Skip to content

Community governance review proposals

Below are the 13 proposals which have been made as part of the Council's community governance review. 

We are seeking views on the proposals and you can have a say via our online survey or by requesting a paper copy of the survey. For more information, please see the community governance review page. The deadline for responses is October 6, 2017.


Proposals

BARKBY & BARKBY THORPE

1. Recommendation: That a new parish meeting be established for the development off Hamilton Lane, encompassing the area outlined in orange on Map 1. Please also view Map 1a.

Reason: The development has no significant geographical or road connections with Barkby or Barkby Thorpe, and therefore establishing a separate parish meeting would be the best way of recognising and developing community cohesion and identity within the development.



BROADNOOK (NORTH OF BIRSTALL) SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION

2. Recommendation: That a new parish meeting be established for the proposed Broadnook development following the boundary of the development as shown in blue on Map 2.

Reason: The development will eventually be of a size to potentially warrant its own parish council, but it is unlikely that there will be enough residents living there by May 2019 to make a parish council viable. The creation of a parish meeting will allow the development to establish its own community identity, and a further community governance review can be undertaken in the future if it is felt that the parish meeting should become a parish council.



BURTON ON THE WOLDS, COTES & PRESTWOLD

3. Recommendation: That the boundary between the parish of Burton on the Wolds and the parish of Prestwold be amended to move the following properties from Prestwold to Burton on the Wolds: number 29, 31, 33, and 35 Seymour Road and Seymour House (highlighted in yellow on Map 3).

Reason: To implement the suggestion of Burton on the Wolds, Cotes and Prestwold Parish Council that these properties would appear to be more logically part of Burton on the Wolds rather than Prestwold.

4. Recommendation: That the boundary between the parishes of Cotes, Prestwold and Loughborough be amended to follow the line as shown in blue on Map 4 (with blue arrows showing where the boundary of Cotes parish could move to).

Reason: To ensure that all the properties in the settlement of Cotes fall within the parish of Cotes in the interests of improving community cohesion and identity


HOTON

5. Recommendation: That the number of parish councillors for Hoton Parish Council be reduced from seven to six.

Reason: To implement the suggestion of Hoton Parish Council that their number of parish councillors be reduced by one.


NORTH EAST OF LEICESTER SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION (SUE)

6. Recommendation: That a new parish meeting be established for the proposed North East of Leicester development following the boundary of the development as shown in blue on Map 5.

Reason: The development will eventually be of a size to potentially warrant its own parish council, but it is unlikely that there will be enough residents living there by May 2019 to make a parish council viable. The creation of a parish meeting will allow the development to establish its own community identity, and a further community governance review can be undertaken in the future if it is felt that the parish meeting should become a parish council.


QUENIBOROUGH

7. Recommendation: That the number of parish councillors for Queniborough Parish Council be increased from nine to 10.

Reason:To implement the suggestion of Queniborough Parish Council that their number of parish councillors be increased by one.


QUORN

8. Recommendation: That the number of parish councillors for Quorn Parish Council be increased from 11 to 13.

Reason: To implement the suggestion of Quorn Parish Council that their number of parish councillors be increased by two.


SHEPSHED

9. Recommendation: That the number of town councillors for Shepshed Town Council be increased from 15 to 20, and that further analysis be undertaken to determine the required split of town councillors between the two wards which make up the town.

Reason: To bring the ratio of electors per town councillor to a more comparable level with other similar sized local councils within the Borough, and to reflect the significant projected increase in the electorate of Shepshed over the next five years.


THURCASTON AND CROPSTON

10. Recommendation: That the boundary between Thurcaston & Cropston and Birstall parishes be amended so that the current part of Thurcaston & Cropston on the south side of the A46 becomes part of Birstall parish (see B on Map 6).

Reason: To reflect the nature of the A46 as being the obvious geographical boundary between the two parishes.

11. Recommendation: That the boundary between Thurcaston & Cropston and Newtown Linford parishes be amended so that the boundary becomes the eastern shore of the Cropston Reservoir (see D on Map 6 and Map 6a for further details). 

Reason:To move the whole of the Cropston Reservoir into Newtown Linford and to introduce a more logical boundary between the two parishes based on the significant geographical feature formed by the reservoir shore.


WEST OF LOUGHBOROUGH SUSTAINABLE URBAN EXTENSION

12. Recommendation: That a new parish meeting be established for the proposed West of Loughborough development following the boundary of the development as shown in blue on Map 7, except for that part of the blue boundary which falls within North West Leicestershire, in which area the boundary of the parish meeting area will be the border between Charnwood and North West Leicestershire.

Reason: The development will eventually be of a size to potentially warrant its own parish council, but it is unlikely that there will be enough residents living there by May 2019 to make a parish council viable. The creation of a parish meeting will allow the development to establish its own community identity, and a further community governance review can be undertaken in the future if it is felt that the parish meeting should become a parish council.


WOODHOUSE

13. Recommendation: That the boundary between the Woodhouse parish and Loughborough be amended to follow the line shown in yellow on Map 8.

Reason: To ensure that the properties within the Woodthorpe development all fall within Loughborough, in the interests of community cohesion.

Share this page:

Last updated:

Back to top