Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Sedgemoor District Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parish and town council submissions to the Sedgemoor District Council electoral review. This PDF document contains 18 submissions from parish and town councils. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. AXBRIDGE TOWN COUNCIL Clerk: Mrs V L Brice 16th July 2010 Mr K Anwer Review Officer (Sedgemoor) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 4LG Dear Mr Anwer Re: Electoral Review of Sedgemoor District Council: Draft Recommendations I refer to your letter of 25th May 2010 enclosing a summary of the draft recommendations. I am writing to advise that the Town Council notes the contents of this document. Thank you. Yours sincerely Mrs V L Brice Axbridge Town Clerk BRIDGWATER TOWN COUNCIL 19 July 2010 The Review Officer (Sedgemoor) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Laden House 76-86 Tummill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG Dear Sir ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL AND BRIDGWATER TOWN(PARISH) COUNCIL The Bridgwater Town Council are grateful for the opportunity to comment on the draft recommendations for electoral arrangements for Sedgemoor. Comments are offered in two sections – the first to proposals for SDC wards in the town and the second to BTC wards as advanced in page 16/para 88. First of all though, the Town Council seek clarification in the light of all recommendations of the position reference the outer town boundary, i.e. where areas in Durleigh, North |Petherton and Wembdon are to be part of the wards in the town for District Council electoral purposes. Given the Town Council warding recommendations does this change the outer boundary of the town or does this still require submission and approval via SDC for boundary change? SDC Warding of Bridgwater (15 members) BTC note the proposal for a 48 member district council in total with 15 of those members representing the town. This is accepted. However, in relation to the 15 members for 7 wards, there are concerns that whilst meeting as closely as feasible the evening-up of the number of electors per councillor this actually fail to satisfy the desire to recognise communities and the natural affinity between neighbourhoods. The Town Council, therefore, object to these draft proposals and ask that they be reconsidered because members view with alacrity the plans which place such heavy reliance upon the numbers game and some obscure desire to get as many two member wards as possible against the concerns of communities. In particular instances, the plans appear divisive and the following should be taken into account: The West Street and Halesleigh road areas supported by correspondence by Mr Perren and some members of the Town Council who wish to see these areas remain within the Quantock Ward. There is no clear logic for the rational of the recommendation other than numbers. Other views would support the whole of the West Street and Halesleigh Road communities being within the Victoria Ward. Eastover Ward should remain unchanged. Hamp Ward has lost part of its recognised area to the Victoria Ward without logical explanation. Existing Sydenham Ward has been split in half whilst areas at either end of the two new wards created identified as Bower and Parkway have no obvious affinity. However, the Town Council do accept the logic of the three overspill locations outside the existing town/parish boundary being incorporated. BTC Warding of Bridgwater (16 members) BTC welcome the retention of 16 members for the Town Council in line with the Town Council's original submission ensuring greater recommendation for townsfolk. The question has been raised above reference the steps from here for extension of the town boundary. However, specific questions remain for the logic of the redrawn ward boundaries and those listed above in regard to Sedgemoor are restated for answer. Regarding the names of the proposed wards, the Town Council view these quite satisfactorily as within the recommendations with the possible exception of the Parkway Ward which as drawn serves only half of that spine route. Other names suggested for this ward are preferred if the recommendation for the boundary is to be confirmed as in the May 2010 document. In addition to this specific response, please find enclosed comments submitted to the Town Council by Councillors David Preece, Mrs Gill Slocombe and Philip Smeed and a copy letter from Mr R W Perren. The Town Council look forward to these views being taken into account, and the draft recommendations being reconsidered. Yours faithfully Alan Hurford Town Clerk Encs Cathy Williams BWPC – Clerk E Review Officer Sedgemoor Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 76 – 86 Turnmill Steet London EC1M 5LG 15 July 2010 Dear Sir / Madam NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEDGEMOOR DISTRICT COUNCIL – MAY 2010. Following the Burnham without parish council meeting held on Thursday 15 