Local Government Boundary Commission For Report No. 541 Parish Review DISTRICT OF EAST LOCAL GOVSHNMH1T

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOH ENGLAND

RETORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell FRIGS FSVA

MEMBERS Lady Ackner

Mr G R Prentice

Professor G E Cherry

Mr K J L Newell

Mr B Scholes OBE THE RT. HON. NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP

SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

EAST DEVON PARISH REVIEW

1. On 10 December 1986 we submitted to you our Reports Nos. 521 and 522 following our consideration of the review of the City of 's boundary with the Districts of and in the County of Devon, and of part of the parish review of the District of East Devon.

2. In our Report No. 522 we proposed the realignment of the boundary between the Parishes of Woodbury and Clyst St. George in order to place the village of

Ebford within Clyst. St. George. \3e made this proposal under section 51 of the

Local Government Act 1972 in advance of our other proposals on the East Devon parish review, with the request that the proposal be implemented concurrently with those on the District of Exeter boundary review if they were implemented.

In your Department's letter of 3 April 1987 we were informed of your decision to make an Order under section 51(2) of the Act giving effect to the proposal set out in our Report No. 522 without modification.

3. We considered the District Council's parish review report, the Council's

Working Party's report and associated comments, in accordance with the requirements of section 48(9) of the Act, together with the enclosed representations which were received direct, and which are listed in the attached Schedule A. Copies of the District Council's and the Council's

Working Party's reports and supporting documents are enclosed.

4. Our Report No. 522 explained the reasons for our decision to exercise the powers conferred on us by section 48(9) of the 1972 Act to conduct our own

review of the parish pattern of the district. In brief, the District Council had decided to make no recommendations to us. We had some reservations about

this decision since we observed that the Council's Working Party had received many suggestions for change and the Council had indeed published draft

recommendations affecting no fewer than 27 parishes. We therefore requested a

copy of the Working Party's report, which the District Council supplied. This

showed that, prima facie, some at least of the suggestions appeared to have

merit. We therefore decided we should conduct our own review and so informed

the District Council which took note of our decision. On 22 May 1985 we issued

a consultation letter announcing the start of a review and publishing our draft proposals based on the Working Party's final recommendations. The letter was

addressed to East Devon District Council: copies were sent to the County

Council of Devon; all parishes within the district; the Member of Parliament

for the constituency concerned; the headquarters of the main political parties;

the editors both of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press; the local radio and television stations serving the area; and to individuals and organisations who had commented on the review. The start of

the review was further publicised by notices in the local press and views were

invited from members of the public and interested bodies. Comments were invited by 17 July 1985. 5. Our letter pointed out that the recommendations of the Council's Working

Party had excluded some areas where new parishes might be created, particularly

Exmouth, or where boundary changes might be made, and invited the District

Council's comments on the representations which we had received in respect of those areas. Copies of the maps illustrating our draft proposals are enclosed, together with a copy of our draft proposals letter of 22 May 1985, which proposed changes in 37 areas. For ease of reference we have identified our draft proposals by area numbers, details of which are given in the attached

Schedule B. The proposed changes affected the following parishes:

Awliscombe

Axminster

Axraouth Monkton

Bicton

Broadclyst

Budleigh Salterton Qffwell

Chardstock

Clyst St. George Ottery St. Mary

Clyst St. Mary

Colaton Raleigh

Combpyne- Talaton

Cotleigh

Dunkeswell

East Budleigh Woodbury RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS

6. We received 48 comments in response to our draft proposals. A list of those who commented is given in the attached Schedule C, and the various comments are

summarised below under the respective area numbers. The comments received in

respect of our draft proposal for Area 36 affecting the boundaries of the

Parishes of Uoodbury and Clyst St. George were dealt with in our Report No, 522.

The County Council of Devon and the Parishes of and Seaton stated that

they had no comments to make on our draft proposals.

(a) Areas Nos. 1 and 2 ( and Woodbury)

6.1 The District Council and the Parish of Woodbury supported both draft

proposals. The Parish of Lympstone supported our draft proposal for Area 2, but

opposed the proposal for Area 1 and instead suggested an alternative boundary

which would result in a rather larger area being transferred to them from the

Parish of Woodbury.

(b) Areas Nos. 3. 4 and 5 fBudleigh Salterton and ^

6.2 The District Council supported our draft proposals but the Parish of East

Budleigh with Bicton opposed all three on the grounds that the loss of Area 4

containing rateable hereditaments and land which might be developed would reduce

their rate income. A resident of East Budleigh also opposed our proposals for Areas 3 and 4 and expressed concern over the financial consequences to Che

Parish of East Budleigh with Bicton from the loss of Area 4.

(c) Areas Nos. 6. 7. 8. 9 and 10 (East Budleigh. and

Otterton

6.3 The District Council and the Parishes of Otterton and supported our draft proposals.

(d) Areas Nos. 11 and 12 (Otterton. East Budleigh and Bicton)

6.4 The District Council supported both draft proposals. The Parish of East

Budleigh with Bicton opposed them on the grounds that the they would lose rate income. The Parish of Otterton opposed our proposal for Area 11 and instead suggested an alternative boundary involving the transfer of land adjacent to the

River Otter from the Parishes of Colaton Raleigh and East Budleigh to their parish.

(e) Area No. 13 (East.Budleigh and Bictonl

6.5 The District Council supported our draft proposal, but the Parish Council of East Budleigh with Bicton opposed it and considered that as the Parishes of East Budleigh and Bicton had a common parish council it was unnecessary to

alter the boundary between them.

(f) Areas Nos. 14. 15 and 16 fColaton Raleigh, Otterton and Newton Poppleford

and Harpfordl

6.6 The District Council and the Parishes of Colaton Raleigh and Otterton

supported our draft proposals for these areas.

(g) Areas Nos. 17. 18 and 19 fBroadclvst and Rockbeare)

6.7 The Parish of suggested an amendment to our draft proposals in

order to realign the boundary between their parish and the Parish of Rockbeare

to the line of the stream called Cranna, instead of the London - Exeter railway

line adopted in our draft proposals. The District Council supported this

amendment. The Parish of Rockbeare supported our draft proposals but suggested

an amendment in respect of the proposal for Area 17 in order to include the

property known as Stone Villa within their parish. Mr R K Taylor, a County

Councillor, supported the amendment suggested.

(h) Araes _ tjos.... 20 and 21 CFenitonand Pavhemburv')

6.8 The District Council stated that they would only support a change if the

different boundaries agreed by their Working Party were adopted instead. The

Parish of Payherabury supported our draft proposal. (I) Areas Nos. 22 ( and AwliscQ_mb_el_ and 23 and 24 JLMonkton and

Cotleigh)

6.9 The District Council supported our draft proposals for these areas,

(j) Areas Nos. 25 and 26 CWidworthv and )

6.10 The District Council and the Parish of Widworthy supported our draft proposals for these areas.

(k) Area_No. 27 ( and -Rousdon)

6.11 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon suggested an amendment to our draft proposal which would increase the amount of land to be transferred to them from the Parish of Axmouth. The District Council supported this amendment. The

Parish of Axmouth opposed our draft proposal mainly on the grounds of the financial loss to their parish.

