Local Resident Submissions to the West Dorset Council Electoral Review

Local resident submissions to the West Dorset Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 22 submissions from Local Residents.

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

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

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 25 February 2014 16:35 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Chganges

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: JOHN HEAD Sent: 25 February 2014 15:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Proposed Boundary Chganges

----- Forwarded Message ----- From: JOHN HEAD To: "[email protected]"

I have heard that under the above, it is proposed that Chetnole should be separated from Yetminster and is to become part of a Frome Valley Ward with Sydling St.Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St. Quentin. With respect - this makes no sense at all if Community Identity is to be given any credence as a criteria to be considered. People living in Chetnole have close connections with Yetminster ( primary schooling/Health Centre/ Benefice) and with Leigh ( joint sports clubs/garden club/Poetry Club etc). We have no community connections whatsoever with Sydling St. Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St. Quentin! Geographically, they are the other side of Melbury Down. The inhabitants of Chetnole will surely feel they are completely isolated from all they have been familiar with. District Council matters affecting Chetnole will have no bearing on Sydling St Nicholas,Cattistock or Frome St. Quentin - they are too far away, with no common boundaries with Chetnole and vice versa.

Please do not isolate us from all we have known and developed with.

38 Cooper, Mark

From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 12 March 2014 14:25 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Chetnole and Stockward ward boundaries

Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Tel: 020 7664 8514 www.lgbce.org.uk

It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you.

How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

From: Maggie Henry Sent: 12 March 2014 13:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chetnole and Stockward ward boundaries

Dear Sirs,

I'm writing to protest in the strongest terms at Local Government Boundary Commission proposals to remove Chetnole and Stockwood from Yetminster Ward, and combine us with Frome Valley Ward.

Here are some very good reasons why Chetnole and Stockwood should remain in Yetminster Ward:

• Our children attend St Andrews Primary School in Yetminster – we are in the catchment area, or the Gryphon in Sherborne together with children from the Yetminster Ward • Our church is part of the Wriggle Valley Benefice – we are served by the same Vicar as Yetminster and regularly have joint services as part of the same community • We are served by the Yetminster Health Centre • We use the post office and shop in Yetminster or Leigh – these are our nearest services and we support them • Our children and young people are enrolled in Beaver/Cub/Scout and Guide groups in Yetminster • As a community we are regularly involved in inter-village sporting and cultural events with Yetminster.

In short, we are part of the same community – our lives and interests are linked. You only have to look at the map to see that we are next door neighbours.

35 In contrast, I do not know of any meaningful links between our community and the Frome Valley Ward, or the Halstock Ward which had been suggested previously. The majority of our residents will have no reason to visit either of these areas on a regular basis.

It follows then that a councillor serving any other ward other than Yetminster would have no reason to look after the interests of Chetnole and Stockwood residents. We would be isolated from all meaningful representation.

Please use your geographical and community-minded common sense.

Yours faithfully,

Margaret Henry

36 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 17 March 2014 09:33 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Boundary Commission - Proposals for Chetnole

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: Anne Hirst Sent: 14 March 2014 18:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Boundary Commission - Proposals for Chetnole

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to remove Chetnole from Yetminster Ward.

Such a course would disrupt our village's long-established and effective local identification and effective working relationship with Yetminster. These have evolved because of our close proximity, resulting in associated social and church activities e.g. we share an Anglican priest, a valued primary school, a post office and shops, as well as local roads.

We have no connections with the villages of the proposed Frome Valley Ward, and are unlikely to develop any in view of their disparate locations.

The effects of the proposed move would be detrimental to our communities. As I assume this is not your intention, I beg you to reconsider before any further steps are taken.

ANNE HIRST

32 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 March 2014 09:21 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBC - Have your say

From: EDWIN HIRST Sent: 12 March 2014 18:35 To: Reviews@

Subject: LGBC - Have your say

Chetnole should stay with Yetminster ward:-

1 They have been linked for many decades

2 It is geographically linked - less than 3.5 kms

3 It is socially linked:-

a By church groups

b By various societies and organisations

4 It comprises a component part of the locations covered by the Wiggle Valley Magazine

5 People know and associate with people from both villages - hardly anyone knows any of the people mentioned in the proposed connections.

