sign in sign up
<<
Home , Molland, North Molton, Rattery, River Creedy, Tawstock, Yealmpton

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Pauline Williams

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Town Council

Comment text:

Ilfracombe Town Council - at an extraordinary meeting of the Town Council, the resposnse to the consultation is : 'That Ilfracombe Town Council is content with the proposed changes to the boundaries as detailed in the draft document, whilst noting the difficulties for a county councillor to cover this expanded area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5301 28/05/2015

KENTISBURY AND TRENTISHOE PARISH COUNCIL.

PARISH CLERK: MRS SUE SQUIRE.

4 July 2015

Review Officer () Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sirs

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Proposals

Councillors wish to make the following representations:

Councillors consider that the proposal for the Rural Division is too large, extending almost to and as far as Molland.

It is an impossibly large area for a County Councillor to effectively represent the communities in the Division as due to the geographical nature of the area, much time would be spent travelling and there would be less of a presence at Meetings.

Councillors cannot see the benefit of including such places as North Molton, Twitchen and Molland into the Combe Martin Rural Division when, being in such close proximity to South Molton, the main town to which they look, it makes more sense to include those areas in the South Molton Rural Division. In addition, these areas are predominantly agricultural close to the border of National Park with no natural association to the seaside village of Combe Martin.

Yours faithfully

Parish Clerk

Pascoe, Mark

From: Kilmington Parish Council Sent: 05 July 2015 21:10 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DEVON

Dear Sirs,

Kilmington Parish Councillors object to the draft recommendations of the Commision.

The recommendation that Kilmington, which is barely a mile to the west of and with which it has strong community links in terms of medical and educational service provision, amongst many others, should, instead, become part of a ‐Newbridges Division is hard to comprehend. Councillors have struggled to find any community identity which can have suggested such a grouping. All our natural support lies with Axminster.

Councillors are concerned, too, that the geographical extent and rural nature of the proposed Whimple‐Newbridges Division does not lendf itsel to effective and convenient government. The existing divisions, centred as they are on the main towns in the district are more compact and travel within them is more sustainable for the member in terms of both time and distance. In addition, the number of parishes proposed for the division will make it harder for the member to visit each parish on a regular basis.

Kilmington Parish Councillors would suggest that a slightly modified version of the present composition of the division would better meet the needs of residents, with parish replacing Yarcome, which has natural links with rather than Axminster.

Please consider the above objections in making your decision.

Yours faithfully,

Hilary Kirkcaldie,

CLERK TO KILMINGTON PARISH COUNCIL

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Martin Johnson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Town Council

Comment text:

At Kingsbridge Town Council's meeting held on 9 June 2015 members received the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for (DCC) and considered the same. The proposal is for DCC to reduce from 62 to 60 members. Kingsbridge is currently served by 2 ward members i.e. Kingsbridge & and , & Allington. The latter takes in the area to the west of the A379 i.e. Trebblepark, Redford, Westville and Kingsway Park locales. The draft recommendation is for one DCC ward member to cover the whole of the town’s local authority area (alongside other communities to the east) to be called “Kingsbridge”. However, members note 2 areas which are intrinsically part of the town but are earmarked to be included in the adjacent “Salcombe” ward area. It is therefore strongly requested that the draft boundary be revised in order that 14 properties in Tacketwood and 4 properties in Archery Close be included in the proposed “Kingsbridge” ward. Thank you. Martin Johnson, Town Clerk, Kingsbridge Town Council,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5390 17/06/2015

LUPPITT PARISH COUNCIL’S DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL

We would like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the District.

These amendments are based on the three main criteria:

 Improve electoral equality  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable.

In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re-arrangement.

Luppitt has always had a strong affiliation with its nearest market town, Honiton. It would have no connection whatsoever with Whimple and Newbridges and would have no chance of maintaining the community identity that it has always enjoyed. Luppitt Parish Council very much appreciates our County Councillor who regularly attends our monthly meetings. As Whimple and Newbridges will comprise 21 parishes, it will be physically impossible for the County Councillor to attend more than a handful of meetings, if that, during the year. It will simply be too big an area for one person to represent effectively. Thus, the relationship with the County Council for all the parishes being swallowed up into Whimple and Newbridges would be severely affected to the detriment of all.

In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400)

If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance.

It is our suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality.

Here are our suggestions:

 Axmouth and would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division  The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, , Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division

These are our suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district.

We appreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, we suggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows:

HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include from the current AXMINSTER division. Luppitt would be very happy to remain as part of the Honiton division. This proposal would enable Luppitt and other surrounding parishes to retain their community identity which plays such an important part in this time of severe cutbacks where the villages are being left more and more to their own devices. It also makes more sense from a geographical point of view.

Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and , which would revert to . Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton.

SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested

BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from , but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton

EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors.

This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. We would suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and .

Therefore we suggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions:

 Axminster  Broadclyst  Budleigh Salterton  Cranbrook  Exmouth East  Exmouth West  Honiton  Ottery  Seaton / Colyton 

It is our view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but I believe this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission.

Pascoe, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 18 June 2015 09:36 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Local Gov. Review- Devon County Council

From: Mishka Mayers On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 18 June 2015 09:13 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Local Gov. Review‐ Devon County Council

Devon Email Submission

From: David Eeles Sent: 16 June 2015 16:51 To: Subject: Local Gov. Review‐ Devon County Council

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I have been asked to pass on to you that both Parish Council and Parish Council at their recent meetings voted to oppose the changes recommended by your body. To both of them the amount of upheaval and change necessary to reduce the number of ward members by two seems totally disproportionate. The amount of money spent by your organisation in researching these changes will far outweigh any savings for years to come. In particular Marldon objects to being put in the same ward as Dartmouth with which it has nothing in common and appears to be a totally arbitrary decision. Berry Pomeroy remains divided between two wards which is less than satisfactory and means two councillors have to visit the Parish.

Yours sincerely David Eeles

Clerk to Marldon and Berry Pomeroy Parish Councils.

1

Pascoe, Mark

From: Sarah Tennant Sent: 06 July 2015 11:35 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Electoral review of Devon - Membury PC response to draft recommendations Attachments: Membury PC - Electoral Arrangements for the East Devon District (boundaries).doc

Dear Sir/Madam

Having reviewed the draft recommendations Membury Parish Council are in full agreement with Councillor Andrew Moulding (Axminster Division, DCC) and would like to submit his proposed amendments as our response to the Consultation. Please see the attached document for the full details of the proposal.

Please let me know if you have any questions and I will pass them on to the Parish Councillors.

Kind Regards

Sarah Tennant Clerk to Membury Parish Council

1 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL

I would like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the East Devon District.

These amendments are based on the three main criteria:

 Improve electoral equality  Reflect community identity  Provide for effective and convenient local government

It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable.

In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re-arrangement.

In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400)

If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance.

It is my suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality.

These are my suggestions:

 Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division  The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division

These are my suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district.

I appreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, I suggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows:

HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division

Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton, which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton.

SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested

BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from Exmouth, but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton

EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. I would suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and Rockbeare.

Therefore I suggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions:

 Axminster  Broadclyst  Budleigh Salterton  Cranbrook  Exmouth East  Exmouth West  Honiton  Ottery  Seaton / Colyton  Sidmouth

It is my view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but I believe this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission.

Councillor Andrew Moulding

Axminster Division

Devon County Council

Pascoe, Mark

From: Parish Council Sent: 08 July 2015 10:35 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Devon

Dear Sirs The Parish Councillors of Milton Damerel Parish Council are very pleased that the Parish Borders are being considered to be moved to be encompassed with Rural District, this is what the Parish Council proposed in the original consultation. Thank you Regards Lorraine Buttery Parish Clerk

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 June 2015 08:49 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Devon Conty Council review

From: Bob Patten Sent: 12 June 2015 17:14 To: reviews Subject: Devon Conty Council review

As our recent Parish Council meeting the question of area 41 being called 'Silverton and Taw' came up. The feeling was tat identified with neither part of the name. It was felt that a name like 'Creedy, Taw and Mid-Exe' better suited the ward, as it identified the three river catchments.

Regards

Bob Patten Parish Clerk Morchard Bishop

1 PARISH COUNCIL

Telephone/Fax

Chairman: Jane Willis Clerk: Mrs Julie Lammin

Mark Pascoe Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

3 June 2015

Dear Mr Pascoe

Electoral Review of Devon: Draft Recommendations

Thank you for your letter dated 12th May enclosing information on how to view and respond to the draft recommendations.

The draft recommendations have been considered by the Parish Council. The Council feels very strongly that Moretonhampstead should remain in the Bovey rural constituency and not be part of the and Teign Valley constituency. Moretonhampstead and have strong local connections which do not exist to the same degree with Chudleigh and the Teign Valley. For example:-

• Moretonhampstead and Bovey Tracey are in the same secondary school catchment area and many parents in both towns car share to enable their children to take part in after school activities

• There is a well-used bus route and main road linking the towns. A number of people work in one settlement and commute to the other

• Bovey Tracey is the nearest larger settlement and as such is used by Moretonhampstead people to access services such as the Optician, and the Methodist and Roman Catholic Churches

