Appendix A Number Submission No.1 The consultation about expanding the boundaries of Bridport town is confined to Symondsbury. But other parishes depend entirely on Bridport: Bothenhampton and Walditch are blocks of residential housing with two village halls, no shops or other amenities apart from play areas. How does this differ from Symondsbury including Vearse Farm? Residents have no say in the running of Bridport, but we rely on its services. So shouldn’t we be included? No.2 Try again No.3 I am replying to the invitation to comment on the review of the Bridport Town and Symondsbury parish councils boundaries.

West Cliff Estate is currently part of Symondsbury Parish Council yet is accessed via West Bay and has no direct connection with the Parish of Symondsbury. In spite of contributing about 50% of the income it also receives no benefits at all for this contribution. It would therefore seem sensible to include it in the West Bay catchment area which currently comes under Bridport Town. Also because the West Bay area is separated from Bridport Town by the Bridport bypass A35, it would seem sensible to consider the creation of a coastal parish bounded by the A35, B3157 and the river Brit. similar to other coastal parishes such as Lyme Bay, Burton Bradstock, Abbotsbury etc. No.4 I think the boundary should be changed to include the area covered by the proposed Vearse Farm development. This would allow the Bridport Town Council to include a precept on the houses in that development to finance the operations in the town which the residents of Vearse Farm would be using. I am a private individual not representing any particular body. No.5 I am a resident of Symondsbury Parish living at XX Brit View Road, West Bay, which is on the Westcliff Estate. I have lived here for three and a half years. I find it hard to understand why an anomaly, such as exists here, has been allowed to occur by previous reviews. We are within the Bridport South ward for District Council and County Council elections but for lower tier elections within the Symondsbury Parish rather than Bridport Town Council’s area.

The West Cliff Estate of some 120 properties is not connected to any other part of the Symondsbury Parish by Public Highway. Once you leave the estate by road you are immediately in the Bridport Town Council area, and is in Bridport that West Cliff residents access services, which are paid for by the Town Council and its council tax payers. The only discernible service provided to residents of the West Cliff Estate by Symondsbury Parish Council is a Council noticeboard.

At election times candidates, electors and even polling clerks are confused as to why the Estate is in Symondsbury and in my time here the Parish Council has struggled to find anyone to represent the ward on the Parish Council, with any co-opted councillor inevitably being from outside the Westcliff Estate. I would submit therefore that in the interests of accountability and to provide the most appropriate link between council taxpayers with the provision of services all of the properties on the West Cliff Estate currently in the Parish of Symondsbury are transferred into the Bridport Town Council area by moving the boundary accordingly. No.6 I support the transfer of those parts of Symondsbury parish that fall within the contiguous built up area of Bridport, plus the land centred on Vearse farm which is due to be developed for housing and employment. All the existing and future residents rely and will rely almost entirely on facilities within Bridport for shopping, leisure, culture, banks and so on.

The same applies to many other parts of greater Bridport that fall within Allington Parish, Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish and Bradpole Parish. The most sensible outcome of this review would be to fully resolve the issue of Bridport’s boundary being hopelessly out of date and to ensure that there will be no need for further reviews within a few years. Allington Parish and Bothenhampton and Walditch Parish should be abolished with their built up areas transferring into Bridport and their more remote areas being transferred into adjoining rural parish councils. Bradpole is a slightly more complex choice. It could be treated in the same way as the other two parishes or if it is to remain separate it would be logical to redraw the boundary so that the Jessop Avenue estate comes in to Bridport and those parts of Bridport to the north of LIDL are transferred to Bradpole since they are contiguous with that village.

