New electoral arrangements for Council Draft recommendations June 2018 Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

© The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2018

The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2018

Table of Contents Summary ...... 1 Who we are and what we do ...... 1 Electoral review ...... 1 Why Cornwall? ...... 1 Our proposals for Cornwall ...... 1 Have your say ...... 1 What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England? ...... 2 1 Introduction ...... 3 What is an electoral review? ...... 3 Consultation ...... 3 How will the recommendations affect you? ...... 4 2 Analysis and draft recommendations ...... 5 Submissions received ...... 5 Electorate figures ...... 5 Number of councillors ...... 6 Division boundaries consultation ...... 6 Draft recommendations ...... 8 Lands End and ...... 10 St Ives ...... 14 Gwinear- and ...... 16 , and ...... 18 and the Peninsula ...... 20 Falmouth and the Helford estuary ...... 22 Lanner, Mylor and Penryn ...... 26 and ...... 28 and environs ...... 32 , St Agnes and St ...... 36 and environs ...... 38 The Roseland Peninsula ...... 40 China Clay ...... 42 and ...... 46 and ...... 50 and environs ...... 52 and environs ...... 54 , , and ...... 56 The , and ...... 60

Callington, and Lynher ...... 64 , and Launceston ...... 66 and ...... 70 Conclusions ...... 72 Summary of electoral arrangements ...... 72 Parish electoral arrangements ...... 72 3 Have your say ...... 83 Equalities ...... 84 Appendix A ...... 85 Draft recommendations for ...... 85 Appendix B ...... 92 Submissions received ...... 92 Appendix C ...... 95 Glossary and abbreviations ...... 95

Summary

Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament. We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

2 Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

Electoral review

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

 How many councillors are needed  How many wards or electoral divisions should there be, where are their boundaries and what should they be called  How many councillors should represent each ward or division

Why Cornwall?

4 We are conducting a review of Cornwall as the value of each vote in county council elections varies depending on where you live in Cornwall. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

Our proposals for Cornwall

 Cornwall should be represented by 87 councillors, 36 fewer than there are now.  Cornwall should have 87 divisions, 35 fewer than there are now.  The boundaries of all divisions should change, none will stay the same.

Have your say

5 We are consulting on our draft recommendations for a 15-week period, from 5 June 2018 to 17 September 2018. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new divisions – the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we received.

6 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new divisions to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

1

You have until 17 September 2018 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 83 for how to send us your response.

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

7 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament.1

8 The members of the Commission are:

 Professor Colin Mellors OBE (Chair)  Susan Johnson OBE  Peter Maddison QPM  Steve Robinson  Andrew Scallan CBE

 Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 2

1 Introduction

9 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

 The divisions in Cornwall are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively.  The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the county.

What is an electoral review?

10 Our three main considerations are to:

 Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

11 Our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Consultation

12 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Cornwall. After considering the initial submissions on council size, the Commission took a decision to consult on whether 87 was the most appropriate number of councillors for Cornwall. We then held a period of consultation on division patterns for the county. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

13 This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

5 June 2017 Start of consultation on council size 19 September 2017 Number of councillors decided 26 September 2017 Start of consultation seeking views on new divisions 19 February 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 5 June 2018 Publication of draft recommendations, start of second consultation 17 September 2018 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 4 December 2018 Publication of final recommendations

3

How will the recommendations affect you?

14 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your division name may also change.

4

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

15 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our divisions.

16 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create divisions with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

17 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2016 2023 Electorate of Cornwall 425,514 449,182 Number of councillors 87 87 Average number of 4,891 5,163 electors per councillor

18 When the number of electors per councillor in a division is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the division as having ‘good electoral equality’. Of our proposed 87 divisions for Cornwall, 85 will have good electoral equality by 2023.

19 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the county or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

20 See Appendix B for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

21 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2023, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2018. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 5.5% by 2023.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

22 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations. During the construction of their scheme of division patterns for Cornwall, the Council identified a number of areas where there could be potential future growth that was not included in their electoral forecasts. However, we have not included these figures in the proposals as the Commission consider that the published forecasts for 2023, which have been made available to all of those responding to the consultation, should continue to be used.

Number of councillors

23 Cornwall Council currently has 123 councillors. During the preliminary stages of the review of Cornwall, we received four submissions on council size, supporting numbers ranging from 85 to 113. In April 2017, the Commission took the decision to consult on whether 87 was an appropriate council size. In response to this public consultation period, we received 274 responses, from the Council, county councillors, MPs, political groups, parish and town councils, local organisations, public bodies, and local residents.

24 At its meeting in September 2017, the Commission decided, on the basis of all the evidence received, that Cornwall Council should be represented by 87 members. We considered the evidence provided by all respondents to the consultation and concluded that a council size of 87 would maintain an effective representational role for members, whilst allowing consideration to be given to the geography, infrastructure and electorate distribution of Cornwall.

25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of divisions that would be represented by 87 councillors – for example, 87 one-councillor divisions, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor divisions.

26 We received 32 submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on division patterns. The submissions largely disagreed with the reduction in the size of the council, and some of the submissions requested that the existing number of councillors be maintained. A councillor submitted a partial scheme for Cornwall based on a council size of 88, to facilitate a different division pattern in the south-east of the authority area. However, we do not consider that any compelling evidence was received to justify moving away from the decision to decrease the number of councillors from 123 to 87, and we have therefore based our draft recommendations on an 87-member council.

Division boundaries consultation

27 We received 195 submissions in response to our consultation on division boundaries, including the aforementioned 32 submissions that talked exclusively about the number of councillors. The submissions received on division arrangements included two detailed county-wide proposals, from Cornwall Council and from the Conservatives in Cornwall. Both of these submissions provided for a pattern of 87 single-councillor divisions covering the whole of Cornwall.

6

28 Cornwall Council conducted its own consultation before submitting a set of division proposals, and as a result a number of submissions we received focused on earlier versions of the Council’s proposed division pattern. It is notable that the majority of the issues raised by respondents regarding previous iterations of the Council’s scheme were addressed by the proposals that were put forward by the authority.

29 In addition to the Council’s submission, we received submissions from county councillors, political groups, MPs, local organisations, parish and town councils, and local residents. The majority of the submissions received focused on specific areas of Cornwall.

30 We received a number of submissions requesting that the existing boundaries in Cornwall be retained, or that existing boundaries be ‘tweaked’ to improve the level of electoral equality. However, although sometimes ‘tweaking’ an existing division may improve electoral equality in one area it generally worsens it in surrounding areas. We also received a submission requesting that divisions follow constituency boundaries in Cornwall; however, we do not take constituency boundaries into account when conducting a review and as such are unable to do so here. We have used the parishes as building blocks for looking at the most appropriate pattern of divisions for Cornwall as we believe that parishes usually reflect communities and should be used to determine division boundaries where possible.

31 The two authority-wide schemes each provided for a uniform pattern of single- councillor divisions for Cornwall. We carefully considered the proposals received and concluded that the proposed division boundaries would both have good levels of electoral equality. We also considered that they generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

32 A full scheme was received from the Conservatives in Cornwall, which was based largely on the submission made by Cornwall Council with a number of alterations across the authority area. However, the evidence provided to support the boundaries was limited, and the submission focused heavily on description of the proposed boundaries. We consider that Cornwall Council’s submission was supported by stronger evidence of community identity and we note that it was also prepared by a cross-party working group. We are therefore not adopting the scheme proposed by the Conservatives in Cornwall submission.

33 During the consultation on division patterns, we received a submission from a councillor that proposed a pattern of divisions in the south-eastern area of Cornwall that would necessitate the addition of an extra councillor – that is, 88 members instead of 87. We acknowledge the strength of feeling behind this submission, and those that made submissions supporting this councillor’s proposal. However, we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been received to justify altering the number of councillors that has been agreed by the Commission, especially in light of the fact

7

that it would have a knock-on effect, albeit relatively minor, to electoral equality in other areas.

34 The proposal received from Cornwall Council provided detailed evidence on each of the proposed 87 divisions, and provided for a county-wide pattern of single- councillor divisions with good electoral variances and strong boundaries. We commend the work undertaken to produce such a robust submission. We are adopting the majority of the Council’s proposed division pattern, with a number of alterations to ensure that the proposed divisions meet the Commission’s three statutory criteria, and to reflect persuasive evidence received during the consultation.

35 In some areas of the county, we have amended the Council’s proposal to take into account local evidence that we received, which provided evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the Council’s proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries. We also visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Cornwall helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

36 Our draft recommendations are for 87 single-councillor divisions. Whilst the Council did not formally request a single-councillor ward review, it was clearly felt by all respondents to the consultation that a pattern of single-councillor wards was preferred across Cornwall. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

37 A summary of our proposed new divisions is set out in the table on pages 85– 91 and on the large map accompanying this report.

38 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the division boundaries, and the names of our proposed divisions.

Draft recommendations

39 The tables and maps on pages 10–71 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Cornwall. They detail how the proposed division arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

 Equality of representation  Reflecting community interests and identities  Providing for effective and convenient local government

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 8

9

Lands End and Penzance

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Lands End 1 6% , & 1 6% Newlyn & 1 1% Penzance East 1 -1% Penzance Promenade 1 -6%

10

Lands End 40 Apart from the full schemes, we did not receive any submissions relating to the proposed Lands End division during the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall. The Commission’s proposed Lands End division comprises the parishes of , , St Just and , and sits at the western edge of the authority area. This division was proposed by the Council and the Conservatives. The Council stated that this keeps areas of significant and distinct cultural heritage together, preserving a community identity. The proposed Lands End division would have a variance of 6% by 2023. We would particularly welcome submissions on the proposed name for this division.

Madron, Gulval & Heamoor 41 The Commission’s proposed Madron, Gulval & Heamoor division comprises the parishes of and Madron, along with the area of parish and the Heamoor area of Penzance. We received six submissions regarding this area during the consultation on the division patterns, which supported the inclusion of the Heamoor area within a Penzance division. However, this would result in significant electoral imbalances in both the rural remainder of the division, and in Penzance. Making this alteration would also have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding divisions, and we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been received during the consultation period to justify such extensive alterations to the pattern of divisions that we consider broadly reflect the statutory criteria.

42 The Conservative Group’s submission also proposed a pattern of divisions in Penzance that would include the Heamoor area in a Penzance division. However, the proposals here would have significant knock-on effects elsewhere. The Group’s submission expresses a desire to keep rural and urban areas separate, and opposes the proposals put forward by the Council as it includes Heamoor in a predominantly rural division. Whilst we acknowledge that the proposed division here links a number of different areas, we consider that it is preferable to link different communities rather than to split a community elsewhere. We also noted on our visit to the area that Heamoor is separated from Penzance by a major road. We are therefore not proposing to adopt the Conservative division pattern here.

43 We are proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Madron, Gulval & Heamoor division which would have a variance of 6% by 2023 in this area. We acknowledge that the proposed division includes rural parishes with the more suburban area of Heamoor, but we noted on a visit to the area that the A30 forms a strong and identifiable boundary to the south of the division. We would particularly welcome submissions regarding the proposed Madron, Gulval & Heamoor division during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

Newlyn & St Buryan 44 The Commission’s proposed Newlyn & St Buryan division comprises the parishes of Paul and St Buryan, and the Newlyn area of Penzance parish that lies to the south of Mount Misery. We received a number of submissions that expressed a preference that the entirety of the parish of Penzance should remain in Penzance divisions. However, to include the Newlyn area in the neighbouring Penzance Promenade division would result in that division having a variance of 69% by 2023, significantly outside what could be considered as an acceptable level of electoral

11

inequality. No compelling evidence was received to justify such a high variance, and no division pattern was submitted that would mitigate it.

45 The Conservative proposal here would include part of the Council’s proposed Penzance Promenade division with Newlyn; however, on our tour of the area we noted that the two areas have different characteristics and are content to include them in different divisions.

46 The Commission is adopting the Council’s proposed Newlyn & St Buryan division, identical to the scheme submitted by the Council, as it has good internal access links and follows strong and identifiable boundaries. It also provides for good levels of electoral equality, with a projected variance of 1% by 2023.

Penzance East and Penzance Promenade 47 In addition to the full schemes, we received five submissions relating to this area. The Commission’s proposed Penzance East division includes the area of Penzance parish north of Nancealverne and Alverton Street, and south and east of the A30. It also includes the area to the east of Penzance. The proposed Penzance Promenade division lies to the south of Nancealverne and Alverton Street, and north of Rock Road. As outlined above, the other submissions received about this area requested that the entirety of Penzance parish remain within Penzance divisions, but this would have significant knock-on effects as well as resulting in high levels of electoral inequality – the surrounding Newlyn & St Buryan and Madron, Gulval & Heamoor divisions would have variances of -49% and -73% respectively, and the resultant Penzance divisions would need just over three councillors between them to allow for acceptable levels of electoral equality. We do not consider that any evidence has been received to justify the high levels of electoral inequality here, nor were any alternative proposals received to mitigate the impact of altering Penzance’s divisional arrangements on the surround area.

48 A submission received from a town councillor put forward a new pattern of divisions for this area; however, no evidence was provided to support the proposed boundaries, and we are therefore not proposing to adopt the division pattern here.

49 We recognise the desirability of having the whole of Penzance in Penzance divisions but note that this would result in poor electoral equality. Accordingly we consider that two Penzance divisions, as proposed by the Council, would provide for a good balance of the Commission’s three statutory criteria, but we would particularly welcome submissions on these divisions during the consultation on the draft recommendations. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Penzance East division which would have a variance of -1% by 2023, and the Penzance Promenade division with a variance of -6% by 2023.

12

13

St Ives

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 & Bay 1 2% St Ives 1 9%

14

Lelant & and St Ives 50 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received three submissions regarding this area, alongside the full schemes received. A submission from Parish Council requested that the parish boundary remain as it is currently; the Commission cannot propose changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of this review. The submission from Parish Council requested that the village of be entirely included in a St Ives division with the parish of Towednack. However, to include the area of Nancledra in the proposed St Ives division would lead to the creation of an unviable parish ward in Ludgvan parish – as Nancledra is split between two parishes, we are unable to include the small area that lies within Ludgvan parish in the St Ives division without creating a parish ward, and this area would have too few electors in it to be considered viable for a parish council election – and we are therefore unable to recommend this alteration as part of the draft recommendations.

51 We also received a submission from St Ives Town Council, noting that the area covered by the Town Council is too large to be accommodated in one division, and that the town and the surrounding area would need to be covered by two divisions. The Town Council’s preferred option for this was to include St Ives itself in one division, and the surrounding area, including the more rural parishes, in another division. However, this proposal excluded the Whitecross area of Ludgvan parish, and did not specify in what division this area should be located, and also split the area based solely on polling districts. We consider that the Council’s proposed divisions in this area generally use stronger and more identifiable boundaries, as well as having good internal access links. We consider that the proposed divisions reflect the location of the communities in this area, but we would particularly welcome evidence on the proposed divisions here during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

52 The Conservative submission in this area included the central area of St Ives in one division, and the surrounding parishes to the east, west and south in another division. However, the proposed rural division did not have complete internal access links, as it is not possible to travel from the east to the west of the Conservatives’ proposed Lelant, Carbis Bay & St Ives Rural division without entering a neighbouring division, and we are not therefore minded to adopt it.

53 The Council state in their submission that the proposed Lelant & Carbis Bay division would bring together areas with a combined community identity, as well as retaining the area’s separation from the neighbouring town of Hayle, something that was raised as an objection during the Council’s own consultation.

54 The Commission’s proposed Lelant & Carbis Bay and St Ives divisions are identical to the proposals for this area received from the Council. The proposed Lelant & Carbis Bay division includes the northern part of the parish of Ludgvan, as well as the area of St Ives parish, east of Steeple Woods, Belyars Lane, and Porthminster Beach. The proposed St Ives division includes the western area of St Ives parish, along with the parishes of Towednack and Zennor. Both of the proposed divisions in this area will have acceptable levels of electoral equality by 2023 – the Lelant & Carbis Bay division would have a variance of 2%, and the St Ives division would have a variance of 9%.

15

Gwinear-Gwithian and Hayle

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Gwinear-Gwithian & Hayle East 1 5% Hayle West 1 4%

16

Gwinear-Gwithian & Hayle East and Hayle West 55 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received 23 submissions regarding this area, in addition to the two full schemes received. The Conservatives supported the divisions put forward by the Council. Nineteen of these submissions, including a detailed submission from Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council, objected to any proposal that would split the parish of Gwinear-Gwithian, and in particular the area, between divisions, stating that the more rural areas to the east and south-east of Hayle were not only separate from Hayle but also connected to each other. The submissions stated that the parish has not only an active Parish Council, but numerous and active community groups that participate in projects across the parish. The Parish Council also has a Neighbourhood Development Plan covering the parish area. The Parish Council’s submission was supported by the MP for the area. The divisions proposed for this area by the Council retain the entire parish of Gwinear-Gwithian in one division.

56 There are projected to be too many electors in Hayle by 2023 to retain the whole town in one division, so it is necessary for the parish of Hayle to be contained within two divisions. Hayle Town Council put forward an alternative pattern of divisions for this area, using the railway line and the old A30 as the boundary between their two proposed divisions, that was supported by two local residents and a councillor. This proposal would split both the parishes of Hayle and Gwinear- Gwithian across the two divisions. Due to the compelling evidence regarding the community links within Gwinear-Gwithian parish provided by respondents to the consultation, we do not consider that splitting this parish between divisions would accurately reflect community identities in the area. We are therefore not proposing to adopt Hayle Town Council’s proposed division pattern here. We note that this option was previously considered by Cornwall Council, but due to significant local objection, the current option was preferred.

57 The Commission’s proposed divisions in this area are therefore those proposed by Cornwall Council, with a minor alteration to include the northern side of Fore Street in the proposed Hayle West division to provide for a stronger boundary. We consider that the proposed divisions reflect the evidence received about the community links within Gwinear-Gwithian, whilst also providing for strong boundaries and good levels of electoral equality. We are proposing to adopt a proposed Gwinear-Gwithian & Hayle East division which would have a variance of 5% by 2023, and the proposed Hayle West division that would have a variance of 4% by 2023.

17

Marazion, Porthleven, and Crowan

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Crowan, & 1 5% Marazion & 1 9% Porthleven, Breage & 1 8%

18

Crowan, Sithney & Wendron 58 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, in addition to the full schemes, we received one submission regarding this area, from Wendron Parish Council. This submission supported the Council’s proposed division here. We have therefore decided to adopt the Council’s proposed Crowan, Sithney & Wendron division, comprising the parishes of the same names, which was also supported by the Conservative submission. The proposed division would have a variance of 5% by 2023.

Marazion & St Erth and Porthleven, Breage & Germoe 59 We received two submissions regarding the proposed Marazion & St Erth division during the consultation on division patterns in addition to the full schemes, one of which was from St Erth Parish Council and one was made anonymously. One of the submissions requested that St Erth parish remain separate from Hayle, which it does as part of the draft recommendations. The other submission supported a division comprising the parishes of St Erth, St Hilary, Germoe and Breage; however, this would have significant knock-on effects on surrounding divisions, and no evidence was provided to support this warding pattern. We are therefore not proposing to adopt it as part of the draft recommendations.

60 A number of submissions received during the consultation mentioned that Porthleven should not be included in a division with Helston, due to the difference in character between the two communities, and that it should be in its own division. This was also reflected in the submission received from Cornwall Council. If Porthleven was to be in its own division, it would have a variance of -50% by 2023, and as such it is necessary for other areas to be included in any proposed Porthleven division. The proposed Porthleven, Breage & Germoe division, comprising the parishes of the same names, uses strong and identifiable boundaries and would have a variance of 8% by 2023.

61 The proposed Marazion & St Erth and Porthleven, Breage & Germoe divisions are therefore identical to the division pattern put forward by the Council and the Conservatives, with one alteration. The Council’s proposal included , part of St Hilary parish, in the Porthleven, Breage & Germoe division; however, this would create a very small parish ward that we would consider to be unviable. For this reason, we are including the entirety of St Hilary parish in the Marazion & St Erth division. We are proposing to adopt a proposed Marazion & St Erth division which would have a variance of 9% by 2023, and a proposed Porthleven, Breage & Germoe division that would have a variance of 8% by 2023.

19

Helston and Peninsula

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Helston North 1 2% Helston South & 1 -3% Mullion & 1 11%

20

Helston North, Helston South & Meneage and Mullion & St Keverne 62 During the consultation on division patterns, we received two submissions regarding the proposed divisions covering the town of Helston, in addition to the full schemes. One submission, from a member of the public, requested that the division boundary between the north and south of Helston should run along Coinagehall Street; however, no evidence was provided to support this boundary. Helston Town Council put forward a proposed pattern of divisions that would include two dedicated Helston divisions and two rural divisions to the south, one of which would include Porthleven. However, these divisions would not provide for good electoral equality, as it would result in the parishes of Breage and Germoe either forming a division on their own, with a variance of -42%, or joining the neighbouring Marazion & St Erth division, resulting in a variance of 66%. We also note that the proposed division that includes Porthleven would not have internal access links, as it would be necessary to pass through at least one other division to access the rural parishes to the south. We are therefore recommending the Council’s proposed Helston North division as part of the draft recommendations, with a variance of 2% by 2023.

63 We received a submission from Grade-Ruan Parish Council proposing an alternative division pattern for the Lizard Peninsula. However, this proposal would have significant knock-on effects, as well as including the parishes of , Constantine, and to enable ‘the requisite number of electors’ to be attained. We note that this proposal would also split up the parishes of , Mullion and . We do not consider that compelling evidence was provided to justify the large-scale alterations proposed in the submission, and we are therefore not proposing to adopt the Parish Council’s proposal here.

64 Parish Council made a submission stating that the parish should be included in a division with both Mullion and Grade-Ruan parishes. This configuration of parishes is included as part of the Council’s scheme, which we are proposing to adopt in this area.

65 In response to the three responses received from Cury, Gunwalloe and Mullion Parish Councils regarding the community links between the three parishes, we are proposing to include the parish of Cury in the proposed Mullion & St Keverne division, instead of in the Helston South & Meneage division as proposed by the Council. This alteration will also ensure that residents in Gunwalloe have access into the rest of the Mullion & St Keverne division. We note that this would result in a variance of 11% by 2023; however, we consider that as the proposed inclusion of Cury in the Mullion & St Keverne division would allow for access through the division, this is an acceptable variance.

