Appendix 10 – Draft Recommendations for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council
Contents
1.0 Current governance arrangements and history of the area
Current governance arrangements
2.0 Assessment of consultation responses for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council
3.0 Final assessment and draft recommendations
Annex 10A – Consultation survey
Annex 10B – Summary of consultation responses
1.0 Current governance arrangements and history of the area
Current governance arrangements
1.1 Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council is situated within the Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton division and is part of the Selby parliamentary constituency. The parish is comprised of the village of Thorpe Willoughby and is situated north of the Selby Bypass on the A63.
1.2 Thorpe Willoughby parish currently has 2859 electors and 1645 properties.
1.3
 |
Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council has two neighbouring parish areas that are relevant to this review, as shown in the map below which are Gateforth parish and Hambleton parish.
1.4 Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council is comprised of 10 elected parish councillors. In order to meet and take decisions at least 4 councillors must be present. Parish Councils must hold an annual meeting and at least 3 other meetings each year.
1.5 Parish councils can raise a precept to raise monies for spending for the benefit of the parish. Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council raised a precept of £80,500 for the 2025/26 financial year.
History of the area
1.6 In May 2017, Selby District Council (SDC) (the principal authority at the time) received a request from Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to amend its parish boundary to include the land up to the Selby Bypass. In April 2018, SDC resolved to approve the request to amend the parish boundary subject to final agreement from Hambleton Parish Council. Hambleton Parish Council provided a response which did not state final agreement, and the proposal was therefore brought back to SDC in July 2018. SDC resolved to refuse the proposal to amend the parish boundaries on the basis that Hambleton Parish Council did not agree to the proposals that had been submitted.
1.7 In September 2023, North Yorkshire Council (NYC) was contacted by the Thorpe Willoughby Clerk who requested a change to the boundary between the parishes of Thorpe Willoughby, Gateforth and Hambleton to incorporate the area to the south and west of Thorpe Willoughby between the village and the Selby Bypass, with the Bypass forming the new boundary line. The Clerk advised that the parts of Gateforth and Hambleton inside the Selby Bypass were inaccessible unless travelling through Thorpe Willoughby, and any homes built in these areas would consider themselves part of Thorpe Willoughby, and be served by Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council, whilst the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 monies go to Gateforth and Hambleton Parish Councils.
1.8 The Thorpe Willoughby Clerk was advised that the process for changing the boundaries of the 3 affected parish councils was achieved via a Community Governance Review (CGR).
1.9 In October 2023, the Assistant Chief Executive Legal and Democratic Services considered several outstanding CGR requests, including Thorpe Willoughby. As Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council was functioning well, the CGR request was not deemed urgent and it was determined that the request to amend the parish boundary be revisited in 2025, at which point a county wide CGR was planned ahead of the May 2027 local elections.
1.10 In May 2025, the Division Member for Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton contacted NYC to request that the previous CGR request be considered again.
1.11 In June 2025, Democratic Services contacted the Clerks of Gateforth and Hambleton Parish Councils advising of the previous CGR request. Both parish councils advised that they were aware of the request to amend the parish boundaries, but that the matter had not been discussed recently.
1.12 After consultation with Democratic Services, it was suggested that a CGR be carried out for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council. Following the Standards and Governance Committee on 20 June 2025, Full Council approved the terms of reference of the 2025/26 Community Governance Review, which included Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council on 16 July 2025.
1.13 Gateforth Parish Council currently has 183 electors and 97 properties. Hambleton Parish Council currently has 2025 electors and 1177 properties.
1.14 Area A in the below map shows the area of Hambleton parish which is proposed to move to Thorpe Willoughby parish. 109 electors currently live in Area A. Area B on the map shows the area of Gateforth parish which is proposed to move to Thorpe Willoughby parish. There are currently no electors in Area B.
1.15 The NYC Division Member for Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton, Councillor Cliff Lunn, was informed of the CGR request and has confirmed his support for Area A in Hambleton parish and Area B in Gateforth parish to be moved to Thorpe Willoughby parish.
