Local resident submissions to the West Borough Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 10 submissions.

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 Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

West Devon District

Personal Details:

Name: Christine Chapman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Brentor should remain with , where there are natural synergies in the populations such as shared school, bus service, close proximity, working and personal relationship etc. Brentor should not be sacrificed for electoral numbers convenience and just lumped somewhere else to make the numbers up. The population of Brentor should be specifically asked by means of a letter/survey sent to each and every household in the parish of Brentor - whether they wish to remain with Mary Tavy or be moved to another parish instead. Failure to do this is a failure of democracy.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3512 15/07/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission Electoral arrangements for Borough.

Submission by R. F. Eberlie: 18th July 2014

This is a Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission in response to their invitation of 29th April 2014 to individuals and organisations to comment on their draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for West Devon Borough.

Who am I? I am a resident of , in West Devon. I have known the district for sixty years and lived in the town for eighteen. I was on the Borough Council for eight years, a Joint Leader for all that time and chairman of the Policy and Resources Committee and sole Leader for my final three years. I am a Town Councillor at present.

Reasons why I do not support the LGBCE proposals for West Devon.

• Rurality of most of the Borough. Most of the Borough is rural in the sense that it has one of the sparsest populations in the country with scattered villages around still dependent on farming and country activities. For this reason I entirely agee with the LGBCE’s view (in paragraph 51) that “single member wards provide for more convenient and effective local government given the very rural nature of the area and the lack of good road links between parishes”. The Commission confines this opinion to a group of villages in the north east of the Borough but I submit the description applies throughout the Borough other than its two principal towns. For this reason I submit that proposals for two member wards outside the two towns are inappropriate.

• . The Borough Council originally identified Hatherleigh as being unbalanced following a major house-building programme over the old cattle market and elsewhere in the area. I agree with the LGBCE that a three member ward as originally proposed by the Borough Council “is too large to provide effective and convenient local government given the nature of the rural area.” The LGBCE may not be aware that at the time of the Foot and Mouth crisis in 2000 there were serious problems up at largely because of its very remoteness; and even at that time, I formed the view that the village was not adequately represented.

• Tavistock. The LGBCE is aware that “a number of developments are planned for the north of the Borough”, and as I read Table A1 the LGBCE expects their proposed new Tavistock North to increase in size by 837 electors, the proposed Tavistock South West to lose 61 and the proposed Tavistock South East to gain 152 electors.

These new figures do not reflect the expected outcome of the planned major building programme in the town. Between 650 and 750 dwellings and associated facilities may be built in the fields south of the Callington Road within the proposed new Tavistock South West. The influx of new families could amount to at least 1,000 and probably 1,500 or more electors. Other significant developments (say 300 dwellings or 500 electors) may take place in the south and east of the town along the road. Uncertain persists however; these developments are dependent on developers’ decisions and the economic outlook in this area.

1 • Anomalies in the proposed new Tavistock wards. The LGBCE recognises that some of its proposed adjustments in ward boundaries would split communities and complicate representation, e.g. 1. where it is proposed that Mohuns Park should be split off from Mohuns Close and connected streets; 2. where it is proposed that Abbotsfield and Orchard Close should be separated from the Uplands and Crease Lane area.

• Anomalies in the existing Tavistock ward boundaries. In two small areas in Tavistock, existing ward boundaries already divide communities and confuse and complicate representation. They are 1. the north eastern end of Parkwoood Road where one side of the road is in one ward and the other side in a different ward and, 2. the south eastern end of the Whitchurch Road where several houses in the road and several small streets off it are in a different ward to the rest.

I share the LGBCE often-expressed view that the division of commmunities and neighbourhoods should be avoided if at all possible. Neither the proposed divisions nor those already existing and identified above are desirable

• Whitchurch. In paragraphs 70 and 78, the LGBCE recommends that Whitchurch should be taken out of the Tavistock wards and become part of the proposed Dartmoor Ward. In fact the boundary line suggested by the LGBCE does not reflect this decision but cuts Whitchurch in half, transferring to the proposed Dartmoor Ward just a few houses in the hamlet of Middlemoor (whose residents normally consider themselves to be parishioners of Whitchurch).

• For all these reasons I recommend a fresh look at the Tavistock situation.

My alternative proposals for West Devon representation.

• West Devon villages. For reasons advanced above, I recommend the Borough’s rural villages should continue to be represented by single member wards and the existing arrangements for representation for our villages should continue - unless and until major building development takes place.

• Hatherleigh. In this one area identified by the Borough Council as unbalanced, I support the Borough Council’s revised suggestion that two new single-member wards should be created, even at the price of increasing the size of the Council by one member.