To do the job properly as I have described would be fair to the existing community charge payers within Bridport parish who currently somewhat subsidise those outside who use almost all the same services but pay a much lower precept, typically a third to a half of the Bridport precept. Bringing these residents of greater Bridport in should allow Bridport’s precept to be cut or at worst frozen. No.7 We write in response to the Notices concerning redrawing of the parish boundaries between Bridport Town Council and some parts of Symondsbury, especially in view of the Vearse Farm development. We wholeheartedly SUPPORT Bridport Town Council and hope this transfer can be agreed amicably between the two Councils. My wife and daughter fully support this view, and all three of us are registered Electors. No.8 Since the Vearse Farm development seems to be going ahead despite objections, I consider it imperative that there be a Review of Parish Boundaries. Only this way can residents and commercial enterprises ensure their interests are best represented and/or protected. The development will inevitably increase demand on all Bridport services, especially on the infrastructure of schools, medical services and social services. Parking in the Town, already an issue, will become even more of a nightmare - especially for the disabled. The character of Symondsbury will also be changed. I presume there will be Section 106 arrangements, and these need to be fairly considered. I therefore agree this Review is imperative. No.9 Allington Parish Council wish for their Parish boundary to remain unchanged which will still mean we have a sliver of land that falls within the proposed Vearse Farm development. Allington PC feel very strongly about this and will oppose any thought to do otherwise. No.10 I have seen your web page concerning suggested changes to Symondsbury Parish boundary. I live on the West Cliff Estate in West Bay, and am very much in favour of the boundary being altered so that we became part of West Bay/Bridport. I understand that our Council Tax bill is likely to rise but I think that is a price worth paying in order to be represented by the Council most relevant to us ie Bridport. Being represented by Symondsbury has become a nonsense. No.11 I feel a change in Parish Boundaries to bring the Vearse Farm area into Bridport Parish is logical and makes sense for the following reasons:

 The large development at Vearse Farm (760 dwellings, 60 care homes, commercial premises) AND the potential development west of Magadalen Lane (reportedly 190 dwellings) will house people who will be calling on the resources of Bridport Town.  Bridport Parish would benefit from receipt of what will be much needed CIL income in order to finance the indirect demands created by these large scale developments on the infrastructure and general Town development.  Symondsbury is at present a country parish - it is not (I venture to suggest) geared to managing the impact of such large developments

By the same token I would greatly welcome the West Cliff conurbation at West Bay brought into the Bridport Parish as this would:

 Also help fund Bridport’s support to this community whose residents use Bridport’s resources more than Symondsbury  Since there is a potential to develop housing on West Cliff (the field at the top of the cliff) then the arguments for the Vearse Farm area also apply here.  At last the bulk of West Bay would be under one Parish and not suffer from the fragmented Parish Council overview that necessitated the formation of the West Bay Community Forum. (Burton Bradstock is the third Parish in West Bay but only skirts the eastern edge). No.12 I am emailing to register my opposition to the proposal, whereby the Bridport Town Council boundary will encompass (VF) instead of the current combination of Allington and Symondsbury parishes. For the sake of local democracy and accountability the contentious access to VF positioned on APC’s land should remain the responsibility of my local parish councillors and representatives. Resident of West Mead, Bridport. No.13 My opposition to boundary change is council tax could rise under Bridport Council, also the only reason Bridport want change is if V\Farm gets built Bridport Council will get a certain amount of money per house , keep boundary as is now. No.14 I would wish, as an Allington parishioner, to lodge my opposition to boundary changes, involving the scheduled Vearse Farm build, proposed by Bridport Town Council.

I feel that in such a contentious and sensitive area, that falls currently within the southern boundary of Allington Parish Council's domain (south of the B3162), this includes the much publicised entrance /exit to the proposed Vearse Farm housing development. I strongly believe that this should remain as part of Allington Parish Council’s administrative domain, the remainder continuing to be allocated to Symondsbury PC.

West Dorset District Council will no doubt be aware that Bridport Town, and Allington & Symondsbury Parish Councils all voted to oppose the Vearse Farm development on the grounds of the aforementioned poor access from the B3162 to the proposed site. I feel I would be correct in presuming that the proposed boundary change is based on the Town Council’s attempt to garner financial gain from such a change, rather than purely as an administration exercise ?

As an Allington parishioner, I would respectfully insist that no change is made on this strategic issue.

Will the responses from this initial consultation be published on Dorset for You ? Many thanks in anticipation of my objection being upheld. No.15 I would like to register an objection to the proposal.

