Draft Recommendations Report for Torbay Council

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Torbay Council

Electoral review

October 2017

Translations and other formats To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England GD 100049926 2017

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Torbay? ...... 1 Our proposals for Torbay ...... 1 Have your say ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Ward boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 7 The north and north-east ...... 8 Central Torquay ...... 12 Paignton and Preston ...... 16 The Brixham peninsula ...... 20 Conclusions ...... 22 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 22 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 22 3 Have your say ...... 25 Equalities ...... 26 Appendix A ...... 27 Draft recommendations for Torbay Council ...... 27 Appendix B ...... 29 Outline map ...... 29 Appendix C ...... 30 Submissions received ...... 30 Appendix D ...... 31 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 31

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed • How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called • How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Torbay?

4 We are conducting a review of Torbay Council as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Torbay. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Torbay

• Torbay should be represented by 36 councillors, the same number as there are now. • Torbay should have 16 wards, one more than there are now. • The boundaries of all wards should change, none will stay the same.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 3 October 2017 to 11 December 2017. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new wards – the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we received.

6 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

You have until 11 December 2017 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 25 for how to send us your response.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament.1

8 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair) • Dr Peter Knight CBE, DL • Alison Lowton • Peter Maddison QPM • Sir Tony Redmond

• Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Torbay are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

What is an electoral review?

10 Our three main considerations are to:

• Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government

11 Our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Consultation

12 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Torbay. We then held a period of consultation on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

18 April 2017 Number of councillors decided 13 June 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 14 August 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 3 October 2017 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 11 December 2017 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 6 February 2018 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which town council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

15 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

16 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

17 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2017 2023 Electorate of Torbay 99,602 103,406 Number of councillors 36 36 Average number of 2,767 2,872 electors per councillor

18 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’. All of our proposed wards for Torbay will have good electoral equality by 2023.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

20 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

21 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2023, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2018. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 3.8% by 2023. Much of this forecast increase reflects anticipated housing development, most notably in Blatchcombe.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

22 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

23 Torbay Council currently has 36 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same will make sure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

24 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 36 councillors – for example, 36 one-councillor wards, 12 three- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

25 We received two submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on ward patterns. A local resident argued that there should be a total of 16 councillors for Torbay, suggesting how they may be distributed amongst the various communities of the area but not commenting on how councillors would collectively discharge their responsibilities. The Torbay Independents’ Group suggested that increasing council size would provide for Brixham to be warded as a discrete area, whilst ensuring good levels of electoral equality. We are not persuaded that increasing council size would have an equally good effect on electoral equality in other parts of Torbay. Furthermore, we consider that the Council has sufficiently demonstrated that 36 members can adequately service the Council’s decision-making structure as well as representing the people of Torbay effectively. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 36-councillor council.

Ward boundaries consultation

26 We received 30 submissions to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three detailed borough-wide proposals from the Council and from the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. The Conservative Party largely supported the Council’s scheme. These schemes were based on a pattern of wards to be represented by 36 councillors.

27 The borough-wide schemes each provided for a mixed pattern of two- and three-councillor wards for Torbay and included descriptions of community identities and interactions. We carefully considered the proposals received and concluded that, in general, the proposed ward boundaries would have good levels of electoral equality. The Torbay Conservative Association and the Liberal Democrats advocated that the borough be regarded as having three distinct areas, based on the towns of Brixham, Paignton and Torquay.

28 In addition to the borough-wide schemes, we also received proposals for more localised areas. These too provided us with helpful information about different parts of Torbay.

29 Our draft recommendations are based on a combination of the borough-wide proposals that we received. In some areas of the borough we have also taken into

6 account local evidence that we received, which provided evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we have recommended alternative boundaries. We visited the area in order to further interpret the various proposals we received. This tour of Torbay helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed and to make some proposals of our own.

30 Our draft recommendations are for five three-councillor wards, 10 two- councillor wards and one single-councillor ward. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

31 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table on page 22 and on the large map accompanying this report.