(1) Area No. 28 (Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplyme)

6.12 The District Council supported our draft proposal. The Parish of

Combpyne-Rousdon opposed this proposal and felt that there was no good reason to change the present boundary, particularly as most of the land involved belonged to farms situated within Corabpyne-Rousdon. (m) Areas Nos. 29 and 30 (Musburv. Combpnve-Rousdon and Uplvme)

6.13 The District Council supported both draft proposals but the Parish of

Combpyne-Rousdon supported the draft proposal for Area 29 only. The Parish of

Musbury opposed the draft proposal for Area 29 and saw no valid reason for the

transfer of the area to Combpyne-Rousdon.

(n) Areas Nos. 31 and 32 (Uplvme and )

6.14 The District Council supported both draft proposals,

(o) Area No. 33 CChardstock')

6.15 The District Council supported our draft proposal for the creation of a new parish of All Saints from part of the existing Parish of . The

Parish of Chardstock pointed out that the residents of All Saints ward of

Chardstock Parish had voted for a separate parish council in 1979 and that

there was no certainty that present opinion within the ward remained the same.

(p) Areas Nos. 34__and 36 (Axminster and Uplyme^

6.16 The District Council and the Raymonds Hill and District Ratepayers

Association supported our draft proposals, which involved the creation of a new parish of Raymonds Hill from part of the Parish of Uplyme and the whole of the Raymonds Hill ward of Che Parish of Axminster. The Parish of Axminster opposed our draft proposal and pointed out that the decision in respect of a new parish was made by the residents of Raymonds Hill at a referendum held in 1979 and doubted whether there would be a similar outcome if a further referendum was undertaken now.

(q) Area No. 37 fOtterv St. Marv and Feniton)

6.17 The District Council opposed our draft proposal on the grounds that it would affect the parliamentary constituency boundary. The Parish of Ottery St.

Mary also opposed the proposal. In addition, a private individual wrote on behalf of 23 residents of the village of Fenny Bridges, all of whom had signed a petition asking for their village to remain in Ottery St. Mary.

7. The comments we received also included representations in respect of three areas in the district which were not included in our draft proposal. These comments are summarised below.

(a) Combpyne-Rousdon and Axmouth

7.1 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon suggested that the area of Westhayes Caravan

Park and Pinewood Leisure Centre at Heathfield Cross be transferred to their parish from the Parish of Axmouth. Their proposal involved approximately seven electors. The District Council supported this proposal. (b) //Gittisham

7.2 The Western Action Group pointed out that under the existing arrangements

the village of Weston was divided between the parishes of Awliscorabe, Buckerell and Gittisham, and suggested alterations to the boundaries of the three parishes

in order to include the entire village of Weston within the Parish of

Awliscombe. Their proposal involved about 39 electors.

(c)

7.3 We noted that Exmouth was the only unparished area in the district. The

District Council's Working Party's report, upon whose recommendations our draft proposals were based, stated that the Exmouth Town Committee had initially

resolved that Exmouth be granted parish status but had subsequently rescinded

their resolution. The report also indicated that the Town Committee had

operated successfully since it was set up in 1974 and the Council had no

further proposals to make. In addition, it stated that, should we be minded to

recommend parish status for Exmouth, the Council would support a single parish being formed but would strongly oppose the fragmentation of Exmouth into more

than one parish.

7.4 We received representations in favour of parish status for Exmouth from The

Liberal and SDP Alliance Group of East Devon District Council, The Liberal

Party, Exmouth and East Devon Trades Council, The Campaign for Town Council

10 SCatus for Exmouth, County Councillor Mrs H A Bucklar JP, and three private

individuals, one of whom also enclosed a petition signed by 210 residents of

Exmouth deploring Exmouth Town Committee's attempt to preclude Exmouth from

receiving parish status. However, we also received opposition to the idea of a parish from The Community Group and two private individuals. In addition, Sir Peter Emery, Member of Parliament, wrote to the Parliamentary

Boundary Commission for England on 4 June 1986 and expressed opposition to any changes in Exmouth. His letter was passed on to us for our attention.'

Councillor B Costello, a district councillor, submitted a petition signed by 158 residents of Exmouth who opposed parish council status for Exmouth and instead

favoured a separate .district. Two other private individuals also wrote to us and expressed similar views.

8. We reassessed our draft proposals in the light of the representations we had

received. We discovered that in two instances, Area 11 (Otterton and East

Budleigh) and Area 20 (Feniton and Payhembury) our draft proposals had been

incorrectly described in the Schedule attached to our draft proposals letter of

22 May 1985 and wrongly shown on the map which accompanied that letter. We

therefore decided to re-publish our draft proposal for these areas in their

correct form, together with the necessary consequential adjustments to our draft proposals for Area 12 (Otterton and Bicton) and 13 (East Budleigh and Bicton).

We also decided to make the following modifications to our draft proposals:-

11 (a) AreasNos. 17. 18 and 19 - the boundary between the Parishes of

Broadclyst and Rockbeare; we noted that the suggestion made by the Parish

of Broadclyst to use the stream known as Cranna as the boundary would leave

two properties isolated and we did not consider that the stream would form

a good boundary. We considered that the suggestion made by the Parish of

Rockbeare would result in a more sensible boundary; the boundary so

altered would join Areas 17 and 19 and obviate the need for change in Area

18.

(b) Area No. 27 - the boundary between the Parishes of Axmouth and

Combpyne-Rousdon; we considered that the suggestion made by the Parish of

Combpyne-Rousdon was reasonable since the additional area proposed for

transfer was associated with Downlands Farm, which was included in our

draft proposal.

9. We noted that in addition to the representations about the area included in our draft proposals, a number of representations concerned other areas in the district not involved in our draft proposals. In the light of some of the arguments put forward, we also decided to issue further draft proposals as follows:-

(a) Areas Nos. 18A and 38B (Awliscombe. Buckerell and GlJ:tisham) - to

transfer the village of Weston to the Parish of Awliscombe. We agreed that

the present division of the village between the three parishes of

12 Awliscombe, Buckerell and GIttisham should not be allowed to continue and decided to propose that the whole village should be included within the

Parish of Awliscombe, with which Weston seemed to us to have a close affinity.

(b) Area No. 39 fCombpvne-Rousdon and Axmouthl - to transfer the Caravan

Park and Leisure Centre at Heathfield Cross from the Parish of Axraouth to

the Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon. We agreed that, as the development was much closer to the village of Combpyne than to Axmouth, the Parish of

Combpyne-Rousdon should have some control over it.

(c) Exmouth - to create a new parish for Exmouth. We acknowledged that

Exmouth had a strong sense of identity and that the town might well benefit from having its own Parish Council. We proposed that the parish be divided into six parish wards with boundaries conterminous with those of the six district wards, and sharing the same names. We also proposed a Council of

25 members for the new parish, with each ward returning the following number of councillors:

Exmouth Brixington 5

Exmouth Halsdon 4

Exmouth Littlehara Rural 5

Exmouth Littleham Urban 3

Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh 5

Exmouth Withycombe Urban 3

13 10. We also noted that there was considerable opposition to our draft proposal for Area 37 (Ottery St. Mary and Feniton) and were therefore loath to confirm this proposal solely on the basis of the District Council's support for it. We subsequently requested the District Council to provide reasons for their original suggestion to transfer the area of Fenny Bridges from the Parish of

Ottery St. Mary to the Parish of Feniton. In response the District Council accepted that they might have been unaware of the degree of affinity of Fenny

Bridges with the Parish of Ottery St. Mary. In the light of this information, and the wishes of the local residents, we decided to withdraw our draft proposal for this area

11. Our re-published, modified and further draft proposals were announced in a letter of 15 August 1986 to the District Council, which was asked to place them on deposit for a period of eight weeks and to advertise them locally. Copies of the letter and relevant maps accompanying it are enclosed. Copies of the letter were sent to the County Council of Devon; all the parishes within the district;

Sir Peter Emery, Member of Parliament; the headquarters of the main political parties; the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the district; the local government press; local TV and radio stations serving the area; and to individuals and organisations who had made representations either to the

District Council or to us. Comments were invited by 24 October 1986.