With so many changes taking place in local government in Dorset I think the whole of the area should be considered rather than what can appear to be an opportunistic land grab provoked by Vearse Farm.

Can we please have a fuller rationale in the public domain and the opportunity for full consultation. No.16 I live in Pine View, currently included as part of the Symondsbury parish but under consideration to be included as part of the Bridport boundary.

I would like to know why this proposal has even been tabled. The only reason I can see is to charge higher Council Tax from all the additional households on the basis that the Bridport parish charges are higher than those in Symondsbury. If that is the case then our household would pay approximately £150 more per year than we currently do, completely unjustifiably and therefore totally unacceptable.

On that basis I strongly object to the proposals. No.17 I vote for West Cliff to become part of Bridport given the geographical location, use of services and the fact that the ONLY vehicular access is via the West Bay harbor bridge. I would like to propose that the residential part of West Bay known as West Cliff currently the CR area of Symondsbury Parish Council becomes part of the BF area of Bridport Parish – this just makes logical sense. No.18 I’d like to add my support to the proposal to incorporate Vearse Farm into the Bridport boundary. No.19 We are writing to express our views about the consideration to change the boundary and put West Bay into Bridport Town Council. We are both totally opposed and object to the move.

We are very happy with the position as it is now because if we have any problems or concerns it is very convenient to address them to Symondsbury Parish Council as we always have. If seems to us that the only reason Bridport want to change it is to increase their revenue and collect more Council tax from residents of West Bay.

Our council tax is high enough now considering living on West Cliff we are on a private estate so the roads are maintained by ourselves, we have no street lights or street cleaning. We do not receive any money from the county council. Therefore please leave West Bay with Symondsbury Parish Council. No.20 With regard to the proposed changes to the Parish Boundary, I think it is fair to say that the majority of the Symondsbury Parish residents would not be directly affected by these changes. However I consider that the following should be taken into account: What would be the financial effect of losing the revenue from the Skilling area as well as the possible council tax from the new houses proposed for Vearse farm?

I would suggest that the residents of Pine View etc. would have to pay additional tax to the Town Council and the rest of us may also be required to pay more to support the Symondsbury Parish Council.

I believe that these costs should be given fair consideration. No.21 Submission from Bridport Town Council attached separately to the report.

No.22 I strongly object to Bridport Town Council’s proposed takeover areas Verse Farm, Pine View, Watton Park, Skilling Hill Road.

The proposed change would weaken Symondsbury Parish and reduce its ability to support and provide service to its community. Symondsbury Parish Council has successfully over many years provided an excellent service, and value for money.

Whilst under government rules objections can't be based upon financial matters, clearly from the information provided by DCC on behalf of Bridport, the proposed changes are seen as a way for Bridport to maintain its services from the increased level of precept from the new developments against a back drop reduced government funding.

The parish council has a unique and thorough understanding of its parish and how and what is required, by reducing is size and potential scope would have a major negative impact on its ability to increase its services to the community to which it serves extremely well. No.23 I wish to object to this as there is no merit in the change. Pine View resident. No.24 Symondsbury Parish Council OBJECTS to this proposal on the grounds that it will reduce our population by over third and thus leaving the council less viable. Furthermore, it is considered that such a decision should be postponed until, not only the Unitary Boundary has been concluded, but also the roundabout at Miles Cross has been built and new residents of Vearse Farm be given the opportunity to have their say in where they look to as their local community. We therefore feel this process is premature. Please note that no member of Symondsbury Parish Council voted in favour of this proposal from Bridport. No.25 When the Vearse Farm development is built the focus of the newly formed community will be the parish of Symondbury. As a Symondsbury Parish resident the focus of my community activity falls within the parish boundary. Symondsbury Tithe Barn hosts concerts, craft fairs, fashion shows, dances and weddings. Symondsbury Kitchen is a hub for social gathering with adjacent shopping. Symondsbury School is a hub for young families and the build is used by other local groups. Symondsbury’s The Ilchester Arms is a focus for adult gatherings. Symondbury’s sports field is the cricket ground for the Bridport area. Eype has Highlands End Holiday Park for swimming, sauna and steam room. Highlands End Holiday Park provides a family friendly restaurant for parishioners to enjoy and rooms for holding events e.g. Christmas Markets. Eype Church is a centre for arts, craft and theatre. Eype, Old School Room hosts e.g. yoga, quilters group. Eype, Downhouse Garden Cafe is a hub for locals to socialise in a family friendly environment. I am a keen and very activie Symondsbury allotment holder.