66 We are therefore proposing a single-councillor Helston South & Meneage division comprising the southern part of Helston parish, and the parishes of Mawgan- in-Meneage, St Martin-in-Meneage, and St Anthony-in-Meneage. We are also proposing a single-councillor Mullion & St Keverne division comprising the parishes of Gunwalloe, Cury, Mullion, Landewednack, Grade-Ruan and St Keverne. Both of these divisions would have good levels of electoral equality by 2023 – a Helston South & Meneage division with a variance of -3%, and a Mullion & St Keverne division with a variance of 11%.

21

Falmouth and the Helford estuary

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan 1 0% Falmouth 1 -2% Falmouth 1 -9% Falmouth Penwerris 1 2% Falmouth Trescobeas & 1 -5% Budock

22

Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan 67 We received two submissions regarding this area during the consultation on division patterns in addition to the full schemes. One of these, from Mawnan Parish Council, requested that the parish remain in a rural division, and continue to be grouped with the parish of Constantine. The Parish Council stated that the rural nature of the parish, along with its existing community links, meant that it should remain separate from the surrounding towns. A submission received from a member of the public referred to extending the existing division in this area northwards, to encompass part of the parish of Mabe to preserve the rural nature of the area.

68 We are adopting the Council’s proposed Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan division here, comprising the parishes of Gweek, Constantine, Mawnan and Mabe. This proposal was supported by the Conservatives. These four parishes are all rural in nature, and the proposed division provides for good electoral equality, with a projected variance of 0% by 2023.

Falmouth Arwenack, Falmouth Boslowick, Falmouth Penwerris, and Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock 69 We received two submissions regarding the proposed Falmouth divisions, in addition to the full schemes received. One submission, from Falmouth Town Council, put forward a pattern of divisions for the town that was based on polling districts; the Town Council acknowledged that the existing division pattern would need to change, along with accepting that the pattern of divisions covering Falmouth would need to extend beyond the parish boundary in order to achieve good levels of electoral equality. The Town Council stated that the existing Trescobeas division should be extended to include the parish of Budock to the west of the town, as residents in Budock use the town centre and local services; whilst our proposed divisions are not extensions of the existing divisions, we are proposing to link the Trescobeas area with the parish of Budock as part of the draft recommendations. The Town Council made comments about the potential for a Community Governance Review in this area; however, this falls outside of the scope of this review.

70 A submission was also received from Budock Parish Council, objecting to the Council’s proposed division which includes Budock parish with the Trescobeas area of Falmouth. The Parish Council state that Budock should remain with more rural parishes. We recognise this would be preferable; however, to include Budock in the neighbouring Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan division would result in an electoral variance of 33% by 2023, and we do not consider that any evidence has been received to justify such a high variance here. References were also made to the parliamentary constituencies in the area, but we do not take into account constituency boundaries as part of an electoral review. We visited the proposed Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock division during our tour of the area and considered that the proposed division follows strong and identifiable boundaries and has good internal access links. We acknowledge that this division includes a more rural area in a division with part of a larger town; as outlined above, to include the Budock parish in the neighbouring rural division would result in high levels of electoral inequality. We also considered combining the Budock parish with another area of Falmouth, but chose not to recommend this option as, on our visit to the area, we felt that the Trescobeas area of Falmouth was the most closely linked. We would particularly

23 welcome submissions on the proposed Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock division during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

71 The Conservative submission for this area differed from the Council’s proposal, as it linked the Boslowick area of Falmouth with Budock rather than the Trescobeas area. However, on our visit to the area we noted that road connections between Trescobeas and Budock are significantly better than those between Budock and Boslowick, and are not therefore minded to adopt the Conservative scheme here.

72 Our proposed divisions in Falmouth are therefore adopting the scheme put forward by Cornwall Council, with four divisions covering Falmouth town and the parish of Budock. We are proposing to adopt a proposed Falmouth Arwenack division which would have a variance of -2% by 2023, a Falmouth Boslowick division with a variance of -9%, a Falmouth Penwerris division with a variance of 2%, and the proposed Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock division that would have a variance of -5% by 2023.

24

25

Lanner, Mylor and Penryn

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Lanner, & 1 1% Mylor, & St 1 0% Gluvias Penryn 1 7%

26

Lanner, Stithians & Gwennap 73 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received one submission regarding this area in addition to the full schemes. This submission, from Lanner Parish Council, proposed a division comprising the parishes of Lanner, Stithians, and Gwennap. The submissions argued that the three parishes in question have long-standing community relationships through the Mining Villages Regeneration Group. This configuration of parishes was also proposed as part of the submission from Cornwall Council, and we consider that it is representative of the communities in the area. This division was supported by the Conservatives. We are therefore including this division as part of the draft recommendations. We are proposing to adopt a proposed Lanner, Stithians & Gwennap division which would have a variance of 1% by 2023.

Mylor, Perranarworthal & and Penryn 74 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received one submission regarding this area in addition to the full schemes. This submission, from Mylor Parish Council, supported the Council’s proposed divisions for this area. The proposed division for Mylor, Perranarworthal & St Gluvias includes the parishes of the same name, along with the area of Penryn parish to the east of Round Ring. The Penryn division would comprise the remainder of the parish of Penryn. We note that the edge of the urban area of Penryn is included in a more rural division. However, to include the entirety of Penryn parish in a Penryn division would result in a variance of 13% for that division, and no evidence has been received in this area to justify such a high variance. We would be particularly interested to receive submissions regarding this area during the consultation. We are proposing to adopt these two single-member divisions, as proposed by the Council, as part of our draft recommendations. Our proposed Mylor, Perranarworthal & St Gluvias division would have a variance of 0% by 2023, and the proposed Penryn division would have a variance of 7% by 2023.

27

Camborne and Redruth

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Camborne Roskear & 1 -5% Tuckingmill Camborne Trelowarren 1 -5% Camborne 1 -3% , Beacon & Troon 1 1% & 1 -1% Pool & Tehidy 1 1% Redruth Central, & 1 -8% Redruth North 1 -6% Redruth South 1 -5%

28

Camborne Roskear & Tuckingmill, Camborne Trelowarren, and Camborne Treswithian 75 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received one submission relating to Camborne in addition to the full schemes. This submission, from a local resident, requested that the area around Weeth Road not be included in a Roskear division, but did not provide any supporting evidence or an alternative location. We note that Weeth Road is included in the Camborne Treswithian division as part of the Council’s proposal.

76 The Conservative proposal for Camborne differed significantly to the Council proposal, but again focused on maintaining the integrity of existing polling districts. As polling districts will be subject to a Council review after the conclusion of the Commission’s review, we do not use the polling districts as building blocks as they rarely reflect community identities. We note that this proposal would provide for good electoral equality but do not consider there is supporting information outlining where the communities are and we are not proposing to adopt this proposal.

77 We are proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed divisions in Camborne, with a minor alteration in Camborne Roskear & Tuckingmill; we propose that the eastern boundary of the division follows the A3047, rather than following the existing polling district boundary around the houses in East Hill. This provides for a stronger boundary. Subject to this alteration, we are adopting the Council’s proposed Camborne divisions as part of the draft recommendations. We note that the parish of Carn Brea is split between three divisions, and we would particularly welcome submissions on this during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

78 We are proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Camborne Roskear & Tuckingmill division, with the above amendment, which would have a variance of -5% by 2023. We are also adopting the Council’s proposed Camborne Trelowarren ward, with a variance of -5% by 2023, and the proposed Camborne Treswithian division that would have a variance of -3% by 2023.

Four Lanes, Beacon & Troon, Illogan & Portreath, and Pool & Tehidy 79 We received three submissions relating to the area covered by the Council’s Four Lanes, Beacon & Troon, Illogan & Portreath, and Pool & Tehidy divisions, in addition to the full schemes. As mentioned above, the Conservative proposal here was based on existing polling districts, and we are not minded to propose those divisions here. One submission, from a local resident, requested that the area be included in a different division to Four Lanes, as the two areas do not share a connection. The Council’s proposed division pattern includes the Illogan Highway area in the Pool & Tehidy division.

80 A submission received from Illogan Parish Council requested that an Illogan division be included within the draft recommendations that followed the parish boundary, with the addition of the existing Tolgus parish ward in Carn Brea parish. However, this would have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding divisions, resulting in a Pool & Tehidy division with a variance of -19%. No evidence was provided to justify such a high level of electoral inequality, and we are therefore not minded to include this proposed division as part of our draft recommendations.

29

81 A submission received from Carn Brea Parish Council requested that the existing Tolgus and East Hill parish wards be included in a Pool division, and that the remaining area of Carn Brea be included in a different division. Whilst we acknowledge the strength of feeling behind the issue of parish warding here, there would be significant knock-on effects on the surrounding area if the entirety of Carn Brea, excluding the two aforementioned existing parish wards, were to be included in the same division, and we are therefore unable to accommodate this as part of the draft recommendations. However, we would particularly welcome comments on the division arrangements affecting the parish of Carn Brea during the consultation period.

82 We are adopting the Council’s proposed divisions in this area, with a minor alteration to use the A3047 as the western boundary of Pool & Tehidy, to allow for better access in a neighbouring division as described above. All three of the divisions in this area would have good levels of electoral equality by 2023 – the proposed Four Lanes, Beacon & Troon division would have a projected variance of 1%, the proposed Illogan & Portreath division would have a projected variance of -1%, and the proposed Pool & Tehidy division would have a variance of 1%.

Redruth Central, Carharrack & St Day, Redruth North, and Redruth South 83 During the consultation on division patterns, we received three submissions relating to the proposed Redruth divisions, in addition to the full schemes. A submission from Redruth Town Council proposed a pattern of divisions for the town that would include part of the neighbouring parish of Lanner which it considered it had stronger links with than with St Day and Carharrack. However, the proposals, based on current polling district boundaries, would result in a Redruth North division with a variance of -17% and no compelling evidence was provided to justify this level of electoral inequality. We note that the Town Council do state that some alteration to their proposed boundaries could produce better variances, but we did not consider that they provided strong evidence of community identity to justify the proposed changes. We are therefore not proposing to adopt this proposal as part of the draft recommendations.

84 The Conservative proposal for Redruth differed significantly to the Council proposal, but again focused on maintaining the integrity of existing polling districts. We do not use the polling districts as building blocks as they rarely reflect community identities. We are therefore not proposing to adopt this proposal.

85 We received two submissions from St Day Parish Council. The Council’s proposed division pattern includes the parishes of St Day and Carharrack in the Redruth Central division. However, in their submissions, St Day Parish Council state that, as the parish is rural in nature, it should be included in a division with the parishes of Carharrack, Gwennap, and Stithians. This arrangement, however, would have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding divisions. Whilst we acknowledge that St Day parish is separate from Redruth, we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been received to justify moving away from the Council’s proposed divisions here.

