Parish and Town Council submissions to the Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 21 submissions from Local Residents.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Keal, Simon

From: Waller, Matthew Sent: 09 September 2013 16:57 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of South Hams

From: Michael Read Sent: 09 September 2013 16:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of South Hams

I hace been instructed to write to you by my Parish Council, expressing our support and unanimous approval for the draft recommendations in as much as it affects Ward One, and .

Michael Read Clerk to the Council, Ashprington and Tuckenhay.

1 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

South Hams District

Personal Details:

Name: Marilyn Small

E-mail:

Postcode: Bickleigh Parish Council Organisation Name: ()

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Bickleigh Parish Council is concerned that the proposal does not seem to take account of any future development, ie there is no recognition that there is a requirement for 500 houses in the South Hams area. There is an assumption that the housing will be within the Woolwell area and if housing does come about, then that development would be in Bickleigh and Ward which would significantly aler the equality principle. The Parish Council accept that there are no firm applications for the development to take place in this area but discussions are on-going and it is understood that a planning application might be coming forward before the end of the year. The Parish Council notice that Darklake Farm is ouside of the Woolwell Ward whereas it might more logically be included in the Woolwell Ward because of previous planning applications to develop as housing. Whatever happens at Darklake Farm, Woolwell is the bigger influence on the farm than if it is within the rural nature of Bickleigh and Cornwood ward. 3. With regard to the proposal for Bickleigh Parish Council, there is some concern about the split of Councillors between Woolwell and Bickleigh and the Parish Council is not clear on how the 7:2 relationship has been arrived at. The Parish Council can envisage a scenario where it might be quite difficult to get 7 applicants in the Woolwell Wad. Councillors feel that this is potentially devisive and the areas are too small to be warded. 4.It is understood that the District Council has submitted an alternative name for the Cornwood, Shaugh and Bickleigh proposed ward as "South West ". The Parish Council is not in favour of this as the areas will lose their identity and as Bickleigh Parish stretches right down to the River Tamar, it is felt that the proposed name does not reflect this.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2624 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2624 14/11/2013 South Hams District

Personal Details:

Name: STEVE GALE

E-mail:

Postcode: PARISH Organisation Name: COUNCIL

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: The wards proposed seem reasonable. If however, Parish names are to be included within ward names then the title adopted should clearly be BLACKAWTON, HALWELL AND WARD. Blackawton is physically and in terms of population, significantly larger than Halwell and also is first alphabetically Clerk: Roger J Tucker

CHIVELSTONE PARISH COUNCIL

Review Officer ( South Hams) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

7 Oct 2013

Dear Simon Keal

Chivelstone Parish Council is disappointed with the Boundary changes recommended by the LGBCE for South Hams District Council. From the outset we were informed that any decisions would be based on a number of criteria including the role of Councillors within their communities. Having read your report it is quite evident that you are only interested in balancing numbers.

We can see from the previous consultation on Councillor numbers that you give little weight to the observations and wishes of Parish councils but perhaps you might explain to us why some people will have up to 3 votes in District elections – influencing the make up of one tenth of the Council while others only have one vote influencing one thirtieth of the same Council. How is this fair? Why are there so many multimember wards when you were specifically asked for single member wards?

What account have you taken of the amount of second and holiday homes in each ward and the vast influx of tourists during the holiday periods? As you may or may not know you don’t have to be on the electoral register to avail yourself of the services of the Council.

South Hams District Council is now in the process of getting rid of 25% of back room staff. To their credit they are not cutting frontline staff. In your wisdom you have seen fit to cut Councillors by 25% which implies you have little or no understanding of the role of a Councillor in their community.

It is a shame that at a time of significant uncertainty and upheaval in Local Government you have seen fit to compound this malaise with unnecessary and unwanted changes. It’s almost as if you are doing it deliberately.

We would prefer the name of the ward to be Saltstone & .

Yours sincerely , Chivelstone Parish Council

Roger J Tucker, Clerk

Chairman, Councillor T Johnson Keal, Simon

From: Sally Fairman Sent: 08 November 2013 16:19 To: Keal, Simon Subject: South Hams - electoral review

Dear Mr Keal CORNWOOD PARISH COUNCIL

On behalf of the Councillors of Cornwood Parish I write to endorse the recommendation of the Boundary Commission regarding this Parish within the South Hams. Councillors were pleased to unanimously agree your proposal for the combination of the Parishes of Bickleigh, , Cornwood and Harford as a single Member Ward. There is a natural affinity between our Parishes, and we work well together.

