Parish and Town Council submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 37 submissions from parish and town councils A-H.

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

ASPC Response to Boundary Changes proposed by Devon CC 1.

All Saints Parish Council have carefully considered the proposed changes and find them to be impractical and not well considered as it does not achieve many of the criteria as set down by the Commission. i.e., the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities – the proposal will achieve exactly the opposite.

The electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government ‐ The proposal to create a district known as and Newbridges district will fall far short of this criteria.

1. The map suggests that the proposed Whimple and Newbridges district would be about 3 times the area as any of the other proposed areas. It is impractical to have such a large area geographically and would suggest that the new councillor would spend much time (and expense) travelling which, in turn, would easily offset any financial saving achieved by reducing the overall number of County Councillors by just 2 members.

2. How can one councillor build a working relationship with 23 separate Parish Councils each with their own and particular needs? Regularly attendance at Parish Council meetings would surely be almost impossible to achieve thus isolating these parishes still further. The job load for one councillor in the proposed new area would just be too great to achieve effect and convenient local government.

3. Villages and Hamlets naturally tend to migrate to the nearest town for their services. All Saints Parish have a strong affiliation to town which is the hub for services accessed by parishioners. There is a natural migration to Axminster for services such as G.P surgery, hospital, library, social services, sports facilities, local shopping etc. All Saints Parish Church is also affiliated to Axminster church – another strong link. Should the ‘rural’ areas be separated from their associated town how will the link between rural and town communities be maintained?

4. How would such a large, disparate area have an identity especially as the many villages will each have their own challenges and priorities.

5. It is understood from a general discussion that wishes to remain linked to Seaton. Exchanging All Saints Parish for Axmouth in the proposed Axminster district would not materially affect the electorate numbers as defined in the proposal document for the Axminster district and would make for practical effective government. Pascoe, Mark

From: Axminster Town Council Sent: 06 July 2015 16:10 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DEVON - COMMENTS FROM AXMINSTER TOWN COUNCIL

Dear Sirs,

The comments below are submitted on behalf of Axminster Town Council following consultation with other local parishes and discussion by the full Town Council.

Axminster Town Council has considered the Draft Recommendations and noted the three criteria which should guide the process of establishing suitable divisions, namely:

The need to achieve rough electoral equality.

The need to reflect as far as possible the interests and identities of local communities.

The need to provide effective and convenient local government.

This Town Council considers that the review fails on all three objectives, particularly based on knowledge of those parishes on nthe easter side of .

INTERESTS AND IDENTITIES OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES:

The proposed Axminster Division would group ‐ andAxmouth with Axminster, rather than, as at present, with Seaton. Axmouth is just across the Axe estuary from Seaton and Seaton is the natural local centre to which residents of Axmouth would turn for their daily needs such as medical services, library, shopping, leisure and recreation facilities. Combpyne‐Rousdon residents tend to use Seaton as their local centre, the B3052 forming a useful spinal link road.

Conversely, the draft proposals have ignored the strong links between Axminster and parishes like , and Kilmington strengthened by the use of the A358 and A35 links from rural feeder roads. People come from all these surrounding parishes to use the medical facilities, schools, leisure and recreation services and libraries in Axminster, yet, astonishingly, these parishes have been allocated to the proposed Whimple‐Newbridges Division.

PROVISION OF EFFECTIVE AND CONVENIENT LOCAL GOVERNMENT

This criterion must apply both from the viewpoint of the electorate and of the serving member. The existing Axminster Division has the advantage of comprising a group of ten parishes centred on the town of Axminster. Most of the parishes have good transport links to Axminster via rural feeder roads and main roads such as the A35 and A358 and the division is compact in shape. This means that the serving member has ready access to each of the parishes and a reasonable chance of attending Parish/Town Council meetings on a regular basis, which is beneficial to him and to the parishes. In addition, where necessary he can visit the parishes to meet individual members of the public when necessary without undue inconvenience.

In a division which is less compact geographically, such as the proposed Whimple‐Newbridges grouping, or one which consists of numerous small dispersed parishes these aspects would be harder to achieve. The proposals do not appear to deliver effective and convenient local government.

ESTABLISHMENT OF APPROXIMATE ELECTORAL EQUALITY

1 To a large degree, this is simply a case of trying to cut the electoral cake into equal slices. However, under the present proposals there appear to be several divisions which, while they deliver electoral equality do not score well in terms of the other two criteria. Axminster is one such example.

A division which would provide electoral equality without sacrificing community identity and effective and convenient local government could be achieved by adding Parish to the existing division and re‐assigning , which has much stronger ties, both in terms of community and identity and direct transport links, with .

Obviously, this would mean that Combpyne‐Rousdon and Axmouth would have to be included in another division. There is little point in Axminster Town Council suggesting any arbitrary re‐allocations without knowledge of local “identities” across the district.