32 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries and the names of our proposed wards.

Draft recommendations

33 The tables and maps on pages 8–21 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Torbay. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

• Equality of representation • Reflecting community interests and identities • Providing for effective and convenient local government

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

The north and north-east

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Barton with Watcombe 3 3% Ellacombe 2 -5% St Marychurch 3 -2% Wellswood 2 -4%

Barton with Watcombe 34 We note that recent housing development in the north of the borough has resulted in a high level of electoral inequality, with Shiphay-with-the-Willows ward having 30% more electors per councillor than the average for the borough. We also note that continuing development would only increase that inequality if left unaddressed by this review. Each of the borough-wide schemes we received sought to address the electoral inequality but did so in different ways.

35 The Torbay Conservative Association described the current Shiphay-with-the- Willows ward as an area of two distinct communities separated by Riviera Way. The Association also identified community relationships between those living in the Barton Hill Road area and those living in Watcombe and the northern part of Hele. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats took a similar view. However, each reflected the Council’s proposal for a ward which crossed Riviera Way.

36 We agree that Riviera Way marks a divide between community areas. Furthermore, we consider that Barton and Watcombe form a combined community. We therefore propose that Riviera Way be used as a ward boundary as suggested by Councillor Darling. Our proposals for this part of the borough therefore differ markedly from the borough-wide schemes we received.

37 The Liberal Democrats proposed that the area to the north of Easterfield Lane, which includes the small community of Maidencombe, be added to Watcombe ward. This area is physically closer to Watcombe than it is to St Marychurch. Councillor Darling offered a similar view. We agree with this assessment and propose, as part of our draft recommendations, a three-councillor Barton with Watcombe ward extending across the northern part of the borough and taking in Maidencombe.

Ellacombe and St Marychurch 38 The Council and the Torbay Conservative Association proposed to divide the area of the current Ellacombe ward, joining parts with St Marychurch, Tormohun and Wellswood. We received counter-proposals from the Labour Party and Liberal Democrats which argued that Ellacombe should be regarded as a distinct community area. A number of representations from community organisations and local residents made similar assertions. On our visit to the area, we observed Ellacombe to be distinct from areas such as Wellswood and the more central parts of Torquay.

39 The Liberal Democrats advocated the inclusion of the Thurlow Park area in an Ellacombe ward. We agree with that proposal. However, having visited the area, we concluded that extending Ellacombe ward southwards to Torwood Street as suggested by the Liberal Democrats would not reflect the extent of the Ellacombe community. Furthermore, we consider that the Market Street area should be included in a Tormohun ward as it has many of the characteristics of Torquay’s central shopping area. We propose a two-councillor Ellacombe ward which retains its northern boundary with St Marychurch.

40 The Council proposed no changes to the present St Marychurch ward. The Council stated that the communities of St Marychurch, Babbacombe, Maidencombe and Plainmoor are accurately reflected within the ward. The Liberal Democrats also described community ties between Babbacombe and St Marychurch. The Labour

Party proposed modifications to the existing St Marychurch ward, adding part of Watcombe and removing parts to an Ellacombe with Babbacombe ward.

41 We note some community evidence regarding the use of Plainmoor’s shops by people living in the Ellacombe area. However, we are persuaded by the evidence received to recommend a ward which reflects ties between St Marychurch, Babbacombe and Plainmoor. We would particularly welcome comments about the inclusion of Plainmoor in St Marychurch ward rather than Ellacombe ward.

Wellswood 42 The Council proposed that the current two-councillor Wellswood ward be extended by the addition of parts of Ellacombe and St Marychurch in order to create a three-councillor ward. Councillor O’Dwyer also proposed that the current Wellswood ward be extended in order to provide for a three-councillor ward. However, he did not propose that part of Ellacombe be added to Wellswood but that Wellswood be combined with the Torquay harbour area and the seafront, extending all the way to Avenue Road. His proposed ward would include the commercial centre of Torquay. He also proposed a two-councillor ward for Tormohun.