• Moretonhampstead is geographically too far from Chudleigh and Teign Valley to feel a sense of connection and inclusion

Yours sincerely

Jane Willis Chair c.c. Cllr George Gribble, Devon County Council; Rob Hooper, Devon County Council Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Sally Hocking

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Mortehoe Parish Council made the following comments regarding the proposed changes at their monthly meeting on June 15th 2015: 1. Members felt that the implications of the proposed changes would be detrimental to the residents of the Parish. They expressed satisfaction in the current representation within the Combe Martin ward and agreed that the present arrangements suited the parish well. 2. Members felt that the issues raised in the Parish were predominately rural and coastal in nature and would not be best resolved by the inclusion in the much larger urban neighbouring town of Ilfracombe. 3. Members felt that the proposed expansion of housing growth in Ilfracombe in the near future could result that the issues of Mortehoe Parish would be overlooked amongst the challenging problems of an expanding town which already has problems with deprivation. 4. Members had no objections to an extension of the present ward to include the other rural parishes of Arlington; Bratton Fleming; Challacombe; ; and Stoke Flemming in a newly enlarged Combe Martin ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5422 25/06/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: reviews Sent: 15 June 2015 12:02 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral review of Devon:Draft recommendations

From Sent: 15 June 2015 11:14 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Devon:Draft recommendations

Sirs,

Electoral review of Devon:Draft recommendations

Newton & Noss Parish Council has considered the draft recommendations and wish to propose that West and form part of the Ashburton Ward rather than becoming part of the Ward. This would serve to reduce the number of Parishes in the Yealmpton Ward from 12 to 10

Yours sincerely

Clerk to Newton & Noss Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 10 July 2015 14:45 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW:

From: Sent: 10 July 2015 14:34 To: reviews Subject:

Sear Sir. Sorry with late production , the Cllr was away,please include our comments

With respect to the proposed future boundary changes, Newton Poppleford & Harpford Parish Council would feel more closely associated with either Sidmouth or than with Budleigh Salterton. This is by virtue of the level of services and infrastructure shared with these two centres. yours faithfully

D.G. Atkins Cllerk

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 June 2015 11:16 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Devon County Council

From: PC Clerk Sent: 16 June 2015 11:01 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Devon County Council

Dear Review Offier (Devon)

Newton St Cyres Parish Council would like to comment on the proposed new name for our division in . The proposed new name is Silverton & Taw (shown as 41 on the map key)

The Council does not feel that this name is one which parishioners of Newton St Cyres could identify with. We are approximately 10 miles from Silverton and are not sure why this area has been singled out to have its name as part of the the division.

Our County Councillor, Margaret Squires has proposed "Creedy, Taw and Mid Exe" and we would like to endorse this. The runs through Newton St Cyres and is a well known river. Likewise the Taw and Mid Exe are areas which people can identified with. The division is a large one and has to be recognisable to local people and communities from Chaweligh in the north of the division to Newton St Cyres in the south and we believe that Creedy, Taw and Mid Exe will achieve that aim.

Yours

Clerk to Newton St Cyres Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Sent: 05 July 2015 18:53 To: reviews Subject: Division Boundary review, Devon County Council.

With regard to the review of future electoral arrangements for Devon County Council.

The draft recommendation on new division boundaries was discussed by the Parish Council of North Molton, one of the parishes affected by this review. By a majority, it was decided to support the proposed arrangement whereby North Molton would be in the same division as Combe Martin. This was because, as a rural area, North Molton had more in common with Combe Martin than South Molton with which it presently shares a division.

Nigel Penfold Parish Clerk, North Molton.

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: ROSALIND RICE

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: TOWN COUNCIL

Comment text:

North Tawton Town Council have noted your draft recommendations and do not wish to comment

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5329 08/06/2015

OTTERTON PARISH COUNCIL.

5th July 2015

Dear Sir,

Otterton Parish Council has considered the proposals to reorganise the electoral divisions in Devon and questions what benefit these will have for the rural communities in our area. At present we are represented by a County Councillor, who has responsibility for five adjacent villages. The new proposal places us in a group of villages along the Otter Valley together with the urban area of Ottery St Mary.

The Council feels that there is little logic in this change because the village has few common interests with Ottery St Mary and the northern part of the valley. Whoever drew these boundaries clearly had little knowledge of the social divisions of the area. The village is closely linked with the adjacent villages of Colaton Raleigh and East Budleigh, but each of these is dependent on the facilities of our nearest town, Budleigh Salterton.