Discussion has also taken place between the Parishes on a suitable name for this grouping. It has been proposed that the Ward be called South West Dartmoor – and this was also unanimously endorsed by Cornwood Parish Council. We feel that the name accurately reflects the location of these parishes, all of which are very much part of the Dartmoor National Park ethos.

We would like to take this opportunity to thank you for the consideration you have given to this complex matter of re‐warding.

Yours sincerely

SALLY M FAIRMAN Clerk to Cornwood Parish Council.

Please note this will also be sent to the LGBC as a hard copy.

1 Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 October 2013 16:37 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SOUTH HAMS; DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

From: Jean Turrell Sent: 24 October 2013 15:30 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Cllr M. Hicks'; terry soper; 'Nigel Hannaford'; gabi turner; 'Sarah Warden'; geraldine weeks; 'Annalisa Owen' Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SOUTH HAMS; DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

East Allington Parish Council have considered the proposals set out in the above review and wish to make the following representation.

In so far as change has to be made, this Council agree with the draft proposals put forward by the Commission. The proposal allies Parishes based on the town of , with one exception that of , and therefore gives common interest such as Kingsbridge Academy, Norton Brook and Chillington Health Centres etc.

The Council dismiss the proposal of South Hams as the Councils allied to have no connection with our local services. Most of them are based on for their services or even , and despite our post code Kingsbridge is the natural centre for East Allington.

Jean Turrell Clerk to East Allington Parish Council

1 Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 November 2013 08:43 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Request for change of ward name

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 November 2013 16:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Request for change of ward name

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing as clerk to Parish Council, who would like to request that the name of the ward of Stokenham be changed to 'Saltstone ward'.

Regards

Olivia Jenkinson Clerk of East Portlemouth Parish Council

1

Keal, Simon

From: Waller, Matthew Sent: 05 September 2013 14:43 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of South Hams: Draft

From: P ROPER [ Sent: 05 September 2013 14:25 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of South Hams: Draft

Dear Simon, In response to the Consultation on the Draft Recommendations Parish Council instructed me (Parish Clerk) to contact you. The new Warding grouping places Loddiswell with , Churchslow and Woodleigh. The Members of the PC have no problem with this suggestion but do object if the Ward is called Aveton Gifford. This and the other two parishes are much smaller than that of Loddiswell. We would like to suggest that a neutral name is chosen by agreement between the four Parishes. If this is acceptable I will gladly arrange a consultation locally. Yours Peter Roper (Loddisdwell PC)

1 SHAUGH PRIOR PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Clerk

The Review Officer (South Hams) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG

11th November 2013

Dear Sirs/Madam,

RE: RESPONSE TO BOUNDARY COMMISSION PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL WARDS WITHIN THE SOUTH HAMS

I refer to the draft recommendations that have been put forward by the Boundary Commission for the further electoral review (FER) of Wards within South Hams District Council.

Having reviewed these proposals in detail I can confirm that Shaugh Prior Parish Council support the proposals put forward in respect of the geographical boundary of the new electoral ward that has been proposed (which this Parish would now fall within if the recommendations are accepted).

However Shaugh Prior Parish Council do have some reservations in respect of the proposed name of the new electoral ward (Bickleigh and Cornwood) as it no longer provides any reference to the Parish of Shaugh Prior. Concerns have been raised by our local Parish Cllr’s that such a move could lead to the loss of the identity of Shaugh Prior within the local area.

It is our understanding that an alternative name for the revised electoral ward has been proposed by our Local District Cllr (that being the ward of ‘South West Dartmoor’). I can confirm that Shaugh Prior Parish Council fully endorse this revised suggestion for the name of the electoral ward and would wish to see this come forward as part of these proposals.

I hope this response clearly sets out the views of Shaugh Prior Parish Council on how proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission and in the meantime if I can be of any further assistance then please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

Scott Smy Parish Clerk for Shaugh Prior Parish Council

website:- http://www.shaughpriorparish.gov.uk Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 November 2013 08:45 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Ward name request from Slapton Parish Council

From: Olivia Jenkinson [ Sent: 08 November 2013 16:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Ward name request from Slapton Parish Council

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing as clerk of Slapton Parish Council, who would like to request that the name of the ward of East Allington be changed to 'Coleridge Ward'.

Coleridge refers to the area covering all of the parishes within this new ward.

