New Electoral Arrangements for South Somerset District

Taylor, Laura

From: Parish Clerk Sent: 16 March 2018 10:34 To: reviews Subject: Re : South Somerset Draft Recommendation of Ward Boundaries Consultation

Importance: High

Dear Sir

South Somerset Draft Recommendation of Ward Boundaries Consultation

I refer to the above consultation.

Ashill Parish Council objects to the proposal for the ward of Neroche to be joined with the ward of Ilminster. It is felt that the proposal to combine 4 rural Parishes with the town of Ilminster is not in the interest of any of the communities as a market town has totally different needs and objectives to those of rural settlements.

Yours sincerely

Jacqueline Davidson

Clerk to Ashill Parish Council

1 South Somerset District

Personal Details:

Name: Sue Applegate

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Barrington Parish Council

Comment text:

Barrington Parish Council met on 13th February 2018 and considered the boundary changes. Councillors did not feel a convincing case had been made for the moving of Barrington Parish from the Burrow Hill Ward to the South Petherton Ward. The Parish Council would like Barrington to remain part of the Burrow Hill Ward alongside other parishes who have the same MP.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Taylor, Laura

From: Broadway PC Sent: 16 March 2018 12:07 To: reviews Subject: Re : South Somerset Draft Recommendation of Ward Boundaries Consultation

Importance: High

Dear Sir

South Somerset Draft Recommendation of Ward Boundaries Consultation

I refer to the above consultation.

Broadway Parish Council objects to the proposal for the ward of Neroche to be joined with the ward of Ilminster. With Ilminster being an urban, historic market town, and Neroche ward - covering 4 rural villages with very little urbanisation - there is very little synergy between the two wards. The number of Councillors would remain the same (3), no cost savings have been identified and no change to the electoral equality with the proposed change. It is felt this would lead to a loss of identity in these local rural villages.

Yours sincerely

Jacqueline Davidson Clerk to Broadway Parish Council

Local Government Boundary Commission

Submission by Charlton Horethorne Parish Council on Draft recommendations for South Somerset District Council January 2018

1. This submission is made by the Charlton Horethorne Parish Council.

2. The Charlton Horethorne parish includes the village of Charlton Horethorne, together with Sigwells to the west and Stowell to the south-east. It is a rural farming community, with a number of active farms. It has a population of around 550 - 600.

3. The current Blackmoor Vale ward covers Abbas, Charlton Horethorne, Compton Pauncefoot, Corton Denham, Henstridge and Templecombe. These are all rural villages; they face common issues and concerns, and typically their residents and Parish Councils have very similar opinions on local problems. They all have a village-like character, people know each other and look out for one another; people join in local activities; and the various village organisations are well-supported.

4. In the case of Charlton Horethorne these organisations include the primary school, the church, the village hall, the shop, the pub, and numerous societies. All these combine to give Charlton Horethorne its particular character. The parish councillors try to ensure, so far as they are able, to maintain the essential character of the village and to retain its cohesiveness. In that aim we are well supported by our two District Councillors, William Wallace and Hayward Burt, who know the Parish very well; they regularly attend our PC meetings, they understand the wider local community, and they represent our interests with SSDC and Somerset County Council. Issues that have come up recently where their input has been invaluable have included broadband and mobile coverage, speed restrictions, footpaths, heavy lorries using local roads, the Charlton Horethorne Village Feast Day, social housing and planning applications.

5. The view of the Parish Council is that the Commission’s proposal (in paragraphs 38- 40) to move Charlton Horethorne and Henstridge into the Milborne Port ward would result in Charlton Horethorne being subsumed under the umbrella of the much larger Milborne Port, whose interests would inevitably take precedence over the interests of Charlton Horethorne. Milborne Port is no longer a cohesive rural village and has very different aspirations, needs and development criteria to Charlton Horethorne.

6. We believe that the interests of the council tax payers of Charlton Horethorne would be better served by remaining in the Blackmoor Vale ward, maybe with such adjustments as may be necessary to stay within the Commission’s ambition of 10% either side of the average number of electors in each ward.

7. The general feeling, which we have canvassed with village residents at a recent Parish Council meeting, is that we would be better served by remaining in the sort of ward we are currently in, with other similar villages, rather than being moved into a ward with Milborne Port and Henstridge, both of which are much larger than Charlton Horethorne. We would be of little significance in such a ward, and we would risk losing our voice as a vibrant local village community if we ceased to be part of the Blackmoor Vale ward. We simply do not have any confidence that District Councillors representing Milborne Port would be able to give the sort of support to Charlton Horethorne that we have enjoyed from our District Councillors over recent years.

14th March 2018

Taylor, Laura

From: Sheran Ring Sent: 24 January 2018 23:20 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of South Somerset

To whom it may concern: The Councillors from Charlton Musgrove Parish Council strongly disagree with the proposed changes.

They feel if Charlton Musgrove was amalgamated with Wincanton, it would not be represented as a rural Parish. It would be better represented leaving things as they are with one representative for Tower Ward and two representatives for the urban area of Wincanton.

Kind regards

‐‐ Sheran Ring Charlton Musgrove Parish Council

1 Taylor, Laura

From: Sheran Ring Sent: 24 January 2018 23:20 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of South Somerset

To whom it may concern: The Councillors from Charlton Musgrove Parish Council strongly disagree with the proposed changes.

Kind regards

‐‐ Sheran Ring Charlton Musgrove Parish Council Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer

1 Taylor, Laura

From: Colin Sent: 13 January 2018 00:52 To: reviews Subject: Boundaries for South Somerset Wards

Importance: High

I am the Parish Clerk for Compton Pauncefoot & Blackford Parish Meeting.

Some residents believed we came under the Blackmoor Vale Ward which, according to the map recently sent to us showing all the Wards does seem to be some considerable distance from our Parish and therefore makes no sense.

We are shown as belonging to the Camelot Ward and the document sent to us also suggests that there has been no change.

Would it be possible for you to confirm if we have always belonged to the Camelot Ward as shown on the latest map.

Many thanks.

Yvonne Tel: 01963 441115

m Virus-free. www.avg.com

Taylor, Laura

From: Nigel Young Sent: 04 March 2018 11:37 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Corton Denham and Ivelchester ward

Dear Sirs

I live in Corton Denham and OBJECT to the proposed transfer of our parish into Ivelchester Ward from Blackmore Vale for a numerically based administrative convenience and I trust you will respect the wishes of the residents of Corton Denham.

Our village is well matched by other villages nearby which would remain in Blackmore Vale or the adjacent Milborne Port Ward. Our representation by our current Ward Councillors is excellent and consistent with our connection to those local villages. I believe it would be very detrimental to the interests of Corton Denham to be transferred to Ivelchester ward.

Your faithfully

Nigel Young Member of Corton Denham Parish Council

1 Taylor, Laura

From: Nigel Young Sent: 04 March 2018 11:37 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Corton Denham and Ivelchester ward

Dear Sirs

Your faithfully

Nigel Young Member of Corton Denham Parish Council

1 Taylor, Laura

From: Corton Denham Parish Clerk Sent: 03 March 2018 09:13 To: reviews Cc: Subject: South Somerset District Council Ward Boundary Consultation Attachments: boundary changes.docx

Dear Sirs,

Further to my attached letter of 19/2/18 sent on behalf of Corton Denham Parish Council, we have also been advised that we should make the following point in addition to our previous submission.

Paras 36,38 and 39 on page 9 and para 80 on page 22 of the draft Recommendations make no mention of moving Corton Denham to Ivelchester ward. The SSDC council officers in their submission to the Commissioners for Ivelchester refer to bringing in Marston Magna, Rimpton and Corton Denham parishes from the Camelot Ward. This is incorrect as, unlike the others, Corton Denham has never been in Camelot Ward and, in fact, is an integral part of Blackmore Vale Ward with little or no connections to other parishes in Ivelchester.

Yours faithfully, Richard Thatcher – clerk to the Corton Denham Parish Council

Sent from Mail for Windows 10

1 Taylor, Laura

From: Heather Bryant Sent: 06 February 2018 13:35 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of South Somerset: Draft recommendations

Donyatt P.C. is concerned and confused by the proposal to merge Ilminster and Neroche wards to become one District council ward, albeit retaining 3 councillors. The Council cannot understand the perceived benefits and the logic used to justify this with the current electorate of 6988 and the forecast electorate of 7314, little will have changed and this does not establish further “ electoral equality”

Ilminster is a combination of housing, industry and rural areas predetermined by the local aspect. Donyatt, Broadway, Horton and Ashill parishes comprise the Country ward of Neroche, an entirely separate entity to Ilminster without natural links or affiliations.

The Council fails to comprehend how the proposed changes would improve effectiveness and convenience at this level of local government.

The Council consider this change for change sake, resulting only in further expense to taxpayers with no benefits what so ever.”

