Local Residents' Submissions to the Purbeck District Council Electoral

Local residents’ submissions to the Purbeck District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 54 submissions from local residents.

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.

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Re views@ Sent: 14 June 2012 12:03 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1196 Time of Submission: Jun 14th 2012 at 11:03am IP Address: ::ffff:92.24.163.249

Form Answers

Name: D. M.Lobb Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Purbeck submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I strongly object to the draft proposal that East Stoke be absorbed into Wool Parish Council Ward which would result in the loss of our rural Parish Council.

Wool PC have such different objectives to our own rural considerations. File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

18/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: L LITTLEWOOD [ Sent: 19 June 2012 12:34 To: Re views@ Subject: Boundary Changes As a resident of East Stoke in Purbeck District Council in Dorset I STRONGLY OBJECT to the proposed boundary changes for the East Stoke electorate.

We are far removed from the villages of Moreton, Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle and have no connection with them whatsoever. Wool is a large village and growing steadily year on year and has no interest or connection with East Stoke in any way and will have no input on village decisions and in fact rarely agree on village policies and go against East Stoke Parish Councils recommendations on many levels.

The Purbeck District Council, East Stoke Parish Council and the residents of the village do not want these changes and we will do all that we can to prevent it.

Please think again!!

Lynn Littlewood.

21/06/2012 Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Skerten, Alex Sent: 27 June 2012 11:51 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

Alex Skerten Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG. Tel: 0207 664 8517. www.lgbce.org.uk

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 June 2012 09:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1218 Time of Submission: Jun 26th 2012 at 8:55am

IP Address: ::ffff:86.172.74.179

Form Answers

Name: J Pearce Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address:

27/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

Area your submission Purbeck refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I am writing to register an objection to the proposal to move the small rural community of Briantspuddle from its current postion in Bere Regis ward to Wool. Our road communications are towards Bere,the only bus route serving our village runs through Bere, our doctor's surgery is there, we share a parish with them, and benefit from a well-supported parish magazine, a twinning link with France and a sports centre in Bere. We do not visit or shop in Wool, and we have only been there twice in the 10 years we have lived in Briantspuddle - there is nothing there for us.

It seems pointless to upset an arrangement which works well for what seems to be for reasons of beaurocratic convenience rather than residents' needs, which reflects existing links and which has always ensured we have a voice that is heard when it needs to be. We fear that will not be the case if we are moved to Wool. File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

27/06/2012

Skerten, Alex

From: Skerten, Alex Sent: 27 June 2012 11:45 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: proposed changes to PDC ward structure

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red

Alex Skerten Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG. Tel: 0207 664 8517. www.lgbce.org.uk -----Original Message----- From: Paul Andrews [mailto: Sent: 24 June 2012 06:13 To: Reviews@

PDC ward structure

Dear Sir / Madam. I write with regard to the proposed changes to the ward structure in Purbeck, which I gather would involve mergin our parish with Wool and Bovington. I object most strongly to the proposal, for the following reasons:

1. Wool and Bovington are much larger communities than ours, and their needs would have a presumption of precedence over ours. This is inevitable, as no larger community is going to feel that a smaller one should have equitable influence or representation.

2. The loss of our Parish's element of self-determination, and its ability to represent us as a community, is crucial. Rural communities are being decimated across the country, as they are subsumed into larger, urban council arrangements in which the needs of the many are valued but the needs of the rural few are neglected. An example is the miserable public transport service provided by Damory to rural communities in our area: ask a Wool council representative how important it is, and the answer would surely come back: not very. The ability to robustly argue for local services, and to negotiate with local knowledge and enthusiasm for a small parish such as ours will be lost forever in the clamorous calls for more and more services for the larger communities.

3. Efficient equity of access to local services and negotiation of transport needs in villages and hamlets cannot be achieved against a backdrop of a large urban ward. Cost-effective local solutions really demand detailed local input, and in this setting this is best achieved by having a visible, local council presence which is both accessible and reliable. We have this at the moment, and to change it in the manner proposed would be disastrous for our parish.

4. I am very concerned that the overall needs of the Wool / Bovington ward components would ride roughshod over those of the smaller rural parishes: the imperative to maximise council services for the greatest possible number of people would be irresistable and small parishes 1 would inevitably lose out. They would probably be forgotten completely, as the focus would be almost exclusively on those larger ward areas, however fine the intention to be inclusive. Transport is one area that I have mentioned above, but every facet of local council influence would be affected in the same way.

I trust you find my thoughts helpful.

Yours Faithfully

Paul Andrews

2 Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Sent: 27 June 2012 10:59 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

From: Linda Sent: 27 June 2012 09:33 To: [email protected] Cc: Oil co-op Abbas Jaffar; Sue Jones; Oil Co-op Lightfoot Graham Lightfoot; Parish clerk; Parish Council Charles Barter; Parish Council King Sally; Parish Council Nick Gore; Parish Council Sally Weston; Parish Council Wilson Stuart; Ross Lainey Subject: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish

I was very upset to see that there are plans to amalgamate the Affpuddle Parish Council with the Wool and Bovington Parish Council.

Affpuddle is, I freely admit, a small ward but that is where its strength lies. Most Parishioners know each other and are made aware of plans and changes etc. within the Ward and due to the interaction between residents this is, in my opinion, one of its main strengths. If Affpuddle were to be amalgamated with the Wool and Bovington Ward the whole character and identity of this rural parish would be lost.

Historically we have had little, if anything, to do with Bovington and even less with Wool, we have separate identities and needs, I cannot believe that Wool and Bovington PC will have the same commitment or focus on our little Parish.

On a practical note, there is no transport link between Briantspuddle (where the existing PC meets and which is within walking distance for all parishioners) and Wool or Bovington – how are parishioners expected to attend meetings? A few people may be prepared to spend money on fuel for their own vehicles to attend but what about the older residents who have no personal transport, will a bus be provided free of charge for every Parish meeting so that they can attend and make their views felt? If so, then this will probably negate any savings that would be made by the amalgamation.

