Local resident submissions to the Devon County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents M-Z Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Devon County Personal Details: Name: Patricia Wendy Machin E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Bishopsteignton Residents Association Comment text: I have been a resident of Bishopsteignton for 17'years and am a member of the local residents association. I feel very strongly that it would not be in the best interests of this village to exclude it from the area of Teignmouth, as this is where most people go for shopping and services. The boundary of the A 380 and the extensive building there recently makes it difficult to get into Kingsteignton, whereas Teignmouth adjoins our village and is very accessible. The boundary between the two is not well marked and we identify with and share facilities and activities very much with Teignmouth and Shaldon. Our recent village festival was well attended by Teignmouth Residents and many people here are involved in organisations there, especially sailing and rowing, local churches and choirs, political groups and the arts. We feel very much a coastal area and our identity is here. We have a very active and strong local identity which includes Teignmouth and is highly valued by the people who live and visit here. Please do not change that, for the sake of political expediency. If democracy and local participation in the governance of this area means anything, I hope and trust that you will listen and take account of the views of the residents of Bishopsteignton. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5549 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Devon County Personal Details: Name: John Macnab E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Joining Kingsteignton and Bishopsteignton is nonsensical. Bishopsteignton is a a village on the Teign Estuary. Kingsteignton is an urban adjunct of Newton Abbot. Bishopsteigtnon has much more in common with the other villages on the esturary, even Teignmouth, than it has with Kingsteignton. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5545 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Devon County Personal Details: Name: susan martin E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I think Bishopsteignton should stay within the Teignmouth boundary,out children go to Teignmouth schools We use Teignmouth shops and facilities, we do not associate with kingsteignton, I think changing to the Taintons is a stupid idea. I winder how long developers step in and start building. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5575 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Devon County Personal Details: Name: Paul McFadden E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I consider the proposed new Yealmpton Division to fail the stated aim of the new divisions to reflect the interests and identities of local communities. As a resident of South Devon for nearly 10 years, I believe that the communities of Holne, Scorriton and Dean Prior tend to look towards Buckfastleigh, whilst those of South Brent, Harbourneford, Rattery, North Huish and Diptford tend to look towards Totnes. Certainly, there is very little association between those communities and villages such as Noss Mayo, Newton Ferrers and Yealmpton. Furthermore, there is no recognised Market Town within the division that would provide a sense of cohesion between these disparate communities. I get the sense that this proposed division is the 'bit that was left' after other more obvious divisions, strongly tied to specific Market Towns and their surrounding parishes, were drawn up. Not a good result for the residents of the communities within this proposed division. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5242 18/05/2015 Pascoe, Mark From: Shan Merritt < Sent: 07 July 2015 05:03 To: reviews Subject: Boundaries review - East Devon Hi there I have had problems accessing the correct area to comment on the consultation re boundaries review in East Devon, so my comments are shown here: Re the proposed new 'Otter Valley' county division: While there is some sense in shifting the parish of Newton Poppleford & Harpford away from Budleigh and into the proposed new ‘Otter Valley’ county division, it would be nonsensical to do the same with East Budleigh, Otterton, Bicton, and Colaton Raleigh. Keep East Budleigh, Otterton, Bicton and Colaton Raleigh in the Budleigh division, but move Newton Pop & Harpford etc. to join Ottery St Mary in the new Otter Valley division. The district of East Devon has a number of barriers which are effective divisions in themselves; these include the A30 and the A3052. Communities are divided from one another by these barriers, and in some cases such as the actual village of Newton Poppleford the village itself is split (a very local north south divide). East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Bicton are all in the 'south of the A3052' area and do not have any substantial links to Ottery St Mary, but do link with Budleigh Salterton, and in the case of Otterton perhaps to Sidmouth. I have not been able to obtain elector figures for each parish ward within East Devon, only for complete parishes, so cannot at present suggest a more appropriate and equitable redistribution for the proposed new Otter Valley division. It would be desirable at the same time to develop a new parish of Tipton St John and Venn Ottery, which would include the parish wards of Tipton St John (currently part of Ottery St Mary) and Venn Ottery (part of Newton Pop parish). This new parish would still be included in the Otter Valley division. ****************************** I trust you will include these comments appropriately in the review process. Regards Shân Merritt 1 Pascoe, Mark From: Sent: 05 July 2015 21:30 To: reviews Subject: Devon County Council - Local Government Boundary Review Dear Sir As a resident of the Littleham area of Exmouth, I wish to protest in the strongest possible terms at your bizarre proposals in your Devon County Council boundary recommendations to merge Littleham with Budleigh Salterton to make a new 'Budleigh Salterton Coastal' seat.. I understand that one of your key purposes is to achieve broad equality of electorates in the electoral divisions of the County. But that objective cannot possibly be achieved while sacrificing your other two fundamental objectives, namely, first, respect for local identities and community interests; and, second, to deliver effective and efficient local government. As the largest town in Devon, Exmouth deserves better. Its democratic representation should clearly reflect the whole town – not be chopped up, and redistributed to where it has no community links, solely to satisfy the Commission’s arithmetic. It is absolute nonsense to propose cutting Exmouth in two, with Littleham Ward tacked on to Budleigh Salterton. How can you possibly claim there is a shared identity or community interest in this proposed arrangement? The urban areas in each separate community are not even contiguous, but are separated by open countryside.. And yet you seem to think there is more identity of interest in the proposed arrangement than there is in Littleham being aligned with roads on the northern side of Salterton Road in Exmouth? On multiple levels, you must know that this is palpably untrue. It is also the case that, if your persist in this proposal, against local opinion, you will be doing great damage to to your third operating principal - the delivery of effective and efficient local government. You propose creating a division almost evenly split between two diametrically opposed community interests of Exmouth and Budleigh. Whatever political party (or independent) candidates contesting such a seat, they will almost certainly be drawn from one half of the division or the other. The County Councillor elected will inevitably be faced with the unenviable task of trying to represent the complete division but with half of the electorate, and in each case a strong Town Council, convinced that this cannot be the case. This is far from being an effective platform for the delivery of efficient local government and in providing effective democratic representation. I also wish to express my total opposition to the proposal for creating a rare double-member seat covering part of the rest of Exmouth. There is no necessity for this - two single member seats can be delineated without undue difficulty - but your recommendation will make representation more remote and less accountable.Interestingly, you seem to think that virtually no other area of Devon should be provided with double-member divisions, apart from the two instances you propose. This is blatant discrimination. Taken together, you seem to be on a mission to diminish and disregard the identity and political unity of Exmouth. This is unacceptable to me and to many living in Littleham who are aware of your proposals (which, I am afraid, are far too little known and appreciated). I understand that your task is not easy. But it would be a great deal easier if you were working to a 62-strong County Council, (as at present) rather than following Devon CC's desire to save money by cutting representation to 60. It is, in my view, much more important that your proposal makes democratic sense and meets all three of the basic criteria of your review, rather than it creates the injustices I have referred to above, for the sake of minimal savings in the public purse.