Starkie, Emily

From: Steven Daniell Sent: 19 February 2018 22:58 To: reviews Subject: Council Electoral Boundary Review

Dear Sirs

I am writing to support the scheme for new electoral divisions in the area put forward by Councillors Kenny, Brown and Summers. I believe these relate much better to the neighbourhoods within the Newquay area put forward by .

-- Steven Daniell

1 Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Susan Dustow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I fully support the submission from Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council regarding the electoral review of Cornwall. I support Division 10 Gwinear Gwithian and Phillack for all of the reasons put forward by Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Starkie, Emily

From: Lance Sent: 12 December 2017 10:56 To: reviews Subject: Re: CORNWALL COUNCIL - PROPOSED COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATION REDUCTION

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to object to the reduction in the number of Cornwall Councillors from its current level of 123 - inadvertently I had sent my submission to the Boundary Commission rather than yourselves so I trust you will consider my comments and acknowledge receipt?

In 2008 Cornish communities were represented in local government by 331 councillors (excluding town and parish councils). In 2009, when a unitary authority was imposed, this was cut at a stroke to 123. Now, the Local Government Boundary Commission for [sic] is proposing a further cull of Cornwall’s democratically elected representatives, to just 87. In 2008 Cornish communities were as well represented numerically as most English rural counties. If the Commission’s proposal goes through they will become among the least represented in the UK. Only nine local authorities, all big city, densely populated urban authorities, will have more residents per councillor than Cornwall. How has this amazing turnaround come about?

The Boundary Commission offers no convincing justification for this unparalleled cut in councillor numbers, one not previously experienced by any other top level local authority. Indeed, their report on Cornwall Council’s size (September 2017) is seriously flawed. Before reviewing the factors that might explain the push to de-democratise Cornwall’s communities we should briefly note the flaws in the Boundary Commission’s report. These are threefold.

First, it is imprecise and based on assertions with no clear supporting evidence.

Second, it is disingenuous in the way it presents the results of the consultation it carried out on council size.

Third, it fails to put Cornwall in any wider context. It thus refuses to engage directly with the issue of parity or even admit that the reduction of democratic representation in Cornwall is unprecedented in the history of boundary reviews. It is difficult to escape the impression that the Commission had predetermined the council size and their report is merely a flimsy legitimation of a decision already made.The Boundary Commission’s proposal to cut the number to councillors by 36 stands out as exceptional. Currently, 16 unitary authorities (including Cornwall) are under review by the Commission. In seven of these no change is being recommended to their council size. The mean reduction of councillor numbers proposed overall is 6%. The proposed reduction for Cornwall is almost five times that – an eye watering 29%. Why is Cornwall being treated so differently than everywhere else?

Assertions rather than evidence The Commission’s justification for its decision to opt for a 29% reduction in the size of Cornwall Council merely states that ‘the team considers that a council size will maintain an effective representational role for members, with particular consideration given to the geography, infrastructure and electorate distribution of Cornwall, The evidence suggests that a reduction in council size would be sustainable given the level of devolution to parish and town councils, and the implementation of new governance arrangements’. 1 No explanation is provided for how or why Cornwall’s specific ‘geography, infrastructure and electorate distribution’ leads to its differential treatment. Indeed, its geography, infrastructure and electorate distribution is nowhere identified or compared with comparable authorities elsewhere. No evidence is presented to back up the assertion that this will be ‘sustainable’ and few details are offered concerning the devolution to parish and town councils or the revised ‘governance arrangements’. These will be dealt with further below, but this conclusion offers only a flimsy rationale for such an extraordinary reduction in councillor numbers.

Cornwall Council’s alternative case for a council of 99 elected members is peremptorily dismissed with the airy generalisation that ‘the team do not consider that an effective case has been made to support a council size of 99’. Their reasons are left unexplained, other than 99 was outside the range of 85 to 95 proposed by the Cornwall Association of Local Councils.

Dis-ingenuity The Commission presents the results of its consultation in a vague and fundamentally disingenuous manner. It concentrates on those who ‘support a reduction’ rather than the number that favoured a reduction to 87 or fewer. Furthermore, by lumping together all 274 submissions the data are skewed towards submissions from private individuals, the only category that supports a reduction to 87 councillors.

In fact, among local authority, political groups, MPs and elected councillors only the Conservative Party and its representatives were in support of a council size of 87. Every other submission from political groups supported at least 99 councillors. The disingenuity of the Commission’s presentation is best illustrated by its table in para 8 that classes former councillor Gary King’s well-argued proposal for a small reduction to 113 councillors as ‘support for a smaller council size alternative to 87 or 99’, while its position in the table below those supporting 87 is clearly meant to imply that this group also supported the Commission’s proposed 87.

An alternative, simpler and less confusing summary of the consultation results would be along the following lines:

Parish Political Council and groups and Individuals size Town institutions Councils

All Cornwall Councillors, the Liberal Democrats, 99 or MK and the 90 48 higher CNP, two Community Network Panels

87 or Conservative 23 73 lower political groups and one

2 Conservative MP no Three 5 4 view quangos

The Commission reports that ‘parish and town councils were split’. In fact 76% of parish and town councils disagreed with the proposal for 87 councillors and called for a higher number. Bizarrely, responding to Cornwall Council’s point that ‘the majority of local councils recommended a council size higher than 87’, the Commission states that ‘the team has seen no evidence to suggest this is the case’. They obviously didn’t look too far, as Cornwall Council provided detailed responses from parish and town councils in its submission. In addition, the results of the Commission’s own consultation clearly show that only 19% of town and parish councils favoured 87 councillors.

The Commission reports that ‘local residents … largely supported a reduction to 87’. ‘Largely supported’ and similar implicit quantifications throughout its report ought to be avoided. In fact submissions from individuals broke down 60-40 in favour of the Commission. Moreover, at least eight of the 73 submissions supporting the Commission’s own position can be easily identified as active supporters, members or candidates of the Conservative Party.

Clearly, apart from the submissions from Conservatives, most of those with a working knowledge of how local government actually works were opposed, many vehemently so, to the proposal for 87 councillors. Yet all these were effectively ignored by the Commission, intent on steamrollering its preference through, despite the evidence of its own consultation.

Lack of a meaningful context Finally, the Commission fails to set its proposal in any kind of wider context. For example, it highlights some submissions but carefully chose not to include my almost 4,000 word comparison of Cornwall’s council size with other local authorities, even though it was the only submission to explore this issue in detail, based on up-to-date data.

As a result, nowhere does it compare its treatment of Cornwall with other reviews, or compare the level of representation in Cornwall with other places. Therefore, the casual reader will have been left entirely unaware of the exceptional level of reduction it is proposing. It is significant that, in its summary of the Cornwall Council submission, the Commission fails to correct the assertion made by the Council that its proposed reduction of 19.5% was ‘comparable to other (recent) reviews’. This is not the case. The mean reduction proposed in current reviews of unitary authorities is 6%, not 19.5%. Even if we exclude the seven authorities with no change it’s still 15%. Cornwall Council’s own proposed cut was higher than the norm.

The Boundary Commission fails to point out that its proposed 29% cut is far, far higher than the mean for other authorities. Nowhere does the Commission clarify that its proposal means that Cornish communities will be by far the least well represented communities in a rural authority anywhere in the UK in quantitative terms. Nowhere does it care to mention that only a handful of urban authorities will have more people per councillor. Furthermore, nowhere does the Commission make any reference to the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. (Articles 4, 15 and 16 would appear to be directly or indirectly relevant).

Given the Commission’s flimsy justifications for a reduction in democratic representation for Cornish communities on this unprecedented scale and its refusal to answer the direct question of

3 why it is treating Cornwall so differently from every other principal authority, we have to look elsewhere for the real reasons why Cornwall is being singled out for special treatment.

A special case?

Cornwall Council’s role How committed were Cornwall Council’s senior officers and leadership to maintaining councillor numbers at their current level? The Council adopted a very strange negotiating position. By proposing 99 councillors and a reduction of 19%, it effectively ceded the argument that a reduction in council size was necessary in the first place. Instead of sticking to a more robust position of no change and forcing the Boundary Commission to make a case for a cut in more detail, it moved well over halfway towards the Commission’s position. This allowed the Commission to confuse the issue by making it a choice between two cuts. It also undercut those who argued for maintaining parity of democratic representation with other similar local authorities. Why did the Council not make more of the Durham comparison? In 2012 the Boundary Commission review of County Durham’s Unitary Authority concluded that its 126 councillors were still required in order to provide ‘efficient and convenient local government’ and rejected local calls to reduce the Council’s size to 85 members. The Boundary Commission refuses to explain why in Cornwall it’s adopted the opposite stance, with a massive reduction in democratic input apparently being necessary for ‘effective’ governance.