Most of our commercial contacts are with the towns of Budleigh Salterton, Exmouth and Sidmouth, and these are linked to the village by a regular bus service. There is no public transport to Ottery St Mary. Most residents rely upon the medical facilities of the Budleigh Salterton Practise together with the related Social Security departments. Furthermore, plans are well advanced to make Budleigh Salterton Hospital a Health and Wellbeing Hub. Our police cover comes from Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth. Otterton C of E Primary School is in a Federation with Drake’s another C of E primary in East Budleigh. Both schools are closely linked with St Peter’s C of E Primary in Budleigh Salterton. The vast majority of our pupils transfer to Exmouth Community College for secondary education. Our Church of St Michael and All Saints is part of the Raleigh Mission Community of parish churches and our nearest local Library is in Budleigh Salterton. The Girl Guides Association to which our girls are linked is in Budleigh Salterton. There are no similar links to Ottery St Mary.

The Council believes that the current division clearly reflects the interests and identities of our links with other communities.

For these reasons the Council consider the proposals to be a retrograde step.

Yours faithfully,

David Ottley. Clerk to Otterton Parish Council

Pascoe, Mark

From: Ottery St. Mary Town Council Sent: 07 July 2015 09:24 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Electoral review of Devon

Dear Sir/Madam

Local Boundary Commission - electoral review of Devon.

Ottery St Mary Town Council (OSMTC) thanks you for the opportunity to participate in the public consultation on the proposals for the division boundaries of Devon County Council.

We have the following comments:

1. OSMTC is concerned by the proposed change in name from "Ottery St Mary rural" to "Otter valley". Ottery St Mary is the key town within the proposed ward and this should be reflected in the ward's name. All other towns within East Devon have their name within the title of the relevant ward and we believe that this principle should also apply to Ottery St Mary. We would suggest that "Ottery St Mary and the Otter Valley" would be more appropriate.

2. We support the inclusion of Aylesbeare in the proposed Ottery ward, as this would align with the district council ward "Ottery rural". Also the catchment for the King's School in Ottery includes pupils from Aylesbeare.

3. We do not agree that East Budleigh should form part of the proposed Ottery ward, given the distance from East Budleigh to Ottery and the alignment between East Budleigh and Budleigh Salterton. We do not believe that this would facilitate "effective and convenient local government" for the residents of East Budleigh.

4. We agree that it would be appropriate for Sidbury to form part of the Sidmouth ward and not part of the Ottery ward. We believe that this would enable "effective and convenient local government" for the residents of Sidbury.

As a final point we would re-iterate a point that we have made previously during this consultation process. The town of Ottery St Mary is scheduled for large housing growth. Planning permission has already been granted for over 520 houses. We therefore question the figures put forward suggesting a decline in population within the Ottery rural ward.

Yours faithfully A J Le Riche

Locum Clerk Ottery St Mary Town Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: geoff dwyer Sent: 04 July 2015 11:23 To: reviews Subject: electoral review of Devon

Dear Sirs

Pilton West Parish Council have asked me to write and express their concern at the way your proposals for changes to the boundaries in N Devon have been jiggled, seemingly to make the numbers fit rather than with an eye to what is logical. The proposed changes would spread our County Councillor over such a wide geographic area that her attendance at our meetings would be very much limited.The Council feels her attendance, her verbal and written reports, and her feedback keeps us in touch with the County, and the County Council in touch with us and to lose this would be a loss to both us and yourselves.

We have seen the report to the procedures committee of Devon County Council and if change has to happen we can see the benefits that adopting these alternative proposals would give.

Regards

Geoff Dwyer Clerk to Pilton West Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 18 June 2015 15:17 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Yelverton Rural

From: Mishka Mayers On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 18 June 2015 11:04 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Yelverton Rural

Devon email submission

From: Holly Leahy Sent: 18 June 2015 10:58 To: reviews Subject: Yelverton Rural

Dear Sir,

Plasterdown Grouped Parish Council are writing in regard to the Draft Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements by DCC. We would note that our Parish is in Yelverton Rural the sheer size of this division should be noted and that there are 13 Parishes in it. The area is much larger than before and with this size increase we believe brings practical problems.

Kind regards,

Holly Leahy Parish Clerk

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 05 June 2015 13:07 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Devon

From: sharon raggett Sent: 05 June 2015 12:29 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Devon

Dear Sirs

The proposal to create a new ward of Yealmpton fails to satisfy two of the three criteria used made by the Local Boundary Commission for England in making its draft proposals for new county council divisions for Devon. The only criteria it satisfies is that the new pattern of wards should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority. The proposed ward is a narrow transect across the district stretching from to the sea. As a result the proposed ward brings together a very diverse range of parishes. For example, the residents of share more common interests with , and Buckfastleigh than they do with the southern parts of the proposed ward. The coastal towns of Noss Mayo and Newton Ferrers and the commuter town of Yealmpton have little in common with the farming communities inland and on the fringes of Dartmoor. The southern part of the proposed ward is clearly within hinterland of whereas the northern part is within that of or . The proposed ward does not reflect any existing social, economic, political or environmental entity and so clearly fails to meet the second criterion that ward patterns should reflect community interests and identities and that boundaries should be identifiable. The diverse nature of the proposed ward is exacerbated by its elongated shape. These characteristics taken together mean that the proposal fails the third criterion that the electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government. The proposed new ward appears to be the last piece of the jigsaw created to make the numbers fit rather than the result of careful rational consideration. It is as if the old Yealmpton ward has been extended simply to make it a bit bigger without regard for the strange hybrid that has resulted.

S Raggett Clerk – Rattery Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: geoff dwyer Sent: 22 June 2015 19:45 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Devon

I have attached below a copy of the email sent to John Hart leader of Devon County Council

Cllr Hart

The proposal to increase the number of parishes that would come under the wing of Cllr Andrea Davis following the proposed changes would be of great concern to Parish Council. The proposed changes would spread our County Councillor over such a wide geographic area that her attendance at our meetings would be very much limited.

The Council feels her attendance, her verbal and written reports, and her feedback keeps us in touch with the County, and the County Council in touch with us and to lose this would be a loss to both us and yourselves.

Regards

Geoff Dwyer M Sc

Clerk, Shirwell Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 June 2015 11:16 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council

From: PC Clerk [ Sent: 16 June 2015 11:08 To: reviews Subject: Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council

Dear Review Officer (Devon)

Shobrooke Parish Council would like to comment on the proposed new name for our division in Mid Devon. The proposed new name is Silverton & Taw (shown as 41 on the map key)

The Council is not in favour of this proposed name change as it does not feel that the name will be one which Shobrooke parishioners could easily identify with.

Our County Councillor, Margaret Squires has proposed "Creedy, Taw and Mid Exe" and we would like to endorse this proposal.

Yours sincerely

Jane Hole Clerk to Shobrooke Parish Council

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 June 2015 12:11 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral review of Devon: Draft recommendations

From: Joan Hall Sent: 16 June 2015 12:03 To: reviews Subject: RE: Electoral review of Devon: Draft recommendations

Dear Mr Pascoe, Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Electoral Review of Devon. I can confirm that this was discussed at Sidmouth Town Council’s meeting held on Monday 8 June 2015 when it was resolved:

‘That Sidmouth Town Council supports the inclusion of Sidbury into the Sidmouth Division and requests that it be entitled the Sid Valley Division to make it clear that it includes Sidmouth, Sidford, Salcombe Regis and Sidbury. The remaining two member divisions should be split into one member divisions to bring them into line with all the remaining single seat divisions.’

Yours sincerely, Joan Hall

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 May 2015 18:08 To: Undisclosed recipients: Subject: Electoral review of Devon: Draft recommendations

Dear Parish or Town Clerk,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Devon County Council. Today is the start of an eight week public consultation on the Commission's draft recommendations on new division boundaries across Devon. The consultation closes on 6 July 2015. View the draft recommendations You can view the Commission's draft recommendations at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/4141 where you can find interactive maps, a report and guidance on how to have your say. The Commission has not finalised its conclusions and now invites representations on the draft recommendations. A summary outlining the Commission's draft recommendations outlining the draft recommendations, an interactive map of the Commission's recommendations for Devon, electorate figures and guidance on how to propose new electoral divisions is available on the consultation area at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/4141. Further information about the

1 review and the Commission’s work is also published on our website at: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/devon/devon-county-council. Have your say We encourage everyone who has a view on the draft recommendations to contact us whether you support them or whether you wish to propose alternative arrangements. Before finalising the recommendations, the Commission will consider every representation received during consultation whether it is submitted by an individual, a local group or an organisation. We will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements:

 To deliver electoral equality where each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county.

 That the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

 That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

It is important that you take account of the criteria if you are suggesting an alternative pattern of divisions. You can find additional guidance and information about previous electoral reviews on our website to help you or your organisation make a submission. Get in touch The Commission welcomes comments on the recommendations report by 6 July 2015. Representations should be made:

 Through our interactive consultation portal where you can explore the maps of the recommendations, draw your own boundaries and supply comments at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/4141.

 By email to: [email protected].

 Or in writing to:

Review Officer (Devon) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

The Commission aims to publish every response it receives during phases of consultation. If you do not want all or any part of your response or name to be made public, you must state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary. All responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000).

2 This is the last opportunity to influence the Commission's recommendations before they are finalised. We therefore encourage local people to get in touch with us and have their say. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely Mark Pascoe Review Officer [email protected] 0330 500 1278

Please note as of 27 April we have new contact details. Our new address is LGBCE, 14th Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London, SW1P 4QP. Our new telephone number is 0330 500 1525.

