Quedgeley to be broken up under Gloucester County Council Boundary Review?

Published On May 24, 2011 » 2079 Views» Gloucester, Kingsway, Politics
Watermeadows Quedgeley. Watermeadows is the St...

Image via Wikipedia

The Local Government Boundary Comission has just finished a review of the Gloucester County Council electoral boundaries in order to reduce the number of councillors by 2.  This has some rather interesting outcomes over the city, of which I will go over in due time, but the immediately interesting things for me is what is happening in Kingsway and Quedgeley.  Currently Quedgeley is a County Ward and is served by 2 County Councillors and one of the main aims was to cull the 2 member wards to only have 1 member each, and make all wards around 9000 electors.

Firstly Kingsway will not be part of the Quedgeley County Council area, it will form a new area with Grange and Copeland Park.  See this PDF Map, but note it is very large.  This, when you look at the map does have some merit, using the A38 as a natural barrier to the left, and running up. 

The second interesting thing is that it is suggested that the Parish Council restructures itself and has 4 wards, comprising Quedgeley Severn Vale, Quedgeley Central (what was The Quedgeley part of Quedgeley Fieldcourt), Quedgeley Fieldcourt (which is Kingsway) and Quedgeley Brook (which is Copeland Park).  These wards would have appropriate numbers of representatives.

We need to look at this with a long-term view, because as this review has split wards and areas, it will almost defiantly trigger a City Boundary review to make the city wards match the county wards.  This would make a lot of sence to make it easier to understand.  Right now Kingsway will be in a bit of a weird place when these plans come in, as we will have Quedgeley Fieldcourt City Councillors but a Grange County councillor, with Parish Councillors saddling the two.  This could lead to a whole disparity between the understanding of the ward, especially with regards to growth and the alignment between City, County and Parish delivered services.

So this could easily lead to Kingsway and Copeland Park being put with Grange in some way for City elections to correlate those boundaries.  It has been suggested before that Kingsway and Copeland Park should form its own Town/Parish council, I wasn’t convinced at the time, but this could add more weight to that argument if it goes through.  These are all the things we need to think about, in some ways it will shake things up and provide opportunities, but in others it may sever some well established links.

There is now a second consultation period, of which I will aim to contribute Kingsway thoughts to (having just hastily added it to the agenda of the Public meeting next week).  This will last 10 weeks and it will be interesting to have other peoples views on the pros and cons of this solution, and what other things could/will need to be done to make it work.  Even at a really basic level I would suggest that the Ward names are not right and can be made sensible.  (Such as calling the county ward Lower Tuffley and Kingsway, and maybe the Parish Wards Quedgeley Severn Vale, Quedgeley Fieldcourt, Kingsway and Copeland Park).

Feel fee to comment with your thoughts and I can include them into the response in some way.

Enhanced by Zemanta
Share this post
Tags

5 Responses to Quedgeley to be broken up under Gloucester County Council Boundary Review?

  1. Joe K says:

    Well, the latest news is that Moreland Ward is likely to be scrapped altogether – http://www.thisisgloucestershire.co.uk/news/Leader-happy-Moreland-ward-axe/article-3612944-detail/article.html

    I can’t comment on this, quite literally, because TiG have once again banned me, as Tony, Glos’ this time. At least there was a prima facie (sp?) last time, even though it was based on a false assertion, This time, they may just have decided they’d let me post as ‘Tony’, making no effort to hide my real identity, long enough. It’s up the the PPC, now.

    I get the Moreland councillors mixed up with Matson sometimes. Moreland is all Tory, isn’t it, and Mark Hawthorne stands to lose his seat? Well, as Moreland Community Partnership (the council’s ‘exemplar’) collapsed through lack of interest, it makes sense that the White City area comes under the Barton & Tredworth Neighbourhood Partnership’s purvue.

    Slightly off topic… actually, you probably already know from the Gloucester Boards about the trips up Robinswood Hill for the elderly and disabled on Sunday. If the committee gets its act together, we should have a Fair Shares mini-van to ferry folk to the car park…

  2. Barry says:

    HI Joe, Yes your right, in that Moreland ward is Mark Hawthorns, I think there are a number of things in that article that are interesting. Firstly the fact that the reccomendations are a mix of Tory and Liberal submissions, and that now Hawthorn is now moaning about it because he will lose his seat, and that Jeremy Hilton is complaining too. I was involved in the Labour submission and our debate was quiet interesting, and I was very pleased with the way we conducted it.

    The Community Partnership issue is also something that needs got to the bottom of, as this seems to be a model that many people are pushing, and we need to understand why it failed. I think many organisations need to ensure they don’t just exist for their own right, and accoutntability to the residents is key, however, not everyone agrees, which is disheartening to say the least.

    I wasn’t aware of the Mini-van thing, well done, its a real example of looking after community needs 🙂

  3. Joe K says:

    Unfortunately, and I wish I could be more candid, but it’s the price of being involved in the running of something, apathy seems to have won the day and we won’t be needing the minibus. I would have walked up the hill with the kids to cover the event, and may still do so.

    (I wonder, is the successful Cheese Rolling event a true example of the ‘big society’ at work?)

    I now know why I was ‘banned’ (a seven day suspension, actually, touch wood). It was actually because of a reply to a comment to this story, when I suggested that the partnership might be able to learn from Usman Bhaimia, I didn’t ‘see the mountain coming to Mohammed [so] Perhaps Mohammed would name a suitable time and place?’. It’s hard to believe, but I can only assume someone thought this was an Islamophobic comment.

    Ironic considering the big story today where, if I were able to post, I sure wouldn’t be on the Muslim-bashing side…

  4. Joe K says:

    Ah, that should have been ‘when I suggested that while the partnership might be able to…’

    There’s always some thing…

  5. Eddie says:

    I have been surprised to see how moderate and sensible some of your posts on tig were Joe, so I’m doubly surprised to hear you have been banned again.

    We have complained about some of the terrible comments on the paper lately ( not yours ). I really don’t know why they allow some of the dreadful insults on there to stay. It does them no favours

Leave a Reply