Cornwall Council also undermined its own argument by accepting the importance of a ‘fit’ between new ward boundaries and the Community Network Areas (CNAs). This allowed the Commission to argue that 87 provides the ‘best fit’. However, there is nothing at all sacrosanct about the boundaries of the 19 CNAs. These have no democratic role and were only created as convenient legitimation for the unitary authority in 2009. They have no historical basis. They have no cultural identities. There could as easily be 25 CNAs. Or just 10 CNAs. By fetishizing the CNAs Cornwall Council shot itself in the foot.

The Cornwall Association of Local Councils Second, if the excessive importance given to CNAs is one strange aspect of this business, so is the stress placed by the Boundary Commission on the Cornwall Association of Local Councils (CALC). This body called for a council size of between 85 and 95 early in the consultation process. It would be interesting to know the precise political make-up of the CALC meeting that adopted this position. For the CALC appears to be entirely at variance with the councils it purports to represent, 73% of which did not agree with the proposed cut in their submissions on council size. Clearly, the Boundary Commission is grasping eagerly at the strawperson provided by the CALC. Just why so much credence is given to this unrepresentative body is unclear and again unexplained.

The ‘governance review and double devolution (+ centralisation) Third, the Commission puts great faith in Cornwall Council’s ‘governance review’ of 2016. This will supposedly result in ‘new governance arrangements’ in 2021. Cornwall Council in March 2017 stated that it was devolving the management of over 300 public assets to parish and town councils (two thirds of these being public toilets.) However, this ‘double devolution’ has turned out to be another unfortunate accidental (or perhaps not) shot in the foot as, like the role of the CALC, the Commission seized on this to argue that fewer councillors are therefore needed at the Cornwall level.

Yet, details of these new ‘governance arrangements’ are sketchy. In addition, there appears to be devolution to parish councils on the one hand, but an increasingly centralised strategic leadership on the other, both squeezing elected members out of any meaningful role. The Commission focuses on the former but passes silently over the latter. The plan is to retain a strong ‘Leader and Cabinet’ model. In addition, there is now a ‘Leadership Board for Cornwall’,

4 but this body will have no direct democratic input. There is also a vague promise to develop more ‘open and honest relationships’.

Is it really the case that these ‘governance arrangements’ are so spectacularly innovative as to warrant such an extraordinary cut in the democratic component of the Council? Is no other council in the UK doing anything similar? It would appear they are. Cornwall Council, in its latest update, states that ‘similar frameworks are being adopted by other councils across the UK’. If so, then why are those councils not facing similar cuts in their sizes? Moreover, if double devolution really means the devolution of power and decision-making, let alone finances, to parish and town councils then why does the vast majority of parish and town councils remain sceptical and unconvinced by the promised new arrangements? None of this looks sufficient to justify the exceptional nature of the cut in the number of elected voices at Cornwall Council. On the contrary the ‘double exclusion’ of elected members might be seen as an argument to strengthen the democratic component of the Council rather than weaken it.

The devolution deal So we must turn to a final, less transparent, factor that needs to be factored in. Did Cornwall’s so- called ‘devolution deal’ of 2015 include an explicit or implicit agreement on the part of Cornwall Council to accept a reduction in councillor numbers? Did it also contain an overt or implied instruction to the Boundary Commission to proceed with its extreme plan for Cornwall? This might explain both the Commission’s determination to press ahead with reducing councillor numbers in the face of the evidence of its own consultation and the Council’s rapid caving in and offer to reduce councillor numbers by 19%.

There is nothing explicit that can be found in the Government’s official release about Cornwall’s devolution deal that suggests a reduction in councillor numbers on the scale being proposed by the Boundary Commission. Nonetheless, the Commission reports that Cornwall Council’s Conservative Group believed that ‘it was intended as a result of this deal for councillor numbers to be “much reduced”’. Was it? And did Cornwall Council’s leadership knowingly sign up to this agreement?

The devolution deal and the mysterious ‘agreements’ that did or did not accompany it may be the smoking gun that explains this serious erosion of the democratic rights of Cornwall’s communities. If this is so, then Cornwall is being treated even more unfairly than it first appears. For, in all the other devolution deals, mainly urban areas plus Cambridgeshire, the ‘devolution deal’ requires the establishment of a new layer of government. Part of this is unelected in the shape of Combined Authorities, with representatives from existing local authorities, and part is a directly elected mayor. Cornwall is the only region not to receive an extra level of democratically elected government.

It might therefore be expected that, given the addition of a further layer of democracy in elected mayors, local government authorities in those other regions with devolution deals would be suffering an even greater reduction in their size to compensate. Not so. In fact, quite the opposite. While Cornwall’s elected representatives are being culled by 29% with no additional level of democracy put in place, first-tier local authorities in the other areas with devolution deals and elected mayors and undergoing current reviews are seeing only a mean 7% cut in councillor numbers. While the number of councillors in the two district councils in Cambridgeshire under review are being cut, the cuts are 21% and 28%. (Cambridgeshire County Council is also being cut by 12%). So even the cuts at district level are still below the proposed level for Cornwall. Cornwall is being treated even worse in this respect than lower-tier local authorities in areas which have comparable devolution deals.

Conclusion This discriminatory treatment of Cornwall’s democratic rights has no parallel, either with comparable unitary authorities such as Durham, or with regions with devolution deals. Behind the

5 scenes pressure from the Conservative Government after Cornwall’s devolution deal appears to explain the Boundary Commission’s determination to impose this anomalous cut in Cornwall’s elected representatives. When we consider this together with other recent developments, such as the Planning Peer Report of January 2016 and attempts to instil a ‘positive Council culture’ among councillors (meaning replacing loyalty to their electors with loyalty to the Council), or Cornwall Council’s plans to become a housing developer in order to meet its ‘target’ for unsustainable housing and population growth, the cut in councillor numbers begins to make more sense.

This unprecedented cull has to be viewed as part of a bigger project to make the local state in Cornwall more efficient by further eroding the existing limited role of elected members in its governance. It’s hardly a coincidence that such an agenda will have the effect of neutering potential future opposition to the state’s plans for Cornwall. These involve the continuation of a hyper-growth agenda that depends on relatively high in-migration, while reserving selected parts of the territory as playgrounds and gentrified environments suitable for the holiday ‘industry’ and the second ‘home’ market. The fundamental drive lying behind the ongoing attacks on what remains of Cornwall’s democracy is to ensure any community resistance to the state’s colonial project is finally quashed once and for all.

Cornwall has been granted National Minority Status under the Framework Convention for th Protection of National Minorities.

Article 15 States that government should 'Create the conditions necessary for the effective participation of persons belonging to national minorities in cultural, social and economic life and in public affairs, in particular those affecting them.'

In my view reducing the democratic representation of the Cornish would be contrary to the Framework Convention.

This whole exercise if flawed and will reduce democratic input in a rural community and seems to be a political process against natural democracy. I hope you will reconsider and reinstate the full number of Councillors to Cornwall.

Meur ras

Lance Dyer

6

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Martin Eddy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Support for 88 Councillors by increasing the number of Councillors in Southeast Cornwall. I have examined Cllr Sam Tamblin's proposals for an extra Councillor in Southeast Cornwall and wish to support them. It decreases the average electorate in Cornwall from 5163 to 5104 so that the average electorate for the divisions in this proposal for 88 Councillors is 5056 or 0.95% below the new average for Cornwall. In the submission from Cornwall Council for 87 councillors, Southeast Cornwall has an average electorate of 5372 or 4.04% above the original average. The number of parishes that are required to be moved is reduced reducing the geographical size of the Bugle Division, the Division, and the St Cleer making servicing of those divisions easier. Martin Eddy Cornwall Councillor for St Cleer Division

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Richard Evans E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I feel that there should be less councillors in cornwall, the infrastructure is suffering, and so is the county. We need less people in charge, and those in charge should be more accountable. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10478 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: Jesse Foot Sent: 19 February 2018 12:34 To: reviews Cc: Sam Tamlin Subject: Cornwall Council: Consultation on Division Arrangements Attachments: Cornwall Gateway.png; Launceston Town.png; Launceston.png; and .png; Liskeard.png; .png; .png; Whole Scheme.png

Good day,

Along with others, I am supporting Sam Tamlin’s proposal for 88 divisions for the future size of Cornwall Council in 2021. Attached and below are details of the proposal that includes an extra division in South East Cornwall. I believe this proposal fits the boundary commission’s criteria far better than any other proposals put forth.

I hope the LGBCE will seriously consider this proposal and accept it as the best recommendation for future governance in Cornwall.

Kind Regards Jesse Foot

“This proposal dovetails with the official representation from Cornwall Council but changes the proposed divisions in the South East as it has been noted that the proposal from Cornwall Council creates electoral inequality in this part of Cornwall. A large proportion of Cornwall Council's proposed divisions within the Network Areas of Launceston, Cornwall Gateway and Liskeard/Looe are close to the Boundary Commissions upper 10% variance of electors. The proposal below seeks to remedy this as well as issues of community which Cornwall Council's proposal was unable to resolve because so many of the divisions are based around high electorate numbers.