A DISASTROUS PLAN WITH BUILT IN FAILURE !!!!

34 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 April 2014 14:22 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: West Dorset Boundaries Review

From: Helenhughes Sent: 25 April 2014 09:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fwd: West Dorset Boundaries Review

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Date: 20 April 2014 20:38:28 BST To: Subject: West Dorset Boundaries Review

Dear Madam/Sir I totally concur with the points raised below and wish to have my views recorded too. Many thanks Helen Hughes

Dear Sir, I have no objection in principle to the reduction in size of West Dorset District Council. However I am disappointed to see the proposal that Charmouth be split from Wooton‐Fitzpaine, with Charmouth forming part of Lyme Regis and Wooton‐Fitzpaine forming part of a large ward composed of an increased number of parishes.

Lyme is a very commercial urban area, with a plethora of social problems, as reported regularly in the local press. Every month one reads of rudeness, bad manners and yobbish behaviour, and that is only the Town Council meetings! Charmouth is far more rural, its unique selling point is that its beach and foreshore are not commercialised. Our values are not shared by Lyme Regis.

In contrast Charmouth and Wooton have joint societies, and many Wooton residents choose Charmouth for shopping, medical and recreational facilities. The proposed arrangements for Wooton link it to other parishes where the only connection appears to be that the A35 runs close to them. Assuming a diligent Councillor is elected for this ward he/she will have a significantly greater number of parish meetings to attend, if they are to have any chance of reflecting the views of, and reporting back to, the electorate of their ward.

If one is searching to balance numbers with Charmouth a grouping with Char Valley and Chideock would be a more homogenous group with more closely aligned interests and values.

1 I hope you will reconsider your proposals Yours Faithfully R Hughes

2 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 April 2014 09:29 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: West Dorset Boundaries Review

From: Sent: 20 April 2014 20:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: West Dorset Boundaries Review

If one is searching to balance numbers with Charmouth a grouping with Char Valley and Chideock would be a more homogenous group with more closely aligned interests and values.

I hope you will reconsider your proposals Yours Faithfully R Hughes

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 March 2014 09:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Commission

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: anthony jones Sent: 12 March 2014 17:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission

Dear sir/madam

I am writing to you to register my protest against removing Chetnole's traditional links with Yetminster and replacing them with a new Frome Valley Ward with Sydling St Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St Quintin.

Chetnole now has only a pub. It has lost its general shop, its Post Office.

Yetminster, being the nearest town with amenties, has the GP practice, two grocery shops, a pub with a skittle alley and there are also excellent tea rooms in the town.

It is understandable why many of us Chetnolians have strong links with Yetminster.

Sydling, Cattistock and Frome seem miles away and offer little to re‐create the relationship we have with Yetminster.

I would ask you to reconsider this suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

Tony Jones

33 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 30 April 2014 11:57 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: WDDC proposal re Chetnole

Hi Mark,

Please see the below submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Aly & Ned Kozowyk Sent: 27 April 2014 21:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: WDDC proposal re Chetnole

Dear Sir/Madam

We would like to object to your proposal to move Chetnole from being in with our neighbouring villages, Yetminster and Leigh, to being with outlying villages with which we have no common ground. Our local shops, doctor, vet etc as well as our friends are in Yetminster, and many of our clubs are joined with Leigh. Along with Leigh, Ryme Intrinsica, Batcombe, Melbury Bubb, Stockood and Hamlet we all attend each others' fundraisers and have friendly inter‐village competitions and quizzes all year round.

Hamlet is within a few steps of Chetnole, and when I was delivering our local fliers there yesterday I noticed that they have Yetminster Parish Council notices on the board and they are literally right next door to Chetnole. It is absurd to separate us from Leigh and Yetminster as your proposed boundaries seem to suggest.