Regards

Heather Bryant Clerk to Donyatt Parish Council

HARDINGTON MANDEVILLE PARISH COUNCIL

23rd January 2018

Review Officer (South Somerset) LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower LONDON SW1P 4QP

HARDINGTON MANDEVILLE PARISH COUNCIL

23rd January 2018

Review Officer (South Somerset) LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower LONDON SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir/Madame Hardington Mandeville Parish Council were disappointed to learn that the Local Government Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations include the proposal to move Hardington Parish (including Hardington Moor, Hardington Mandeville, and Hardington Marsh) from the Coker Ward into the Parrett Ward. All Parish Councillors feel that Hardington Parish is very closely tied with the neighbouring Parishes of East Coker, West Coker and Pendomer, and that they therefore should remain within the Coker Ward. We are confident that we share the views of other parishioners in the village. The Parish Council would like to apologise for not taking the opportunity to comment when the public consultation first began; Having been part of the Coker ward for many years, I don’t think it occurred to members of the Parish Council that the parish was at any risk of being considered for moving into another ward! The Parish Council would therefore like to put forward the following points for the village to remain within the Coker Ward: Firstly, there is a geographical argument. The villages of Hardington, West Coker, East Coker and Pendomer are located so physically close, that in many places it is difficult to determine which village a house is located in. The main road into Yeovil from Hardington, which many parishioners use every day for work or leisure runs directly along the boundary of the the villages of East Coker and West Coker, making decisions that may impact this route and its surrounding area, such as planning applications or highways issues important to Hardington parishioners. Having a District Councilor that has knowledge of this is therefore a vital source of information to the Parish Council. The physical boundary between Hardington and the villages in the proposed Parrett ward is much clearer. Other than the village of East Chinnock, it takes several miles by road to reach the next closest village. The proposed map reflects this quite clearly as the Parrett ward boundary has been pushed right out to form a “cup” shape around Hardington Parish! Secondly Hardington Village shares many other close links to the Coker Ward villages. For example: 1) Almost all children of primary school age from the village attend either East Coker or West Coker Primary Schools. 2) Many children of pre-school age from the village attend East Coker Pre-school. 3) The Church is part of the Coker Ridge Benefice which binds the churches of East Coker, West Coker, Sutton Bingham, Pendomer and East Chinnock. With the exception of East Chinnock all these churches fall within the Coker ward. 4) There are several social groups and organisations that are combined for example, Hardington and West Coker Cricket Club. There is currently a Section 106 agreement in place for a small development in Hardington that largely benefits the cricket club grounds, located in West Coker. There is also a combined Hardington and Pendomer newsletter, which keeps people informed of current news within the two villages and neighbouring areas. 5) Many people within the village attend clubs held within East Coker and West Coker such as East Coker Scout Group, West Coker Scout group, East Coker Dance classes. However there are very little, if any, connections to the villages within the proposed Parrett ward. While we appreciate the changing of a ward boundary will not have a direct impact on access to any of these facilities, having a District Councillor that has extensive knowledge of these neighbouring villages and regularly attends their parish council meetings has proved to be an invaluable source of information in the past and would be greatly missed at Hardington Parish Council meetings. The justification given for moving Hardington into the Parrett ward was to compensate for the loss of Chiselborough, but Hardington Councillors feel this is a poor reason. It seems unfair that Hardington should have to change ward solely to compensate for the loss of another parish rather than being the decision being based on a logical reason that relates to providing a benefit for Hardington (or at least does not take any existing benefit away, as we feel is the case). We are confident that this view, and these arguments given above are shared by many parishioners in the village and would therefore be very grateful if you would seriously reconsider this proposed boundary change. Yours sincerely

Nancy Chapman Hardington Mandeville Parish Council Clerk Response to Local Government Boundary Commission ward consultation

Introduction

Henstridge Parish Council has examined the ward boundary proposals for South Somerset and feels that there is no need to change the boundaries of the Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards. The following will describe the rationale for this assertion by addressing the three main criteria that must be considered when proposing a new pattern for ward divisions.

1 – Delivering electoral equality for local voters

The LGBC documentation1 states at point 17 that the recommended number of electors per District Councillor should be as follows:

Year Average no. of electors per District Councillor 2017 2196 2023 2304 Table 1 - LGBC average number of electors per District Councillor

The following table shows that the current ward arrangements for Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards already meet this requirement.

Current arrangements Blackmoor Milborne Vale Port Current electorate 4535 2460 Forecast electorate 4712 2435 No. of District Councillors 2 1 Abbas & Parish & Town Councils Templecombe Milborne Port Charlton Horethorne Compton Pauncefoot Corton Denham Henstridge Horsington Holton North Vale Group Maperton North Cheriton Table 2 – Current Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards

1 New electoral arrangements for South Somerset District Council Draft recommendations January 2018 (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/37231/South-Somerset-Report.pdf) The LGBC documentation2 goes on to state at point 18 that when “…the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’…”. This information has been used to compare the data from the two tables above to ensure that electoral equality within a 10% margin of the average required number of electors per District Councillor has been achieved. Table 3 below shows that the number of electors per District Councillor in the current ward arrangements for Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards fall within the 10% threshold already.

Average Average no. of no. of No. of Percentage electors electors Forecast Ward District difference per per 2 electorate Councillors vs average District District Councillor Councillors Blackmoor 2 2304 4608 4712 2% Vale Milborne 1 2304 2304 2435 6% Port Table 3 - Good electoral equality calculations

The above information shows that good electoral equality will be maintained without the need to rearrange the Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards.

2 – Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities

Henstridge identifies much more closely with the other parishes in the current Blackmoor Vale ward than with Milborne Port. Milborne Port is a large parish that has grown in size in recent years. It could almost be described as a small town. By contrast, Abbas and Templecombe Parish is of a similar size and is directly adjacent to Henstridge.

All of the Parishes in the current Blackmoor Vale ward have very similar issues and parishioners, young and old, have links to each community. For example, young people from Abbas and Templecombe regularly come to Henstridge to use the skate park. People of all ages from Henstridge go to Templecombe to use the railway station. Also, parishioners from several villages located along the A357 are currently working together in a voluntarily formed group to address highway safety and traffic volume issues that are common to all of the settlements along this road. The A357 group regularly makes representations at District Council Planning Committee meetings and is well regarded in the area. The A357 is an important road because it leads to Wincanton, which is the closes Somerset town offering larger supermarkets and wider amenities and services, which are accessed by Henstridge residents.

Henstridge Parish Council feels that it faces similar issues with the other parishes in the current Blackmoor Vale ward in terms of road safety, anti-social behaviour and rural-specific matters that are dealt with by our Neighbourhood Police Team.

2 New electoral arrangements for South Somerset District Council Draft recommendations January 2018 (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/37231/South-Somerset-Report.pdf)

The proposed changes to the Blackmoor Vale ward would separate Henstridge from other parishes with which it has close links and community similarities. There are no such links and similarities between Henstridge and Milborne Port.

3 – Promoting effective and convenient local government and reflecting electoral cycles

The proposed changes to the Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards do not appear to offer any improvements to effective and convenient government.

Summary

Henstridge Parish Council has demonstrated that there are no grounds for making changes to the Blackmoor Vale and Milborne Port wards because poor electoral equality does not exist in the current wards.

Community links between the settlements along the A357 have been described. There are no such links to Milborne Port Parish.

There are no benefits in terms of effective and convenient government.

Overall, Henstridge wishes very strongly to stay in the current Blackmoor Vale ward and the Parish Council feels there are no grounds for making the proposed changes.

South Somerset District

Personal Details:

Name: Jane Redfearn

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Huish Episcopi Parish Council

Comment text:

Proposed Curry Rivel and Langport Ward: Huish Episcopi Parish Council does not object to the amalgamation of the two wards, however the loss of any mention of Huish Episcopi in the proposed new name does concern Councillors. The present name is Langport and Huish Ward and Huish Episcopi parish is certainly larger than Langport TC and of a similar size, if not larger, than Curry Rivel PC. If a combination of all 3 names is considered unwieldy, then maybe a Langport and District Ward name may have to be considered. Jane Redfearn Parish Clerk on behalf of Huish Episcopi Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Taylor, Laura

From: 09 March 2018 15:33 To: reviews Cc: Subject: South Somerset boundaries review

Sirs, Ilchester Parish Council, at their meeting held last evening, discussed the proposals to remove Ilchester from the Ivelchester Ward into the Northstone Ward. The Councillors felt strongly that there is no affinity with the Charltons, Kingsdon et al, whilst as there is a United Benefice which includes Ilchester, Limington & Yeovilton Parish, this remains the better option. Also RNAS Yeovilton being adjacent to Ilchester, this also needs to be taken into account, regards, Philip Horsington, Clerk to Ilchester PC.

The next full meeting of the Parish Council will be held on 22nd February 2018 at which it will officially formulate its response to LGBC to meet the deadline of 19th March 2018 for Town and Parish Councils and at which residents of Yarlington will be present to voice and record their objections.