Axminster Town Council hopes that the above suggestions will be givene du consideration and that a more acceptable set of draft proposals will emerge for re‐consultation in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Hilary Kirkcaldie (Miss)

CLERK TO AXMINSTER TOWN COUNCIL

2

Becki Davey Axmouth Parish Council Clerk

 Please consider the environment before printing this email

The e-mail you have received (including attachments) is private and may be confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the Council of the error in transmission, delete the e-mail from your system and must not print, copy or distribute it to anyone else. Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before opening attachments, since the Parish Council accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by software viruses. Senders and recipients of e-mail should be aware that under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation these contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request. Nothing in this e-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of Axmouth Parish Council unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Council.

2

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Pamela Brewer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Bradworthy parish council strongly objects to the proposals of moving Bradworthy from the Rural Ward to & Hartland, for the following reasons: 1. Bradworthy has strong local connections with Holsworthy. 2. Bradworthy & Hartland/Bideford have very little connection. 3. The secondary school serving Bradworthy is Holsworthy Community College. 4. Historically, Holsworthy has been a member of Holsworthy Rural Area even in days before TDC was formed. 5. Holsworthy is the natural direction for travel, being the closest town and local centre. 6. Postal address, including postcode of EX22 is inline with Holsworthy area. 7. Bradworthy is deemed to be one of the parishes for the MCTi based on Holsworthy and, is also part of the "Ruby" area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5489 02/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Chetna Jones Sent: 06 July 2015 08:43 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review Of Devon Response

Please find below a response for the Electoral Review Of Devon consultation to the draft recommendations.

I would like to make it clear that the response is on behalf of Parish Council and not me personally and so when published on your website my name should not appear other than as responding as the Parish Clerk on behalf of the Parish Council.

Branscombe Parish Council is very satisfied with the current arrangement and believes this to engage well with the community. The Parish Council is not in agreement with the draft proposals as Branscombe’s representation would diminish considerably.

Regards,

Chetna Clerk for Branscombe Parish Council

1

1st July 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

Ref: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Thank you for consulting Broadclyst Parish Council on the proposal to make ‘Broadclyst’ a two- member division.

Broadclyst Parish Council would like to put forward an alternative than that proposed by the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC), recommending that single member divisions be created instead with revised boundaries that better reflect local community interests and identities. Furthermore it is believed this would better meet the criteria the Local Government Boundary Commission (LGBC) must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements, namely:

• To deliver electoral equality where each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county. • That the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. • That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

Our part of the and East Devon Growth Point area (E&EDGP) between Daisy Mount in the east and Junction 29 to the west will see massive changes over the forthcoming 2 decades; areas to the east, north and south of Daisy Mount are likely in comparison to see more organic growth, with smaller developments within established communities being brought forth through Neighbourhood Planning.

The work of the Ward members will therefore be very different in our developing Ward than that of their colleagues in established urban and rural Wards, many of which comprise areas of AONB and other similarly protected zones. For this reason it would make sense that both Whimple and remain in a Ward whose Member has a sound working knowledge of the E&EGP, and where it sits within EDDC’s Local Plan and Devon County’s Forward Plan at any one point in time (bearing in mind that DCC’s Forward Plan is a working document, updated monthly.

The creation of a new ward comprising mainly Cranbrook, Rockbeare and Whimple would bring together one half of the E&EGP under one umbrella, with the western half remaining in Broadclyst Ward. This will enable the electors of Cranbrook, which it must be remembered is set to be the second biggest town in East Devon, to be well-served from the start and will negate the need for further Ward boundary changes in the future.

When one uses updated figures (taken from EDDC’s website as updated on 22 April 2015), it is clear that by moving Whimple out of the new Ward of “Newbridges” it will still enable creation of a Ward of a similar size (9123) to that proposed by the LGBC for Axminster (9379) and Coastal (9586).

To create a new Cranbrook Ward with only Rockbeare could leave Whimple at a disadvantage when negotiating Growth Point matters. The Ward Member for Cranbrook will face challenges peculiar only to the immediate locale as the delicate balance of delivering a new town whilst protecting the characters of the existing villages becomes increasingly arduous. In order to serve the electors effectively it is important that any Ward member is able to concentrate exclusively on the specific issues in their area, therefore it seems there is little to gain by leaving Whimple out of a Growth Point Ward.

The draft tables below indicate the split between 3 Wards under our proposal, using occupancy data correct as at April 2015 and agreed forecast for Cranbrook and the Westclyst/Blackhorse area.

Electors "Broadclyst Ward" "Newbridges Ward" Electors (2015 figures) 2015 255 All Saints 430 Broadclyst 2015 2377 391 2015 67 509 2015 204 Chardstock 681 2015 214 186 2015 553 168 2015 500 Dalwood 348 2015 56 1,248 Netherexe 2015 39 Kilmington 691 2015 214 360 Rewe 2015 318 Membury 401 2015 551 Monkton 141 2015 493 529 2015 351 462 Westclyst/Blackhorse estimate 2020 4000 Sheldon 155 Total 10192 Shute and Whitford 481 Stockland 516 Talaton 464 573 Yarcombe 389 "Cranbrook and Whimple" Electors Total 9123 Cranbrook estimate 2020 8000 Farringdon 2015 270 Rockbeare 2015 486 Marsh Green 2015 189 Whimple 2015 1390 Total 10335

Summary: 1. Broadclyst Ward (comprising all our District Parish as well as various parishes upstream and downstream along the Clyst, and Exe, all of which are in the current County Ward).