You state that you aim to: 1) Deliver electoral equality for voters; 2) Establish electoral areas (wards or divisions) for local authorities that reflect, as far as possible, community identities in that area; 3) Promote effective and convenient local government. I believe that 1) and 3) should have the proviso 'as far as possible' whilst 2) should be deemed rather more important.

You also state that you must, by law, take into account several key factors when taking decisions on an electoral review ‐ including ‐ The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities. ‐ The need to secure effective and convenient local government I do not believe that your proposed new boundaries take either of these factors into account, and therefore I do not see how you can introduce the boundaries proposed.

Thank you Alison Kozowyk

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

West Dorset District

Personal Details:

Name: MGB Manning

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Chairman, Corscombe, Halstock & District Parish Council

Comment text:

Corscombe, Halstock and District Parish Council are strongly supportive of your proposal, which Puts all of our Parish int he smae ward (rather than previous proposals which split the Parish).

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3140 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 24 April 2014 16:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Charmouth/Lyme Regis Boundary Review

Hi Mark,

Please see the submission below for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: Peter Noel Sent: 24 April 2014 16:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: Charmouth/Lyme Regis Boundary Review

Dear Sir,

I understand the above boundaries are under review and the yardstick being used is 2000 residents to each district councillor. This is all very well in a number crunching exercise but in practical day to day terms does not work. At the moment Lyme Regis has two councillors and we and this rural area have one, it appears that the suggestion is that we become attachments to Lyme Regis councillors and all the other villages in this area are attached to Symondsbury which is 8 miles away.

If that was to go ahead we would not have someone to look after Charmouth as they would undoubtedly be absorbed by Lyme. I am a parish councillor and we are looking at a neighbourhood plan which would incorporate all the local villages as far as chideock and it would be very useful and practical to have a councillor covering the villages including Charmouth.

Regards

Peter R. Noel Marshall Noel ‐ Accountants

18 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 02 April 2014 10:13 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposal for Bradpole

Hi Mark,

Please see submission below for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: Sent: 01 April 2014 16:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposal for Bradpole

Dear Sirs,

With regard to the proposal to merge Bradpole with Bridport North Ward, please record my opposition.

Bradpole should be allowed to maintain it's own identity, rather than be regarded as just a small part of Bridport.

Yours faithfully,

Richard parry

17 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 31 March 2014 09:28 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Submission re West Dorset Attachments: Boundary Commission re.docx

Hi mark,

Please see below for a submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: Michael Pengelly Sent: 29 March 2014 10:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Submission re West Dorset

Please find submission attached MJP

20 Boundary Commission re: West Dorset District Council Review

I served as a District Councillor in the Chesil area for over 30 years. During that time my ward boundaries were gradually increased in size. Now there is recommended a further enlargement to include the town parish of Chickerell. I support the Chesil Parish Council in their objection to this recommendation but for reasons more compelling . I respectfully ask that you take them seriously into consideration.

It may fit neatly into the population numbers box for the recommended new ward sizes of West Dorset but, in my view, that is far less important than good representation of the people. A large rural area, though sparsely populated, needs far more time and effort on the part of the elected councillor than a more densely populated area such as Chickerell. From personal experience, I know something of the time and commitment required if sufficient attention is to be paid to people’s representation over a wide area with numerous parish councils to attend and service (unless you adopt Edmund Burke’s attitude to his representation of the people of Bristol!) I am quite sure that local democracy would be less well served. Please carefully reconsider leaving Chesil as a single member ward. Sparsity and density of population do not sit easily together. I feel sure that the electorate of Chesil would be better served in this way and the ward of Chickerell would not feel deprived.

Chickerell has little in common with the rural expanse of Chesil and would not fit easily into a local councillor’s mindset. All it has in common is a shared boundary. It may be tempting to break this down in an attempt to get the numbers right. Far more important, please, is to have regard for a dedicated service to the people of Chesil and adjoining parishes, bearing in mind that rural areas are far more demanding on the elected representative if their job is to be done properly.