Thank you in anticipation of your assistance.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Carter Clerk to the Council

Cc: LGBC, Laura Taylor, Review Officer (South Somerset), LGBCE C.Cllr M Lewis D.Cllr N Weeks D.Cllr H Hobhouse North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Councillors Mr Hamish Russell, Yarlington Resident

Rebecca Carter Clerk to the Council

Cc: Angela Cox, SSDC Democratic Services C.Cllr M Lewis D.Cllr N Weeks D.Cllr H Hobhouse North Cadbury and Yarlington Parish Councillors Mr Hamish Russell, Yarlington Resident

South Somerset District

Personal Details:

Name: Elizabeth James

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Odcombe Parish Council

Comment text:

The Parish Council of Odcombe is pleased to note in your Draft Boundary Consultation recommendations for the Parishes of The Coker Ward of South Somerset District Council, that after visiting the parish the Commission agreed Odcombe is a rural area and fits well with the other communities for the new Coker Ward grouping. The Odcombe parish topography and history also relates well to the new Coker Ward. The Parish Council hopes that you will continue to support the recommendations made in the Commission’s Draft Proposal Consultation for The Coker Ward, as given on Pages 20 and 21, paragraphs 71 - 76. Odcombe Parish Council fully supports the recommendations made for the Coker Ward by the Commission

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded South Somerset District

Personal Details:

Name: Elizabeth James

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Odcombe Parish Council

Comment text:

Odcombe Parish Council fully supports the recommendations made for the Coker Ward made by the Commission.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Alternative proposal for a new ward to include Pitcombe

Introduction

The Parish of Pitcombe comprises Pitcombe Village and the hamlets of Cole, Hadspen and Honeywick. Pitcombe Parish Council recognises the need for wards in South Somerset to be equalised in terms of the number of electors per District Councillor. However, the Parish Council believes that Pitcombe should be aligned with Bruton rather than joining the large Tower and Wincanton ward described in the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) proposal. The following will describe the rationale for this assertion by addressing the three main criteria that must be considered when proposing a new pattern for ward divisions.

1 – Delivering electoral equality for local voters

The LGBC documentation1 states at point 17 that the recommended number of electors per District Councillor should be as follows:

Year Average no. of electors per District Councillor 2017 2196 2023 2304 Table 1 - LGBC average number of electors per District Councillor

While the LGBC proposal for a new Tower and Wincanton ward does achieve electoral equality, Pitcombe Parish Council’s proposal also meets this criterion, as shown in the table below:

Bruton and Pitcombe Ward Bruton Pitcombe TOTAL Current electorate 2063 2320 2383 Forecast electorate 2165 3333 2498 No. of District Councillors 1 Parish & Town Councils Bruton Pitcombe Table 2 - Proposed Bruton and Pitcombe Ward

The effect of the above proposal on the LGBC’s Tower and Wincanton ward should also be considered and the table below shows how this ward would be structured if Pitcombe were removed:

Tower & Wincanton Ward Current electorate 6531 Forecast electorate 6803 No. of District Councillors 3 Parish & Town Councils Bratton Seymour Brewham Charlton Musgrove Cucklington Pen Selwood Shepton Montague Stoke Trister Wincanton Table 3 - Proposed Tower & Wincanton Ward

1 New electoral arrangements for South Somerset District Council Draft recommendations January 2018 (https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/37231/South-Somerset-Report.pdf) 2 Current electorate taken from the Electoral Register December 2017 3 4% increase to electorate applied The document goes on to state at point 18 that when “…the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’…”. This information has been used to compare the data from the two tables above to ensure that electoral equality within a 10% margin of the average required number of electors per District Councillor has been achieved. Table 4 below shows that a ward consisting of Bruton and Pitcombe would result in an electorate per District Councillor figure within the LGBC’s threshold.

Bruton & Pitcombe Ward Average no. of No. of electors Current/ Percentage District per District Forecast difference Year Councillors Councillor electorate vs average 2017 1 2196 2383 9% 2023 1 2304 2498 8% Table 1 - Good electoral equality calculations - Bruton and Pitcombe Ward

Table 5 below shows that, with the removal of Pitcombe, Tower and Wincanton Ward would also result in an electorate per District Councillor figure within the LGBC’s threshold.

Tower and Wincanton Ward

Average Average no. no. of of electors No. of electors per 3 Current/ Percentage District per District District Forecast difference Year Councillors Councillor Councillors electorate vs average 2017 3 2196 6588 6531 -1% 2023 3 2304 6912 6803 -2% Table 2 - Good electoral equality calculations - Tower and Wincanton Ward

2 – Reflecting the interests and identities of local communities

Pitcombe Parish Council believes that grouping Pitcombe in a ward with Wincanton as the major settlement does not fit with the interests and identities of its community. Pitcombe residents have many common interests with Bruton but none with Wincanton. Some of these common interests with Bruton are:

 Transport links – While most residents need to use a car to go to Bruton, the journey from Pitcombe is only 1.5 miles. The journey to Wincanton is 5.5 miles. For this reason, Pitcombe residents are much more likely to use facilities in Bruton than Wincanton. This close geographical proximity fosters strong community links.  Community groups – Pitcombe and Bruton are so close together that the residents of both communities attend the same social events and clubs. There is a very well attended Men’s Supper Club held in Bruton that is attended by many of Pitcombe’s male residents. Pitcombe residents both attend and organise events and talks at the ‘Hauser and Wirth’ and ‘At The Chapel’ venues in Bruton. In addition, many Bruton residents attend events held in Hadspen Village Hall including the Christmas Supper, Harvest Festival and Summer Fête. As a result of these shared social interactions, many friendships exists that span both Bruton and Pitcombe and make the joining of the two communities into one ward logical from the point of view of community similarities.  Facilities – Pitcombe is a small Parish. Hadspen Village Hall is a very valuable facility located in the Parish, but residents use Bruton for access to nearly all other facilities. These include the library, shops, cafés, pharmacy, GP and dentist. In addition, the catchment area primary and secondary schools for Pitcombe are both in Bruton.  Shared interests – Because of the close geographical proximity of Bruton and Pitcombe, the two communities have realised mutual benefits from working together on highways improvement projects. One example of this was a significant traffic calming initiative to slow traffic on Cole Road, which is the main route between the two communities. Another example of working together to improve road safety is the Speed Indicator Device (SID) scheme, run by Bruton Town Council. Pitcombe makes a small financial contribution to Bruton to enable a SID to be located in the Parish, again, on Cole Road. In the near future, Pitcombe is looking to work with Bruton and other local communities to improve a problem junction at the intersection of the A371 and A359. Another area of shared interest is future development. South Somerset District Council is reviewing its Local Plan and three sites4 in Bruton have been identified as suitable for the accommodation of an additional 140 dwellings. One of these sites is located within a few metres of the Parish boundary with Pitcombe. Any additional development in Bruton will impact on the residents of Pitcombe in terms of availability of local housing, additional traffic movements, increased children at local schools, additional patients at the GP surgery etc.  Identifiable boundaries – From a geographical perspective, Pitcombe sits comfortably next to Bruton.

3 – Promoting effective and convenient local government and reflecting electoral cycles

Although the LGBC proposed Tower and Wincanton ward conforms to the required number of electors per District Councillor, it covers a very large geographical area. This is the cause of the lack of community association between Pitcombe in the north and Wincanton, which is in the south of the proposed ward. By removing Pitcombe from Tower and Wincanton, this mismatch in community interest can be addressed and the size of Tower and Wincanton can be reduced. This is of benefit to Pitcombe for all of the reasons detailed in this report. In addition, both Bruton and Pitcombe and Tower and Wincanton wards would be more effectively represented by their District Councillors because each ward would have more common interests and concerns. There would also be less of a travel burden for District Councillors when attending parishes and towns in the Tower and Wincanton ward.

Summary

Pitcombe Parish Council has demonstrated that electoral equality would be achieved for both the proposed Bruton and Pitcombe ward and for Tower and Wincanton ward if its proposal were to be implemented.

Many important community similarities and interests have been demonstrated, all of which combine to form strong links between Pitcombe and Bruton.

Benefits relating to the effectiveness of representing Tower and Wincanton and Bruton and Pitcombe have been demonstrated as advantages of Pitcombe Parish Council’s proposal.

4 https://www.southsomerset.gov.uk/media/900881/bruton_handout.pdf

Taylor, Laura

From: Sent: 23 January 2018 10:40 To: reviews Subject: Consultation on Boundary Changes within South Somerset District Council

The grouped Parish Council of Seavington St Mary and Seavington St Michael are within the South Petherton Ward and have already indicated that they were satisfied with the decision made for the South Petherton Ward to remain unchanged. However, on reading the suggestions made regarding some alterations within the Ward Parish Councillors would like to make the following comments:‐

1. Lopen to stay within the South Petherton Ward 2. Dinnington also to stay within the South Petherton Ward. Parish Councillors are not convinced that a move to the Windwhistle Ward is necessary. 2. The addition of Stockinch and Barrington to the South Petherton Ward from the Ilminster Ward does not seem to be a logical move. The Parliamentary Constituency of these two Parishes is not the same as the villages in the South Petherton ward and Stockinch and Barrington Parishes fit more closely with Ilminster. It would seem that the change has been suggested in order that numbers can be balanced.