14 RESPONSE TO OUR RE-PUBLISHED, MODIFIED AND FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

12, In response to our re-published, modified and further draft proposals we received representations from the County Council of Devon; the District Council of East Devon; eight parish councils; one county councillor; three district councillors; a political organisation; two local groups; and five private

individuals. A list of those who commented is given in the attached Schedule D.

The comments we received also included further representations in respect of our original draft proposals for Area 28 (Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplyme) and Areas 34 and 35 (Axminster and Uplyme).

13. The County Council of Devon supported our draft proposals for Exmouth and

also stated that they had no observations to make on our remaining proposals.

The District Council were not opposed to any of our proposals, except for the

size of the proposed council for the new parish of Exrnouth. The various representations received are summarised below under the respective area numbers,

together with our final conclusions in respect of the proposed boundary changes.

RE-PUBLISHED DRAFT PROPOSALS

(a) Areas Nos. 11. 12 and 13 fOtterton. East Budleieh and Bicton^

13.1 The Parish of Otterton supported our re-published draft proposals involving the transfer of Area 11 from the Parish of East Budleigh to the

15 Parish of Otterton, and the transfer of Area 12 from the Parish of Otterton to the Parish of Bicton. The Parish of East Budleigh and Bicton opposed our draft proposal for Area 11 and pointed out that the change in respect of Area 11 had not been sought by the Parish of Otterton. In addition, they forwarded a petition signed by some 218 residents of East Budleigh opposing the proposed change.

13.2 In the light of the representations received we reconsidered our re- published draft proposal for Area 11 and concluded that there was insufficient justification to alter the boundary in the area in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to withdraw our draft proposal for Area 11, together with the linked draft proposals for Areas

5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12 and 13.

(b) Area No. 20 (Feniton and Payhembury)

13.3 The Parish of Payhembury suggested the transfer of Gays Farm from the

Parish of Feniton to their parish, in addition to the transfer of the hamlet of

Colestocks included in our draft proposal. We received no additional support in respect of the amendment proposed by the Parish of Payhembury, who did not provide any reasons for their proposal in terms of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided that we should adhere to our re- published draft proposal for this area. •

16 MODIFIED DRAFT PROPOSALS

(a) Areas Nos. 17. 18 and 19 (Bro_adc_Iy_st and Rockbeare)

13.4 The Parish of Rockbeare supported our modified draft proposals. No objections were received and we have now decided to confirm our modified draft proposals as our final proposals.

(b) Are_a_NQ_..._.27 . f Axmouth and Combpyne-Rousdon)

13.5 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon supported our modified draft proposal, and in addition, pointed out that the area proposed for transfer, which involved about 12 electors, was separated from the most easterly properties in Axmouth by an area of mostly unpopulated land. The Parish of Axmouth opposed our modified draft proposal mainly on the grounds of the loss of rateable value to their parish. They also considered that the change proposed was of a "cosmetic nature" and that the Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon had not offered sufficient evidence in support to merit its acceptance. However, in view of the proximity and closer links of the area to Combpyne-Rousdon, we considered that it would be logical to include it within the Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We have therefore decided to confirm our modified draft proposal as our final proposal.

17 (c) Area No. 37 (Otterv St. Marv and Feniton)

13.6 We did noc receive any further representations on our interim decision to withdraw our original draft proposal for this area. We have now decided to confirm the withdrawal of our original draft proposal and make no proposals for this area.

FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

(a) Areas Nos. 38A and 38B (Awliscombe. Buckerell and Gittisham)

13.7 The Parish of Awliscombe supported our draft proposal for Area 38A, but suggested an amendment in respect of our draft proposal for Area 385 in order to include additional land within their parish. The Parish of Gittisham opposed our draft proposal for Area 38B and considered that the River Otter should remain the natural boundary between their parish and the Parish of Awliscombe.

The Weston Action Group suggested amendments in respect of our draft proposals in order to transfer additional land from the Parishes of Buckerell and

Gittisham to the Parish of Awliscombe. They also felt that a new parish could be created incorporating the areas proposed for transfer. The Division

Conservative Association supported our draft proposals and also suggested amendments in respect of both Areas 38A and 38B to include additional land within the Parish of Awliscombe.

18 13.8 In the light of the representations made to us, we reconsidered our draft proposals but concluded that there was no justification for extending Areas

38A and 38B as suggested by the Parish of Awliscombe and the Honiton Division

Conservative Association. However, we considered that the proposals made by the

Weston Action Group affecting the area of land between the A30 and the railway line in the vicinity of Hamlet had merit. We subsequently wrote to the District

Council on 14 January 1987 and requested their observations on the suggestions made by the Group. In response, the District Council stated that they did not wish to interfere with our draft proposals concerning Areas 38A and 38B.

Although the Weston Action Group's suggestions did not command support from the

District Council, we noted that about 13 residents of Hamlet had previously signed a petition made to the District Council during the course of the review and expressed their desire to be included in the Parish of Awliscorabe. We concluded that the area of Hamlet between the A30 and the railway line had greater affinity with the village of Weston and have now decided that our draft proposal for Area 38B should be revised to include the entire area of Hamlet as far south as the railway line within the Parish of Awliscombe. We were satisfied that this change to our draft proposal, made as a result of the representations received, did not require publication of further draft modifications.

(b) Area No .__3_9. (Combpyne-Rousdon and Axmouth)

13.9 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon supported our draft proposal and considered that the area proposed for transfer had always had social links with Rousdon

19 rather than Axmouth and that it was logical to transfer the area to their parish. The Parish of Axmouth opposed our draft proposal and stated that the transitory nature of the occupancy of the site at Heathfield Cross ie. holidaymakers, hardly seemed to promote any affinity of the area with Combpyne-

Rousdon. They also considered that any loss of rateable value would materially affect their ability to cater for the needs of the residents of their parish.

13.10 We noted that the Caravan Park and Leisure Centre were located only a fairly short distance from the villages of Corabpyne and Rousdon, whereas the distance between Heathfield Cross and the village of Axmouth was much greater.

In view of the proximity of the area to Corabpyne-Rousdon we considered that parish government in the area could be provided more effectively by the Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon. We also took into account the financial implications for the Parish of Axmouth but concluded, bearing in mind the added support from the

District Council, that a change in the boundary was desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and have decided that we should adhere to our draft proposal for this area.

(c) Exmouth

13.11 We noted that our draft proposals for Exmouth had generated considerable interest and had elicited representations from the County Council of Devon; the

District of East Devon; the Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth; a

20 County Councillor; three district councillors; and five private individuals.

We also understood that some representations for and against our draft proposals have been made to you direct.

