end of the review.

Sub-regions

3.7 The revised proposals recommendations have been formulated using the same sub-regions as the initial proposals. There was broad acceptance of our sub-regions, notably from the qualifying political parties: the Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), Labour Party (BCE-79518, BCE-79532, and BCE-95667), Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986 and BCE-96091), and Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287) all supported the sub-regions that we had proposed. However, there were some representations that suggested alternative sub-regions, for example, Jonathan Stansby (BCE-62208, BCE-62734 and BCE-87731) and Pete Whitehead (BCE-85087). A key feature of a number of these counter-proposals was to avoid crossing, where possible, existing county boundaries, or even the traditional ‘shire’ county boundaries that existed prior to the 1974 reorganisation of county boundaries. John Bryant (BCE-72050, BCE-78902, BCE-94126 and BCE-97819), whilst suggesting alternative sub-regions, suggests alterations to the constituency of North Devon, which is coterminous with the local authority boundaries and is unchanged in the initial proposals and which was reasonably well-supported in the representations. Furthermore, his changes to Plymouth and Central Devon result in more change to the existing pattern of constituencies. Oliver Raven (BCE-84936) proposed alternative sub-regions, but provided no rationale for the composition of the constituencies he had proposed.

3.8 Alistair Philpot, who also spoke at the Exeter hearing in support of his written representations (BCE-57559, BCE-59706, BCE-62902 and BCE-62873) provided an extensive region-wide counter-proposal. However, we considered that his configuration of constituencies was unnecessarily disruptive in Devon, for example the changing of the Newton Abbot constituency and extensive changes in Plymouth and the surrounding areas. He also suggested changes in Bristol, where our initial proposals are widely supported.

3.9 Submission BCE-59338 also made a region wide counter-proposal. However, we considered this to be unnecessarily disruptive in Dorset, and less reflective of the statutory criteria. This counter-proposal split the areas of Bournemouth, Poole, Christchurch; constituencies that all the qualifying political parties unanimously supported. Furthermore, this counter-proposal completely reconfigured Gloucester, Bristol and Somerset, where we received very little opposition, splitting communities in the process. Under this counter-proposal there are a total of six county crossings. BCE-63725 also suggested a different sub-region. It proposed a cross border constituency of Quedgeley and Severn Vale that includes three local authorities. We considered that including Gloucester wards in this constituency would be unnecessary.

3.10 While these counter-proposals for alternative sub-regions all contained elements that we considered had some merit, and in particular, aimed to minimise the number of constituencies that crossed county boundaries, we noted the general and wide level of support for the proposed sub-regions. We were not persuaded that the alternative proposals had garnered greater support in the public consultations than the initially proposed sub-regions had. We also consider that in some cases the alternative sub-regions would result in more disruption to existing constituencies and would not therefore better reflect the statutory factors in the region.

3.11 As in the initial proposals the aim has been to try to minimise changes to constituencies and to retain as many unchanged as is practicable whilst adhering to the statutory electorate range. Under the revised proposals one of the existing constituencies is wholly unchanged, as opposed to three in the initial proposals. There are no changes from the initial proposals to the number of constituencies that would cross the boundaries of two local authorities.

Gloucestershire and Wiltshire (including Swindon)

3.12 The Labour Party (BCE-79518 and BCE-79532) supported in its entirety the pattern of constituencies we initially proposed in the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire sub-region. The Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986, BCE-96091), and the Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287) suggested amendments to the initial proposals within the area. The Conservative Party suggested changes mainly within the constituencies in Gloucestershire – specifically the areas of Gloucester, Cheltenham, Stroud, Tewkesbury and The Cotswolds – and minor changes within Swindon.

3.13 The Liberal Democrats suggested just one minor, single ward amendment to the boundaries of the proposed cross-county boundary Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency, supporting our initial proposals for the remaining constituencies in Gloucestershire. They did, however, suggest significant changes to the constituencies of Chippenham, and Melksham and Devizes. Their configuration aimed to unite the towns of Calne, Chippenham and Corsham, which they argued have strong links with each other.

3.14 The Green Party counter-proposal included the wards of Bisley, Chalford, Hardwicke, Minchinhampton, and Painswick & Upton in the Stroud constituency. This would be accommodated by removing the Kingswood, Wotton-under-Edge, Dursley, Cam East and Cam West wards from the south and would require changes to the constituencies of The Cotswolds, and Cirencester and North Wiltshire. They also suggested that the Springbank ward could be maintained in the Cheltenham constituency by the inclusion of the Battledown ward in Tewkesbury.

Gloucestershire

3.15 The Cheltenham borough wards of Prestbury and Swindon Village are currently included in the existing Tewkesbury constituency; in the initial proposals the two wards continued to be included in Tewkesbury. In order to bring the electorate of the Cheltenham constituency to within the permitted electorate range, we also allocated the Borough of Cheltenham ward of Springbank to the Tewkesbury constituency. This proved to be deeply unpopular, with approximately 350 objections to the initial proposals. Residents said that they identified with Cheltenham and that they have no real connection to Tewkesbury (BCE-80907). Chris Nelson, Police and Crime Commissioner for Gloucestershire, and Chair of the Cheltenham Association of Conservatives, who spoke at the public hearing held in Gloucester (BCE-97944), suggested that Springbank would receive less attention than if it remained in Cheltenham. However, these views were not unanimous and there was some limited support for the inclusion of the Springbank ward in the Tewkesbury constituency, not least BCE-95047, a local councillor (BCE-75281), and the Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986), who supported the ward’s inclusion in the Tewkesbury constituency ‘with a heavy heart.’

3.16 The Conservative Party (BCE-86590), Alex Chalk, MP for Cheltenham (BCE-69746) and a number of local residents – for example John Landau (BCE 83185 and BCE-83233) and a local councillor (BCE-79144) – suggested that the St Paul’s ward, rather than Springbank, should be included in the Tewkesbury constituency, and noted that St Paul’s was in the same county division as the Swindon Village ward, which is currently in the existing Tewkesbury constituency. This was also supported by, for example, BCE-96882, who opposed any suggestion that the Battledown ward should be the ward to be excluded from Cheltenham as an alternative solution, as was proposed by the Green Party (BCE-95629) and Daniel Wilson (BCE-95055). While there were no substantive representations that expressed the view that Pittville was a more appropriate ward to exclude from Cheltenham, a number of representations urged us to reject any suggestion of this, such as a local councillor (BCE-74192), who drew attention to Cheltenham’s ‘Pump Room’ being located in the Pittville ward. Alisha Lewis, Councillor for St Paul’s ward (BCE-87980 and BCE-97920) provided significant evidence to support her opposition to the exclusion of the St Paul’s ward, which she said was “the heart of Cheltenham” and included Cheltenham High Street down its centre, as well as the Centre Stone for Cheltenham, the heart of the origins of Cheltenham. Similar sentiments against the inclusion of the St Paul’s ward in the Tewkesbury constituency were made by Mark Gale (BCE-94187) and BCE-92037.

3.17 Our Assistant Commissioners decided to visit a number of areas in Cheltenham to see, in particular, the wards of Battledown, Pittville, St Paul’s, and Springbank for themselves, in light of the conflicting nature of the evidence. They agreed with the comments expressed by Councillor Alisha Lewis. It was their view that St Paul’s ward was an integral part of the centre of Cheltenham and they considered it would be inappropriate to exclude the ward from the Cheltenham constituency. They considered that Pittville ward was also an integral part of Cheltenham and noted the similarity in housing type with the rest of the centre of Cheltenham. The Battledown ward was similarly considered to be clearly part of Cheltenham, particularly in the west of the ward, adjacent to more central areas of Cheltenham. They did, however, note that the ward had a large rural element, and that accessibility between Battledown and the Cleeve Hill ward to the north was poor.

3.18 On visiting Springbank ward, they noted that the ward had some similarities with the Swindon Village ward, which was not included in the Cheltenham constituency. They observed that the Springbank ward was residential in nature with a mixture of social housing and newer developments further away from the urban centre. Although they considered that the ward definitely looked towards Cheltenham, they concluded that these links were not as strong with the town centre as were those of the St Paul’s, Battledown and Pittville wards.

3.19 We recognise that the ideal position would be to include the Springbank ward in Cheltenham, but despite the very strong opposition to its inclusion in the Tewkesbury constituency, a further ward has to be excluded from the existing Cheltenham constituency. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners, who felt that stronger links would be broken if another ward were to be included in Tewkesbury instead of Springbank. We agree with their recommendation that the Springbank ward be included in the Tewkesbury constituency, as in the initial proposals, and that there be no further change to the proposed Cheltenham constituency.

3.20 With an electorate of 81,509, the existing Gloucester constituency is too large for the permitted electorate range, so we proposed that the wards of Elmbridge and Barnwood should join the Longlevens ward in the Tewkesbury constituency. We did not include in the Tewkesbury constituency the alternative ward of Kingsholm & Wotton, as we considered that that ward had a particularly strong association with the Gloucester identity, containing half of Gloucester railway station, the Premiership rugby club, and Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.

3.21 As in Cheltenham, the initial proposals attracted a great deal of opposition: over 400 responses opposed the inclusion of either the Elmbridge or Barnwood wards in the Tewkesbury constituency, for example BCE-78063, BCE-84543 and Peter Dalton (BCE-61527). Additionally, there were a significant number of representations calling for the Longlevens ward to be ‘returned’ to the Gloucester constituency, for example Bruce Clifford (BCE-92963), and BCE-91734. Some said that all three wards should continue to be included in the Gloucester constituency and that three wards containing the community of Quedgeley should instead be excluded and placed in The Cotswolds constituency, for example, Gloucester City Liberal Democrats (BCE-81903). John Bryant (BCE-72050) proposed the Quedgeley wards should be included in the Stroud constituency.

3.22 The Assistant Commissioners visited the wards in question. They considered the Elmbridge and Barnwood wards to be very similar in nature. They also considered that Quedgeley did indeed have a different character to that of the rest of Gloucester, with newer housing and industrial estates. They also noted that Gloucester Councillor Jeremy Hilton (BCE-81903) had used major roads as boundaries in a counter-proposal and that these were clearly defined. However, they also considered that Quedgeley had little in common with The Cotswolds constituency and that that community could be considered to cover four wards, rather than the three that had been proposed for inclusion in The Cotswolds constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded that despite being relatively newer and somewhat self-contained, Quedgeley should be included in The Cotswolds constituency rather than Gloucester. However, they noted that only two of the Longlevens, Elmbridge and Barnwood wards needed to be excluded from the Gloucester constituency. As Elmbridge is geographically next to the Longlevens ward, which is already part of the Tewkesbury constituency, they recommended that these two wards be left out of the Gloucester constituency, allowing the Barnwood ward to remain, in accordance with views expressed in many of the representations. We agree with their recommendations that the Barnwood ward should continue to be included in the Gloucester constituency.

