Local Resident submissions to the South Hams Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 21 submissions from Local Residents.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Francis Allen
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: None
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I do not agree that Staverton should be twinned with Dartington because of the disparity in their sizes and identities. The Dartington Ward has a population of 1,500, while Staverton has less than half at only 640. In any election, therefore, a Dartington candidate with Dartington's particular problems as an election priority, would easily beat a Staverton candidate with Staverton's more rural agenda of issues. While I understand the rationale behind the plan to ensure that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters, I think that wards of a similar size and nature should be grouped together to achieve this. For this reason it seems to me that Dartington and Tones would be a more natural grouping, while Staverton could be grouped with one or more of its rural neighbours to the west.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2604 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2604 14/11/2013 Egan, Helen
From: Fuller, Heather
From: brian boughton Sent: 27 September 2013 08:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: South Hams in Devon
Whilst acknowledging the need for periodic independent boundary reviews I think the Boundary Commission must consider the political spectrum in society
South Hams is an overwhelming Conservative District Council and the only Labour dissenting voice is its Townstal ward. If the present proposals go through, one of the largest council estates in Devon will not have its traditional voice heard anymore and this will be extremely detrimental to local democracy
Brian Boughton
1 Egan, Helen
From: Fuller, Heather
From: Heather Burwin Sent: 22 October 2013 12:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: BoundarySHDC
I have received the details of the proposed boundary changes etc., and I support them. Heather Burwin
1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Janet Carter
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I feel the new proposals for South Brent would reduce its representation. I feel the new area is too large and diverse . Holne, for example is a long way from us and we share little in common. I fully expect that this so called consultation is actually a done deal but I still wish to express my opposition. Mrs J M Carter
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2577 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2577 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Malcolm Carter
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I object to your proposals because, quite clearly, the proposed South Brent ward comprises the left-overs after the more logically comprised neighbouring wards have been determined. It is a patchwork of parishes with little in common. Are you seriously thinking we have anything to do with Holne? Wrangaton and Avonwick make more sense. I refuse to delineate new areas, lacking relevant information, anyway my first analysis suggests it would require a completely new draft. I have no doubt you will do what you intended from the outset but I want you to realise this DOES NOT HAVE MY SUPPORT!
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2575 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2575 14/11/2013 Keal, Simon
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 November 2013 13:24 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: South Hams boundary changes
From: Michael Connelly Sent: 06 November 2013 11:57 To: Reviews@ Cc: Tony Whitty Subject: South Hams boundary changes
I am writing to oppose the proposed boundary changes to the South Hams Council electoral district. The reduction of the number of councillors and the new mainly enlarged electoral wards would be profoundly democratic as they would ensure the total success of only one party, the Conservative Party. Most of the fellow citizens of Totnes I have spoken to believe that this is the main motivation for the change. Only 21 members out of 40 councillors , all conservatives, voted for the new scheme when it came to council. The new enlarged wards would make it impossible for independent candidates and candidates from smaller parties to canvass properly thus losing what little variety we have in how the opinions of different sections of the population are represented. The arguments that some of the wards have different numbers of electors or are too small are nugatory: look at West Devon and at other areas where these strictures are not applied. Finally, more and more work is being loaded on to local councillors: we need more of them not fewer. We look to be set on a path to make this country less democratic. I am totally opposed to the proposed changes. Sincerely, Michael Connelly (Dr).
1 Keal, Simon
From: Amanda Cuthbert Sent: 11 November 2013 08:48 To: Keal, Simon Subject: Proposed Ward Changes for SHDC
> To Whom it may concern
> Re: Proposed Ward Changes for SHDC > > We understand that a proposal have been made to reduce the number of > councillors on SHDC from 40 to 31 and this will mean the end of > Eastmoor Ward and that Staverton will no longer be in a ward with > similar rural parishes but in a ward with Dartington. > > We think that this is unfortunate as Dartington, which is more like a > suburban extension of Totnes than a rural parish, has very different > needs and concerns than Staverton. The commission states in its > report that there are good road connections between the two parishes. > There is in fact just one direct road connection between the two > parishes and that connection is across a very narrow, single track > bridge built in the 14c, designed for packed horses and pedestrians > and which is closed to all wide‐sided vehicles. This suggests that > the commission just looked at the map and saw a common boundary and so > put the two parishes together as a matter of administrative > convenience. > > We, alongside Staverton PC, would far prefer for the parish to have > been put into a rural ward and made representation to that effect. > It would make a lot more sense for Staverton to be placed in a rural > ward such as the old Eastmoor Ward. > > We understand that the Boundary Commission is taking individual > submissions into account and giving them as much weight as submission > from Parish Councils, hence this email.