Please listen to the views of the residents who will, I believe, be detrimentally affected by being inducted into such a large ward.

Linda Holmes (Homewatch co‐ordinator)

27/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you have received this email in error, or if you believe this email is unsolicited and wish to be removed from any future mailings, please contact our Support Desk immediately on 01202 360360 or email [email protected]

If this email contains a quotation then unless otherwise stated it is subject to change and offered subject to Silversands Professional Services Terms and Conditions, a copy of which is available on request. Any pricing information, design information or information concerning specific Silversands' staff contained in this email is considered confidential or of commercial interest and exempt from the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands

Company Registration Number : 2141393.

27/06/2012 Page 1 of 3

Skerten, Alex

From: Lind a Sent: 27 June 2012 14:47 To: Skerten, Alex; Reviews@ Cc: Oil co-op Abbas Jaffar; Oil co-op Jones Sue; Oil Co-op Lightfoot Graham Lightfoot; Parish clerk; Parish Council Charles Barter; Parish Council King Sally; Parish Council Nick Gore; Parish Council Sally Weston; Parish Council Wilson Stuart; Ross Lainey Subject: Re: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish Dear Mr Skerten

Since writing to you I have been made aware that the issue is in fact a change of Local Government Boundary and not a change of the Parish Council boundary, however my comments still apply as I believe that incorporating Affpuddle into the Wool and Bovington ward would change this rural ward into one incorporating a much more urban one.

Please accept my apologies for my initial misunderstanding but my thoughts do remain basically the same i.e.

Affpuddle (Winfrith) is, I freely admit, a small rural ward but that is where its strength lies. If Affpuddle were to be amalgamated with the Wool and Bovington Ward the whole character and identity of this rural ward would be lost. Historically we have had little, if anything, to do with Bovington and even less with Wool, we have separate identities and needs, I cannot believe that incorporation into Wool and Bovington would be in our best interests. Please listen to the views of the residents who will, I believe, be detrimentally affected by being inducted into such a large ward.

Linda Holmes (Homewatch co‐ordinator)

From: Skerten, Alex Sent: Wednesday, June 27, 2012

Cc: Sue Jones Subject: RE: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish

Dear Ms Holmes

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF PURBECK

Thank you for your submission setting out your views in respect of the review of electoral arrangements in Purbeck.

27/06/2012 Page 2 of 3

Your views have been noted, and will be taken into account by the Commission in formulating its final recommendations. Please note that this stage of the review is a public consultation, and the Commission places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way it deals with all representations. Accordingly, at the end of this stage of the review, 9 July 2012, full copies of all representations received will be made available for public inspection at our offices and at those of Purbeck District Council. Similarly, full copies of all submissions received will also be available for viewing on the Commission’s website, at www.lgbce.org.uk.

If you do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in reply to this letter and we will endeavour to respect your wish. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary, but all information in responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

Upon publication of the Commission’s report early next year, you will be sent a copy of the summary detailing its recommendations. The full report will be available for viewing on the Commission’s website. If you have any queries concerning the Commission’s approach to representations, please do not hesitate to contact me on the number below.

Kind regards

Alex Skerten Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG. Tel: 0207 664 8517.

www.lgbce.org.uk

From: Sue Jones [mailto: Sent: 27 June 2012 10:59 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish

From: Linda [mailto Sent: 27 June 2012 09:33 To: [email protected] Cc: Oil co-op Abbas Jaffar; Sue Jones; Oil Co-op Lightfoot Graham Lightfoot; Parish clerk; Parish Council Charles Barter; Parish Council King Sally; Parish Council Nick Gore; Parish Council Sally Weston; Parish Council Wilson Stuart; Ross Lainey Subject: Proposed changes to the Ward Structure regarding Affpuddle Parish

I was very upset to see that there are plans to amalgamate the Affpuddle Parish Council with the Wool and Bovington Parish Council.

27/06/2012 Page 3 of 3

Please listen to the views of the residents who will, I believe, be detrimentally affected by being inducted into such a large ward.

Linda Holmes (Homewatch co‐ordinator)

Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands

Silversands Limited, 3 Albany Park, Cabot Lane, Poole, BH17 7BX. Company Registration Number : 2141393.

27/06/2012

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Campbell de Burgh Sent: 02 July 2012 11:23 To: Re views@ Cc: N ick Gore Subject: Purbeck District Ward Structure - Parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle I have read the proposal to change the Ward structure for this part of Dorset with some concern. In the Parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle we currently enjoy a great deal of commonality with other rural parishes within a Ward that acknowledges our situation and recognises our say. To reconfigure into an essentially urban Ward with Wool as the centre of population we believe that we would be marginalised by their demand. Although it is easy to see how the numbers fall out there are no significant community or transport links with Wool indeed most of our activity, social and business, is with the adjacent villages of Bere Regis, Moreton, Tolpuddle and Puddletown. We shop in Puddletown and Dorchester and our children go to school in Puddletown and Dorchester, not Wareham and Wool.

It is strongly suggested that political boundaries should mirror social and domestic fulfilment – we are a rural area with rural concerns, not an add on to an urban area and would much prefer to remain represented as we are.

Campbell de Burgh

by McAfee Virus Scan

04/07/2012 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Gra ham Lightfoot [ Sent: 03 July 2012 14:33 To: Re views@ Subject: Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council

3.7.2012

Objection to the draft recommendations on new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council

FAO The Review Officer (Purbeck)

I wish to register my very strong objection to your proposal to break up the existing Winfrith Ward of Purbeck District Council and to include my Parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle in a new ward along with Wool and Bovington. The existing ward meets numerical requirements in terms of local voters per councillor and is made up from a number of rural parishes with similar interests and issues.We do not wish to be lumped in with Wool and Bovington in a 3 member ward where the rural parishes will be greatly outnumbered by more urban voters and their rural voice drowned out and identity lost. This seems to be happening purely because of an existing numerical mismatch in Wool and I would ask that you to think again, and find a way of keeping us in a rural ward.