3.23 At 83,818, the electorate of the existing Tewkesbury constituency is well above the permitted range, and would be increased significantly further with the inclusion of the wards from the existing Cheltenham and Gloucester constituencies. To bring it within the permitted electorate range, seven Tewkesbury district wards from the existing Tewkesbury constituency were therefore included in the proposed The Cotswolds constituency, including the Isbourne and Winchcombe wards, together with five wards that form the geographical area between our proposed Gloucester and Cheltenham constituencies. The initial proposals generated a number of representations in opposition, particularly from the Isbourne and Winchcombe wards, for example, Tewkesbury Town Council (BCE-65728) and Peter Davison-Smith (BCE-81726). It had been noted that the proposed configuration led to an odd-shaped Tewkesbury constituency, with the town of Tewkesbury itself being somewhat isolated in a small geographical area in the far north of the constituency. These sentiments were not unanimous, however, and there was some support for the inclusion of the Winchcombe ward in The Cotswolds constituency in particular (BCE-88128). Tewkesbury Town Council also stated that the whole of the town of Churchdown should be included in The Cotswolds constituency, while Jonathan Stansby (BCE-87731) proposed that all of Churchdown should be included in the Tewkesbury constituency.

3.24 The Assistant Commissioners considered that there was persuasive evidence for the inclusion of the Isbourne ward, in particular, and the Winchcombe ward in the Tewkesbury constituency, where they are currently located, although they noted that there were some links between Winchcombe and The Cotswolds. There were also counter-proposals and support in the representations for the whole of the town of Churchdown (which was divided into two different constituencies in the initial proposals) to be included in The Cotswolds constituency, with the Churchdown St John’s ward joining the Churchdown, Brookfield with Hucclecote ward in The Cotswolds (as mentioned above). The Assistant Commissioners recommended that the Isbourne and Winchcombe wards be included in the Tewkesbury constituency, as suggested in a number of representations, and that this would also allow for the two wards containing the town of Churchdown to be included in the same constituency. We agree with their recommendation.

3.25 To bring the existing Stroud constituency’s electorate of 84,573 within the permitted electorate range, the four Stroud district wards of Hardwicke, Painswick & Upton, Bisley, and Chalford were included in the proposed The Cotswolds constituency. The Minchinhampton ward, although a Stroud district ward, is located in the existing The Cotswolds constituency, and in the initial proposals would remain so. These changes resulted in the Stroud constituency falling below the permitted electorate range and to increase its electorate the two Stroud district wards of Kingswood and Wotton-under-Edge, which are currently located in the existing The Cotswolds constituency, were included. There was a significant level of opposition to these initial proposals for Stroud, with a large number of representations received covering a range of wards that respondents felt should be included in the constituency. Due to the size of the electorate, however, it is inevitable that a number of Stroud district wards have to be included in a constituency other than Stroud.

3.26 We received approximately 110 representations objecting to the inclusion of the Chalford ward in The Cotswolds constituency, for example BCE-85223, Rick Gomez (BCE-95561), and Councillor Helen Fenton (BCE-97938), who spoke at the public hearing in Gloucester. There were also calls for the Minchinhampton ward to be included in Stroud (BCE 87518), and some support for the initial proposals that included the Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood wards in the Stroud constituency (BCE-85021). We received significant opposition to the inclusion of the Hardwicke ward in The Cotswolds constituency: Siobhan Baillie, MP for Stroud (BCE-85155) said: ‘It is clear from consultation that people in the large Hardwicke ward do not – at all – associate themselves with the Cotswolds on a day to day basis. The community ties are strongest with Stroud and Gloucester, rather than Cotswolds towns, which are geographically far away’. Objections were also received from Hardwicke Parish, (BCE-90827), and Brookthorpe-with-Whaddon Parish Council (BCE-63044), with a number of representations supporting the Conservative Party counter-proposals (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624). Others suggested that the Nailsworth ward instead should be included in The Cotswolds constituency, for example Councillor Mark Ryder (BCE-97926), and Councillor Denise Powell and Mr Philip Powell (BCE-97928). Councillor Powell, who now lives in Hardwicke village, but who had previously lived in Nailsworth, said that Hardwicke’s links with Stroud were stronger than those of Nailsworth, which tended to look east towards the town of Tetbury. However, there was support for the initial proposals in which Nailsworth was included in the Stroud constituency, for example BCE-88140 and Paul Archer (BCE-89206), and considerable opposition to the representations that sought to include Hardwicke in Stroud instead of Nailsworth, for example Councillor Mick Fealty (BCE-91576), BCE-90936, BCE-97969, and Stephen Lydon, Chair of Stroud Constituency Labour Party (BCE-97939).

3.27 In light of the representations received regarding a number of wards in the District of Stroud the Assistant Commissioners conducted a site visit. Progressing through Hardwicke, they noted that most of the ward’s population appeared to be located in the north of the ward, close to Gloucester, but that the rest of the ward was very rural in nature. They were particularly struck by the very clear demarcation between the Hardwicke and Stonehouse wards, where there was an abrupt change between open land in Hardwicke and housing in Stonehouse, which ends right at the stream that forms the boundary between the two wards. Continuing through Stroud and along the Nailsworth Valley to the town of Nailsworth, the Assistant Commissioners considered that, although Nailsworth was a town in its own right, there was continuous ribbon development from Stroud towards Nailsworth along the valley and that it was not obvious where one community ended and the next started. They visited Minchinhampton, where it was observed that the western edge of the ward was high land and almost moor-like, unlike the valley community of Nailsworth. They also visited Wotton-under-Edge, which they considered to be a large, rural ward that, although part of the District of Stroud, had little in common with Stroud itself.

3.28 The Assistant Commissioners concluded that it would not be possible to include both the Hardwicke and Nailsworth wards within the Stroud constituency without a further reconfiguration of the constituency, which would have knock-on effects across constituencies that were proposed elsewhere in Gloucestershire. They were mindful that the Stroud borough ward of Painswick & Upton, which is adjacent to the Hardwicke ward, was to be included in The Cotswolds constituency in the initial proposals. They had observed the rural nature of the Hardwicke ward and the stark boundary between it and the Stonehouse ward, which was in the proposed Stroud constituency. They also considered that there was continuous urban development along the Nailsworth Valley and that there was little to differentiate Nailsworth from Stroud, apart from their town centres. They therefore recommended no changes to the initial proposals with regard to these two wards, with Nailsworth ward included in the Stroud constituency, and Hardwicke included in The Cotswolds constituency. They considered whether the Minchinhampton ward should be included in Stroud, but noted that the ward is not currently in the existing Stroud constituency. They recommended no change to the initial proposals with regard to Minchinhampton.

3.29 The Assistant Commissioners also considered the Chalford ward, which had been excluded from Stroud in the initial proposals. In weighing up the evidence, they concluded that the case for Chalford’s continued inclusion in Stroud was strong: it was in the existing Stroud constituency and it was effectively separated from Minchinhampton by the River Frome, the Thames and Severn Canal, and the A419 London Road. However, its inclusion would mean that another ward would have to be excluded from the Stroud constituency to ensure that its electorate was within the permitted range. In the initial proposals, the Stroud district wards of Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood had been included in the Stroud constituency from the existing The Cotswolds constituency. Although there had been relatively few representations regarding these wards, this change had been welcomed. The Assistant Commissioners noted that if they were to include the Kingswood ward alone in a Cotswold constituency, this would create an orphan ward, and so they considered whether both the Wotton-under-Edge and Kingswood wards could be transferred. However, doing so would not result in the constituencies being within the permitted electorate range.

3.30 Faced with a difficult issue, the Assistant Commissioners bore in mind that although both Chalford and Kingswood were wards of the District of Stroud, Chalford was already in the existing Stroud constituency, whereas Kingswood was in the existing The Cotswolds constituency. Furthermore, they noted that the Chalford ward contained approximately 5,300 electors, whereas the Kingwood ward contained approximately 1,800. By including Chalford in Stroud, fewer electors would find themselves in a different constituency. They therefore recommended that Chalford be included in the Stroud constituency. Due to the other changes in Gloucestershire, it was not feasible to include Kingswood in The Cotswolds constituency, and while acknowledging that Kingswood would be an orphan ward, they recommended, reluctantly, that it should be included in the Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency. We consider that the evidence regarding all the wards in question is persuasive and that there is no solution that would satisfy all the residents of the District of Stroud. We agree with the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations that the Hardwicke ward should be included in The Cotswolds constituency, that the Nailsworth and Chalford wards should be included in Stroud, and that the Kingswood ward should be included in the cross-county constituency between Gloucester and Wiltshire.

3.31 The initial proposals made substantial changes to the boundaries of the existing The Cotswolds constituency, with the extension of the constituency westwards to include seven wards from the existing Tewkesbury constituency, together with four wards from the existing Stroud constituency. However, due to the transfer of other wards to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency (see below), the resulting The Cotswolds constituency actually covered a more compact geographic area than the existing constituency. Around 310 representations were received in opposition to the proposed The Cotswolds constituency, but this number also includes many representations that cover more than one constituency in addition to The Cotswolds. Some of these are referred to above. However, there was also support for the initial proposals with regard to The Cotswold constituency, for example Councillor John Bloxsom, Leader of the Labour group on Gloucestershire County Council, (BCE-78154), and general support from Geoffrey Wheeler (BCE-71266). Cotswold District Council (BCE-95936) supported both the initially proposed The Cotswolds, and Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituencies (albeit renamed North Cotswolds and South Cotswolds) apart from the suggestion to include the Chedworth & Churn Valley ward in the same constituency as Cirencester.

3.32 In order to create the extra constituency to which the combined area of Gloucestershire and Wiltshire is mathematically entitled, we proposed a Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency that crossed the boundary between the two counties. The initial proposals generated a significant amount of opposition in the representations, such as those of Geoff Warren (BCE-92623) and Elly Harris (BCE-84177), where the sentiment was widely expressed that the town of Cirencester – ‘the Capital of the Cotswolds’ – could not be in a constituency with parts of Wiltshire. BCE-59624 said: ‘Cirencester is the heart of the Cotswolds, it has nothing to do with or share a post code with north Wiltshire, the two areas have very different issues and would not be in the best interest for residents’. A number of representations, however, suggested that the cross-county constituency might be more acceptable if the name were changed, with South Cotswolds being a common and popular suggestion (Cotswold District Council – BCE-82932, BCE-93907 and BCE-91949), and The Cotswolds being renamed North Cotswolds (BCE-96109 and BCE-76939).

