Local Resident Submissions to the West Dorset Council Electoral Review
Local resident submissions to the West Dorset Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 14 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.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: James Aldhouse
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Batcombe Ridge, the map does not allow me to draw it on, is a MUCH more logical divide culturally and historically the Wriggle Valley has remained with Yetminster as its focal point. Chetnole especially, my village should remain firmly within a Yetminster Ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3269 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 April 2014 09:09 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Chetnole and Stockwood Boundary
From: James Aldhouse Sent: 16 April 2014 21:11 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chetnole and Stockwood Boundary
Dear Sir
It is with some concern I note in communications received that the recent boundary changes proposed will separate Chetnole from Yetminster. As a resident of Chetnole I feel NO affinity with either Cattistock , Frome St Quintin or Sydling.
Please forward this e mail to whoever has the responsibility for such changes and register my concern. I know there are many in my community who feel the same and I look forward to a change in policy which leaves Chetnole with Yetminster which is the historical and cultural home where Chetnole belongs.
James E Aldhouse
8
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Carolyn and David Bickford
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Boundary Commission, We fully support the Chesil Bank Parish Council concerns in their letter of 8 November 2013. The Boundary Commission proposal to join Chesil Bank Ward with Chickerell Ward fails to meet the legislative requirements for boundary changes at every level, namely - 1. The identities and interests of Chesil and Chickerell communities are completely different. The former are Rural Agricultural and Tourist Villages and an inherent part of the UN World Heritage Site concentrating on observing the UN requirements by carefully managed environmental conservation.The latter is a designated Town incorporating an expanding urban industrial complex. 2. Effective and convenient government will be almost impossible within these conflicting interests of each community. Without exaggeration this conflict could also lead to conflict with the UN on the interpretation of WHS obligations. 3. The boundaries between the rural Chesil and the urban Chickerell are blurred under the proposal and are not easily identified. 4. The boundary proposed breaks the local ties explained above not only of Chesil but also of Chickerell. 5. The proposal creates a new Ward of 3 Councillors for an Electorate of 5716. Existing Chesil has an Electorate of 1776. This leaves Chickerell with an Electorate of 3940 which equates to 2 Councillors. The Chickerell Electorate is well below the equivalent urban Wards of Bridport N 6196 and Bridport S 5499 which each have 3 Councillors. The Commission, by artificially deducting 300 electors from Chesil and boosting Chickerell numbers by including the balance of Chesil's 1476 electors in order to try and equate Chickerell to Bridport N and S and give Chickerell 3 councillors, ignores equivalence by failing to propose Chickerell 2 Councillors and Chesil 1 Councillor. We request the Commission reflects again upon its obligations under the Legislation and revises the boundary proposal to retain the current boundaries of Chickerell and Chesil Bank and have 2 Councillors for the former and 1 Councillor for Chesil. Yours sincerely Carolyn Bickford David Bickford CB Sent from my iPad Dear Boundary Commission, We fully support the Chesil Bank Parish Council concerns in their letter of 8 November 2013. The Boundary Commission proposal to join Chesil Bank Ward with Chickerell Ward fails to meet the legislative requirements for boundary changes at every level, namely - 1. The identities and interests of Chesil and Chickerell communities are completely different. The former are Rural Agricultural and Tourist Villages and an inherent part of the UN World Heritage Site concentrating on observing the UN requirements by carefully managed environmental conservation.The latter is a designated Town incorporating an expanding urban industrial complex. 2. Effective and convenient government will be almost impossible within these conflicting interests of each community. Without exaggeration this conflict could also lead to conflict with the UN on the interpretation of WHS obligations. 3. The boundaries between the rural Chesil and the urban Chickerell are blurred under the proposal and are not easily identified. 4. The boundary proposed breaks the local ties explained above not only of Chesil but also of Chickerell. 5. The proposal creates a new Ward of 3 Councillors for an Electorate of 5716. Existing Chesil has an Electorate of 1776. This leaves Chickerell with an Electorate of 3940 which equates to 2 Councillors. The Chickerell Electorate is well below the equivalent urban Wards of Bridport N 6196 and Bridport S 5499 which each have 3 Councillors. The Commission, by artificially deducting 300 electors from Chesil and boosting Chickerell numbers by including the balance of Chesil's 1476 electors in order to try and equate Chickerell to Bridport N and S and give Chickerell 3 councillors, ignores equivalence by failing to propose Chickerell 2 Councillors and Chesil 1 Councillor. We request the Commission reflects again upon
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3295 24/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
its obligations under the Legislation and revises the boundary proposal to retain the current boundaries of Chickerell and Chesil Bank and have 2 Councillors for the former and 1 Councillor for Chesil. Yours sincerely Carolyn Bickford David Bickford CB Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad Sent from my iPad
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3295 24/04/2014 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 10 March 2014 16:13 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Chetnole boundaries
Hi Mark,
Please see the below submission for West Dorset.