Dr Graham Lightfoot.

04/07/2012

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Nick Berchem Sent: 02 July 2012 17:27 To: Re views@ Cc: Ja ffar Abbas Subject: Proposed Boundary change within Purbeck District Council affecting Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and Briantspuddle

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to register my objection to the proposed boundary change of the Winfrith and Bovington/Wool wards which would result in this small rural village being subsumed in a ward dominated by the more urban areas of Bovington and Wool. I object for the following reasons:

 Wool and Bovington are much more densely populated than Briantspuddle and this will mean that the rural voice will be drowned by the town's.  Briantspuddle is geographically isolated from Wool with only one very minor road across the military training area connecting the two.  There is no social or historical link with Wool as traditionally Briantspuddle has looked to Bere Regis and Puddletown, which are closer and more easily accessible.  The issues faced by Wool and Bovington (which are predominantly country town and heavily influenced by the military) are very different to those faced by Briantspuddle (which are predominantly rural).  There are currently no public transport links between Wool and Briantspuddle.  We are currently represented in a single councillor ward, which is convenient and ensures that our councillor understands our issues. Inclusion in a 3 councillor ward will dilute this close link.  I would prefer to remain in a fully rural ward, represented by a councillor who fully understands rural issues.

I have copied this to one of our parish councillors.

Yours sincerely,

Nick Berchem

04/07/2012

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Jennifer Beedle Sent: 03 July 2012 11:26 To: Re views@ Subject: proposed changes to ward structure To the Review Officer.

Dear Sir, I wish to register my objection to the proposed changes to the Ward Structure at Purbeck District Council. In the review it is proposed that our parish, Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle,is amalgamated with Wool and Bovington, to create a new larger three Councillor Ward. Our parish is small and rural, at present we are part of Winfrith Ward which is made up of similar parishes.If we join a Ward which is predominantly urban, our interests,identity and voice will be lost. Most of the electoral representation will be the urban residents of Wool whose problems may be entirely different to ours. There are few community,cultural, or transport links with the proposed new Ward.Our children do not go to school there,our churches are not there and our bus service does not take us there. In my opinion the existing Ward, made up of rural parishes offers the residents of Affpuddle , Briantspuddle and Turnerspuddle a more effective local government.

Yours sincerely Jennifer Beedle (Mrs)

04/07/2012

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Skerten, Alex Sent: 04 July 2012 09:40 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: New Electoral arrangments for Purbeck District Council Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

Alex Skerten Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG. Tel: 0207 664 8517. www.lgbce.org.uk

From: Peter Talbot [mailto: Sent: 04 July 2012 00:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: New Electoral arrangments for Purbeck District Council

Sir, Having read the boundary commissioners review and considered its impact on the Parish in which I live, Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle, I write to register my objection to the commissioners proposal to discard the current grouping within the Winfrith ward and group Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle with an extended Wool ward. As a rural parish our needs are greatly different from those of Wool, which being an urban area with a larger population that includes a significant and transitory population of service personnel and families has little similarity in requirement for social and other services. There is thus the likelihood of conflicting requirements between urban and rural interests, with those of the minority rural community being swamped by those of the larger urban group. This is therefore hardly the electoral equality that the commissioners are seemingly so keen to create. The commissioners comment on poor internal communication links within Wool but take no account that there currently are no communication links between Wool and Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle, and unlikely to be any change to this situation in future. Thus it appears the balance of the commissioners views are about what happens within Wool than elsewhere and thus already Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish is being disadvantaged. I thus see no advantage and many disadvantages from the proposed reorganisation in the form that the commissioners propose for the Parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle and suggest that retaining, as at present, a single councillor ward made up of more uniformly rural Parishes with a shared identity and common interests will best serve this community and offer it more effective local government and electoral equality. Yours faithfully Peter Talbot

04/07/2012

Skerten, Alex

From: Carol & Graham Hemsley Sent: 04 July 2012 18:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Purbeck Boundary review

Dear Sirs

Please note my objections to your draft proposal to create a Lulworth and Winfrith ward by removing East stoke from the current West Purbeck ward and adding Winfrith

Iam an East Lulworth resident and our parish has boundary links with east stoke and common issues with then on such items as traffic conjestion caused annually by the 30,000 strong bestival pop concert.we also have common boundaries with one of the largest live firng army ranges in southern england and the consequent health and safety, noise and conservation issues. we should remain with east stake in our current ward arrangement where one district councillor can take our common issues foreward

East lulworth has no common boundaries with Winfrith or any direct transport link.

These Changes will cost ratepayer money....Not acceptable in these climes ..Status quo is cost neutral

Finally your proposal for the new lulworth and winfrith ward runs contrary to our elected district councillors advice to you to retain the current ward structure....If localism is to mean anything you must listen to them

Please note my objection to these proposals

Carol Hemsley ..

Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Sue Jones Sent: 05 July 2012 13:43 To: Re views@ Subject: Draft Recommendation for the Electoral Reform of Purbeck District Council

Dear Sir

I am writing to object to the proposals and how they will affect the Parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle

Taking your considerations

Electoral equality for voters

The majority of electors would reside in Wool and Bovington, making up some 78% of the total ward and making us a small minority of electors from a rural ward. This will inevitably mean that the election of members will be heavily skewed by the electors of Wool and as such I cannot see an argument that shows electoral equality for our parishioners. It seems unlikely to me that we would have a “local” member elected for example.

Your proposals represent significant and unnecessary change to our detriment. I would encourage you to support Purbeck District Council’s own proposals in moving to 25 councillors which would mean that any change to our current Winfrith ward would be unnecessary, taking us within tolerance levels.

Local community interests and identities

I am not aware of any local community or identity links with Wool.

In terms of community, doctor’s surgeries, shops, schools, pubs, transport links, schools and other recreational facilities and interests are not accessed in Wool. Links tend to be East/ West with our bus route taking parishioners to shops, library and work towards either Dorchester or Poole.