• Tavistock. Because of the uncertainties concerning the future growth of the town, I wonder if it is wise to consider any major revision of the internal ward boundaries. Without question, the time will come when the existing three-member Tavistock North will need to be split into two two-member wards (probably along the Old Launceston Road & Rocky Hill) to reflect the town’s expansion, but the desirable timing of this change is unclear. For the duration of the present review, therefore, I recommend the existing ward structure is not changed and we continue to rely on the well-recognised and most practical internal boundaries of the river Tavy and the old railway line.

2 Removing the existing anomalies. To ensure greater equality and remove the existing unneccessary divisions between communities within the Tavistock wards I recommend the following roads and houses be now moved out of Tavistock South ward into Tavistock North ward: College Avenue - PL19 0HU Yelverton Terrace – PL19 0HS Kelly College - PL19 0HX/0HY/0IS Parkwood Road (43 –79 odd only) PL19 0HH Parkwood Court - PL19 0RH River Court - PL19 0HL Stannary Bridge Road - PL19 0SB Sunshine Terrace – PL19 0HT

This would correct the anomaly at the Parkwood Road end of town whereby two thirds of the road and its off-shoots are in one ward and one third in the other, being the only part of the town where Tavistock South ward comes north of the river Tavy.

In addition, I recommend that the following be moved out of Tavistock South West ward and into Tavistock South ward. Whitchurch Road (Nos 204-218 evens) – PL19 9DQ - Orchard Court, School Road (the flats) – PL19 9SR - The Halt School Road – PL19 9SR - Anderton Close, Whitchurch – PL19 0RA - Anderton Court, Whitchurch – PL19 9EX - Anderton Lane, Whitchurch (up to Railway Line) – PL19 9DX - West View, Whitchurch – PL19 9EE - James Road, Whitchurch – PL19 9NJ

This would correct the anomaly at the Whitchurch end of the town where a few scattered houses in the road and the dwellings in several small roads off it are in one ward and the rest are in another ward, and would restore the old railway line as the natural boundary between wards.

These minor proposals would result in moving 118 electors (at 2013 figures) from Tavistock South West to Tavistock South, and in moving 206 electors from Tavistock South to Tavistock North. The net outcome would be:

Tavistock South West - minus 118, leaving 1,688 for the councillor, Tavistock South - minus 88, making 1,141 per councillor, Tavistock North - plus 206, making 1,540 per councillor.

R. F. Eberlie, 18 July 2014

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

West Devon District

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Fletcher

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We Support the recommendation. If I am reading the map correctly you have moved us ( ) from the old walkham ward into a new expanded dartmoor ward. This makes sense as it seems to follow the parish boundary (which also follows our southern property boundary) more closely and the old walkham ward included us with which we don't relate to, we are a rural property and feel being a part of the wider dartmoor ward is more sensible.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3346 13/05/2014 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 July 2014 13:21 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Electoral Review Brentor

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Sent: 20 July 2014 22:04 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Boundary Commission Electoral Review Brentor Importance: High

I would like to lodge my objection to the inclusion of Brentor in the Ward as proposed by the Boundary Commission.

“We have also included the parish of Brentor in our Bridestowe ward. While Brentor Parish Council identified community links with Mary Tavy, we have not been able to include the parish in a ward with Mary Tavy as this would result in our Dartmoor ward having a poor level of electoral equality”

As a resident of Brentor it is quite clear to me that this is another clear case of Parliament riding roughshod over rural communities without any understanding of how decisions made in London will directly effect those concerned. Decisions that will be made without little or no communication with the same.

The only direct community link that I can confidently comment on is the provision of Primary Education for the children of Brentor and Mary Tavy. When I moved to Brentor in 1984 with my family I attended Mary Tavy School as it was known then. The local bus company CJ Down provided the transport for myself and the other children of Brentor and still does. My own daughter is due to start at the same school in September and will also travel with CJ Down from Brentor only now the school is known as Mary Tavy and Brentor Community Primary School.

I would like to quote a paragraph from the school’s website to reiterate my point:

“Mary Tavy and Brentor Community Primary School is an outstanding village school with small classes and happy, high-achieving children. We strive to ensure that all our pupils reach their full potential through a varied and creative curriculum and are always looking for new ways to enable them to experience the excitement and wonder of learning.

We are a happy, friendly school situated on the edge of Dartmoor in the beautiful area of West Devon. The school was established in 1836 in the village of Mary Tavy.

1 Although our catchment area includes Mary Tavy and Brentor, we also have children who attend our school who live in the area, Tavistock, Whitchurch, and even further afield.”

I find it unbelievable that a community link that has been in existence far longer than the 30 years I have known of is to be ignored by the Commission. It would seem that making the numbers fit the brief is far more important to you than maintaining vital rural links and community identity.