Regards

Olivia Jenkinson Clerk of Slapton Parish Council

1 Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 October 2013 15:09 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: South Hams - comment from Parish Council

From: Parish Council Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 October 2013 14:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: South Hams - comment from South Brent Parish Council

The parish of South Brent should be a single ward, which should be part of the policy for rural wards. South Brent Parish Council objects to dual member wards.

Julia Willoughby

Clerk to South Brent Parish Council

Confidentiality Notice: Please note this e‐mail is confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately; after notifying the sender please delete the e‐mail. Unless you are the intended recipient you should not copy the e‐mail or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. This e‐mail message has been scanned for computer viruses, however South Brent Parish Council do not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus which is not detected. Please note that the Council monitors e‐mail for business purposes.

1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

South Hams District

Personal Details:

Name: John Carter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: This Parish Council does not agree with the proposed changes to the wards and believes they should remain unchanged. The proposed new wards are too large and there would be little or no savings in cost in the long term. Reducing the number of District Councillors from 40 to 31 will reduce the opportunity for local people to have proper support from their elected representatives. With the austerity cuts into local authority budgets, elected representatives have more challenges to ensure local people's needs are taken into consideration and local services are adequately provided when cost cutting changes are implemented. It seems the Commission has a poor grasp of how their proposals will impact on rural areas. Increasing the workload and geographic area for which councillors are responsible will discourage working age and younger people. The profile of the council could become even less representative of the community as it becomes largely the preserve of the retired and the wealthy.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2599 14/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2599 14/11/2013

Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 November 2013 14:48 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: re-warding - South Hams District Council

From: Ian and Mary Blackler [m Sent: 07 November 2013 12:50 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Andrew Hartley'; 'Julian Taylor'; 'Judith Hart' Subject: re-warding - South Hams District Council

Dear Review Officer,

I write on behalf of and support of Parish Council, who fell their recommendations have not been fully considered by South Hams District Council or the Boundary Commission.

As you would be aware the proposal is that they should be warded with , Newton Ferrers, Noss Mayo and . They have virtually nothing in common with those parishes:‐

1. Firstly the A38 main road is between Sparkwell and Yealmpton, a natural boundary. 2. The southern parishes are all coastal in nature and far more affluent. 3. Sparkwell Parish,which includes the villages of Sparkwell, Lee Mill and Hemerdon is part of the Southern Fringes of Dartmoor National Park and should be in the same ward as Bickleigh and Cornwood, the latter of which they have been associated with for many years. 4. In addition to the above there are mining activities in Cornwood and Hemerdon (their mine is now known as Drakelands Tungsten Mine) with complementary activities and interests. 5. It is understood that such a ward could be a 2 councillor Ward with Yealmpton etc being a single member Ward. 6. We feel the above proposal reflects the identities and interests of the communities, which Sparkwell are desperate not to lose. 7. Several proposals you have received have, in Sparkwell’s view been to serve self interests of individual present members – ours is to preserve and maintain our identity and good relations with our neighbouring parishes. 8. In addition to the above comments the Lee Mill village has just had completed 62 new houses with more to be expected in the village of Sparkwell itself in the foreseeable future, the numbers of electorates is therefore allowed for by having a 2 member ward of Cornwood, Bickleigh and Sparkwell including villages of Lee Mill and Hemerdon. 9. Finally this proposal reflects local communities.

Hopefully the above enables the Boundary Commission to agree with Sparkwell’s proposal.

Regards, Cllr. J.Ian.G.Blackler.

1 STAVERTON PARISH COUNCIL

Clerk - Karen Gilbert

The Local Government Boundary Commission FAO Review Officer ( South Hams )

November 7th 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

Staverton Parish Council met on 6th November 2013 and debated the merits and disadvantages of recommendations on new Staverton ward boundaries in the South Hams Area

This matter was discussed at length and It was RESOLVED that the Clerk write to the Boundary Commission to confirm the Council’s previous comments - in that the Council wishes to be associated with smaller rural Parishes ( as is the case now) rather than being joined to a neighbouring Parish such as with whom it was felt Staverton had little common ground.