3.33 Among the representations in opposition to the Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency were a number that opposed the inclusion of Coln Valley ward, and in particular Northleach ward, which it was said looked towards the north Cotswolds and had little in common with Cirencester, let alone with north Wiltshire (for example BCE-94602 and Tony Antoniou – BCE-95912). There were also counter-proposals that suggested that the Chedworth & Churn Valley ward should be included in the same constituency as Cirencester (BCE-92948, and Cirencester Town Council – BCE-93310). Councillor Paul Hodgkinson (BCE-91597), highlighted the links of the ward with Cirencester, dating back to the times when Bagendon (which became Corinium) was the ‘largest pre-Roman settlement in England’.

3.34 The Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence about the Northleach ward and agreed that it would be more appropriate to include the ward in The Cotswolds, rather than Cirencester and North Wiltshire, and they recommended this change. However, The Cotswolds would then have an electorate that was too low. To address this issue and to bring it within the permitted range, they also recommended that the Coln Valley ward be included in The Cotswolds constituency. They noted the historical evidence of the links between Chedworth & Churn Valley ward and the town of Cirencester. However, the ward’s inclusion in Cirencester and North Wiltshire would again leave The Cotswolds with an electorate that was below the permitted range and would result in a very odd shape to The Cotswolds constituency, with a narrow neck of land linking the two parts of the constituency. For these reasons, they did not recommend Chedworth & Churn Valley’s inclusion in Cirencester and North Wiltshire. We also do not consider that ward’s inclusion in Cirencester and North Wiltshire would be appropriate, particularly with regard to the consequences that this would have for The Cotswolds constituency.

3.35 The Assistant Commissioners were very mindful of the opposition to the Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency, but noted that a cross-county constituency was unavoidable within the sub-regions as established. However, they agreed with those who called for the names of The Cotswolds, and Cirencester and North Wiltshire to be changed. They noted the considerable body of representations that suggested that The Cotswolds could be named North Cotswolds, and that Cirencester and North Wiltshire could be renamed South Cotswolds. The Assistant Commissioners initially recommended to us the constituencies be renamed Northern Cotswolds and Southern Cotswolds. We agree with the composition of both constituencies, but do not agree to the names as recommended. We propose that the constituencies be named North Cotswolds and South Cotswolds as we consider this would be more in keeping with our approach to constituency names across the country.

3.36 The initial proposals for the Forest of Dean did not elicit a large number of representations, but the majority of those that were received were in support of the proposals and we therefore propose no revisions to the constituency as initially proposed.

Wiltshire (including Swindon)

3.37 In Wiltshire, local government ward changes have made it difficult, in some instances, to respect existing constituency boundaries. Consequently, there was considerable change and opposition to our proposals. There was, however, some support for the proposed Chippenham constituency, for example Robert Giles (BCE-84784), who also supported the proposed Devizes and Melksham constituency, and Councillor Nick Botterill (BCE-97839). The Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624) largely supported the initial proposals for both Melksham and Devizes, and Chippenham.

3.38 The Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986) submitted a counter-proposal that would make significant changes to the Chippenham, and Melksham and Devizes constituencies, with the main aim being that the town of Corsham should be included in the same constituency as Chippenham. They proposed that the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward should be included in a reconfigured Melksham and Devizes constituency along with the Calne wards, Lyneham ward, and the three Royal Wootton Bassett wards. The two Bradford-on-Avon wards, three Corsham wards, Box & Colerne, Hilperton, Holt, Melksham Without West & Rural, and Winsley & Westwood wards would be included in their reconfigured Chippenham constituency. This counter-proposal was strongly supported by councillors from the town of Corsham and by Corsham Town Council (BCE-69152, albeit with Melksham and Devizes being renamed Mid Wiltshire), who said that the ward of Box & Colerne also has very close links with the town of Corsham (as in the initial proposals) and that the Corsham ward was included in the same constituency as Chippenham between 1885 and 1983.

3.39 The Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal was also strongly opposed, however, in other representations. BCE-94763 said that the links between Corsham and Chippenham had been overstated and that Calne had close links with Chippenham. Some of those in opposition to their proposed Melksham and Devizes constituency alluded to the fact that geographically it would run from north of the town of Royal Wootton Bassett, down to Devizes and some distance beyond the town to its south. James Gray, MP for North Wiltshire, who spoke at the Bath public hearing (BCE-97844) supported the initial proposals and said that the Liberal Democrats’ counter-proposal was ‘very artificial’. Michele Donelan, MP for Chippenham (BCE-85373), noted the links between Royal Wootton Bassett and Calne, but said that ‘there are no historic cultural, government or governance links between Melksham and Calne and RWB, nor between Devizes and RWB’. These sentiments were also expressed by Allison Bucknell, who also spoke at the Bath public hearing (BCE-97959).

3.40 There was widespread opposition from the rural wards surrounding Devizes to their perceived separation from the town of Devizes. In the initial proposals the town of Devizes was no longer included in the constituency after which it had been named (which was therefore to be renamed East Wiltshire), and was instead included at the eastern edge of the newly created Melksham and Devizes constituency, so named because Melksham is now the larger town of the two. Councillor Tamara Reay, who spoke at the public hearing held in Bath (BCE-97960), said that a new, proposed railway station for Devizes (Devizes Gateway) would most likely be located in the Urchfont and Bishops Canning ward. There was also opposition to the initial proposals from areas to the north of Devizes that had been included in the proposed Chippenham constituency, and in particular, from the Bromham area of the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward. Rebekah Jeffries of Rowde Parish Council (BCE-78412) said: ‘Devizes has a very distinct character and the surrounding villages, of which Rowde is one, identifies very strongly with it. Rowde residents shop there, socialise there, go to school there. They are affected by traffic issues, policing issues & air quality issues in the town’. The Conservative Party in their counter-proposal would split this ward, with the Bromham area being included in the Melksham and Devizes constituency. There was also support for the inclusion of the town of Bradford-on-Avon in the Melksham and Devizes constituency (BCE-84135).

3.41 Our Assistant Commissioners visited parts of North Wiltshire to understand the representations more fully. They accepted that there were links between Chippenham and Calne, and also with Royal Wootton Bassett. They visited the rural Calne South ward and the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward and observed that the community of Bromham in the south of the ward was adjacent to, and closely connected with, Devizes. They considered the evidence and concluded that it would be possible to amend the proposed Chippenham constituency so that Royal Wootton Bassett, Calne, and Corsham would all be in the same constituency as Chippenham. This would address many of the concerns in the representations received and satisfy to some extent the conflicting counter-proposals suggested by the Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.

3.42 In view of the large number of representations objecting to the initial proposals, the Assistant Commissioners then visited the Urchfont & Bishops Cannings ward and The Lavingtons ward. Although they considered the distinction between the urban area of Devizes and the rural wards of Urchfont & Bishops Canning, and The Lavingtons was very clear and identifiable, and that there was no compelling reason why either ward needed to be in the same constituency as the town of Devizes, they considered that amending the Chippenham constituency, as suggested above, would also address the large number of representations received concerning the wards surrounding Devizes and that both wards could be included in the Melksham and Devizes constituency. Furthermore, the whole of the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward could be included in the Melksham and Devizes constituency without needing to be split, as in the Conservative Party counter-proposal. The inclusion of the whole of the Bromham, Rowde & Roundway ward in the Devizes constituency had also been proposed by Jonathan Stansby (BCE-62208, BCE-62734 and BCE-87731). This arrangement would mean that the ward of Calne South would have to be included in Melksham and Devizes, but when they visited the ward, the Assistant Commissioners observed that it was very rural in nature, largely separate from the town of Calne and that it was reasonable to consider that its residents looked both to Calne and Devizes for services. Additionally, a further consequence of adopting these changes would mean that the ward of Hilperton, which was considered by some to be part of the town of Trowbridge, would be included in the same constituency as Trowbridge, and that there was some limited support for this (for example BCE-60007 and Jonathan Stansby – references as above).

3.43 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended changes to the Chippenham, and Melksham and Devizes constituencies. They regretted that the electorate numbers would not allow for the Box & Colerne ward to be included in the same constituency as Calne in this arrangement. We agree that the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations are an acceptable solution that addresses and reflects the conflicting nature of the representations in this area.

3.44 The adoption of these recommendations would have consequences for the three remaining constituencies in Wiltshire. The inclusion of the Urchfont & Bishops Cannings, and The Lavingtons wards in the Melksham and Devizes constituency meant that additional wards would need to be included in the East Wiltshire constituency. However, this would be difficult to achieve, as the electorates of all the remaining constituencies were so close to the minimum permitted electorate range. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that the Till Valley ward be included in the East Wiltshire constituency from the proposed Salisbury constituency. The Till Valley ward attracted very few comments in the representations, but this change was suggested by a local councillor (BCE-94897).

3.45 The town of Amesbury would also remain in the East Wiltshire constituency. While the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the representations that suggested that the town of Amesbury looks very much towards Salisbury, and that its inclusion in the East Wiltshire constituency would not be welcomed as it has no significant links with the towns to the north of Salisbury Plain (BCE-53701 and BCE-95769), they considered that if the town were to remain undivided, all of its wards would have to be included in East Wiltshire. The inclusion of the Till Valley ward in East Wiltshire to the town’s south and east would also mean that the town was less peripheral within the constituency. We were not persuaded to change the name of the East Wiltshire constituency to Vale of Pewsey, as suggested by Danny Kruger MP (BCE-97842) as we considered that the initially proposed name accurately described the constituency.

3.46 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 (BCE-93272). 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: for example, the Green Party (BCE-85287) and Jonathan Stansby (in respect of Nadder Valley). This would be possible within the new configuration for constituencies recommended by the Assistant Commissioners and they proposed that both wards be included in the Salisbury constituency.

3.47 As mentioned above, a consequence of the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations elsewhere in Wiltshire is that an additional ward has to be included in the Trowbridge and Warminster constituency; they therefore recommended that the Hilperton ward be included in Trowbridge and Warminster. The Assistant Commissioners considered that the name of the constituency was both suitable and appropriate, but they accepted the local support for the constituency’s name to revert to that of the existing constituency (for example Tom Dommett from Warminster Town Council – BCE-92006 and BCE-93272). They therefore recommended that the constituency name revert to South West Wiltshire.

3.48 We noted the representations concerning the town of Amesbury and its proposed inclusion in the East Wiltshire constituency, but agree with the Assistant Commissioners that this is the only practical solution – considering the other changes being proposed in Wiltshire – that allows for the whole of the town to be included in the same constituency, especially in view of the fact that options are limited by the very low electorates of the Wiltshire constituencies. We therefore accept the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners for the Salisbury, and Trowbridge and Warminster constituencies, and also accept their recommendation that Trowbridge and Warminster should revert to its existing name of South West Wiltshire.

