Skip to content

‘One Identity’ Campaign

Community Governance Review Approval

Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council and its residents are celebrating the result of their ‘One Identity campaign.

The Community Governance Review consultation recommendations have been approved and the decision made that the Parish remaining as it is with minor changes.

This is an excellent result for the community that through the review was threatened with being disbanded and replaced by a new smaller parish.


In 2021 Cheshire East Council undertook a Community Governance review. The reason for this was guidance which advises a review of town and parish governance every 10-15 years, to ensure the arrangements are fit for purpose. The last was done before Cheshire East Council was created in 2009.

The Cheshire East Council’s proposals of the review meant a huge change to the boundaries of Shavington-cum-Gresty.

The plan was set to remove around a thousand homes from the parish of Shavington-cum-Gresty and move them into neighbouring parishes including Crewe and Wybunbury, destroying the identity of the community.

Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council launched a campaign to encourage residents to respond to the consultation.

The campaign themed around Shavington-cum-Gresty having ‘One Parish, One Community. One Identity.’

Shavington-cum-Gresty parish council was supported by residents who responded to the consultation and gave their viewpoints on the proposal.

Results Summary

Over 900 residents responded and the recommendations from the consultation have now been approved.  The Community Governance Review consultation report confirms that the Parish is to remain as it is with minor changes.  The huge response from Shavington-cum-Gresty has proven that the community spirit is strong and it will keep its identity as it has for the last 2 centuries.

Cheshire East Council Draft Consultation Results and Draft Recommendations

4,824 responses were made in total with 907 (18%) of them directly responding with regards to Shavington-cum-Gresty.

With regards specifically to Shavington-cum-Gresty 817 (90%) of respondents disagreed with Cheshire east’s Community Governance Review draft recommendations and 64 (8%)of respondents agreed.

The main reasons given by respondents for disagreeing with the draft proposals were related to:

  • Local identity & interest 393 (43%)
  • Adverse affect on house prices or insurance premiums 90 (10%)
  • Impact on the green belt and environment 67 (7%)
  • Current Governance arrangements worked well 49 (5%)
  • Concern over higher taxes 12 (1%)

It was good to note that a number also indicated they valued the active and supportive nature of the Parish Council and felt it was effective in engaging with residents.

Community Identity

The report noted the survey conducted by Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council indicated that, the areas:

  • South of Newcastle Road,
  • The residential area north of the A500 (Gresty/ Gresty Brook)
  • The Chatsworth Park estate, residents’ responses that those living in the new (Jack Mills Way/ Willowbrook Grange)
  • LPS 3 development area north of the A500

The responses showed that all the areas above identified with Shavington-cum-Gresty, not Crewe.

The consultation submissions also indicated that residents of the Gresty Brook ward identified predominantly with Shavington-cum-Gresty; and there appeared to be little affinity with Crewe.

The community identity of those living south of Newcastle Road was very mixed. Where they commented on the boundary line in this location, Shavington-cum- Gresty residents generally said that the people in this area identify primarily with Shavington-cum-Gresty and relied on that village for services and communal activities.

Boundary with Crewe and Rope

Over 900 residents responded with 90% disagreeing overall with the draft recommendations.

154 made proposals that involved a change to the boundary with Rope. Of these, 125 endorsed the Parish Council’s counterproposal without further modification.

216 respondents commented specifically opposing the Draft Recommendation’s proposed boundary with Crewe. Their objection comments referred to:

  • Residents relying on Shavington-cum-Gresty services
  • Residents are separated from Crewe by natural barriers (brook, railway line, fields etc..)
  • Shavington-cum-Gresty has community spirit
  • Crewe cannot cope with the needs of an expanding infrastructure
  • Transfer to Crewe would mean a fall in the value of property
  • Specific concerns to unnecessary remaking of the Neighbourhood Plan’

Of those Shavington-cum-Gresty responses that commented on Shavington-cum-Gresty’s boundary with Rope, all supported the inclusion of the whole Chatsworth Park estate within their parish.


Based on the evidence on the level of local support and the identity of the estate’s residents, Cheshire East Borough Council approved the changes to the Rope/ Shavington-cum-Gresty boundary, so that the boundary along (and to the south of) the Chatsworth Park estate is aligned with the A500.  This means that Chatsworth estate is now incorporated into the Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish boundary.

Cheshire East Borough Council now approved the recommendation that the area of Shavington-cum-Gresty north of the A500, including Gresty Brook ward, remain in Shavington-cum-Gresty.

Boundary with Wybunbury

29 respondents made specific comments objecting to the draft recommendations

125 of Shavington-cum-Gresty submissions endorsed Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council counterproposals.  5 respondents identified themselves as triangle residents. Three of the ‘triangle residents identified with and wished to remain in Shavington.  A local business in Shavington-cum-Gresty also opposed the draft recommendations.

The consultation noted Shavington-cum-Gresty Parish Council disagreed with the recommendations.

It was argued that residents of the triangle:

  • Identifying themselves with Shavington-cum-Gresty
  • Engaging in community activities in Shavington-cum-Gresty
  • Using Shavington-cum-Gresty facilities (such as its pubs and health centre)


The large body of consultation evidence from the Shavington-cum-Gresty submissions found that changes to this boundary line would fail to reflect the community identities and ties of many local residents. Despite the number and quality of submissions from Wybunbury supporting a Newcastle Road boundary, the Borough Council concluded, that any change to the existing boundary risks doing more harm than good to community identity. It therefore agreed no change to this boundary.

The full report can be found at: