Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Local Residents' Submissions to the East Devon District Council

Local Residents' Submissions to the East Devon District Council

Local residents’ submissions to the East District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.

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

 

            ! "#$ %  &'# (( 

Dear Sirs

Inclusion of the south-west part of Seaton in the Beer and Ward

We live on the Beer Road in Seaton and I would like to strongly object to having my community identity, even in a small way, change. We feel that we live in Seaton and belong in Seaton. It seems strange to move part of a town rather than a whole town or village, especially as it will make very little difference to the Beer and Branscombe Ward.

I do hope you will reconsider these plans, thank you

Yours faithfully

Hilary Arnold

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Jerry B Sent: 13 March 2017 09:31 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF : DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Sirs

FARRINGDON PARISH - CLYST VALLEY WARD

Writing as a resident of Farringdon Parish, East Devon, I wish to object to the Commission's proposal to change the existing Clyst Valley Ward boundary, which will effectively lose Farringdon Parish to a new and bigger Ward.

Our Parish Council has already objected, and cited the reasons why. I am in full agreement with their objections, and reiterate everything that they have stated. Looking at the criteria set out by the Commission, everything about this proposed change goes entirely against the very spirit of what the Commission's aims are. It appears to boil down to the fact that this has nothing to do with 'reflecting the interests and identities of local communities', but simply an unnecessary 'political game', based on predictions of electorate numbers within each Ward.

Please leave things as they are for Farringdon. Nothing in the proposed change reflects the best interests of Farringdon Parish, and being stuck within a new Broadclyst Ward does nothing to help Farringdon Parish at all. There are no commonalities between what goes on in Broadclyst and here in Farringdon. In short, there is no common identity between the two. Our common identity is with, and must remain with Clyst Valley Ward. If anybody had actually taken the time to investigate properly, then this would be obvious. Our shared issues are associated with the A3052 Road, the Hill Barton Industrial Estate and the real possibility of the additional unwanted mass development into the area under the Greater Strategic Plan. Remaining with Clyst Valley Ward better reflects the interests and identities of each of our local communities. We will not be represented in the same, understanding way under Broadclyst as we are now. What we have now works, and works extremely well. It's not broken, so please don't fix it!

Please take on board what the people within Farringdon Parish want in keeping with your own criteria, i.e. what's best for Farringdon and our community is not what the Commission is proposing. We wish to stay within Clyst Valley Ward, and definitely not a Broadclyst one.

Thank you.

Yours sincerely

Jerry Bird

1

Cooper, Mark

From: Sent: 05 March 2017 12:53 To: reviews Cc: Subject: EDDC Electoral Review 2017.

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for the East Devon Dist Council (EDDC) Electoral Review dtd Feb 2017 by The Local Government Boundary Commission for .

Objections to the above recommendations submitted by:

Brian CURRYER,

Para 10, page 2 and Para 32, page 7 in the above review refer to:

* Reflect community identity,

* Provide for effective and convenient local government.

My comments are:

The Clyst Valley Ward to which we are currently linked gives Farringdon all the necessary "community links". Farringdon shares the A3052 (a major road) and Farringdon parishioners would naturally migrate to in their daily travels along the A3052. Clyst St Mary village hall is used by Farringdon parishioners especially as its size allows for sports pursuits. Clyst St Mary is "just down the road" and we "rub shoulders" with our neighbours. What do we have in common with Broadclyst ? Very little. Both primary and secondary schools are nearer to us and NOT in the Broadclyst Ward.Transport links are totally unconnected. Broadclyst has the B3181, Clyst Valley has the A3052. Both are totally different in their traffic flows, uses and volumes. The proposed "Super" Broadclyst Ward is too big especially in its North to South dimension, a distance of some 9 miles (as the crow flies) from one end to the other. The northern extremity (at Hele) being nearer to than Exeter. In winter and other times of heavy rainfall Broadclyst is cut off from Farringdon owing to road closure caused by constant flooding at Broadclyst Station. This necessitates a detour via Exeter and . At Farringdon we have little or nothing in common with Broadclyst but certainly affinity to Clyst St Mary.

The creation of a Super Broadclyst Ward may suit 'electoral equality' but it doesn't 'reflect community identity' as the Electoral Review is required to do as per Para 10 & para 32 above.

As we do NOT have anything in common with Broadclyst, but much in common with our current Clyst Valley Ward I urge you to reconsider your proposal in this respect. The mathematics of 'electoral equality' may need to be re configured to accommodate this but our link to community identity would then be retained. is that not what some of this is about ?

Brian Curryer.

1

Cooper, Mark

From: Nick & Karen Sent: 14 March 2017 13:41 To: reviews Subject: Beer & Branscombe East Devon DC Ward

Follow Up : Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Property Address:

I am writing to give our full support and agreement with the proposal to incorporate Beer Road into the Beer & Branscombe Ward.

Everything about our property location demonstrates our community identity should naturally belong to Beer:-

1. Beer village centre is 0.5 miles, whereas Seaton is 1.4 miles 2. We use Beer facilities more regularly than Seaton 2. Our immediate neighbours on Stovar Long Lane are classified as Beer 4. Our property is built on the white cliffs of Beer (Beer Hill) not the red cliffs of Seaton

There has always been confusion on our stretch of Beer Road as to whether we live in Beer or Seaton due to conflicting Road signage. Departing from Seaton on the B3174 there is a sign just by Old Beer Road which says 'Welcome to Beer', however, continuing along the road, at the top of Beer Hill/New Road (near Stovar Long Lane) there's a sign which says 'Welcome to Seaton' so depending on the direction of travel we could live in Beer or we could live in Seaton??? We live in 'no-mans land' between the two signs and would welcome Beer truly adopting us within their boundary, and having the signage corrected by moving the 'Welcome to Seaton' sign to the Seaton side of the 'Welcome to Beer' sign.

Many thanks Mr & Mrs Fox

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Richard Franks Sent: 01 March 2017 11:11 To: reviews Cc: [email protected] Subject: East Devon

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear sir

I object to the proposed changes to the ward boundaries in East Devon. The rural area Raleigh ward must be retained as a separate entity from the built up area of to ensure its uniqueness retains its voice.

2 councilors for Woodbury and 1 councilor for an "adjusted" rural Raleigh 2 councilors for Budleigh salterton would be a much better representation for the people of the area.

Yours faithfully

Richard Franks

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Sent: 26 February 2017 19:32 To: reviews Cc: Subject: RESPONSE TO THE ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Sir / Madam

RESPONSE TO THE ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

I would like to strongly object to proposed recommendations that would see Farringdon Parish becoming part of a newly created Broadclyst Ward. I believe that the Broadclyst area have much different interests and identities than that of Farringdon.

Farringdon has had to put up with a lot of unwanted development in previous years. Local residents have had to fight to contain the nearby industrial site from taking over and ruining our village. I am very concerned that all of our hard work could be undone. I understand that this review will also look into the needs for improving and updating road and transport links. I am very concerned that if a road was planned to be built anywhere near to Farringdon village it would ruin what is currently a beautiful, historic Devon village and would have a negative impact on many residents that live in Farringdon.

Regards

Ross Garcia

1 Cooper, Mark

From: heloise goodbody Sent: 17 March 2017 09:11 To: reviews Subject: Objection to new Budleigh Raleigh Ward - East Devon

Dear sir/madam

I am writing to voice my objection to the newly proposed changes to the wards in the east Devon area. After reading about how this would merge the area of Budleigh Salterton with the area of Raleigh - Woodbury common I think,it would be of detriment to both these communities. The areas are very different with very different needs and should therefore be kept as individual wards with their own representative bodies for each.

As a resident of Budleigh Salterton, with a young family frowning up here I hope my views are taken into account.

Thank you for your consideration, Heloise Goodbody

1 Cooper, Mark

From: MARK Sent: 23 March 2017 20:54 To: reviews Subject: Re-Submission for Inclusion in Beer/Branscombe Boundary

Dear Sirs

I write to powerfully support the inclusion of our property above, within the proposed Beer/Branscombe boundary adjustment and for the following irrefutable reasons:-

1. At the junction of the Old Beer Road with Beer Road there is a 'Welcome to Beer' sign. At the junction of Beer Hill with Beer Road there is a 'Welcome to Seaton' sign. In the quarter of a kilometre of No Man's Land that is between the two signs, we live in the middle; on the Beer Road with embarrassing lack of parochial identity.