Five year electorate forecast
1.16 The electorate and 5 year electorate forecast for Thorpe Willoughby parish, Gateforth parish and Hambleton parish is as follows:
|
Parish |
Electorate (2025) |
Electorate prediction (2030)*
|
Predicted electorate increase |
|
Gateforth
|
183 |
193 |
10 |
|
Hambleton
|
2025 |
2467 |
442 |
|
Thorpe Willoughby
|
2859 |
2891 |
32 |
2.0 Assessment of consultation responses for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council
2.1 The following table shows the number of households written to, with the number of consultation responses received, and response rate.
|
Households sent CGR consultation letter
|
2919 |
|
Consultation responses received
|
150 |
|
Response rate
|
5.1% |
2.2 Consultation letters were sent to households in the parishes of Gateforth, Hambleton and Thorpe Willoughby as following the CGR request made by Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to change its boundaries, these were the areas under review.
2.3 A copy of the consultation survey can be found at Annex 10A. A summary of consultation responses received can be found at Annex 10B.
2.4 For the avoidance of doubt, the free text comments received through the consultation process reflect the views of the individual respondents alone. These comments do not represent the views of North Yorkshire Council and should not be construed as being endorsed by the Council.
2.5 The response rate in the table above was calculated by comparing the number of consultation responses with the number of households directly consulted by means of a letter sent to all properties in the areas under review. The total number of responses for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council was 150.
2.6 Of the 150 respondents, 95 reported that they lived in Thorpe Willoughby. Of these 95 responses, 8 respondents selected multiple boxes to describe themselves, for instance one respondent advised that they lived in Thorpe Willoughby and worked in Thorpe Willoughby so ticked two boxes. 42 respondents reported that they lived in Hambleton. Of these 42 responses, 4 respondents selected multiple boxes to describe themselves. 3 respondents reported that they lived in Gateforth.
2.7 Of the 12 respondents who ticked multiple boxes to describe themselves, 4 ticked more than two boxes. This means that of the 161 boxes ticked, 16 respondents were counted more than once, totalling 145 respondents who provided further information about themselves. A breakdown of the responses can be found at page 1 of Annex 10B. Of the 150 respondents, a further 5 did not provide any details about themselves.
Proposal to move Area A from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish
2.8 The majority of respondents chose for the area marked A on the map to be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass, as detailed in the table below.
|
Option
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
I support the proposal
|
115 |
77% |
|
I do not support the proposal
|
31 |
21% |
|
I am unsure
|
3 |
2% |
|
Total
|
149* |
100% |
* One respondent did not provide an answer to this question
2.9 Of the 150 respondents, 115 were in favour of the proposal that the area marked A on the map to be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass and 31 respondents did not support the proposal.
2.10 Annex 10B summarises at page 2 the reasons people gave for their preferred option. The most popular reason in support of the proposal was that residents in Area A use Thorpe Willoughby amenities, but as residents of Hambleton Parish Council, do not contribute to the Thorpe Willoughby precept via council tax payments. Amenities referenced by respondents include the primary school, roads, sports clubs, parks and shops. Some respondents also commented that CIL and S106 funding for properties in Area A go to Hambleton Parish Council, rather than Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council, despite residents using facilities in Thorpe Willoughby.
2.11 The second most popular reason in support of the proposal was that the properties in Area A are disconnected from the village of Hambleton, with many respondents commenting that residents in Area A can only gain access to Hambleton through Thorpe Willoughby. Several respondents felt that the properties in Area A were geographically viewed as part of Thorpe Willoughby rather than Hambleton.
2.12 One respondent commented “I live in the area marked A. Thorpe Willoughby is my village/area as it is where I use local facilities, it is the area I drive through to access my home, and my address is ‘Thorpe Willoughby’ so it only makes sense that my home be in the parish of the village I live in”.
2.13 Another common theme for respondents supporting the proposal was that the construction of the Selby Bypass had created a logical boundary between the parishes of Gateforth, Hambleton and Thorpe Willoughby. Several respondents felt that the current parish boundaries were “outdated” and ought to be updated to align with the Bypass, with multiple respondents referring to the Bypass as a “sensible boundary”.