IF I GO INTO BRIDPORT TOWN, I WALK ... PARKING IS DIABOLICAL. THE EXTRA RESIDENTS OF VEARSE FARM WILL CRIPPLE BRIDPORT TOWN CENTRE....THEY WILL GO ELSEWHERE.

The community focus for the residents of Vearse Farm will be the new development and the community spirit and facilities of Symondsbury Parish. No.26 We are writing to object to the request by Bridport Town Council for the Vearse Farm site, Pine View, Watton Park and Skilling Hill Road to be incorporated into Bridport, on the following grounds:

1. The request is premature. Although outline planning permission has been granted, the detailed plans for the proposed Vearse Farm development have not been finalised or approved. They are likely to be the subject of controversy, and the approval process may take a considerable time, during which the nature of the proposed development will evolve and possibly change significantly. Until this process is significantly further advanced, it is not possible to form a view as to whether the Vearse Farm development will effectively be a suburb of Bridport, or a village community in its own right. If the latter, it may well be more appropriate for Vearse Farm to continue to be part of Symondsbury. It is of course also possible that the proposed development may not happen, in which case there is no reason for the Vearse Farm site to become part of Bridport. 2. There is already in the Bridport Local Area Partnership a properly established and functioning structure for the town and its adjoining parishes to work together to ensure that local services function well, cost effectively and equitably for all residents of the area in the light of the proposed development. It is not necessary for the Vearse Farm site to form part of Bridport during the planning phase for these issues to be addressed. 3. The proposal to consolidate Pine View, Watton Park and Skilling Hill Road into Bridport has significant implications for the residents of those areas, but also for the parish of Symondsbury, since approximately 25% of the residents of the parish would be moved to Bridport. These implications, and the views of the residents affected, have not been adequately considered. 4. This proposal is being rushed, when there is no need for urgency. It has received little publicity, and is taking place at the same time and being confused with two other important local consultations.

We were pleased to learn that the Symondsbury Parish Council has voted to oppose this request. In the light of opposition from the Council and residents of Symondsbury, we hope that West Dorset District Council will defer consideration of this request until a more appropriate time, and require full consideration of the impact on residents and the parish of Symondsbury before a decision is taken. No.27 I wish to make the following representations about this and closely related matters.

I attended the Bridport town council meeting on 19th June, and spoke as a member of the public to the councillors. The Chairman of Symondsbury parish council was also present at the meeting.

I have lived in Bridport since 2008. Over the past 10 years Bridport town council (BTC) have increased the services that they provide considerably, and with the formation of the Dorset unitary council next spring, that is set to continue and, increasingly so. (Over the past 10 years they have also increased the council tax precept by 79%)

My concern is that this is not just an issue about the parish boundaries, but about who pays for the services that are provided by BTC. The residents of Symondsbury, Allington, Bradpole, Bothenhampton, and even Burton Bradstock make regular use of these services but do not make a financial contribution.

I live in a band F property in BTC, and this year 18/19 my council tax payable to BTC is £299. For the first time, this now more than I have to pay to the soon to be defunct WDDC ( £209)

Band F residents in Symondsbury pay £259 less (£5 per week) than I have to pay to BTC. The corresponding differentials for the other adjacent parishes are Bothenhampton -£261; Allington -£245; Bradpole -£248, and Burton Bradstock -£235.

So my neighbour, who lives on the opposite side of Burton Road, is in Bothenhampton parish, and he is paying £261 less council tax than myself. How very unfair!

So for me, given the major change happening in April 2019, this is THE TIME to iron out the differentials, and to improve the fairness to residents of BTC.