3.49 There was support generally for the decision not to cross the county boundary between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in Swindon, and to treat Swindon separately. In the initial proposals, the only change made to the composition of the North Swindon constituency was to realign constituency boundaries with new ward boundaries, with the Mannington and Weston, and Covingham and Dorcan wards being wholly included in the proposed Swindon South constituency, which then had an electorate above the permitted range. To address this, the Swindon borough wards of Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway were included in East Wiltshire, and the Chiseldon and Lawn ward, in view of the urban element in the northern part of the ward, continued to be included in the proposed Swindon South constituency. There was support for – and some opposition to – the initial proposals for both Swindon constituencies, for example BCE-67871 and BCE-78133, and some objections to the inclusion of two Swindon borough wards in the East Wiltshire constituency: for example, Lord Robert Hayward (BCE-81475 – Ridgeway); BCE-96323 (Wroughton and Wichelstowe); and calls for the Chiseldon and Lawn ward to be included in the East Wiltshire constituency, rather than in South Swindon as currently (Neil Hopkins – BCE-95475). In accordance with our constituency naming policy, we moved ‘North’ and ‘South’ as prefixes to suffixes in the constituency names, thus Swindon North and Swindon South.

3.50 On their site visit to Wiltshire, the Assistant Commissioners visited each of the three wards in south Swindon that respondents considered could be included in either the Swindon South or East Wiltshire constituencies, and noted that there had been a number of representations regarding these wards. They considered that the Wroughton and Wichelstowe ward was largely rural, apart from the community of Wroughton, and that there was a considerable amount of rural land between the community and the built-up area of Swindon. The Chiseldon and Lawn ward was similarly rural in nature, except in the north of the ward – north of the M4 motorway – where they observed an extension of the continuous urban area of Swindon in the Lawn and Badbury areas and that the Lawn area in particular was geographically close to Swindon Old Town. Despite the rural nature of the rest of the ward, it seemed appropriate that this ward, or at least the northern part of it, should be included in the Swindon South constituency. The Assistant Commissioners also visited the Ridgeway ward. The boundary between the built-up area of Swindon to the west and the Ridgeway ward was very pronounced along the A419. They considered that, despite the M4 running across the southern part of the ward, Ridgeway was an appropriate candidate for inclusion in the East Wiltshire constituency due to its rural characteristics.

3.51 The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that both the Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway wards be included in the East Wiltshire constituency, as in the initial proposals. However, they noted that, as a consequence of their recommended changes elsewhere in Wiltshire, it would not be possible to include the whole of the Chiseldon and Lawn ward in the Swindon South constituency and they therefore recommended that the Chiseldon and Lawn ward be split. The division would include the three urban polling districts of CLA, CLC and CLD, that lie to the north of the M4 motorway, in Swindon South, with the rural polling district CLB being included in East Wiltshire. They noted that the M4 motorway runs east/west across the whole of the Chiseldon and Lawn ward and would provide a very clear, understandable boundary between the two parts of the ward. It was also acknowledged that if the recommendation to split the Chiseldon and Lawn ward were not to be accepted, there is just one ‘whole ward’ solution that would not result in the collapse of the other recommended revisions to proposed constituencies in Wiltshire and into Gloucestershire: this would be to include the Ridgeway ward in South Swindon and the whole of Chiseldon and Lawn in East Wiltshire. However, this would include a rural ward in Swindon South, and a ward with a large urban element in East Wiltshire. They considered this did not better reflect community identity and therefore did not recommend this.

3.52 We agree with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners. Although we had not initially considered splitting the Chiseldon and Lawn ward, we accept that such a split is appropriate, given the unfavourable whole ward alternative, and that not doing so would preclude a pattern of constituencies across the entire sub-region that better reflects the statutory criteria, given the evidence received in response to the public consultations.

Dorset (including Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole)

3.53 There are currently eight constituencies in this sub-region, which comprises the two unitary authorities of Dorset, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP). Six of the existing constituencies currently have electorates within the permitted range, with the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency having an electorate below the permitted range, and the West Dorset constituency having an electorate above. The initial proposals were based as much as possible on maintaining existing constituencies, but due to ward realignments this had not been possible in some constituencies.

3.54 There was widespread acceptance of the composition of all eight of our proposed constituencies, including from all four qualifying political parties; the Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624); the Labour Party (BCE-79518, BCE-79532 and BCE-95667); the Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986 and BCE-96091); and the Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287).

3.55 The existing Bournemouth East, Bournemouth West, Poole, and Christchurch constituencies are all within the permitted electorate range, but due to changes to local government ward boundaries, retaining these constituencies wholly unchanged would divide a number of wards between constituencies. Therefore, the only changes proposed in the initial proposal to these constituencies was to realign constituency boundaries with new ward boundaries.

3.56 There was a significant level of support for the proposed constituencies in the Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole (BCP) unitary authority, which would be unchanged, apart from realignment with new ward boundaries: examples are Sue Spittle (BCE-63304 – Christchurch); Conor Burns, MP for Bournemouth West (BCE-77978) and BCE-74697 (Bournemouth West); BCE-63654 (Bournemouth East); and Graham Sutherland (BCE-73584 – Poole). There was some objection, however, for example from Thomas Burke (BCE-75170), who, in common with some other respondents, objected to East Dorset wards being included in the Christchurch constituency. Also, in the initial proposals we had changed the name of Mid Dorset and North Poole to Mid Dorset and Poole North to reflect our constituency naming policy. A number of representations said that the name should not be changed as no revisions were being proposed to the constituency, for example Michael Tomlinson, MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole (BCE-63916), the Liberal Democrats, and Greg Cook on behalf of the Labour Party at the public hearing held in Exeter (BCE-97426).

3.57 Peter Kingswood (BCE-85513, BCE-96743, BCE-96744, and BCE-97886) submitted a counter-proposal that treated Dorset and BCP separately, with each allocated four whole constituencies. This counter-proposal was strongly opposed by Patrick Canavan, Secretary of the Labour Party structure for the BCP unitary authority area, who spoke at the public hearing held in Dorchester (BCE-97888) and stated that it would not command local support, as it seemed to artificially try and fit constituencies into unitary boundaries, which would ultimately weaken community links.

3.58 As a consequence of ward boundary changes, the Dorset ward of West Purbeck in the Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency has been extended to the coast and was included in the South Dorset constituency. Consequently, the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency was extended northwards to include the Dorset ward of Stour & Allen Vale. The North Dorset constituency required further changes to realign constituency boundaries with local government ward boundaries and the whole of the Dorset wards of Chalk Valleys, and Puddletown & Lower Winterborne were included in the North Dorset constituency.

3.59 In the initial proposals, the Chickerell ward was included in the South Dorset constituency, from West Dorset, and the Upwey & Broadwey ward was included in the West Dorset constituency, from South Dorset. This was not popular, with many respondents saying that this configuration caused a disruption of the historic and local ties present in the area. For example, with regard to the Chickerell ward, BCE-78964 stated: ‘Chickerell is a “town” in West Dorset and stands on its own but being a neighbour of the larger town of Weymouth….. Chickerell has its own Town Council…..if this proposal goes ahead I feel Chickerell would lose its sense of identity and place …’ However, there was also some support, for example, Ron Martin (BCE-59927), who stated ’The Weymouth / Chickerell / Portland area is by the far the largest conurbation within the Dorset Council area and to split any part of this between different constituencies would be a travesty’.

3.60 There was greater opposition to the inclusion of the Upwey & Broadwey ward in the proposed West Dorset constituency, such as from Pauline Crump (BCE-83539), a local councillor (BCE 79048), and BCE-85002, which said the exclusion of Upwey & Broadwey and the inclusion of Chickerell ‘does not take into account the geography and history of the area or the wishes of the people concerned. Chickerell is a better fit in the area in which it currently is, additionally the people concerned quite vehemently state that they are not part of Weymouth and wish to be identified as a town in their own right. Whereas Upwey & Broadwey has always been considered to be a part of Weymouth and it geographically makes far better sense’. Others suggested that the Upwey & Broadwey ward follows the traditional main route to Weymouth town centre, has had links with Weymouth since the Middle Ages, and is surrounded on three sides by other wards of Weymouth. The initial proposals were not, however, met with any objections from any of the four qualifying political parties. The Conservative Party in their second consultation submission (BCE-97624) noted that they saw no alternative to the Commission’s proposals, because of the size, shape and extent of the wards and that, although they would consider an alternative scheme that was non-disruptive, ‘we have not seen such an alternative’.

3.61 The Assistant Commissioners visited the Winterborne & Broadmayne ward, through Upwey & Broadwey, and into Weymouth. While they agreed with those who said that Upwey & Broadwey was intrinsically part of Weymouth, the ward’s inclusion in South Dorset would mean that the Chickerell ward would have to be included in West Dorset (although this was supported in some of the representations), but that additionally, the Winterborne & Broadmayne ward would also have to be included in South Dorset. This is a large, mainly rural ward whose boundaries go right up to the town of Dorchester. It would not be possible to include the Upwey & Broadwey ward alone in South Dorset, and the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that they could recommend the inclusion also of Winterborne & Broadmayne in South Dorset. The lack of representations concerning this ward suggested that, as its inclusion in the South Dorset constituency had not been proposed, local residents were presumably content with the initial proposals. We consider that it is regrettable that it would not be possible to include the Upwey and Broadwey ward alone in South Dorset and Chickerell in West Dorset without also having to include Winterbourne and Broadmayne in South Dorset, but agree with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners.

3.62 The issue that garnered the most opposition to the initial proposals came from the Chalk Valleys ward, with representations from more than 250 residents in the Cerne Abbas and Piddle Valley areas very much opposed to their inclusion in the North Dorset constituency, for example BCE-76150, BCE-82405, and Karen Burghart (BCE-95996). One respondent (BCE-86298), submitted a letter of objection and a petition containing 79 names. Several individuals also gave oral evidence at the hearing in Dorchester, for example Felicity Lewis (BCE-97892 and written representation BCE-61760), and Max and Claire Crosbie (BCE-97891). These respondents said that their ties were with Dorchester and the West Dorset constituency, and that they had little in common with North Dorset or places that appeared far away, such as Verwood, which were included in North Dorset.