2. Cranbrook & Whimple Ward (including Rockbeare/Marsh Green and Farringdon which are all currently in Broadclyst Ward)

3. New Bridges (without Whimple).

Please do not hesitate to contact us should you wish to discuss the contents of this letter.

Yours Sincerely

Angie Hurren (Mrs)

Member of Institute of Local Council Management Broadclyst Parish Council Clerk

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Marie-Gabrielle Marlow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Buckerell Parish Council on behalf of its residents strongly opposes the draft recommendations. Under the changes Buckerell would no longer be part of the Ottery Rural Ward and instead would be part of the and Honiton Ward. Buckerell has long standing connections with Otter St Mary and feels that a change would affect its community identity. Most of the residents in Buckerell are registered with the doctors surgery in and Buckerell is within the catchment area for the Kings School in Ottery St Mary. Buckerell Parish Council has a good working relationship with the Councillor for Ottery Rural and would not wish to have that good relationship disrupted or removed. The Councillor for Feniton and Honiton would not be aware of the issues affecting Buckerell relating to health and schooling for the reasons given above. Buckerell Parish Council has discussed the matter with Honiton Town Council who also oppose the recommendations.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5529 06/07/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Patrick Blosse

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Buckland Brewer Parish Council discussed this matter at its meeting on 10th June 2015 and noted that the parish would fall into Holsworthy Rural Division. The Council was unanimous in agreeing that being aligned to a wholly rural division rather than one that was partly rural and partly urban would probably prove to be of some advantage to the parish and therefore wished to support the proposal. Regards, Patrick Blosse, Parish Clerk

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5379 15/06/2015

CHAGFORD PARISH COUNCIL Chairman: Mrs. Gay Hill Clerk: Mrs. Sarah Curtis

10th June 2015

Mr. M. Pascoe Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Mr. Pascoe,

The Parish Council has followed the review of the divisions with interest. The Council is very pleased that the recommendation is not to change the Southern Boundary of the Chagford Division and in fact to more or less keep the Division intact. The Parish Council wishes to reinforce the reasons for the Division to remain as proposed without causing any change to the southern boundary nor the overall size of the Division. Yours sincerely,

Sarah Curtis (Mrs.) Clerk to the Chagford Parish Council DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL

We would like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the East Devon District.

These amendments are based on the three main criteria:

 Improve electoral equality  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable.

In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re-arrangement.

In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400)

If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance.

It is my suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality.

These are our suggestions:

 Axmouth and would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division  The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division

These are our suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district.

We appreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, I suggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows:

HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division

Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as , Bicton and , which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton.

SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested

BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from , but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton

EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. I would suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and Rockbeare.

Therefore we suggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions:

 Axminster  Broadclyst  Budleigh Salterton  Cranbrook  Exmouth East  Exmouth West  Honiton  Ottery  Seaton / Colyton 

It is our view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but we believe this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission.

John Vanderwolfe Proper Officer Chardstock Parish Council

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Mary de Souza

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Chardstock Parish Council

Comment text:

Chardstock Parish Council c/0 Chardstock Stores and Post Office 5th July 2015 Following discussions at our meeting on June 10th 2015, Chardstock Parish Council would like to submit comments regarding the draft recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council. Chardstock is currently part of the Axminster Division, along with 8 other parishes plus Axminster itself. Because this division comprises a realistically manageable number of parishes and our County Councillor is geographically close, we have been reasonably well represented on parish issues. Chardstock also has a close relationship with Axminster, as the majority of those living in the parish regard it as their local town and use the services it provides – doctors, hospital, schools and library, as well as the shops and recreational facilities. Developments that take place in Axminster have a direct effect on the people of Chardstock, so it is important that we are represented by a councillor who also represents the town. We regard the proposal to create a new division of 21 parishes covering a large geographical area, from Whimple in the west to Chardstock and All Saints in the east, as unworkable. It will result in the parish being under represented, 21 being an unrealistic number of parishes for any one councillor to devote any meaningful amount of time to. In the present situation, with just 9 parishes plus Axminster to represent, our current County Councillor has been able to attend only 11 out of the past 24 meetings on account of other commitments within Devon County Council and the other parishes. How, therefore, could a councillor representing 21 parishes possibly fulfil the role effectively? We should remain connected to Axminster, which would be at the heart of the division serving the parishes that surround it, rather than have Chardstock, along with All Saints, Dalwood , Kilmington, Membury and Shute, isolated at the eastern edge of a division which has no identifiable centre or community identity. Mary de Souza Chardstock Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5640 07/07/2015 Parish Council

Chairman: SIMON PHILLIPS

4 July 2015

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

Dear Sirs

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Proposals

Please see below representations from Chulmleigh Parish Council in the above connection.

