THE Stroud constituency could be set to keep Nailsworth, gain Minchinhampton but remain on course to lose Dursley and Cam.

This follows revised changes to redraw its boundaries.

After public consultation, the Boundary Commission for England (BCE) has made some alterations to its original proposals.

This would see Minchinhampton join the Stroud constituency from the Cotswolds, retain Nailsworth, Sharpness, Purton and Berkeley.

However the seat would bid farewell to Dursley and Cam, which are set to merge into a new constituency with Thornbury and Yate.

It would also see Stroud district represented by three MPs instead of two.

Plans to bring Quedgeley into the fold with Stroud have also been pushed back.

The plan had been to cut Nailsworth from the Stroud constituency and move it into the Cotswolds seat.

Meanwhile, Berkeley, Cam East, Cam West, Dursley, Kingswood, Vale and Wotton would be shifted into a new Dursley, Thornbury and Yate Constituency.

In return Stroud was set to gain Quedgeley Fieldcourt and Quedgeley Severn Vale from Gloucester.

These plans had all been set to be dropped in September, and still may not succeed, due to the forecast that some Conservatives may well side with the other parties, forming a majority of MPs to reject the restructure.

The proposals were one of Prime Minister Theresa May’s manifesto pledges aimed at rebalancing the constituency sizes and reduce the number of MPs from 650 to 600.

As it stands, Stroud’s electorate is 80,909, with BCE advising that constituencies should have between 71,031 and 78,507.

Across England there are 532 constituencies, which could be set to drop to 499.

In the South West this is 55 down to 53.

Stroud News and Journal:

Above - The original proposals marked with red, and the updated plans marked in light blue

Public consultation results are what has impacted the latest set of changes, released last week, and have sparked a fresh opportunity for members of the public to lend their views – up until December 11.

A BCE spokesman said: “After considering in detail all the evidence put forward by responses in both the initial and secondary consultation, and determining what revisions accordingly need to be made to our initial proposals, we are conducting a final public consultation on these revised proposals between 17 October and 11 December 2017.

“Responses to this will inform our decisions on whether any last adjustments need to be made before we submit our final recommendations in September 2018.”

Cam, Dursley & Berkeley Labour Party branch spokesperson Tim Lezard said the plans “fly in the face of common sense.”

”To have Berkeley, Coaley and Uley still in the Stroud constituency but Cam and Dursley put in with Thornbury makes no sense in terms of the links between those communities,” he said.

“These proposals fly in the face of common sense.

“The district's market towns and rural areas share an identity and have most of the same issues so it works well, allowing the MP to support and represent those common issues.”

Stroud district councillor Miranda Clifton (Lab, Cam East) also opposed the proposed boundary changes, pointing out that Cam and Dursley are well connected by roads and buses to Stroud.

“Getting to Yate or Thornbury for MP advice surgeries would be much more difficult as there are no direct routes and few buses,” said Cllr Clifton.

"It's unhelpful to have so many of the Stroud district towns and villages represented by three different MPs – it makes it harder for the area to have any united influence or lobbying power at Westminster.”

Following the news in September that all changes could be rejected by MPs, Stroud district councillor Debbie Young (Con, Chalford) said she would be disappointed if they were scrapped.

"I would be disappointed if the proposed changes to reduce the number of constituencies was scrapped, the financial savings alone are immense,” she said.

“However it is equalising the number of voters in each constituency which is most important for democracy.”

To leave comments on the consultation, visit www.bce2018.org.uk/node/6489