2. Geographically we are closer to Beer than Seaton and with distances of 0.4 miles and 1.1 miles respectively. So we have a Beer Road location, live much closer to Beer and suffixed with a Seaton address. Recently our neighbours property, The Mount, was sold and they were so confused they had "The Mount, Beer Road, Seaton, Beer, East Devon" on the sales particulars.

3. The current boundary sits on the Western verge of Beer Road and so the field adjoining Beer Road is in Beer and yet our property on the Eastern verge of the same Road, sits in Seaton.

4. You have commissioned and paid for the research and studies to make this proposal and in current times of austerity and committing to make that decision of expenditure, you have an obligation to follow through with your conclusions from the commissioned reports, to shift the boundary.

None of points 1 to 3 make practical or common sense and the changes DO make practical and common sense. Point 4, you have committed financial resources, the outcome from which you now have an obligation to deliver.

Please acknowledge receipt of this transmission and I wish you well in making the right decision, which from the above, is clear.

Your Faithfully

Mark Hackett

1

Cooper, Mark

From: Anita Jennings Sent: 01 April 2017 10:59 To: reviews Subject: raleigh ward, east devon

Dear Sirs,

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

I wish to vote in favour of a two-member representation for the town of Budleigh Salterton and a one-member represention for the villages upstream the Otter Valley, namely

East Budleigh, Bicton, , and any other minor settlements South of 's parish boundary.

In comparison to the historic settlements up the River Otter , Budleigh Salterton started as a handful of salt-collectors and became a "modern" (mid- l9th Century) suburb of . The population of Otterton was larger than that of Budleigh Salterton right up to 130/140 years ago. There are far more

Listed Buildings in both East Budleigh and in Otterton than in Budleigh Salterton

(Dr) Anita Jennings,

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Sent: 21 February 2017 12:11 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of East Devon

EAST DEVON ELECTORAL REVIEW : FARRINGDON PARISH COUNCIL RESPONSE

We wish to support the views of Farringdon Parish Council, expressed in the excellent letter of 17 February from the Parish Clerk, Mrs Alana Sayers. We strongly object to the proposed recommendation that Farringdon Parish should become part of a Broadclyst ‘Super’ Ward. Please register our objection to this plan.

From: Richard and Jennifer Jones,

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Robert Jones Sent: 07 March 2017 13:04 To: reviews Subject: EAST DEVON BOUNDARY REVIEW

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Sirs,

The logic of the original boundaries has long since been lost. Today the difference between the Exe and Otter valleys is immense accordingly there is logic to ensuring that the two areas are represented entirely separately.

The Exe valley is urban, noisy and polluted. The Otter valley is rural, quiet and clean.

In the valley itself there are two non‐statutory bodies that very effectively represent the lower valley south of the A3052 in Clinton Devon Estate and the Otter Valley Association. It is logical that these bodies be helped further in their endeavours to preserve the Otter Valley by having one local government representative for the same area.

The ridge between the valleys in the main defined by the B 3180 is the visual boundary but also for much of it’s length the landscape boundary and the AONB boundary. It is logical therefore that the part of the Budleigh & Raleigh ward that extends west of this ridge be re‐allocated to Woodbury and Lympstone.

Similarly the area of the Otter valley west of Newton Poppleford and south of the A3052 outside the village and the area east of the village south of the A3052 extending up to the boundary that are both allocated to Newton Poppleford and Harpford should be re‐allocated to the Budleigh & Raleigh ward.

I am a geographer and a chartered surveyor and have lived in East Devon since 1985 and in the Otter Valley for much of that time. It is an increasingly precious resource that requires as effective protection as can be possibly achieved.