2.14 Another reason given in support of the proposal was that amending the parish boundary lines would enable Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to have more input on planning applications in Area A. Some respondents felt that new housing in Area A impacted Thorpe Willoughby’s infrastructure and amenities, including schools, roads and traffic, despite being in Hambleton parish. Another respondent commented that housing development in Area A was separated from Hambleton by the A1236 and the A63 roads and was adjacent to existing housing in Thorpe Willoughby parish.
2.15 31 respondents did not support the proposal that the area marked A on the map be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The most popular reason for this choice was the financial implications for Hambleton Parish Council as they would lose the precept from the properties in Area A. Respondents also commented that council tax was likely to increase for the residents in Area A, as Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council raise a larger precept than Hambleton Parish Council.
2.16 One respondent wrote “The change of boundary would only benefit Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council - Hambleton Parish Council will lose existing precept income which it relies on and it would also lose out on income from potential future developments on the land in Area A”.
2.17 Another common theme in the comments that did not support the proposal was that properties in Area A have been part of Hambleton parish for a long time, and the view that a historic boundary should not change due to the position of the Selby Bypass. One respondent commented “I believe the historic boundary of the Parish of Hambleton should remain intact. This boundary existed before the bypass was built and therefore should remain unchanged”.
2.18 Some respondents commented that Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council had previously requested a CGR to amend its parish boundary to include the land up to the Selby Bypass. Some respondents felt that the reasons for the refusal of this request had not changed and therefore should not be reconsidered under NYC.
2.19 Some respondents referred to the proposal as a “land grab” that would enable Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to gain more precept income from future housing development in Area A. Some respondents commented that the other CGRs being conducted by NYC did not involve a similar “land grab”. In response, these comments are noted however several CGRs involve combining multiple parishes together, which will likely result in changes to current council tax arrangements.
2.20 Other reasons cited for opposing the proposal include potential confusion among residents in Area A if the parish boundary were to be altered, as well as concerns that residents in Area A may lose the ability to be buried in Hambleton Cemetery should they be transferred to Thorpe Willoughby parish.
2.21 Several respondents also commented that Thorpe Willoughby parish is a smoke controlled area, meaning that residents in Area A would be unable to use wood or multi fuel burners.
2.22 Some consultation responses referenced additional documents that were emailed directly to the CGR team, outlining further reasons for the respondent’s choice. All responses have been considered as part of this consultation analysis.
2.23 3 respondents indicated that they were unsure of their preferred option. One respondent advised that that whilst the proposal seemed reasonable, they were unsure of the consequences of the boundary changes. One respondent commented that they had not received correspondence from the parish councils involved about how the proposal would affect their property. Another respondent advised that they did not see a reason to change the existing boundaries unless the residents of the houses affected by the boundary change were unanimously in agreement of the changes.
2.24 Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council submitted a consultation response in support of the proposal that the area marked A on the map be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The reasons for this response include that the current boundary does not reflect the growing village of Thorpe Willoughby and has isolated residents who are classed as residents of Hambleton but have a Thorpe Willoughby postcode. Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council also referenced the impact of new housing development in Area A, causing residents to feel excluded from both parishes.
2.25 Hambleton Parish Council submitted a consultation response advising that they do not support the proposal that the area marked A on the map be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The reasons for this response include that the proposal was viewed as a “land grab” from Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to gain precept income, as well as the fact that the boundary has been in place since the 1700s and a CGR has previously been requested and refused.
2.26 The Division Member for Thorpe Willoughby and Hambleton, Councillor Cliff Lunn submitted a consultation response in support of the proposed changes to Gateforth parish, Hambleton parish and Thorpe Willoughby parish. He stated “I am very strongly in favour of the changes. I think it is unfair that precepts go to other parish councils whilst the people use facilities paid for by Thorpe Willoughby residents. The bypass has changed the geography of the villages”.
2.27 The Member of Parliament for Selby and Kippax, Mr Keir Mather MP contacted the CGR team in December 2025, highlighting the concerns of Hambleton Parish Council regarding the boundary change proposal, including the loss of precept for Hambleton Parish Council, increased council tax payments for residents in Area A and the fact that the parish boundary has been in place for such a long period. The CGR team acknowledged receipt of this correspondence and confirmed that the views of Hambleton Parish Council would be taken into consideration when drafting recommendations.