Yours sincerely

Antonia Frankland

2 Fuller, Heather

From: Liz Hill Sent: 19 July 2014 10:32 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Brentor

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Ms Ward I’ve seen your response to Caroline Sellars, our parish council clerk, concerning the electoral review of West Devon. I am an incomer to the village of Brentor in that I have only lived here for nine years but in that time I have never been to Bridestow and my daily life rarely takes me to . I go every day to Mary Tavy, have friends there and activities which we share. My neighbours’ children go the Brentor and Mary Tavy Community school (the clue is in the name!) and the post office in Mary Tavy is our nearest shop. If Brentor were tacked onto an Okehampton focused ward we would effectively be entirely deprived of any representation in any real sense – how could we expect them to take any interest in an area they have no routine connection with? The fact that we are already a minority of no concern to anyone in the internet stakes (I have enough signal to email you but not to stream anything, so effectively increasingly cut off from the world) is a daily frustration. It seems that allowing us the normally accepted right to some kind of access to electoral representation is also less important than somebody’s nice tidy numerical map. I am not alone in objecting very strongly to these proposals but my neighbours and I are usually unwilling to engage in protest so if you haven’t had numbers of similar objections it’s not because we don’t care. Having spent my life working hard I am increasingly enraged by being marginalised and ignored because I have become one of a small minority (the rural community) with insufficient numbers to make any difference to anyone’s electoral chances. I would ask you to ensure that someone looks again at effectively disenfranchising our village, and put us back with our natural community i.e. connected to Mary Tavy. Liz Hill

1

18 July 2014 Lucy Ward (West Devon) Review Officer L G B C f E Layden House 76-78 Turnmill Street … EC1M 5LG

Dear Lucy Ward

FER – the district of West Devon: new warding - Draft Recommendations http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/devon/west-devon-fer

Welcome the Commission’s ‘draft recommendations’ for West Devon which will greatly improve electoral equality in the above local authority. In your ‘general analysis’ para-32, “… 39% of wards would have … immediately [triggered] another review”, is noted. May we ask the Commission to re-visit their draft Tamar-side ward.

The parish of Lifton is Okehampton–centric, via the A30 trunk route. In the draft, para-65, such a single-member ward would have a -12% forecast variance. It is noted that the Commission is reluctant to split a ‘grouped CPs area’ thus they rejected a single-member Lifton ward that would comprise three parishes only, because its variance would be outside the de-facto 10% limits guideline.

Bradstone CP is a neighbour of Kelly CP: and they have good road connection. If Brandtone CP is included with Kelly CP, Lifton CP and CP in my suggested alternative Lifton ward there would be improved electoral equality. The revised ward would have 8% fewer electors than the forecast average.

How to improve a single-member ( & Milton Abbot) Tamar-side ward? The omission of , this ward would now have 3% more electors than the forecast average would improve the electoral equality for this group of four parishes. The rump of Tamar-Side is geographically the Cis-Tamar, when approached from Devon. May one suggest that as an alternative name.

Please re-visit the draft so as to create two (2) single-member wards, , instead of dual-member Tamar-side.

Yours sincerely

< issued via e-Mail >

Peter Kingswood

Peter Kingswood RIBA

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 July 2014 13:19 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: West Devon Boundary Proposals

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: guy Sent: 14 July 2014 20:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: West Devon Boundary Proposals

Good to see that you are trying to do something about the boundaries. However, if you look at the results of the last election you'll note that there are wards with ludicrously low turnouts returning (usually Conservative) councillors who are elected unopposed. It's a shocking state of affairs.

These councillors, seemingly driven by Nimbyism are happy to see new developments happening anywhere else but their wards so will happily vote through planning for developments elsewhere in the Borough most notably in Tavistock & Okehampton.

The new proposals appear to be statistically fairer but are also assuming no growth in the population at Whitchurch (really?) There also seems to be a need for a better drawn boundary between and Drewsteinton to try & balance the representation in those two wards.

It's difficult to resist the Council's headlong drive towards covering the whole of this beautiful area with tarmac and housing particularly when councillors who've been 'elected' unopposed can have so much influence. I've given up those fights. Life really is too short. rgs

Guy Sergeant Tavistock resident.

1 David Williams

The Review Officer (West Devon) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Re:- Recommendation to group Brentor Parish with Bridestowe Parish.

This proposal may make sense from a strictly mathematical point of view, but it makes absolutely no sense from a community point of view. If there is to be any change Brentor should be put with Mary Tavy. There are strong historical geographical and historical links between the two communities. Most of the population of Brentor Parish live within the National Park, so it makes sense to be linked with the adjacent Dartmoor community. Both communities share the same Primary School, appropriately named Mary Tavy & Brentor Commuinity Primary School. Both communities are also within the Tavistock College catchment, whereas Bridestowe is within the Okehampton catchment. If you live in Brentor and it is a local shop or a pub that you require, Mary Tavy is where you would most likely go. I have been a member of our Parish Council and Chair/Treasurer of our Village hall Committee, and so I am fully aware of the difficulties in encouraging participation in local affairs. Putting us together with Bridestowe, with whom we have virtually no connection is only going to make this even harder. This proposal will do absolutely nothing to enhance the viability of our community, in fact it will have exactly the opposite effect