Regards, Helen
From: Jackie Boulter Sent: 10 March 2014 14:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chetnole boundaries
Dear Sirs, re: Chetnole and Stockwood
I have been informed by our Parish Council that the Local Government Boundary Commission has recommended that my village, Chetnole, be separated from Yetminster Ward and instead to be included in a new Frome Valley Ward. I am writing to protest at this decision.
Chetnole is less than 2 miles from Yetminster, and more than 5 miles at least from the other suggested villages (Sydling St Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St Quintin) with whom this village as no connections at all.
Chetnole is inextricably linked to Yetminster:
Chetnole children go to the primary school in Yetminster The vicar of our church lives in Yetminster, and administers to both churches plus Leigh's church Our nearest shops and Post Office are in Yetminster The train line connects Chetnole with Yetminster The medical centre to be used by Chetnole residents is in Yetminster Even socially, we connect with Yetminster - eg: the annual Inter-village Competition which pits Yetminster v. the other small surrounding villages (Chetnole and Leigh) in sports and quiz competitions
I would strongly advise that your draft recommendation be reconsidered, as it clearly does not take into consideration the historic and practical connections between our two villages, and the 'Community Identity' that binds us together.
Yours faithfully,
Jacqueline Boulter
37 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 April 2014 09:34 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Chetnole & Stockwood Parish Council
From: Jill Bray Sent: 15 April 2014 20:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chetnole & Stockwood Parish Council
Dear Sirs,
We understand from our local Parish Council that WDDC propose to separate Chetnole from Yetminster Ward and put us into a new Frome Valley Ward with Sydling St. Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St. Quintin.
We wish to protest most strongly against being separated from Yetminster Ward as we have very close ties both geographically and socially with Yetminster and Leigh and surrounding area. Our local junior school is in Yetminster, our local shops are in Yetminster and Leigh and we share churches with Yetminster, Leigh and Chetnole. Our local garage is in Leigh and we also enjoy close community and social ties with Yetminster and Leigh. These ties include supporting each other through charity raising events, fetes, fitness classes, Arts Reach events, Moviola Film showings in Yetminster and Leigh, art classes in Chetnole, the Chetnole & Leigh Garden Club and many more events too numerous to name them all! In the summer we all enjoy an ‘inter village’ competition, with a quiz, crochet, boules, rounders for the children, golf, etc. etc.. This competition between the three villages is very much enjoyed by all and supported keenly.
Please do NOT take away these important links for our Parish Council and put us in a ward with villages that are remote geographically and with whom we have no social connections.
Yours,
Jill and Nigel Bray
11 Cooper, Mark
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 28 April 2014 14:29 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: West Dorset District Council Draft Recommendations Attachments: Comments on Draft Recommendations April 2014.doc
From: Bob Gillis (Bridport TC) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 April 2014 10:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: West Dorset District Council Draft Recommendations
Please find attached comments from Bridport Town Council on the draft recommendations for West Dorset District Council.
Thanks
Bob Gillis Town Clerk Bridport Town Council Bridport DT6 3JP [email protected] www.bridport-tc.gov.uk
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
This communication is intended solely for the person (s) or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient (s), you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return and confirm that its contents have been destroyed and copy the message to [email protected]
Individuals are advised that by replying to, or sending an e-mail message to West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council, you accept that you have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.
In line with the Surveillance and Monitoring Policy, any e-mail messages (and attachments) transmitted over the Council’s network may be subject to scrutiny.
Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council or any of its individual departments.
West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are not liable for any consequences of accessing this electronic transmission. Attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which may damage your systems. West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough
8 Electoral Review Of West Dorset - Draft Recommendations Comments of Bridport Town Council
Bridport Town Council has agreed the following comments on the draft recommendations for the Bridport Town District Council wards. The proposals for a three member ward to cover the current Bridport South ward plus West Cliff and Pine View was generally supported but it was recommended that the small number of properties in East Cliff and Watton Park (including the Leisure Centre) should also be included.