It is strongly felt that the proposed new warding of Staverton and Dartington creates an imbalance in the voting for any future District Councillor - Staverton having approx 640 electors in a rural Parish and Dartington having approx 1500 in a more town based area

The Parish Council wishes to point out that the matter had been carefully considered and it’s decision to stay warded with smaller rural Parishes in no way reflects just a casual decision to retain the status quo

Yours Faithfully

Karen Gilbert

Clerk to Staverton Parish Council Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

South Hams District

Personal Details:

Name: Philip Millard

E-mail:

Postcode: Parish Organisation Name: Council

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Comment text: Having considered the proposed changes - we feel that the new and Thurlestone Ward is the best option. As it combines the coastal Parishes and is the most sensible Geographicaly

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2521 23/10/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2521 23/10/2013 TOTNES TOWN COUNCIL The Guildhall Offices 5 Ramparts Walk Totnes TQ9 5QH Tel 01803 862147 Fax 01803 864275 Email [email protected] Website www.totnestowncouncil.gov.uk

Simon Keal Review Officer (South Hams) Local Government Boundaries Commission for England 76‐78 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 11th November 2013

Dear Mr Keal,

On behalf of Totnes Town Council, I wish to make the following submission regarding the review of Ward boundaries and elected Members in South Hams district area. Our view is that the proposed changes should not be implemented for the following reasons:

 The LGBCE proposals do not conform to SHDC policies regarding multi‐member wards; indeed they propose 9 multi‐member wards; in large rural areas this is likely to have a major impact on the number of potential candidates going forward for election as it creates large Wards, difficult to canvas and properly represent. With rising energy costs, this would increase travel costs (both economic and environmental).

 Considerable additional workload for Councillors is anticipated in supporting the District Council, Parish and Town Councils and the electorate during the changes and in the wake of the implementation of new District Council and Shared Services management programmes to address the major budget cuts.

 There are likely to be changes to Parish and Ward sizes as a result of the new Local Plan that is currently underway. Strategic planning for future housing developments could be applied to modify the current electoral differences between wards. Such changes could help guide the Local Plan and Neighbourhood Plans.

 The data that has been provided throughout this process is based on the year 2018 anticipated electoral representation from the forecast of a population increase of 8.4%. This is purely speculative as most of the population increase is anticipated to arise from inward migration; an impact of the housing market mainly in the South East of UK. With financial markets still very unstable, this is an unreliable assumption. New housing developments in South Hams tend to be quite large with 50 – 100 new households and currently encourage this inward market (as they offer little affordable housing – for local people); just a few such developments could easily distort these proposed new warding arrangements.

 The initial response from SHDC to LGBCE in September 2012 did not provide a very accurate picture of SHDC decision‐making or individual Member’s input and work.

o With regard to Governance it stated “the overwhelming majority of decisions are taken by full Executive.” This is inaccurate as Full Council plays a significant role in decision‐making; Executive simply makes recommendations towards many key decisions, as do the Scrutiny Panels. o In discussing Scrutiny functions the submission fails to acknowledge the active role scrutiny plays in looking at Council performance, participating in debates and making recommendations on decisions for both Executive and Full Council. o In outlining the representational role of Councillors those drafting the response did not invite the views of all members and is inaccurate and understated. For example the varying role many members play in their communities and assisting individuals with problems takes time and with austerity cuts is increasing.

 In his letter to LGBC on 14th February 2013, Richard Sheard states” Following the consultation on Council’s size, I thought it might be helpful to let you know that publication of your proposal has led to relatively little informal discussion within the Council and formally our recommendation to you still stands”. ‘Informal discussion’ is an ambiguous term and in this instance is misleading as it suggests little disquiet regarding the proposal and is based presumably on the assumption that informal discussion within the Council only takes place at pre‐arranged meetings. Since the LGBC proposal was out for democratic consultation at that time, this letter from a senior Officer at the Council was inaccurate and inappropriate as it could influence LGBCE.

 The additional costs and travel time for Councillors will add to stretched workloads already acknowledged at 20 hours average each week. An initial 30% rise in workload to around 26 hours each week, which is anticipated to increase in line with the anticipated population increase of 8.4%, resulting in at least a 30 hour week will be less attractive to potential younger electoral candidates who need to earn a living or have time‐demanding family responsibilities. (SHDC Members currently receive an annual allowance of £3,400). This will lead to these sectors of society being further under‐represented.

 The proposed increase from 1,717 average electoral representation to 2,220 per Councillor brings a major disparity from West Devon Borough Council with whom SHDC shares services (and is likely to become more integrated under the current proposed Transformation T18 plans). The LGBC has recommended WDBC remain at 31 Councillors, with an average electorate of 1,410. The current difference is compatible with the difference in electorate geographical density; this would be much less compatible if the number of South Hams DC Members were to be reduced to 31. (The reasons given to WDBC for remaining the same were the opposite of those reasons given to reduce the number of SHDC!).