Pauline Parsons [for Seavington Parish Council]

Taylor, Laura

From: Carole Burnett Sent: 16 March 2018 11:01 To: reviews Subject: Local Government District Ward Consultation

Dear Sir/Madam,

We write in response to the Local Government District Ward Consultation currently being undertaken, which proposes to move South Cadbury and Sutton Montis from our present ward of Cary to Camelot Ward (Marston Magna, Queen Camel, Rimpton, Sparkford, West Camel).

We are pleased to be given the opportunity to give our views on this matter and can confirm that we have recently written to every household within our parish to bring this proposed change to their attention.

Having read through the various replies we have received from our residents the general consensus of opinion is that this proposed change of boundary is not supported and strongly objected to for the following reasons:‐

1) In terms of representative democracy it is a retrograde step for us to move from two ward members to one. This is by no means any criticism of the Camelot ward councillor now or in the future, but in principle to have our two known councillors who have represented and supported us so well and with whom we have built up a good relationship with over the years, no longer representing or available to us, is causing great concern not only to our residents, but also the Parish Council.

2) As a parish we have a close affinity, both socially and economically towards Cary than to the south west. Both Cadburys i.e. North Cadbury and South Cadbury, the ecclesiastical entity of the Camelot Parishes, the growing number of children who go to North Cadbury and Ansford schools clearly suggests a focus of community north rather than south west of our parish. The Camelot villages are somewhat distant to us which would include their own community concerns and like wise our own community concerns from their point of view.

3) There appears to be no explanation, rationale or justification in the text of the report to support this move, therefore we feel that removing our parish would have no material affect and the reduction in electoral numbers involved are minimal, therefore we feel that the status quo should prevail.

4) South Cadbury, has always enjoyed a strong community/parish relationship with North Cadbury, in particular, we often work together on parish projects and jointly hold events such as the Queens Diamond Jubilee.

5) Our Clerk and the North Cadbury Clerk work well together and have an excellent working relationship.

We ask that you listen to our objection/reasons for not wanting this change to take place and listen to the concerns of our community and put a stop to this change taking place.

Yours faithfully,

Carole Burnett (Mrs) Clerk of South Cadbury and Sutton Montis Parish Council

1 South Somerset District

Personal Details:

Name: Fiona Day

E-mail:

Stocklinch Parish Council

Comment text:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Stocklinch Parish Council regarding the proposed changes to the council ward boundary for our village. We understand from our District Councillor, Derek Yeomans and our County Councillor, Adam Dance, that following the review, Stocklinch will become part of the South Petherton ward. However, as a village we feel that aligning ourselves with South Petherton would not be in our best interests. Given that our Parliamentary constituency is Somerton and Frome and therefore different from that of South Petherton (Yeovil) and we look towards Taunton rather than Yeovil for our community needs, we feel that Stocklinch would be better suited sitting within the Burrow Hill ward, where we are currently. Further more, we understand that our neighbouring village, Barrington, have successfully contested the review and will remain within the Burrow Hill ward. We would therefore be very grateful if you could give consideration to our request and revisit the proposed change. Very many thanks Fiona Day Chair of Stocklinch Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Taylor, Laura

From: Teresa Pinder Sent: 12 February 2018 11:59 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SOUTH SOMERSET - DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Following Winsham Parish Council’s Meeting last week, I have been asked to forward to you the following comments regarding the electoral review of South Somerset:

“Winsham Parish Council is more than happy with the proposed new district boundaries within South Somerset District Council.”

Regards.

Teresa Pinder, PSLCC Clerk Winsham Parish Council www.winshamparishcouncil.org.uk

C Yeovil Without Parish Council BRIMSMORE M B LYDE

YEOVIL WITHOUT PARISH COUNCIL’S RESPONSE TO THE BOUNDAY COMMISSION DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS – NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR SOUTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL – JANUARY 2018

This document seeks to respond constructively to the draft recommendations as prepared by LGBCE.

CONTENTS

1.0 INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE BOUNDARY COMMINSSION DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

2.0 EXISTING SITUATION

3.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS BY LGBCE FOR YEOVIL WITHOUT

4.0 WHY THE STATUS QUO SHOULD BE MAINTAINED

5.0 COMMENTS ON LGBCE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

6.0 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS

7.0 SUMMARY

Appendix A – List of roads affected by boundary commission draft recommendations

Appendix B – Brimsmore Development – Public Consultation – Yeovil Without District and Parish Councillors have attended all consultations related to this new key site development.

Appendix C – Detailed map of areas that could be transferred.

Appendix D – Map of proposed Yeovil Summerlands, Yeovil Milford and Yeovil Forest Hill boundaries.

1.0 INITIAL RESPONSE TO THE BOUDARY COMMISSIONS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Yeovil Without Parish Council are extremely disappointed with the draft recommendations, whilst these recommendations may deliver electoral balance, they fail to recognise existing communities and identities. It appears that the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 of the 2009 Act has been disregarded and suggested new names decimates the current historical names of Brimsmore and Combe, however the same principle has not been applied to Lyde Ward. These ward names are based on the farms that originally worked these areas and that there are roads of a similar name in each ward. The parish council actively promotes these wards names on the parish noticeboards, parish website and within their minutes. These names are recognised by Yeovil Without’s electorate.

The draft recommendations report fails to clearly identify the impact these recommendations have on Yeovil Without Parish and therefore makes it difficult for electors to comprehend. Within the report only the roads of High Lea, Alasdair Drive and Combe Park are mentioned, however 39 existing roads are affected, and further new roads within the Brimsmore Development will be divided between Brympton and Yeovil Summerlands – roads affected are listed at the Appendix A.

The draft recommendation to divide Yeovil Without Parish into seven wards delivers unequal electoral balance, additional expenses and confusion to its electors. There is no merit in creating 7 unequal wards and removing the historical ward names of Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde. The maximum number of wards within the parish should be retained at three. There is possible justification to unward Yeovil Without Parish – Brympton Ward is of similar size to Yeovil Without and this parish remains unwarded. There is a cost savings and electoral balance that could be achieved by doing this.

The current 3-councillor district ward is balanced and remains in tolerance and should remain unchanged. The district boundary should remain relatively unchanged, however there is justification and merit in a small adjustment in the Westfield area as detailed under 3.0 b (page 4).

2.0 EXISTING SITUATION Yeovil is the major conurbation of South Somerset. It consists of three parish councils- Yeovil Town, Yeovil Without and Brympton parishes.

In 2017, the area elected 17 DISTRICT COUNCILLORS. They represented 36,047 electors. This is 27.3% of the population of south Somerset.

Most of the growth has been in Yeovil Without and Brympton parishes but there has been some brown field development within Yeovil Town. The net result is that the bulk of the population resides East, North and West of the town centre. This has resulted in successive LGBCE reviews having to extend what has been called the district and county wards of “ Yeovil South” into neighbourhoods (such as Croftpn Park, Town centre) that do not naturally fit into what local people would define as “ Yeovil South” in order to achieve electoral equivalence. This has created a somewhat bizarre configuration of wards.

Most of the population growth has been in Brympton and Yeovil without parishes. At the same time, growth has been almost stagnant in the Yeovil Town area. There may be some growth in East Coker parish in future years but it is unlikely that that will happen before 2023. This will be balanced by a further growth of 765 houses in Mudford Urban area that is part of the current Yeovil Without district electoral division. This development is also unlikely to be much progressed by 2023.

We appreciate that this causes problems for the LGBCE as it tries to balance division sizes in 2017 with predicted division sizes in 2023.

YEOVIL WITHOUT

We believe that it is important that the LGBCE fully appreciates that Yeovil Without is a separate entity just as much as Brympton.

The existing situation with regard to electoral boundaries in Yeovil Without parish is straightforward and clear, as follows ;-

2.1 YEOVIL WITHOUT PARISH COUNCIL (YWPC) Currently, YWPC has a total 6488 electors (2017) who elect a total of 15 councillors on a whole council basis for a period of four years, and consists of three parish wards.

- Brimsmore Ward is in the west of the parish and includes not only the established housing between Larkhill Road and Ilchester Road (1433 electors), and the new Brimsmore Key Site development to the north of Thorne Lane, but also the extensive rural area around Yeovil Marsh (332 electors). This rural area was moved from Combe ward into Brimsmore in 2015 by the LGBCE to the dismay of Yeovil Without parish.

