EAST DEVON DISTRICT COUNCIL Extract of Minutes of the meeting of Cabinet held at Knowle, Sidmouth on 17 June 2015

*14 Electoral Review of Devon - Draft Recommendations The report of the Chief Executive set out the recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) for Devon County Council, the consultation period for which would close on 6 July 2015.

To try to achieve electoral equality for voters, the Commission proposed that, in respect of the Divisions of Broadclyst and Exmouth, the Divisions be double-sized and represented by two County Councillors each. Members were asked to consider if this and the other proposals gave sufficient weight to the LGBC’s other statutory criteria, namely, reflecting local community interests and identities, and promoting effective and convenient local government.

The Commission’s proposal was deemed confusing and complex, compounded by the proposed names for the Divisions. No reference was made to Cranbrook. The Chief Executive suggested a number of possible responses to the proposals that would affect East Devon.

Concerns raised during the debate referred to:  Proposed arrangements for Whimple and Newbridges  The proposed split of East Budleigh, Colaton Raleigh and Otterton from Budleigh Salterton.  Members questioned the proposals in respect of Ottery St Mary and Otterton, Feniton and Honiton and Whimple as part of the Otter Valley.  The proposal split Exmouth seafront.  They did not take into account the Local Plan and forward projections for development of communities.  The proposals did not reflect local interest or community/identity  They did not reflect existing police, educational or health divisions.  Local opposition was anticipated.  Other than using electorate numbers, there was no obvious logic to the proposals.  Rural communities had an affinity with their local market town.  Local MPs had already been lobbied about the proposals.  The response would be made to the Boundary Commission but a copy should be sent to Devon County Council and local MPs.

RESOLVED: 1. that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (‘LGBC’) be requested to review its proposals for the proposed two-member divisions for ‘Broadclyst’ and ‘Exmouth’ and recommend single member divisions instead with revised boundaries that better reflect local community interests and identities;

2. that the LGBC be requested to review its proposals for the ‘Whimple & Newbridges’, Budleigh Salterton, Ottery St Mary, Honiton Divisions on the grounds that they fail to meet the criteria for local community interests & identities and of effective and convenient local government;

Cabinet 17 June 2015

3. that the LGBC acknowledge the creation of the new parish of Cranbrook and amend its report accordingly;

3. that (notwithstanding 2 above) the LGBC recognise the importance of local community interests and identities and re-name proposed divisions as follows:

a) ‘Budleigh Salterton Coastal’ to be renamed ‘South Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton’ b) ‘Exmouth’ be renamed ‘Exe Estuary’ c) ‘Whimple and Newbridges’ be renamed ‘East Devon Rural’

5. that the LGBC reconsider its recommendations for Exmouth Town Council, in particular the proposed creation of the single member ‘Richmond Road’ ward.

6. that the response be copied to Devon County Council and local MPs for their information and support.

REASON: It was considered that these proposals were a poor compromise and appeared to place greater emphasis on electoral equality rather than other criteria, which were equality important (as referred to in the report). Bearing in mind the geographical and numerical size of these two proposed Divisions it was considered that the electors will perceive themselves to be poorly served and the two-councillor proposal would introduce confusion and unnecessary complexity. By contrast, everywhere else in Devon would have a more direct and proportionate relationship with their single County Councillor. These concerns were given greater force when the proposed names of the Divisions were considered.

2

Report to: Cabinet Date of Meeting: 17/06/2015 Public Document: Yes Exemption: None

Review date for None release

Agenda item: 15

Subject: Electoral Review of Devon: Draft Recommendations

Purpose of report: The Local Government Boundary Commission has published its draft recommendations for Devon County Council. The consultation period closes on 6 July 2015. A number of proposals are made which affect East Devon and this report suggests possible responses/issues to be raised.

Recommendation: 1. That the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (‘LGBC’) be requested to review its proposals for the proposed two-member divisions for ‘Broadclyst’ and ‘Exmouth’ and recommend single member divisions instead with revised boundaries that better reflect local community interests and identities 2. That the LGBC be requested to review its proposals for the ‘Whimple & Newbridges’ Division on the grounds that it fails to meet the criteria for local community interests & identities and of effective and convenient local government 3. That the LGBC acknowledge the creation of the new parish of Cranbrook and amend its report accordingly 4. That (notwithstanding 2 above) the LGBC recognise the importance of local community interests and identities and re-name proposed divisions as follows: a) ‘Budleigh Salterton Coastal’ to be renamed ‘South Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton’ b) ‘Exmouth’ be renamed ‘Exe Estuary’ c) ‘Whimple and Newbridges’ be renamed ‘East Devon Rural’ 5. That the LGBC reconsider its recommendations for Exmouth Town Council, in particular the proposed creation of the single member ‘Richmond Road’ ward. Reason for See main body of report recommendation: Officer: Mark Williams ext: Financial No direct financial implications. implications:

Legal implications: As this is a consultation response there are no direct legal implications arising from the report. Depending on the outcome there may well be implications arising (predominantly relating to elections) but these will be considered / addressed at an appropriate time. Equalities impact: Low Impact Risk: Low Risk The consultation affects DCC and will have minimal impact on EDDC Links to background See https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/devon/devon-county- information: council

Link to Council Plan: Living in this Outstanding Place

Report in full 1. We have received from the LGBC their draft recommendations for Devon County Council. Comments are sought by 6 July 2015. Details can be found at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/4141 .

2. In headline terms little change is proposed for East Devon. It currently has 11 County Councillors (across 11 Divisions) and it is proposed that this number of County Councillors should continue.

3. The detail is however more interesting and reflects the difficult balancing act the LGBC has to achieve in terms of the statutory criteria: a) Deliver electoral equality for voters b) Reflect local community interests and identities c) Promote effective and convenient local government

4. Overall, the LGBC has identified 10,417 electors as the average number of electors to aim for in terms of projected 2020 figures. There are 7 proposed divisions that are estimated to be close to this figure (or within an accepted 10% tolerance level). These are: Axminster Budleigh Salterton Coastal Feniton & Honiton Otter Valley Seaton & Colyton Sidmouth Whimple & Newbridges (views are sought on the proposed name of this Division)

5. In the case of the proposed Divisions of ‘Broadclyst’ and ‘Exmouth’ however the LGBC is proposing double sized Divisions represented by 2 County Councillors each. It is noted that nowhere else in Devon is this thought to be necessary or appropriate.

6. It is considered that these proposals are a poor compromise and appear to place greater emphasis on electoral equality rather than the equally important other two criteria referred to above. Bearing in mind the geographical and numerical size of these two proposed Divisions it is considered that the electors will perceive themselves to be poorly served and the two councillor proposal will introduce confusion and unnecessary complexity. By contrast, everywhere else in Devon will have a more direct and proportionate relationship with their single County Councillor.

7. These concerns are given greater force when one considers the proposed names of the Divisions.

8. In the case of ‘Broadclyst’ there is no reference in the description to Cranbrook having been formally established as a parish. Bearing in mind that Cranbrook will grow to become East Devon’s second largest town (after Exmouth), it seems somewhat bizarre that no recognition is given to that community having been established or to its established community identity and strategic importance. For these reasons it is considered that the LGBC should review their 2 Councillor proposal for ‘Broadclyst’.

9. In the case of ‘Exmouth’ the description notes that this includes the northern part of Exmouth as well as Lympstone and Woodbury. In the context of the Lympstone Neighbourhood Plan and the long standing objective of reflecting separate community identidy it is considered that both the proposed name and the suggested 2 Councillor proposal is insensitive. If the LGBC insist on maintaining the 2 Councillor proposal then a suggested name change is recommended; perhaps to ‘Exe Estuary’. In similar terms to the comments for Broadclyst however it is considered that there is scope to design two single Councillor Divisions that better reflect the other two statutory criteria.

10. In the case of ‘Budleigh Salterton Coastal’, the proposed name is considered to be especially insensitive and not at all reflective of local community identidy. An alternative of ‘South Exmouth & Budleigh Salterton is recommended.

11. In the case of ‘Whimple & Newbridges, the proposed Division has a massive geographical extent, (larger than many parliamentary constituencies) primarily in an attempt to get close to the 10,417 target figure. At face value the number of parish councils within the proposed Division would be almost impossible for a single county councillor to effectively communicate with, especially when it comes to attending parish council meetings. Not only is it considered that there is scope to revisit the boundaries of this proposed Division (particularly bearing in mind the comments in 8 above) but it is also suggested that this name will be meaningless and irrelevant for residents of Chardstock, Dunkeswell and Yarcombe (for example). An alternative of ‘East Devon Rural’ is therefore suggested.

12. Finally there are changes proposed to the wards for Exmouth Town Council. These appear to be a necessary consequence of the changes proposed for the County Council but do not reflect the existing geographical pattern of well established wards and also the Town Council’s existing approach to effective and convenient local government. It is therefore suggested that the LGBC revisit their proposals, especially with regard to the ‘Richmond Road’ ward.