It was noted that the review aimed to reflect community identity and that it was proposed to create a new three member Bridport North ward. The inclusion of Allington in the District North ward was generally supported but the inclusion of Bradpole in this ward was not supported, as it was considered that this area, with its separate village, had a distinct community identity. Overall, the Working Group felt that the Commission should be notified of the following general comments: The Town Council supported the objectives of looking at the boundaries, with the aim of reflecting community identities and addressing any anomalies. The Town Council was currently working with the local parish councils to produce a neighbourhood plan, which would reflect issues of community identity. Whilst it was recognised that this current electoral review had already started and that it was a statutory process, it was unfortunate that this would be completed before the neighbourhood plan had progressed in that area. Members also regretted that County, District and Parish boundaries were not being reviewed together. The reviews did appear to be conducted in a piecemeal fashion, which resulted in many communities being frequently moved from one electoral area to another and often being split between the different levels of local government. Whilst this might meet the objective of seeking to equalise the number of electors represented, it did not seem to meet the objectives of reflecting community identity or providing consistent and locally understandable democratic representation. As an example, the community of Walditch is grouped with Bothenhampton at parish level, currently shares its District Councillor with Loders but not Bradpole, but shares its County Councillor with Bothenhampton and Bradpole. The difference in representation and boundaries can cause confusion and often disconnection amongst electors. The Town Council believes that in the spirit of the Neighbourhood Plan, boundary changes should be undertaken with the full support of the local communities themselves.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Eric/Anne Bugler
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The 4 villages of Ryme, Yetminster, Leigh & Chetnole are very closely linked and have a shared history going back many generations. Our children go to the same schools, we use the same health centre, our churches are in the same benefice,scout and guide packs etc. are used by all 4 villages. We even have inter-village competitions every year. The reason for this is obvious - each village is no more than 3 miles from the other and it is a very iter-linked and close community. The proposal to completely isolate Chetnole by putting us in a Frome Valley ward with Cattistock, Sydling St. Nicholas and Frome St. Quentin is, quite frankly, bizarre as there is not, and never has been, any close connection with these villages which are all some distance away. We really do urge you to reconsider this proposal.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3063 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 28 March 2014 16:47 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Commission Proposals for Chetnole
Hi Mark,
Please see below a submission for West Dorset.
Regards, Helen
From: Rosemary Burden Sent: 28 March 2014 12:54 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission Proposals for Chetnole
Dear Sirs,
I read with total bewilderment the latest proposal to separate Chetnole from Yetminster Ward and place it with either Halstock or Frome Valley Wards. Where is the logic in these proposals? We are neither geographically nor socially linked with either area. Yetminster is our local service village with shops, doctors surgery and vets, garages, etc. and we use it’s facilities not those of Halstock or Frome Valley villages. Furthermore both the civil and parish boundaries of Chetnole and Yetminster lie alongside each other. We have happily co‐existed with Yetminster in the past and wish to continue to do so in the future.
Yours sincerely, Rosemary Burden
22 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 17 March 2014 09:52 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: WARD BOUNDARY CHETNOLE
Hi Mark,
Please see below a submission for West Dorset.
Regards, Helen
From: linda carroll Sent: 15 March 2014 13:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: WARD BOUNDARY CHETNOLE
Dear Sir /Madam/Ms
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION/ WEST DORSET CHETNOLE REVIEW
I wish to draw your attention to the following important points with regard to your proposal to separate CHETNOLE village from its close neighbour YETMINSTER.
1. These two communities have a long historical connection and the people in Chetnole continue to live day to day lives that continue this linkage. 2. The schooling, church, clubs and shopping facilities are directly linked. Chetnole has no school or shop and therefore we go to Yetminster for these services. 3. Services do not exist in isolation. Friendships, community support structures and social events and plans follow. These add value to the lives of many individuals. 4. Chetnole has NO community identity with the named Frome Valley Ward villages. We DO have just that with the WRIGGLE VALLEY villages.
I could list a much longer plea but it seems to me that any redrawing of boundary must ( if it is to retain credibility and respect ) address the central matter of COMMUNITY IDENTITY.
I sincerely hope that this is a genuine consultation and that the above points will be given full consideration.