July 2010 I would like to report back with the following concerns over the proposed plans. Burnham without Parish Council feels that the proposed new boundaries do not offer good representation for the Burnham without Parish. The members are concerned that the suggested parishes to be placed within the proposed large ward have very little in common with our own council. They will have different priorities to our Council and will result in our representation being reduced with our parish very much in the minority. The new warding proposals will mean that our small parish Council will require 3 polling stations therefore incurring lots of unnecessary additional costs for the parish to cover. Burnham without Parish does not currently have any community connections with the parish of East Huntspill, Lympsham or East Brent and the proposed ward boundary would make this a vast area with each end sitting on the end of major towns (Bridgwater and Weston Super Mare). The Parish would also lose its close connections and support from our district councillor as we would have several, therefore the same relationships would not be possible. We hope you will consider the points raised by local people concerned about the parish they live in. Thanks in anticipation Cathy Williams – Burnham without Parish Council Clerk on behalf of the council. Durleigh Parish Council Chairman Clerk J B Vassalli P M Shaw 15th July 2010 Review Officer (Sedgemoor) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76 – 86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 4LG Dear Sir or Madam Electoral Review Of Sedgemoor District Council (With reference to Durleigh Parish) Thank you for your letter and draft recommendations for electoral arrangements for Sedgemoor District Council. The unanimous view of Durleigh Parish Council is that we do not want to be part of two district council wards. We wish to remain as at present, being part of Bridgwater Quantocks ward alone. We do not want to have Durleigh Parish to be sub divided into two wards either and wish to retain the existing situation where six councillors represent the entire parish. The reasons are: Six councillors elected with a mandate from some 400 electors is an effective representation whereas five with a mandate from some 330 and one from about 70 makes the one less effective. Contact / liaison with representatives from the two Sedgemoor District wards will be more difficult. Parish Council representation at the two council cluster groups would be needed. Sedgemoor District Council will be faced with additional administrative time and cost implications to take account of Durleigh Parish Council being within two district council wards. There would be incr eased Durleigh Parish Council expenditure both on a day -to- day administrative basis and at election time if it were to be part of two district council wards and to be split into two parish wards. The parish council ward boundary change would mean Durleigh Parish Church would be in Cannington - the church parishioners would prefer to remain within the Bridgwater Quantocks district. The par ish counc il ward boundary change would mean also that the proposed new Bridgwater school (Haygrove School) site adjoining Queenswood Farm would no longer be in Bridgwater but in Cannington. Durleigh Parish Cou ncil believes the recommended change for it to be part of two district council wards and to creat e two wards within the parish boundar y would bring about an increase in administration time and cost for all the affected local councils: and would far outweigh any gains from reallocating some 70 electors from one ward district to another. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Yours sincerely J. B. Vassalli Chairman, Durleigh Parish Council Page 1 of 1 Gregory, Eleanor From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 16 July 2010 10:16 To: Gre gory, Eleanor Subject: FW: LGBC Draft Recommendations - Sedgemoor District Council Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d Attachments: Lgb c 14-07-10.pdf From: Ann Manders Sent: 16 July 2010 09:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: LGBC Draft Recommendations - Sedgemoor District Council Dear Sirs Please find attached a letter regarding the views of Goathurst Parish Council relating to the draft recommendations made for the new electoral arrangements for Sedgemoor District Council. If you have any queries regarding this letter, or would like to discuss the matter, please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards Ann Manders Clerk to Goathurst Parish Council 20/07/2010 - included within the Western Somerset LARC with other Quantock parishes (North Petherton is not included); - currently members of the Quantock Parish Cluster Group and PACT and would wish to continue to be a member of this group. It is felt that the Parish of Goathurst shares issues and concerns that affect other Quantock Parishes and would, therefore, be better served by District Councillors serving similar communities.