This proposal creates an extra division within the constituency of South East Cornwall as this is the easiest way of creating electoral equality with the rest of Cornwall without revising the whole of Cornwall Council's proposal. The result of this is to create smaller divisions over a large area which are closer to the average electorate throughout Cornwall and better represent the communities in which they sit.

Some of the communities that are better served by this proposal include:

 Stoke Climsland Parish; this parish has close ties to the area and is included within a division containing other parishes that look towards Callington. In Cornwall Council's proposal it shares a division with parishes to the north which are closely associated with Launceston.  St.Germans Parish; this is an inland rural parish on the A38 trunk road which creates issues around road safety and pollution, in this proposal it shares a division with other inland parishes some of which are also closely associated with the A38. In Cornwall Council's proposal the parish shares a very large division in terms of electors with coastal parishes on the Rame Peninsula which look towards Torpoint, the areas have differing needs and the issues surrounding the A38 will take the focus away from the own unique issues experienced in Rame.  St.Pinnock Parish; this parish looks towards Liskeard for its services including supermarkets and secondary school education. Cornwall Council's proposal puts this parish in a division associated with Lostwithiel.

Maps for each of the proposed divisions are attached to this email and are numbered according to the table below . As the proposal includes an extra division this decreases the average electorate in Cornwall from 5163 to 5104 and this is reflected in the variance figures in the table below. The average electorate for the divisions in this proposal is 5056 or 0.95% below the new average for Cornwall. Cornwall Councils proposal for the same area has an average electorate of 5372 or 4.04% above the original average. 1

Division Forecast Division Name Forecast Number Electoral (as shown Electorate Evidence and Rationale on Variance previously) in 2023 Maps in 2023 St.Cleer and Dobwalls are both distinct large villages close to St. Cleer & Liskeard, both villages retain their rural identities and are closely 72 5059 -0.88% Dobwalls related to the surrounding parishes. All of the parishes within the proposed division share services with Liskeard. This proposed division includes a number of small villages which Liskeard South, are self contained communities that look to Liskeard for their 73 Lanreath & 5149 0.88% services. The division also contains several distinct communities Duloe within the town of Liskeard which will create a division which focuses on both the urban and rural issues surrounding the town. This proposal adds the parish of Pelynt to an already existing division. As there is no physical link between the parish of Lanteglos and the town of the parish naturally connects Looe West, with Lansallos and the rest of the coast towards Looe. The parish of 74 Lansallos & 5316 4.15% Pelynt is a distinct community that has bus connections to Looe Lanteglos and relies on the town for many of its services including Secondary Education provision. West Looe is a historically distinct community within Looe and is separated from East Looe geographically by the river that runs through the town. This proposed division is wholly contained within the town of Liskeard and includes a number of new housing developments including the current development known as Trevethan Meadows. 75 Liskeard North 5059 -0.88% Similar proposals within Launceston and Torpoint support the distinct voices of these towns and allows the focus of the division to be on issues solely related to the town rather than the surrounding parishes. This proposed division is also a set of distinct communities centered around small villages which have strong bus links with Looe and Looe East & 76 5125 0.41% look to the town for many of their services. East Looe is a Deviock historically distinct community and is separated from West Looe by the river that runs through the town. Whilst being distinct communities within their own right the Launceston parishes within this proposed division all look towards Launceston 77 North & North 5043 -1.20% for services. The division also contains several distinct communities Petherwin within Launceston which will create a division which focuses on both the urbans and rural issues surrounding the town. This proposal creates a rural division to the south of Launceston with parishes that look to Launceston for community and services Altarnun, whilst sharing common issues. This particular arrangement also 78 Lezant & South 4942 -3.17% allows Stoke Climsland which considers itself to be part of the Petherwin community surrounding Callington to be included within a division with similar parishes to the south. Whilst some issues are shared with the surrounding parishes, Launceston also experiences it's own issues and having a division Launceston 79 5154 0.98% focused on the town will allow these issues to be addressed. Similar South divisions which are based solely around a town have been proposed for Torpoint and Liskeard. St.Ive & Stoke The Parishes of Stoke Climsland, Linkinhorne, South Hill & St.Ive are 80 4903 -3.94% Climsland all distinct communities that share community links and services

2 with Callington. They experience similar issues being rural in nature and well related geographically. Stoke Climsland in particular wishes to be associated with the area related to Callington rather than Launceston because of its close links to the town. Callington, Kelly Bray and the parish of St. Mellion are well related Callington & St. 81 4987 -2.29% to each other and share all manner of services including shops and Mellion schools that are located within Callington. The Parish of Calstock is a well defined community and although this creates a division with a larger than average electorate the 82 Calstock 5523 8.21% parish have expressed a desire to be represented within a single division. The parishes on the Rame Peninsula share a strong sense of community. They are connected by the distinct geography of the peninsula which also restricts the possible boundaries of the Rame division from the north, south and east. Connecting the proposed 83 5036 -1.33% Peninsula division with either of the large parishes of Deviock or St.Germans would create a very large division in terms of electorate size and geographic area with no sense of shared community with the added parish. The parishes within this proposed division create an entirely inland St. Germans, rural division which share many characteristics and are well related 84 Menheniot & 4975 -2.53% to one another. The A38 trunk road links many of these parishes St. Dominic but also creates common issues related to road safety and pollution. This proposed division contains the parishes of Landulph, Botus Fleming and the western part of Saltash which also contains the rural sections of the town. Landulph and Botus Fleming are well Saltash West, related to Saltash in terms of community, location and the services 85 Botus Fleming 4796 -6.03% that are provided by the town. The proposed division also contains & Landulph the development known as Broadmoor Farm which is forecasted to be only partially built by 2023 and so future growth in Saltash will be focused within this area. This is the only division where a two member division is proposed, although the map shows this area as two separate divisions it is extremely difficult to define separate communities within this area which contains the historic centre of Saltash and a large proportion of the towns services. It is felt that the area is best served by two members. This is the only way to create effective local government 86 & 87 Saltash East 9930 -2.72% because of the high level casework generated by the existing division of Saltash East which is already "almost unmanageable" and will only increase with a larger electorate. Creating two single member divisions would not allow for effective local government as the member in division 86 would find that the demands generated by local issues would not allow them to perform any of their other duties effectively. This proposed division contains the majority of the town of Torpoint. The town is both in the extreme east of Cornwall and 88 Torpoint 4949 -3.04% surrounded by water on three sides. This both limits the possible boundaries of any division within Torpoint and creates a strong sense of community within the town.

Kind Regards

3 Sam Tamlin

Cornwall Councillor

Saltash West

4 Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: John Foster

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Gwithian village

Comment text:

I support the Gwinear-Gwithian PB submission and wish the parish to remain as one and not divided.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Sally Foster

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident

Comment text:

I live in Gwithian and wish our Parish is kept as one and not split. I support the submission put forward by Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Phillip Fox E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: South Petherwin Parish Council

Comment text:

My local Cornwall Councillor says that of the councillors elected, about 20% will actually not do anything with regards to Cornwall Council, so if you reduce the numbers to 87, are you confident that enough of the 87 will be happy to participate? He has been a Cornwall councillor for many years and takes an active involvement in Cornwall Council, so he has first hand experience of seeing the percentage that effectively opt out of council activities. Also, you are presuming that some of Cornwall Council's workload will be devolved down to the Parish councils. As a Parish councillor, I can testify to the apathy that exist within the electorate towards their Parish council. Of ten councillors positions, only seven were filled at the local election and despite constant campaigning, no parishioners are willing to be co-opted as councillors. This means that every meeting is struggling to be quorate. If extra workload was passed down, I can tell you now that it would not get done at best, and in the worst case councillors would resign making it impossible for the Parish council to exist, and their work would have to be up by Cornwall Council - with less councillors! A great bit of desk side thinking, but not a chance of being effective if actually put into practice. What would be the negative effects of leaving the numbers as is? Nothing like the negative effects of reducing the numbers to 87.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10485 1/1 Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Leigh Frost

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Although I feel it is an attack on Cornish democracy to have our democratic representation reduced even further since the 2009 re-organisation. I am in in full support of the proposal of divisions Cornwall Council has submitted, they have done an extraordinary job in keeping communities together with these divisions. I believe Cllr Sam Tamlin of Saltash is submitting a proposal of an 88 divisions, due the population pressures in the South East of Cornwall I believe this is a very sensible approach and solves the issues that can't be solved in the 87 proposal of CC. I therefore would also support this model.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Starkie, Emily

From: Richard Glanville Sent: 16 November 2017 16:01 To: reviews Subject: Cornwall Council Boundary - St.Ives East/St Ives West/ Lelant and Carbis bay

Dear Sirs

The move to reduce the number of Councillors is long overdue, the resultant number should not be greater than 98.