86 Accordingly, we are proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Redruth Central, Carharrack & St Day, Redruth North, and Redruth South divisions. All of

30 these divisions would have acceptable levels of electoral equality by 2023 – the proposed Redruth Central, Carharrack & St Day division would have a variance of -8%, the proposed Redruth North division would have a variance of -6%, and the proposed Redruth South division would have a variance of -5%. We would particularly welcome submissions on the divisions in this area during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

31

Truro and environs

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Feock & Kea 1 -7% , Treliske & 1 -3% Shortlanesend & 1 -5% Truro Moresk 1 1% Truro Redannick 1 -1% Truro 1 -5%

32

Feock & Kea 87 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received one submission regarding the Feock & Kea division in addition to the full schemes, from Kea Parish Council. This submission stated that the Parish Council were happy with the Council’s proposed division in this area. The Conservatives also supported this division proposed by Cornwall Council. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s division in this area, which comprises the parishes of Feock and Kea, along with the area of Higher Newham which is due to be developed by 2023. The proposed Feock & Kea division would have a variance of -7% by 2023. We would welcome comments on the inclusion of this area in the Feock & Kea ward during the next stage of the consultation.

Gloweth, Treliske & Shortlanesend and Threemilestone & Chacewater 88 We did not receive any submissions relating to these areas during the consultation on division patterns, aside from the full schemes. Both of the Council’s proposed divisions here were supported by the Conservatives. We are therefore proposing to adopt the divisions put forward by Cornwall Council, with a minor alteration to include Hayne Corfe Crescent and Hayne Corfe Gardens in the neighbouring Truro Redannick division, as this provides for stronger access routes through the division. We note that the proposed divisions split the parish of between them, and we would welcome comments on this proposal during the consultation on the draft recommendations. The proposed Gloweth, Treliske & Shortlanesend division would have a variance of -3% by 2023, and the proposed Threemilestone & Chacewater division would have a variance of -5%.

Truro Moresk, Truro Redannick and Truro Tregolls 89 During the consultation on proposed division patterns, we received two submissions relating to the Council’s proposed Truro divisions in addition to the full schemes, both of which focused on the more rural areas included in the Truro Tregolls division. A submission from Parish Council objected to any inclusion of Malpas in a division with the Roseland peninsula; however, under the proposed divisions in the draft recommendations, Malpas will be included in the proposed Truro Tregolls division. The Conservatives supported the Council’s proposed divisions here.

90 We also received a submission from St Clement Parish Council, which noted that the parish would be split between more than one division and proposed that the area be included in the same division as St Clement and Malpas, and that the Buckshead area be moved into the division to the west. However, we consider that the Council’s proposal in this area, whilst it does split the parish of St Clement, is more appropriate here as it does not join any part of the parish with the Roseland peninsula, instead including Malpas, Buckshead, and St Clement in the Truro Tregolls division, and Tresillian in the neighbouring Probus & division. An option was considered where Tresillian would be included in the proposed Truro Tregolls division, but this would result in a Probus & St Erme division with a variance of -15% and we do not feel that sufficient evidence has been provided at this stage to recommend this level of electoral inequality.

91 We did not receive any further comments on possible divisions for Truro, and we are therefore including the Council’s proposed Truro divisions as part of our draft

33 recommendations. Our proposed Truro Moresk division would have a variance of 1% by 2023, the proposed Truro Redannick division would have a variance of -1%, and the proposed Truro Tregolls division would have a variance of -5% by 2023.

34

35

Perranporth, St Agnes, and St Newlyn

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Perranporth 1 -5% St Agnes 1 -2% , & 1 -4%

36

Perranporth and St Agnes 92 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we did not receive any comments regarding Perranporth or St Agnes, aside from the full schemes received. The Conservatives supported the Council’s proposed divisions here. We consider that the Council’s proposed divisions in this area provide for a good balance of the statutory criteria and are proposing to include them as part of the draft recommendations. We note that the proposed divisions split the parishes of St Agnes and between divisions, and we would particularly welcome comments on this during the consultation on the draft recommendations. Our proposed Perranporth and St Agnes divisions are therefore identical to the Council’s proposed division and would have variances of -5% and -2% respectively by 2023.

St Newlyn East, Cubert & Goonhavern 93 We received one submission relating to this area during the consultation on division patterns in addition to the full schemes. This submission, from Cubert Parish Council, supports Cornwall Council’s proposed division which includes the parishes of , Cubert, St Newlyn East, , and the area of Perranzabuloe parish to the east of Perranporth. The Conservatives also supported this division. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed St Newlyn East, Cubert & Goonhavern division as part of the draft recommendations, with a variance of -4% by 2023.

37

Newquay and environs

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Newquay Central & Pentire 1 4% Newquay Porth & Tretherras 1 3% Newquay 1 7% St Columb Minor & Colan 1 -7%

38

Newquay Central & Pentire, Newquay Porth & Tretherras, and Newquay Trenance 94 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received six submissions regarding Newquay, in addition to the full schemes. A group of councillors submitted an alternative pattern of divisions for Newquay, which was supported by the other respondents. This proposal provided for four divisions, in a different configuration to those put forward by Cornwall Council. Whilst we acknowledge that these divisions provide for similar levels of electoral equality to those put forward by the Council, we were not persuaded to adopt this proposal as the information provided regarding the communities in the area was limited. Similarly, the Conservative submission focused on the allocation of polling districts in Newquay. However, we note that little evidence was received, outside of the Council’s submission, regarding the specific communities within Newquay, and as such we would particularly welcome submissions on this area during the next stage of consultation.

95 We are proposing to adopt Cornwall Council’s proposed division pattern in Newquay as, of the submissions received, it provides for the strongest and most identifiable boundaries, as well as providing for good electoral equality across Newquay. The Council’s proposal also appropriately integrates those areas undergoing development. The proposed Newquay Central & Pentire division would have a variance of 4% by 2023, the proposed Newquay Porth & Tretherras division would have a variance of 3%, and the proposed Newquay Trenance division would have a variance of 7% by 2023.

St Columb Minor & Colan 96 We did not receive any submissions regarding this area during the consultation on division patterns, aside from the full schemes. The Conservatives proposed an identical division to the Council here. We are therefore adopting the Council’s proposed St Columb Minor & Colan division as part of the draft recommendations, as it follows strong and identifiable boundaries, as well as providing for good electoral equality. This division would have a variance of -7% by 2023.

39

The Roseland Peninsula

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 , & the 1 -6% Roseland

40

St Goran, Tregony & the Roseland 97 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received two submissions regarding this area in addition to the full schemes. One, from Gerrans Parish Council, objected to any inclusion of Malpas in a division with the Roseland Peninsula; however, under the proposed divisions in the draft recommendations, Malpas will be included in the proposed Truro Tregolls division.

98 The Conservatives supported the Council’s proposal here, stating that it is a distinctive area with many issues in common.

99 A submission from St Goran Parish Council requested that the parish of the same name be included entirely in one division, alongside rural parishes. The entire parish is included in the same division as part of our recommendations. We consider that the Council’s proposed St Goran, Tregony & the Roseland division – comprising the parishes of , Tregoney, Cuby, St Goran, , , Ruanlanihorne, , St Just-in-Roseland, and Gerrans – provides for a good balance of the statutory criteria whilst preserving the unique community identity of the Roseland Peninsula. The proposed St Goran, Tregony & the Roseland division would have a variance of -6% by 2023.

41

China Clay

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Goonbarrow 1 2% & 1 -10% Probus & St Erme 1 -2% St Dennis & 1 7% St Stephen-in-Brannel 1 -1%

42

Goonbarrow, Penwithick & Boscoppa and St Stephen-in-Brannel 100 We received two submissions relating to the divisions in this area in addition to the full schemes. One submission, from St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council, supported the boundaries proposed by Cornwall Council, which include the northern part of the parish in the Goonbarrow division. A submission from Parish Council requested that minimal change take place to the divisions currently covering the parish; however, due to the reduction in council size, the boundaries of the divisions have to alter to provide for good electoral equality. Treverbyn Parish Council requested that the village of Bugle not be included in a division with the neighbouring Roche parish. However, to include Bugle in the Penwithick & Boscoppa division, with the rest of Treverbyn parish, would result in a variance of -28% in the Goonbarrow division, and any attempt to correct this variance would have significant knock-on effects throughout the surrounding divisions. No evidence has been provided to justify significant alterations to the Council’s pattern of divisions here which we consider generally provides for a good reflection of the statutory criteria.

101 The Conservative proposals here differed to the Council proposal, and generally focused on maintaining the integrity of existing polling districts. As polling districts will be subject to a Council review after the conclusion of the Commission’s review, we do not use the polling districts as building blocks as they rarely reflect community identities. We are therefore not proposing to adopt this proposal.

102 We are proposing one alteration to the Council’s proposed divisions in this area. The Council’s scheme included the Bowling Green area of Treverbyn parish in the Goonbarrow division; however, we note that this area accesses to the south, and we are therefore including it in the proposed Penwithick & Boscoppa division to improve access throughout the division. Our proposed Goonbarrow division would have a variance of 2% by 2023, the Penwithick & Boscoppa division would have a variance of -10%, and the proposed St Stephen-in-Brannel division would have a variance of -1% by 2023.

Probus & St Erme 103 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we did not receive any submissions regarding this area, apart from the full schemes. We consider that the Council’s proposed Probus & St Erme division, comprising the parishes of , St Erme, and Probus, and part of St Clement, provides for good electoral equality and strong boundaries, and we are therefore proposing to include this division as part of our draft recommendations. This proposed division was also put forward by the Conservatives. Our proposed Probus & St Erme division, as proposed by the Council, would have a variance of -2% by 2023.

St Dennis & St Enoder 104 We received two submissions regarding this area during the consultation period in addition to the full schemes, both of which came from St Enoder Parish Council. Both submissions received were supportive of Cornwall Council’s proposed division, which links St Enoder parish with the western part of the neighbouring St Dennis parish. We are therefore including the Council’s proposed St Dennis & St Enoder division as part of the draft recommendations. We note that the proposed division includes part of St Dennis parish, with the other part joining the neighbouring Goonbarrow division – to include the entirety of St Dennis parish in the proposed St

43

Dennis & St Enoder division would result in a variance of 11% and we do not consider that evidence was received to support this during the consultation. We would, however, particularly welcome comments on this during the consultation. This division would have a variance of 7% by 2023.

44

45

St Austell and Mevagissey

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Mevagissey & 1 -5% St Austell Bethel & Holmbush 1 5% St Austell Gover 1 2% St Austell Poltair & Mount 1 -2% Charles 1 2% & 1 -12%

46

Mevagissey & St Austell Bay and St Mewan & Grampound 105 The proposed Mevagissey & St Austell Bay division comprises the parishes of , St Austell Bay, and Mevagissey, along with the southern part of the Valley parish. The neighbouring St Mewan & Grampound division comprises the northern part of parish, along with the parishes of , , and St Mewan. We received seven submissions regarding these two proposed divisions, in addition to the full schemes. The Conservatives supported the proposals put forward by the Council, as they considered that the proposed divisions reflected community identity in the areas in question, and that in particular the villages in the Mevagissey & St Austell Bay division had similar issues around employment, community groups, and infrastructure.