In terms of a larger conurbation we have much stronger and closer links and identity with Bere Regis and in contrast to Wool. These include geographic links, with footpaths and other rights of way directly connecting us, their use being a shared amenity.

Promote effective and convenient local government

As a rural parish we have little in common with an urban area such as Wool. I am very concerned that being such a small minority our interests will not be represented. In contrast our existing Winfrith ward comprising similar rural parishes makes us a unified ward sharing common concerns and interests. Current efforts to improve broadband speeds to our rural parishioners is a good example of how we have shared interests and how we can be more effective in tackling the issues, working together at local level.

Yours faithfully

Sue Jones

06/07/2012 Page 2 of 2

Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Silversands

Silversands Limited, 3 Albany Park, Cabot Lane, Poole, BH17 7BX. Company Registration Number : 2141393.

06/07/2012

Skerten, Alex

From: Home PC Sent: 06 July 201 To: Reviews@ Cc: [email protected] Subject: Boundary change affecting Briantspuddle

From Mr and Mrs P Scrase

For the attention of the Review Officer (Purbeck)

Further to the proposal that Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle be amalgamated into a new ward including Wool and Bovington, I would like to register my objection to this. Our identity is clearly with other rural parishes and not a small town.

This email sent by Phil Scrase but this also represents the views of my wife, Mrs Margaret Scrase.

Best regards Phil Scrase

1 Skerten, Alex

From: Ben Bunnell [ Sent: 06 July 2012 20:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary change to Purbeck District Council affecting Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle

To whom it may concern,

I object to the proposed change to the boundaries. It is obvious that the agenda for a rural community will be vastly different from that of an urban community. With a larger population to satisfy it is clear that the urban agenda with dominate over the rural. A change is good if it brings benefit to the people it serves. This won't.

Ben Bunnell

Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: John Solly [j Sent: 07 July 2012 15:33 To: Re views@ Subject: Purbeck, Dorset Review

Draft Recommendations on the new Electoral Arrangements for Purbeck District Council

Dear Sir/Madam

Having considered your proposals and discussed these not only with members of our own electorate but also those in immediately affected parishes, I strongly support the submission by Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish Council dated 2 July 2012.

I would like to add that in our parish, changing our ward seems unnecessary and would create unnecessary disruption to a ward (and others) which operate very well at present. The recommendations have upset many in my parish and others in our surrounding parishes, including East Stoke and Wool.

The differences between our rural and urban communities should not be underestimated and the changes you propose for us are likely to create more problems than they solve.

It seems a shame that the alternative proposals of Purbeck District Council, which understands its communities and their differences, have been rejected and I urge you to reconsider them.

Their electoral numbers may not meet your criteria exactly (a perfect solution is unlikely anyway) but local community cohesion is most important.

Yours faithfully

John Solly

09/07/2012

08/07/12 Draft Ward Proposals for Purbeck District Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

As a resident of the parish of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle I wish to register a strong objection to the dismemberment of the existing rural Winfrith ward to correct a numerical imbalance of electors in the urban ward of Wool. Allied to this I object to a ward with three councillors trying to effectively represent a rural/urban mix. This I believe would lead to a conflict in representation and the possible unofficial ‘portioning’ of parishes between councillors. The proposal from Purbeck District Council correctly identifies community allegiance and I am in full support of this. I also believe that the figures used for their projection to 2017 are accurate based on housing yet to be built (even in this economic environment Purbeck is a very desirable place to live, as such land earmarked for building is much sought after by developers and has a high probability of being developed within the timescale) . The strength of the existing Winfrith ward is from similar sized rural parishes facing the same issues (lack of affordable housing, appropriate large scale renewable energy installations, mineral extraction, lack of public transport etc. etc.), with representation from a rural based councillor. In the 1997 revue it should be noted that the parishes of Coombe Keynes and East Stoke returned a rural based candidate on their separation from Wool. To add the parishes of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle, East Stoke and Moreton to the Wool ward would see an imbalance of representation in favour of a huge urban majority of 78% over the rural parishes. The three rural parishes would lose their community identity and equality of representation.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Rebecca Gore

Skerten, Alex

From: 08 July 2012 22:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: purbeck wards review

Dear Sirs, I am writing to object to your proposal, to place Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle parish into the Wool ward. We are a distinctly rural parish, whereas Wool is definetly urban, & as the proposed ward will give us a very small percentage of the total votes, it will result in a very poor, if any, representation for our parish. You have also taken NO account of the core strategy, which envisages further development at Wool, which would even further dilute our representation. We have no community links with Wool, even our church shares a vicar with Bere Regis. There are no transport links with Wool, all our transport links are east/west to Puddletown& Dorchester or Bere Regis & Poole. The existing Winfrith ward consists of similar rural parishes, which together with a councillor from the ward area, has served us well to date, & I would therefore urge you to reconsider your proposal, & leave the Winfrith ward as it is. Yours faithfully, Stuart Wilson.

1 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Jennifer Lightfoot Sent: 08 July 2012 21:25 To: Re views@ Subject: Purbeck District Boundary Consultation

9.7.2012 Objection to the draft recommendations on new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council FAO The Review Officer (Purbeck)

I must object to the draft recommendations. Here in Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle we have little if anything in common with Wool and our needs in terms of representation are completely different.In fact there is a direct conflict over road links to Weymouth from the A35.The ward change suggested will be of no benefit to this area but only to Wool itself and since the elector numbers in our existing ward are within the guideline figure I see no reason why this area should suffer changes which would only be disadvantageous. Jennifer Lightfoot.

09/07/2012 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Sarah Lowman Sent: 08 July 2012 12:35 To: Re views@ Cc: SteveM [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Amalgamation of Affpuddle and Turnserpuddle into new ward 8th July 2012

Dear Sirs,

With regard to the above proposals as a resident of Briantspuddle and a previously a resident of East Stoke for many years, I feel I can say with an educated view that these two parishes have completely different needs and characteristics and neither would be served well by being amalgamated.