Proposal to move Area B from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish
2.28 The majority of respondents chose for the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass, as detailed in the table below.
|
Option
|
Number |
Percentage |
|
I support the proposal
|
114 |
79% |
|
I do not support the proposal
|
29 |
20% |
|
I am unsure
|
2 |
1% |
|
Total
|
145* |
100% |
* 5 respondents did not provide an answer to this question
2.29 Of the 150 respondents, 114 were in favour of the proposal that the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass and 29 respondents did not support the proposal.
2.30 Annex 10B summarises at page 8 the reasons people gave for their preferred option. The most popular reason in support of the proposal was that any future development in Area B is likely to lead to new residents using Thorpe Willoughby’s amenities, while as residents of Gateforth Parish Council, they would not contribute to the Thorpe Willoughby precept through council tax. Amenities referenced by respondents include the primary school, shops, roads, pharmacy, hairdressers and cafes in Thorpe Willoughby.
2.31 One respondent wrote “Any development on area B will have a Thorpe Willoughby address and use the facilities of Thorpe Willoughby”.
2.32 The second most common reason given in support of the proposal was that Area B is disconnected from the village of Gateforth, with many respondents noting that any future residents would only be able to access Gateforth via Thorpe Willoughby. Several respondents also felt that Area B is geographically regarded as part of Thorpe Willoughby rather than Gateforth.
2.33 One respondent commented “This area is 500 meters from my home, which is in Thorpe Willoughby. Gateforth is miles away”.
2.34 Another common reason in support of the proposal was that future housing development in Area B would be unlikely to impact the parish of Gateforth, but would significantly affect the parish of Thorpe Willoughby, as it would be Thorpe Willoughby amenities and infrastructure that would be used. Some respondents felt that Gateforth Parish Council should not have a say in planning applications in Area B that would not impact Gateforth village in any way, and that Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council ought to be able to comment.
2.35 Some respondents also commented that the Selby Bypass had created a logical boundary between the parishes of Gateforth, Hambleton and Thorpe Willoughby. Several respondents felt that the current parish boundaries were “outdated” and ought to be updated to align with the Bypass, with multiple respondents referring to the Bypass as a “logical boundary” given recent approved housing development.
2.36 29 respondents did not support the proposal that the area marked B on the map be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The most popular reason for this choice was the view that historic parish boundary lines should be retained. Some respondents commented that parish boundaries do not need to be lined up with roads. Others commented that the Gateforth parish boundary line existed before the Selby Bypass was built and should therefore remain unchanged.
2.37 The second most popular reason for this choice was the financial implications for Gateforth Parish Council who would not gain the precept from future properties built in Area B. Respondents also commented that council tax was likely to be higher for any future residents in Area B, as Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council raise a larger precept than Gateforth Parish Council. Some respondents felt that the only reason for the proposal was for Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to gain additional precept income.
2.38 Other reasons not in support of the proposal include that Thorpe Willoughby parish is a smoke controlled area, meaning that future residents in Area B would be unable to use wood or multi fuel burners. Other respondents referred to the proposal as a “land grab” from Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council, with one respondent suggesting that the proposal could set a precedent to allow parish councils to claim land from their neighbours. Some respondents commented on the cost implications of the CGR.
2.39 A few respondents commented that Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council had previously requested a CGR to amend its parish boundary to include the land up to the Selby Bypass in 2017. Some respondents felt that the reasons for the refusal of this request had not changed and therefore should not be reconsidered under NYC.
2.40 Several free text comments in relation to the proposal that the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass included text that either referred to comments about Area A in Hambleton or directed the reader to view their previous response about Area A in Hambleton. Whilst all comments have been considered, some of these responses were only relevant to the proposal concerning Area A, not Area B.
2.41 Two respondents advised that they were unsure of their preferred option. Both respondents had also indicated they were unsure of the proposal that the area marked A on the map to be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. One of the respondents advised that the proposal did not impact themselves or their property. The other respondent explained that their reason was the same for the previous proposal affecting Area A - that that whilst the proposal seemed reasonable, they were unsure of the consequences of the boundary changes.