43 The Labour Party proposed modification of the existing ward, adding an area of St Marychurch, and re-naming it Torwood. The Liberal Democrats proposed that the western parts of the ward be included in Tormohun and Ellacombe wards to reduce electoral variances in this area.

44 We are not persuaded that extending Wellswood ward into neighbouring areas in order to create a three-councillor ward would reflect the identities of those communities. Furthermore, we are not persuaded that the proposals for a two- councillor ward would provide boundaries which reflect communities and provide good electoral equality throughout the Torquay area.

45 Our draft recommendation is for a two-councillor Wellswood ward which retains the current boundary with St Marychurch and much of that with Ellacombe. We propose to include the Torwood Street area in Tormohun ward and the Warberry Road West area in Ellacombe ward to minimise electoral variances.

46 We received representations which suggested that the ward be named Torwood, making reference to earlier designations of the area. In our draft recommendations, we propose the retention of the name Wellswood but would particularly welcome further comments on this name.

Central Torquay

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Cockington with Chelston 2 6% Shiphay 2 8% Tormohun 3 2%

Cockington with Chelston and Shiphay 47 Our proposals for this area reflect our decision not to recommend a ward which crosses Riviera Way, as described in paragraphs 35 and 36.

48 The Council proposed minor changes to the current Cockington-with-Chelston ward. Both the Council and the Labour Party proposed that Marldon Road and Shiphay Avenue should form a ward boundary. The Liberal Democrats, however, proposed that Queensway and Raleigh Avenue/Grenville Avenue be included in a three-councillor Shiphay-with-the-Willows ward in order to secure good electoral equality in both that ward and Cockington-with-Chelston.

49 We are not persuaded that Marldon Road and Shiphay Avenue mark distinctly separate communities and we are prepared to recommend a Shiphay ward which crosses them.

50 The Chelston, Cockington & Livermead Community Partnership proposed that the area served by Queensway should be included in a ward with the Cockington with Chelston area. We recognise that the Raleigh Avenue/Grenville Avenue area has a similar character to the adjacent part of Queensway. However, including it in Cockington with Chelston ward would result in an electoral variance of 22% and we are not prepared to recommend such a high degree of inequality.

51 Councillor Kingscote proposed that the area at the northern end of Queensway and Drake Road be included in an expanded Shiphay-with-the Willows ward. On our visit to the area, we also considered that the northern part of Queensway, which rises uphill from Shiphay Avenue, has a different character to that part which runs downhill from the crest into Cockington with Chelston. We therefore propose a two- councillor Shiphay ward which extends from Riviera Way in the north to Nut Bush Lane and Drake Avenue in the south.

52 The Council and the Liberal Democrats proposed that the railway line should be regarded as a distinct ward boundary between Cockington with Chelston and Tormohun wards. However, they considered an exception should be made in the Crownhill Park area. This is an area of cul-de-sacs accessible by a road which joins Avenue Road and passes underneath the railway. We visited Crownhill Park and concluded that its inclusion in a Tormohun ward would properly reflect the orientation of the area and its separation from other parts of Cockington with Chelston. We noted that Pilmuir Avenue, whilst accessible by a road which passes underneath the railway, is also connected to the remainder of Cockington with Chelston by Innerbrook Road and Sandford Road. We therefore propose that Pilmuir Avenue form part of Cockington with Chelston ward.

53 We therefore propose a two-councillor Cockington with Chelston ward as part of our draft recommendations.

Tormohun 54 The Council proposed that the existing Tormohun ward should, with some peripheral changes, be divided into two. The Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats proposed a Tormohun ward which is similar in extent to the existing

13 ward. Councillor Excell considered that the present ward should be unchanged to reflect local community identity.