LINDA M CARROLL M.A
30 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Richard Charrington
E-mail: c
Postcode: D
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1: Proposed change to include Chetnole and other villages with Yetminster
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: Proposed change to include Chetnole and other
Comment text:
The community of the Wriggle Valley of Chetnole and other villages is aligned with Yetminster. The A37 forms a distinct and tangible barrier and so should be accounted for in the boundaries. The current proposals go against the natural affiliations and lie of the land. Chetnole and others feel part of the Yetminster area, not Evershot etc. Better to have a properly unified ward with common issues etc than a 'neat' division simply on numbers of voters etc.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3026 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Stan Darley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1:
Comment text:
As a resident of Chetnole can I say that the proposal to place CHETNOLE and area with Frome Valley ignores both geography and history. Chetnole and Yetminster are closely linked. Yetminster has our nearest shops, our local Doctors Surgery and primary school. The children of this village attend secondary school in Sherborne not Beaminster! The hills to the south and the A37 main road form and effective boundary to the village. On the map I have reflected this with extending the Yetminster ward out towards the A37. We are part of the Blackmore Vale, historically always looking towards SHERBORNE rather than the more distant Dorchester. This proposal, if enacted, will cause much anger and result in the LGBC being seen as manned by distant mandarins whose deliberations have no relevance to the people they effect. PLEASE return to the drawing board and re think this non starter of an idea! Yours Stan Darley Chetnole
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3002 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Clive Dibben
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I'm very concerned about proposals for Chesil Bank and Chickerell, which would not reflect the interests, identities or special characteristics of the two, distinct locations and communities involved. The current Chesil Bank Ward is predominantly rural and reliant on Agriculture and Tourism for almost all economic activity and employment. It also encompasses some of the World's most unique and important geological features and natural habits (as defined by national and international agreements and protections [including the Fleet Lagoon and the Chesil Bank, from which the existing ward gets its name, which is part of the UNESCO World Heritage Coast]). Chickerell TOWN, on the other hand, is an increasingly urban area reliant on employment in the main conurbations and industrial estates to its East (ie. Weymouth & Portland) and from which it is increasingly indistinguishable due to infilling and other ongoing industrial and housing development. Chickerell's conversion to Town status reflected its aspiration for continued urbanisation and population growth, which will undoubtedly strengthen its links and dependence on it's closer urban and industrial neighbours to the immediate East. There is therefore a very real danger that the rural electorate to its West, in the current Chesil Bank ward, will be increasingly disenfranchised should your proposals go ahead. With the majority of the electorate of the proposed new, combined ward being located in Chickerell TOWN, it would be quite possible for all three of the proposed ward's Councillors to come from Chickerell itself, leaving those in the rural west of the ward without a voice or representation, especially on issues which are specific and essential to the rural population in the farms, hamlets and villages which characterise this rural area. This disparity has already been evident with Dorset County Council's roll out of superfast broadband, for example, where, despite Chickerell being fibre enabled, resident's in nearby Fleet and elsewhere within Chesil Bank have been left without useable broadband. With the vast majority of the population growth in the proposed new ward expected to be in Chickerell itself, due to recent rapid housing growth and further large developments already approved, it is inevitable that the division between urban and rural interests will deepen and with it the risk that rural residents and their needs will be ignored by their urban neighbours and representatives. I believe that a far better solution to the re-organisation of representation in this area would be either to group Chesil Bank with Burton Bradstock and/or to include Buckland Ripers and the rural area to the North of the current Chickerell ward into Chesil Bank (perhaps drawing the boundary along Coldharbour Road, or running parallel to it along the development boundary). Through this route, it should be possible both to broadly balance the number of electors per Councillor and also to ensure that the very different characteristics of both the localities and the communities are more accurately reflected by matching communities with broadly similar characteristics and needs together, either by a new Chesil Bank and Burton Bradstock ward with two Councillors and a further two specific to Chickerell Town or by leaving Burton Bradstock with one, Chickerell with two and Chesil Bank with one, but increasing Chesil Bank's size and population by taking in Buckland Ripers and associated rural properties. It would seem wholly wrong and unjust to use the comparatively static population in rural Chesil Bank and surrounding areas as the buffer, in electoral terms, over which to spread the rapid growth of the urban population of Chickerell. In such circumstances, far from equalising representation, simply averaging across populations from such differing communities will diminish equality and increase division to the detriment of both democracy and community cohesion.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3100 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3100 17/04/2014 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 12:04 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of West Dorset - Proposed new ward boundaries
Hi Mark,
Please see submission below for West Dorset.
