Residents of some parishes in the Vale of White Horse to provide their views on potential changes to community governance in their areas, including changes to parish boundaries. The proposals outlined in this consultation formed part of the 2026 Community Governance Review (CGR) for the Vale of White Horse.

We received 401 responses for this consultation, of which 98 per cent by members of the public. 

Most respondents agreed with the following proposals:

• To amend the boundary between Kingston Bagpuize with Southmoor parish (KBS) and Tubney and Fyfield parish to include a new residential development of 650 dwellings within KBS parish.
• To create a joint council by grouping together the parishes of Appleton with Eaton and Besselsleigh. 

Most respondents disagreed with the proposal to amend the boundaries between Kennington parish and Radley parish to include the housing developments north of Sugworth Lane within Kennington parish.

Here you can find all the results of this consultation.

After the consultation closed, the Community Governance and Electoral Issues Commitee (the Committee) reviewed the feedback received and made final recommendations on which proposal(s) should be taken to a second round of consultation, and which should not be considered any further. A second round of consultation on the final proposals launched on Thursday 11 June 2026.

Residents of some town and parish councils in South Oxfordshire to give us their views on potential changes to community governance in their areas, including changes to town/parish boundaries, the number of elected councillors and how local wards are organised. The proposals outlined in the consultation formed part of the 2026 Community Governance Review (CGR) for South Oxfordshire. Some of the amendments we consulted on were based on the recommendations made by the 2023/24 Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) review. 

We received 132 responses to this consultation, of which 89 per cent submitted by members of the public. 

Most respondents agreed with the following proposals:

• Stoke Row Parish Council: to increase the number of councillors from 6 to 8.
• Henley-on-Thames Town Council: to alter LGBCE warding arrangements and retain pre-LGBCE review ones.
• Thame Town Council: to alter LGBCE warding arrangements and retain pre-LGBCE review ones.
• Clifton Hampden and Dorchester Parish Councils: to review the boundary between the parishes in order to include the property at 6 Linnet Close within the parish of Clifton Hampden.
• Thame Town Council and Great Haseley Parish Council: to review the boundary between the parishes in order to include the business industrial estate off the A329 within Thame parish (Phase 1), and to include the land currently proposed for the development of Thame Cattle Market within Thame parish (Phase 2).

Most respondents disagreed with the following proposals:

• Ewelme Parish Council: to increase the number of councillors from 6 to 8. Only one respondent commented on this proposal.
• Watlington Parish Council and Pyrton Parish Council: to amend the boundary between the parishes in order to include a new development of 100 dwellings within Watlington parish.
• Nuneham Parish Council: to group Nuneham Parish Council with one of its neighbouring parish councils.

No clear majority emerged with respect to the proposals for:

• Didcot Town Council: to alter the LGBCE warding arrangements and retain pre-LGBCE review ones.
• Woodcote Parish Council: to increase the number of councillors from 10 to 12.
• Shirburn Parish Meeting and Pyrton Parish Council: to amend the boundary with Pyrton parish to include the whole of Shirburn Castle Park within Shirburn parish.

Here you can read about all the proposals and the results of this consultation. 

Once the consultation closed, the Community Governance and Electoral Issues Committee (the 'Committee') reviewed the feedback and made final recommendations on which proposals should be taken to a second round of consultation, and which ones should not be considered any further. To learn more, please visit their website to read the report and the minutes of the Committee meeting. A second round of consultation for the final proposal launched on Thursday 18 June 2026.

We asked: We asked members of the public, businesses/organisations, and statutory consultees for their feedback on the Joint Licensing Policy consultation. The policy was due a review, which resulted in updates to legislation and expansion to various sections of the policy to provide further detail and to add more clarity.

You said: A total of 30 responses were received, with the majority (80 per cent) from individuals/members of the public.

Level of agreement to the overall policy - respondents were asked how far they agree or disagree with the proposed Licensing Policy. The majority (73 per cent) expressed agreement, more specifically 53 per cent agreeing and 20 per cent strongly agreeing.

Frequently mentioned qualitative feedback - we asked respondents to provide their comments on the proposed Licensing Policy. 13 comments were received, with some resulting in additional amendments or additions to the policy which have been reviewed by the committees.

Other comments covered topics around national statutory guidance which cannot be amended by the councils, and retail of vapes which is not regulated by the licensing policy.

The Licensing Team is liaising separately with Public Health, one of the respondents, and that work will continue separate to the policy document itself and this will result in revised guidance and data (for example, relating to health, crime and antisocial behaviour) to help inform applicants about matters that may impact on their proposed business in an area.

Support for local businesses - we want to ensure we are supporting local businesses. The consultation included a section asking businesses/organisations to provide their feedback if they felt that any part of the licensing policy makes it harder for small businesses to succeed. Eight comments were received with the most frequently mentioned item being Martyn’s Law which is a legislative requirement and therefore not something being imposed by the Councils. Any information provided by the Government or the relevant regulator (the Security Industry Authority) will be shared as this becomes available.

The results of this consultation were presented to the councils' General Licensing Committees in January 2026 who made the final decision to adopt the policy in February 2026. You can find out more by viewing the consultation report and adopted Joint Licensing Policy.