55 Torre & Upton Community Partnership agreed with taking the small number of roads from Cockington, and transferring the roads on the opposite side of the ward to Ellacombe. However, it opposed including residents from the Hele area and suggested that Cricketfield Road (which runs along Torquay Academy site) would form a natural boundary in the north of Tormohun. It also considered that The Terrace, Montpellier Road and Torwood Street should be incorporated into Tormohun ward. The Partnership commented that Ellacombe is very different demographically to Wellswood, and that it would be preferable to extend the boundaries of Ellacombe ward, and reduce those of Wellswood ward.

56 We propose a three-councillor Tormohun ward but recommend some changes to the boundaries of the existing ward to provide for good electoral equality throughout the area, as well as to reflect the evidence of community identity presented to us, and the observations we made on our tour of the area.

57 We received several submissions which described the history of the area and the derivation of the name Tormohun. We are persuaded that the name remains relevant to the ward we propose but we would welcome any further comments on this choice of ward name.

Paignton and Preston

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Clifton with Maidenway 2 6% Collaton St Mary 1 7% Goodrington with Roselands 2 2% King’s Ash 2 -5% Preston 3 -5% Roundham with Hyde 2 3%

Collaton St Mary and King’s Ash 58 The Council and the Liberal Democrats suggested a modification of the current Blatchcombe ward in order to provide a three-councillor ward that would have good electoral equality. The Labour Party proposed a greater change, including the Ailescombe Road area in its proposed Blatchcombe Road ward. On our visit to the area, we did not consider this would reflect community identity and therefore propose that the Ailescombe Road area be included in our Clifton with Maidenway ward.

59 The Council proposed that all the roads to the south side of Long Road be located in its Churston with Galmpton ward. The Council described these roads as mainly made up of new developments which have formed their own community. It considered that Long Road formed a natural ward boundary, being a barrier to community interaction between residents on either side of the road. The Council said that this change would balance representation and make their proposed Churston with Galmpton ward a viable three-councillor ward.

60 We consider that the proposals for a Blatchcombe ward would result in a large, disparate ward, containing the area around King’s Ash Road, Ayreville, Blagdon, Collaton St Mary and Yalberton. A local resident argued that the Blatchcombe ward is too large in extent.

61 We propose to divide this area into a two-councillor King’s Ash ward with King’s Ash Road running through the heart of the ward. To the south, we propose a single- councillor ward which, for the most part, has Brixham Road as its eastern boundary. We agree with the inclusion of the White Rock housing development in Churston with Galmpton ward but would not extend that ward along the full length of Long Road as we consider that Stoke Road and Lower Yalberton Road connect the rural community in this western part of the borough.

62 Our proposals would provide good levels of electoral equality. However, good levels of electoral equality would be achieved were we to combine our single- councillor ward with either King’s Ash or with Goodrington with Roselands to form a three-councillor ward. We would particularly welcome comment on these options. We also would welcome comment on the ward names we propose.

Clifton with Maidenway, Preston and Roundham with Hyde 63 The Council proposed minor changes to the current wards in this area. The Labour Party proposed to include the Ailescombe Road area in Blatchcombe ward and that the area to the north of Penwill Way and including York Road be included in Roundham with Hyde ward. The Liberal Democrats similarly argued that people in those areas consider themselves to be part of the St Michael’s area of Paignton.

64 The Liberal Democrats proposed that Rossall Drive, Nursery Close, The Gurneys, Manor Terrace and Higher Manor Terrace be added to Roundham with Hyde ward. They described the interactions of people living in this area as being with the St Michael’s area as these roads are cul-de-sacs having no direct connection to the area to the north. Having visited this area, we formed a similar assessment and propose that those roads be included in Roundham with Hyde ward.

65 The Labour Party suggested that the western parts of Barcombe Road and Winsu Avenue be added to the current Preston ward, whilst the Liberal Democrats would add Barcombe Road only. Having visited these roads, we have decided to recommend that they continue to be included with the surrounding residential areas in Clifton with Maidenway ward.