13.12 The County Council of Devon supported our draft proposal for the creation of a new parish of Exmouth and the District Council decided not to oppose it in principle. However, the District Council felt that a council size of 25 was too large because of the administrative costs which would have to be borne by

Exraouth ratepayers. They suggested a reduction of one councillor from each of

the proposed parish wards in order to produce a council size of 19, which they considered was ample for such a parish.

13.13 The Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth supported our draft proposals and stated that in determining the size of the council the following points should be taken into consideration:-

(a) the need to appoint various Committees, which could only be arranged

through the flexibility of having 25 councillors;

(b) the possibility of the District Council in due course arranging for

certain of its local functions to be discharged by the Town Council;

(c) the neighbouring towns of Yeovil and Tiverton, which are no larger

than Exmouth, each has 24 councillors. Other smaller towns such as

21 , Ottery St. Mary and have proportionately larger councils than that proposed for Exraouth,

13.14 Councillor B Costello, a district councillor, stated that the overwhelming silent majority of the local electorate have simply had no opportunity to endorse or disagree with parish status for Exmouth. He considered that a local referendum would be a democratic way for the electorate of Exmouth to decide on the issue. However, the District Council had previously decided against a referendum on the grounds that it would be too costly and time consuming.

13.15 Councillor Mrs H A Bucklar JP, a County Councillor, supported our draft proposals and felt that they could supply the sense of purpose which the town lacked. A private individual supported our draft proposals but in addition suggested an increase in the number of councillors for Che proposed Withycombe

Urban ward. Another private individual supported our draft proposals and considered that the allocation of seats should be the same for each ward. He also considered that a viable new district council could be created with Exmouth as the centre, which would render parish status unnecessary. A third private individual considered that if each of the proposed six parish wards were to be granted five councillors, it would ensure that each individual ward would hold an equal share of responsibility within the new parish council.

13.16 Councillor A W Handford, a district councillor, opposed our draft proposals on the grounds that a new parish council would result in increased rates and have very few powers particularly in matters such as planning

22 applications, street sweeping and public health. He also considered that

Exraouth should be withdrawn from East Devon District Council and that a new Exe

District Council should be created comprising Exmouth, Lympstone, Exton, Ebford and Topsham. Councillor Miss J M Elson, a district councillor, also opposed our draft proposals and considered that Exmouth would benefit from district council status instead. Two other private individuals indicated that they were satisfied with the existing arrangements and felt that parish status for

Exmouth was unnecessary. One of them also claimed that the demand for a parish council had been made by a vociferous minority belonging to, or sympathetic to the Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth, who were a self-appointed group and did not represent the majority of the ratepayers or electors of

Exmouth.

CONCLUSION

13.17 We considered the various representations very carefully and noted that there were conflicting attitudes to the concept of a parish council for Exmouth.

We considered whether there was a need for a local meeting at Exmouth, but concluded that such a meeting was not likely to produce any new arguments beyond those set out in the many letters received.

13.18 In view of the controversy generated by our draft proposals, we felt we should re-consider whether or not there was adequate justification for the creation of a new parish in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We noted that Exmouth's population of 31,000, which represented over 20% of the total district population, was above the normal guidelines for

23 parishes recommended in Department of the Environment Circular No. 121/77. The

Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth had previously argued that Exmouth was a compact urban area with more than twice the population of any other town in the district, that it was located some ten miles from the district headquarters and that the lack of a statutory council for Exmouth had adversely affected the provision of minor amenities for the town. On the other hand, the main grounds deployed by those who opposed our draft proposals were the costs which would be incurred by a new parish council, the fact that it would have only limited powers, and the present satisfactory arrangements under which the residents were adequately represented by their district councillors on the existing Town Committee. However, we noted that the Town Committee was appointed by the District Council. We felt that a locally elected parish council, as an independent statutory body, would be more likely to reflect the evident sense of local identity, and so be more effective in responding to the particular needs and interests of the electors of Exmouth.

13.19 We considered that justification for a parish must depend upon both an identifiable sense of local community and a sufficient measure of local support.

It was evident from the numerous representations made to us and the District

Council during the course of the review that local support for a parish remained *. consistent. We did not consider that the arguments advanced by those opposing parish status for Exmouth were such as to warrant withdrawing our draft proposals. In view of the additional support from the County Council of Devon and the District Council, we adhered to our previous view that Exmouth was a distinctive and recognisable community with its own sense of identity and should

24 be parished in the interests of effective and convenient local government. We had noted the suggestions for district status for Exmouth but we did not consider we could examine them further as they lay beyond the scope of a parish review.

13.20 In view of the District Council's comments on the size of the proposed council, we also reconsidered our draft proposal for a council size of 25 for the new parish and the level of representation for each of the six wards proposed. The 1986 and 1987 electorates and number of councillors for each of the proposed wards were as follows:-

NO. OF

WARD 1986 ELECTORATE 1987 ELECTORATE COUNCILLORS

Exmouth Brixington 5353 5477 5

Exmouth Halsdon 4131 4171 4

Exmouth Littleham Rural 4426 4507 5

Exmouth Littleham Urban 2992 3052 3

Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh 4598 4646 5

Exmouth Withycorabe Urban 3117 3166 3

TOTAL 24,617 25,019 25

25 We considered whether or not to increase the representation for Uithycombe Urban ward as suggested by a privte individual, but concluded that this was not desirable since it would create an obvious imbalance in the standard of representation.

13.21 We noted that there had been no significant increase in the size of the electorate in Exmouth since 1986 and considered whether or not our proposal for a council size of 25, which is the maximum allowed under the National

Association of Local Council's guidelines, was appropriate. We felt that the guidelines were somewhat generous for an urban area such as Exmouth and considered that they should be applied flexibly when considering urban as distinct from rural areas. We accepted that 19 councillors as suggested by the

District Council would be more economical, but took into account the points made by the Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth, particularly the fact that the neighbouring towns of Yeovil and Tiverton, which were no larger than

Exmouth, had 24 councillors each. On balance, we decided that we should adhere to our draft proposal for establishing six wards in Exmouth returning a total of

25 councillors.

ORIGINAL DRAFT PROPOSALS

(a) Area No^ 28 (Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplvme)

13.22 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon reiterated their objections to our original draft proposal involving the transfer of Area 28 from their parish to

26 the Parish of Uplyme. They pointed out that most of this area belonged to farms

in Combpyne-Rousdon and considered that there was no good reason for the prposed

change.

13.23 In the light of the further representations received we reconsidered our

original draft proposal and noted that access to parts of this area was from

Combpyne-Rousdon. We concluded that there was insufficient justification to

alter the boundary in the interests of effective and convenient local government

and have now decided to withdraw our draft proposal for this area.

(b) Areas Nos. 34 and 35 fAxminster and UplvmeJ

13.24 Our draft proposal for these areas involved the creation of a new parish

to be known as Raymonds Hill, from part of the Parish of Uplyme and the whole of

the Raymonds Hill ward of the Parish of Axminster. The Parishes of Axminster

and Uplyme have now reported the results of the referenda carried out by them

recently, which indicated that the majority of the electors were opposed to the idea of a new parish. The Raymonds Hill and District Ratepayers Association

confirmed that they accepted the result of the referendum carried out by

Axminster Town Council.

