!" # $ % &' '( )& !'*!' ( $ + ,&' '( *- !' (./)
Rebecca Smith Review Assistant LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP 0330 500 1251
_ _ How are we doing? Click here to give us your views.
From: Janine Gardner Sent: 02 December 2016 13:27 To: reviews
Dear Mr Cooper,
Electoral Review of East Devon District Council
Please find attached the joint response to the current consultation stage of the electoral review of East Devon District Council by Broadclyst Parish Council, Clyst Honiton Parish Council, Cranbrook Town Council, Poltimore Parish Council, Rockbeare Parish Council and Whimple Parish Council.
I would be most grateful if you could acknowledge receipt.
I look forward to hearing from you,
Regards,
Janine Gardner Town Clerk Cranbrook Town Council
Younghayes Centre | 169 Younghayes Road | Cranbrook | EX5 7DR
1
Register to vote online at: www.gov.uk/register‐to‐vote
2 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Electoral Review of East Devon: Warding Arrangements
Joint response to electoral review of East Devon District Council by:
Broadclyst Parish Council Clyst Honiton Parish Council Cranbrook Town Council Poltimore Parish Council Rockbeare Parish Council Whimple Parish Council 28 November 2016
INTRODUCTION
1. The West End of East Devon is experiencing unprecedented development and a resulting population growth which is predicted to take place for at least another 15 years, up until 2031. Nowhere else in East Devon is experiencing a higher increase in population at present.
2. The majority of this development will take place in Broadclyst and Cranbrook with the latter growing to be the second largest town in Devon with circa 8,000 dwellings and an estimated population of between 20,000 and 25,000 residents.
EVIDENCE
3. The current number of electors in the Broadclyst ward as of 27 May 2016 is as follows: Parish Electorate Broadclyst 2,715 Clyst Honiton 233 Clyst St Lawrence 79 Cranbrook 1,734 Poltimore 234 Rockbeare 690 TOTAL: 5,685
4. The Boundary Committee stipulates that the approximate number of electors per district councillor across East Devon should be approximately 2,000 +or- 5%. Based on this assumption the current arrangement of two members representing the Broadclyst ward is already insufficient and outside the variances tolerated by the Boundary Commission (see figure 1).
5. This situation is exacerbated by the projected development and resulting growth in population and hence electorate within the Broadclyst ward over the next six years up until 2022– which will result in a total electorate across all parishes represented by Broadclyst ward councillors of circa 14,000 in 2022 (see figure 2).
1
6. In Cranbrook alone, the number of residential dwellings will increase by circa 400 units per year. Based on the assumption that 1.6 electors occupy one dwelling on average, this equals approximately 650 new electors per year, totalling an electorate of circa 6,440 in 2022 which would justify three district councillors.
Figure 1: Existing electoral arrangements for East Devon District Council
Figure 2: Projected number of electors in Broadclyst and Cranbrook in 2022
2
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
7. The exceptional rate of growth within the Broadclyst ward should be met with a solution which is also an exception to the norm. A growing new town and its surrounding areas have many more issues affecting all the residents, and the district councillors will be called upon more frequently than in established and stable wards.
8. Furthermore, the development of Cranbrook in particular is still in its infancy and will continue to have a significant impact on its surrounding areas. It must be appreciated that the idea of a new town was originally met with great local opposition when first proposed. It is therefore imperative that the development needs to remain sensitive to and meeting the needs of the surrounding villages and it needs to remain integral to the wider locale in the West End of East Devon, and not a stand-alone entity operating in isolation which could create a “them and us” situation.
9. For the reasons outlined above, the parishes of Broadclyst, Clyst Honiton, Cranbrook, Poltimore, Rockbeare and Whimple recommend to the Boundary Commission to keep the current single Broadclyst ward boundary which will be served by six East Devon District Councillors in order to ensure the continued integration between the rural and urban developments in this area in a cohesive manner.
10. The parishes submitting this response recognise that this recommendation is contrary to the Boundary Commission’s current policy of not accepting proposals for more than three councillors to represent a ward. However, there is no limit, in law, to the number of councillors who can be elected to represent a ward and we strongly believe that an exceptional situation should be met with an exceptional (temporary) solution. We believe that the town of Cranbrook can eventually be separated from the rural parishes for the purpose of representation at East Devon District Council but that this split would be premature for the reasons outlined in paragraph 9 above.
11. We also believe that the proposed arrangement would promote effective and convenient local government or local accountability. For example, creating a ward of this size would enhance transparency and accountability in the consideration of planning applications of which we expect a disproportionally high number locally. Furthermore, due to the disproportionally high workload in the ward and very active parish councils, the six ward members would work together in order to ensure cohesion and sensitive integration of the urban and rural components of the area, something which is close to everyone's hearts locally.
12. If the Boundary Commission was minded to not exercise their discretion and not recognise the exceptional circumstances which present themselves locally and if it was minded to split the current Broadclyst ward, we believe it would be best to create one urban Cranbrook ward and one ward which covers the parish councils included in the remainder of the current Broadclyst ward. Both wards should be represented by three district councillors each. However, we must stress again that we strongly believe this would be premature and not in the interest of the local communities.
13. The parish councils submitting this response do hope that the Boundary Commission has due regard to our proposal to create a larger ward than current Commission policy allows in response to the exceptional circumstances which present themselves locally. 3