Briantspuddle is a rural parish and Wool is an ever growing urban community with many new residents who have no links to the rural communities and whose needs and interest differ completely. By joining the parishes it would be a disservice to both.

If parishes are to be amalgamated due to cost cutting, then at least keep similar parishes together where the depth of knowledge of the councillors is pertinent to the parish they are representing.

I would, therefore, strongly recommend that Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle are not amalgamated with an urban parish such as Wool.

Yours faithfully,

Sarah Lowman School Cottage Briantspuddle Dorset.

09/07/2012

Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Proposed Boundary Amendments Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: kas ia robins [ Sent: 09 July 2012 13:03 To: Reviews@ Cc: Nick Gore Subject: Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Proposed Boundary Amendments For the Attention of the Review Officer, Local Boundary Commission for England

Dear Sir

re: New Electoral Arrangements for Purbeck District Council

I am a resident of Affpuddle, Dorset and I am writing to object to the proposed amendments to the electoral boundaries in Purbeck.

Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle are very small rural hamlets in Purbeck and are currently within the Winfrith Ward. We have a church and a community run post office and shop which is only open in the mornings Monday to Friday. Our hamlet is only served by one bus route (387) which connects us to Poole to the east and Dorchester to the west; the A35 connects us on an east/west axis and the B3390 links us south to Weymouth or north to Milbourne St Andrew. Our community is very firmly set around local agriculture; the church and other rural pursuits.

Currently as part of the Winfrith Ward which is made up of similar rural hamlets, I understand our ward is within the 10% variance of the district mean number of electors and that it is estimated that we will not grow significantly by 2017 – to perhaps 11%.

My objections to the amendments are based on the following:

1. We ought to be within a ward who’s councillors are required to represent similar groups of constituents ie rural hamlets with similar needs and expectations for transport, communications, energy etc.... 2. We have little in common with the more urban Wool Ward, and as such a small community, our electorate would never constitute a meaningful percentage of the Wool Ward. Rural and urban requirements may be significantly different and how would a councillor covering both areas be able to reasonably represent both parties? 3. There are few communication or transport links that obviously connect us to Wool Ward. 4. It does not seem appropriate to fragment an existing Ward which is made up of comparable communities to revise another ward where the variance is outside of the acceptable limit, especially as the ‘fit’ is so awkward.

Please accept these objections to the proposed amendments and do not affiliate our community with the Wool Ward.

Yours sincerely

K Robins

09/07/2012

9 July 2012

Review Officer Purbeck Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

(sent by e-mail)

Dear Sir,

New Electoral Arrangements for Purbeck District Council West Purbeck

Introduction

1. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes to the Ward structure for Purbeck District.

2. I live in Moreton parish and my comments relate to West Purbeck.

3. I strongly disagree with the proposal to change the Ward structure and combine Moreton parish with Wool.

The relation between Moreton Parish and Wool

4. Moreton parish is on the western boundary of Purbeck and as such it is about equidistant from Wool and Dorchester. Given the shops, services, medical facilities and entertainment available in Dorchester it is entirely natural that Moreton residents choose to use Dorchester in preference to Wool, which has far fewer facilities. Moreton has its own station and hence there is no need to travel to Wool for public transport.

5. Even if Moreton residents travel east to visit Wareham, Poole or Bournemouth, they only skirt the edge of Wool. The C road from Moreton joins the main A road east on the northern side of the railway line at Wool. The community of Wool is located on the southern side of the railway line.

6. Moreton is a distinctly rural parish. Whilst there are a few houses clustered near the church and teashop, the population is very dispersed around the parish. Agriculture is the dominant activity in the parish.

7. By comparison Wool is a large village which acts as a service centre and transport hub for villages to the south and for Bovington.

1 of 4

Development in Wool and Moreton

8. Wool has grown in stages over the years by virtue of its facilities, transport hub, the presence of the nearby large Winfrith industrial site and the large army base at Bovington.

9. Apart from the building of a limited number of houses on the old Moreton Station coal yard in the last decade, Moreton has hardly changed for decades. Four dwellings were built at Redbridge in the 1950s, otherwise the majority of the housing stock dates either from before the Second World War or before the turn of the 20th century.

10. Moreton is not a logical place to assign housing development given its dispersed nature and complete lack of facilities, with the exception of the railway station. This is reflected in the Purbeck Core Strategy. Wool is a logical centre for development.

11. Wool residents are concerned about the possibility of having a bypass built, Moreton residents are concerned at the conflict between a few cars parked outside the tearoom and horses being ridden down the street.

12. Moreton and Wool are entirely different communities. Any further growth in Purbeck is likely to accentuate the difference.

13. The current Ward structure means that Moreton is represented by a councillor who is entirely focussed on, and most importantly, is very knowledgeable about rural concerns.

Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke.

14. The parishes of Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke are very similar to Moreton in being entirely rural, agricultural parishes.

15. Simply from its geographical location it would be illogical for Affpuddle residents to make any journeys to Wool other than to pass through en route to the coast. Moreton station is closer than Wool station, and Affpuddle residents are about equidistant from Dorchester and Wool and hence are most likely to travel to Dorchester for any shopping needs which cannot be satisfied in either Bere Regis or Puddletown.

16. Turnerspuddle is closer to Wool but residents are likely to use Bere Regis for local shopping and Dorchester for more significant shopping.

17. Both Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle residents have easy access to the Puddletown bypass, which enables speedy, uninterrupted travel to Dorchester. By comparison residents from these parishes are likely to suffer long waits at the railway crossing at Wool when travelling into or away from Wool.

18. Similarly the residents of East Stoke are unlikely to travel to Wool since being about equidistant between Wareham and Wool they are most likely to travel to Wareham which has more shops and services and a better railway service.

19. The major employment centres for Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke are Weymouth, Dorchester and the Poole and Bournemouth conurbation. There is very little employment in Wool. There is limited, very specialised employment in Winfrith technology park (e.g. nuclear decommissioning and the police)

2 of 4

Representation

20. The residents of Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke have no need to travel to Wool for shopping, services, employment or public transport. The residents of these communities thus have no natural connection or affinity with Wool.