3.63 We received a representation and alternative configuration from Chris Loder, MP for West Dorset (BCE-82829), who also gave oral evidence at the public hearing held in Dorchester (BCE-97890). He accepted that there was no whole ward solution to resolve this issue, and suggested that splitting wards between constituencies was the only way to properly address the constraints faced in the Dorset sub-region. He considered that local ties would continue to be broken in many areas if we did not consider that the circumstances in South Dorset, North Dorset, and West Dorset were exceptional enough to warrant constituencies that split wards. Mr Loder noted that in West Dorset, there are three wards – Sherborne Rural, Chalk Valleys, and Puddletown & Lower Winterborne – that are currently split over two existing constituencies, as a result of the new wards implemented for Dorset Council. In his counter-proposal, he proposed the splitting of two wards: West Purbeck and Chalk Valleys. He suggested that by splitting the West Purbeck ward, we would be able to create a Dorset subregion with a similar existing pattern of constituencies, and that this split would also allow the Upwey & Broadwey ward to be included in South Dorset. He also suggested that a further split – in the Chalk Valleys ward – would allow the Cerne Abbas and Piddle Valley areas to be included in West Dorset with Dorchester.

3.64 Our Assistant Commissioners visited this area of Dorset to help them better understand the evidence received. Through their site visits they were able to observe community ties – particularly from the Cerne Abbas and Piddle Valley communities. They found the Chalk Valleys ward is large in area and rural in nature. They considered that although the communities mentioned above undoubtedly did use Dorchester for services, they were some distance away from the town. While they had sympathy with the residents of the Chalk Valleys ward, and with Chris Loder’s well-supported counter-proposal, the Assistant Commissioners did not consider that there were sufficient grounds for the splitting of two wards under his counter-proposal. They were also mindful of the evidence given by Simon Hoare, MP for North Dorset, at the public hearing in Dorchester (BCE-97887), who, while supporting the initial proposals for his constituency and opposing any split wards in the county, said that he was not aware of any objections locally in his area. He said he also wanted to address the misconception that people will somehow be constrained in their shopping and other activities by Parliamentary boundaries. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that there was no compelling reason why wards to the north and north west of Dorchester should be in the West Dorset constituency, and recommended that Mr Loder’s counter-proposal should not be adopted. We agree with their recommendation.

3.65 Having considered the initial proposals and all the representations received, including the possibility of ward splits, the Assistant Commissioners therefore concluded that no evidence received throughout the public consultations provided a sufficiently compelling reason for them to adjust the composition of any of the Dorset constituencies as initially proposed. They therefore do not recommend making any such changes. However, they agreed with those who called for a retention of the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency name, and they therefore recommended this. We agree that no changes need to be made to the proposed constituency compositions, but also agree with our Assistant Commissioners that it is appropriate to revert to the existing name of Mid Dorset and North Poole, on the basis of local support for that name.

‘Avon’, Somerset, and Devon (including Torbay and Plymouth)

3.66 The initial proposals established a sub-region comprised of the four unitary authorities that used to be contained in the county of Avon, plus Somerset and Devon (including Plymouth and Torbay). This results in a mathematical entitlement to 29.97 constituencies and an allocation of 30 constituencies to the sub-region, representing an increase of two from the current figure. Five constituencies that crossed county or unitary authority boundaries in this sub-region were proposed. Two would cross the boundary between Somerset and unitary authorities in the former Avon county area, two would cross the boundary between two unitary authorities within the former Avon county area, and one would cross the county boundary between Somerset and Devon. There was general support for the constituencies proposed in this sub-region from all the four qualifying political parties, albeit with some relatively minor local amendments.

‘Avon’ – Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset and South Gloucestershire

3.67 Two of the four existing constituencies in Bristol have electorates that are significantly above the permitted range, particularly in Bristol West, which now is the largest constituency by electorate in England (apart from the existing single Isle of Wight constituency) with 99,859 electors. It was therefore proposed that there be an additional constituency allocated to Bristol, resulting in a cross-local authority boundary constituency with South Gloucestershire. South Gloucestershire council area already contains what would generally be considered some of the northern and eastern Bristol suburbs and new development. We had considered extending at least one Bristol constituency northwards into South Gloucestershire in view of the links with Bristol, for example, Bristol Parkway station is located within the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency. However, it was considered this would cause unnecessary disruption to both the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency and the wider South Gloucestershire unitary authority. A new Bristol North East constituency that expanded eastwards into South Gloucestershire was therefore proposed.

3.68 There was widespread support and relatively little opposition to the five proposed Bristol constituencies (including that shared with South Gloucestershire). In each of the five constituencies proposed for Bristol, support outweighed opposition and all four qualifying political parties: Conservative (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), Labour (BCE-79518, BCE-79532 and BCE-95667), Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986), and the Green Party (BCE-85239 and BCE-85287) expressed support for the composition and names of the five proposed Bristol constituencies of Bristol Central, Bristol East, Bristol North East, Bristol North West, and Bristol South in their entirety. BCE-75267 considered the proposed boundaries to be ‘much better than the existing ones. The boundaries for Bristol Central in particular respect community ties very well, as far as possible with the electorate limits….. The name is also a much better reflection on the nature of the constituency. Similarly the boundaries for the other four Bristol seats (North West, North East, East and South) are sensible and do not notably divide up any communities with obvious ties.’

3.69 Bristol South Constituency Labour Party (BCE-70160), however, while broadly supportive of the proposals, expressed some concerns about splitting the Knowle West estate between the Bristol South and Bristol East constituencies, particularly in view of the ongoing work on the Knowle West Regeneration Framework. From the existing Kingswood constituency there was some objection to the inclusion of the South Gloucestershire wards of Kingswood, New Cheltenham, Woodstock, and Staple Hill & Mangotsfield in the Bristol North East constituency, for example BCE-84711, but these were few in number.

3.70 Our Assistant Commissioners noted the widespread acceptance that Bristol would require an additional constituency, and that there was little by way of opposition to the initial proposals, or counter-proposals for alternative arrangements of constituencies in Bristol. They therefore recommended that no changes be made to any of the five initially proposed Bristol constituencies of Bristol Central, Bristol East, Bristol North East, Bristol North West, and Bristol South. We agree with them regarding the five Bristol constituencies.

3.71 In South Gloucestershire unitary authority, to the north of Bristol, only limited changes were made to the existing Thornbury and Yate, and Filton and Bradley Stoke constituencies. Apart from some realignment with new ward boundaries, these were the inclusion of the Pilning & Severn Beach ward in Thornbury and Yate, and the Emersons Green ward in Filton and Bradley Stoke from the existing Kingswood constituency. The remaining wards of the existing Kingswood constituency had either been incorporated into Bristol North East, or the proposed Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency (Bitton & Oldland Common, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley). Despite the relatively modest change in South Gloucestershire, there was opposition, largely from the Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), Councillor Toby Savage, Leader of South Gloucestershire Council (BCE-81938), and Sanjay Shambhu (BCE-97838).

3.72 Many of those who opposed the initial proposals sought a reconfiguration of the South Gloucestershire constituencies in a broadly east/west arrangement. South Gloucestershire West would be the ‘successor’ to Filton and Bradley Stoke, with the inclusion of the wards of Severn Vale and Thornbury from the existing Thornbury and Yate constituency, the whole of the Winterbourne ward and the ‘return’ of the Pilning & Severn Beach ward, and a South Gloucestershire East constituency comprising six wards from the existing Thornbury and Yate constituency plus the whole of the Boyd Valley, and Frenchay & Downend wards, and the Emersons Green ward. The Members of Parliament for Thornbury and Yate, Luke Hall (BCE-79890), and for Filton and Bradley Stoke, Jack Lopresti (BCE-83754) also expressed support for this counter-proposal in their detailed representations.

3.73 There was also significant opposition to the Conservative Party counter-proposal, however, particularly in the representations during the second consultation, for example Councillor Claire Young from Thornbury and Yate constituency (BCE-96423), Councillor Angela Morey (BCE-92437 and BCE-97835), and Penny Richardson (BCE-97837). Penny Richardson alluded to the fact that Filton and Bradley Stoke was a relatively young constituency that, when it was first created, was considered to be ‘a little bit of a hodgepodge’ of areas, but that it has developed its own identity and a real sense of stability and continuity. She asked that it be allowed a degree of longevity.

3.74 Our Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded that a reconfiguration of the constituencies in South Gloucestershire was the most appropriate solution in the area. In the Conservative Party counter-proposal the relatively compact area of Filton and Bradley Stoke, which was adjacent to Bristol, would be included in a constituency that extended north to the boundary with Stroud, and the towns of Thornbury and Yate would be located in different constituencies, whereas there was relatively minor change to both constituencies in our initial proposals. They therefore recommended that the constituencies of Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury and Yate, should remain as in the initial proposals. We agree, and propose no change to Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury and Yate, except to alter the designation of Filton and Bradley Stoke to a Borough Constituency in view of its high electorate density.

3.75 There was some support, but mostly objection, to the proposed Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency. In the initial proposals the four South Gloucestershire wards of Bitton & Oldland Common, Hanham, Longwell Green, and Parkwall & Warmley from the existing Kingswood constituency were included in the proposed constituency with 11 wards from North East Somerset. Most objections concerned the “abolition” of the Kingswood constituency, the exclusion of the town of Midsomer Norton from the proposed constituency and its inclusion in the Frome constituency, and that the areas north of the river Avon have little in common with those areas to the south of it. The representations of Sam Ross (BCE-84603), BCE-78395, and BCE-95845 are typical of those received in objection to this proposed constituency. However, there was also support, for example BCE-95520 and BCE-84653, which said: ‘I consider that those living in the northern part of the existing constituency of North East Somerset have a lot more in common with their close neighbours in Bath and Bristol than they do with those of us living in the south thereof. It is better for residents in the smaller areas such as Radstock and Midsomer Norton to be linked up with Frome and its region.’ There has been no objection to the composition of Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency from any of the four qualifying political parties.

3.76 A number of representations said that the name of the constituency is inaccurate and tautologous, as Keynsham is itself a North East Somerset town and the name does not reflect the communities from South Gloucestershire that are included. The Conservative Party supported the composition of the constituency, but considered it could be renamed North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire South. Our Assistant Commissioners did not agree with this particular alternative, but agreed that the initially proposed name was not an accurate description of the constituency. They therefore recommended ‘North East Somerset and Hanham’ – a name suggested by Jed Quinn at the public hearing in Bath (BCE-97965). We agree to this renaming of the constituency.

3.77 The electorate of the Bath constituency was below the permitted range and was increased by the inclusion of the Bath and North East Somerset wards of Bathavon North and Newbridge. The initial proposals for Bath were largely supported, for example, BCE-81857, and BCE-84536, which said: ‘The new proposals for Bath seem entirely logical as the additional two areas have obvious links with the city. The Newbridge addition makes sense as it completes and consolidates the original Newbridge area’. However, there was some opposition, as the Bathavon South ward was not included in the constituency (see under Frome below).

