Parish and town council submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains all parish and town council submissions.

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

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Dorset County

Personal Details:

Name: Nicholas Gore

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish Council

Comment text:

Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish Council are concerned regarding the potential addition of urban areas to wards that are principally rural in character. With experience of the recent Purbeck District Council Governance and Boundary Review it has become apparent that the criteria of ward population is the over riding priority of LGBCE. This has the impact of trying to create communities where they did not exist previously. LGBCE will need to address the issue of increased population growth in urban areas against restricted growth in rural communities by applying different weighting to their criteria. To continually attempt to change the identities of communities by the addition of urban areas to those of a rural nature will leave both parties with a perception of misrepresentation in governance and potential conflict of interests of Councillors, particularly where the current austerity measures could mean retaining urban services in one area at the expense of the other. At the next district elections our Parish has been joined with the urban areas of Wool and Bovington as a result of the recent LGBCE Purbeck review. This was done purely to bring numbers within the 10% margin at the expense of good community governance and community identity. It would therefore make sense to consolidate this marriage of communities by ensuring that they are represented by the same County Councillor as well. We regard it as important that the District Ward remains represented in it's entirety within the County Ward. The recent national discussion on identity is strong evidence that communities fear that their voice will be lost within alteration of representation arrangements. Nicholas Gore Chairman, Affpuddle and Turnerspuddle Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4280 01/12/2014

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 December 2014 09:20 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Bob Gillis ( TC) Sent: 01 December 2014 17:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: Dorset County Council Electoral Review

The Town Council notes that the proposal from the Local Government Boundary Commission is to increase the number of Dorset county councillors from 45 to 46 and that there are no specific proposals for boundary changes or representation at this stage. The Town Council would like to re-iterate its previous comments (which it made in response to the review of District Council boundaries), that the Town Council supports the aim of ensuring that the boundaries reflect community identities and address any anomalies. However, the Town Council did regret that County, District and Parish boundaries were not being reviewed together and, as it had stated previously, the reviews did appear to be conducted in a piecemeal fashion, which resulted in many communities being frequently moved from one electoral area to another and often being split between the different levels of local government. Whilst this might meet the objective of seeking to equalise the number of electors represented, it did not seem to meet the objectives of reflecting community identity or providing consistent and locally understandable democratic representation. It was hoped that any County Council boundary changes were undertaken with the full support of the local communities themselves and did reflect community identities. It looked forward to considering this matter further when specific proposals were brought forward.

Bob Gillis

Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail

This communication is intended solely for the person (s) or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the intended recipient (s), you must not copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender by return and confirm that its contents have been destroyed and copy the message to [email protected]

1 Individuals are advised that by replying to, or sending an e-mail message to West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council, you accept that you have no explicit or implicit expectation of privacy.

In line with the Surveillance and Monitoring Policy, any e-mail messages (and attachments) transmitted over the Council�s network may be subject to scrutiny.

Any view or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council or any of its individual departments.

West Dorset District Council or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council are not liable for any consequences of accessing this electronic transmission. Attachments to this e-mail may contain software viruses which may damage your systems. West Dorset District Council and Weymouth & Portland Borough Council have taken reasonable precautions to minimise this risk, but we advise that any attachments are virus checked before they are opened.

In the event of any unauthorised copying or forwarding, the recipient will be required to indemnify the Council against any claim for loss or damage caused by any viruses or otherwise.

Please direct telephone enquiries to West Dorset District Council on 01305 251010 or Weymouth & Portland Borough Council on 01305 838000.

2

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 14 November 2014 13:27 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Dorset

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Sarah Mitchell Sent: 14 November 2014 12:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset

Here are the views of Buckland Newton Parish Council.

Buckland Newton Parish Council would like to remain being part of the Piddle Valley Ward as we have close connections with the villages through the valley and can identify with Piddle Valley.

