Community Governance Review - stage 2 - Langford

Responses from consultation

Parish council: no proposal received

10 responses

Comments:

“As Brook Cottage is linked neighbouring properties in Langford Parish and not near any properties in Holme (?), it would be logical to keep it in Langford Parish, even if it means the boundary going round the property to include it. It is disappointing that the Langford Village Plan isn’t given weight when considering planning application approval. I am also surprised but pleased that the number of residents is only likely to increase by 400 by 2030. It hopefully means that village can get the infrastructure to catch up with the new building areas eg school, GPs etc.”

“I think Langford Parish Council does a very good job for the village. However, it needs more volunteer councillors and fresh blood. Where is the incentive for these people to come forward, when the unelected officers of CBC have a track record of either ignoring the clear views of the villagers or misrepresenting them to Government Planning Inspectors?? If you want to really talk about community governance, then you should start by reviewing the performance of unelected officers and their attention to residents’ clear and stated views.”

Feedback received through the public consultation indicated a preference to retain the current level of representation and to make no other changes. This view has been considered alongside the working group’s rationale to ensure that any final draft recommendation reflects the aims of the terms of reference as well as the views of the community.

Draft recommendations

1. that the parish name of Langford should remain unchanged
2. that the number of parish councillors on Langford Parish Council are reduced from 13 to 9
3. include Brook Cottage into Langford Parish (see map)

Reason for recommendations

The recommendation to reduce the number of councillors is made in accordance with the terms of reference due to the number of councillors being disproportionate to the electorate or to avoid uncontested elections and the subsequent need to co-opt members to fill the outstanding vacancies. The boundary changes also provide the opportunity to ensure effective and convenient local government.