Your faithfully,

R C JONES BSc FRICS ROBERT JONES CHARTERED SURVEYORS

1 Cooper, Mark

From: peter kingswood Sent: 03 April 2017 16:38 To: reviews Cc: Subject: FER East-Devon's draft consultation Attachments: 22_amd-East-Devon.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Mark ... attach my comments: approval / objection + 3- wards' name change; ... kind regards Peter

1 FER 2016 Devon County

East Devon an administrative shire’s district

Dear Mark Cooper East Devon district: Draft recommendations consultation The draft re-warding for this district in so’east Devon has shown respect for the rural and urban character & identity of its settlements, generally it has intelligent rigour. Only in three areas is there a lack of rigour: they are Broadclyst, Budleigh [salterton] & Raleigh, and & . The draft needs to be re-visited in the 5 (five) wards of these areas: ‘positive evidence’ for the transfer of Farringdon CP from draft Broadclyst into Raleigh ward. The ‘gold standard’ FERs in Devon County districts are and the : they shown respect for the rural and urban character & identity of their settlements, Haccombe … CP & and CP & , respectively, combining suburban parish wards (PWs) within urban wards. The reviews have shown respect for the rural and urban character & identity of their settlements. Farringdon CP’s future is rural, whilst, Broadclyst CP’s future is to become an urban Cranbrook-centric settlement. Forecast urban growth: Cranbrook ward is massive, whilst, Broadclyst ward’s forecast is large, and in Clyst Valley ward its forecast urban growth excludes Farringdon CP. Farringdon CP’s population is to be static, also, Bicton & East Budleigh grouped parish council’s population is to be static: they both need to join in a revised Raleigh ward. My detailed comments and alternatives are in my Appendix. With respect, EDDC’s proposed Budleigh/Raleigh and Feniton wards lack intelligent rigour. These draft wards needs to be re-visited in the 5 (five) wards of the above areas. Yours sincerely < e-Mail > Peter Kingswood

1 Peter Kingswood RIBA

FER 2016 Devon County

East Devon an administrative shire’s district

OBJECTIONs that propose revision Broadclyst 3683 6340 3 1% (%) OMIT: Farringdon CP, rural static population, so as to combine with other like CPs in Raleigh ward, see below; * Farringdon CP is rural: Broadclyst CP is to become urban. .

Budleigh Salterton 4514 4639 2 11% (1056%) * a coterminous ward & whole parish (CP): clearer identity. OMIT [Budleigh] east Budleigh CP; * a resort with urban needs unlike the ‘Pebblebed Commons’; * EDDC’s proposal showed much lack of intelligent rigour; * the draft needs to be re-visited in Budleigh and Raleigh.

Raleigh 2231 2276 1 8% (848%) INSERT [Budleigh] East Budleigh (E-Budleigh) CP, and [Clyst Valley] Farringdon CP. * Farringdon CP is static it needs to join other static CPs e.g. Bicton & East Budleigh, in a revised Raleigh ward. * Farringdon CP is south of A30 nr, Sidmouth Rd, A3050. * Farringdon to be combined with ‘Pebblebed Commons’ CPs; * Raleigh ward’s constituent units to be Farringdon CP, Colaton Raleigh CP, Otterton CP, and Bicton & East Budleigh grouped parish council; * forecast minimal growth in Colaton Raleigh and Otterton. * Bishop Clyst & – is to be a growth area. * the draft needs to be re-visited in Budleigh and Raleigh.

Feniton and Honiton, see below, need intelligent rigour.

2 Peter Kingswood RIBA

FER 2016 Devon County

East Devon an administrative shire’s district

Feniton 1963 2045 1 -3% (25%) OMIT: -Village PW’s forecast 200 electors;

* retain rural Gittisham Village PW’s rural area character; * forecast extra electors would change (mutate) Village’s character from rural in rural-suburban, expansion by 2023; * 2-pw = Gittis’m Village pw, and Gittis’m Vale pw; * precidents – Haccombe-with-Coombe CP in Teignbridge, and Berry Pomeroy CP (Totnes ward) in the South-Hams district.

Honition St. Michael’s 5527 5800 3 -8% (78%) the extant H_St_M ward is -11% ADD: into Gittisham Vale PW the forecast 200 electors; * Residential development is forecast: of 125-units; * all suburban housing to be within Gittisham Vale PW. * precidents – in Teignbridge and the South-Hams districts.

Honition St Paul’s 4010 4080 2 -3% (28%) the extant H_St_P ward to be NO CHANGE: usage continuity; * the draft needs to be re-visited in Feniton and Honiton. ======OBJECTIONs that propose NAMEs revision & West-Hill has compass point alpha-clarity; * Aylesbeare CP, an established parish, it is in west before the new parish of West Hill. Upper Axe Valley until 2003 this area was ‘Upper Axe ward’: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/1978/1842?title=east%20devon http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1978/1842/contents/made * CP has biggest electorate in the whole of Membury & All Saints (SiC) ward: suggest geographic name.