66 Our decision to recommend inclusion of the Ailescombe Road area in Clifton with Maidenway ward is described in paragraph 58. We recognise the orientation of York Road and Elsdale Road towards Paignton town but consider that Fisher Street and the northern end of Dartmouth Road share a similar orientation. The Liberal Democrats proposed that this area be included in Roundham with Hyde ward but would counter this by including the Roundham Road area in their Churston with Goodrington ward. We are not persuaded that this proposal would lead to a better reflection of community identities throughout the Paignton area and therefore recommend two-councillor Clifton with Maidenway and Roundham with Hyde wards and a three-councillor Preston ward, as proposed by the Council.

Goodrington with Roselands 67 The Council proposed a ward which varied little from the current ward. We have based our draft recommendation on this proposal. The Labour Party suggested that the Wilkins Drive area be included in the Goodrington with Roselands ward. However, we are not persuaded that the Wilkins Drive area has ties to Goodrington. We consider that it forms part of the area to the north through which Yalberton Road and Borough Road pass.

68 The Liberal Democrats proposed a markedly different pattern of wards in this area, suggesting a Roundham with Roselands ward and a Churston with Goodrington ward. This proposal contradicts the evidence we have received about community identity in the Brixham peninsula which we find more persuasive. We therefore have not based our draft recommendation on the Liberal Democrats’ proposal.

69 The Torbay Conservative Association have indicated that people in the Goodrington Road area have identified themselves with the Goodrington, Roselands & Hookhills Community Partnership. On our visit to the area, our observations matched this assertion and therefore recommend that the Goodrington Road area be included in a two-councillor Goodrington with Roselands ward.

The Brixham peninsula

Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Churston with Galmpton 2 3% Furzeham with Summercombe 3 -6% St Peter’s with St Mary’s 2 -5%

Churston with Galmpton, Furzeham with Summercombe and St Peter’s with St Mary’s 70 The Council and Torbay Conservative Association argued that electoral forecasts for Brixham indicate that the town would have 6% electoral variance, and that this represents an unacceptable level of over-representation. The Churston, Galmpton & Broadsands Community Partnership commented that the warding of the Brixham Peninsula should reflect the extent of the Neighbourhood Plan for the area. Councillors Stubley and Mills argued that the Churston, Galmpton and Broadsands communities do not wish to see their current ward broken up.

71 The Council proposed that part of Brixham be included in a ward with Churston and Galmpton. Brixham Town Council agreed with the Council’s proposal. The Churston, Galmpton and Broadsands branch of the Conservative Party, the Community Partnership and CPRE Torbay, whilst supporting the Council’s proposal to retain the three villages in a single ward, opposed its proposed inclusion of the White Rock area. The Council, the Torbay Labour Party and the Torbay Conservative Association asserted that residents of the developing White Rock area are likely to develop community links with people living in the vicinity of the White Rock Primary School.

72 The Liberal Democrats supported a similar combination of Churston with part of Brixham, albeit with different boundaries. Both schemes would retain the existing St Mary’s-with-Summercombe ward.

73 The Brixham Community Partnership proposed minor changes to the boundary between the present wards in the town but then proposed that Churston and Galmpton be combined with Berry Head with Furzecombe to form a five-councillor ward. We do not normally recommend wards that have more than three councillors as we do not consider they provide for effective and convenient local government. Having regard to all the evidence received, we are not persuaded to make an exception in this case.

74 The Torbay Labour Party and the Torbay Independents’ Group proposed wards coterminous with Brixham Town Council’s boundaries. The Independents’ Group argued that possible amalgamation of the neighbouring villages with a large part of the current Berry Head with Furzeham ward would be a retrograde step. Both proposed a ward boundary which ensures good electoral equality and reflects the location of future developments in the town. The Labour Party and the Independents’ Group proposed ward boundaries which would result in acceptable levels of electoral inequality.

75 We accept the principle that wards for the Brixham peninsula should reflect the communities there. We also agree that the villages of Churston, Glampton and Broadsands should be included in a single ward. However, we consider that ward boundaries in this area should follow the boundary of Brixham Town Council. We consider this will ensure good electoral equality whilst reflecting the community identities and interests of the town, as distinct from the adjoining rural area. We have therefore based our draft recommendations for Brixham on the Labour Party/Independent Group’s proposals.