My personal preference is for a divisional boundary to be the combination of the Church Boundaries of ‐

Lelant – St Uny and Carbis Bay St Anta and All Saints – THIS WOULD BE FOR BOTH CORNWALL PARISH COUNCILS

The reasons for this choice are that the area will have common interests as a semi rural area with an aging population.The requirements in the form of needs are much different of that of St Ives to which they are currently linked.

Such a change would also allow A NEW PARISH COUNCIL TO BE FORMED, at present the budget of the Town Council is totally geared around the Town itself and facilities for the Town and Tourism where as the needs of Carbis and Lelant are totally different. In the current budget period 99.75% of the spend is in the Town leaving the parishes out in the cold. Work has already commenced on consultations in the Carbis Bay and Lelant to call for a separate PARISH COUNCIL

Regards

Richard Glanville Town Councillor St Ives Representing Lelant and Carbis Bay

1 Starkie, Emily

From: Paul Goodall Sent: 20 February 2018 14:57 To: reviews Subject: Fwd: Cornwall Council: Consultation on Division Arrangements

I whole heartedly endorse these proposals. I believe these proposals better reflect the needs of the residents of Cornwall and should be the changes used.

Paul Goodall.

Sent from my iPad

Paul

Begin forwarded message:

Sam, I have let them know Thanks for all your hard work. Adam

On Monday, 19 February 2018, 10:34:17 GMT, wrote:

Hi everyone,

I thought you would like to see the proposal I have submitted to the boundary commission this morning, it includes an extra division within South East Cornwall (surprise surprise!) and I think this is much better than the proposal being sent by Cornwall Council.

If you agree with me please could you email the boundary commission ([email protected]) and let them know. During the consultation on council size the boundary commission lent weight to how many people supported a particular view. So I would really appreciate it if you could email the boundary commission and say that you

1

Cornwall from 5163 to 5104 and this is reflected in the variance figures in the table below. The average electorate for the divisions in this proposal is 5056 or 0.95% below the new average for Cornwall. Cornwall Councils proposal for the same area has an average electorate of 5372 or 4.04% above the original average.

Division Forecast Division Name Forecast Number Electoral (as shown Electorate Evidence and Rationale on Variance previously) in 2023 Maps in 2023 St.Cleer and Dobwalls are both distinct large villages close to St. Cleer & Liskeard, both villages retain their rural identities and are closely 72 5059 -0.88% Dobwalls related to the surrounding parishes. All of the parishes within the proposed division share services with Liskeard. This proposed division includes a number of small villages which Liskeard South, are self contained communities that look to Liskeard for their 73 Lanreath & 5149 0.88% services. The division also contains several distinct communities Duloe within the town of Liskeard which will create a division which focuses on both the urban and rural issues surrounding the town. This proposal adds the parish of Pelynt to an already existing division. As there is no physical link between the parish of Lanteglos and the town of Fowey the parish naturally connects Looe West, with Lansallos and the rest of the coast towards Looe. The parish 74 Lansallos & 5316 4.15% of Pelynt is a distinct community that has bus connections to Looe Lanteglos and relies on the town for many of its services including Secondary Education provision. West Looe is a historically distinct community within Looe and is separated from East Looe geographically by the river that runs through the town. This proposed division is wholly contained within the town of Liskeard and includes a number of new housing developments including the current development known as Trevethan Meadows. 75 Liskeard North 5059 -0.88% Similar proposals within Launceston and Torpoint support the distinct voices of these towns and allows the focus of the division to be on issues solely related to the town rather than the surrounding parishes. This proposed division is also a set of distinct communities centered around small villages which have strong bus links with Looe East & 76 5125 0.41% Looe and look to the town for many of their services. East Looe is Deviock a historically distinct community and is separated from West Looe by the river that runs through the town. Whilst being distinct communities within their own right the Launceston parishes within this proposed division all look towards Launceston 77 North & North 5043 -1.20% for services. The division also contains several distinct Petherwin communities within Launceston which will create a division which focuses on both the urbans and rural issues surrounding the town. This proposal creates a rural division to the south of Launceston with parishes that look to Launceston for community and services Altarnun, whilst sharing common issues. This particular arrangement also 78 Lezant & South 4942 -3.17% allows Stoke Climsland which considers itself to be part of the Petherwin community surrounding Callington to be included within a division with similar parishes to the south. Whilst some issues are shared with the surrounding parishes, Launceston 79 5154 0.98% Launceston also experiences it's own issues and having a division South focused on the town will allow these issues to be addressed.

3 Similar divisions which are based solely around a town have been proposed for Torpoint and Liskeard. The Parishes of Stoke Climsland, Linkinhorne, South Hill & St.Ive are all distinct communities that share community links and services with Callington. They experience similar issues being rural St.Ive & Stoke 80 4903 -3.94% in nature and well related geographically. Stoke Climsland in Climsland particular wishes to be associated with the area related to Callington rather than Launceston because of its close links to the town. Callington, Kelly Bray and the parish of St. Mellion are well related Callington & St. 81 4987 -2.29% to each other and share all manner of services including shops and Mellion schools that are located within Callington. The Parish of Calstock is a well defined community and although this creates a division with a larger than average electorate the 82 Calstock 5523 8.21% parish have expressed a desire to be represented within a single division. The parishes on the Rame Peninsula share a strong sense of community. They are connected by the distinct geography of the peninsula which also restricts the possible boundaries of the Rame division from the north, south and east. Connecting the proposed 83 5036 -1.33% Peninsula division with either of the large parishes of Deviock or St.Germans would create a very large division in terms of electorate size and geographic area with no sense of shared community with the added parish. The parishes within this proposed division create an entirely inland St. Germans, rural division which share many characteristics and are well 84 Menheniot & 4975 -2.53% related to one another. The A38 trunk road links many of these St. Dominic parishes but also creates common issues related to road safety and pollution. This proposed division contains the parishes of Landulph, Botus Fleming and the western part of Saltash which also contains the rural sections of the town. Landulph and Botus Fleming are well Saltash West, related to Saltash in terms of community, location and the services 85 Botus Fleming 4796 -6.03% that are provided by the town. The proposed division also contains & Landulph the development known as Broadmoor Farm which is forecasted to be only partially built by 2023 and so future growth in Saltash will be focused within this area. This is the only division where a two member division is proposed, although the map shows this area as two separate divisions it is extremely difficult to define separate communities within this area which contains the historic centre of Saltash and a large proportion of the towns services. It is felt that the area is best served by two members. This is the only way to create effective 86 & 87 Saltash East 9930 -2.72% local government because of the high level casework generated by the existing division of Saltash East which is already "almost unmanageable" and will only increase with a larger electorate. Creating two single member divisions would not allow for effective local government as the member in division 86 would find that the demands generated by local issues would not allow them to perform any of their other duties effectively. This proposed division contains the majority of the town of 88 Torpoint 4949 -3.04% Torpoint. The town is both in the extreme east of Cornwall and surrounded by water on three sides. This both limits the possible

4 boundaries of any division within Torpoint and creates a strong sense of community within the town.

Kind Regards

Sam Tamlin

Cornwall Councillor

Saltash West

5 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: simon groves E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Cornwall should have more councillors not less and for that matter, Cornwall should leave the union.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10523 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: Charles Hall Sent: 18 February 2018 17:35 To: reviews Subject: GGPC boundary review

Support for the proposal of the Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council.

I wish to register my support for the proposal as set out by our Parish Council

I am aware of the issues and I also sat (as a resident) on the steering committee for our neighbourhood plan which received wide support.

This proposal by GGPC makes good sense in the circumstances and should be implemented .