106 Submissions from St Austell Bay Parish Council and Carlyon Parish Council requested that the parishes of Carlyon, Pentewan Valley, and St Austell Bay should form a division. However, this would have significant knock-on effects due to the exclusion of Mevagissey. The submissions received from Mevagissey Parish Council suggest an amendment to the existing division in the area, and state that the parish of Mevagissey is separate from the surrounding communities. Whilst we appreciate that the division proposed by Mevagissey Parish Council would have an acceptable level of electoral equality, it would have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding divisions, resulting in a division to the south-west with a variance of -26% by 2023. We do not consider that enough persuasive evidence has been received to justify such a high variance, and we are therefore unable to adopt Mevagissey Parish Council’s proposed division here. The same division was also proposed by Pentewan Valley Parish Council.

107 A submission received from St Mewan Parish Council stated that the village of , in the north of the parish, should remain in a rural division rather than be included in a division with the urban St Austell area. Our proposed St Mewan & Grampound division, adopting the proposal made by Cornwall Council, includes the entirety of St Mewan parish, including Trewoon, and is separate from St Austell.

108 A submission from Mebyon Kernow put forward an alternative division pattern for St Mewan & Grampound, stating that the parish of St Goran should be included in the division and Grampound with Creed parish should be included in the neighbouring St Goran, Tregony & the Roseland division. However, this would result in a variance of -13% and no compelling evidence was provided to justify the alteration here – the group state that as the St Goran, Tregony & the Roseland division is large, a lower electorate would be acceptable, but we do not consider that this is sufficient to propose the above alteration.

109 We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed divisions here. We note that the St Mewan & Grampound division has a projected variance of -12% by 2023. However, we do not consider that evidence has been received to include any of the surrounding parishes in the division, and we consider that the proposed division has strong and identifiable boundaries. Our proposed Mevagissey & St Austell Bay division would have a variance of -5% by 2023. We would particularly welcome submissions on these divisions during the consultation on the division patterns.

47

St Austell Bethel & Holmbush, St Austell Gover, and St Austell Poltair & Mount Charles 110 We received three submissions regarding St Austell during the consultation on division patterns, in addition to the full schemes. One of the submissions requested that the existing St Austell Gover division be retained; however, due to the reduction in the number of councillors in Cornwall, it is necessary for the boundaries of the divisions to be altered to allow for good levels of electoral equality.

111 A submission from St Austell Town Council suggested that the area to the north of St Austell be included in a St Austell division; however, this would result in a Penwithick & Boscoppa division to the north with a variance of -28% by 2023 and no evidence was provided to justify such a poor level of electoral equality. The Town Council also provided a number of different potential options for division boundaries, but no supporting evidence was provided. A member of the public also proposed a set of boundaries for St Austell based largely on existing polling districts, which would include an area of Pentewan Valley parish to the south with the more urban St Austell area, as well as including the Gover area of St Austell with the parish of St Mewan. We do not consider that any persuasive evidence has been provided to support a pattern of St Austell divisions that includes areas from the surrounding rural parishes, something that was confirmed during our visit to the area. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed St Austell divisions, which were supported by the Conservative submission, as part of the draft recommendations. By 2023, the St Austell Bethel & Holmbush division would have a variance of 5%, St Austell Gover would have a variance of 2%, and St Austell Poltair & Mount Charles would have a variance of -2%.

St Blazey 112 We received two submissions regarding the proposed St Blazey division during the consultation on division patterns, in addition to the full schemes. One, from a local resident, suggested that part of the parish of St Blaise should be included in a division with & Par parish, and that the remainder of St Blaise should be included with Carlyon parish and the Charlestown area of St Austell Bay. However, no compelling evidence was provided to support this alteration, which would have significant knock-on effects on the neighbouring Fowey division, and we are therefore not adopting this division pattern here.

113 A submission from St Blaise Town Council supported the proposed division here, which is coterminous with the boundary of the Town Council area. We are therefore proposing to include the Council’s proposed St Blazey division, which was supported in the Conservative submission, as part of the draft recommendations. This division would have a variance of 2% by 2023.

48

49

Padstow and St Columb Major

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Padstow 1 3% St Columb Major & 1 -7%

50

Padstow 114 During the consultation, we received one submission relating to the proposed Padstow division in addition to the full schemes, from Padstow Town Council. This submission supported the creation of a Padstow division including the parishes of Padstow, , , , and . This grouping of parishes was also proposed as part of the Council’s proposed division pattern, and was supported by the Conservative submission, and we are therefore proposing to adopt this Padstow division as part of the draft recommendations. The division would have a projected variance of 3% by 2023.

St Columb Major & St Mawgan 115 We did not receive any submissions regarding this area during the consultation on division patterns, aside from the full schemes. We consider that Cornwall Council’s proposed St Columb Major & St Mawgan division, supported by the Conservative submission and comprising the parishes of Mawgan-in-Pydar, St Columb Major, and , follows strong and identifiable boundaries and provides for good electoral equality, and we are therefore including it as part of our draft recommendations. This division would have a variance of -7% by 2023.

51

Wadebridge and environs

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Wadebridge East & 1 9% Wadebridge West & 1 -4%

52

Wadebridge East & St Minver and Wadebridge West & St Mabyn 116 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received one submission relating to the proposed divisions in the Wadebridge area in addition to the full schemes, which asked that be included in a division with . This is included in our proposed division for this area. The Conservative scheme supported the Council’s proposed division pattern in Wadebridge, but noted that the river would be a more appropriate point at which to split the town.

117 The divisions submitted by Cornwall Council for the Wadebridge area provided for acceptable electoral equality but created an unviable parish ward with fewer than 10 electors in the parish of in order to preserve an access route from the north to the south of its proposed Wadebridge West & St Minver division. An alteration therefore needed to be made to the proposed divisions to ensure that no unviable parish wards were created. However, simply excluding the unviable Egloshayle parish ward would result in a Wadebridge West & St Minver division with no internal access – the northern parishes of St Minver Lowlands, St Minver Highlands, and would be separated from the western area of Wadebridge and the parish of by the . We do not consider that this would provide for effective and convenient local government, as there would be no way to travel through the division. We investigated a number of alternative division patterns for Wadebridge and the surrounding parishes; as Wadebridge is too large to be contained in one division by itself, it is necessary to split the parish into two and combine it with the surrounding more rural parishes. We note that this is the case under the current division arrangements.

118 Our draft recommendations for this area move away significantly from the division boundaries proposed by Cornwall Council. We are proposing a Wadebridge East & St Minver division comprising the area of Wadebridge to the east of the river, the area of Egloshayle parish north of the railway line, the St Kew and Pendoggett areas of St Kew parish, and the parishes of St Minver Lowlands, St Minver Highlands, and St Endellion. This proposal uses the existing division boundary that runs through the centre of Wadebridge along the river to divide the town. Our draft Wadebridge West & St Mabyn division comprises the western part of Wadebridge town, the parishes of St Breock and St Mabyn, the southern part of Egloshayle parish, and the St Kew Highway area of St Kew parish. We toured this area extensively and consider that this pattern of divisions will allow for complete access routes through both divisions, as well as providing for acceptable levels of electoral equality. As these proposals were not locally generated, we would particularly welcome submissions relating to the Wadebridge divisions during the consultation on the draft recommendations. Our proposed Wadebridge East & St Minver division would have a variance of 9% by 2023, and our proposed Wadebridge West & St Mabyn division would have a variance of -4% by 2023.

53

Bodmin and environs

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Bodmin St Mary’s & St 1 1% Leonard’s Bodmin St Petroc’s 1 -5% , & Bodmin 1 4% West

54

Bodmin St Mary’s & St Leonard’s, Bodmin St Petroc’s, and Lanivet, Blisland & Bodmin West 119 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received seven submissions regarding this area, alongside the full schemes received. One of these submissions, from a local resident, referred to a number of potential options for divisions covering Bodmin and the surrounding area. The resident’s preferred option was for a ‘doughnut’ division, a term used to describe a division that completely encircles one or more other divisions. This ‘doughnut’ division, comprising the parishes of , Lanivet, , Blisland, , and , and part of Bodmin parish, was also supported by Bodmin Town Council, as it was felt that this would allow for a better reflection of the rural communities and those more sparsely populated areas of Bodmin parish. Lanivet Parish Council also supported this division option, as did both submissions put forward by Cardinham Parish Council. The Conservative submission did not mention the divisions in this area.

120 Cornwall Council proposed to include the parish of Lanhydrock in a Bodmin St Petroc’s & St Hydroc’s division, which avoids the creation of a doughnut division. The rationale provided by the Council for this arrangement was that there is a ‘natural progression for the future growth of Bodmin town to become closer to Lanhydrock parish’, and that historic links between the Lanhydrock estate and Bodmin link the two areas together. However, the submission received from Lanhydrock Parish Council argues that the two areas are very distinct from each other, and that Lanhydrock identifies solely as a rural parish. This rurality was backed up by our visit to the area. We are therefore moving away from Cornwall Council’s proposed divisions in this area to include the parish of Lanhydrock with the rural parishes of Withiel, Lanivet, Helland, Blisland, and Cardinham, along with the rural-facing western and northern fringes of the Bodmin parish, in a Lanivet, Blisland & Bodmin West division. We are adopting the Council’s proposed Bodmin St Mary’s & St Leonard’s division, and the Bodmin St Petroc’s division less the parish of Lanhydrock as explained above. Whilst we note that this does create a doughnut division, the existing division arrangements also provide for a division that encircles the town of Bodmin.

121 As we have moved away from Cornwall Council’s proposals here, and because we received little evidence relating to the boundaries between the two Bodmin divisions, we would particularly welcome submissions regarding this area during the consultation on the draft recommendations. By 2023, our proposed Bodmin St Mary’s & St Leonard’s division would have a variance of 1%, our proposed Bodmin St Petroc’s division would have a variance of -5%, and our proposed Lanivet, Blisland & Bodmin West division would have a variance of 4%.

55

Fowey, Liskeard, Looe and Lostwithiel

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Fowey, Tywardreath & Par 1 -9% Liskeard Central 1 6% Liskeard South & 1 6% Looe East & 1 -1% Looe West, & 1 3% Lanteglos Lostwithiel 1 -3% & 1 -1%

56

Fowey, Tywardreath & Par 122 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received three submissions regarding this area, alongside the full schemes received. The Conservative submission supported the Council’s proposed division in this area. Submissions from both Fowey Town Council and from Tywardreath & Par Parish Council supported the creation of a division comprising the parishes of Fowey, St Sampson, and Tywardreath & Par, as this would reflect both the geography and the historic ties of the area. A local resident requested that the Tywardreath area be combined with Par but not with Fowey; however, we consider that including all three of these areas in one division will allow for the best balance of the statutory criteria. We are therefore proposing to adopt Cornwall Council’s proposed division here, as it was supported by two parish councils as stated above. The proposed Fowey, Tywardreath & Par division would have a variance of -9% by 2023.

Liskeard Central, Liskeard South & Dobwalls, and St Cleer & Menheniot 123 We received three submissions relating to Liskeard during the consultation, in addition to the full schemes. A proposal from Liskeard Town Council argued that the neighbouring parish of Menheniot should be included in a Liskeard division; however, this would result in a neighbouring St Cleer division with an electoral variance of -29% by 2023, and no strong evidence was received to justify such a high level of electoral inequality. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as it would have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding areas if we sought to improve the level of electoral equality.