 The proposed new Wards still result in 5 Councillors (representing 3 Wards) at electoral variance greater than 10% of the average electorate represented in the District.

 Changes to Wards will cost money which, in times of austerity, should not be a priority.

 A majority of submissions, in particular from Parish and Town Councils, were against the initial SHDC proposal and initial recommendation from LGBC to reduce from 40 to 30. The points made by people in their submissions have been largely dismissed.

 The current round of consultations invites the public to comment on an interactive map; an explanation, supplementary information or reasons for advantage etc. are not clearly available on that webpage, rather they have to be accessed through further links that could cause confusion.

 The information supplied to SHDC Members throughout this process has not provided the base level of current Wards and their electorate at 2012, simply the proposed new combinations. This information is not available on SHDC, DCC or LGBC websites. It is needed to provide a starting point for comparison. The information that has been worked towards is assumed electorate levels at 2018 which is speculative. (The 2012 information on the table below was requested from Electoral Services officer at SHDC)

 Many SHDC Ward Members did not solicit or reflect their parish council views when voting at SHDC.

 Many Parish and Town Councils have expressed concerns about the new Wards linking parishes with dissimilar identity, e.g. Dartington with Staverton, with and Dartmouth. These views are very valid and should be taken more account of; to ignore them is to undermine the democratic process.

 In Totnes, the proposed reduction of a Ward member and the combined warding into a single unit is considered to create a difficult Ward to represent and one that will be unattractive to new potential elected representatives. The Mayor has suggested that if this rewarding of Totnes Town and Bridgetown is to be taken forward, it should be divided into three wards: Totnes Town, Totnes Bridgetown and Totnes Riverside to provide better representation.

Summary As stated at the outset, our view is that the proposed changes should not be implemented for the above substantial reasons and concerns. Please take this submission and those of all individuals and parish Councils who are concerned about democracy and representation into full account when making your assessments and final recommendations.

Yours sincerely,

Helen Nathanson Town Clerk On behalf of Totnes Town Council

Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 September 2013 08:26 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Boundary Review - Consultation

From: Sarah Woodman Sent: 23 September 2013 19:49 To: Reviews@ Cc: South Hams District Council Subject: Boundary Review - Consultation

Ugborough Parish Council supports the proposed combination of and Ermington into a single ward

However, the proposed boundary with Ivybridge is incorrect as it is inconsistent with the approved Ugborough Neighbourhood Plan Area - which can be viewed at www.southhams.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=4798&p=0

Sarah Woodman Parish Clerk

Ugborough Parish Council Chairman: Cllr George Beable 01364 649273 Clerk: Sarah Woodman 01364 661127 www.ugboroughparishcouncil.gov.uk

Confidentiality Notice This email is confidential and may also be priveleged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the email. Unless you are the intended recipient, you should not copy the email or use it for any purpose or disclose its contents to any other person. This email message has been scanned for computer viruses, however Ugborough Parish Council does not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus which is not detected.

1 This submission is made on behalf of Yealmpton Parish Council.

This council does not agree with the proposals.

One of the key objectives was to achieve single member wards. This has clearly not been achieved as 8 of the 19 wards are not single membered. It appears that this has not been achieved because the number of voters per member has taken priority.

This council submits that this number is almost irrelevant. What matters is that the member knows the geography of their ward, the physical territory, its history and its voters. Multi member wards make this an impossible task for those councillors.

The proposals mean that some councillors will be expected to attend at least four Parish Council meetings per month. This is an unreal expectation. It is already difficult enough for them to cover existing duties on a part time voluntary basis and you are pushing the members to become almost full time councillors in these 8 wards. How can you expect to encourage anyone with a full time job, i.e not retired, to get involved with Local Government?

In the south west of the district we would propose the following:

a) Split and Brixton into single member wards. The 5 year numbers used for Brixton are inaccurate as Sherford new town has been delayed.

b) Put Newton and Holbeton together as a single member ward. They are adjacent with a common boundary and with similar rural interests and identity.

c) 1. Make Yealmpton a single member ward. Make Sparkwell, Bickleigh and Cornwood either a single member ward or split it into 2 single member wards.

2. or, as a compromise, make Yealmpton plus Lee Mill village a single member ward with the remainder of Sparkwell joining into Bickleigh and Cornwood.

In reality, Yealmpton has no identity or interests with areas north of the A38 highway.

Please consider these suggestions seriously. Local Government is not about getting the numbers the same in each ward, it is about delivering a service efficiently by the councillors on a ‘local’ basis and encouraging new blood into the District Councils.