3

4 1. That the administrative and bureaucratic costs of the change are not in proportion to the outcome. 2. If the Boundary Commission is minded to proceed with the new ward No. 57, this should be named ‘ & Yealmpton’ as South Brent is the larger community. 3. That the separation of rural parishes from their market towns is not intuitive. 4. That boundary changes are confusing to the electorate, particularly in view of the fact that the SHDC boundaries have recently been altered. 5. That, although the SHDC boundaries have been altered, it would make sense for all districts in the County to be reformed before the County is considered. 6. That the new ward No. 57, although experiencing only a 4% increase in quota, will actually become a very large land area which joins indeterminate parts of the County such as moor and coast.

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Dunn

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Dear Sir/Madam, Tawstock Parish Council is currently proposed to be included in a new county division " & ". This was considered by Tawstock Parish Council and whilst the parish council has no direct comment to this proposal, it was resolved to request for the record that the Boundary Commission note for future reference a request to change the "internal" ward boundary of Tawstock Parish. Currently Tawstock is divided into two wards, Tawstock Urban and Tawstock Rural; the land allocation for the Larkbeare suburban extension in the Local Plan currently falls within Tawstock Rural. It was resolved by the parish council that this development once built should be included in the Tawstock Urban ward, thus redrawing the internal ward boundary between Tawstock Urban and Tawstock Rural. It was considered beneficial to recommend this otherwise the end result would be an urban population being grouped with a rural one with potential for different priorities. Yours faithfully Peter Dunn Tawstock Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5466 01/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Tracey Higgs Sent: 06 July 2015 16:41 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Electoral Review of Devon

For the attention of the Review Officer (Devon).

We fully understand the desire of the County Council to reduce the overall number of councillors at Devon County and to recommend electoral division boundaries that mean each county councillor represents approximately the same number of voters and reduce costs.

However we would ask that you consider the points made below:-

 Residents living in the section of East in question identify themselves as Teignmouth residents (their community identity). They look to Teignmouth, by a large stretch the nearest town, for medical facilities, education and shopping.

 Residents living in the section of East Teignmouth in question are located in the East Teignmouth ward for District and Town Council purposes. It would represent more effective and convenient Local Government to ensure that District and Town Council ward boundaries are coterminous with representation at the County level, to ensure joined up Governance and representation.

 Residents living in the section of East Teignmouth in question are located within the Parish of Teignmouth.

 The existing Parish of Teignmouth forms the boundary for the town’s emerging neighbourhood plan. Representation and Governance at all local authority levels on the same boundaries would significantly aid the planning process.

 The section of East Teignmouth in question is within the Teignmouth postcode area (TQ14), as opposed to the neighbouring (EX7) postcode area.

 Our assumption is that the current proposal for the equalisation of the Dawlish and Teignmouth divisions looks at existing population distribution in the 2 towns. The recently adopted local plan for the District of is planning for significant numbers of new housing developments in Dawlish, significantly in excess of those being planned for Teignmouth. On best estimates it is likely that the population of Dawlish would increase by around 3,000 people as a result of these developments, compared to between 500 and 1,000 additional residents we estimate for Teignmouth in the same period. This would indicate that the divisions would become unbalanced in terms of population distribution, with a need for the Teignmouth division to expand.

 The evidence we have provided supports the future County division of Teignmouth remaining coterminous with the Parish boundary. Nonetheless, in light of the expected significant population increase in Dawlish which would be expected to make the two divisions unequal in terms of population coverage, we believe that the Boundary Commission should also look at the potential for an extension of Teignmouth’s boundaries

1 to also include the developed area along the A379 towards Holcombe (within the Dawlish division), before the natural settlement break between this area and Holcombe.

 This area is currently located within the postal town of Teignmouth under the TQ14 postcode, but is currently represented electorally within both Dawlish divisions and wards. Significant numbers of residents of this area identify as being part of Teignmouth, their postal addresses are within Teignmouth and look towards Teignmouth for education, medical facilities and shopping. Logically this area should form part of the Boundary Commission’s evidence to ensure a full and fair analysis of the most appropriate boundaries for representation and governance.

 Alters the existing wards used to elect Teignbridge and Teignmouth Town Councillors and what implications will there be in respect of District Council representation in the proposed new ward.