Chulmleigh Parish Council wish to register its objections to the proposals for the Rural Area on the following grounds:

It is illogical for the South Molton Rural Division to include Chulmleigh, there being no obvious links. One has an Academy, the other a Community College. Chulmleigh & South Molton do not share the same Health Centre. Chulmleigh is a centre in its own right and is part of Chulmleigh Ward which includes Burrington, East and West Worlington plus a cluster of other smaller villages. The area on the North side of South Molton is part of South Molton; Chulmleigh does not wish to be compensatory to make up the numbers of electorate. Councillors wish to continue with being part of the Chulmleigh & Division, and recommend in future it should be called the Chulmleigh and Division.

Yours faithfully

Parish Clerk

Mrs Sue Squire – Clerk to Chulmleigh Parish Council

Pascoe, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 10 July 2015 16:26 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Views -Local Government Boundary Commission

From: Lynne Askew Sent: 10 July 2015 15:11 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Electoral Views ‐Local Government Boundary Commission

To The Review Officer (Devon)

Following a meeting held by Clyst Honiton Parish Council it was decided unanimously that the electoral areas should remain the same as they are at present, and to add another DCC member to enable two Councillors to represent the area in which Clyst Honiton is set.

Due to the area being in the large strategic area in the vicinity of the new town of Cranbrook, Council wish to see two councillors representing the whole area equally. Not for a single councillor for Cranbrook and one for the rest, but for both to cover all areas, in order for fuller and broader understanding of all areas of need.

This response comes to you after the consultation date set of 6th July, due to the excessive pressures being placed upon such a small but extremely busy council as ours in an unprecedented area of growth.

My very sincere apologies for this delay, but I do hope you might still include our comment.

Kind regards,

Cllr Lynne Askew

Clyst Honiton Parish Council Chairman

1

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 June 2015 12:16 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Review of DCC seats

From: Tanya Ayres Sent: 15 June 2015 11:35 To: reviews Subject: Review of DCC seats

Combe Martin Parish Council supports the case for this proposal as it is beneficial to , as opposed by the issues raised by the Commissioner’s recommendations.

Kind regards

Tanya Ayres Admin Assistant Combe Martin Parish Council

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Michelle Beaumont

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Combe Martin Parish Council

Comment text:

The Review Officer (Devon) LGBCE 14th Floor, Millbank Tower LONDON SW1P 4QP Dear Sirs Proposed New Electoral Arrangements for Devon County Council Combe Martin Parish Council thanks the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council. Combe Martin PC has carefully considered the current proposals and wishes to make the following comments. The importance of electoral equality is understood, but this Council is very concerned that the present proposals for Combe Martin Rural, , Landkey and , and South Molton give too much weight to electoral equality at the expense of other even more important factors. These factors are: • Shared community interests and indentities • Effective and convenient local government. Shared community interests and indentities The present proposals overlook the shared interests and identities of many of the parishes, grouping parishes chiefly by numbers. It is proposed to move and into Ilfracombe ward. These parishes have very different issues from the urban ward of Ilfracombe, and have far more in common with the rural parishes which make up Combe Martin Rural. Arlington, , , , and Stoke Rivers also share common issues, such as rural isolation and transport, with the parishes in Combe Martin Rural and would make a more cohesive grouping. These parishes also share a common interest of being in the coastal belt of . Ilfracombe is an urban area with high social deprivation factors and very different issues than those of the smaller parishes. Landkey and Chittlehampton parishes have much in common with Chulmleigh and Burrington and their shared interests sit much more comfortably together than the current proposals. The parishes of , East and West Buckland, , Twitchen, and naturally gravitate towards South Molton, having more in common with this inland town. Effective and convenient local government North Devon is a large rural area, with poor quality road links and extremely limited public transport. The narrow (often single carriageway even on A roads) winding roads create longer than average travelling times which these proposals do not take into account. County Councillors need to attend meetings throughout their seats, and this would be much more difficult especially for the Combe Martin Rural ward. The current proposals would reduce the efficiency of the county councillor, in all probability reducing the level of contact between parish and councillor as well as making it very difficult for the councillor to be effective. Combe Martin Parish Council asks that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England changes its recommendations for Combe Martin Rural, Ilfracombe, Landkey and Chittlehampton, and South Molton seats to the proposals put forward jointly by the current County Council seat holders, who have given the matter careful thought and who have the practical experience to understand their parishes in detail. Yours faithfully Michelle Beaumont Clerk to Combe Martin Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5479 01/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 July 2015 15:30 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Combpyne & Rousdon Parish Council

From: On Behalf Of Boundary Commission England Information Mailbox Sent: 17 July 2015 15:22 To: CombpyneRousdon Cc: reviews Subject: Re: Combpyne & Rousdon Parish Council

Dear Mr Browne

The Boundary Commission for England is responsible only for reviews of Parliamentary constituency boundaries.