Best wishes
Amanda and Jim Cuthbert
1
Keal, Simon
From: Elizabeth Fergusson Sent: 09 November 2013 20:49 To: Keal, Simon Subject: Proposed ward changes for SHDC
Dear Simon Keal,
Please reconsider the plan to move Staverton together with Dartington. They are very different both in size and in the issues they need to address. Staverton is a rural village with a well defined centre. Dartington is more an extension of Totnes, much less cut off and accessible to bigger towns around. It would be far more appropriate to group Staverton with other smaller rural villages. Dartington and Staverton are separated by the river Dart and would not fit well together to make a whole. Just examine the minutes of their respective parish meetings to see how differents the topic they raise are. This matter is important to parishioners, so I appreciate your taking it seriously. With many thanks,
Elizabeth Fergusson Church Cottage Staverton TQ9 6PD
Sent from my iPad
1 Keal, Simon
From: Catherine Jones Sent: 09 November 2013 21:53 To: Keal, Simon Subject: Staverton parish council
We catherine and Adrian jones of mount Barton farm staverton totnes tq9 6pf wish it to be known that we object to our 41 councillors being reduced in numbers and we wish to keep our own parish of staverton as It is in its entirety.
Catherine and Adrian jones
Sent from my iPhone
DISCLAIMER: The contents of this email are confidential to the ordinary user(s) of the email address(es) to which it was sent and may be legally privileged. Mount Barton Farm accepts no liability for the content of this email, or the actions taken on the basis of the information provided, unless that information is subsequently confirmed in writing. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of it, or any part of it, in any form whatsoever, and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful.
1 LGBCE South Hams FER
I objected to the proposal to reduce the number of councillors from 40 to 30.
I objected to the proposal to create a ward combining Stoke Gabriel and Kingswear.
A majority of those responding to the consultations have objected to the proposed reduction in councillors.
The current proposal for 31 councillors, with a super ward comprising of Dartmouth, Kingswear and Stoke Gabriel is one which will have a negative impact not only on Stoke Gabriel, but on Dartmouth, too.
The loss of a councillor for the Townstall ward will not only impact negatively on that ward, but with the total number of councillors reduced from 5 to 3, mean much reduced representation, even before adding Stoke Gabrie. All will loose out.
The proposals would mean 2,300 voters per councillor, compared to just 1400 per councillor in West Devon with which South Hams shares many services. A recent decision by both authorities to reduce staff by 25% and provide access to services by online means will mean a considerable increase in the workload of councillors. Not only is internet access inconsistent and unreliable in many areas, we have an increasingly elderly population. Though proposals are based on predicted population figures and the location of future development, a considerable number of developments planned for the post 2016 period are being brought forward, and the NPPF’s presumption in favour of sustainable development has seen an increase planning applications for housing developments. Both authorities have only just started the Local Plan process; these circumstances mean any predictions for future population may be underestimated.
In the proposals, it seems Stoke Gabriel is very much an afterthought, apparently tacked onto Dartmouth and Kingswear after other ward boundaries were drawn up.
It is stated “Communication links between Stoke Gabriel and Berry Pomeroy are by way of a single track road.” Not only is this not entirely correct (the A385 forms part of the link), but links between Stoke Gabriel and Kingswear are on an unclassified road, part of which is in Torbay. Together, Kingswear and Dartmouth would form a largely urban ward, which would mean rural issues are likely not to be taken into account.
Roadlinks with Marldon are excellent, being almost entirely on A roads.
As far a Devon County Council is concerned, Stoke Gabriel is in the same electoral division as Berry Pomeroy, Marldon and Littlehempston, in addition to other rural villages surrounding Totnes. As some District Councillors are also County Councillors, the proposed ward would involve considerable additional work representing a larger area.
If the River Dart is considered an obstacle to a ward including parishes to the East, surely it is an obstacle to Stoke Gabriel being combined with Dartmouth, although there are, of course, ferry services from Kingswear.
Stoke Gabriel has, for some 20 years been, in strategic planning terms, included in Totnes and District, along with other parishes surrounding Totnes. Our designated Area Centre is Totnes. We have no links with either Kingswear or Dartmouth.
LGBCE draft proposals for South Hams ward boundaries 2013
I have some general comments and some specific ones relating to certain proposed wards.
My first general comment is that, when you state “In developing our proposals we have had regard for our statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identity and effective and convenient local government” I feel you have concentrated too much on electoral equality at the expense of community idendity and effective local government. I shall demonstrate below in the specific comments where I think this could be the case.