21. It would thus be illogical for the residents of Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke to be represented by Wool councillors.

22. Using population figures taken The Dorset Data Book 2010 issued by Dorset County Council, the 2009 population of Wool was 4710, the population of Moreton 360, and the populations of Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke were 430, 50, and 420 respectively. Thus the total population of the 4 rural parishes was 1260. This is 26.75% of Wool’s population.

23. Assuming a broadly similar proportion of the Wool and rural village populations are eligible to vote, then in simple terms 26.76% of the population of Wool will always be able to outvote 100% of the combined voting population of Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle, and East Stoke.

24. With time the population of Wool is likely to grow by a larger percentage than the combined populations of the 4 rural villages because that is the intention of the Purbeck Core Strategy. It is also the intention of RPG10, The Dorset Structure Plan and The National Planning Policy Framework that development should concentrate on larger communities. The percentage of the population of Wool which will be able to outvote 100% of the combined voting population of the 4 rural villages will progressively drop below 26.76%

25. Thus in the proposed ward encompassing Wool and the 4 rural villages the urban voice of Wool will always dominate the rural voice of the 4 distant rural parishes.

26. In simple terms , Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke will be disenfranchised.

27. The current structure does mean that Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke can make their views heard through a district councillor who is focussed on their rural concerns.

28. A district council is a council primarily concerned with representing local concerns and local issues. As such its councillors should be directly focussed on the needs of the type of local community they represent, be it a town such as Wareham or Swanage, a local service centre such as Wool or rural agricultural communities such as Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke. Giving councillors a mix of communities makes for poor representation at a district level since it muddles what should be the focus of the representative(s).

The Obligations of the Boundary Commission.

29. The Boundary Commission’s 3 obligations are set out in law and discussed below.

30. Obligation 1. Deliver electoral equality for voters. As shown above, 100% of the combined voting population of the 4 rural parishes can be outvoted by 26.76% of the voting population of Wool. This is based upon 2009 populations and it is likely that Wool’s population has grown proportionately greater than the total populations of the 4 rural parishes since 2009 and will continue to do so.

31. The proposed ward structure fails to satisfy Obligation 1 because it does not deliver electoral equality.

3 of 4

32. Obligation 2. Reflect local community interests and identities. As I have shown in this letter the 4 rural parishes have no connection with Wool and very few of their parishioners are ever likely to visit Wool. Some members of Moreton and East Stoke may pass Wool in travelling east or west in the county but otherwise there is no shared local community interest or identity between Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle, East Stoke, and Wool. Furthermore Wool is an urban area, the 4 other parishes are very rural.

33. The proposed ward structure does not satisfy Obligation 2 because it does not reflect local community interests and identifiers.

34. Obligation 3. Promote effective and convenient local government. The proposed ward structure disenfranchises the voting populations of the 4 rural parishes. On the entirely natural assumption that the three councillors for the proposed ward will represent the views of the majority, then in cases where the 4 rural parishes disagree with the view of 26.76% of Wool’s population, the view of a minority of Wool’s urban population can predominate over the views of 100% of the combined population of the 4 rural parishes.

35. The proposed ward structure fails to satisfy obligation 3 since it does not provide effective local government because it does not provide truly representative government. This can only be achieved by grouping a number of rural parishes in a ward (as in the current system) with its own council member.

Summary

36. Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke should not be grouped with Wool for representation, since they have no connection or affinity with Wool.

37. As shown above, the proposed ward structure does not satisfy the 3 legal obligations of the Boundary Commission.

Recommendation

38. Logic and good democratic representation dictate that Moreton, Affpuddle, Turnerspuddle and East Stoke should continue to be grouped in a rural ward represented by a councillor solely focussed on their rural, agricultural issues and concerns.

Yours sincerely,

MN Hill and C M Hill

4 of 4 Review Officer (Purbeck) LGBCE Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Review Officer

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council

I have considered the recommendations made by the LGBCE for new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council. I live in East Stoke and with 3 electors in our household, I am writing on behalf of my family to strongly object to the recommendations made for the West Purbeck area.

The recommendations do not bring ‘electoral equality for voters’; At present East Stoke is in a ward with other rural communities and the combined number of electors per councillor is 1,143. The suggested recommendation to move East Stoke into the Wool ward would give 1,646 electors per councillor. For the electors of East Stoke this is an increase of 503 electors per councillor and is 11% over the average for the Purbeck area. Clearly the recommendations do not bring ‘electoral equality for voters’ in East Stoke.

The recommendations do not reflect community interests and identities; At present East Stoke is in a ward of only ‘rural’ communities with which it has many things in common. East Stoke has no community links with Wool. East Stoke is a dispersed, rural community and to move East Stoke into the Wool ward, which is a much more densely populated, urban community would remove its rural identity. The ‘value of the vote’ for the 365 electors in ‘rural’ East Stoke would be negligible compared to the 3,890 electors in ‘urban’ Wool.

The recommendations will not promote effective and convenient local government; Since the LGBCE’s last review in 1997 East Stoke has been represented at Purbeck District Council by a local member who resides in the West Purbeck ward. Knowing our local member makes for effective and convenient local government. With East Stoke electors having such a small vote compared to the electors of Wool it would be most unlikely that our local member would come from our community. It is important that the local member has an understanding of the issues and concerns that affect our rural community. Even if there were 3 councillors to represent the electors of the new ward they would most likely come from Wool and it would be my concern that they would still feel a pull towards the much larger electorate in Wool village, Bovington etc who living in an urban community would not have the same issues and concerns.

The Commission welcomes proposals for alternative boundaries that better reflect the three criteria they are obliged to meet in law. It is my proposal that for the West Purbeck ward no changes are made.

Yours faithfully

Mrs N Axon (also for Mr B Axon and Miss E Axon)

Review Officer (Purbeck) LGBCE Layden House 76-78 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs

Reference LGBCE review of new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council.