The body of your email suggests that your representation is in regard to reviews of local authority boundaries carried out by an entirely separate body, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. I have therefore forwarded your email, and this reply, to the LGBCE at: [email protected]

Regards

Boundary Commission for England | 2nd Floor | 35 Great Smith Street | London | SW1P 3BQ [email protected] www.independent.gov.uk/boundarycommissionforengland

On 17 July 2015 at 14:46, CombpyneRousdon wrote: To whom it may concern.

I write in my capacity as the clerk to the Combpyne & Rousdon Parish Council.

We are a small community in East Devon, sitting on a beautiful part of the South West Coastline that has been designated a World Heritage Site, namely "The ”.

We understand that there are ongoing boundary reviews in the East Devon constituencies and wish to ensure our views are represented to the appropriate persons. The council discussed this at the most recent Parish Council meeting and whilst understanding the need for the reviews the Parish Council strongly

1 believes that Combpyne & Rousdon should remain in the Seaton and Colyton Division and NOT be migrated to the Axminster Division.

The rationale for this is both simple and compelling in the council’s view. Namely: Seaton is a coastal town and community, just a few miles west of Combpyne & Rousdon, it is also on the Jurassic Coast and both communities are gateways to the and the Jurassic Coast. Indeed Seaton is the site of the new Jurassic Centre, . Whereby Axminster is some miles inland from the coast. Ergo there is clearly a much stronger affinity and understanding with Seaton as a fellow coastal community than there is with Axminster.

There is also the practical matter of the electoral register within Combpyne and Rousdon, as a small coastal community of < 300 on the electoral register there would appear to be no convincing argument that could be proposed based on balancing numbers.

We appreciate your attention and consideration of the views of the local representatives of government.

Kind Regards

Eddie Browne Clerk to Combpyne & Rousdon Parish Council Email:

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Kerry Kennell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Cotleigh Parish Council

Comment text:

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL WEwould like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the East Devon District. These amendments are based on the three main criteria: • Improve electoral equality • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable. In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re- arrangement. In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400) If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance. It is my suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality. These are my suggestions: • Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division • The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division These are my suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district. WEappreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, WEsuggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows: HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton, which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton. SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from Exmouth, but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. WEwould suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and Rockbeare. Therefore WEsuggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions: • Axminster • Broadclyst • Budleigh Salterton • Cranbrook • Exmouth East • Exmouth West • Honiton • Ottery • Seaton / Colyton • Sidmouth It is my view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but WEbelieve this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission. Kerry Kennell on behalf of Cotleigh Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5562 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5562 06/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Dalwood Parish Council Sent: 05 July 2015 20:09 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DEVON.

Dear Sirs,

In response to your invitation to comment on the draft proposals for the electoral review of Devon, Dalwood Parish Council wishes to place on record that it opposes the recommendations.

The three outcomes which it is intended that this review should deliver are:

 To deliver electoral equality where each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county.

 That the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

 That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government

Dalwood Parish Councillors feel that these outcomes are not delivered for the following reasons in respect of the interests of residents of Dalwood:

1. The proposed Whimple‐Newbridges Division fails to reflect the interests and identities of parishioners, who look to Axminster as their local town where services such as medical care, education, libraries, etc are provided. They have little in common with the residents of Whimple in terms of community identity. The present division, while not ideal, does reflect existing community identities to a far greater extent and a modified version of it would be acceptable whereby Yarcombe parish, whose residents (in Devon terms) have a greater affinity to Honiton (to which there are good transport links via the A30) than to Axminster, might be replaced by Uplyme Parish, whose residents do have more of a link to Axminster. Dalwood is some 4 miles from Axminster to which it is linked via rural feeder roads and then the A35 which passes through the parishes.

Thus the proposals fail in terms of respecting community identity.

2. The proposed Whimple‐Newbridges Division would not appear to be suitable for the delivery of effective and convenient local government. Geographically, its linear nature, considerable east‐west extent and numerous parishes would make it very inconvenient for the member responsible for representing it in terms of the distances that person would be required to travel and the complexity of attending parish council meetings with any degree of regularity, particularly given the workload borne by Councillors today. There would probably be conflicts not only between the timing of parish council meetings but also between those meetings and meetings called by the County Council. And that takes no account of meetings with individuals and other groups.

Thus the proposals fail in terms of the delivery of effective and convenient local government.

3. The proposed Whimple-Newbridges Division appears to have been formed by default by lumping together those parishes which were left over when other desired divisions had been dreamt up and would appear to suggest that too great an emphasis has been given to electoral equality at the expense of the other two criteria. Some of the present and projected electoral data does appear questionable, particularly that which indicates that most of the rural parishes are expected to show population decline. A revised Axminster

1 Division comprising All Saints, Axminster, Chardstock, Dalwood, , Kilmington, Membury, , Shute and Whitford and Uplyme would give a much more satisfactory grouping which would meet all the specified requirements and the needs of the residents of this parish much better than the draft proposals. It would no doubt be possible to achieve similar groupings centred on the main towns in the District which would meet the requirement for electoral equality and the other requirements too.