3.78 In order to reduce the electorate of the existing Weston-super-Mare constituency, the three largely rural wards of Blagdon & Churchill, Banwell & Winscombe, and Congresbury & Puxton were included in the proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency, thereby making Weston-super-Mare a more compact, urban constituency. Few representations were received with regard to the proposed Weston-super-Mare constituency: North Somerset Council Labour Group (BCE-81040) supported the initial proposals for the constituency, but there was little objection. Elsewhere in North Somerset, there was more objection to the initial proposals for the North Somerset constituency, but much of this was in opposition to the composition of the surrounding constituencies that had an impact on North Somerset, particularly the inclusion of the Yatton and Kenn areas (Yatton ward) in the proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency that crossed the boundary between North Somerset unitary authority and Somerset (BCE-61069, BCE-59689 and BCE-83787). BCE-60025 supported the inclusion of the Yatton ward in the Wells and Mendip Hills constituency, but objected to its name. The current MP for North Somerset, Dr Liam Fox (BCE-85323) supported the initial proposals.

3.79 Our Assistant Commissioners noted the general level of agreement and support for the initial proposals from the qualifying political parties and from individuals across North Somerset, and Bath and North East Somerset. They agreed with the Conservative Party, who, in their submission during the second consultation (BCE-97624), said that the initial proposals were ‘probably the only practical solution to increase the Bath electorate’. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that there be no change to the Bath, North Somerset, and Weston-super-Mare constituencies, as initially proposed. We agree.

Somerset

3.80 As all of the existing constituencies in Somerset have electorates that are considerably above the permitted electorate range, major change in the initial proposals was unavoidable, although there was a general consensus of support for the initial proposals from all the four qualifying political parties, albeit with some minor amendments.

3.81 Six Bath and North East Somerset wards, including the town of Midsomer Norton, were included in a Frome constituency, with 13 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency, together with the South Somerset district ward of Bruton, which would be an orphan ward, and the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward from the existing Wells constituency. In the initial proposals the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency contained a total of 15 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency, including the town of Somerton itself, seven wards from the existing Wells constituency, including the towns of Glastonbury and Street, and the South Somerset district ward of Hamdon.

3.82 There was a significant degree of opposition to the proposed Frome constituency, with most of the objections concerning the inclusion of the Bathavon South ward in the constituency. Typical of these are the representations from Robert and Avril Grieg, (BCE-84170) and BCE-70092, who said that the parishes and communities in the north of the ward – such as Claverton and Monkton Combe – should be in the Bath constituency, and from Richard Burgess, Station Manager at Somer Valley FM (BCE-62064). However, there was also notable support, for example from Frome and District Chamber of Commerce (BCE-79905), which said the proposed constituency is ‘much more coherent than the existing Somerton and Frome constituency’.

3.83 Our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the frustrations of those living in the north of the Bathavon South ward at their inclusion in the proposed Frome constituency. However, it was not possible to include both the Bathavon North, and Bathavon South wards in the Bath constituency. They also noted the support for the Frome constituency from, for example, the Somerset Independents, who claimed to represent local residents (BCE-66981), and the evidence given by Frome and District Chamber of Commerce. They therefore recommended no change to the constituency, and we agree.

3.84 The town of Somerton was included in the newly configured Glastonbury and Somerton constituency in the initial proposals. There was similarly some limited objection, but also support for the proposed constituency, for example from Somerset Independents (BCE-66981). In their revised submission (BCE-97624), the Conservative Party counter-proposed that The Pennards and Ditcheat ward be included in Frome rather than Glastonbury and Somerton, which is also supported in representation BCE-83252. The Assistant Commissioners noted that those in opposition to the proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency outnumbered the representations in support, but these numbers were not large and they did not consider that the evidence that had been submitted had persuaded them to recommend a revision of the initial proposals. They therefore recommended that no changes be made to the Glastonbury and Somerset constituency as initially proposed, and we agree with their recommendation.

3.85 The proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency was significantly different to the existing Wells constituency: in addition to the inclusion of wards from surrounding constituencies, it would no longer include the town of Burnham-on-Sea, nor the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward. It would extend to the Bristol Channel (as the existing Wells constituency already does, but at a different point), and cross the boundary between Somerset and the North Somerset unitary authority. Kenn Parish Council objected to the inclusion of the Yatton ward in the constituency (BCE-63436), and Peter Lander (BCE-81337), stated that the proposals for the constituency ‘make no sense whatsoever’. There was some support, however, for example from Janet Carter (BCE-84144) and James Heappey, MP for Wells (BCE-74863), as well as from all four main political parties.

3.86 The existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency needs to have its 85,448 electorate significantly reduced and a number of its wards were therefore included in the proposed Wells and Mendip Hills, and Tiverton and Minehead constituencies, including the wards that comprise the town of Minehead. The four wards that comprise the town of Burnham-on-Sea, with 13 remaining wards from the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency, were included in the renamed Bridgwater constituency. While generally supportive, BCE-83792 expressed the views of a number of those in opposition to the inclusion of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station development in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency, rather than Bridgwater, which is home to many of the plant’s workforce. In addition, there were some calls for the constituency to include references to Bridgwater Bay or Burnham in its name. The initial proposals were supported by the MP for Bridgwater and West Somerset, Iain Liddell-Grainger (BCE-63351).

3.87 The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the opposition to the proposed Wells and Mendip Hills, and Bridgwater constituencies, but also the considerable support, notably from the local MPs. They considered the issue of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station development, but noted that no-one had made a clear counter-proposal that kept this in the Bridgwater constituency without causing disruption elsewhere. They were not persuaded that the name of the Bridgwater constituency should be changed to Bridgewater Bay, Bridgwater and Burnham, or anything similar. They therefore recommended no changes be made to the Wells and Mendip Hills, and Bridgwater constituencies as initially proposed. We agree.

3.88 In Yeovil, slight adjustments were made to realign the constituency boundaries with local government ward boundary changes, maintaining the entirety of the town of Yeovil within the constituency. Opposition to the proposed constituency was limited, but most of those in opposition, including Yeovil’s MP, Marcus Fysh (BCE-85217 and BCE-97893) noted that the Northstone, Ivelchester & St Michael’s ward is currently split between existing constituencies. Mr Fysh suggested that this large, rural ward (which is included in the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency in the initial proposals) be split, with the area in the south that is in the existing Yeovil constituency remaining in Yeovil.

3.89 Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the initial proposals had aimed to keep all the wards of the town in the constituency, and that only the southern part of the newly enlarged ward of Northstone, Ivelchester & St Michael’s had been previously included in the existing constituency. They considered the suggestions for the ward to be split, with the villages south of the A303 being retained within the Yeovil constituency. The electorate of the proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency was 69,990, however, so could only tolerate the loss of 266 electors without further consequences affecting other proposed constituencies: the number of electors in the area south of the A303 considerably exceeds this number, with 1,434 electors in the polling district that covers the village of Ilchester alone. The Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded of the merits of the proposed split of the ward. They were mindful of the general level of support for the constituencies in this area, and therefore recommended no change to the Yeovil constituency as initially proposed. We agree with them.

3.90 The proposed constituency of Taunton was considerably smaller in area than its predecessor, Taunton Deane, and it was inevitable that the constituency would no longer contain all the wards of the existing constituency. It was also renamed, as the Taunton Deane district – after which it was originally named – no longer exists. The proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Tiverton and Minehead included the remaining wards of the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency, three wards from the existing Taunton Deane constituency, and the whole of the two Somerset West and Taunton district wards of South Quantock, and Wiveliscombe & District, which are both currently divided between constituencies (following local government ward changes). There was considerable opposition to the constituency containing parts of two counties, for example the Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287), who said: ‘Tiverton and Minehead groups together two areas with very few local ties or shared facilities. It covers many communities with very different local context and needs, and would be hard to represent. These areas are also not well connected by transport links, which would make campaigning in the constituency difficult.’ Also, representation BCE-84838 said: ‘there are no local ties between Minehead with its surrounding areas and Tiverton…. the proposal fails on the criteria of local ties and geographical factors. However the most extraordinary aspect of this proposal is its failure to meet the criteria of having regard to local government boundaries. The proposed constituency spans the counties of Somerset and Devon. These are historic counties with separate administration and a historic common county boundary which has existed for centuries. I maintain that the failure to meet this criteria is so significant that this proposal should be rejected.’

3.91 There was also support, however, for example from a local councillor (BCE-82741), who considered the proposed constituency ‘geographically cohesive’ and BCE-54062, who said: ‘I am fully in favour of creating a new Tiverton and Minehead constituency and feel that for West Somerset it will be a major improvement over the existing arrangements. The rural hinterland will come together and we will be part of a new set-up which reflects our needs more closely.’ The proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency was also broadly supported by the Labour Party, the Conservative Party (although renamed Tiverton and West Somerset), and the Liberal Democrats, albeit the latter two proposed slight adjustments to the configuration. Much of the opposition concerned the inclusion of the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in this constituency rather than in the Taunton constituency: Staplegrove Parish Council (BCE-70553) and Norton Fitzwarren Parish Council (BCE-63619). The MP for Taunton Deane, Rebecca Pow (BCE-71726, BCE-85941, and BCE-97953), provided evidence in her representations of the strong links of Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward with Taunton, particularly citing the links of Taunton with 40 Commando Royal Marines (based at Norton Manor Camp in the ward).

3.92 Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the ward was physically close to Taunton town centre, and considered the evidence presented for the ward’s inclusion in the Taunton constituency, in particular the town’s links with Norton Manor Camp in the ward, to be compelling and were persuaded to recommend the retention of the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in the same constituency as Taunton. However, they were less persuaded by the calls for the constituency to include the town of Wellington in its name. The inclusion of the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in Taunton would mean that another ward would have to be included in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency in exchange, to allow both constituencies to remain within the permitted electorate range. They noted the representations that had suggested that the Upper Culm ward should instead be included in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency (BCE-8543 and BCE-82696).

3.93 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the ward is currently in the existing Tiverton and Honiton constituency, and that its inclusion in the proposed constituency would maintain the ward’s ties with the town of Tiverton, and also the Lower Culm ward, which had been included in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency in the initial proposals. The Assistant Commissioners considered the opposition to the cross-county constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, although they also noted the support, and acknowledged that within the arrangement of constituencies that had been initially proposed, a constituency would have to cross the county boundary between Somerset and Devon. Although part of Devon would be included in the same constituency as holiday resorts on the Bristol Channel, they considered that the proposed constituency was appropriate. They considered that the evidence for including the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in the Taunton constituency, and the Upper Culm ward in Tiverton and Minehead was persuasive, and they therefore recommended the alterations to the Taunton, and Tiverton and Minehead constituencies with regard to these two wards, but did not recommend that the name of the Taunton constituency be changed from that set out in initial proposals. We agree with their recommendations.