13.25 Our draft proposal was based on the evidence of strong support for a

parish following a local referendum held in 1979. In the light of the further

.representations received from the Parishes of Axminster and Uplyme, we

27 concluded that support for the creation of a new parish had diminished and that our draft proposal would therefore be inappropriate. In the circumstances, we have now decided to withdraw our draft proposal for these areas.

PROPOSALS

14. We accordingly make to you our final proposals based on the recommendations made in the District Council's Working Party's report, subject to modifications

affecting the following areas:-

Areas No. Parishes affected

5 East Budleigh and Budleigh Salterton

6 Otterton and Budleigh Salterton

7 and 11 East Budleigh and Otterton

8, 9 and 10 Budleigh Salterton and Otterton

12 Otterton and Bicton

13 East Budleigh and Bicton

17, 18 and 19 Rockbeare and Broadclyst

27 Axmouth and Combpyne-Rousdon

28 Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplyme

34 and 35 Axminster and Uplyrae

37 Ottery St. Mary and Feniton

28 We also make to you our final proposals affecting the boundaries of the Parishes of Awliscombe, Buckerell and. Gittisham (Areas 38A and 38B), Axmouth and

Gombpyne-Rousdon (Area 39), together with our final proposals for the creation of the new Parish of Exmouth with a council size of 25, including the warding arrangements described in paragraph 9(c) above. Full details of our proposals are set out in the attached Schedule E and are illustrated on large scale maps which are being sent separately to your Department.

PUBLICATION

15. A separate letter is being sent, with copies of this report but without enclosures, to the District of East Devon asking them, in accordance with

Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, to place the copies on deposit at their main offices and to put notices to this effect on public notice boards and in the local press. The text of the notices will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter, and that it is now open to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, after the expiry of six weeks from the day they are submitted to you. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to all those who have made comments to us.

29 LS

SIGNED: G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

J G POWELL (Deputy Chairman)

JOAN ACKNER

G E CHERRY

K J L NEWELL

G R PRENTICE

BRIAN SCHOLES

S T GARRISH

Secretary

30F SCHEDULE A

The following bodies/individuals wrote to the Commission following submission of

the parish review report by East Devon District Council:- (See Schedule D for later representations received)

Aylesbeare Parish Council

Budleigh Salterton Town Council

Colaton Raleigh Parish Council

Combpyne-Rousdon parish Council

East Budletgh with Bictorv Parish Council

Feniton Parish Council

Lympstone Parish Council

Musbury Parish Council

Newton Poppleford and Harpford Parish Council

Off-well Parish Council

Rockbeare Parish Council

Sheldon Parish Meeting

Sidmouth Town Council

Uplyme Parish Council

Upton Pyne Parish Council

The Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth

Raymonds Hill and District Ratepayers Association

Withycombe Urban Resident and Trader Association

Sir Peter Emery MP District Councillor C G E Cottrell

Nine private individuals SCHEDULE B

The following areas were included in the Commission's original draft proposals:-

Areas No. Parishes affected

1 and 2 Lympstone and Woodbury

3, 4 and 5 Budleigh Salterton and Ease Budleigh

6,8,9 and 10 Otterton and Budleigh Salterton

7 and 11 East Budleigh and Otterton

12 Otterton and Bicton

13 East Budleigh and Bicton

14 and 15 Colaton Raleigh and Otterton

16 Otterton and Newton Poppleford and Harpford

17, 18 and 19 Broadclyst and Rockbeare

20 and 21 Feniton and Payherabury

22 Dunkeswell and Awliscombe

23 and 24 Monkton and Cotleigh

25 and 26 Offwell and Widworthy

27 Axraouth and Combpyne-Rousdon

28 Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplyme

29 Musbury and Combpyne-Rousdon

30 Musbury and Uplyme 31 and 32 Axminster and Uplyrae

33 Chsrdstock

34 - Axminster

35 Uplyme

36 Woodbury and Clyst St. George

37 Otcery St. Mary and Feniton SCHEDULE C

The following bodies/individuals wrote Co the Commission following publication of our draft proposals:-

Devon County Council

East Devon District Council

Axrainster Town Council

Axmouth Parish Council

Broadclyst Parish Council

Budleigh Salterton Town Council

Chardstock Parish Council

Clyst St. George Parish Council

Colaton Raleigh Parish Council

Corobpyne-Rousdon Parish Council

East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council

Farway Parish Council

Lympstone Parish Council

Musbury Parish Council

Otterton Parish Council

Ottery St. Mary Parish Council

Payhembury Parish Council

Rockbeare Parish Council

Seaton Town Council Widworthy Parish Council

Exmouth and East Devon District Trades Council

The Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth

Raymonds Hill and District Ratepayers Association

The Littleham Community Group

The Weston Action Group

The Conservative Association

The Liberal Party

The Liberal and SDP Alliance Group of East Devon District Council

County Councillor Mrs H A Bucklar JP

County Councillor R K Taylor

District Councillor B Costello

Sir Peter Emery MP

13 private individuals SCHEDULE D

The following bodies/individuals wroCe Co the Commission following publication of our re-published, modified and further draft proposals:-

Devon County Council

East Devon District Council

Awliscorabe Parish Council

Axminster Town Council

Axmouth Parish Council

Combpyne-Rousdon Parish Council

East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council

Gittisham Parish Council

Payherabury Parish Council

Rockbeare Parish Council

Uplyme Parish Council

Honiton Division Conservative Association

Raymonds Hill and District Ratepayers Association

The Campaign for Town Council Status for Exmouth

The Weston Action Group

County Councillor Mrs H A Bucklar JP

District Councillor B Costello

District Councillor Miss J M Elson

District Councillor A W Handford

5 private individuals SCHEDULE E

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

EAST DEVON DISTRICT - REVIEW

FINAL PROPOSALS

Note: Where a boundary is described as following a road, railway, river, canal or similar feature, it shall be deemed to follow the centre line of the feature, unless otherwise stated.

SCHEDULE 1 Civil Parish Alterations.

Area 1, as described below, shall be transferred from Lympstone CP to Woodbury CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Lympstone CP and Woodbury CP meets the southwestern corner of Parcel

No 7180 as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (Bl) SX 9984, date of Publication August

1977, thence northwards, eastwards and southeastwards along said CP boundary to the southern boundary of Harefield Road, thence southwestwards along said southern boundary and the southern boundary of Meeting Lane to the point of commencement.

Area 2, as described below, shall be transferred from Woodbury CP to Lympstone CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing on the existing boundary between Woodbury

CP and Lympstone CP at a point opposite the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 3483, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (Bl) SX 9984, date of publication August 1977, thence southwestwards along said CP boundary to the eastern boundary of N utwell Road

(LA Name - New North Road), thence northeastwards along said eastern boundary to the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 3483, thence southeastwards along said parcel boundary and continuing southeastwards in a straight line across Meeting Lane to the point of commencement.