Blackdown Hills are an AONB. is in ‘far-west’ of new ward. thru to is all within the AONB. & Blackdown ED is Devon’s new division. Ward and Division would share same name for simple clarity.

======

3 Peter Kingswood RIBA

FER 2016 Devon County

East Devon an administrative shire’s district

APPROVAL of draft wards with 3-names revised Exe Valley my APPROVAL of enlarged ward; Cranbrook Town my APPROVAL of new ward; Clyst Valley my APPROVAL of altered ward.

Woodbury & lympstone my APPROVAL of enlarged ward;

Exmouth CP’s wards/EDs need clear bound along Salterton Rd: so as to satisfy the efficient LG criteria; (^) my conditional APPROAL, see above!

Aylesbeare & West-Hill my APPROVAL of ward with rev’name; my ACCEPTANCE of a new draft ward; Newton P. & Harpford my APPROVAL of NO-CHANGE. Sidmouth Rural (~) my APPROVAL of NO-CHANGE ie 2-PWs; Sidmouth (~) my ACCEPTANCE of altered ward; Sidmouth Town [2-PWs] my ACCEPTANCE of altered ward.

Coly Valley my APPROVAL of NO-CHANGE ward; Beer & Branscombe my APPROVAL of enlarged ward; Seaton [Seaton East PW] my APPROVAL of 2-PWs in Seaton-CP.

Upper Axe Valley my APPROVAL of ward with new name; Town my ACCEPTANCE of a new draft ward; Trinity my APPROVAL of NO-CHANGE. Whimple & my ACCEPTANCE of a new draft ward; Tale Vale my ACCEPTANCE of a new draft ward; my APPROVAL of ward with new name; Newbridges ward my APPROVAL of NO-CHANGE ward.

(~) Seaton-CP should retain 4-parish cllr in the rural PWs; (^) Devon’s ‘pd’, Richmond Rd PW, to be in which new ward?

4 Peter Kingswood RIBA

Cooper, Mark

From: Penny Kurowski Sent: 31 March 2017 19:22 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Fwd: East Devon Proposals for Boundary changes to "Budleigh & Raleigh"

Dear Sir/Madam,

I do not agree with the proposals for a single ward of "Budleigh & Raleigh" with three councillors as I do not believe that the boundary re-organisation meets the objectives:

 improves electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each council represents;  reflects community identity and community links; and  provide for effective and convenient local government.

I believe that two councillors in a Budleigh Salterton ward and one councillor for a rural ward covering the rural parishes of East Budleigh, Otterton and Colaton Raleigh and encompassing Yettington and Hawkerland would better serve the interests of the people in the area. The rural nature of the villages, priorities and interests are significantly different from those of Budleigh Salterton.

There are somewhat spurious statements in the Budleigh Salterton Town Council's submission dated 2 December 2016: The Raleigh Mission Community is the community serving the people of Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh and Otterton, and the surrounding hamlets in our corner of East Devon. The Raleigh Mission Community is not "under the vicar of St Peter's Church, Budleigh Salterton". In fact, Rev'd Anne Charlton lives in East Budleigh and is the Community Priest, Raleigh Mission Community, ie, Priest for Budleigh Salterton Parish, East Budleigh with Bicton Parish and Otterton Parish. Each of the rural communities has its own Community Shop serving its people - I accept that Budleigh Salterton, as a big town, can provide a medical centre, bank, post office and high street services.

Budleigh Salterton cricket club is not the only centre for "sporting skills, team building and fitness" - East Budleigh has its own club and football team too! The Otter Valley Association has a very active walking section that gives people from the Otter Valley and beyond plenty of opportunities for walking, companionship and fitness - many of the members live in the rural communities.

There are stronger ties between East Budleigh and Bicton, and East Budleigh and Otterton than with Budleigh Salterton.

"The Boyhood of Raleigh" is a painting by John Everett Millais - this makes me wonder how many more erroneous statements are contained in the Town Council's submission. Walter Raleigh was born in Hayes Barton, East Budleigh ... so let's get the facts right with respect to history and culture! The feeling of "them and us" that exists would only be exacerbated by three councillors representing Budleigh & Raleigh as they would likely all come from Budleigh Salterton given the breakdown of the residents, ie, about twice as many in Budleigh Salterton compared to the rural area. Rural areas need

1 effective representation and it is important that these villages have their own representative.