Dalwood Councillors request that these comments are given serious consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Hilary Kirkcaldie,

CLERK TO DALWOOD PARISH COUNCIL email

2

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Sarah Woodman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Diptford Parish Council objects to the proposals, as Diptford Parish has no association with , and residents have strong community links with

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5373 12/06/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 June 2015 08:47 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: REVIEW OF DCC

From: jean turrell Sent: 02 June 2015 22:06 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: REVIEW OF DCC

East Allington Parish Council wish to respond to the Electoral Review of Devon County Council – Draft Recommendations

This Council has undergone several reviews over the past few years, each time being having new boundaries for the District and County Councillors. Each change has meant our Parish being part of a larger electoral constituency, and thus less representation.

We wish to register the feelings of the Council in losing contact with our voices on these larger Councils as one of disquiet as our representatives have much larger areas to cover and thus our chance for direct meetings become less.

Jean Turrell Clerk

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Michelle Boyd

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: East and West Buckland Parish Council

Comment text:

The Review Officer (Devon) LGBCE 14th Floor, Millbank Tower LONDON SW1P 4QP Dear Sirs Proposed New Electoral Arrangements for Devon County Council East and West Buckland Parish Council thanks the Local Government Boundary Commission for England for the opportunity to comment on the proposed new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council. East and West Buckland PC has carefully considered the current proposals and wishes to make the following comments. The importance of electoral equality is understood, but this Council is very concerned that the present proposals for Combe Martin Rural, Ilfracombe, Landkey and Chittlehampton, and South Molton give too much weight to electoral equality at the expense of other even more important factors. These factors are: • Shared community interests and indentities • Effective and convenient local government. Shared community interests and indentities The present proposals overlook the shared interests and identities of many of the parishes, grouping parishes chiefly by numbers. It is proposed to move West Down and Mortehoe into Ilfracombe ward. These parishes have very different issues from the urban ward of Ilfracombe, and have far more in common with the rural parishes which make up Combe Martin Rural. Arlington, Bratton Fleming, Challacombe, Goodleigh, Loxhore and Stoke Rivers also share common issues, such as rural isolation and transport, with the parishes in Combe Martin Rural and would make a more cohesive grouping. These parishes also share a common interest of being in the coastal belt of North Devon. Ilfracombe is an urban area with high social deprivation factors and very different issues than those of the smaller parishes. Landkey and Chittlehampton parishes have much in common with Chulmleigh and Burrington and their shared interests sit much more comfortably together than the current proposals. The parishes of Brayford, East and West Buckland, North Molton, Twitchen, Molland and East Worlington naturally gravitate towards South Molton, having more in common with this inland town. Effective and convenient local government North Devon is a large rural area, with poor quality road links and extremely limited public transport. The narrow (often single carriageway even on A roads) winding roads create longer than average travelling times which these proposals do not take into account. County Councillors need to attend meetings throughout their seats, and this would be much more difficult especially for the Combe Martin Rural ward. The current proposals would reduce the efficiency of the county councillor, in all probability reducing the level of contact between parish and councillor as well as making it very difficult for the councillor to be effective. East and West Buckland Parish Council asks that the Local Government Boundary Commission for England changes its recommendations for Combe Martin Rural, Ilfracombe, Landkey and Chittlehampton, and South Molton seats to the proposals put forward jointly by the current County Council seat holders, who have given the matter careful thought and who have the practical experience to understand their parishes in detail. Yours faithfully Michelle Boyd Vice Chairman, East and West Buckland Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5480 01/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: David Buss

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council

Comment text:

Boundary Commission recommendations for Budleigh Coastal Division and Otter Valley Response from East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council (draft last revised 6-Jul-15) We understand that the Boundaries Commission is recommending that our parish, together with the neighbouring parish of Otterton, both of which are currently located in the existing ward of Budleigh should be included within the proposed new Otter Valley ward rather than within the proposed Budleigh Salterton Coastal ward, thus removing us from our current association with neighbouring Budleigh Salterton. The criteria published by the Boundaries Commission states that ‘divisions should reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links’. Our parish shares many such links and interests with Budleigh Salterton and Otterton but relatively few with the communities which lie on and to the north of the A3052 including Ottery St Mary, West Hill, and which are included in the proposed in the proposed Otter Valley ward. Examples of the successful and mutually beneficial links we enjoy with Budleigh Salterton and Otterton: • The close geographic proximity of East Budleigh, Otterton and Budleigh Salterton, together with the linking 157 bus service, enables parishioners to participate in leisure and sporting activities, clubs, organizations such as the WI and other social events in any of the three parishes. • The WEB area for Eastern Area CCG and the Budleigh Health Practice. • The set of proposals to make Budleigh Hospital a Health and Wellbeing Hub to serve to the area in order to integrate Health with Social Care • The 4 Primary Schools in Budleigh, Otterton, East Budleigh and are all VA and two are Federated but all work together on projects. • The majority of school children in East Budleigh progress to secondary education at schools located within the proposed Budleigh Salterton Coastal ward, not to schools located in the proposed Otter Ward. • The Raleigh Mission Community covers Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh and Otterton • Police Advisory Groups and Community Safety Partnerships cover this area. The criteria used by the Boundary Commission seem to be based purely upon a redistribution of voters to reduce the number of County Councillors by two. The proposals completely fail to take account of the ‘community interests and identities and evidence of community links’ which are well-established, successful and which we believe are major contributors to the quality of life of the three parishes. We expect – and will continue to expect – that our elected County Councillors will represent our common interests, identities and links. To facilitate this, any revisions to the ward boundaries must respect where these community interests, identities and links exist and operate successfully. Clearly, most of these do not and will not lie with communities which lie on and to the north of the A3052. We therefore urge the Boundaries Commission to re-visit its proposals for East Budleigh with Bicton and Otterton parishes and to maintain our strong and proven common community interests, identities and links by locating us in the same ward as Budleigh Salterton and Otterton. David Buss Chair, East Budleigh with Bicton Parish Council Note: the above statement was approved by seven of the nine EBBPC Councillors. One Councillor did not indicate his views, while Councillor Jon White stated that ‘I cannot support the letter and would wish it to be known in the response’.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5610 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5610 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Lisa Bowman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: EXMOUTH TOWN COUNCIL

Comment text:

Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to register Exmouth Town Council’s objection to the proposed boundary changes for Devon as they relate to Exmouth. Exmouth Town Council’s objection is based on the fact that the proposals for Exmouth do not meet the Commission’s own guidelines on best practice related to trying to fit wards to homogeneous communities. Specifically, the proposed Budleigh Coastal division does not take account of the fact that the urban area of Exmouth has a very separate identity from the considerable rural community in Budleigh Salterton and that there are few community links. Councillors are also strongly opposed to the proposed new name of Budleigh Coastal – it undermines Exmouth’s regional status as the largest town in East Devon and it effectively cuts the town in half by aligning the south and eastern part of Exmouth (only) with Budleigh Salterton and the Jurassic Coast. If the Boundary Commission persists with the suggested new boundary, then a better name would be Budleigh and Littleham Division. However, we firmly believe that Budleigh Salterton is more naturally aligned with East Budleigh and the Otter Valley, covering the area of East Devon from Newton Poppleford to Budleigh Salterton, bordering the River Otter. By contrast, Exmouth actually has much stronger links with the villages to the north of the Town, specifically along the Exe Estuary. This is strengthened by its role within the Aylesbeare Deanery (), the Exe Estuary Management Partnership, its location at the end of the Exmouth branch railway line that runs the 9.5 miles along the eastern side of Exe Estuary to Exeter and by existing bus routes. Littleham, in particular, has a very distinct identity from Budleigh, which emanates from Littleham’s historical origins as a village. The parish church dates back to the 13th century and Littleham had its own railway station until circa 1967. Over time it has become part of Exmouth as it is only 2 miles from the Town centre (much nearer than Budleigh). Exmouth Littleham and Budleigh Salterton do not have any shared community interests and do not share facilities. They are serviced by separate community hospitals, libraries and shopping centres and the two towns are served by different planning teams at East Devon District Council. There are also strong and distinct natural boundaries separating the two communities. We believe that the proposals should have more regard to the overall pattern of community life in Exmouth and should be coincident with the existing parish and ward boundaries, especially in relation to the Town and District Councils’ operating structure (e.g. planning – see attached), which works well. The coincidence of the Town Council’s ward boundaries with the District Council ward boundaries is also significant, as twelve of the Town Councillors are dual hatted and the introduction of a sixth ward would have implications for the Town Council’s working practices. It would surely make better sense to review the County boundaries in conjunction with East Devon District Council wards rather than waiting for the East Devon District Council review in 2016? The 2020 population predictions, in showing a reduction for Exmouth divisions, seem highly unrealistic given that the emerging East Devon local plan provides for new homes in Exmouth for the 2013 to 2031 period. We do not believe, for example, that the Boundary Commission has included the strategic land allocations for 700 new homes in Exmouth, all of which have planning permission. Councillors also believe that the whole exercise has been skewed by a need to redraw the boundaries to equalise representation within the fast growing area of Cranbrook. The idea of a two Councillor division in Exmouth seems very unfair, both on residents and potential Councillors, who would have double the population to serve. The idea that two Councillors would “share out” the work is unrealistic, given electoral and party politics. Exmouth Town

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5605 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