2.42 Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council submitted a consultation response in support of the proposal that the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The reasons for this response include the impact of the approval of 110 new homes in Area B, as future residents will not feel part of Gateforth parish as Gateforth village is around 4 miles from development site. It was also commented that as there are currently less than 100 properties in Gateforth parish, an additional 110 homes in Area B would split the village in half, which seems disjointed.
2.43 Gateforth Parish Council submitted a consultation response in support of the proposal that the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The reasons for this response include that Area B has no access to Gateforth other than through Thorpe Willoughby and future development in Area B will impact Thorpe Willoughby parish. Gateforth Parish Council resolved to accept the proposal at their last parish meeting.
2.44 Of the 150 respondents, 64 provided additional comments about the CGR. A summary of these responses can be found on page 13 of Annex 10B. Some respondents included further reasons in support for both proposals, such as creating an enhanced sense of community as residents in Area A and potential new residents in Area B would feel part of the Thorpe Willoughby community, rather than isolated from the villages of Hambleton or Gateforth which are further away. Some residents felt that the proposed boundary changes ought to have happened when the Selby Bypass was built and that the changes are long overdue. One respondent commented that the proposal should not be blocked by Hambleton Parish Council due to their own financial interest, whilst other respondents commented that the parish councils of Gateforth and Hambleton should not receive precept money for buildings that are closer to Thorpe Willoughby than either village.
2.45 One resident commented “I live on the new estate at Thorpe Meadows and wasn't aware we were not technically in the parish of Thorpe Willoughby. Seems silly being part of a village that is nowhere near us. It would make me feel more part of the village if the boundary was changed”.
2.46 Some respondents included further reasons to explain why they were not in support of both proposals. Concerns were raised that the proposed changes may result in bad feelings between the parishes and cause unnecessary disruption to any affected residents. One comment raised that a boundary review was not a matter that the residents involved considered most important and that other issues such as excessive house building are of greater importance to residents. Other respondents mentioned the fact that Hambleton Parish Council would lose precept income from the residents in Area A, and that the proposals were viewed as a “land grab” from Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council to gain funding and council tax benefits. Several respondents also commented that Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council requested a boundary change a number of years ago and that the reasons for the refusal do not appear to have changed.
2.47
One
respondent raised concerns about the lack of communication about
the CGR to the affected residents. In response to this comment, NYC
sent letters about potential changes to all properties in the
parishes of Gateforth, Hambleton and Thorpe Willoughby, inviting
residents to have their say during the consultation.
3.0 Final assessment and draft recommendations
3.1 The majority of responses (77%) indicated support for the area marked A on the map to be moved from Hambleton parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. The majority of responses (79%) were in favour of the area marked B on the map to be moved from Gateforth parish to Thorpe Willoughby parish and the boundary line be amended to run along the Selby Bypass. It is therefore proposed that the area marked A in Hambleton parish and the area marked B in Gateforth parish move to Thorpe Willoughby Parish.
3.2
 |
A map of the recommended changes to Gateforth Parish Council, Hambleton Parish Council and Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council is shown below:
3.3 A list of recommendations can be viewed below:
Recommendation 1 – the parish boundary between the parish of Hambleton and the parish of Thorpe Willoughby is amended so that the area marked A on the above map ceases to be part of Hambleton parish and becomes part of the parish of Thorpe Willoughby.
Recommendation 2 – the parish boundary between the parish of Gateforth and the parish of Thorpe Willoughby is amended so that the area marked B on the above map ceases to be part of Gateforth parish and becomes part of the parish of Thorpe Willoughby.
Recommendation 3 – the existing council sizes shall be retained with 7 councillors elected to Gateforth Parish Council, 8 councillors elected to Hambleton Parish Council and 10 councillors elected to Thorpe Willoughby Parish Council.
Recommendation 4 – implementation is recommended to take affect administratively on 1 April 2027 with elections to the new arrangements at the next scheduled elections in May 2027, and that changes to the electoral register required for the above take effect on the revised publication ahead of that election (planned for December 2026).
3.4 The recommendations detailed above will form the basis of the Stage 2 consultation which will commence on 19 March 2026.