My second general comment is that you have swayed by the desire of the District Council's major political group to reduce the number of members to 30 that you have over looked the wishes of the majority of respondents and parish councils to retain the number at (or near to) 40 members. The number of responses to the consultation from the public has been very low, and some of those responses are in fact from individuals who are also parish councillors (as am I).
Finally you have resorted to making multi-member wards in the rural areas to attempt to get electoral equality against the universal desire at all levels of local government to have single member wards in the rural areas. With single member wards you get the best response from your elected members. The people know who their representative is and can remove them if they fail to live up to expectations. In multi member wards this link between elector and representative is diluted and in largely political block voting you can get a weak councillor being elected on the back of a stronger one.
Specific points.
Proposed Newton and Yealmpton 2 member ward. I suggest creating two single member wards with a slight modification of boundaries. There is a clear identity between Newton, Noss and Holbeton, sufficient to outweigh the slight electoral deficiency if they form a single member ward. If the balance of the ward, Yealmpton and Sparkwell, is considered too large in electoral terms then I suggest that the Sparkwell part of Sparkwell parish is added to the Bickleigh and Cornwood ward, as there is a strong community of interest between Cornwood, Sparkwell and Shaugh Prior. The Lee Mill part of Sparkwell ward plus Yealmpton would then form a single member ward. NB Sparkwell parish is already divided for election purposes into these two parts.
Proposed South Brent 2 member ward. This very rural area contains seven parishes plus the significant community of South Brent. I suggest that the current arrangements continue, ie a South Brent ward with a single member and a single member ward for the six other parishes and the rural area of South Brent parish. The electoral imbalance is outweighed by two factors. Firstly the strong identity of the village and community of South Brent needs to have a clear link with its elected member and not be diluted by possibly having both its elected members coming from very different community backgrounds in the rural parts. Secondly, the workload of ward members in both having to attend meetings of all the parish councils. It is not reasonable to suggest that they “share” the parish meetings between them, and it is not fair to those communities.
Proposed Dartmouth and Kingswear 3 member ward. It seems to me that the area covered by this ward would be better represented by a 2 member ward for Dartmouth town and a single member ward for Kingswear and Stoke Gabriel. There would be no change in the electoral balance figures and you would have a stronger link community with a single member for the rural part of the area. There would be no need for all three members to visit the rural parish council meetings, as mentioned above. Given also that the river Dart separates the area into the two parts it seems logical to form two separate wards.
My suggestions reduce the number of members in rural multi member wards from 11 to 4, (Salcombe and Thurlestone; Wembury and Brixton). This seems a reasonable compromise between the need for electoral equality and the need for community identity and effective and convenient local government.
Mark Lawrence
8/30/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Brian Maynard-Potts
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: It was inevitable that you would have to attach some rural areas to small towns or larger villages in order to achieve sufficient electors without making the wards too large geographically. But there is a risk that rural issues get overlooked in the "politics" of these small towns and larger villages. Where there are sufficient electors to justify more than one councillor, could the proposed ward be divided into concentric wards? Specifically, could the proposed South Brent Ward be divided into South Brent Village and South Brent Rural, with the latter containing all of the proposed ward apart from the village? The rural ward would be scarcely larger(geographically or in the number of parish meetings to attend)than the current Eastmoor, and its existence would help ensure that rural issues could receive a fair hearing and representation. The two parts would have a similar number of electors.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2219 1/1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Guy Pannell
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: N?A
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to incorporate the parish of South Brent in a two-member ward incorporating six other rural parishes - Holne, West Buckfastleigh, Dean Prior, Rattery, Diptford and North Huish. One of the Commission's stated aims is to reflect, as far as possible, the interests and identities of local communities. It is clear that the team behind this proposal had absolutely no idea of the nature of this area, and it is laughable to suggest that these outlying parishes all look to Brent. In fact most look to their nearest towns: Buckfastleigh, Ashburton and Totnes. There is nothing to suggest that areas such as Diptford and North Huish have any common interest with moorland parishes such as Holne and West Buckfastleigh. Road links between them are poor and there is certainly no public transport – one of the Commission’s own criteria. Proposals for multi-member wards incorporating a large number of parishes in rural areas totally ignore the additional workload imposed on these members in the number of evening parish council meetings to attend and distances to cover for casework. This is likely to further deter young people and those with a career to consider from putting themselves forward for election, resulting in an increased profile of councillors drawn from the retired and the wealthy. The large area to be covered in canvassing at election time is also likely to eliminate any remaining individuality in candidates and strengthen the grip of the major parties on control of the council, resulting in a reduction of effective opposition and accountable democracy. I understood that at the outset of the consultation procedure one factor to be considered was the desirability of single-member wards in rural areas, to strengthen the link between each councillor and the area they represent. I am unable to access your original guidelines on your own website, and would welcome some guidance on how to establish what these were. In any event I consider single-member wards to be much preferable in rural areas. Sadly the Commission's proposals allow for only 11 of the council's 31 members to represent single- member wards. I can think of no measure more likely to reduce interest and turnout in elections for the district council than the proliferation of multi-member, multi-parish wards, without the strong local identity which fosters truly democratic representation.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2545 23/10/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2545 23/10/2013