Michael Pengelly,

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

West Dorset District

Personal Details:

Name: Gordon Ratcliffe

E-mail: g

Postcode: Chetnole Home Watch; Wriggle Valley Magazine Organisation Name: Management Committee member

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

Map Features:

Comment text: In terms of social interaction, shared needs and interests, societies and events etc Chetnole [&Stockwood]is very closely aligned with Leigh, Yetminster, Ryme Intrinseca, Hamlet, Batcombe, Hilfield, Hermitage - generally known as The Wriggle Valley Community and part of the Sherborne Rural Area, borne out of The original Wriggle Valley Benefice. Please refer to "The Wriggle Valley Magazine" website www.wrigglevalleymagazine.co.uk ; Chetnole has little or no contact with Sydling St.Nicholas, Frome St.Quentin,nor Melbury Osmund. For continuity of shared interests, local transport, future high speed Broadband service etc it would be more logical to include Chetnole, Batcombe, Hilfield and Hermitage in the Yetminster & Cam Vale Ward.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2934 25/02/2014

The location of advertisements may vary, at the Editor’s discretion. T he majority of advertising pages are in monochrome, with only a few adverts in colour. The inclusion of more full colour pages is always under review, so advertisers are requested to advise their preference, in case we can justify the extra cost that would be involved. ADVERTISING RATES Advert Sizes: 1/6 th A5 PAGE Dimensions: 62mmW x 62mmH Monochrome: £75 for 12 months cycle Single advert: £25 in a single issue or subject to space being available Colour: £110 for 12 months cycle Extra charge for making occasional changes to the advert: £25

1/3 rd A5 landscape or 1/3 rd A5 PAGE portrait Dimensions 128mmW x 61mmH or 62mmW x 125mmH Monochrome: £150 for 10 issues p.a. Introduction: Single advert: £50 in a single issue The magazine is now in its 27 th year, having started life as or [subject to space being available]: a Church magazine for the Wriggle Valley Benefice. It has Colour: £220 for 12 months cycle gradually evolved into a community news magazine for Extra charge for making occasional changes to the the area around seven villages, namely Batcombe, advert: £50 Chetnole, Hermitage, Hilfield, Leigh, Ryme Intrinseca, Yetminster, as well as the hamlets Melbury Bubb, Procedure & Payment: Stockwood and Hamlet. To place an advert, simply email your own artwork in jpeg format to: The management committee, village representatives Gordon Ratcliffe [collectors of news items, photos, announcements, activity WVM Advertising Coordinator reports etc] and distributors – in total about 70 volunteers – Email: [email protected]; Tel: 01935 872996; combine to produce and deliver the WVM on a regular Alternatively, the Editor [Bella] is willing to prepare new basis, rain or shine throughout the year. The magazine is artwork on request, for an initial extra charge of about £10. free of charge, however modest donations are always A new advertiser will be informed as soon as space welcome. becomes available and an invoice will then follow. Existing advertisers can simply confirm that they wish to WVM volunteers deliver the magazine to almost 1300 renew and await a renewal invoice from the Treasurer. residencies at the beginning of each month except in Prepayment for a 12 month cycle or a single advert is th January and September - i.e. 10 issues per year, including required before the 12 of the month prior to 2 double issues for August/September and publication December/January. Some former residents receive their Either: on line to our bank account at NatWest, copy in return for a small charge to cover postage, and the Sherborne Sort Code 60-19-12 a/c no. 68951612; magazine can be read on-line, by accessing our website Or: by cheque payable to Wriggle Valley Magazine wrigglevalleymagazine.co.uk and posted to: R C Barfoot, Treasurer, The Wriggle Valley Magazine, Mallows House, Church Street, Yetminster, Advertising: Dorset DT9 6LG . Our aim is to provide an attractive, informative community magazine in A5 size “for the people, by the people”, and to WVMCommittee: Chairman: Graham Plaice; cover the cost of production and printing by offering a low Secretary: Judith Palmer; priced advertising platform to local businesses and service Editor: Bella Neate-Clegg; providers. We make no attempt to compete with Treasurer: Rob Barfoot; professional trades & services directories, and endeavour Distribution: Stan Darley; John Fripp; to keep advertising pages to about 1/3 of the total content. Advertising & Villages Liason : Gordon Ratcliffe

25/02/2014 WVM adverts information Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 April 2014 09:29 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Charmouth/Lyme Regis boundary review

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Martin Sent: 20 April 2014 13:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Charmouth/Lyme Regis boundary review

Dear sir

I think you should know that the proposed new boundaries might look very logical in terms of numbers and even pretty on a map but they make no sense on the ground.