Devon (including Plymouth and Torbay)

3.94 There was a significant degree of support for the initial proposals in Devon from all the qualifying political parties, although in other areas some relatively minor alternatives were proposed. However, there was unanimous opposition to the proposed Exeter and Exmouth constituencies.

3.95 As a result of the inclusion of eight wards (including those comprising the town of Tiverton itself) from the existing Tiverton and Honiton constituency in the proposed cross-county Tiverton and Minehead constituency, Tiverton and Honiton was renamed Honiton. This constituency was extended westwards in the initial proposals to include four wards from the existing East Devon constituency, including the towns of Ottery St Mary and Sidmouth. The initial proposals for Honiton were reasonably well supported, for example BCE-83738 and Simon Jupp, MP for East Devon (BCE-86099), albeit with a suggested constituency name change. Most of the opposition concerned the separation of the town of Ottery St Mary from the West Hill & Aylesbeare ward. Examples were Colin Bennett (BCE-92521), Elizabeth Pangbourne (BCE-92469) and Jess Bailey, who spoke at the public hearing in Exeter (BCE-97823), and who called for the inclusion of the ward from Exmouth to maintain social and business ties. There were also calls for the Newton Poppleford & Hartford ward to be included in the Honiton constituency, due to its close proximity to the town of Sidmouth (BCE-62550 and BCE-90318), pointing out that this would also allow for the Exe Valley ward to be included in the Exmouth constituency.

3.96 The Assistant Commissioners noted calls for the constituency name to include a reference to Sidmouth, a sizable town that would now be included in the constituency. Alistair Philpot (BCE-59706) had suggested that the Budleigh & Rayleigh ward should also be included in the Honiton constituency. Having considered the evidence, the Assistant Commissioners identified that it would be possible for both the wards of West Hill & Aylesbeare, and Newton Poppleford & Hartford to be included in the Honiton constituency and for its electorate to continue to be in the permitted range, but that it would not be possible to include the Budleigh & Rayleigh ward in light of the other changes that were being considered. They also recommended that the constituency’s name should be revised to Honiton and Sidmouth. We agree with their recommendations for both the composition and name of the constituency.

3.97 In order to reduce the high electorate of the existing Exeter constituency, the three City of Exeter wards of Topsham, St. Loyes and Priory were included wholly in the proposed Exmouth constituency, as these wards crossed existing constituency boundaries following local government ward boundary changes. Apart from these changes, the existing Exeter constituency was otherwise unchanged. This proposal was almost unanimously opposed; more than 500 written representations were received in opposition, as well as petitions containing 1,853 names, and this was the largest issue in the South West region and one of the largest in England as a whole.

3.98 All the main political parties objected. The main issue of objection was the inclusion of the Priory ward in the Exmouth constituency. Many of the representations detailed, at some length and with passion, the historic links of the ward with the centre of Exeter, for example Catherine Craig (BCE-64028), Andrew Hannan (BCE-62899), and Susan Turner (BCE-79540). Many others suggested that the Pinhoe ward, rather than Priory, should be included in the Exmouth constituency, for example Ben Bradshaw, MP for Exeter (BCE-77026), Marina Asvachin (BCE-62793), and Exeter City Council (BCE-82644), although there was also some opposition to this alternative (for example BCE-84334). Respondents said that although Pinhoe is a City of Exeter ward, it comprises mostly new development and has ties to the town of Broadclyst and the newer developments in the Cranbrook ward. The ward’s inclusion in Exmouth would mean that the three eastern wards of Exeter would all be in the Exmouth constituency. The Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence with regard to the Priory ward to be compelling and they therefore recommended that it be included in the Exeter constituency, with the Pinhoe ward instead being included in Exmouth. To reflect these changes, they recommend that Exeter should retain its name, and that Exmouth be renamed Exeter East and Exmouth. We agreed with their recommendations for the composition and names of both constituencies.

3.99 The existing Central Devon constituency would be changed under our initial proposals only to realign with changes to local government boundaries. It was acknowledged in the initial proposals that the Central Devon constituency would still contain wards from four different local authorities, but it was considered that any alternatives would require significant changes to constituencies that otherwise required only minor changes. There were few representations received, but there was some relatively minor objection to the proposed Central Devon constituency, which, it was said, looked towards Newton Abbot with which it had links, but would include much of Dartmoor (BCE-52688).

3.100 There were calls, for example from Jamie Kemp, councillor for the Exe Valley ward (BCE-97831), and who was supported by the Conservative Party, for the ward to be included in the Exmouth constituency, and our Assistant Commissioners noted that the changes they had recommended for constituencies in this area meant that this was now possible. The Labour Party did not support this, however: in their representation during the secondary consultation (BCE-95667) they said that without the Exe Valley ward, the Bradninch and Silverton wards would effectively become detached from the rest of Central Devon, due to there being poor road access to the rest of the constituency.

3.101 The Assistant Commissioners recommended that the Exe Valley ward should be included in Exeter East and Exmouth. Despite the concerns of the Labour Party, they considered the benefits of Exe Valley no longer being an orphan ward in the Central Devon constituency, and Central Devon containing parts of fewer local authorities (three rather than four as in the existing arrangement and the initial proposals) outweighed any disadvantages. They therefore recommended this change to us and we agree with their recommendation.

3.102 We received few representations regarding the proposed North Devon constituency, which would remain unchanged from the existing constituency: the majority of these supported the initial proposals, for example Selaine Saxby, MP for North Devon (BCE-82598). The Assistant Commissioners recommend there be no revisions to the North Devon constituency and we concur with them.

3.103 The existing Newton Abbot and Torbay constituencies were changed only to realign with changes to local government ward boundaries. Neither of these constituencies were particularly contentious, although there were calls for the Newton Abbot constituency to be renamed Teignbridge, a former name for the constituency, in a number of representations, including that of the Conservative Party (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624). Relatively minor changes were proposed to the existing Totnes constituency, with the inclusion of the Charterlands ward from the existing South West Devon constituency in the proposed constituency. There was opposition, however, largely from residents of the Brixham area of the Totnes constituency, who considered that the Torbay constituency should be coterminous with the boundaries of the Borough of Torbay, and include the whole of Paignton and Brixham (BCE-85414 and BCE-61417). Unfortunately, this is not possible due to the electorate size of the Torbay constituency. There were many representations – in excess of 200, and a petition containing 65 names – that supported the call from Anthony Magnall, MP for Totnes (BCE-57096) to rename the constituency South Devon. He considered the current name not only ‘fails to reflect the constituency as it now is, but alienates residents who feel they are often overlooked’ and that the name should be more inclusive to those who live in areas of the constituency other than Totnes. This view was also supported by the Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986 and BCE-96091).

3.104 Apart from their recommendation to include the Exe Valley ward in the Exeter East and Exmouth constituency (detailed above), the Assistant Commissioners made no further recommendations regarding the Central Devon constituency. They considered the evidence regarding the Torbay, Newton Abbot and Totnes constituencies. They did not consider there was any compelling evidence for them to recommend any changes to the Torbay and Newton Abbot constituencies. Although they were sympathetic to those who called for the name of the Newton Abbot constituency to revert to its former name of Teignbridge, they noted that Newton Abbot was the name of the existing constituency, that there had been no changes to the existing constituency, other than to realign constituency with new local government ward boundaries, and that to change the name of the constituency could be confusing to residents. They therefore recommended no change from initial proposals to either the Torbay or Newton Abbot constituencies.

3.105 The Assistant Commissioners did, however, feel that a more persuasive case had been made for a change of name to the Totnes constituency, which had been altered to a relatively minor level in the initial proposals. They were persuaded that the name ‘Totnes’ could be considered as inappropriate in view of the other significant areas that are included in the constituency, such as Brixham, and agreed that a name change to South Devon would be more inclusive and would be welcomed in the constituency. They therefore recommended no change to the composition of the Totnes constituency, but did recommend that it be renamed South Devon. We agree with renaming this constituency South Devon under our revised proposals, and to the recommendation that there should otherwise be no change for this constituency, Torbay, or Newton Abbot, as initially proposed.

3.106 The existing Torridge and West Devon, and South West Devon constituencies would be largely unchanged under the initial proposals, apart from the inclusion of the two West Devon district wards of Buckland Monachorum and Burrator in the proposed South West Devon constituency from Torridge and West Devon. To reflect the fewer West Devon district wards that would now be included in the constituency, but also recognising the main West Devon population centre it includes, it was proposed that the latter constituency be renamed Torridge and Tavistock. The inclusion of the Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards in South West Devon was objected to in a number of representations, for example Alan Hughes (BCE-91259) and Val Bolitho (BCE-56595), who claimed the wards’ ties are with the town of Tavistock. Stephen Fletcher (BCE-58902) said that the proposals would divide Dartmoor National Park across constituencies. There was also support for these two constituencies, however, for example from BCE-74337 (Torridge and Tavistock), Jonathan Barrett (BCE-77094 – South West Devon), and John Gray of the Torridge and West Devon Conservative Association (BCE-81798).

3.107 Our Assistant Commissioners considered the representations regarding the proposed Torridge and Tavistock, and South West Devon constituencies, and noted the opposition from the Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards. While they acknowledged this opposition, they also noted the support for the initial proposals and considered that any changes would require consequential changes to the pattern of constituencies across Devon. They were not persuaded to include the Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards in the same constituency as Tavistock, and therefore recommended no change to the Torridge and Tavistock, and South West Devon constituencies as initially proposed. We agree with their recommendations.

3.108 In the City of Plymouth, the existing Plymouth Moor View constituency has an electorate below the permitted range, while the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency has an electorate above the range. Due to the large electorates of the city wards, there is no solution that allows for both constituencies to fall within the permitted electorate range through the transfer of a single whole ward. There is a configuration that brings both constituencies within the permitted electorate range by exchanging two wards, but the result of this configuration would be the inclusion of the Devonport ward in the Plymouth Moor View constituency, thereby constructing a constituency that contains inland rural areas in the same constituency as the historic dockyard. When formulating our initial proposals, we considered this was likely to be regarded as unsatisfactory, as we expected it would break community ties between Devonport, Plymouth Hoe and the Barbican. In order to retain these community ties, we initially proposed that the Peverell ward be divided in the centre of Plymouth, broadly along the A386 Outland Road, with three polling districts of the Peverell ward (namely KA, KB and KE) being included in the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and the remaining two polling districts of this ward (KC and KD) being included in the Plymouth Moor View constituency. This would result in minimal change to both constituencies.