Area 3, as described below, shall be transferred from Budleigh Salterton CP to East Budleigh CP. That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Budleigh Salterton CP and Exmouth non-parished area crosses the southern boundary of the Dismantled Railway, thence northwards along said CP boundary to the existing boundary between Budleigh Salterton CP and East Budleigh CP, thence eastwards along said CP boundary to the southern boundary of the Dismantled Railway, thence southwestwards along said southern boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 4, as described below, shall be transferred from East Budleigh CP to

Budleigh Salterton CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between East Budleigh CP and Budleigh Salterton CP meets the western boundary of parcel No 5442, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (BB) SY 0482, date of publication

1970, at the eastern corner of Area 3, as described above, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary and continuing northeastwards in a straight line to the westernmost corner of Parcel No 5654, thence northwards along the western boundary of said parcel and the western boundaries of Parcels Nos 5472, 6062,

6377 and 6188 to the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 7200, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary and its continuation as Parcel No 7302, as shown on

OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 0483, date o.f publication 1956, to the northern boundary of Parcel No 8404, thence eastwards along said northern boundary, eastwards in a straight line across Dalditch Lane and continuing eastwards along the northern boundaries of Parcel No 9605 and Parcel No 9907 and its continuation as Parcel No 0204, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 0583, date of publication 1956, to the northern boundary of Parcel No 1002, thence southeastwards along said parcel boundary and the northern boundary of Parcel No 2201, to Bears' Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to the existing boundary between East Budleigh CP and Budleigh Salterton CP, thence southwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement. 3

Area 14, as described below, shall be transferred from Colaton Raleigh CP to

Otterton CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Otterton CP and Colaton Raleigh CP crosses the River Otter, north of

Parcel No 6244, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 0887, date of publication

1956, thence southwards eastwards and generally southwards along said CP boundary to the River Otter. thence northwards, westwards and generally northwards along said river to the point of commencement.

Area 15, as described below, shall be transferred from Otterton CP to Colaton

Raleigh CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the northern corner of Area 14, as described above, .on the existing boundary between Otterton CP and Colaton Raleigh

CP, thence northwards along said CP boundary to the River Otter, thence southeast- wards and southwestwards along said river to the point of commencement.

Area 16, as described below, shall be transferred from Otterton CP to Newton

Poppleford and Harpford CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Otterton CP and Colaton Raleigh CP meets the existing southern boundary of N.ewton Poppleford and Harpford CP, thence northwards and southeastwards along said southern boundary and continuing southeastwards and southwards along the existing boundary between Sidmouth CP and Otterton CP to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 0077, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (B) SY 1088, date of publication

1977, thence southwestwards along said parcel boundary, continuing on OS 1:2500

Microfilm (B) SY 1087, date of publication 1968 to the southern boundary of said

parcel, thence westwards along said southern boundary its continuation as the 4 southern boundary of Parcel No 0073, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 0987, date of publication 1961 and the southern boundary of Parcel No O084 to Passaford

Lane, thence generally westwards along said lane to the unnamed road leading from

Otterton to Northmostown, thence northwards along said road to the northern boundary of Parcel No 0077, thence westwards along said parcel boundary and continuing westwards along the northern boundaries of Parcels Note 9074 and 7265, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 0887, date of publication 1956, to the existing boundary between Otterton CP and Colaton Raleigh CP, thence generally northwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 17, as described below, shall be transferred from Broad Clyst CP to Rockbeare

CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary

between CP and Rockbeare CP meets the existing southern boundary

of Broad Clyst CP, thence westwards along said southern boundary to the point

at which it meets the southern boundary of the A30 road, thence due north from

said point to the centre of the A30 road, thence northeastwards along said road to

a point opposite the western curtilage of the property known as Stone Villa,

thence northwards to and along said western curtilage and eastwards along the

northern curtilage of said property to Crannaford Lane (LA name), thence northwards

and northwestwards along said lane to the unnamed stream at Crannaford Bridge,

thence generally northeastwards along said stream to the Exeter-Honiton railway,

thence northeastwards along said railway to the existing boundary between Broad

Clyst CP and CP, thence southwards along said CP boundary to the existing

boundary between Broad Clyst CP and Rockbeare CP, thence westwards along said CP

boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 20, as described below, shall be transferred from Feniton CP to Payhembury CP. 5

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the unnamed road leading from Colestocks to Talaton meets the existing boundary between Feniton CP and T-alaton CP, thence northwards along said CP boundary to the existing boundary between Feniton CP and Payhembury CP, thence eastwards along said CP boundary to the western boundary of Parcel No 2153, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 0900, date of publication 1960, thence southwards along said parcel boundary and due southwards from the southwestern corner of said parcel to the northern boundary of Parcel No 1131, thence westwards, southwards, westwards, southwards and westwards along said parcel boundary, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 0800, date of publication 1960 to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 8424, thence northwards along said parcel boundary to the unnamed road leading from Colestocks to Talaton, thence southwestwards along "said road to the point of commencement.

Area 21, as described below, shall be transferred from Feniton CP to Payhembury CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Feniton CP and Payhembury CP meets the northeastern boundary of Feniton CP,

thence southeastwards along said northeastern boundary to the unnamed stream

flowing southwestwards through The Glen, thence southwestwards along said stream

to the unnamed stream flowing southeastwards from its Issues, north of Rentlet

Plantation, thence northwestwards along said stream to a point due east of the

southeastern corner of Parcel No 9100, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (Al)

ST 1001, date of publication March 1985, thence due west to and westwards along

the southern boundary of said parcel to its southwestern boundary, thence northwards

and westwards along said southwestern boundary and westwards along the southern

boundary of Parcel No 8400, to the existing boundary between Feniton CP and

Payhembury CP, thence northwestwards and northeastwards along said CP boundary

to the point of commencement.

Area 22, as described below, shall be transferred from Dunkeswell CP to Awliscombe CP 6

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Dunkeswell CP and Awliscombe CP meets the eastern boundary of Parcel No

3271, as shown on OS 1:3500 Microfilm (A) ST 1303, date of publication 1960, thence northwards along said parcel boundary and westwards along the northeastern boundary of said parcel to and northwards along the field boundary leading from the last mentioned boundary to the southern boundary of Parcel No 3800, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm(Al)ST 1303, date of publication March 1985, thence eastwards along said southern boundary and the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 5700,

as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 1303, date of publication 1960, to its

southernmost point, thence due southeast from said point to the northwestern

boundary of Parcel No 6177, thence southwestwards along said parcel boundary and « southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of said parcel to the existing

boundary between Dunkeswell CP and Awliscombe CP, thence southwestwards along

said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 23, as described below, shall be transferred from Monkton CP to Co tleigh CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing on the existing boundary between Monkton CP

and Cotleigh CP at the junction between Old Chard Road and Viney Lane, thence

northwards and northeastwards along Viney Lane to the existing boundary between

Monkton CP and Cotleigh CP, thence southeastwards and southwestwards along said

CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 24, as described below, shall be transferred from Monkton CP to Cotleigh CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary

between Monkton CP and Cotleigh CP crosses Cleverhayes Lane, thence westwards

along said lane to the unnamed lane leading to Old Chard Road, thence northwestwards

along said lane to the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 2083, as shown on 7

OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 1901, date of publication 1960, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary to the existing boundary between Monkton CP and Cotleigh CP, thence southeastwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 25, as described below, shall be transferred from Widworthy CP to Offwell CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing on the existing boundary between Widworthy CP and Offwell CP at the junction of the A35 (T) road and the unnamed road leading southwards to Colyton Cross, thence southwards along said unnamed road to the existing boundary between Widworthy CP and Offwell CP, thence northwestwards, northwards and eastwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 26, as described below, shall be transferred from Offwell CP to Widworthy CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing on the existing boundary between Offwell CP and Widworthy CP at the junction of the A35 (T) road and Ridge Lane, thence northeastwards

along said lane to a point opposite the southern corner of Parcel No 6423, as shown on

OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A*) ST 2000, date of publication 1977, thence northwestwards to

said corner and northesatwards, northwestwards, northeastwards, southeastwards and northeastwards along the southern boundary of said parcel to Ridge Lane, thence northeastwards along said lane to the western boundary of Parcel No 0400, thence northwards along said western boundary to the northwestern boundary of said parcel,

thence northeastwards and generally northwards along said northwestern boundary

continuing on OS Microfilm ST 2100 (AjM , date of publication 1977, and the western

boundary of Parcel No 1544 to the unnamed road leading eastwards to Hayne Lane,

thence eastwards along said road and northeastwards along Hayne Lane to the existing

boundary between Offwell CP and Stockland CP, thence southwestwards along said CP

boundary and the existing boundary between Offwell CP and CP to the existing

boundary between Offwell CP and Widworthy CP, thence westwards along the last-mentioned

CP boundary to the point of commencement. 8

Area 27, as described below, shall be transferred from Axmouth CP to Combpyne-

Rousdcn CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary, between Axmouth CP and Combpyne-Rousdon CP meets the northwestern boundary of

Parcel No 9222, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm.(A*) SY 2890, date of publication

1958, thence southwestwards along said parcel boundary and southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of said parcel to the northwestern boundary of

Parcel No 7720, thence southwestwards along said parcel boundary and southeastwards and southwestwards along the southern boundary of Parcel No 7127 to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 5908, thence northwards along said eastern boundary and the eastern boundary of Parcel No 5724 to Stepps Road, thence northeastwards along said road to Leggetts Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane to the southern boundary of Parcel No 6263, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary to the existing boundary between Axmouth CP and Combpyne-Rousdon CP, thence

eastwards and southwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 29, as described below, shall be transferred from Musbury CP to Combpyne-

Rousdon CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary

between Combpyne-Rousdon CP and Musbury CP meets at the junction of Five Barrow

Lane and Trinity Hill Road at Five Barrow Gate, thence northwestwards along

the last mentioned CP boundary to a point opposite the southern corner of

Parcel No 8722, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A*) SY 2994, date of publication

1958, thence northeastwards to said southern corner and eastwards along the.

southeastern boundary of said parcel to the eastern boundary, of said parcel,

thence northwards along said parcel boundary to the southern boundary of

Parcel No 9628, thence eastwards along said southern boundary, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) SY 3094, date of publication I960, to the southeastern

1 corner of said parcel, thence due east from said corner to the western boundary

of Parcel No 0720, thence southwards along said parcel boundary to the southern

corner of said parcel, thence due southeast from said corner to the unnamed road i I leading to Trinity Hill Road, thence northeastwards and eastwards along said unnamed

road to Trinity Hill Road,thence southwards along said road to the point of

commencement.

Area 30, as described below, shall be transferred from Musbury CP to Uplyme CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary

between Musbury CP and Combpyne-Rousdon CP meets the southernmost point on the

' eastern boundary of Area 29, as described above, thence northwards along said

eastern boundary and continuing northwards along Trinity Hill Road to the existing

boundary between Musbury CP and Uplyme CP, northwest of Sir Harry Hill Plantation,

thence southwards, eastwards, generally southwards, westwards and southwards along

said CP boundary to the existing boundary between Musbury CP and Combpyne-Rousdon CP,

thence northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 31, as described below, shall be transferred from Uplyme CP to Axminster CP.

' That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the western boundary

of Area 30, as described above, meets the existing boundary between Musbury CP and

Uplyme CP, thence westwards along said CP boundary and northwards and eastwards

along the existing boundary between Uplyme CP and Axminster CP to Trinity Hill

, Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the point of commencement.

Area 32, as described below, shall be transferred from Axminster CP to Uplyme CP. 10

That area bounded by a line commencing on the existing boundary between Axminster CP

and Uplyme CP at the northeastern corner of Area 31, as described above, thence

northeastwards along Trinity Hill Road to a point opposite the westernmost corner

of the property known as Cedar Cottage, thence" southeastwards in a straight line to

the existing boundary between Axminster CP and Uplyme CP, thence southwestwards and

northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

Area 38A as described below, shall be transferred from Buckerell CP to Awliscombe CP.

1 That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary

between Buckerell CP and Awliscombe CP meets the existing boundary between

Buckerell CP and Gittisham CP at Trafalgar Bridge, thence southwestwards along the

last-mentioned CP boundary to a point in line with the eastern boundary of Parcel

No 0002, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (C) ST 1400, date of publication 1985,

thence northwards to and northwestwards, northeastwards and northwestwards along

said parcel boundary to the northern boundary of said parcel, thence southwestwards

along said northern boundary to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 0009, thence north-

westwards along said parcel boundary, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (Al) ST 1300,

date of publication March 1985, to the unnamed road leading from Deer Park Hotel

to Weston, thence northeastwards along said unnamed road and northwestwards along

the unnamed road leading from Weston to Deer Park Farm, to the southeastern

boundary of Parcel No 0040, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary,

continuing on ST 1400, and the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 0049 to the

northeastern boundary of said parcel, thence northwestwards along said parcel

boundary and southwestwards along the northwestern boundary of said parcel,

continuing on ST 1300, to NG Reference ST 1399200555, thence due northwestwards

from said reference to the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 0065, thence north-

eastwards along said parcel boundary, continuing on ST 1400, to the existing

boundary between Buckerell CP and Awliscombe CP, thence southeastwards along said CP

boundary to the point of commencement. 11

Area 38B, as described below, shall be transferred from Gittisham CP to

Awliscombe CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the easternmost point.of Area 38A, as described above, thence northeastwards along the existing boundary between

Awliscombe CP and Gittisham CP to the eastern boundary of the last mentioned CP, thence southwards, northeastwards and southeastwards along that eastern boundary to the southernmost point of Parcel No 8064, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm

SY 1499, date of publication September 1986, thence northwestwards along the western boundary of said parcel to the southern boundary of the Exeter-Honiton railway, thence due north across said railway to its northern boundary! thence southwestwards along that northern boundary to Hayne Lane, thence northwestwards along said lane crossing the A30 in a straight line to the unnamed road leading to Weston, thence northwards along said unnamed road to the point of commencement.

Area 39, as described below, shall be transferred from Axmouth CP to Combpyne-Rousdon

CP.

That area bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Axmouth CP and CP crosses the A3052 road, thence northwestwards along said road to the access road to the property known as

Westclose, at Heathfield Cross, thence northwards along said access road to the southern boundary of Parcel No 6784, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A*)

SY 2891, date of publication 1958, thence northwestwards along said parcel boundary to the eastern boundary of Parcel No 4395, thence northeastwards along said eastern boundary and its continuation as the southeastern boundary of Parcel

No 4911, as shown on OS 1:25 000 Microfilm (A*) SY 2892, date of publication

1958, to the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 6725; thence southeastwards along said parcel boundary and its continuation as the southwestern boundary of Parcel

No 7399 on SY 2891, to the existing boundary between Axmouth CP and Combpyne- 12

Rousdon CP thence southwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement

SCHEDULE 2

Creation of Civil Parishes.