The villages which surround Charmouth rely on its local businesses for support, having few such facilities of their own. There are also many social groupings and events in common and as such there is a strong community of interest between, for example but not exclusively, Wootton Fitzpaine, Whitchurch Canonicorum, Ryall and Morcombelake. Village life is different to life in small towns like Lyme Regis and linking Charmouth to the latter could not help but result in its interests being swamped by the larger partner.

A rethink, please.

Martin Sayers

Parish Councillor, Charmouth

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

West Dorset District

Personal Details:

Name: Blair Sibun

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Chetnole resident

Comment text:

Chetnole has been separated from Yetminster. There has always been a historical link with Yetminster, in fact, the villages are almost joined by Hamlet. We are linked by being part of the Wriggle valley and share a Magazine of this name. Many of our social activities are combined. Moving us to Frome Valley ward makes no sense at all. The nearest villages are miles away and some are the other side of the A37. I have never been to most of these villages and feel no attachment to any of them. Whatever is the thinking behind this extraordinary move? Please leave us with our historic partner, Yetminster.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3007 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 April 2014 09:03 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Parish Boundaries West Dorset

From: Sent: 03 April 2014 21:11 To: Reviews@ Subject: Parish Boundaries West Dorset

Sir,

I have looked at the proposals to separate Chetnole and Stockwood from Yetminster Ward and profoundly disagree with them. I refer you to the excellent summary our Parish Council has submitted as to why we should remain as part of the Yetminster ward.

Since the Chetnole shop and post office closed, Yetminster is our nearest Post Office and also our Doctors are in Yetminster. Local children attend school in Yetminster, before going on to the Gryphon School in Sherborne. We are part of the Wriggle Valley community. sharing the same Vicar in the 7 parishes of the Wriggle Valley.

I respectfully suggest that we remain as we are, part of the Yetminster Ward.

Yours faithfully,

M.Stringfellow.

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

West Dorset District

Personal Details:

Name: Iain Walker

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Annotation 1:

Comment text:

It seems curious to detach Chetnole and Stockwood from Yetminster and Leigh. Chetnole has been closely associated with Yetminster for several centuries. This proposal attaches Chetnole instead to the Melburys (parishes with which it has no historical connection despite a geographical proximity) and to the Frome Valley, with which it has no connection whatsoever and from which it is separated by a substantial hill. This feature marks the watershed that separates the Bristol Channel from the English Channel. This is a significant geographical feature, a dividing line that crosses the southern part of England. Chetnole lies to the north, the Frome Valley to the south. Chetnole's residents are almost exclusively orientated towards Yetminster and Leigh, where the nearest shops and the other remaining local services are to be found. The parish is focused on Yetminster and the postcode is a Sherborne postcode - also to the north. Globally, there seems to be no logic to the proposal to detach Chetnole from its social, political, religious, economic, historical and geographical environment to link it to distant villages that Chetnole's inhabitants rarely visit.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3060 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 30 April 2014 08:39 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Consultation - West Dorset ward boundary changes. Consultation period ends today.

From: Stephanie Walker Sent: 29 April 2014 21:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Consultation - West Dorset ward boundary changes. Consultation period ends today.

I hope you might be able to forward my comments to the relevant staff. I am unable to use the website page link as consultation ends today and the links have already been removed.

I am a resident of Chetnole which is currently in Yetminster Ward. We are approximately 2 miles from the middle of Yetminster and 1.5 miles from Leigh. Our local shops and other vital facilities are in these villages. There are none in Chetnole with the exception of a small village hall, a pub and the church.