124 The Conservative submission for Liskeard proposed a slightly different warding pattern to the Council, but we do not consider that any substantive evidence of community identities was provided to support the proposed divisions, and we did not feel that the information provided was robust enough to move away from the Council’s scheme.

125 Dobwalls & Parish Council proposed a configuration of divisions that would include the entirety of the parish in one division and would include the northern part of Liskeard in a division with St Cleer to the north. Whilst our proposed divisions for this area include the Dobwalls area of the parish in the Liskeard South & Dobwalls division and the Trewidland area in the neighbouring Looe East & Deviock division, we note that the Parish Council stated that they should not be linked with St Cleer and they remain separate in the draft recommendations.

126 A local resident requested that the area be included in the same division as Dobwalls, which is included as part of the division proposal made by Cornwall Council.

127 We received three submissions relating to the St Cleer & Menheniot division. One of these, from a local resident, supported Cornwall Council’s proposal to link St Cleer with Menheniot. A submission from Parish Meeting requested that, due to its strong community links, Warleggan parish should be included in a division with the parish of St Neot. Cornwall Council’s proposal includes both of these parishes in the proposed St Cleer & Menheniot division, thereby preserving these community links. A local resident requested that the areas of , Mount, and Minions be included in a St Cleer division; however, no specific boundaries were

57

provided, and the sparsely populated nature of these areas would lead to the creation of unviable parish wards, so we are unable to adopt this proposal.

128 We are adopting the Council’s scheme in Liskeard and St Cleer & Menheniot as part of the draft recommendations, with an amendment in Liskeard Central to include the northern part of the parish. Cornwall Council had included this small area in the neighbouring St Cleer & Menheniot division, but as it has a very low electorate, we do not consider that the parish ward would be considered viable and we are therefore extending the Liskeard Central division boundary northward to be coterminous with the Liskeard parish boundary. By 2023, the proposed Liskeard Central division would have a variance of 6%, the proposed Liskeard South & Dobwalls division would have a variance of 6%, and the proposed St Cleer & Menheniot division would have a variance of -1%.

Looe East & Deviock and Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos 129 We received two submissions relating to the proposed Looe divisions during the consultation, in addition to the full schemes. One submission, from the Cornish Nationalist Party (SE Kernow), stated that Looe should be split between divisions using the river as a boundary between the east and the west, with the western part of the parish forming a division with Lanteglos, , and parishes. A submission from a member of the public put forward the same suggestion. We consider that this would provide for a division with strong boundaries.

130 The Conservatives objected to the proposals to split Looe between divisions; however, including the whole of Looe parish in one division would have significant knock-on effects on the surrounding divisions. No compelling evidence was provided to justify altering the surrounding divisions to accommodate this change, and as such we are not adopting this proposal here.

131 We are adopting the Council’s proposed divisions here – a Looe East & Deviock division comprising the parishes of St Martin-by-Looe, Deviock, and Morval, the southern part of the Dobwalls & Trewidland parish, and the area of Looe parish to the east of the river, and a Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos division comprising the area of Looe to the west of the river and the parishes of Polperro, Lanteglos and Pelynt. The proposed Looe East & Deviock division would have a variance of -1% and the proposed Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos division would have a variance of 3% by 2023.

Lostwithiel 132 We received five submissions relating to the proposed Lostwithiel division during the consultation on division patterns, in addition to the full schemes. A submission from Lostwithiel Town Council broadly supported the proposals put forward by Cornwall Council, which would provide for a Lostwithiel division comprising the parishes of , Broadoak, , , , Lostwithiel, , and the southern part of parish. The Town Council note that this arrangement would enhance effective and convenient local government across the communities in the proposed division. The Conservative submission also supported the Council’s scheme, noting that the surrounding parishes look to Lostwithiel as their closest town.

58

133 A submission from Luxulyan Parish Council supported Cornwall Council’s proposal that the parish be split between divisions, with the northern area included in the neighbouring Goonbarrow division, and the southern area included in the Lostwithiel division.

134 A submission from Lanlivery Parish Council supported a slightly smaller version of the above proposed division, which excluded the parishes of Broadoak and St Pinnock. However, the inclusion of these two parishes provide for a better level of electoral equality. St Pinnock Parish Council requested in their submission that the parish of St Pinnock be included in the neighbouring Liskeard South & Dobwalls division. A local resident asked for the same division arrangement. We recognise the strength of feeling behind the submissions here, but to include the parish in the neighbouring Liskeard division would result in a variance of -15% in Lostwithiel and 18% in Liskeard South & Dobwalls by 2023, and we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been provided to justify such poor levels of electoral equality. We are therefore adopting Cornwall Council’s proposed Lostwithiel division as part of the draft recommendations, and this division would have a variance of -3% by 2023.

59

The Rame Peninsula, Saltash, and Torpoint

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Rame Peninsula & St Germans 1 8% Saltash Essa 1 -4% Saltash Tamar 1 -2% Saltash Trematon & 1 8% Torpoint 1 9%

60

Rame Peninsula & St Germans and Torpoint 135 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received five submissions regarding this area, alongside the full schemes received. Torpoint Town Council requested that the entirety of Torpoint parish be included in one division; however, the electorate of the parish is too large to include the whole area in a single-councillor division and it has therefore been necessary to include part of the parish in the neighbouring Rame Peninsula & St Germans division. A local resident also objected to any proposal to combine the Rame Peninsula with the western area of Torpoint. Whilst the two areas are different in character, to include the entirety of Torpoint parish in one division would lead to significant electoral inequality, with a Torpoint division coterminous with the parish having a projected variance of 18%. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as we do not consider that such a high level of electoral inequality is justified.

136 St John Parish Council requested that the existing division arrangement on the Rame Peninsula be retained; however, due to the change in the number of councillors representing Cornwall, it is necessary for alterations to be made to the division. The Parish Council recognised this fact, and stated that, if maintaining the status quo was not possible, then the five parishes that make up the existing division should at least remain together, which they will under Cornwall Council’s proposed division pattern. Millbrook Parish Council, whilst noting that they were opposed to any reduction in council size, accepted Cornwall Council’s proposed Rame Peninsula & St Germans division as appropriate for the area. A member of the public opposed the proposal to link the parish of St Germans with the Rame Peninsula but did not provide any alternative warding pattern.

137 We are proposing a minor amendment to Cornwall Council’s proposed Torpoint division, using Trevol Road, Carbeile Road, and Maker Road as the boundary between the Torpoint and Rame Peninsula & St Germans divisions. A similar amendment to this was proposed by the Conservatives, who noted in their submission that the parish of Torpoint was too big to include in one division, as outlined above. This improves the electoral variance as well as allowing for access through the Rame Peninsula & St Germans division.

138 Subject to the above amendment, we are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Rame Peninsula & St Germans division, comprising the parishes of St Germans, , Antony, St John, Millbrook, and Maker-with-Rame, and part of Torpoint parish, and the proposed Torpoint division, consisting of the remainder of the Torpoint parish. The proposed Rame Peninsula & St Germans division would have a variance of 8% by 2023, and the proposed Torpoint division would have a variance of 9%. We would particularly welcome comments on these divisions during the consultation on the draft recommendations.

Saltash Essa, Saltash Tamar, and Saltash Trematon & Landrake 139 During the consultation on division patterns, we received two submissions regarding Saltash in addition to the full schemes. One submission, from a councillor, states that one area of Saltash generates significantly more work for members than surrounding areas, and as such should have a dedicated councillor. However, this would necessitate the addition of an extra councillor here, and no persuasive evidence was provided to do so. The submission also did not specify detailed

61 boundaries for the divisions mentioned, and as such we are unable to adopt this proposal in Saltash. A submission from a member of the public put forward two divisions for the main centre of Saltash, focused on ensuring that two Saltash divisions remain separate from parish. The Conservatives proposed a set of Saltash divisions based on the polling districts in the area. However, we consider that Cornwall Council’s proposed divisions provide for stronger boundaries in Saltash, and we are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s three Saltash divisions as part of the draft recommendations. The proposed Saltash Essa division would have a variance of -4% by 2023, the proposed Saltash Tamar division would have a variance of -2% by 2023, and the proposed Saltash Trematon & Landrake division would have a variance of 8% by 2023.

62

63

Callington, Calstock and Lynher

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Callington & St Dominic 1 3% Calstock 1 7% Lynher 1 -9%

64

Callington & St Dominic and Calstock 140 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we did not receive any submissions regarding these two divisions, aside from the full schemes. We consider that the Council’s proposed divisions in this area provide for good electoral equality, whilst respecting the natural boundaries in the area, and we are therefore including a Callington & St Dominic division, comprising the parishes of Callington and St Dominick, and a Calstock division, coterminous with the parish of the same name, as part of the draft recommendations. Both of these divisions were also supported by the Conservatives as part of their scheme. We are therefore proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed Callington & St Dominick division, with a variance of 3% by 2023, and their proposed Calstock division, with a variance of 7%, as part of the draft recommendations.

Lynher 141 In addition to the full schemes, we received two submissions relating to the Lynher division. A local resident requested that the areas of Bolventor, Mount, and Minions be included in a St Cleer division; however, no specific boundaries were provided, and the sparsely populated nature of these areas would lead to the creation of unviable parish wards, so we are unable to adopt this proposal.

142 A submission from Parish Council stated that they did not consider that Cornwall Council’s proposed Lynher division accurately reflected community identity in the area; however, no alternative proposals were provided, and as such, we are not persuaded to adopt an alternative division here.

143 We are proposing to adopt Cornwall Council’s proposed Lynher division. This division will comprise the parishes of Linkinhorne, South Hill, , , , and , and will have a variance of -9% by 2023.

65

Altarnun, Camelford and Launceston

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Altarnun & 1 9% Camelford & 1 2% Launceston North & North 1 4% Petherwin Launceston South 1 7% & 1 0%

66

Altarnun & Stoke Climsland 144 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received two submissions regarding the proposed Altarnun & Stoke Climsland division in addition to the full schemes. A submission from Altarnun Parish Council requested that Altarnun parish be entirely retained within one division; the proposed arrangements include the whole parish in the Altarnun & Stoke Climsland division.

145 A councillor requested that the divisions in the area be altered so that an Altarnun division did not include the Stoke Climsland area; however, no alternative division pattern was provided and as such we are unable to adopt the proposal here. We are therefore proposing to include the Council’s Altarnun & Stoke Climsland division, comprising the parishes of Altarnun, North Hill, , , Rural, , and Stokeclimsland, as part of the draft recommendations. This division will have a variance of 9% by 2023.

Camelford & Boscastle and St Teath & Tintagel 146 We received four submissions relating to the proposed divisions in this area, in addition to the full schemes. A submission from Camelford Town Council proposed splitting the area around the town into two divisions based on polling districts; however, no accompanying evidence was provided to justify the proposed divisions, and we are therefore not proposing to adopt these divisions here.

147 A member of the public requested that the number of councillors representing the Camelford Community Network Area be reduced from three to one. However, the proposed divisions here are not based exactly on the existing Community Network Areas, which are an administrative set of boundaries used by Cornwall Council, and as such we are not able to allocate councillor numbers directly to Community Network Areas. The number of councillors allotted to this area has been reduced from the current number, due to the overall reduction in council size.