Conclusions

76 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2017 and 2023 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2017 2023

Number of councillors 36 36

Number of electoral wards 16 16

Average number of electors per councillor 2,767 2,872

Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 10% from the average

Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Torbay Council should be made up of 36 councillors serving 16 wards representing one single-councillor ward, 10 two-councillor wards and five three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Torbay. You can also view our draft recommendations for Torbay Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

77 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different wards it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

78 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Torbay Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

79 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Brixham parish.

Draft recommendation Brixham Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Furzeham with Summercombe 7 St Peter’s with St Mary’s 5

3 Have your say

80 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

81 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Torbay, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

82 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

83 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Torbay) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

84 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Torbay which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

85 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

86 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

87 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?

• Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

88 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

89 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Millbank (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

90 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

91 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

92 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Torbay Council in 2019.

Equalities

93 This report has been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Torbay Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2017) (2023) councillor % councillor % Barton with 1 3 8,338 2,779 0% 8,867 2,956 3% Watcombe Churston with 2 2 5,506 2,753 0% 5,902 2,951 3% Galmpton Clifton with 3 2 6,030 3,015 9% 6,084 3,042 6% Maidenway Cockington with 4 2 6,005 3,003 9% 6,062 3,031 6% Chelston

5 Collaton St Mary 1 1,934 1,934 -30% 3,069 3,069 7%

6 Ellacombe 2 5,426 2,713 -2% 5,450 2,725 -5%

Furzeham with 7 3 8,060 2,687 -3% 8,091 2,697 -6% Summercombe Goodrington with 8 2 5,879 2,940 6% 5,879 2,940 2% Roselands

9 King’'s Ash 2 5,256 2,628 -5% 5,469 2,735 -5%

10 Preston 3 8,065 2,688 -3% 8,222 2,741 -5%

13 St Marychurch 3 8,376 2,792 1% 8,422 2,807 -2%

St Peter’s with St 14 2 5,083 2,542 -8% 5,461 2,731 -5% Mary’s

15 Tormohun 3 8,504 2,835 2% 8,780 2,927 2%

16 Wellswood 2 5,430 2,715 -2% 5,529 2,765 -4%

Totals 36 99,602 – – 103,406 – –

Averages – – 2,767 – – 2,872 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Torbay Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

Appendix B Outline map

Key

1. Barton with Watcombe 9. King’s Ash 2. Churston with Galmpton 10. Preston 3. Clifton with Maidenway 11. Roundham with Hyde 4. Cockington with Chelston 12. Shiphay 5. Collaton St Mary 13. St Marychurch 6. Ellacombe 14. St Peter’s with St Mary’s 7. Furzeham with Summercombe 15. Tormohun 8. Goodrington with Roselands 16. Wellswood

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south- west/devon/torbay

Appendix C

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/devon/torbay

Local Authority

• Torbay Council

Political Group

• Churston, Galmpton & Broadsands Branch of Totnes Conservative Association • Torbay Conservative Association • Torbay Council Independent Group • Torbay Labour Party • Torbay Liberal Democrats

Councillors

• Councillor C. Carter (Torbay Council) • Councillor S. Darling (Torbay Council) • Councillor R. Excell (Torbay Council) • Councillor M. Kingscote (Torbay Council) • Councillors D. Mills and D. Stubley (Torbay Council) • Councillor J. O’Dwyer (Torbay Council)

Local Organisations

• Brixham Community Partnership • Chelston, Cockington & Livermead Community Partnership • Churston, Galmpton & Broadsands Community Partnership • CPRE Torbay • Ellacombe All Stars Children’s Club • Torre & Upton Community Partnership • Wellswood & Torwood Community Partnership

Parish and Town Council

• Brixham Town Council

Local Residents

• 10 local residents

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in

whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council