Sincerely

Charles Hall

1 Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Diana Hall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Re Gwinear Gwithian Parish I strongly believe that our rural community should not be split or joined with an urban one. Gwinear Gwithian can be extended in a rural direction if the balance of numbers is required but not in an urban direction. The needs and concerns of of a rural community are far removed from those living in towns. Please leave Gwinear Gwithian intact. I also believe that splitting would be most devisive.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Joan Heaton E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Launceston - the bulk of the housing development for this area is concentrated to the south of the town. This should be reflected in the boundary changes. The Launceston Central ward, which is urban in character, should extend to contain the new housing developments to the south and take in the housing to the north of Newport and east of St Stephen's Hill as far as Dutson. This would leave the wards to the north and south predominantly rural and would even out the numbers between the wards. The current forecast is for an increase in population in Launceston South from 2980 to 3640, a total of 660. Launceston Central will increase from 2820 to 2850, an increase of only 30. Launceston North will increase from 3804 to 4051, a total of 247. Extending the Launceston Central Ward boundary to the south extensively, and to the north and east to include the housing estates already there, would even up the numbers somewhat and serve the differing priorities of the urban and rural communities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10503 1/1 10/9/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Yvonne Holder E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to remain as Gover Ward. We have an amazing hard working councillor who knows the problems ins de out so please leave us as we are

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10652 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: Holley Derek CC Sent: 20 February 2018 19:02 To: reviews Subject: Electoral boundaries in SE Cornwall

Hi I have already described to you in a submission last year the extreme workload problems that fall upon Saltash East electoral division which makes it by an accident of history virtually unworkable . Accordingly I support the submission by Cornwall Councillor Sam Tamlin . I believe his submission including a dual person division fits the boundary needs well and I would like my support noted. Kind regards Derek Holley CC : Saltash East division

Get Outlook for iOS

1 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Gail James E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am delighted that you have suggested a substantial reduction in the number of council wards. We are currently grossly over provided with councillors who must add substantially to the costs of running the council, and make it even more unwieldy than it need be. Whilst I understand that the rural nature of mulch of Cornwall means that councillors must travel long distances, that is true of other rural areas. I moved from an even more rural area (Shropshire) in the last few years, and did not feel disadvantaged by the council being much smaller in relative terms. My ward is extensive geograph cally and the addition of a few more hamlets on the fringes would not make a substantial difference. I hope that you are able to implement the recommendation for this reduction - if only central government would get round to their proposed reduct on to 600 MPs too!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10499 1/1 10/2/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Esther Johns E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This is an undemocratic move, once again trying to disenfranchise the Cornish people. ALSO the map cuts off far south of Lizard where my house is.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10583 1/1 10/9/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: colin kenney E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think that the way the council is constructed and the way the business is conducted by devolved powers to Officers and committee a smaller number of members is entirely justified as some members at present have little involvement.The unitary authority was a mistake considering the length of the county, the council has adopted the old distr ct council model albeit on a smaller scale within itself.However we are in this pos tion and i think it is fully justified to slim the council down

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10645 1/1 CORNWALL COUNCIL CONSULTATION ON ELECTORAL DIVISIONS

Philip Kerridge,

1. ABOUT ME

I have known since 1976 when I moved to Cornwall to work for the library service, which I did until 2009. I have lived in the town since 1978. For significant periods I worked either in the town library or an office within the library. I managed more libraries in the Eastern half of Cornwall as my career developed. I was also active in local politics as a Liberal Democrat between 1983 and 2015. I served two terms as a North Cornwall District councillor and more than 10 years as a Bodmin town councillor. I have played a role (often a leading one) in almost every election in Bodmin between 1983 and 2015. I chaired the governing body of a primary school in Bodmin.

My wife Ann has shared my previous enthusiasm. She has been a North Cornwall District, Cornwall County and Cornwall councillor between 20003 and 2017. She unlike me is still on Bodmin Town council. She is still an active Lib Dem.

I am not and never likely to be a councillor. My disillusion with the Liberal Democrats extends to playing no active role in the party but is not yet so deep that I have voted for anybody else.

This is a personal submission. I have no political ambitions unlike others who are involved in the process. Many who know (of) me will expect this submission to favour the Lib Dems. It is not intended to as I hope this section shows.

I have also made submissions that have been partly adopted in previous reviews.

2. PRINCIPLES

This is a revised version following the release of more detailed data by Cornwall Council, which to some extent renders my previous attempt redundant. I am trying to outline the basis for the recommendations I am making. These are based upon two phone calls with Emily at the Local Government Boundary Commission, attending a Cornwall Council public meeting in Bodmin, talking to a senior member of Cornwall Council's election team when I consulted the December 2017 electoral roll and How to Propose a Pattern of Wards.

2.1 EQUALITY AND NUMBERS

I have got the message. This is crucial. No proposal will survive if the numbers don't comply. There are three wards, 15,630 voters. That's 5120 each. Emily prefers as close to equality as possible but is prepared to accept a 10% tolerance with good evidence.

Unlike the original Cornwall Council solution I think splitting rural parishes should be avoided. Rural Cornwall councillors already struggle to attend parish meetings. Any possible requirement for two councillors to attend is daft?

I can therefore slot the numbers for rural parishes as appropriate without any manipulation.

The Bodmin data requires closer attention because wards will have to be split to make the numbers work. In my first submission I used actual numbers from the December 2017 electoral roll and estimated growth. I have now used the recently released data instead. I have attached the version that I have used.

My calculations are in the attached spreadsheet, which works out my preferred solutions for my favourite (doughnut), Cornwall Council's favourite (horseshoe) and London's favourite, the slice.

Sheet WARDS BY CCDATA allocates areas to divisions using the data supplied by Cornwall Council.

Sheet MODIFICATIONS identifies swaps that will make the numbers closer to 5210 than can be achieved with Cornwall Council's current splits.

Sheet WARDS AFTER MODIFICATIONS takes the divisions using Cornwall Council splits as a starting point. It then applies my tweaks from MODIFICATIIONS to get my divison numbers. These are highlighted.

2.2 COMMUNITY IDENTITY

There is a town identity and a country identity. It is as old as Aesop. High density estates and a sparsely populated rural area have little in common. Quite why this is so obvious in Cornwall and apparently unrecognised in London, I don't understand.

In Bodmin the difference may be more marked than elsewhere in Cornwall. Most of the larger towns are by the sea or the Devon border, which precludes doughnuts. Liskeard has larger adjacent villages, because of mining and Plymouth commuting. , and St Austell have larger villages because of the mining heritage. In Bodmin the transition from the town to sparsely populated rural areas is more obvious.

There is a negative perception about Bodmin. This adds to the difference in identity between the town and the rural areas. “To belittle Bodmin has, in the course of time, become almost second nature to most Cornishman; witness the saying 'into Bodmin and out of the world …'” Page 9. That was 1947 in a Penguin guidebook.

Like or not, whether it has got worse or better, the prejudice (negative community identity) remains:

 “Living in Bodmin is not as attractive as other parts of Cornwall.”  “It's not the prettiest of towns: there's a slightly gloomy feel.”  The Doc Martin Episode  Good safe Indian in dear old Dogbin

Possible reasons:

 The Asylum  The Barracks  The Crown Court  The catching up period after all those institutions plus the railway went  The Gaol  London Overspill in the 1960s  Bodmin St Mary’s ward has the highest number of council houses in Cornwall. Bodmin has always had many more council houses than most Cornish towns.  Recent roadworks Bodmin has a large number of council estates. Most are around a line drawn from Berryfields, across Hillside Park to Treningle View. There are only 4 roads with council houses in St Petroc's. Many of the houses have been sold but this area is still relatively deprived. Two neighbourhoods (or super outlook areas), Town Centre/Berryfields and Kinsman Est/Monument Way are among the 10% most deprived in England, The in-between neighbourhood, Bederkesa Ct/Elizabeth Close is among the 20% most deprived. See Cornwall Council GIS map. Drill down to Bodmin, then layers, then statistics and finally Indices of multiple deprivation 2015. The correlation between these areas and (ex) council housing is obvious. You can create a ward with a good match. A mix of other houses will be included too because of the geography. The numbers are on the high side. Kinsman Estate and Berryfields are not close. The area will contain the vast majority of Bodmin's (ex) council houses. They are more likely to form a substantial minority than a majority in any ward I devise.

Pupils from these areas have always tended to go to Berrycombe and Beacon primary schools. Pupils from more privileged areas tend to attend St Mary’s or St Petrocs. 2016 Key Stage 2 data shows that St Mary’s and St Petrocs are more similar to each other and the rural schools than Berrycombe and Beacon.

School Free School Meals Free School Meals in Special Educational Now % last 6 years % Needs % Beacon 36.7 58.4 15.9 Berrycombe 30.4 45.3 28.3 St Mary’s 11 22.2 6 St Petrocs 9.6 20.8 12.6 12.1 24.1 13.5 Cardinham 11 15.9 5 Blisland 10.8 21.6 9 Nanstallon 5.3 10.6 7.4

Deprivation is getting worse in Cornwall. One of the neighbourhoods, Town Centre/Berryfields, has moved into top decile since 2010.

These areas have a common identity: type of housing, deprivation and common issues e.g. repairs, debt and universal credit to name but 3. CNN was not alone in analysing 2016 as the revenge of the forgotten. The forgotten of Bodmin can be left-behind a little-bit-more, if they are spread out and re- distributed into wards, that reduce their influence and mask their presence, because we're just thinking about the numbers. I am attempting to suggest an alternative.