The BTC councillors were broadly sympathetic to my view, but I got the impression that this in the too difficult column.

How about a charge made every year to the residents of the 5 neighbouring parishes to cover their part of the services that are available to them, but provided by BTC. Surely this would be a better solution, because changing the boundaries between BTC and Symondsbury, will not cure this problem, which is going to be exacerbated, as the services provided by BTC expand (e.g. public toilets are likely to be under the control of BTC by next spring)

Please ensure that this communication get distributed to those councillors and council employees involved in these issues.

I am happy to discuss this further should anyone wish to do so. No.28 Submission: I should like to lodge my objection to incorporating parts of Symondsbury Parish into Bridport Town Council. No.29 I wish to object to the proposal to incorporate parts of Symondsbury Parish into Bridport Parish. Symondsbury is a vibrant parish with a strong sense of community. Its primary school educates over 100 children including many from outside the parish. This engenders a loyal sense of belonging to the parish even in those from outside. Arguably parts of Skilling should be returned to, and parts of Allington transferred to Symondsbury because of this sense of community among those who went to the school and stay part of Symondsbury life!

Symondsbury has two pubs, three further restaurants, two leisure centres and more than half a dozen shops two of which provide local newspapers.

It has three churches, three business parks, two playing fields with sports clubs (Simene and Bridport), and a further two substantial leisure centres (Bridport Leisure Centre and Highlands), a popular beach, a bike skills part, a five mile bike trail and extensive walking paths, both public and private.

Its vibrant parish council runs popular allotments and recently qualified as a quality council and following a change of parish clerk, shortly will do so again.

Symondsbury is a proud and independent parish. It is reliant upon having a pool of volunteers to staff its local institutions – its Women’s Institute, its Parochial Church Council, its Eype School Room Committee, the Wallbridge Trust, West Cliff Home Owners’ Association and Eypes Mouth Chalet Park Management Company amongst others. It also hosts several medium sized employers. West Dorset Leisure Holidays and Denhay Farms Ltd employ more than 100 employees each and Symondsbury Estate in excess of fifty. All three of these businesses have grown substantially in recent decades and are prize winners in their various fields.

The history of relations with Bridport has been one of fierce independence. The landowners of Symondsbury Village have resisted encroachment by Bridport since World War II by refusing to allow more than minimal development. The parochial church council refused to merge Symondsbury’s three churches with Bridport’s in the 1970s, joining instead with Chideock and latterly with Loders and Powerstock. The school, founded in 1868, refused to close in the 1970s and instead expanded.

The Vearse Farm development represents a good opportunity for the parish to intensify its community spirit and links with the school and two sports clubs. The development is laid out to align with the new road to Symondsbury village along which there are thriving business parks and shops and other community facilities. Symondsbury Estate is a part owner of the Vearse Farm development and so far as is possible intends to integrate parts of it into its existing business. Symondsbury Estate consists of nearly half the land area of the parish and adds value to the life of all residents by creating, itself, a proud sense of community valued by many residents and has strongly supported many of the parish institutions over a long period. To leave a chunk out of the parish and reaching into the heart of the Estate, splitting it in two would be a mistake – an opportunity lost to reinvigorate an already strong local community at a time when such are becoming rarer and an intrusion which would separate the north of the parish from the south.

The proposal put forward by Bridport Town Council is a solution to a problem that does not exist. The Bridport Area Local Partnership, of which Symondsbury parish is a founder member, is held out as an exemplar for the rest of Dorset how parishes can work together. Already by working together many services are delivered, managed by Bridport Town Council and funded with the agreement of the Parishes. This is the cooperative, partnership method which is encouraged at all levels and should be continued. It follows the principle of devolving engagement to the most local level possible yet allowing economies of scale to be involved in delivery of services.

Symondsbury Parish Council costs little and delivers much and should be encouraged and trusted along with its residents. To do so it needs parishioners and to preserve its sense of identity by not splitting it across the middle and by enhancing and supporting its existing facilities and amenities. If anything is to happen those adjoining parts of Skilling and Allington in which live the Symondsbury diaspora should be added to Symondsbury.