1. It is proposed that a new Civil Parish, to be known as All Saints, shall be created and will comprise Area 33, as described below.

Area 33: That area of Chardstock CP bounded by a line commencing at the point where the existing boundary between Chardstock CP and Axminster CP meets the existing boundary between Chardstock CP and Membury CP, thence northeastwards and generally northwestwards along the last-mentioned CP boundary to southeastern boundary of Parcel No 3318, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 2903, date of publication 1961, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary and the south- eastern boundary of Parcel No 4017 to the eastern boundary of said parcel, thence northwards along said eastern boundary to the southern boundary of Parcel No 3731, thence eastwards along said parcel boundary to the southwestern boundary of

Parcel No 5326, thence southeastwards along said southwestern boundary to its southernmost point, thence southeastwards in a straight line from said point to the western corner of Parcel No 6213, thence southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of said parcel and continuing southeastwards along the southwestern boundary of Parcel No 6900, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 2902, date of publication

1961, to the western boundary of Parcel No 8400, thence southwards along said parcel boundary to the southern boundary of said parcel thence eastwards along said parcel boundary and the southern boundary of Parcel No 8292 to the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 8991, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary and southeastwards along the northeastern boundary of said parcel and the northeastern boundary of

Parcel No 0073, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 3002, date of publication 13

1961, to the Track, west of Beaconhill Cottage, thence northwards along said track to a point opposite the southwestern corner of Parcel No 1093, thence eastwards to and northeastwards along the southern boundary of said parcel to the northeastern boundary of Parcel No 1586, thence southwards along said parcel boundary to the northern boundary of Parcel No 2878, thence eastwards along said northern boundary to the western boundary of Parcel No 4683, thence northwards along said western boundary and northeastwards along the northern boundary of said parcel it its eastern boundary, thence southwards along said eastern boundary to the northern boundary of Parcel No 6380, thence northeastwards along said northern boundary to the unnamed road leading from Birchill to Alston, thence southeastwards along said road to a point opposite the southern corner of Parcel No 7600, thence eastwards in a straight line to and northeastwards along the southeastern boundary of said parcel to the eastern boundary of Parcel

No 7788, thence southwards along said parcel boundary to the southeastern corner of said parcel, thence due south from said corner to the northwestern boundary of Parcel No 8479, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary and southeastwards along the northeastern boundary of said parcel to the northern boundary of Parcel

No 9578, thence northeastwards along said northern boundary, continuing on OS 1:2500

Microfilm (A) ST 3102, date of publication 1961, to the eastern boundary of said

parcel, thence southwards along said eastern boundary to the northern boundary

of Parcel No 0673, thence westwards along said northern boundary to the northeastern

boundary of Parcel No 0170, thence southeastwards along said parcel boundary and south-

westwards along the southeastern boundary of said parcel to the southwestern boundary

of Parcel No 1069, thence southeastwards along said parcel boundary to the northwestern

boundary of Parcel No 1563, thence northeastwards along said northwestern boundary

and southeastwards along the eastern boundary of said parcel to the southeastern

boundary of Parcel No 2200, thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary

to the River Kit, thence generally southeastwards along said river to the northern boundary of Parcel No 9083, as shown on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 3101, date of publication 1961, thence northeastwards along said parcel boundary to its northernmost point, thence northeastwards in a straight line to the northwestern corner of Parcel No 0500, thence northeastwards along the northwestern boundary of said parcel, continuing on OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 3201, date of publication

1961, and OS 1:2500 Microfilm (A) ST 3202, date of publication 1961, and continuing northeastwards along the southern boundary of Parcel No 0001 to the western boundary of Parcel No 2300, thence generally southeastwards along said western boundary and the southwestern boundary of said parcel, continuing on ST 3201, to the , thence southwards and eastwards along said river to the existing' boundary between Chardstock CP and CP, thence generally southwards along said CP boundary to the existing boundary between Chardstock CP and Axminster

CP, thence generally southwestwards and generally northwestwards along said CP boundary to the point of commencement.

2. It is proposed that a new Civil Parish, to be named Exmouth, shall be

created and will comprise the existing unparished area of Exmouth.

SCHEDULE 3

Civil Parish Wards.

1. Area 31, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred to the Town Ward of

Axminster CP.

3 The Raymonds HilL^Ward-of-Axmins-ter—CP—shall ba abolished.

3. The proposed Exmouth CP, as described in Schedule 2, shall be divided into

six Wards as described below. 15

EXMOUTH BRIXINGTON WARD

The Exmouth Brixington Ward of East Devon District.

This Ward shall return five members to the Parish Council.

EXMOUTH HALSDON WARD

The Exmouth Halsdon Ward of East Devon District.

This Ward shall return four members to the Parish Council.

EXMOUTH LITTLEHAM RURAL WARD

The Exmouth Littleham Rural Ward of East Devon District.

This Ward shall return five members to the Parish Council.

EXMOUTH LITTLEHAM URBAN WARD

The Exmouth Littleham Urban Ward of East Devon District.

This ward shall return three members to the Parish Council s , EXMOUTH WITHYCOHBE RALEIGH WARD

The Exmouth Withycombe Raleigh Ward of East Devon District.

This ward shall return five members to the Parish Council.

EXMOUTH WITHYCOMBE URBAN WARD

1 The Exmouth Withycombe Urban Ward of East Devon District.

This Ward shall return three members to the Parish Council.

'Note: There are no consequential effects upon County Electoral Division or District Wards from the proposed Exmouth CP. 16

SCHEDULE 4

Revised District electoral arrangements.

It is proposed that the District Wards, as defined in the District o£ East Devon

(Electoral Arrangements) Order 1978, shall be altered as described below.

Area 1, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Lympstone Ward to

Woodbury Ward.

Area 2, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Woodbury Ward to

Lympstone Ward.

Area 3, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Budleigh Salterton

Ward to Raleigh Ward.

Areas 4, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Raleigh Ward to

Budleigh Salterton Ward.

Area 16, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Raleigh Ward to

Newton Poppleford and Harpford Ward.

Area 17, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Broad Clyst Ward

to Clystbeare Ward.

Areas 20 and 21, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Patteson

Ward to Tale Vale Ward.

Area 22, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Otterhead Ward to

Patteson Ward. 17

Areas 23 and 24, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Otterhead

Ward to Edenvale Ward.

Areas 29 and 30, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Newbridges

Ward to Trinity Ward.

Area 31, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Trinity Ward to

Axminster Town Ward.

Area 32, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Axminster Hamlets

VJard to Trinity Ward.

SCHEDULE 5

Revised County Electoral arrangements.

It is proposed that the County Electoral Divisions, as defined in the County of

Devon (Electoral Arrangements) Order 1981, shall be altered as described below.

Area 1, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Exmouth Lympstone ED

to Clyst Vale ED.

Area 2, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Clyst Vale ED to

Exmouth Lympstone ED.

Areas 20 and 21, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Honiton

Rural ED to Rural ED.

Areas 23 and 24, as described in Schedule 1, shall be transferred from Honiton

Rural ED to Seaton Rural ED.