It is inevitable that roads will be used to divide divisions. It also inevitable that this is as the expense of community identity. People think of the family across the road as neighbours. Barn Lane is an example of a road where division is less likely divide a community. One side has houses, the other has a funeral directors, a school, an office and an entrance into a small estate before you get to a few houses. Likewise Dunmere Road two terraces on one side and a wall on the other. Pool Street has similar houses on either side of a small road. From a distance this distinction may not be recognised but it is important. I would like to highlight three roads that could potentially be allocated to different wards by the Cornwall Council splits. They shouldn't be.  Fore Street. This would divide the main shopping area which has a clear identity. Pedestrianisation has been talked about for a long time. It may happen, it may not but it will be discussed. People who live above and around the shops will have issues about access, whichever side of the road they live.  St Marys Road. This is a very clear area. It's bounded by Barn Lane (see above), Westheath Avenue (houses on the opposite side separated by trees and a wall), a railway embankment and a nature reserve. The area shares a play area, shops, a polling station, a bus route and has traffic/parking issues/yellow lines/ speed bumps. If the numbers make division inevitable then do upper and lower NOT down the middle of the road. The lower end has no ex council houses. The upper end has lots. The lower end has mostly Statham houses (originally privately owned, relatively cheaper, semi detached, 1950/1960s). The upper end doesn't.  Pool Street (as above). It's an ugly area for traffic congestion when used as a rat run for which it isn't really suitable. Residents have campaigned together before. The issues are unresolved. Solutions should be looked at like one way traffic. At that point Pool Street will be better together.

Parts of Bodmin will inevitably be allocated to a part rural division. In most cases there is not a good fit. I have tried to rank areas into categories by their fit with rural areas. Best fit is first. Worst fit is last.

1. Sparse rural areas on the perimeter of Bodmin: A, E, J, R, S, BB 2. Areas on the perimeter of Bodmin with both estates and sparse rural areas: D, Q, X 3. Areas without council houses: B, F, K, H, T, U, W, AA, EE, FF 4. Areas with a small minority of council houses P, Y, Z, 5. Town Centre O,V 6. Areas with significant numbers of ex council houses: C, G, I, L, M, GG

Splits with industrial estates have been a secondary consideration. They are better outside of the doughnut and horseshoe. However they are on the perimeter of Bodmin so it's inevitable not all can be accommodated. I have taken the view that people are more important. These areas are not a massive part of a councillor's casework. Big issues like a factory closing will have an impact well beyond Bodmin.

Area N is a green space with no residents. It should not be in a horseshoe or doughnut ward as it's partly managed by Bodmin Town Council.

2.3 EFFECTIVE LOCAL GOVERNMENT

2.3.1 DIVERSITY

Being a councillor can be a stepping stone to a political career. One example is my MP. His parents were not well off. He has been selected to feature in videos and speak at conferences to highlight his party's commitment to diversity.

It's not impossible to be a Cornwall councillor if you have a disability. It is not impossible to be a Cornwall councillor if you don't drive. I don't know of many examples but they represented town seats. The very difficult becomes the near-impossible if you have to attend evening rural parish council meetings. From a distance it is very easy to draw lines joining Lanivet with the less affluent west end of Bodmin. The numbers jump at you. What may be forgotten is that simultaneously you are more likely to deny opportunities to those with a disability or a low income. If you have a disability it's more likely you will be on a low income. Somebody with aspirations to be a councillor (or more) will need not just an old banger but a reliable car. Few of us relish the prospect of a breakdown on a trip home from very remote Withiel on a cold winter night.

Communication with the public is not a strength of the public sector. Even if there are policies to address these issues, there is still a deterrent.

This is a double whammy. Disadvantage may be less relevant because the numbers could be dispersed but not reduced. The chances of representation by a disadvantaged councillor were never great. Without more sensitivity than I have seen, they will get worse.

I accept that these barriers exist among the 3000 rural population. I accept solutions aren't easy. I don't accept equality or diversity is about erecting new barriers to many more electors in Bodmin (electorate 12,000).

2.3.2 POLLING STATIONS

Bodmin has only two polling stations: St Mary’s Parish Centre and the Shire House Suite. Two of Bodmin's wards go into the latter. The election staff believe that there was a risk of mistakes at the Shire House Suite. There is a need for more venues. The possible new venues, Berryfields Centre, Chy Trevail, Dragon Centre and the Beacon Scout Hut are on the edge of town; not where most needed in the centre of St Leonards ward. The Scout Hut was used before. It is appropriate for the immediate are e.g. Margaret Crescent or Northey Road but not as it was then for voters who had to negotiate two steep hills from the other side of town e.g. Berryfields. The old library is a possibility if it becomes an arts venue. Unfortunately it's only a possibility and might not last if it happens. As part of my proposals I will make tentative suggestions for polling stations.

2.3.3 BODMIN TOWN COUNCIL

These elections coincide with Cornwall Council elections. Carving up Bodmin anew for Cornwall Council may create confusion. Maybe the town council should hold their elections on a different day, month or year? Then it could keep the existing ward boundaries. I will make some tentative suggestions if town council elections are to be held on the same day.

2.3.4 DEPRIVATION STATISTICS

This reinforces the community identity argument. If Bodmin's most deprived areas are carved up as a result of this exercise, the data may be diluted by aggregation with rural areas. Data like Child poverty (38.6% in Bodmin St Leonard) is compiled on a ward basis. This is very relevant for funding bids and allocation of resources. Whether this matters depends on your point of view.

Cornwall is the second poorest region in Northern Europe and median wages are low in comparison to the rest of the country. Since the Euro money will dry up Cornwall will need all the data it can get to bid for funds to relieve the poverty that exists here. If this is of no relevance to effective governance I don't know what is?

2.3.5 FUTURE PROOFING GROWTH

There is a good argument for a higher number in a ward without any growth areas. There is no room for new development in splits F, G, K, L, M, and P. If the numbers in a division with no growth potential are above average then the solution will last longer. Bodmin will go out of sync quicker as more growth is scheduled than most towns. Emily has put me off doing this but I would have no objections to tweaking my results to deliver this. I think this is good governance.

3. THE NEW WARDS

There are three ways to divide the area: doughnuts, horseshoe and the way the Local Government Boundary Commission want it, No Doughnut. I am submitting a solution for each.

3.1 DOUGHNUT WARD

I think this is the best solution for Bodmin. I am well aware that the Local Government Boundary Commission disagree with me. Emily said doughnuts were not a definite No No but they had yet to agree a doughnut.

The arguments for doughnuts:  As set out in Appendix 1 where I comment on the published guidance  Parishes want one of the wards to have a rural majority that they hope will elect a councillor with rural interests at heart  Parishes are against a solution where they are a minority interest group in three wards each with 4000 urban voters and 1000 rural voters. In broad terms that's how the numbers play out if a consistent solution exists.  This is not only the solution that the rural parishes wants it is also the solution which ◦ keeps more Bodmin electors in a town division ◦ takes out the most rural Bodmin splits: A, E, J, S, R, BB, D, Q, X  In only one out of the four current divisions is there an expectation that the councillor attends rural parish council meetings. In the brave new world of three divisions a slice solution may require three councillors to drive into the countryside at night. In the horseshoe that's two. The doughnut better retains opportunities for those with a disability, a low income or both. Only one councillor will definitely need their own transport.  Because we have a doughnut now doesn't mean we should have a doughnut going forward. However the reasons why we had a doughnut haven't changed. Rural/urban split. The parishes adjacent to the network area are either small (Broadoak) or part of the shopping/travel to work area of another town (Egloshayle). The former make little difference. The latter don't fit.  A non doughnut/horseshoe solution almost inevitably splits up the clearly defined St Mary’s Road area. Otherwise you get a horseshoe. Not good for community identity. There are not many facilities but a shop, a playing field and a polling station are all on St Mary’s Road. Council estates in this area do not sit well with rural Lanivet.  X is a better area to link with the rural areas than W and EE as in the horseshoe. X can't go in the horseshoe as it's between the town and Lanhydrock.  Lanivet and Cardinham schools are on opposite sides of Bodmin but share a headteacher  Nanstallon and Blisland schools are on opposite sides but will share concerns about the closure of a small school. There may be no immediate threat but school budgets are getting tighter  Lanivet and Cardinham are on opposite sides but are in the same group of churches  Planning is a much bigger and more controversial source of casework for councillors representing rural wards  Withiel and Blisland are as far apart as you can get in this area. They will share concerns about the viability of small farms particularly after Brexit. Anybody living in a council block on Kinsman Estate is unlikely to be bothered.  Cornwall Council is responsible for a portfolio of farms. You won't find them in Bodmin's Boxwell Park or Jubilee Terrace. Bodmin will have much less interest in the imminent review of county farms.  Access to broadband and mobile phones is predominantly if maybe not exclusively an outer doughnut problem

My working out is in the WARD sheet in the attached spreadsheet.