148 Our proposed Camelford & Boscastle division is therefore the same as Cornwall Council’s proposal, and comprises the parishes of , Camelford, Forrabury & Minster, Advent, , , , , , , , Tremaine, and both parts of the parish of . This division was supported by the Conservative submission. This division will have a variance of 2% by 2023.

149 A submission from St Teath Parish Council requested that the parish of St Teath be linked with Tintagel, , , and . They state that this would preserve the links between the St Breward and St Teath primary schools, which share a head teacher, as do the primary schools of (in St Teath parish) and Tintagel. The Parish Council also requested that they remain separate from Camelford. This arrangement of parishes was also requested by a member of the public and is included in the St Teath & Tintagel division. We are proposing to adopt the Council’s proposed division here, which was supported by the Conservatives, with a St Teath & Tintagel division covering the parishes of St Teath, Tintagel, St Breward, Michaelstow, and St Tudy. This division will have a variance of 0% by 2023.

67

Launceston North & and Launceston South 150 We received three submissions regarding Launceston and the surrounding area during the consultation on division patterns in addition to the full schemes. One of these, from Launceston Town Council, requested that the Launceston divisions be allotted an extra councillor, bringing the total for Cornwall to 88 members. However, no compelling evidence was provided here to justify altering the council size for the entirety of Cornwall, and the electoral variances in the proposed Launceston divisions are 4% and 7% with an overall council size of 87. We are therefore not proposing to add an extra councillor.

151 Launceston Town Council submitted a pattern of two divisions that would cover the town of Launceston and the surrounding rural parishes. However, no information was provided with regard to how to split the areas into two and we are therefore not adopting this approach here. A member of the public requested that the town be split into two divisions, and that the bulk of the new development in the town should be contained in the southern Launceston division.

152 The proposed Launceston South division contains the area of Launceston parish to the south of the river and Chapel Park, and to the east of Catherine’s Hill. The proposed Launceston North & North Petherwin contains the rest of the Launceston parish, along with the parishes of St Thomas the Apostle Rural, St Stephens by Launceston Rural, Werrington, , , , North Petherwin, and Boyton. This arrangement of divisions was proposed by the Council and was also supported by the Conservatives. The proposed Launceston North & North Petherwin division will have a variance of 4% by 2023, and the proposed Launceston South division will have a variance of 7% by 2023.

68

69

Bude and Poundstock

Division name Number of Cllrs Variance 2023 Bude North, & 1 -7% Bude Stratton 1 -7% Poundstock 1 -9%

70

Bude North, Kilkhampton & Morwenstow, Bude Stratton, and Poundstock 153 During the consultation on division patterns for Cornwall, we received three submissions relating to this area, along with the full schemes. The Conservatives supported the Council’s proposed Bude divisions, noting that the geography in the area does not allow for many different permutations of division patterns. A submission from Bude-Stratton Town Council proposed a two-councillor Bude division, with a single-councillor division comprising the areas directly to the north and south of Bude. However, as this would necessitate a detached division, we are not able to adopt this proposal as we do not consider that detached divisions provide for effective and convenient local government.

154 We examined alternative options in this area that would allow us to include the entirety of Bude-Stratton parish in one division. However, due to the spread of the electorate in this area, it would be necessary to combine the Bude North, Kilkhampton & Morwenstow, Bude Stratton, and Poundstock divisions into a three- councillor division, and we do not feel that any evidence has been provided at this stage to justify this.

155 Two submissions, one from a councillor and one from Parish Council, requested that the existing Poundstock division be retained. However, due to the reduction in council size, it is necessary to make an amendment to the existing division in order to ensure an acceptable level of electoral equality, namely adding the southern part of Bude-Stratton parish. The proposed Poundstock division is based largely on the submission made by the Council, with an alteration at the northernmost edge to include Pinch Hill and Hele to allow for access through the division and to provide for a stronger boundary.

156 Our proposed Poundstock division comprises the parishes of , , , , North Tamerton, , and the and Kings Hill areas of Bude-Stratton parish. The proposed Bude Stratton division, based on the Council’s scheme, comprises the parish of , and the Stratton and central Bude areas of Bude-Stratton parish. The proposed Bude North, Kilkhampton and Morwenstow division, also adopting the Council’s proposal, comprises the area of Bude around Belle Vue and The Strand, as well as Flexbury and , along with the parishes of Kilkhampton and Morwenstow. As the parish of Bude-Stratton is being split between three divisions, and because we did not receive any detailed local evidence here, we would particularly welcome submissions and comments on the proposed division arrangements here during the consultation. The proposed Bude North, Kilkhampton & Morwenstow division would have a variance of -7% by 2023, the proposed Bude Stratton division would have a variance of -7% by 2023, and the proposed Poundstock division would have a variance of -9% by 2023.

71

Conclusions

157 The table below shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2017 and 2023 electorate figures.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2017 2023

Number of councillors 87 87

Number of electoral divisions 87 87

Average number of electors per councillor 4,891 5,163

Number of divisions with a variance more 21 2 than 10% from the average

Number of divisions with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Cornwall Council should be made up of 87 councillors serving 87 single-councillor divisions. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed divisions for Cornwall. You can also view our draft recommendations for Cornwall Council on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

158 As part of an electoral review, we are required to have regard to the statutory criteria set out in Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 (the 2009 Act). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

72

159 Under the 2009 Act we only have the power to make changes to parish electoral arrangements where these are as a direct consequence of our recommendations for principal authority warding arrangements. However, Cornwall Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements.

160 As a result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bodmin Town Council, Bude-Stratton Town Council, Camborne Town Council, Carn Brea Parish Council, Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council, Egloshayle Parish Council, Falmouth Town Council, Hayle Town Council, Helston Town Council, Illogan Parish Council, Kenwyn Parish Council, Launceston Town Council, Liskeard Town Council, Ludgvan Parish Council, Luxulyan Parish Council, Newquay Town Council, Penryn Town Council, Pentewan Valley Parish Council, Penzance Town Council, Perranzabuloe Parish Council, Redruth Town Council, Saltash Town Council, St Agnes Parish Council, St Austell Town Council, St Clement Parish Council, St Dennis Parish Council, St Ives Town Council, St Kew Parish Council, St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council, Torpoint Town Council, Treverbyn Parish Council, and Truro City Council.

161 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bodmin parish.

Draft recommendation Bodmin Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Camel & Cooksland 3 St Leonard’s 7 St Petroc’s 6

162 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Bude-Stratton parish.

Draft recommendation Bude-Stratton Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Flexbury 7 Lynstone 2 Stratton 9

163 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Camborne parish.

73

Draft recommendation Camborne Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Roskear 5 Trelowarren 5 Treswithian 5 Troon 3

164 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Carn Brea parish.

Draft recommendation Carn Brea Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East Hill 1 Four Lanes 4 Pool 10 Tolgus 1

165 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Dobwalls & Trewidland parish.

Draft recommendation Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Dobwalls 9 Trewidland 2

166 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Egloshayle parish.

Draft recommendation Egloshayle Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors North 3 South 7

167 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Falmouth parish.

74

Draft recommendation Falmouth Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Arwenack 4 Boslowick 4 Penwerris 5 Trescobeas 3

168 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Hayle parish.

Draft recommendation Hayle Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East 5 West 10

169 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Helston parish.

Draft recommendation Helston Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors North 7 South 5

170 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Illogan parish.

Draft recommendation Illogan Parish Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Illogan 11 Tehidy 3

171 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Kenwyn parish.

75

Draft recommendation Kenwyn Parish Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Gloweth 4 Shortlanesend 3 Threemilestone 7

172 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Launceston parish.

Draft recommendation Launceston Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors North 4 South 12

173 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Liskeard parish.

Draft recommendation Liskeard Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central 10 South 5

174 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Ludgvan parish.

Draft recommendation Ludgvan Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Crowlas 6 Lelant 4 Longrock 2

175 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Luxulyan parish.

76

Draft recommendation Luxulyan Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors 3 Luxulyan 7

176 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Newquay parish.

Draft recommendation Newquay Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central & Pentire 6 Porth & Tretherras 5 Trenance 6 3

177 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Penryn parish.

Draft recommendation Penryn Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Penryn 15 St Gluvias 1

178 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Pentewan Valley parish.

Draft recommendation Pentewan Valley Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors 7 Pentewan 2

179 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Penzance parish.

77

Draft recommendation Penzance Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East 6 Heamoor 3 Newlyn 5 Promenade 6

180 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Perranzabuloe parish.

Draft recommendation Perranzabuloe Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Goonhavern 4 Perranporth 11

181 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Redruth parish.

Draft recommendation Redruth Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Central 2 North 6 South 6

182 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Saltash parish.

Draft recommendation Saltash Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Essa 6 Tamar 6 Trematon 4

183 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Agnes parish.

78

Draft recommendation St Agnes Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors 3 St Agnes 13

184 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Austell parish.

Draft recommendation St Austell Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing three wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bethel & Holmbush 7 Gover 7 Poltair & Mount Charles 6

185 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Clement parish.

Draft recommendation St Clement Parish Council should comprise seven councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors St Clement 3 Tresillian 4

186 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Dennis parish.

Draft recommendation St Dennis Parish Council should comprise 11 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors 1 St Dennis 10

187 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Ives parish.

79

Draft recommendation St Ives Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Carbis Bay 7 9

188 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Kew parish.

Draft recommendation St Kew Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Pendoggett 5 St Kew Highway 4

189 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for St Stephen-in-Brannel parish.

Draft recommendation St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors St Stephen 14 Whitemoor 1

190 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Torpoint parish.

Draft recommendation Torpoint Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors East 15 West 1

191 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Treverbyn parish.

80

Draft recommendation Treverbyn Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Bugle 4 Penwithick 11

192 As result of our proposed ward boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Truro parish.

Draft recommendation Truro City Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Parish ward Number of parish councillors Moresk 8 Newham 1 Redannick 7 Tregolls 6 Treliske 2

81

82

3 Have your say

193 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole county or just a part of it.

194 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Cornwall, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of divisions.

195 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at consultation.lgbce.org.uk

196 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to: Review Officer (Cornwall) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

197 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of divisions for Cornwall which delivers:

 Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters  Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities  Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

198 A good pattern of divisions should:

 Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters  Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links  Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries  Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government

199 Electoral equality:

 Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the council area?

200 Community identity:

 Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?  Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?

83

 Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

201 Effective local government:

 Are any of the proposed divisions too large or small to be represented effectively?  Are the proposed names of the divisions appropriate?  Are there good links across your proposed divisions? Is there any form of public transport?

202 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices in Millbank (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

203 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

204 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

205 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Cornwall Council in 2021.