Kind regards

Tracey Higgs Town Clerk Designate Teignmouth Town Council

For our email disclaimer click on the link below: http://www.teignmouthcouncil.co.uk/index.php/component/content/article/34‐legal/6‐copyright‐disclaimer‐ privacy

2 Tiverton Town Council

Review Officer (Devon) LGBCE 14th Floor, Millbank Tower SW1P 4QP

02nd July 2015 Dear Sirs. Tiverton Town Council Proposed Ward Changes Having examined your proposals for Tiverton Town Council wards from 2019 the matter was fully discussed by the Council and the following proposal agreed for submission: The Council felt that the introduction of a Central Ward with one councillor representative was not a workable solution. As with most towns the shopping area does not have that many electors, therefore we would ask that the centre of the town is incorporated within other wards, and that a separate ward is not formed. The council felt that whilst the district council has one Westexe Ward, the geographical area covered is quite large, therefore it recommends retaining the present Westexe South and Westexe North Wards, and giving them three councillors each. The Council appreciates that the Lowmam Ward would see the most expansion over the next few years which includes the Eastern Extension. It however felt that 7 councillors would be adequate to cover that ward. The proposal to you is therefore: Castle 5 Cranmore 6 Lowman 7 Westexe South 3 Westexe North 3 Total 24 Having studied the present electoral numbers and estimated the growth up to and including 2020, Tiverton Town Council feels that this proposal would prove to be an effective alternative to the one that you have suggested. Yours faithfully

John Vanderwolfe FILCM Town Clerk Pascoe, Mark

From: Town Council Clerk Sent: 29 June 2015 16:19 To: reviews Subject: Response to the Draft Recommendations - Devon County Council

Dear Sir/Madam

Totnes Town Council submits the following objection to the proposed new electoral arrangements for Devon County Council:

1. That the separation of rural parishes from their market towns is not intuitive and works against community identity. 2. That boundary changes are confusing to the electorate, particularly in view of the fact that the SHDC boundaries have recently been altered. 3. That Yealmpton, although experiencing only a 4% increase in quota, will actually become a very large land area which joins indeterminate parts of the County such as moor and coast. Public transport links across the area are sparse and do not link the ward area. 4. That the administrative and bureaucratic costs of the change are not in proportion to the outcome. 5. That, although the SHDC boundaries have been altered, it would make sense for all districts in the County to be reformed before the County is considered. 6. That this proposed arrangement renders previous research such as Mosaic irrelevant and that research and data is now wasted.

Yours faithfully

Helen Nathanson Town Clerk Totnes Town Council

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the addressee. It may be confidential and also legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender and delete the message from your system immediately. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or other action relating to the information contained in this email is strictly prohibited. Senders and recipients should be aware that emails and their contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request made under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation. This email message has been scanned for computer viruses. However, Totnes Town Council will not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus that is not detected.

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Kerry Kennell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Upottery Parish Council

Comment text:

We would like to suggest a range of amendments to the arrangements for the East Devon District. These amendments are based on the three main criteria: • Improve electoral equality • Reflect community identity • Provide for effective and convenient local government It would appear that the mean average for the number of electors per councillor is 10,400. There is also a suggestion that a 10% variance from the average is acceptable. In speaking to residents, county, district and parish councillors in East Devon, it would appear that the criteria set out above, particularly “community identity” is the most important element of a proposed re- arrangement. In the East Devon District, the TOTAL number of the projected electorate to 2020 is 112,296, with an allocation of 11 councillors. This gives an average number of electors per councillor of 10,209 (which is below the average number suggested of 10,400) If there were only 10 councillors allocated in the East Devon District, this would give an average for the projected electorate to 2020 of 11,300, which is still within the 10% variance. It is our suggestion that this can be achieved by a far more acceptable rearrangement of parishes, providing greatly improved community identity, more convenient local government and still retaining electoral equality. These are our suggestions: • Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon would be removed from the AXMINSTER division added to the SEATON and COLYTON division • The parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford would be added to the AXMINSTER division These are our suggestions for the two divisions in the east of the district. We appreciate that these amendments would have a knock-on effect to the other divisions. However, we suggest that this can lead to a vast improvement to the other divisions as follows: HONITON would include all the parishes (including Upottery) surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division. This proposal for the Honiton division reduces the proposed area of Whimple and Newbridges , and also embraces the importance of our proximity and inclusion of our nearest market town which we feel is of vital in our rural community. Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton, which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton. SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from Exmouth, but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. This leaves BROADCLYST where currently 2 councillors are designated. WEwould suggest this would be split and be redefined as BROADCLYST and CRANBROOK. Each division would include surrounding parishes. eg Broadclyst would include parishes to the north and west, whilst Cranbrook, which is growing extremely fast would include parishes such as Whimple and Rockbeare. Therefore we suggest that the East Devon District would consist of the following 10 divisions: • Axminster • Broadclyst • Budleigh Salterton • Cranbrook • Exmouth East • Exmouth West • Honiton • Ottery • Seaton / Colyton • Sidmouth It is our view that this is a far more equitable arrangement, with each division containing a Market or Coastal Town as its hub. This eliminates the 21 parish division termed Whimple and Newbridges, where the local community would struggle with an identity. The numbers may need to be juggled around somewhat, but we believe this is achievable and meets the criteria set by the Commission. Kerry Kennell on behalf of Upottery Parish Council