DIVISION 1, Doughnut Ward 5104 voters

From the council splits:

 All the rural parishes – good community identity  all the rural splits A, E, J, S, R, BB  all the perimeter splits with estates and sparse areas D, Q, X  areas without ex council houses D

DIVISION 2 5236 voters

From the council splits  all the areas with more ex council houses C, G, I, L, M, GG  areas without ex-council houses F, K, HH  semi industrial area II  N

This delivers the community identity of St Marys Rd and the deprived areas of ex-council houses. There are only 4 small estates of ex council houses outside this area part Rhind St (P), Green Lane (Y) and Halgavor View/Moor View (Z). None have anything like 100 houses.

The area contains the majority of older terraced property in Bodmin.

DIVISION 3 5290 voters

 areas without council houses T, W, EE, FF, U, W, AA  all areas with fewer ex council houses P, Y, Z  All town centre areas O, V  industrial areas CC, DD

There is one tweak concerning O, GG and HH. Fore St is reunited by moving the boundary with GG south. HH is expanded to fill the triangle (Beacon Hill, Robartes Rd and Lower Bore St that surrounds it. 200 voters switched to even the up the numbers, Div 2 to Div 3.

Bodmin Polling Stations:

 Chy Trevail A, B, D, E, J, R (all outer doughnut)  St Marys Rd: C, F, G, H, K, L, M  Berryfields: Northern I  Scout Hut Southern I, GG  Shire House the rest

Div 1,2 and 3 wards as above for the town council with appropriate numbers of councillors.

3.2 HORSESHOE OPTION

Is this the get out of jail card if you prefer a doughnut? If there are insurmountable problems with a doughnut then I cant see that they are solved by separating the 140 voters from the rural area. That's less than 5%. I am submitting this because Cornwall Council are. It's my second favourite choice. The wards are similar to the doughnut. They are also very equal.

DIVISION 1, Horseshoe Ward 5212 voters

From the council splits:

 95% or rural parish population – good community identity  rural splits A, E, J, S, R, BB  perimeter splits with estates and sparse rural areas D, Q,  areas without ex council houses D, W, EE  area with fewer council houses Y

DIVISION 2 5236 voters

As above from the council splits  all areas with more ex council houses C, G, I, L, M, GG  areas without ex council houses F, K, HH  semi industrial area II  N with no voters

DIVISION 3 5182 voters

 Lanhhydrock  perimeter splits with rural areas and estates X  areas without council houses T, U, W, FF, AA  all areas with fewer ex council houses P, Y, Z  all town centre areas O, V  industrial areas CC, DD

There are two tweaks.

As above in O to move voters from Div 2 to Div 3.

In Boxwell Park/Launceston Rd/Cl move 84 voters from Div 1 to Div 3.

This is not very different from the doughnut. I have nothing extra to say about polling stations or town council.

3.3 SLICE SOLUTION Bodmin makes up about 75% of the population. It seems reasonable that at least one of the wards is wholly Bodmin. The one I have picked is based around the centre of Bodmin and the council house/deprived areas. These areas will be most different from the rural areas.

DIVISION 1 5273 voters

 Withiel, Lanivet, Lanhydrock  rural splits A, E, J, R, S  perimeter splits with rural areas and estates D, X  areas with fewer council houses Y  areas without council houses B, F, K, Y

DIVISION 2 5243 voters

 areas without council houses H, HH  town centre splits O, V  all areas with more council houses, C, G, I, L, M,  area with fewer council houses P  industrial II  N with no voters

DIVISION 3 5114 voters  Cardinham, Helland, Blisland  rural splits BB  areas without council houses T, U, W, AA, EE, FF  areas with fewer ex council houses Z  industrial areas CC, DD

There is one change to even up the numbers. The area surrounding Grass Valley Park and Tryelyn moves from Z to X. 195 voters from Z to X and Div 3 to Div 1.

Bodmin Polling Stations

Division 1

 St Mary’s voters to Chy Trevail or St Mary’s Rd  St Petrocs voters – Dragon Centre perhaps. For many there is an off road walking route. This becomes a more attractive option when the new houses are built at Halgavor.

Division 2

 There are the same options as in the Doughnut ward. I think the St Mary’s Road area split adds some complexity. You might send the St Mary’s Lanivet end warders to Chy Trevail and the St Mary’s Inners to St Mary’s. That's good for the polling staff until they have to explain to somebody from Bawden Rd why they are walking past the polling station they know to get to Chy Trevail?  O, P, V into Shire House Suite or St Petocs Church/Hall

Division 3 all into Shire House Suite Bodmin Town Council – 4 wards

 St Mary’s in Div 1  St Petrocs in Div 1  St Petrocs in Div 3 plus St Leonards in Div 3  Div 2

4 FINAL TIDY UP SUGGESTIONS These would not materially alter the numbers.

 extend DD north to the boundary and east to the A30, extend CC to the A30 using the road/track past Higher Margate Farm to the footbridge as a line

 create a small rural perimeter area JJ, distinct from AA. BB that remains over the A30 plus the small square of AA that surrounds Castle Canyke. Canyke Rd would be the boundary. The voters could be moved from Division 3 to Division 1 in the doughnut and horseshoe solutions.

 That leaves all of BB east of the A30. It also leaves a triangle in BB between Old Callywith Road, Launceston Rd and Callywith Lane which could be added to W?

 I am not allocating O and P to different divisions. If I were I would redraw the boundary so all of Pool St is in one division. (Dennison Rd and Mill St boundary instead of dividing Pool St.) Pool St is an ugly area for traffic and parking congestion. They have submitted petitions in the past. During the roadworks Pools St was one way. Something that might be revisited? APPENDIX ONE NO NO DOUGHNUTS?

Comments on the Local Government Boundary Commission's How to Propose a Pattern of Wards

‘Doughnut’ wards – we occasionally receive proposals for a pattern of wards which propose an ‘inner’ ward and an ‘outer’ ward for a town or village1. We will not normally recommend this kind of pattern because the communication links between the north and south of the outer ward are usually poor2 and we also often find that people in the northern part of the outer ward share higher levels of community identity with residents in the north of the inner ward than with residents in the south3 of the outer ward. Where we need to split a town or village to achieve electoral equality, we will usually seek an alternative to this pattern.

1. The Bodmin Community Network Area is not a town or village. The outer doughnut is a sparsely populated rural area. Most of Bodmin is densely populated. Bodmin has the largest percentage of council housing in Cornwall. These areas have deprivation4 5in the top 10% nationally. By these measures Bodmin has become more deprived during this decade. Bodmin grew substantially in the 1950/60 s. Statham houses are typical of this. These houses are very rare in the rural wards. There is much greater identity among the rural parishes than with the vast majority of Bodmin. 2. Communication links in Cornwall are poor. However the A30 dual carriageway is as good a link as you will find for getting to Lanivet from Cardinham or Blisland. Public transport is poor and extremely limited outside of 9 am to 6 pm. 3. The links and identity with the outer doughnut and the perimeter parts of Bodmin are strong. Both are sparsely populated and have farms. e.g Cardinham with Fletcher's Bridge and Turf Down or Lanivet with St Lawrence and Dunmere. And all those areas with each other. Once you get into built up Bodmin there is no common identity whatsoever. Any suggestion that Helland and the very adjacent Berryfields estate have much common identity whatsoever is nonsense. I would be very surprised if residents of Berryfields go to Helland or vice versa. Residents of Cardinham may go to Lanivet because for example the churches are within the same ecclesiastical group. You won't find farms in inner Bodmin. St Petroc's, which is relatively less deprived and densely populated, may have a little higher levels of community identity with the outer doughnut. 4. www.cornwall.gov.uk/media/15560743/imd-2015-analysis.pdf 5. GIS MAP CORNWALL where you add layers to look at deprivation

St Austell Network Area Electoral Divisions

This is a submission for the St Austell/Mevagissey Network Area that conflicts with the proposal from Cornwall Council about where electoral divisions should be drawn. Currently the Cornwall Council plan would be to reduce the number of St Austell Cornwall Councillors from five to three and confine the electoral divisions within a tight St Austell Town boundary. This is despite St Austell not having strict boundaries, as has been proven by the number of Planning Appeals that the town has lost on adjacent green field sites because Planning Inspectors have determined that St Austell has no defined boundaries. St Austell is growing and has been growing faster than any other area of the county, with perhaps the exception of Camborne, Redruth & Pool, and with the addition of the proposed Eco Village at Carclaze in the Treverbyn Electoral Division to the north of the town, and historically the villages with Clay Country, St Austell will remain the hub for the largest conurbation of housing in the county. Cornwall Council are asking in other Network Areas to reduce the number of Cornwall Councillors by one, in St Austell we are being asked to lose two, when in fact with the proposal set out in the Appendix A of this document it is clear that by extending the boundary of the town into areas that form a natural extension of the town, the reduction of the number of the Councillors will fall into line with reductions elsewhere. The proposal is set out below with a summary of divisions and electorate in Appendix A.