I support the views of Councillor Geoff Jung, Raleigh Ward, EDDC.

I trust that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will take into consideration the views of local people, particularly those in rural areas.

Yours faithfully Paul Kurowski

Virus-free. www.avg.com

2

4/3/2017 Local Boundary Commission for EltjanclConsutation Portal

East Devon District

Persona I Deta ii s:

Name: Graham Long E-mail: Postcode: Organisation I am a Praish councillor and a member of the Management Group of the Blackdown Name: Hills AONB

Comment text:

Please find attached comments with respect to the currently separate East Devon Wards of Dunkeswell and Otterhead which I would prefer you leave as separate Wards each having one councillor. I beleive you will have also received a similar request from Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/nodelprint/i nfam ed-represeretion/9375 1/1

Cooper, Mark

From: Bill Peaker Sent: 15 March 2017 16:05 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Raleigh ward

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I am strongly against the absorption of Raleigh Ward into The Budleigh Salterton Ward. Raleigh ward covers an entirely different environment to that of Budleigh Salterton and should retain its own boundary. To allow the heavily conservative ward of Budleigh with its high percentage of retired residents and second homes to absorb the rural ward of Raleigh including the pebble bed heaths and the AONB of Woodbury Common is not only tinkering with the population for political purposes, but merging two entirely different areas resulting in reduced representation

Raleigh might be a thorn in the side of the Conservative local government, but the residents of Raleigh ward should not be disenfranchised by dissolution for political purposes.

Sinncerely

Bill Peaker

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Louise Peaker Sent: 15 March 2017 19:15 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Raleigh Ward

I am strongly against Raleigh Ward being merged into the Budleigh Salterton Ward.

Raleigh ward is entirely different and covers an entirely different environment to that of Budleigh Salterton and should retain its own boundary.

To allow the heavily Conservative ward of Budleigh with its high percentage of retired residents and second homes to absorb the rural ward of Raleigh including the pebble bed heaths and the AONB of Woodbury Common is not only tinkering with the population for political purposes, but merging two entirely different areas resulting in reduced representation. It is also undemocratic.

Raleigh might be a thorn in the side of the Conservative local government, but the residents of Raleigh ward should not be disenfranchised by dissolution for political purposes.

-- Louise Peaker

1

Cooper, Mark

From: Christopher Pound Sent: 02 April 2017 23:48 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Commission : Review of District Council Wards

Dear Sirs,

re : Proposed Alterations to Current Raleigh Ward.

I write as a longstanding (70 years) resident of Colaton Raleigh.

I understand that it is the intention to abolish this current Ward in order to create a new "Super Ward" with 3 councillors encompassing Budleigh Salterton, Otterton, east Budleigh with Bicton and Colaton Raleigh where the population of Budleigh Salterton (c.4600) will entirely outweigh that of the rural area attached (c.2000). This you cannot deny is entirely unbalanced.

Budleigh Salterton has no community of interest with the rural parishes that you would like to app end to it.

I note particularly that one of the specific aims of this reorganisation is "To Reflect Community of Interest" which as stated above it will certainly not do as set out.

As currently envisaged it can only be foreseen that the urban interest will successfully favour its n eeds and wishes over those of the rural parishes attached. This is neither fairly representative nor d emocratic.

I THEREFORE OBJECT TO THE PROPOSAL.

In turn I would like to suggest Wards as follows :

1. Budleigh Salterton on its own as a two councillor ward.

2. A revised (one councillor) Raleigh Ward consisting of East Budleigh with Bicton, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh AND Farringdon (with Woodbury Salterton joining Woodbury).

It is understood that Farringdon is very unhappy with its proposed positioning and is known to wis h to join a purely rural ward as this revised one is and where it would be very welcome.