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5645 07/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5645 07/07/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Oades

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

West Down Parish Council wishes to remain in the Combe Martin Rural area. We are a rural parish with many farms within our boundary and feel that Combe Martin Rural identifies us as having rural issues. The suggestion of being included within Ilfracombe is completely unrepresentative of our rural parish as Ilfracombe is an urban and coastal area with significant issues around deprivation. Our local county councillor has always looked after our 'county' problems and is well aware of parish needs and problems.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5491 02/07/2015 Whimple Parish Council Response to the Boundary Commission Electoral Review for Devon County Council

Whimple Parish Council welcomes the opportunity to respond to the Boundary Commission’s review of electoral arrangements for Devon County Council and will only address divisions in East Devon District. The premise for our response is based on our discussions with residents, district and county councillors across East Devon. There were three key themes raised and they are:

 Support effective and accessible local government  strengthen community identity  strengthen electoral equality

As this review is predicated on providing a levelling out of numbers of electors per councillor and the mean number appears to be 10,400. There is also the suggestion of a variance of 10% either side would be considered. The East Devon projected number of electorate by 2020 is 112,296, with a total of 11 councillors, equating to 10,209 per councillor.

There has already been an agreement to reduce the size of the council by two in the total number of elected representatives and Whimple would consider a revision of East Devon’s allocation to ten. This would result in 11,300 electors per councillor, still within the 10% variant.

We do not agree with the concept of two councillor divisions and the proposal that both Exmouth and Broadclyst each have two councillors.

The proposed WHIMPLE and NEWBRIDGES division is NOT supported on two main grounds. Firstly, the parish has no close links the majority of the 21 parishes in this vast rural swath devoid of any major hub or town providing vital facilities, services and communities coercion.

Secondly, the new town of Cranbrook is sited on previous parish land. This land was transferred willingly to the newly formed Cranbrook Town Council. Whimple has and will continue to strengthen our working relationship with Cranbook.

Whimple suggests the proposed BROADCLYST is divided in two and a new CRANBROOK is created. BROADCLYST would cover the surrounding parishes to the north and west and CRANBROOK which is rapidly expanding would include the parishes of Rockbeare and Whimple.

To address the remaining areas of East Devon we have only considered the natural local synergies and appreciate that adjustments will be required in these divisions. We do believe each division is strengthen by having a market or costal town as its focal centre.

Our suggestions: AXMINSTER remove Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon and add to the SEATON and COLYTON division. Then add the parishes of All Saints, Chardstock, Dalwood, Kilmington, Membury and Shute & Whitford

BUDLEIGH SALTERTON would be separate from Exmouth, but include a number of smaller parishes, including East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton EXMOUTH could be split to WEST EXMOUTH and EAST EXMOUTH which may be preferable to the town being represented by two councillors. HONITON would include all the parishes surrounding the market town of Honiton and may also include Yarcombe from the current AXMINSTER division Otter Valley (OTTERY) could include some additional small parishes, but would lose some, such as East Budleigh, Bicton and Otterton, which would revert to BUDLEIGH SALTERTON. Ottery would gain some of the adjacent smaller parishes, such as Feniton. SEATON/COLYTON add Axmouth and Combpyne Rousdon to the Coly Valley parishes as proposed. SIDMOUTH would probably remain as suggested Therefore our suggestion is for East Devon District to consist of the following 10 divisions:

 Axminster  Broadclyst  Budleigh Salterton  Cranbrook  Exmouth East  Exmouth West  Honiton  Ottery  Seaton / Colyton  Sidmouth

We accept that additional work to balance elector numbers and adjustments will be required but we do feel our suggestions attempt to strengthen local communities and representation.

John Griffith Chair

Whimple Parish Council

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 28 May 2015 12:00 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Devon: Draft Recommendations

From: Woodbury Parish Council Sent: 28 May 2015 11:41 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Devon: Draft Recommendations

Woodbury Parish Council welcomes the proposed boundary changes as it puts the three Woodbury Parish Council Wards (Woodbury, Woodbury Salterton & Exton) back within the same boundary which is obviously a much more sensible option than having two Wards in one boundary and one ward in another Belinda Price Clerk to Woodbury Parish Council

Please note the Parish Council’s change of address and contact details

1