The changes suggested will place our village in a new Frome Valley ward with villages which are quite distant from us and with which we have no obvious affinity: Cattistock, Frome St Quentin, Sydling St Nicholas etc.

We will not be in the same ward as Yetminster and Leigh even though we have a very strong connection with them. Our health centre, pharmacy and doctors are at Yetminster, the First School is at Yetminster, there are car servicing facilities, shops and a café there which we use on a regular basis. Yetminster is the location of the Team Rector for our Benefice. Our nearest part time post office is in Leigh and nearest full time post office is in Yetminster. The only bus service passing through Chetnole in both directions is to Yeovil via Yetminster, and the train service from Weymouth to Yeovil stops at Chetnole and Yetminster so local residents without transport can most easily go to Yetminster by public transport to get to the health centre etc.

I am concerned that if this plan goes ahead we will no longer have any input into decisions about the immediate area or be able to act together with residents of Yetminster/Leigh area to safeguard the welfare of our local community facilities and developments. I hope you might look again at the proposed boundary changes in this area and consider other ways of dealing with a need to reorganise local wards so that we can retain our current links to the villages nearest to us, whose services we use on virtually a daily basis.

Stephanie Walker

28/04/2014.

6 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 28 March 2014 16:47 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Further Electoral Review of WDDC

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: Robert Wheatley Sent: 28 March 2014 13:11 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Further Electoral Review of WDDC

Dear Sir or Madam,

At the behest of Bradpole District Councillor Ronald Coatsworth, I write in support of the Draft Recommendations for the Further Electoral Review of West Dorset District Council. I am aware of Councillor Coatsworth’s position but I’m afraid that I cannot agree with him. Local Government’s problems will not be resolved one jot by leaving things as they are. The almost total disinterest of the electorate must somehow be reversed and a start could be made by a relaunch of the kind you propose. If it’s done properly, there may just be more buy‐in and in any case, things can hardly get worse. Combining Bridport North and Bradpole Wards makes eminently good sense to me and I speak as a Resident of the former and also as a Committee Member of Bradpole Social Club (founded 1886 – 250 Members).

Yours Faithfully

Robert Wheatley

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

West Dorset District

Personal Details:

Name: Deborah Winstone

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I feel that it would be more appropriate for Charmouth to be part of a ward with Wootton Fitzpaine, Chideock and the other smaller surrounding communities rather than for Charmouth to be part of the Lyme Regis Ward. I think we would be in real danger of losing our identity as Lyme is of sufficient size to be a ward on it's own. Has it already been considered to link all the smaller villages and hamlets rather than for Charmouth to be absorbed into Lyme. I would appreciate understanding why this is being proposed and whether the residents of Charmouth and the smaller communities have a chance to question the wisdom of this proposal and what options we might have to challenge it and to put forward an alternative proposal.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3279 24/04/2014 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 14:50 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBCE Boundary review West Dorset

Hi mark,

Please see below a submission for West Dorset.

Regards, Helen

From: David Wragg [ Sent: 26 March 2014 10:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: LGBCE Boundary review West Dorset

1 The review does not appear to take into account the sparsity of population in the Symondsbury Parish. A reduced number of District Councillors having to travel long distances to attend parish council meetings and on most occasions unable to appreciate the differences between district council chamber meetings and those of a farming community. The proposal appears to second the residents of Pine View to the Bridport Town Council boundary. This step will mean that the Council Tax Rate of Pine view residents will immediately increase and this factor is already causing dissention.

2. There are some 50 residences in Pine View and the secondment to Bridport will create an unacceptable reduction in the parish electorate.

3. The residents of Pine View will receive no additional benefits from the change and in fact their views may not receive the consideration they deserve by this change.

4.The needs of a rural community are not best served by the present and proposed balance of representation. The committee system of local government in both district and county is unfairly weighted in favour of the urban townships and the depleted levels of sustainability caused by district and county decisions bring ever greater problems to the rural areas.

David Wragg