- The current electorate for Brimsmore ward is 1940 electors, including approximately 175 electors in the new Brimsmore development that is currently under construction. When finished, this development will comprise of a total of 978 houses (or approximately 1840 electors). By the year 2023, it is envisaged that 400-500 of these houses will have been completed (i.e. approximately 800 new electors). Brimsmore Ward elects six councillors to the parish council.

- Combe Ward comprises the central area of the parish, between Ilchester Road and Lyde Road. The ward has a current electorate of about 1245 electors and is often unrepresented at parish council meetings since the last review reduced this ward to two councillors. We strongly suggest that the current Brimsmore 2 polling area is restored to Combe ward where it fits much more comfortably. Combe Ward elects two councillors to the parish council.

- Lyde Ward is in the east of the parish and includes not only the established housing in the Great Lyde area, but also another new development at Wyndham Park, to the east of Lyde Road.

- The current electorate of this ward is 3303 electors, including 1065 electors in the new Wyndham Park development that is currently under construction. When finished, this development will also comprise a total of 850 properties (or approximately 1506 electors). This estate is due to be completed in 2019. Lyde Ward elects seven councillors to the parish council.

- The current disparities of electors/councillor ratio were created by a previous County Council review by LGBCE . The parish council would have hoped that this would have been rectified in this review.

District Ward Parish Wards Councillors Ratio Electors Yeovil Without Brimsmore 6 323 1940 Yeovil Without Combe 2 623 1245 Yeovil Without Lyde 7 472 3303 6488

2.2 REPRESENTATION OF YEOVIL WITHOUT AREA ON SOUTH SOMERSET DISTRICT COUNCIL (SSDC) Currently, the district ward entitled “Yeovil Without Wards” elects three district councillors to SSDC. The “Yeovil Without Wards” consists of the three parish wards of Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde, plus the Mudford Urban Ward of Mudford Parish Council. The total electorate of the “Yeovil Without Wards” is 6730 electors. This equates to 2243 electors/ councillor. This is 2.4% above the target figure. Thus, it delivers an electoral division within the target.

There is also a small development (Planning permission etc. already approved) of 29 dwellings at Longcroft Farm that will deliver another 58 electors because, by its nature, it is a development for elderly couples. One of the irregularities of current boundaries is that Longcroft Cottages that are situated at the entrance of this development will be in Ivelchester!

It should be further noted that a planning application is due to be submitted for a third new development of approximately 765 houses at Primrose Lane, which is partially located within the Mudford Urban Ward, and which hence therefore falls within the area of “Yeovil Without Wards”. This will possibly deliver another 1377 electors but it is unlikely to be developed before 2023.

2.3 REPRESENTATION OF YEOVIL WITHOUT AREA ON SOMERSET COUNTY COUNCIL (SCC) YWPC would have preferred that the three parish wards of Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde would together have formed one county division for SCC elections. However, the previous Boundary Commission Review decided that, instead, the Brimsmore parish ward would form part of the Yeovil West county division, the Combe parish ward part of the Yeovil Central county division, and the Lyde parish ward part of the Yeovil East county division. (Given, the current and future increase in the electorate of Yeovil Without, we would hope that the LGBCE would consider returning a county councillor to this area at the next County Council review.) These three county divisions each currently elect one councillor to the County Council.

3.0 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS BY LGBCE FOR YEOVIL WITHOUT The Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations for the representation of Yeovil Without area on SSDC include the following proposed modifications to the existing “Yeovil Without Wards”. a) The transfer of the western half of the new Brimsmore development (to the west of Larkhill Road) from the “Yeovil Without Wards” to the existing district ward of Brympton (three district councillors). Currently a total of 175 electors, however there will eventually be 920 electors when the Brimsmore Development is completed. b) The transfer of the existing housing between Larkhill Road and Ilchester Road ( Brimsmore 1 – 1,433 electors -excluding 175 mentioned above ) from the “Yeovil Without Wards” to the newly created district ward of Yeovil Summerlands (three district councillors). There is some justification for the transfer of St Patricks Road (70 electors) Stiby Road (5 electors), Thatcham Park (24 electors) and part of Coronation Avenue (houses nos.33 – 42 (19 electors)) as shown below. However only these roads should be considered in the interest of community ties. These roads should remain within the Brimsmore parish wards until such time a parish review is considered. Total of 118 electors to be moved from Yeovil Without District Ward to Yeovil Town Ward. Detailed maps of these two areas are shown at Appendix 3. Fig 1 areas to the south of the red line and on the outskirts of Yeovil Without boundary transferred to Yeovil Town Ward.

Fig 1

c) The transfer of the eastern half of the new Brimsmore development (to the east of Larkhill Road) from the “Yeovil Without Wards” to the newly created district ward of Yeovil Summerlands. (When completed 920 electors) d) In sections 108/109 of the report, it describes the transfer of the Combe Lane and Alastair Drive from the “Yeovil Without Wards” to the newly named district ward of Yeovil Milford (three district councillors). However, from scrutiny of the maps produced and discussion with the SS electoral registration officer, it appears that the electors who reside in Coniston Gardens, Winston Drive and Marsh Lane between Combe Park and Combe Street lane, Alastair Close, part of Combe Street Lane and section in Ilchester Road are also being moved into Yeovil Milford. This proposal moves 270 electors into Yeovil Milford (using information in sections 108/109. If the other roads are included, this figure is 399 electors.

This section of the LGBCE Draft Recommendations is therefore, very confusing and does not easily identify the roads that are affected as you would assume that it is only the roads that you have named in sections 108 and 109 that would be transferred to Yeovil Milford. (List of roads effected appendix A) e) The transfer of the High Lea/Lea Close area from the “Yeovil Without Wards “to the newly named district ward of Yeovil Milford. This moves 186 electors into Yeovil Milford. We can see the logic used for this move but it creates a very small ward in the YW parish. Perhaps, a change in parish boundary (not the role of the LGBCE) would allow this to happen at a future date. However for the time being this area should remain within the Combe Ward for electoral balance and community ties. High Lea/Lea Close consists mainly of bungalows and the majority of residents are elderly, the parish council has a grit bin on the grass verge in High Lea and residents are clearly aware that they are represented by Yeovil Without. They have access to the rest of the parish via a pathway which comes on to Mudford Road. There is no benefit to the residents for this change at present and 1 councillor representing just two small roads is not a practicable solution. Retention in Yeovil Without will not significantly alter the electoral variance in Yeovil Milford that is currently over variance by 2% in 2017 and 4% in 2023.

Milford ward will have three district councillors. f) The remaining areas of the “Yeovil Without Wards” will continue to constitute the new reduced area district ward of Yeovil Without, including the rural area around Yeovil Marsh, the remainder of the existing Combe parish ward, the Great Lyde housing estate, the new housing development at Wyndham Park and the Mudford Urban Ward of Mudford Parish Council. This district ward of Yeovil Without will then elect two district councillors. This will have 4545 in 2017/4799 electors in 2023. Given that there are 246 houses still to be constructed in Wyndham Park, we believe the 2023 figure may be low.

This will have two district councillors.

3.1 Whereas currently the Yeovil Without parish area is represented on the District Council by three dedicated district councillors, the area will, under the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations, in the future be represented by an array of eleven district councillors – nine of whom would only have minor interests in Yeovil Without area (Brympton 3, Yeovil Summerlands 3, Yeovil Milford 3, and Yeovil Without 2).

If they all appear, as they should, at parish council meetings, and the three county councillors also attend, they will almost outnumber the parish councillors!!! Individual reports from them could be as lengthy as the parish council business!

This does not happen to any other parish in South Somerset. Possibly, it is unique in the country.

YWPC finds this situation totally unacceptable.

3.2 These changes to the district wards of SSDC will ultimately result in changes to the parish wards of Yeovil Without Parish Council. In this respect, the parish wards being recommended by LGBCE are as follows:-

Combe Lane (currently part of Combe 2 ward) (with one parish councillor representing 365 electors).

High Lea (currently part of Combe 2 ward) (with one parish councillor representing 186 electors).

Lyde ( Mudford Road/Great Lyde and Wyndham Park) (with seven parish councillors representing 3303 electors or 471 electors/councillor).

Mudford Road currently part of Combe ward) (with one parish councillor representing 694 electors).

North Westfield (currently part of Brimsmore Ward including the eastern half of Brimsmore Development) (with three parish councillors representing 1436 electors or 1 councillor/ 479 electors).

Thorne Lane (the western half of Brimsmore development) (with one parish councillor representing 175 electors which will be higher in 2019 and 2023 due to the current construction that is taking place. The housing land supply (Sept 2017) estimates a growth of 50 houses/annum).

Yeovil Without (the area around Yeovil Marsh which is currently part of Brimsmore Ward) (with one parish councillor representing 329 electors).

Clearly, there is considerable variance. The figures below clearly show that a councillor only representing High Lea has a detrimental effect of the ratio balance of the Mudford Road Ward and that this areas should stay combined as one on the basis of equality and community ties. (Figures obtained from December 2017 Electoral Register) Existing Elector/ Existing District Existing Polling No. No. property No. of New District Ward New Parish Ward Ward Parish Ward District Electors Properties Ratio Councillors Ratio Yeovil Milford Combe Lane Yeovil Without Combe CSY1/CSY2 365 169 2.2 1 365 Yeovil Milford High Lea Yeovil Without Combe CSY2 186 108 1.7 1 186 Yeovil Summerlands North Westfield Yeovil Without Brimsmore CQY1/CQY2 1436 789 1.8 3 479 Brympton Thone Lane Yeovil Without Brimsmore CQY1 175 88 2.0 1 175 Yeovil Without Yeovil Without Yeovil Without Brimsmore CQY2 329 169 1.9 1 329 Yeovil Without Mudford Road Yeovil Without Combe CSY2 694 349 2.0 1 694 Yeovil Without Lyde Yeovil Without Lyde 1/Lyde2 CRY1/CRY2 3303 7 472 6488 15 We have noted that the LGBCE visited the area. We strongly feel that if they are recommending substantial changes to the structure of a parish (as has happened here) that it would have been useful if discussions had taken place on the ground with the parish about the effects and suitabilityof such changes.

If proposing changes to parish wards, it would have been beneficial if the LGBCE had published the details of the number of electors/ parish ward councillor in the same way as has been done for district wards.

4.0. WHY CURRENT STATUS QUO SHOULD BE PRESERVED.

Yeovil Without Parish Council did not respond to the original consultation which LGBCE launched in August 2017, because it considered that the existing electoral arrangements for three councillors elected on a whole

6 council basis every four years, representing the whole of Yeovil Without parish area (plus the Mudford Urban Ward of Mudford Parish Council), perfectly complied with the three main considerations of LGBCE, as follows ;-

- Achievement of electoral equality by equalising the number of electors which each councillor represents.

- Reflection of community identities, ties and interests.

- Provision for effective and convenient local government.

4.1 In its “Review of Electoral Arrangements” in response to the electoral review of South Somerset being undertaken by LGBCE, the officers of South Somerset District Council stated, in respect of the Yeovil Without District Ward that “this ward is within 1% tolerance and although there is significant development planned, no change is proposed to this three member ward”. SSDC did not therefore recommend the division and reduction of district councillors for Yeovil Without area which is now being recommended by LGBCE.

4.2 The existing Yeovil Without district ward easily complies with the +/- 10% allowable variance for 2018 (currently 2196 electors per councillor), and will continue to do so in 2023 (2304 electors per councillor). If “good electoral equality” equates to being within 10% of the average (as stated in paragraph 18 of the LGBCE draft recommendations) then being within 1% tolerance is exceptional .

4.3 The boundaries and extent of the Yeovil Without area are long standing, well known, mostly logical and easily identified. Furthermore, the names of the three parish wards within Yeovil Without area (Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde) are well accepted and respected within the parish area and within the wider Yeovil area, as being the obvious names for their respective locations within the town. The only exception is Brimsmore 2 polling area that should be in Combe ward.

4.4. Likewise the existing electoral arrangements for the Yeovil Without district ward (as outlined in 4.1 above) are straightforward, easily understood and not at all confusing for the residents of the area.

4.5 The current electoral arrangements are financially economical in that only one election is required every four years for the district ward, and only three elections are required on the same day for the parish council (one each in Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde parish council wards). Election costs are therefore extremely economical. The creation of 7 wards to replace 3 will be confusing and costly. It is likely to double election costs for the parish council. This is an unnecessary expense caused by these proposed changes.

4.6 The three district councillors who are currently elected to represent the Yeovil Without district ward are dedicated to the interests of the Yeovil Without community.

4.7. YWPC has been a distinct entity since 1894. It would appear that the LGBCE did not seem to fully appreciate that it is separate from Yeovil Town (that contained Yeovil Central, East, South and West) and that it has its own identity just as much as Brympton.

YWPC has worked hard to develop community facilities and ties within the parish, especially with regard to the two new large housing developments at Brimsmore and Wyndham Park. Likewise YWPC has played its full part in neighbouring communities within Yeovil.

It is distinct from every other parish in South Somerset by being the only parish council in the whole of South Somerset to have a financial interest in Yeovil Crematorium along with SSDC, and to be contributing to the construction of the new extension of the Crematorium.

4.8 Democracy is at work in YWPC, with councillors from several political parties and independent councillors working together to provide for their community. The best way to aid this is to have district councillors whose sole interest will be in this area. Indeed, two of the current three district councillors actively participate in the work of the parish council.

4.9 It is vitally important that the new Brimsmore development remains within one electoral division to ensure effective and full expression of the needs of this community at the district council. Division of this development as proposed will be to the detriment of this development. The houses are built. It will also create many abnormalities because roads will be divided by this line. The current proposal will divide the estate through the central area where shops, school and medical facilities are to be provided.

The LGBCE proposals will destroy all the effort that had been put in to this area since 1992 to ensure that the new development north of Thorne Lane (Brimsmore development) becomes a community and that it will also integrate with the current population residing in the current Brimsmore ward of Yeovil Without Parish to the south of Thorne Lane.

We believe that the community that the LGBCE has named “ North Westfield “ will be a distinct community but it is incomplete if the remainder of the Brimsmore Key site that lies West of the Fosse Way is moved into Brympton division.

This proposal is simply unacceptable and totally wrong. It does not “ reflect community interests and identities”.

5.0 COMMENT ON LGBCE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS The LGBCE states that it uses parishes as building blocks but has not applied this principle in relation to Yeovil Without Parish.

YWPC are very concerned that the LGBCE reaction to correct the inequality problem in other district wards is to carve up an existing three member district ward which is easily within the necessary electoral tolerance, and which has one of the fastest growing populations within the district and reduce the representation for that district ward from a three member ward to a two member ward, by a series of over complicated amendments to the boundaries of Yeovil Without and neighbouring district wards, which will ultimately be detrimental to the good governance of all the councils affected.

5.1 In Appendix A to the draft recommendations, the columns “Electorate (2023)” and “Number of electors per councillor” have been incorrectly juxtaposed. We respectfully suggest that this is altered in the next publication.

5.2. In Appendix A, the electorate of Yeovil Summerlands is only forecast to increase from 7,332 in 2018 to 7,341 in 2023 (an increase of 9 electors). This is incomprehensible given that part of the new Brimsmore development falls within that area. Our discussions with the developer suggest that approximately 200 houses will have been constructed in this part of the development by 2023. We note that the figures required revision in Brympton. We suggest that they need to be looked at in this area as well. This would be particularly important if the current LGBCE proposal is to be implemented as it may make a considerable difference to the “Variance from Average” by 2023.

5.3. The LGBCE may not be aware of the Vision that was included in the planning application for the Brimsmore Key Site Development several years ago. YWPC consider that this is an important factor in this debate and therefore reproduces the following extract from that document;-

QUOTE

VISION

A new community known as Brimsmore is being created on the northern edge of Yeovil. Once complete, it will be seen as a natural extension to the town, well integrated with the established residential edge, and with good links to the town centre.

The Brimsmore development should; 8

- Involve community participation and collaboration with public authorities

- Create a real community focused upon a vibrant Local Centre that is well located and easily accessible in order to benefit the whole community

- Locate the new Primary School and Health Centre within the central core

- Provide linkages to the Village Square from the surrounding established residential areas to help integrate the residents of those areas into the new Brimsmore community.

The following Village Centre elements will be the subject of a future Reserved Matters Application(s)

- A new Primary School to serve not only the Brimsmore Key Site but also to provide for the shortfall of primary school places in the locality. - A Care Home - A 62 unit block of Affordable Retirement Flats - A Community Hall - Local Centre Foodstore, Shops, Offices, etc. with approximately 11 flats/maisonettes above - A Doctors’ Surgery - A Sports Pavilion (on the Oval) Many of these facilities will serve the existing dwellings in the area as well as the new homes on the Brimsmore development.

UNQUOTE

We would be very happy to sit down with the LGBCE and explain the vision for this development and explain why, unlike many other large developments, this one has been largely supported by residents of the existing Brimsmore Ward.

Successive parish councils have worked with the developer and the district councillors to develop an estate that will fully integrate with the existing housing for the benefit of all.

5.4. One of the LGBCE recommendations involves the breakup of this new Brimsmore development, with the western half being renamed as Thorne Lane Ward of Yeovil Without Parish Council, and being transferred into 9 the Brympton district ward. Likewise the eastern half of the development has been designated as part of the North Westfield Ward of Yeovil Without Parish Council, and transferred into the new Yeovil Summerlands district ward.

This proposal will therefore result in the development being represented by two different groups of parish councillors and two different groups of district councillors (6 in all) who will only have a minority interest in this area.