Regards, Helen
From: Sent: 24 March 2014 15:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of West Dorset - Proposed new ward boundaries
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to record my opposition to the proposal that the parishes of Chetnole and Stockwood should be incorporated into the Frome Valley Ward.
At the moment, residents of Chetnole and Stockwood are naturally linked to Yetminster because that is where we have our doctor’s surgery, local shops, post office, and where our children go to primary school. Our church is run from Yetminster and many local voluntary organisations involve both communities. We also have a direct rail link with Yetminster. For most other requirements, residents of Chetnole and Stockwood go north to Sherborne or Yeovil; they do not consider The Frome Valley and beyond as the practical places to visit for day to day needs.
As Chetnole and Stockwood are in the Sherborne Rural Ward of Dorset County Council, we are recognised as members of the network of communities centred on Sherborne, such as the Sherborne Area Partnership, the Sherborne Transport Action Group, and the Sherborne Neighbourhood Watch Team.
Geographically, the parishes of Chetnole and Stockwood are connected to Yetminster; the Batcombe Ridge naturally separates the two parishes from the Frome Valley. The river Wriggle, which rises above Chetnole flows through the parish, onto Yetminster and eventually into the river Parrett. The recent floods in the Somerset Levels means that the management of the river Parrett system could, in the future, involve the river Wriggle and its environs of Chetnole and Stockwood. Both parishes, on the other hand, have no connection with the river Frome.
The proposal to transfer the Chetnole and Stockwood parishes into the Frome Valley ward will present the District Councillor with extra problems as he/she will be dealing with two different sets of local networks and with communities which look in different directions. Residents in the Frome Valley naturally link with communities to the south and seek their requirements down to Dorchester, whereas Chetnole and Stockwood turn north. This will not produce effective government.
In my opinion, Chetnole and Stockwood parishes ought to remain within the Yetminster Ward when the West Dorset District Council ward boundaries are redrawn.
26 Yours faithfully,
David Dixon
27 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
West Dorset District
Personal Details:
Name: Richard Freer
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: ADVEARSE
Feature Annotations
1:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1:
Comment text:
I think it will be a good idea that our part of West Allington becomes part of Bridport. Currently, we have a District Councillor (based in Netherbury) who doesn't give two hoots about what happens in West Allington. This has been reflected in his lack of communication other than toeing-the-party line wrt the proposed housing development at Vearse Farm, near Symondsbury, Dorset
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3272 24/04/2014 Cooper, Mark
From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 12:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: WDDC PROPOSAL TO SEPARATE CHETNOLE FROM YETMINSTER WARD
Importance: High
Hi mark,
Please see below a submission for West Dorset.
Regards, Helen
From: John Fripp Sent: 25 March 2014 17:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: WDDC PROPOSAL TO SEPARATE CHETNOLE FROM YETMINSTER WARD Importance: High
Dear Sirs,
We understand that West Dorset District Council proposes to separate Chetnole from Yetminster Ward and put us in a new Frome Valley Ward with Sydling St. Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St Quintin. There are many reasons why this is a very bad idea:-
Chetnole is part of the Wriggle Valley group of villages, which include Yetminster, Ryme Intrinseca, Leigh, Hilfield, Hermitage and Batcombe
Our church has historically been part of the Wriggle Valley Benefice – we have the same Vicar as Yetminster and have regular joint services as part of the same community. The Benefice will shortly be part of the new Three Valleys Team when we join with the Benefices of the Vale of the White Hart and the Gifle Valley. We will continue our relationship with the churches of the Wriggle Valley, but our "centre of gravity" will move further north
We are served by the Yetminster Health Centre
We use the nearest post offices and shops in Yetminster and Leigh
Chetnole and Yetminster are in the catchment area of St. Andrew's Primary school in Yetminster and our children go there. The older ones attend the Gryphon in Sherborne together with children from the Yetminster Ward
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, Leigh and the other nearby villages
24 The villages of the Wriggle Valley have been served by the same community magazine, the Wriggle Valley Magazine for around 25 years. This is a highly regarded and successful publication which testifies to our shared heritage and cultural ties.
The stated criteria for boundary decisions include Community Identity within wards and clearly identified boundaries between them. We have a very strong identity with Yetminster and the other villages in the Wriggle Valley. The A37 provides such a boundary. The WDDC's proposal therefore contravenes notions of both community identity and clearly identified boundaries. We should stay with those villages with whom we have strong cultural ties.
Dr and Mrs J Fripp,
Chetnole
25