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Katie Reville
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I strongly object to the recommendation that the number of district councillors should be reduced. Under the localism agenda more and more services are being delivered at a local level and people are working more closely with their district councillors. Our population is expanding (well certainly in Ivybridge it is) and we therefore need more councillors representing us rather than fewer. There also seems to be huge disparities between what you think is adequate in different districts in the area. How can it be right that you think West Devon Borough Cllrs should represent on average 1725 local people whereas in the south hams, under the proposals to reduce the number of Cllrs, they would end up representing around 2,683 people? How is this fair? This would significantly increase their work load and probably discourage a wider variety of people from considering becoming a councillor. Basically you are undermining local democracy for the want of neater statistics and that it not a good enough reason. The financial benefits to South Hams District Council are small but the diminshing local representation is a huge disadvantage to local people. Please keep the number of councillors the same and only change the ward boundaries where there is significant community support to do so.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2603 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2603 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Peter Reville
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I fundamentally disagree with Ivybridge being reduced to 2 wards with the loss of a District Councillor. The town is set to grow by over 200 houses in the near future with all those new people joining the town and yet the number of people representing us at a district level will go down from 5 to 4. We need to stay as a 3 ward town so that people are adequately represented at district level.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2569 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2569 14/11/2013 Keal, Simon
From: Martyn Sloman Sent: 10 November 2013 11:19 To: Keal, Simon Subject: Parish amalgamation
I am e-mailing in support of our Parish Council (Staverton) with respect to Ward Changes. Dartington is considerably larger than Staverton and has considerably different needs - I feel it important that the proposals should be reconsidered - perhaps linking Staverton with a more rural and appropriate parish.
Martyn Sloman Staverton
1 8/28/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Hams District
Personal Details:
Name: Adrian Vivian
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I would like to see the current representation for Yealmpton maintained. It is important that a councillor at this level of local government is a part of their community and is accessible, and living in the immediate area, can be fully aware of local concerns and issues. The proposed larger areas would diminish this contact and make for a lower level of representation. Of course it costs money to retain the current number of councillors, democracy has to be paid for and such expenditure should be a priority, saving money here is wrong. Adrian Vivian
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2210 1/1 Keal, Simon
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 November 2013 08:46 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Staverton
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Gillian Watkins Sent: 10 November 2013 09:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Staverton
I believe Staverton should remain a rural ward and not added to the ward of Dartington. The needs of our village are not the same as a larger ward and need to be considered differently. There is only one very narrow link road between the two wards. Please consider these views carefully. Ms Gillian Watkins
1 Keal, Simon
From: Roland Wilkinson Sent: 05 November 2013 18:57 To: Keal, Simon Subject: Boundary Change South Hams
Staverton
The proposed changes to wards will mean that Staverton will no longer be in a ward with similar rural parishes but in a ward with Dartington which is more like a suburban extension of Totnes than a rural parish and certainly has very different needs and concerns than Staverton. The commission states in its report that there are good road connections between the two parishes. I ask that the commission looks at this again as there is in fact just one direct road connection between the two parishes and that connection is across a very narrow, single track bridge built in the 14c, designed for packed horses and pedestrians and which is closed to all wide-sided vehicles. This suggest that the commission just looked at the map and saw a common boundary and so put the two parishes together as a matter of administrative convenience.
The Staverton PC would far prefer for the parish to have been put into a rural ward and made representation to that effect but without avail and all who I have talked to in the parish on this subject are appalled that the Boundary Commission could place Staverton with Dartington in such an arbitrary fashion.
It would make a lot more sense for Staverton to be placed in a rural ward such as the old Eastmoor Ward.
It is very regrettable that the commission seems to be easily swayed by the views of the Conservative majority on the SHDC and gives little attention to the views of the Parish Councils and those who live actually live in the area affected by these changes.
Kind regards
Roland Wilkinson
1