The dividing line between the two halves will in fact dissect the community through the centre of the village square, with the shops and offices, surgery, care home and public house to the west of the dividing line, and the primary school, community hall and retirement flats to the east of that line. Elsewhere in their draft recommendations (page 21,paragraphs 77 and 78) LGBCE have sought to re-unite a divided community under one local government entity, but apparently the same criteria has not been applied in this case. It is not therefore understood why this division has been introduced by LGBCE.

Visiting the area in late 2017, we can understand that a line along the Fosse Way might have appeared logical to the LGBCE but examination of the plans including the layout of the roads for this development will show that it is not logical. The Fosse Way will cease to exist as a thoroughfare.

5.5 The original vision of the developer for the Brimsmore Key Site Development was that the above mentioned facilities to be located around the village square would provide a focal point and community facilities not only for the development itself but also for the neighbouring existing housing (including MOD married quarters) in the existing Brimsmore parish ward. In particular, the residents of Brimsmore are looking forward to the availability of primary school places at the new school. Those ties will be lost if the LGBCE draft recommendations are implemented.

For all of these reasons, we very strongly oppose any division of this development into different district divisions and its separation from the existing Brimsmore ward.

5.6 . The LGBCE report Page 12 states “ The names of wards and divisions are often important to local people”.

Everyone in Yeovil is aware of the location of the Brimsmore area within the town – Brimsmore House, Brimsmore Garden Centre, Brimsmore Road, and now the new Brimsmore Housing Development. Brimsmore is therefore the obvious name for any ward covering this area. It is not understood why the name of Brimsmore has been abandoned by LGBCE and replaced by “North Westfield”. The name of “ Brimsmore” is very important to the people of that area.

If someone who resides in the current Brimsmore ward had to give directions to where they lived, it would be impossible to do so without using the name “ Brimsmore”. Contrary to what is stated in paragraph 102 of the LGBCE draft recommendations, the Westfield Estate is not currently split between the wards of Yeovil Without and Yeovil West. The northern boundary of Westfield Estate( inter-war social housing development) is basically Stiby Road – not Thorne Lane. The demographics of the existing Brimsmore parish ward and of Westfield Estate are completely different. Furthermore, the purchasers of new houses in the new Brimsmore development, who are foreseen to be residents of North Westfield, will not feel part of the Westfield estate. There is documented evidence given below shows the different demographics of these two areas, the red central area of the map being Westfield and the green area above being Yeovil Without’s current boundary.

If community identity can be shown by factors such as where people shop or go to school and play, then, the pattern is very different in Brimsmore ward to that in the Westfield area.

For example, many of the children in Brimsmore ward attend school at Preston School or even Chilthorne Domer school. One of the main reasons that they have wanted the new development is that it will create a school at a much more local location. The school on the new Brimsmore development will undoubtedly be the school of choice for most residents in the current Brimsmore ward who have school age children. As the new development progresses, the current Brimsmore residents are most likely to use the shops there and, indeed, many are looking forward to this.

The current Brimsmore ward has its own children’s playground at Johnson Park and this is solely the responsibility of the parish council.

Most current Brimsmore ward residents would regard the shops at the junction of Wessex and Greenwood Roads as their local shops not shops in Westfield estate.

The residents of Thorne Lane (east of Larkhill Road) and Court Gardens will find it nearly impossible to move around without using the roads of the new estate.

5.7. LGBCE are recommending that the new parish ward in which the western half of the new Brimsmore development is situated, should be named “Thorne Lane Ward”. However, none of the houses in this ward has an address in Thorne Lane – nor will any new house constructed in the development in the future have an address in Thorne Lane. The residents of most of Thorne Lane will be in the proposed North Westfield. The remainder will be in a ward of Brympton.. This ward name is not appropriate, cuts community ties, destroys community identities and will cause confusion.

Furthermore, LGBCE has recommended that this area should be transferred to Brympton district ward apparently because the first tranche of houses in the Brimsmore development are all only accessible from that part of Thorne Lane which falls partly within the Brympton district ward. However, it should be remembered that as the development progresses, several accesses to this integrated development will be possible from the eastern end of Thorne Lane, from Fosse Way/Larkhill Road, and from Tintinhull Road (all of which are within the boundaries of Yeovil Without district ward). This will become much clearer as the new road is developed in the next year.

Furthermore, we believe that it is not in the best interests of these residents to be represented by district councillors who will represent Brympton. This area is to be commended for the work put in to develop a 11 community at Abbey Manor Park and the on-going work at the two large developments at Lufton and Alvington. The addition of this area would create an unfair workload for the Brympton district councillors. We understand that Brympton Parish Council agrees with this assessment.

5.8. The LGBCE seeks “ to ensure that ward names are distinct from others’ to avoid confusion” (page 12 of report)

The map of the revised electoral arrangement as recommended by LGBCE indicates that the name “Yeovil Without” should be applied not only to Yeovil Without Parish Council, and to Yeovil Without district ward that will only contain part of the parish but also to a new Yeovil Without Ward of Yeovil Without Parish Council which is centred around Yeovil Marsh. This could lead to considerable confusion and could be overcome by renaming the latter ward “Yeovil Marsh”. However, this area should be returned to Combe Ward as it was prior to the last review, the move of this area to Brimsmore has only led to confusion.

5.8 As a consequence of LGBCE’s draft recommendation to transfer the Combe Lane area and the High Lea area from the Yeovil Without district ward to Yeovil Milford district ward, it will be necessary to create two new wards within Yeovil Parish Council to be known as “Combe Lane” and “High Lea”. The numbers of electors in these proposed two wards is rather small – particularly High Lea ward, which will have an electorate of only 186. This can hardly be considered to be the achievement of electoral equality for which this review is being undertaken. We draw your attention again to section 3.2. The ward name Combe Lane would think that it applied to all of Combe Street Lane. However,it does not. The boundary recommendations has part of Combe Street Lane in Mudford Road ward. Using road names when the whole road is not included in that area lends itself to utter confusion for electors.

5.9 Five of the new Yeovil Without Parish Council wards that will be created as a result of the LGBCE draft recommendations, will be “one councillor wards”. Such arrangements could lead to those wards not being adequately represented at parish council meetings or to contact with parishioners being limited, especially if those councillors (all unpaid volunteers) are sick or have family or business commitments. Multiple councillor wards (as at present) works well and is preferable, and result in improved representation and support for parishioners. Indeed, the only problem ward for the parish is the current Combe ward because it has only two councillors. Combe ward has more planning applications than the other two wards due to the availability of land and this ward generates more work for a volunteer councillor.

5.10 The current cost of conducting the elections for the choice of 15 parish councillors in the three existing wards of Yeovil Without Parish Council is £4,650. To conduct the elections for the same number of councillors in the seven wards as recommended by LGBCE would be at least twice that amount. Does this burden of expenditure represent beneficial expenditure for the residents of the parish?

ALL OF THIS CAN BE AVOIDED BY RESTORING a 3- COUNCILLOR YEOVIL WITHOUT DIVISION.

Yeovil Without Parish Council would also seek to redress the current imbalance in the three existing parish wards created by the Parish Boundary Changes implemented in 2015. These should be reversed and representation for the wards of Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde should be decided on numbers of electors in each ward. The changes made in 2015 also led to confusion as part of Combe Ward was moved to Brimsmore and representatives stood for the wrong ward than that they lived in as they still viewed themselves as part of Combe Ward.

We strongly suggest that:-

• The boundary line for Brimsmore should be the housing west of Ilchester Road with the exception of the housing currently in Brimsmore 2 that is west of the Ilchester Road/ A37. This would allow for the growth in numbers in the Brimsmore Key site and give more understandable representation to this particular area. • The boundary line for Combe should be east of Ilchester Road/ A37 and include all of Mudford Road to the junction with Lyde Road. Combe should include all of the proposed Yeovil Without parish ward , all 12

of the proposed Combe Lane ward and all of the High Lea ward and all of the Mudford Road ward. All of Mudford Road should be in Combe Ward .

• Lyde would should commence from Lyde Road and contain all of the Great Lyde area and Wyndham Park.

Some discrepancy in variance would be acceptable in order to achieve this pattern. See map below.

We believe that there should be three wards.

Brimsmore should have 5 councillors. Combe should have 3 and Lyde should have 7.

Initially, the number of electors / councillor will be lower in Brimsmore but, as the new houses are built this discrepancy will be resolved. Fig 2: Green lines depict the Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde ward boundary lines.

Fig 2

6.0 ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS LGBCE have stated in the Draft Recommendations that the decision has already been taken that the number of councillors on SSDC should remain at 60, as at present, and that the number of district wards should be reduced from 39 to 34.

It is not understood why the total number of district councillors should remain at 60. We note that the elector to councillor ratio is higher in South Somerset than in surrounding councils.

In particular, the Brympton / Yeovil Town/ Yeovil Without area is to have a reduction from the existing 17 councillors to 16 councillors in spite of a growing population.