3.109 There was support for the initial proposals from the Labour Party, including Christopher Cuddihee of Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Constituency Labour Party (BCE-83437), and the Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287) and Liberal Democrats (BCE-80986 and BCE-96091). We also received support for the Conservative Party counter-proposal, (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), including from Tony Carson, Chairman of Plymouth Sutton and Devonport Conservative Association (BCE-84707). This counter-proposal would instead split the Devonport ward with the Keyham area being included in the Plymouth Moor View constituency and the whole of the Peverell ward retained in the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency.

3.110 Luke Pollard, MP for Plymouth Sutton and Devonport (BCE-97427) supported the initial proposals and opposed the Conservative Party counter-proposals to split the Keyham area in Devonport ward. He highlighted the close community ties this ward had with the rest of the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, which had been strengthened by the tragic events in the area in 2021, although some objected to this line of argument (for example Martin Slator – BCE-91192).

3.111 We also received an alternative counter-proposal from Alistair Philpot (BCE-62873 and BCE-97815), who suggested that Plymouth be divided across three constituencies: Plymouth East, Plymouth North and Ivybridge, and Plymouth West. John Bryant (BCE-94126) took a similar approach, suggesting Plymouth Devonport, Plymouth Sutton, and South West Devon constituencies, the latter including wards from the north of Plymouth, rather than the east. While the Assistant Commissioners recognised the intention of these counterproposals, they were not persuaded to recommend either, given the disruption they resulted in to the pattern of constituencies outside of Plymouth, a pattern that had been broadly supported by respondents to the public consultation.

3.112 Accordingly, the Assistant Commissioners considered that the issue in Plymouth effectively lent itself to a binary solution: whether to split the Peverell or the Devonport ward, and they noted the evidence that had been submitted, both in support of and opposition to the splitting of either ward, which had been largely evenly divided. A site visit to Plymouth was conducted, during which it was observed that the A386 provides a clear and identifiable boundary between the polling districts that we proposed should be included in the Plymouth Moor View constituency and the rest of Peverell ward, along almost all of the road’s extent through the ward. This was reinforced by Central Park, which also separates these areas. Furthermore, it was felt that the nature of the housing to the south and east of the road was somewhat different to that to the north and west, and that the areas either side of the A386 had a distinctly different ‘feel’ about them, with the area to the north and west being more similar in nature to the North Prospect area of Ham ward. The site visit continued through the North Prospect area to the north of the Devonport ward, and in particular the Keyham area that the Conservative Party counter-proposal had proposed should be separated from the rest of the Devonport ward and included in the Plymouth Moor View constituency.

3.113 During the visit, it was observed that the housing in Keyham was similar in nature to that in the Ham ward (which was being included in Plymouth Moor View), but also similar to the housing in the Ford area of the Stoke ward (which would be included in the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency). The evidence given at the public hearing in Exeter – outlining close links forged between Keyham, the rest of the Devonport ward and the Ford area – was also considered. It was noted that the Conservative Party counter-proposal would use identifiable, existing ward boundaries along significant roads (Wolseley Road, Henderson Place/Royal Navy Road, and Moor View Road).

3.114 The Assistant Commissioners noted that the Conservative Party counterproposal would divide the Devonport Docks effectively across the middle, excluding the administrative buildings and Headquarters of HM Naval Base Devonport from the maritime-focused Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency. The Conservative Party had said that it would still be appropriate for the southern constituency to be called Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, but with the exclusion of a significant part of the Devonport ward itself (not least the naval HQ), Assistant Commissioners struggled to see how the long-standing and historical reference to Devonport could continue to be appropriate for just one of the constituency names if the counter-proposal were to be adopted.

3.115 Our Assistant Commissioners assessed the merits and disadvantages of the splitting of either ward. They were not ultimately persuaded that the splitting of the Devonport ward was a satisfactory or appropriate proposition. Although the splitting of the Peverell ward was not without disadvantages, they considered that the advantages of splitting the Peverell ward significantly outweighed any advantage of the splitting of the Devonport ward. They therefore recommended that no revisions be made to either the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport, or Plymouth Moor View constituencies, as initially proposed. We agree with their recommendation.

Cornwall

3.116 In the initial proposals, relatively minor changes were proposed to the existing six constituencies in the county, with the existing North Cornwall constituency being wholly unchanged in the proposals, and the three existing constituencies of South East Cornwall, St Austell and Newquay, and St Ives being changed only to realign them with new local government ward boundaries. To bring the Truro and Falmouth constituency within the permitted electorate range, it was proposed that the whole of the Perranporth, and Threemilestone & Chacewater wards be included in the Camborne and Redruth constituency. The electorate of the Truro and Falmouth constituency then had to be increased to bring it back within the permitted electorate range, with the inclusion of the Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan ward, and the whole of the divided Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock ward from the Camborne and Redruth constituency.

3.117 The qualifying political parties – Conservative (BCE-86590 and BCE-97624), Labour (BCE-79518, BCE-79532, and BCE-95667), Liberal Democrats, (BCE-80986 and BCE-96091) and the Green Party (BCE-95629 and BCE-85287) – submitted counter-proposals containing relatively minor changes within Cornwall. The Conservative Party, who originally supported all six proposed constituencies, made a number of changes from their initial representation after the public hearing held in Exeter. This was in light of the evidence given by a number of local speakers, (including Councillor Barry Jordan, on behalf of Cornwall Council – BCE-97825), which suggested moving four wards in five constituencies with the aim of moving fewer electors overall and restoring local ties. The Liberal Democrats’ suggested configuration also proposed the move of four wards within Cornwall. Labour’s counter proposal focussed solely on uniting the China Clay area in one constituency.

3.118 A number of other counter-proposals were received suggesting alternative configurations to constituencies. Many of these, including Julian Young of St Austell and Newquay Liberal Democrats (BCE-80197), and St Austell Bay Economic Forum (BCE-74129), drew attention to the historic China Clay area – specifically the Roche & Bugle ward. Under the initial proposals, this divided ward was included wholly within the South East Cornwall constituency. However, many representations said that this would, in effect, divide the China Clay area between constituencies, and called for it to be included instead with other ‘China Clay wards’ in the St Austell and Newquay constituency. In their response to the secondary consultation (BCE-97624), the Conservative Party supported the inclusion of the Roche & Bugle ward in St Austell and Newquay, but proposed instead that the St Columb Major, St Mawgan & St Wenn ward be included in the North Cornwall constituency. This was in response to the representation by Cornwall Council, in a detailed rationale from James Mustoe (BCE-97810), and by Steve Double, MP for St Austell and Newquay (BCE-97811). There was strong support for this counter-proposal in other representations, such as the Green Party.

3.119 The Labour Party and the Devon and Cornwall Liberal Democrats’ Simon Taylor (BCE-97404), suggested instead that, in order to accommodate the Roche & Bugle ward in St Austell and Newquay, the Fowey, Tywardreath & Par ward should be included in the South East Cornwall constituency. However, our Assistant Commissioners considered that there is a strong association between this ward and the neighbouring St Bazely ward, both of which are included in the existing St Austell and Newquay constituency, as well as there being significantly weaker links to South East Cornwall, including a lack of a river crossing from this ward across the Fowey estuary.

3.120 The Assistant Commissioners accepted that the China Clay area should be wholly contained within one constituency and recommended the inclusion of the Roche & Bugle ward in the St Austell and Newquay constituency, which they considered was best accommodated by including the St Columb Major, St Mawgan & St Wenn ward in the North Cornwall constituency. They considered that there are good transport links between the ward and the rest of the constituency via the A39 and noted the evidence that the area has been in a North Cornwall constituency in the past. They considered that a persuasive case had not been made for the inclusion of the Fowey, Tywardreath & Par ward in the South East Cornwall constituency, which would otherwise (apart from ward changes) remain unchanged. We agree with their recommendations.

3.121 There was considerable opposition to the inclusion of the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward in the Camborne and Redruth constituency in the initial proposals. Much of the opposition was from residents who maintained that Threemilestone has a significant residential area that is a satellite village of Truro, with many local businesses in the Threemilestone area likely to consider themselves a part of the greater Truro trading area and the Truro Town Deal, for example Stuart Roden (BCE-77139, BCE-89938 and BCE-96442). The name of the ward derives from the fact it is three miles from the centre of Truro (Susan Holden, BCE-65135). A number of individuals, the Liberal Democrats, and the Conservative Party in their later representation (BCE-97624) provided a counter-proposal for the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward, suggesting that the continued inclusion of this ward in the Truro and Falmouth constituency would avoid breaking local ties. The Conservative Party’s revised counter-proposal was submitted in support of the representation from Cornwall Council and closely matched existing constituencies, by including the Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan ward in the Camborne and Redruth constituency (where it is currently located) in order to accommodate the inclusion of Threemilestone & Chacewater in Truro and Falmouth. The Liberal Democrats and Green Party also included the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward in Truro and Falmouth, but instead proposed that the St Newlyn East, Cubert & Goonhavern ward be included in Camborne and Redruth. The Labour Party supported the retention of the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward in the proposed Camborne and Redruth constituency.

3.122 The Assistant Commissioners recommended that the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward be included in the Truro and Falmouth constituency, with the Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan ward being included in Camborne and Redruth. In this configuration the two wards are exchanged, with both wards being included in their existing constituencies and the concerns in the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward are addressed. They accepted that the Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan ward most likely looked towards the town of Falmouth, but noted that the ward was currently in the existing Camborne and Redruth constituency, and that there were distinct benefits of retaining the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward in Truro and Falmouth. They therefore recommended that we adopt the proposals suggested by Cornwall Council and the Conservative Party, whose evidence they considered to be the most persuasive, and whose proposals more closely resemble the existing pattern of constituencies. We agree with them.

3.123 The initial proposals for the remainder of the constituencies in the Cornwall sub-region were largely uncontentious and supported, although there was some further opposition to the proposed Camborne and Redruth, and St Ives constituencies, on the grounds that the ward of Hayle West, which contains most of the town of Hayle, should be included in the St Ives constituency, from, for example Guy Shipton (BCE-67158), and that the St Ives constituency should also include a reference to the Lizard Peninsula in its name. However, the Assistant Commissioners noted that the Hayle West ward was located in the existing Camborne and Redruth constituency and did not consider that the limited strength of these arguments warranted any further change to the Camborne and Redruth constituency, or to St Ives, and we agree with them.