Yours faithfully,

Christopher Pound

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Karen Pritchard Sent: 14 March 2017 18:53 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: Re-Submission for Inclusion in Beer/Branscombe Boundary

Dear Sir or Madam,

Writing from

I have a residence on Beer Road, Beer? Seaton? East Devon. Which has been a bone of connection and contention for many years - at the bottom of our hill into Beer we have a sign "Welcome to Beer" and at the top of our hill going down the road from Beer we have a sign saying "Welcome to Seaton" … basically we feel live in no mans land. Confusion both as a resident and voting community.

For myself and my neighbours along this part of Beer Road we would all prefer to be in Beer, Branscombe boundary thus we will be in an area where we feel we naturally belong. Its a 2 min walk into Beer for us and we are more locally aligned to Beer rather than Seaton. As far as becoming part of the Voting Community too - for us to belong within the Beer/Branscombe voting band would also serve us in so many positive areas of "belonging" to a community and have a voice in it.

Personally are a great part of the Beer/Branscombe community and have many friends, in Beer, use the local facilities including shops, restaurants, beach, cafes, community centres, many groups WI, sailing club, charity support events, street parties and celebrations, we attend all the local functions in Beer, and watch over Beer and Branscombe more intently and with far more interest than we do Seaton.

Some residents living on the Old Beer Road are possibly the main ones opposing the boundary changeover. As they seem to wish to hang on to the Seaton Hole in namesake only - Sadly Seaton Hole once a thriving and extremely welcoming community has seriously seen a demise and spoiled by recents events involving a bullying of one of our neighbours on the Old Beer Road this has upset the living community of Seaton Hole tremendously. This public bullying drastically affected the living community of Seaton Hole, as we would once all get along well together the division and separation is now very clear. The latter end of Beer Road from would serve better to become officially part of the natural flow of Beer as we are closest to Beer. We would strongly and passionately prefer to be Beer Road, Beer, Branscombe. Becoming part of Beer/Branscombe Boundary Voting Community would enhance our connections to Beer and Branscombe substantially.

To enhance my plea we have a strong group of friends and support in Beer and Branscombe, we are also a strong part of the Beer community along with longstanding community connections and use the walks, shops and facilities there daily, using Steamers, The Anchor and the Dolphin, etc., all the cafes, art shops, clothes and gifts shops, we are part of the Beer community and Charitable Fundraising in Beer, help with the Horticultural Groups and also hire the Mariners Hall for Events too. So for me I feel more a resident of Beer than I have ever felt connected to Seaton.

We always feel we are - my husband will also be writing in to you regarding this along with my neighbours, The Mount, Cliff Hollow, Brimley etc., we would most definately prefer a clear line of association to Beer/Branscombe. That we will feel more aligned with the community that serves us the most and we feel emotionally, strongly attached and connected to.

If you would like to discuss this further or arrange a visit to meet us all in person please call me on or alternatively if we all come in person to meet with yourselves as assurance of our strength of opinion and determined concern of this boundary issue. My submission is a very strong one to be an official part of Beer and Branscombe boundary and I hope all my concerns are taken into serious consideration.

Yours Sincerely

1 Karen Pritchard

2

Cooper, Mark

From: Jackie & Peter Sent: 29 March 2017 16:53 To: reviews Subject: Boundary changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear sir, we fully support the findings of the boundary commission, it makes geographical sense considering that we are so close to Beer ,less than 500 yards from the centre of Beer Village. Also the boundary at the moment is on the opposite side of the road we live on. To the right of us we have a sign saying welcome to Beer and on the left we have a sign saying welcome to Seaton, therefore we are living in No Mans Land. We shop , doctors and Church in Beer because it's the closest to us. We hope the final outcome favours us to be included in the parish of Beer and Branscombe. Our address is Mr P & Mrs J Silvester. I Sent from my iPad

1

East Devon District

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We consider that the move of part of Seaton to Beer and Branscombe would probably reduce the residents representation as they would not be seen as a part of Beer and Branscombe, but still as part of Seaton. Their representative would have to take an interest in the rest of Seaton, as this is the town servicing their needs, not Beer or Branscombe. I do not consider this likely. They would need to support development in the centre of Seaton which might not be supported by B&B residents. Half of Seaton beach plus Seasons clifftop gardens would be in B & B, which would be ridiculous. This is a bad suggestion driven by someone trying to balance a spreadsheet, not by trying to improve representation. This is a comment from both Rob Smith and Maggie Dunn of the same address.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Top View