I have considered the LGBCE’s draft recommendations of new electoral arrangements for the Purbeck District Council and I welcome the opportunity to make comment.

As an elector in the parish of East Stoke I strongly oppose the proposal to move East Stoke into Wool ward.

As stated in the summary, The Commiss ion is obliged by law to meet 3 criteria when making it s recommendations and NONE have been indicated to be more important than the others; 1. Deliver electoral equality for voters. 2. Reflect local community interests and identities. 3. Promote effective and convenient government.

It is my considered opinion that none of these criteria are met with the recomm endation to move East St oke into the Wool ward.

1. Deliver Electoral Equality for Voters:  Currently East Stoke electors are represented by 1 councillor in the West Purbeck ward with a below the average number of electors per councillor. To move them into a ward with 11% above the average number of electors per councillor is contradictory and would not be achieving the criteria of ‘Electoral Equality for Voters’.  The new ‘Wool’ ward would have 11% over the average number of electors per councillor, compared to North Swanage where the recommendations would allow for a -10% below the average number of electors per councillor. This equates to a difference of 21%. This does not represent ‘Electoral Equality for voters.  The new ‘Wool’ ward would have a polarisation of votes in the urban parish of Wool, a total of 3,890 (as predicted by the lgbce for 2017), compared to a total of 1,047 votes for the combined 3 rural parishes of East Stoke, Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle and Moreton. The number of the parish of Wool electors is more than three times the total of the 3 combined rural parishes. Naturally the issues that concern the electors in the RURAL communities will be different from those of the electors in URBAN Wool. ‘The value of vote’ for the East Stoke electors will be negligible. This is does not represent ‘Electoral Equality for Voters’.  (Neither do these recommendations achieve electoral equality for the electors in the current Wool ward who are already over the suggested average numbers of electors per councillor. These recommendations do nothing to achieve electoral equality for them!)  In the May 2012 elections for the Wool ward the turnout was just 29.80%, which equalled 1,104 electors. This number represents more than 100% of the total combined electors of East Stoke, Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle and Moreton. These numbers show that the rural electors vote will not count over the urban electors.

The Commission has failed to meet the criteria ‘set out in law’ to achieve Electoral Equality for Electors

2. Reflect local community interests and identity:  East Stoke is a widely dispersed, RURAL community whilst Wool is a small, densely populated, URBAN community.  East Stoke has no more community interests with Wool than it has with Wareham, Dorchester or even Poole.  Whilst they may be RURAL communities East Stoke has no other community interests with Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle and Moreton.  Due to the inequality of rural versus urban votes, the rural parishes are likely to lose their rural identity.

The Commission has failed to meet the criteria ‘set out in law’ to reflect local community interests and identities.

3. Promote effective and convenient local government:  The draft recommendation proposes a Wool ward of more than 200% its current size in square miles, when including the 3 RURAL parishes. Councillors would be expected to attend 4 parish council meetings per month to represent electors fairly from both RURAL and URBAN areas.  To propose 3 councillors for the ‘new’ Wool ward would duplicate the work for District councillors x 3, but it would also dilute the efforts of the councillors, whilst at the moment for 2 of them their interest is centred in the village of Wool, to add 3 more parishes to the ward they will have 3 extra parishes to represent.  When the draft recommendations were published I contacted both of the present Wool ward District councillors, asking them for their opinion on the recommendations. 1 has replied to me, the other has not. This demonstrates his lack of interest in what could be one of his ‘constituents’ concerns. The same 2 councillors were invited to the East Stoke Parish Council Extraordinary meeting to consider the recommendations and the views of the parishioners, the same councillor did not come to that meeting either. It is apparent that this councillor in particular would not be effective for the parish of East Stoke.  At present my ‘local member’ is from the village of East Stoke, he knows me as he does most other people in the village. He can almost second guess the issues that concern the people in the village. He is an effective councillor. As was recognised when the LGBCE carried out the 1997 review in Purbeck, combining a rural parish with Wool would mean the rural parishes are unlikely to have a ‘local’ member elected!

The Commission has failed to meet criteria ‘set out in law’ to promote effective and convenient local government.

I believe the current electoral arrangement where East Stoke is part of West Purbeck ward works well for the people of this parish and do not believe it should be changed as democratically it would be a retrograde step.

This letter is also sent on behalf of my three children who are all registered electors at the above address.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Karen Barnes

Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Revie ws@ Sent: 07 July 2012 16:48 To: Revie ws@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 1232 Time of Submission: Jul 7th 2012 at 3:48pm IP Address: ::ffff:81.141.158.166

Form Answers

Your name: Mrs F E Solly Your email: I am: a member of the publ Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: Review Officer (Purbeck)

New Electoral Arrangements for Purbeck District Council

I should like to express my agreement to the submission made by the Chairman of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish Council, and to add one own comment. It seems to me that our Parish Council would be most unlikely to get a fair representation where, if your proposal were accepted, any urban and rural interests conflict. An elected Councillor would be almost certain to lean in favour of Wool or Bovington, whereas with the existing Ward he or she would continue to represent our more rural interests.

We may be a small parish in a rural ward, but we do want to have our voices heard. We should prefer to remain in our present Ward.

Yours sincerely,

Frances Solly

09/07/2012

Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Re views@ Sent: 09 July 2012 17:52 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1235 Time of Submission: Jul 9th 2012 at 4:52pm IP Address: ::ffff:89.240.125.189

Form Answers

Name: Peter Burden Address 1:

Postcode: Email Address: Area your Purbeck submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Dear Review Officer Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council I have considered the recommendations made by the LGBCE for new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council. I live in East Stoke and with 3 electors in our household, I am writing on behalf of my family to strongly object to the recommendations made for the West Purbeck area. The recommendations do not bring â€˜electoral equality for votersâ€™; At present East Stoke is in a ward with other rural communities and the combined number of electors per councillor is 1,143. The suggested recommendation to move East Stoke into the Wool ward would give 1,646 electors per councillor. For the electors of East Stoke this is an increase of 503 electors per

10/07/2012 Page 2 of 2

councillor and is 11% over the average for the Purbeck area. Clearly the recommendations do not bring â€˜electoral equality for votersâ€™ in East Stoke.