Speed Watch links ‐we operate a speed watch and share equipment with Alton Pancras Community Transport ‐ is linked with villages in Piddle Valley Shared community and sports groups Shared Doctors surgery Buckland Newton Residents need to be able to access facilities of Dorchester (eg transport system)

Regards

Sarah Mitchell

Parish clerk

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 28 November 2014 11:31 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Dorset County Council - Colehill and Stapehill Division

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Tracey Paine Sent: 28 November 2014 10:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset County Council - Colehill and Stapehill Division

Dear Sirs

Thank you for consulting with the Council on the electoral review of Dorset County Council. The Council considers that no changes should be made to the County Division boundary for Colehill and Stapehill. This is because the areas of Colehill and Stapehill work well together and there is community cohesion.

I look forward to hearing from you when you open the consultation on draft recommendations.

Best regards

Tracey Paine Clerk to the Council Colehill Parish Council

Tel: Web: Twitter:

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 December 2014 10:17 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Dorset County Review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Freda Hennessy Sent: 30 November 2014 11:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Dorset County Review

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DORSET

We are a group Parish Council in West Dorset. Recently the district wards were reviewed and new boundaries created (we understand as from May 2015). This brings our parishes within the ward – which pleases us greatly as our cultural, community and economic links are with that town.

Previously we were in the Beaminster division which was helpful and rational from an operating point of view. At the last change we were included in Without division. We protested against this as we have no ties with the Sherborne area and our inclusion in it crossed many service boundaries (health, planning etc etc). It also made it difficult for the County Councillor to play an effective role across such a diverse area.

We would urge that consideration be given to somehow including our parishes in the Beaminster division again. We understand that you are primarily concerned with balancing elector numbers, but perhaps some juggling could be envisaged?

Freda Hennessy, clerk Corscombe, Halstock and District Parish Council

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 November 2014 13:17 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Dorset

Follow Up Flag: Follow Up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Lisa Goodwin Sent: 21 November 2014 12:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset

Dear Lucy Ward,

Please find below comments on the above review from Holt Parish Council:

We are concerned that the area suggested includes such a large number of parishes that one County Councillor will be unable to attend all parish council meetings on a regular basis and therefore we will lose the close communication and feedback we currently enjoy. We see no objection to being attached to a single, larger community as this enables the county councillor to communicate well with both parishes.

With Kind Regards, Lisa Goodwin - Clerk Holt Parish Council

R

m m This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 November 2014 16:04 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Dorset

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Knowlton Parish Council Clerk Sent: 13 November 2014 15:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset

Dear Lucy Ward,

Further to your letter of 23rd September 2014, I am pleased to submit the comments of Knowlton Parish Council in response to the Electoral Review of Dorset.

We await with interest the outcome of the Community Governance Review and the prior electoral review of East Dorset and see how this integrates with the County electoral review.

With Kind Regards, Lisa Goodwin - Clerk Knowlton Parish Council

R

m m This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 14 November 2014 11:32 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Comment by Langton Matravers Parish Council on proposed changes to divisional boundaries.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Langton Matravers Parish Council Sent: 14 November 2014 10:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: Comment by Langton Matravers Parish Council on proposed changes to divisional boundaries.

Dear Ms Ward, At its meeting on 13th November LMPC considered the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries.

The Council expressed concern about the proposed new size of our local division, which will include more parishes and mean that it is more difficult for our County Councillor to attend all Parish meetings etc, as he presently does. We are therefore not in favour of the change.

Best wishes, Mary Sparks (Dr), Parish Clerk, LMPC.

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Dorset County

Personal Details:

Name: John Ball

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

The villages of Maiden Newton and Frome Vauchurch are effectively one for all local amenities. There is one school, one area of shops, one youth club, one village hall. one play area, one playing field/MUGA etc. but the two villages are in different electoral divisions - Maiden Newton is in Three Valleys and Frome Vauchurch is in Beaminster. Physically they are also one but happen to be divided by the River Frome. Maiden Newton Parish Council owns land in both villages (The Playing Field/MUGA/walkers' car park in Frome Vauchurch and the allotments, Village Hall car park and the Play Area in Maiden Newton) and spends its precept on facilities in both. Frome Vauchurch is the smaller entity and has a Parish Meeting. It would clearly make much more sense for both to be in one electoral division and the most logical would be Three Valleys.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4246 05/11/2014

Yours sincerely,

Val Curtis, Parish Clerk for Sturminster Marshall Parish Council

Fuller, Heather

From: Krystyna Bradbury on behalf of Krystyna Bradbury

Sent: 19 November 2014 08:57 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Lucy

The Vale of Allen Parish Council has no objection to the changes proposed in the current Boundary Review of Dorset.

