Council objects to ‘totally inappropriate’ proposed ward boundary changes

The council has voiced major objections to the plans to re-define certain areas of the county, including Wem, Bayston Hill and Shifnal, saying the new wards being put fowards do not reflect community ties.

It has asked the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE), which is conducting the review, to visit the county to get a better idea of local feeling before making its final proposals.

A consultation on the LGCBE’s draft proposals, which were published in May, closed on Monday.

The council’s response sets out how it broadly supports the proposals for most areas, including Shrewsbury, Oswestry, Whitchurch, Market Drayton, Ludlow, Bridgnorth, Church Stretton and Craven Arms.

However other areas have been met with “strong concerns”.

The review is being carried out in order to even out disparity in the number of voters per ward to create better “electoral equality”.

It aims to re-draw the county’s boundaries so that each councillor will represent 3,594 voters, with a tolerance of 10 per cent either way, based on 2028 predictions.

Under the draft proposals, the current two-member division of Wem would be split into two wards, with the majority of the town itself coming under Wem Town, and a new Wem Rural and Whixhall division taking in the surrounding areas as well as a small part of the town to the south east of the railway line.

This would leave the town ward 10 per cent over the optimum number of voters by 2028, and the rural “dougnut-shaped” ward surrounding it 10 per cent under.

Instead, the council says in its consultation response that the current two-member division should remain.

It says: “The proposed Wem Urban division could meet the needs of most of the town but those living in the detached south east section of Wem in the rural division are very much part of the town, not the rural hinterland.

“They could be largely disenfranchised as most of their services and infrastructure would lie in a different division.

“Creating an electoral division from the whole of Wem Urban parish would not be feasible in terms of electoral numbers.

“However, removing part of the town into a different electoral division is not logical in terms of maintaining community identity or community cohesion.”

The letter says the town council and “all locals, without exception” support the retention of the two-member ward, and points out the LGCBE’s own guidance discourages “doughnut wards”.

It adds: “Shropshire Council would recommend an independent visit to Wem to better understand the location and community, before reaching a final decision.”

The council has also vehemently objected to the proposed joining of Bayston Hill with surrounding villages currently under the Burnell division to create a new two-member ward.

Bayston Hill is currently linked with the Column and Sutton areas of Shrewsbury in the county’s only three-member ward, but the LGCBE and the council agree this arrangement should end.

With Bayston Hill predicted to have 4,370 electors by 2028, it would be 22 per cent over the optimum number of voters if it was made its own division.

But the council says the plans to combine it with other surrounding villages in Burnell division are “totally inappropriate and strongly opposed”.

Instead it argues that Bayston Hill has a “unique identity, as a distinct urban village” which justifies a departure from the usual rules on electoral equality.

It says: “After considering every option possible for maintaining electoral equality across west and central Shropshire, together with maintaining the exceptionally strong community identity in Bayston Hill, the shared view is that in the case of Bayston Hill an exception should be made.

“This would enable the area of Bayston Hill Parish Council to be an electoral division on its own. This response has not been taken lightly.”

The council has put together a four-page appendix to its main response letter to argue its case for Bayston Hill to get its own ward, outlining how residents see themselves as a distinct community that is neither part of Shrewsbury nor South Shropshire.

It urges LGCBE representatives to visit the village before finalising their proposals in order to better understand its lack of connection with surrounding settlements.

The Shifnal and Albrighton area is another area of contention – but while the council says it is not happy with the LCGBE’s proposals, it has not been able to draw up alternative plans.

In its draft proposals, the LGBCE describes Shifnal as having “very poor electoral equality”, with too many electors per councillor due to significant house building in recent years.

Currently two councillors serve the town and surrounding rural areas including Sheriffhales and Cosford, while one councillor represents the Albrighton area.

Under the proposals, two dedicated wards would be created to serve Shifnal itself, with the boundary of Albrighton ward also closing in more tightly on the village.

The surrounding areas would come under a new division, named Shifnal Rural, which would also take in part of the current Worfield division.

The council’s response says it is opposed to the “doughnut approach” taken with the new rural ward, and is also concerned about its size.

But it concludes: “After exploring many options, the council is not able to supply an alternative approach that would satisfy the requirements for electoral equality and retaining community identity in Shifnal and Albrighton.

“As a consequence, the LGBCE’s recommendations are accepted.”

Elsewhere in the county, the council recommends the new single-member ward covering Church Stretton and its surroundings be named “The Strettons” rather than “Strettondale” as proposed.

It also supports the re-naming of Shrewsbury’s Bowbrook division to “Bicton Heath”.

The LGCBE’s final recommendations will be published on October 3, and are expected to be approved by Parliament in November. The changes will come into effect at the 2025 local elections.