The recommendations do not reflect community interests and identities; At present East Stoke is in a ward of only â€˜ruralâ€™ communities with which it has many things in common. East Stoke has no community links with Wool. East Stoke is a dispersed, rural community and to move East Stoke into the Wool ward, which is a much more densely populated, urban community would remove its rural identity. The â€˜value of the voteâ€™ for the 365 electors in â€˜ruralâ€™ East Stoke would be negligible compared to the 3,890 electors in â€˜urbanâ€™ Wool.

The recommendations will not promote effective and convenient local government; Since the LGBCEâ€™s last review in 1997 East Stoke has been represented at Purbeck District Council by a local member who resides in the West Purbeck ward. Knowing our local member makes for effective and convenient local government. With East Stoke electors having such a small vote compared to the electors of Wool it would be most unlikely that our local member would come from our community. It is important that the local member has an understanding of the issues and concerns that affect our rural community. Even if there were 3 councillors to represent the electors of the new ward they would most likely come from Wool and it would be my concern that they would still feel a pull towards the much larger electorate in Wool village, Bovington etc who living in an urban community would not have the same issues and concerns.

Yours faithfully

File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

10/07/2012 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Frank Guinn Sent: 09 July 2012 18:29 To: Re views@ Subject: re: Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Proposed Boundary Amendments For the Attention of the Review Officer, Local Boundary Commission for England

Dear Sir re: New Electoral Arrangements for Purbeck District Council

I am a resident of Affpuddle, Dorset and I am writing to object to the proposed amendments to the electoral boundaries in Purbeck.

Affpuddle & Turnerspuddle are very small rural hamlets in Purbeck and are currently within the Winfrith Ward. The community is very firmly set around local agriculture its church a local shop and other rural pursuits.

It is currently part of the Winfrith Ward which is made up of similar rural hamlets. From the information to hand, I understand our ward is within the 10% variance of the district mean number of electors and that the forecast it that it will not grow significantly by 2017 - maybe to 11%.

My objections to the amendments are based on the following:

1. We ought to be within a ward who’s councillors are required to represent similar groups of constituents i.e. rural hamlets with similar needs and expectations for transport, communications, energy etc.... 2. We have little in common with the more urban Wool Ward, and as such a small community, our electorate would never constitute a meaningful percentage of the Wool Ward. Rural and urban requirements may be significantly different and how would a councillor covering both areas be able to reasonably represent both parties? 3. There are few communication or transport links that obviously connect us to Wool Ward. 4. It does not seem appropriate to fragment an existing Ward which is made up of comparable communities to revise another ward where the variance is outside of the acceptable limit, especially as the ‘fit’ is so awkward.

Please accept these objections to the proposed amendments and do not affiliate our community with the Wool Ward.

Yours sincerely,

Frank Guinn

10/07/2012 Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Re views@ Sent: 09 July 2012 19:50 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1238 Time of Submission: Jul 9th 2012 at 6:50pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.112.81.74

Form Answers

Name: Philip Redl & Family Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Purbeck submission refers to: Organisation you other (please specify in your submission) belong to: Your feedback: I live in the Parish of East Stoke and I totally object to the idea that we should merge with the Parish of Wool to form a new district council ward. Many times in the past the Wool parish have agreed to issues with what the East Stoke Parish have rejected thus showing we would be over riden with any veiws that east stoke do not agree with. The windfarm being the last subject. This merger would take away any say that the East Stoke parishioners have.There again the government will do exactly what THEY want and not listen to the public, so why bother asking us for our opinion anyway. I again totaly object,along with all my family, to this merger. File upload:

10/07/2012 Page 1 of 2

Skerten, Alex

From: Re views@ Sent: 09 July 2012 17:50 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1234 Time of Submission: Jul 9th 2012 at 4:50pm IP Address: ::ffff:89.240.125.189

Form Answers

Name: Susan Burden Address 1:

Area your Please select submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Dear Review Officer Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council I have considered the recommendations made by the LGBCE for new electoral arrangements for Purbeck District Council. I live in East Stoke and with 3 electors in our household, I am writing on behalf of my family to strongly object to the recommendations made for the West Purbeck area. The recommendations do not bring â€˜electoral equality for votersâ€™; At present East Stoke is in a ward with other rural communities and the combined number of electors per councillor is 1,143. The suggested recommendation to move East Stoke into the Wool ward would give 1,646 electors per councillor. For the electors of East Stoke this is an increase of 503 electors per

10/07/2012 Page 2 of 2

councillor and is 11% over the average for the Purbeck area. Clearly the recommendations do not bring â€˜electoral equality for votersâ€™ in East Stoke.

Yours faithfully

File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

10/07/2012 Page 1 of 1

Skerten, Alex

From: Sa lly King [ Sent: 10 July 2012 23:24 To: Re views@ Cc: SteveM [email protected] Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission Sirs,

I am writing to register disagreement with the changes suggested for Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle parish. It is suggested that Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle should be amalgamated with the Wool and Bovington Ward.

This proposal, from a residents pointed of view of Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle, is completely pointless and would be a direct and complete disadvantage of us. We have no links at all with Bovington and Wool – no transport links and no particular residential link. Affpuddle has for a long time had residential links with Tolpuddle to the west and Bere Regis to the east. These links have existed for numerous decades. Furthermore, Bovington and Wool have no interest in rural issues as Bovington is urban/army and Wool also urban/army although more urban of late.

To amalgamate a rural area with an urban area is detrimental as urban communities will not grasp the needs of rural communities, they can only guess.

I am very hopeful that the people who think this a good idea will understand that they are wrong and if Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle must change wards, we must be amalgamated with similar rural communities who really do understand rural issues not just pretend. I grew up in Wool and have lived the last 32 years in Briantspuddle so feel I have first‐hand experience of both types of community

Yours faithfully,

Sally King

11/07/2012