Yours sincerely

Mrs K. Bradbury Parish Clerk

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 October 2014 08:47 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Dorset - West Moors Parish Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Judi Weedon Sent: 14 October 2014 14:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset - West Moors Parish Council

Dear Sirs West Moors Parish Council would recommend that the boundary on the south side of West Moors be amended slightly. The current boundary appears to follow Uddens water, this however has changed since the boundary was set. The proposal is to amend this boundary to follow the central reservation of the A31 from the Palmersford roundabout to the Ameysford Road underpass, following the last section of Ameysford Road until it re-joins with the current boundary. This change rationalises the southern boundary which appears to follow the previous route of Uddens water, but this has changed since the boundary was set so the current boundary has no obvious geographical basis. This proposal does not affect any domestic properties.

East Dorset District Council has recently carried out a community governance review and we asked them to consider this slight boundary change. Their response is shown below:

1.5 West Moors Parish Council has submitted a response to the invitation of initial submissions. The Parish Council requested the Review to consider altering the southern boundary of the parish to align with the A31 from the Palmersford roundabout to the Ameysford Road underpass as opposed to the current boundary which follows the Uddens water course, which over time, has changed. There are no electors residing within the affected area.

1.6 This southern boundary is coterminous with the district ward and county division boundaries, and any changes to these boundaries would require a related alteration to the principal boundaries for the Order to succeed. The Task and Finish Group acknowledged the merits of the proposal but concluded that this boundary alteration would be better supported as a proposal when the County Divisions are next reviewed by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

regards

1

Clerk to the Council

Tel:

This message and any attachments are confidential and should only be read by those to whom they are addressed. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distr bution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. As a public body, West Moors Parish Council may be required to disclose this email or any response to it under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions in the Act. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact us immediately, delete the message from your computer and destroy any copies.

Internet communications are not always secure and therefore West Moors Parish Council does not accept legal respons bility for this message. The recipient is responsible for verifying its authenticity before acting on the contents. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of West Moors Parish Council.

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

Dorset County

Personal Details:

Name: Jacqui Hughes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Wool Parish Council

Comment text:

Wool Parish Council believe the review of the electoral boundaries, no matter how big/small the new boundaries need to be, they should follow the existing Parish Boundaries. Wool Parish consists of Bovington, Wool and East Burton at NO point should these boundaries be split. We have seen the map produced by Dorset County Council and STRONGLY do not agree that parts of our Parish split off to 3 different electoral divisions. We want our Parish to be kept together. Also we do not agree that our Parish be joined with Wareham Town, we are a rural community and would benefit remaining with other rural communities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4265 24/11/2014 Fuller, Heather

From: roger khanna Sent: 23 October 2014 12:29 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Electoral Review of Dorset

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

Dear Lucy Ward

On the 7 October the Worth Matravers Parish Council considered your consultation and resolved as below

391. The PC considered the Local Government Boundary Commission consultation on an electoral review of Dorset CC. The PC did not agree that the number of existing County Councillors should be increased from 45 to 46. The existing number should be reduced to reduce costs .

The PC was concerned that in a background of the further cuts being required by Local Government simply to address the deficit the LGBC should seek to reduce direct costs of electoral representation rather than as proposed to increase them .

Dorset CC already has one of the highest Council Tax precepts. Increasing the number of County Cllrs paradoxically will reduce representation for the parish due to the increased size of a new local constituency. This will not improve the existing poor service delivery from the County Council to this Parish Council or its residents.

Regards

Roger Khanna Clerk WMPC

1