Area by Area - / The proposal for this division is that it should be broken up and divisions redistributed to reflect a more parish/community focused approach. The division stands on the easterly edge of St Austell town and includes two divisions that currently form part of the existing St Austell & Mevagissey Network Area, ACN1 and ACN2, that are more naturally aligned to the St Blazey, Fowey and Lostwithiel Network Area. This division if established would be outside the proposed network boundary for St Austell & Mevagissey. The distributer road (A391) runs from the north and divides St Austell Town to the west from Carlyon Parish to the east. Both ACN1 and ACN2 sit in the Carlyon Parish. At present these two electoral divisions are part of the Cornwall Council Electoral Division of St Austell Bay that also includes Charlestown (AAY1), (AAY2), Trenarren (AAY3) and Higher Porthpean (AAY4) - all these divisions are within the Parish of St Austell Bay. These four areas will be moved to form part of the new Mevagissey/Charlestown Division (see below). Two other electoral divisions - AAA1 and AAA2 that are part of St Austell town’s commercial and residential area would be moved to the Mount Charles division (see below). New total electorate: 5172, well within the parameters set by the LBGCE.

Area by Area - Bethal/Carclaze Division To the north of the town there will be, in the future, major development at West Carclaze with the proposed Eco Village where over 1,000 houses are planned. This area sits within the Treverbyn Division close to the Clay villages of Penwithick, Treverbyn, Bugle and Stenalees and should in the future provide a community hub that will include a school, doctor’s surgery and shops. Employment space is already being constructed alongside a new section of the A391. However, the electoral divisions ATN7 and ATN8 do not naturally form part of the Treverbyn community but rather are very obviously part of St Austell Town. The current electoral division between Treverbyn and St Austell Bethal are completely arbitrary, set along streets that make no sense to either Treverbyn Parish Councillors, St Austell Town Councillors, residents or anybody else looking at a map of the town. People living in this part of St Austell already assume they are residents of St Austell and not Treverbyn so by including the electorate of ATN7 and ATN8 into the Bethal Electoral Division will clear away ambiguity and confusion. An additional 2012 people will be added to the electoral division of Bethal making a total of 6239, however if AAB1 (1045) was removed from the Bethal division it brings the total to: 5194, well within the parameters set by the LBGCE.

Area by Area - Poltair/Central This division would encompass both the north and south boundaries of the town, including the town centre. It would also include one electoral division currently outside the town - APT2. This is an import area for the town as it represents (by way of the Town Framework Document and the Local Plan Allocations Development Plan Document) the primary major housing development site for the town. The land waiting to be developed at APT2 will eventually have 450 houses built on it - although there only 120 counted for the purposes of this review - and sits naturally within land that forms a bowl around the town. Despite this obvious geographical fact Cornwall Council are proposing this development belongs in the Pentewan Division to the south. The Pentewan Division has no commercial centre and the majority of residents who live in this division rely on the services that St Austell provides. The two adjoining electoral divisions to the south (within Pentewan Parish) have a total electorate of 371 (evidence of its rural location), while the electoral divisions to the north abutting St Austell Town have an electorate of 1059. It is self-evident that the development within APT2 will form an extension to St Austell: a new entrance and drop off point for Pondhu School (within AAG1) is planned; new shops, pub and hotel are also planned; and that future residents will be using the infrastructure St Austell provides and will consider themselves residents of the town. Some parts of the current Gover and Mount Charles Divisions will be included in this new division to give a total electorate of 5148, again well within the parameters set by the LBGCE.

Area by Area - Gover/ This new electoral division, lying to the far west of St Austell, will incorporate parts of the existing Gover Electoral Division not included in Poltair/Central and combines these with the electoral divisions within the St Mewan Electoral Division. This change hopes to establish a more connected community that reflects the natural associations between the parishes involved. Also included in the new division is ATN4 which is currently a part of Treverbyn Electoral Division, although the electorate here is a mere 197 and not a significant amount to be either gained or lost, this area is a natural part of the entrance to St Austell and is historically significant through its association with mine workings and the clay industry, both major contributors to the establishment and prosperity of St Austell. This rural area separates the town of St Austell (AAP1 & 2) and sits alongside Trewoon and St Mewan (AMN3). This division includes the villages of St Mewan Parish but excludes those hamlets and villages that exist within St Ewe Parish (AEE1, 2&3) that are much more connected to Mevagissey and surrounding area. New total electorate: 5253.

Area by Area - Mount Charles/Holmbush While parts of this electoral division will move to the new Poltair/Central Electoral Division, it consists of the majority of the electorate to the south of the town, taking in AAA1 and AAA2 from the former St Austell Bay Division and AAB1 from the Bethal Division. Under plans from Cornwall Council this division would disappear complete and be split into three becoming absorbed into the three new divisions for the town. Mount Charles is a long established area with the town with its own community hub, church, school(s), supermarket, chemist and other long established businesses. To divide this area would do nothing for the community it serves and only increase pressure on elected representatives to provide a coherent representation for residents at county level. New total electorate: 5295

Area by Area - Mevagissey/Charlestown It has long been felt that Mevagissey was added to St Austell to make up the numbers for a Network Area. The landscape of the Mevagissey Electoral Division is very different from the urban environment of St Austell Town. Although parts of this division shares some of St Austell Town’s rural landscape (APT2 & AAM3) it shares more with the community that is currently part of the St Austell Bay Electoral Division. The parish of St Austell Bay (AAY1, 2&3) share both a landscape, proximity and infinity with Mevagissey Parish and the surrounding area: Mevagissey(AMY1), Portmellon (AMY2) and Gorran (AGN1&2), and feel strongly that they should re-establish those links by sharing a Cornwall Councillor - at present they are divided (see above). Combining these two parishes would improve communities that share a common nature and outlook. New total electorate: 5288.

Appendix A - Summary of St Austell Network Area Electoral Divisions

St Austell Bay/St Blazey ACN1 Carlyon Bay 1205 ACN2 Tregrehan 462 ABN2 Bodelva 465 ABN3 Roselyon 576 ABS1 St Blazey Gate 1252 ABS2 Lower Biscovey 559 ABS3 Par Moor 653 5172 Bethal/Carclaze ATN7 Carclaze 1072 ATN8 Carclaze 940 AAP4 Carclaze 511 AAB2 Bethal 969 AAB3 Bethal 1702 5194 Poltair/Central AAP1 College 897 AAP2 Ropehaven 1070 AAP3 Robartes 995 AAM2 (80%) The Village 914 AAG1 (40%) Penwinnick 438 AAG3 Priory 113 AAG4 Trinity St 398 AAG6 Station 203 APT2 Trewiddle 120 5148 Gover/St Mewan AAG1 (60%) Gover 657 AAG2 Edgcumbe Green 522 AAG5 Gover 1030 ATN4 Treloweth 197 APL3 London Apprentice 150 AMN1 Polgooth 913 AMN2 Sticker 816 AMN3 Trewoon/St Mewan 968 5253 Mount Charles/Holmbush AAM1 Belmont 661 AAM2 (20%) Alexandra Rd 220 AAM3 Mount Charles 1673 AAM4 Mitchell Rd 231 AAA1 Kingfisher Drive 997 AAA2 Holmbush 468 AAB1 Bucklers Lane 1045 5295 Mevagissey/Charlestown AGN1 Gorran High Lanes 344 AGN2 690 AMY1 Mevagissey 1443 AMY2 Portmellon 341 AEE1 St Ewe 304 AEE2 Tregenna 78 AEE3 Paramoor 93 APP Pentewan 170 APL2 Nansladron 148 APT1 Tregorrick 221 AAY1 Charlestown 519 AAY2 Duporth 578 AAY3 Porthpean 209 5288

Starkie, Emily

From: John Lambourn Sent: 29 January 2018 16:48 To: reviews Subject: LGBCE Boundary Review Attachments: LGBC Electorate Summary (Alternative A) Appendix 3a.pdf; LGBC Wards (Alternative A) Appendix 2a.pdf; LGBC Electorate Summary (Alternative A) Appendix 3a.pdf; LGBC Map of Divisions (Alternative A) Appendix 4a.pdf; LGBC Map of Divisions (Alternative A) Appendix 5a.pdf

Dear Sir, Please find attached my submission to your Review in respect of West , Cornwall. A copy has been sent to Cornwall Council

Yours John Lambourn Penzance Town Councillor

1

9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Cornwall

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Lee E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to see the eastern boundary of Penzance East moved further east to follow the A30 all the way to the Tesco Roundabout (at Ponsandane Brook). This would see Chyandour become part of Penzance East and not part of Gulval and Heamoor as it is not part of either village. Chyandour is very much a part of Penzance and should be represented within the council as such. I have attached a crude modification to your map.

Uploaded Documents:

Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download document?file=draft%2F1506597066 PZ+E.docx)

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10525 1/1