We accept that based on the current electorate that there should be 16.4 councillors but the picture will be different by 2023.

This means that this urban area is being underrepresented in order to facilitate more rural divisions.

YWPC would recommend that the total number of district councillors representing the Yeovil conurbation (Yeovil Town Council, Yeovil Without Parish Council and Brympton Parish Council) should at least remain the same as at present.

Given the large scale housing developments that will be progressed over the next five years, we feel that it is very regrettable that this area has had a reduction of one councillor. We draw your attention to the fact that the proposed Yeovil St. John’s will have an electorate with a +10% variance and proposed Yeovil Summerlands with a + 11% variance yet some country wards such as Ivelchester will have a -13% variance and Cokers - 11% variance. We feel that the best way to rectify this unacceptable variance between town and country is to add an additional councillor at the council.

Having 61 councillors, will not only address the inequality between Brympton/Yeovil and other areas but will have the added advantage of preventing the scenario of a “ Hung Council”. South Somerset District can easily afford and the costs of an additional councillor given the increases in council tax raised from the new developments around Yeovil.

Give us fair representation for our taxation.

6.1 OTHER ALTERNATIVES if NUMBER OF SEATS IS TO MAINTAINED AT 60.

Suggestion No 1. Our first idea was that the unacceptably high variance in Brympton could be rectified by moving Brympton ADAY ward (1089 electors) out of Brympton into Yeovil Summerlands. This area lies south of Thorne Lane, west of Larkhill Road, East of Dodham Brook . There are no direct road links with the majority of Brympton except for along Thorne lane ( and that is changing with the road structure) A very strong case can therefore be made for moving this into Yeovil Summerlands with which it has much more in common e.g. most of Monksdale is in Summerlands apart from a tiny northern section that is an integral part of this estate but is in Brympton. We believe that at some point the part of Thorne Lane west of the fosse Way and Tintagel Road and Thorne Gardens would fit into Yeovil Without.

Brympton should not be treated as an untouchable area/parish just because it does not have the word Yeovil attached to it. It should be regarded as an integral part of the Yeovil conurbation.

Suggestion 2 The LGBCE accepted the arguments put forward that the area of Preston Plucknett had little in common with Yeovil Forest Hill because of the physical barrier of the aerodrome and the Lynx Trading Estate This point was well made and it was a correct judgement to move this area into Yeovil Summerlands.

However, the LGBCE did not carry this logic to its full conclusion.

In the current proposal, the LGBCE has left the housing on the south side of Preston Grove from the bend near to Oaklands School and Preston Grove Medical Centre to West street and Dodham Crescent in Yeovil Forest Hill.

Even more importantly, the LGBCE has left the section of the town that most people would regard as “ Huish” in Yeovil South.

By this, we mean one side of Huish, Richmond Road (that opens on to Huish), West Street, Orchard Street, Beer Street, Westland Road, Seaton Road and Court , St. Leonards Court, West Hendford, Berkeley Road, The Crescent, Fosse Park Road and Horsey Lane in Yeovil Forest Hill.

These streets form part of a distinct community within Yeovil and it is quite separate from Yeovil Forest Hill. It is much more aligned with the proposed Yeovil Summerlands division.

The reasons are:-

a) It is separated from Forest Hill area by the wide carriageway of Lysander Road. b) The residents use the shops in Huish and the corner shop at the junction of Huish/Orchard Street . They do not use the shops in Forest Hill to any significant extent if at all. c) The children in this area will attend Huish School in Carisbrooke Gardens or Oaklands School in Preston Grove. They do not use the school at Forest Hill. d) Electors vote at Huish School. e) Moving this area out of Yeovil South will reduce the electorate in Yeovil South by about 1100 electors. If anywhere in Yeovil should have a reduction in district councillors , it should be this area where there has not been any significant building in recent years. This is much more logical than the current carve up of Yeovil Without. It has the advantage of realignments within the parish of Yeovil Town. There would create an acceptable 3 councillor ward in Summerlands . However, we suggest that part of the town centre should also be moved into Yeovil Summerlands. The area west of Hendford should be moved into Summerlands division. This area is historically linked to the “Huish” area” It was cruelly dissected by the Queensway - our notorious ring road through the town. These streets are linked to the Huish area by a number of footbridges. These streets would also consider themselves to be a part of this community. The strength of those links is amazing given that they were dissected by the Queensway. Indeed, the old Huish Infant’s school is now part of the TESCO complex. These streets are Everton Road, Manor Road, Hendford Grove, Salthouse Lane, Wellington Street, Hendford, Clarence Street, Park Road. Again the residents of these streets tend to walk their children over the footbridges to school in Huish e.g. Park Gardens to The Park. A clear boundary line could be created by going up Hendford, along Princes Street and swing up Park Road and down to the roundabout. This would further reduce the electorate of Forest Hill by another 486 electors.

All of this would create a strong 3-councillor Summerlands division that would be comprehensible to residents of the area even though the electoral numbers would be as high as currently proposed.

In addition, the reduction of Yeovil South by 1586 electors, would reduce it to 4369 electors. This would deliver a two – councillor ward with 2184 electors/ councillor that delivers a nearly perfect two- councillor division in Yeovil Forest Hill.

This proposal would allow the LGBCE to maintain its current proposal for 16 councillors in the Yeovil conurbation.

6.2 OTHER CONSIDERATIONS The LGBCE could be forgiven for assuming that the Town centre area is a homogeneous community. It is far from that. We applaud the LGBCE’s proposal that the Crofton area into Yeovil Milford. Until the last County Council review, it was always part of Yeovil Central (Milford). It has nothing in common with Yeovil Forest Hill but a lot in common with Yeovil Milford.

A further tweak that could be made is to run a dividing line down Middle Street from the clock at the junction of Princes Street and High Street, along High street and through the Borough and then down Middle Street to the bottom of the town bending to include Newton Road and Ivel Court. The residents of Wyndham Street, Earle Street, Cecil Street, Central Road etc. could be restored to Yeovil Milford where they emotionally belong. Again, these residents have nothing in common with the residents of Yeovil Forest Hill. They sent their children to school at Reckleford Infants school or St. Gilda’s school. This would add approximately 173 15 electors to Yeovil Milford that could partially replace those lost by restoring the Combe Park/ Marsh Lane and High Lea areas to Yeovil Without.

Tanyard Way could also be in Milford but equally in Forest Hill It is new and does not really have any community links.

The remainder of the town centre area probably does want to remain in Yeovil Forest Hill but without any obvious reason for doing so.

Alternatively, Yeovil Forest Hill could be reduced by moving Wraxhill Ward into Cokers. This would have the advantage of reducing the variance of -11% (2017) and -9% (2023 to a level nearer to the target figure.

We hope that you will look at these possible solutions. The advantages are that our parish and division remains intact and that boundaries are being altered within the town parish only. It will be easier to adjust the town wards to create equivalency than the current proposals for new wards in Yeovil Without because those proposals cross parish boundaries.

7.0 SUMMARY • YWPC strongly feels that the current proposals fail to deliver wards that reflect community interests and identities in the Yeovil/ Yeovil Without/ Brympton area.

• We feel that a three councillor division of Yeovil Without should remain

• The three parish ward names of Brimsmore, Combe and Lyde should remain

• We feel that the Brimsmore development should not be divided and always be considered as a community in its own right.

• That there is justification to transfer the following roads to District Ward of Yeovil Town – Thatcham Park, St Patrick’s Road, Stiby Road, and Coronation Avenue (houses nos. 33 – 42 only) as detailed on page 4, figure 1.

• We have shown how alterations to ward boundaries within Yeovil Town Parish can deliver a better distribution of wards for this area.

Appendix A

Impacted roads - new wards and affected roads - all roads are currently within Yeovil Without District Ward

Brympton Ward Emletts Way Halyars Way Hillrick Crescent Newcross Crescent Southfield Drive Wimble Stock Way

Yeovil Summerlands Ward Ilchester Road (West) Albert Close Barnet Close Boundary Close Brimsmore Brimsmore Tree Cottage Brimsmore House Brimsmore Court Coronation Avenue Court Gardens Eliotts Drive Greenwood Road Larkhill Road Larkspur Crescent Springfield Place St Patricks Road Stiby Road Thatcham Park Thorne Lane Thornton Road Tintinhull Road Wessex Road

Whitevine Close

Yeovil Milford Ward Alastair Close Alastair Drive Combe Park Combe Street Lane Ilchester Road (East) Coniston Gardens Winston Drive Marsh Lane (south) High Lea Lea Close

Appendix B

Appendix C – Coronation Avenue and Thatcham Park – red line new Yeovil Without District Boundary

Appendix C – Stiby Road and St Patrick’s Road – red line new Yeovil Without District Boundary

Appendix D – Proposed Yeovil Summerlands, Yeovil Milford and Yeovil Forest Hill Boundaries