Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Devon County Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parish and Town Council submissions to the Devon 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 Whimple 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 Axminster 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 Axmouth 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 East Devon. INTERESTS AND IDENTITIES OF LOCAL COMMUNITIES: The proposed Axminster Division would group Combpyne‐Rousdon 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 Chardstock, Dalwood 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 Uplyme Parish to the existing division and re‐assigning Yarcombe, which has much stronger ties, both in terms of community and identity and direct transport links, with Honiton. 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 England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Devon County Personal Details: Name: Pamela Brewer E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Bradworthy Parish Council Comment text: Bradworthy parish council strongly objects to the proposals of moving Bradworthy from the Holsworthy Rural Ward to Bideford & 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 Branscombe 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.