Council’s counter proposal is to add Clyst St George/Ebford (or even Clyst St Mary) to Halsdon/ Woodbury to give a better population balance. The 2020 Brixington/Withycombe Raleigh and Littleham/Town divisions are already within the agreed tolerance. The redrawing of Clyst St George / St Mary boundaries allow for expansion at Cranbrook and these villages have considerable links with Exmouth via existing public transport links. This counter proposal would strengthen community identity, restore the town links for the parishes in the massive Otter Valley and Whimple/Newbridges proposed divisions and contribute to a strengthened effective local government. With a +/- 10% allowance (rather than the restrictive +/5% from mean), this should allow more rural areas to have somewhat smaller (and more manageable) populations. This proposal also eliminates the difficult re-warding and naming issues associated with Budleigh Coastal. The enlarged division could be called Exmouth Halsdon, Woodbury and Clyst St…) We strongly urge you to reconsider your proposals.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5605 06/07/2015

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL

We would like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the East Devon District.

These amendments are based on the three main criteria:

 Improve electoral equality  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable.

In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re-arrangement.

In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400)

If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance.

It is my suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality.

These are our suggestions:

 Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division  The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division

These are our suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district.

We appreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, I suggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows:

HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division

Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton, which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton.

SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested

BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from Exmouth, but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton

EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. I would suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and Rockbeare.

Therefore we suggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions:

 Axminster  Broadclyst  Budleigh Salterton  Cranbrook  Exmouth East  Exmouth West  Honiton  Ottery  Seaton / Colyton  Sidmouth

It is our view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but we believe this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission.

John Vanderwolfe Clerk & Responsible Financial Officer Hawkchurch Parish Council

HOLCOMBE BURNELL PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Council Clerk: Mrs D Radford-Lewis,

Parish Council Chairman: Cllr Bob Shipley

Review Officer (Devon) 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

22nd June 2015

Re – Electoral boundary review for Devon County Council

Dear Sirs

I write with reference to the current consultation regarding the proposed draft recommendations for the electoral arrangements for Devon County Council. After reviewing the draft at the recent meeting of Parish Council we would like to submit the following comments against the proposed change to move Holcombe Burnell from Rural to & Haldon.

 Transport Links – There are existing public transport links from Holcombe Burnell to the Teign Valley and . To create the change in boundary would mean there is no provision of public transport to Exminster & Haldon as there are no current links.

 Facilities – There is currently no link between Exminster & Haldon facilities. Doctor’s surgery’s and medical services are sough mainly from Cheriton Bishop and Teign Valley Practice. Leisure facilities are used at and Moretonhampstead. The main local primary school used is and the secondary school is , again all of these are currently in the same boundary division of Chudleigh Rural.

 Common Interests – Social groups attended by parishioners of Holcombe Burnell include Cheriton Bishop and Tedburn Young Farmers, Cubs and Scouts at Cheriton Bishop, Toddler groups and pre –school at Dunsford, a Skittles league primarily made up from Teign Valley teams and a Gardening Club held at Christow.

 The Reverend of the Parish Church is shared across Cheriton Bishop, Whitestone, , Pathfinder Village and Oldridge parishes. None of these are in the Exminster & Haldon division and all but Oldridge currently are in Chudleigh Rural.

 The District Councillor of currently covers Tedburn St Mary, Whitestone and Holcombe Burnell all of which are currently in Chudleigh Rural division. However, if the recommendations are adopted these would be split between two County Divisions.

 Identifiable Boundaries – Natural boundaries in Holcombe Burnell Parish include Cotley Woods which is shared with the Teign Valley landscape. The tributary begins at Holcombe Burnell to the Teign Valley and the Teign River.

It is generally felt that with Holcombe Burnell being a small parish it would get subsumed by the more suburban nature of Exminster & Haldon, especially with the development taking place at Exminster.

An alternative split we would like to suggest between divisions 13 (Chudleigh and Teign Valley) and 20 (Exminster & Haldon) would be that it may be more appropriate for the boundary to run East to West and not North to South. This would provide better reflection on the inherent characteristics of the area.

We trust you will consider our comments and objections to the proposed recommendations and await your reply.

For and on behalf of the Council

Debbie Radford-Lewis Parish Clerk Holcombe Burnell

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Vanessa Saunders

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Holsworthy Town Council

Comment text:

The Town Council is concerned that the proposed geographical area is too large. the existing Holsworthy Division is already large, spread out and very rural giving access problems for any DCC Councillor. To add to the size of the Ward as is proposed in the draft divisions would only increase these problems. The losing of Bradworthy Paish and the gaining so many other Parishes is going to make the proposed area a very difficult area to represent and to be a cohesive unit. The current Holsworthy Rural Division has a very active Market and Coastal Town Initiative the membership of which is based around the current Division area and Bradworthy Parish is an important part of the partnership as one of the major settlements in the Division to lose the Parish would harm the working of the MCTI. However the new Parishes that are suggested to be included in the draft Division are not part of the MCTI and are not seen as having a relationship with Holsworthy but more so with Torrington.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5501 03/07/2015