Equalities

206 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

84

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Cornwall Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % Altarnun & Stoke 1 1 5,486 5,486 12% 5,612 5,612 9% Climsland Bodmin St Mary’s 2 1 5,195 5,195 6% 5,195 5,195 1% & St Leonard’s Bodmin St 3 1 4,169 4,169 -15% 4,913 4,913 -5% Petroc’s Bude North, 4 Kilkhampton & 1 4,754 4,754 -3% 4,776 4,776 -7% Morwenstow

5 Bude Stratton 1 4,338 4,338 -11% 4,825 4,825 -6% Callington & 6 1 5,178 5,178 6% 5,339 5,339 4% St Dominic 7 Calstock 1 5,235 5,235 7% 5,523 5,523 7%

Camborne 8 Roskear & 1 3,981 3,981 -19% 4,922 4,922 -4% Tuckingmill Camborne 9 1 4,534 4,534 -7% 4,923 4,923 -4% Trelowarren Camborne 10 1 4,981 4,981 2% 4,989 4,989 -3% Treswithian 85

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % Camelford & 11 1 5,183 5,183 6% 5,250 5,250 2% Boscastle Constantine, 12 1 5,016 5,016 3% 5,174 5,174 1% Mabe & Mawnan Crowan, Sithney 13 1 5,144 5,144 5% 5,433 5,433 6% & Wendron Falmouth 14 1 4,737 4,737 -3% 5,055 5,055 -2% Arwenack Falmouth 15 1 4,575 4,575 -6% 4,712 4,712 -8% Boslowick Falmouth 16 1 5,273 5,273 8% 5,287 5,287 3% Penwerris Falmouth 17 Trescobeas & 1 4,469 4,469 -9% 4,904 4,904 -5% Budock

18 Feock & Kea 1 4,304 4,304 -12% 4,820 4,820 -6% Four Lanes, 19 1 5,089 5,089 4% 5,212 5,212 1% Beacon & Troon Fowey, 20 Tywardreath & 1 4,613 4,613 -6% 4,685 4,685 -9% Par Gloweth, Treliske 21 1 3,965 3,965 -19% 4,994 4,994 -3% & Shortlanesend 22 Goonbarrow 1 5,220 5,220 7% 5,283 5,283 3% Gwinear-Gwithian 23 1 4,995 4,995 2% 5,422 5,422 5% & Hayle East 86

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % 24 Hayle West 1 4,614 4,614 -6% 5,369 5,369 4%

25 Helston North 1 5,273 5,273 8% 5,280 5,280 3% Helston South & 26 1 4,661 4,661 -5% 5,004 5,004 -3% Meneage Illogan & 27 1 4,929 4,929 1% 5,128 5,128 0% Portreath 28 Lands End 1 5,438 5,438 11% 5,474 5,474 6% Lanivet, Blisland 29 1 4,946 4,946 1% 5,377 5,377 4% & Bodmin West Lanner, Stithians 30 1 5,165 5,165 6% 5,240 5,240 2% & Gwennap Launceston North 31 1 5,110 5,110 4% 5,357 5,357 4% & North Petherwin

32 Launceston South 1 4,813 4,813 -2% 5,505 5,505 7% Lelant & Carbis 33 1 5,039 5,039 3% 5,262 5,262 2% Bay 34 Liskeard Central 1 4,982 4,982 2% 5,493 5,493 7% Liskeard South & 35 1 5,181 5,181 6% 5,453 5,453 6% Dobwalls Looe East & 36 1 4,839 4,839 -1% 5,125 5,125 0% Deviock Looe West, 37 Lansallos & 1 5,012 5,012 2% 5,316 5,316 3% Lanteglos

87

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % 38 Lostwithiel 1 4,775 4,775 -2% 4,987 4,987 -3%

39 Lynher 1 4,699 4,699 -4% 4,706 4,706 -9%

Madron, Gulval & 40 1 5,397 5,397 10% 5,498 5,498 6% Heamoor Marazion & St 41 1 5,351 5,351 9% 5,639 5,639 9% Erth Mevagissey & St 42 1 4,281 4,281 -12% 4,927 4,927 -5% Austell Bay Mullion & St 43 1 5,544 5,544 13% 5,699 5,699 11% Keverne Mylor, 44 Perranarworthal & 1 5,090 5,090 4% 5,171 5,171 0% St Gluvias Newlyn & St 45 1 5,089 5,089 4% 5,234 5,234 1% Buryan Newquay Central 46 1 5,041 5,041 3% 5,386 5,386 4% & Pentire Newquay Porth & 47 1 4,265 4,265 -13% 5,338 5,338 3% Tretherras Newquay 48 1 5,198 5,198 6% 5,502 5,502 7% Trenance 49 Padstow 1 5,034 5,034 3% 5,331 5,331 3%

50 Penryn 1 5,523 5,523 13% 5,533 5,533 7% Penwithick & 51 1 4,567 4,567 -7% 4,648 4,648 -10% Boscoppa

88

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % 52 Penzance East 1 5,073 5,073 4% 5,105 5,105 -1% Penzance 53 1 4,758 4,758 -3% 4,876 4,876 -6% Promenade 54 Perranporth 1 4,544 4,544 -7% 4,885 4,885 -5%

55 Pool & Tehidy 1 4,746 4,746 -3% 5,205 5,205 1%

Porthleven, 56 1 5,538 5,538 13% 5,572 5,572 8% Breage & Germoe

57 Poundstock 1 4,661 4,661 -5% 4,683 4,683 -9%

58 Probus & St Erme 1 4,778 4,778 -2% 5,038 5,038 -2%

Rame Peninsula 59 1 5,557 5,557 14% 5,559 5,559 8% & St Germans Redruth Central, 60 Carharrack & 1 4,514 4,514 -8% 4,755 4,755 -8% St Day

61 Redruth North 1 4,056 4,056 -17% 4,865 4,865 -6%

62 Redruth South 1 4,866 4,866 -1% 4,916 4,916 -5%

63 Saltash Essa 1 4,910 4,910 0% 4,956 4,956 -4%

64 Saltash Tamar 1 4,319 4,319 -12% 5,056 5,056 -2% Saltash Trematon 65 1 5,803 5,803 19% 5,597 5,597 8% & Landrake

89

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % 66 St Agnes 1 5,030 5,030 3% 5,043 5,043 -2% St Austell Bethel 67 1 5,399 5,399 10% 5,412 5,412 5% & Holmbush 68 St Austell Gover 1 5,215 5,215 7% 5,248 5,248 2% St Austell Poltair 69 1 4,915 4,915 0% 5,054 5,054 -2% & Mount Charles 70 St Blazey 1 5,185 5,185 6% 5,282 5,282 2%

St Cleer & 71 1 5,073 5,073 4% 5,131 5,131 -1% Menheniot St Columb Major 72 1 4,653 4,653 -5% 4,802 4,802 -7% & St Mawgan St Columb Minor 73 1 3,653 3,653 -25% 4,782 4,782 -7% & Colan St Dennis & St 74 1 5,363 5,363 10% 5,529 5,529 7% Enoder St Goran, 75 Tregony & the 1 4,789 4,789 -2% 4,850 4,850 -6% Roseland 76 St Ives 1 5,235 5,235 7% 5,610 5,610 9% St Mewan & 77 1 4,129 4,129 -16% 4,533 4,533 -12% Grampound St Newlyn East, 78 Cubert & 1 4,738 4,738 -3% 4,971 4,971 -4% Goonhavern

90

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Division name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2016) (2023) councillor % councillor % St Stephen-in- 79 1 5,112 5,112 5% 5,136 5,136 -1% Brannel St Teath & 80 1 5,043 5,043 3% 5,145 5,145 0% Tintagel Threemilestone & 81 1 3,919 3,919 -20% 4,928 4,928 -5% Chacewater 82 Torpoint 1 5,602 5,602 15% 5,602 5,602 9%

83 Truro Moresk 1 5,135 5,135 5% 5,230 5,230 1%

84 Truro Redannick 1 4,046 4,046 -17% 5,102 5,102 -1%

85 Truro Tregolls 1 4,784 4,784 -2% 4,918 4,918 -5% Wadebridge East 86 1 5,300 5,300 8% 5,636 5,636 9% & St Minver Wadebridge West 87 1 4,783 4,783 -2% 4,940 4,940 -4% & St Mabyn Totals 87 425,514 – – 449,182 – –

Averages – – 4,891 – – 5,163 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Cornwall Council.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

91

Appendix B

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/south-west/cornwall/cornwall

Local Authority

 Cornwall Council

Political Group

 Conservatives in Cornwall  Cornish Nationalist Party  Mebyon Kernow  St Ives Constituency Labour Party

Councillors

 Councillor M. Brown (Cornwall Council)  Councillor M. Chappell (Cornwall Council)  Councillor J. Farrington (Cornwall Council)  Councillor H. Frank (Cornwall Council)  Councillor D. Holley (Cornwall Council) (two submissions)  Councillor B. Jordan (Cornwall Council)  Councillor M. Kaczmarek (Cornwall Council)  Councillor J. Kenny (Cornwall Council) (two submissions)  Councillor C. Olivier (Cornwall Council)  Councillor A. Parsons (Cornwall Council) (two submissions)  Councillor L. Pascoe (Cornwall Council)  Councillor J. Pollard (Cornwall Council)  Councillor R. Pugh (Cornwall Council)  Councillor S. Tamlin (Cornwall Council)

Member of Parliament

 Mr G. Eustice MP

Local Organisations

 Connor Downs Residents’ Association  Gulval Village Community Association  NHS Kernow  SHED (Save Heamoor from Excess Development)

92

Parish and Town Council

 Altarnun Parish Council  Blisland Parish Council  Bodmin Town Council  Bude-Stratton Town Council  Budock Parish Council  Camelford Town Council  Cardinham Parish Council (two submissions)  Carlyon Parish Council  Carn Brea Parish Council  Cubert Parish Council  Cury Parish Council  Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council  Falmouth Town Council  Fowey Town Council  Gerrans Parish Council  Grade-Ruan Parish Council  Gunwalloe Parish Council  Gwinear-Gwithian Parish Council (two submissions)  Hayle Town Council  Helston Town Council  Illogan Parish Council  Kea Parish Council  Landewednack Parish Council  Landulph Parish Council  Lanhydrock Parish Council  Lanivet Parish Council  Lanlivery Parish Council  Lanner Parish Council  Launceston Town Council (two submissions)  Linkinhorne Parish Council (two submissions)  Liskeard Town Council  Lostwithiel Town Council  Ludgvan Parish Council  Luxulyan Parish Council  Madron Parish Council  Mawnan Parish Council  Mevagissey Parish Council (two submissions)  Millbrook Parish Council  Mullion Parish Council  Mylor Parish Council  North Tamerton Parish Council  Padstow Town Council  Pentewan Valley Parish Council  Penzance Town Council  Redruth Town Council

93

 St Austell Bay Parish Council  St Austell Town Council  St Blaise Town Council  St Clement Parish Council  St Day Parish Council (two submissions)  St Enoder Parish Council (two submissions)  St Erth Parish Council  St Goran Parish Council  St Ives Town Council  St John Parish Council  St Mewan Parish Council  St Newlyn East Parish Council  St Pinnock Parish Council  St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council  St Teath Parish Council  Torpoint Town Council  Towednack Parish Council  Treverbyn Parish Council  Tywardreath & Par Parish Council  Warleggan Parish Meeting  Wendron Parish Council  Zennor Parish Council

Local Residents

 94 local residents

Anonymous

 One submission

94

Appendix C Glossary and abbreviations

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral inequality Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

95

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

96

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in

whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

97

The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 14th floor, Millbank Tower Government and political parties. It is London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1P 4QP committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Email: Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk areas. Twitter: @LGBCE