Local Resident Submissions to the Devon County Council Electoral Review

Home , Aylesbeare, Bishopsteignton

Local resident submissions to the Devon County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 49 submissions from local residents with surnames A- L.

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

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: David Addis

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposal to change the Sidmouth boundary to include the upper valley of the Sid up to Putts Corner towards the east hills strips is a sensible, the electorate of Sidbury will be served better by being part of the Sidmouth district

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5328 05/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Judith Ayres

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: The Parish of Aylesbeare

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: The Parish of Aylesbeare

Comment text:

I am a resident of the Parish Of Aylesbeare. The current inclusion of Aylesbeare with Budleigh Salterton Ward of Devon County Council seems inappropriate on two counts: firstly Aylesbeare is included in Ottery Rural for District Council purposes and secondly the issues of concern to Aylesbeare have very little in common with those of Budleigh Salterton. I therefore strongly welcome the new boundary proposals.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5243 18/05/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Beech Sent: 06 July 2015 16:28 To: reviews Subject: Devon CC proposed LG boundary changes

Dear sir, I wish to protest most strongly to the proposed boundary changes to reduce the number of County Councillors from 62 to 60 in Devon County Council. Most of the changes affect East Devon and particularly Exmouth. This is the largest town in Devon and deserves better than being chopped up to fit the numbers but not the communities or their links. For instance combining Budleigh Salterton with Exmouth Littleham does not reflect the interests or links between the two communities which are separated by three miles of open countryside. Local opinion is very much against this plan and it ewill make th CC seat difficult to contest as one County Councillor will inevitably come from one or other of the Communities. This will also affect the Town Councils of Budleigh and Exmouth Why propose 2 councillors for the rest of Exmouth which has worked very well with three members? I would recommend that you work with the present 62 members on Devon County Council rather than pander to DCC wish to reduce the numbers of members to save money. Working with your three criteria should enable you to prepare recommendations based on the 62 member council. Yours faithfully Eileen Beech

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Gary Bennett

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It's all well and good you offering to listen to my thoughts and considered opinions about your proposals, but I do not have access to the range of population statistics, geographical knowledge and censuses that I imagine forms the basis of your recommendations or possible alternatives that I may arrive at for myself and consider to be superior were I able to analyse such vast amounts of information as you and your team of staff have doubtless dealt with. This, of course, somewhat renders anything I might say as being a bit superfluous if not completely irrelevant. However, I must thank you for this unique opportunity and I look forward to finding out the names of these new areas in due course, although I do hope they will not be cumbersome names such as: St David's and Haven Banks - much too complicated.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5254 18/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: kate brooks

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the proposed changes. Bishopsteignton would lose its community identity and be dominated by Kingsteignton. Bishop is currently a rural area with a tourism industry shared with Teignmouth and other parishes which surround the Teign Estuary; binding them together. In contrast Kingsteignton is an urban area which does not share any interests with Bishopsteignton, particularly concerns regarding planning and relevant policies leading to an increased pressure to maintain the rural nature and heritage of the village and Teign Estuary. No common parish council or residents association that represents the area. Bishopsteignton will lose the political relationship it has had with other like communities that surround the estuary The A380 is a natural boundary between the two sets of the community; this is reinforced by the adopted Plan Teignbridge. Teignmouth is where more people have an affinity and go for local facilities such as schools, sports centre, medical services etc not Kingsteignton Kingsteignton is an urban district of Newton Abbot; we have better affinity with those communities that encompass the Teign estuary with a more rural aspect, which would include the communities of Shaldon and Teignmouth.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5498 03/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Lorna Brown

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposal to remove Bishopsteignton from communities with whom we have much in common is simply absurd. The current boundary of the Teign Estuary serves our needs very well. To propose to join Bishopsteignton with Kingsteignton seems to be based on the fact the areas have similar names with no regard to the communities themselves. Kingsteignton is an urban area linked to Newton Abbot. Bishopsteignton is a rural settlement which looks to Teignmouth and its neighbouring Teign valley communities. In addition there is no common parish council or residents association that represents the area. Bishopsteignton will lose the political relationship it has had with other like communities that surround the estuary. The A380 is a natural boundary between the two sets of the community; this is reinforced by the adopted Plan Teignbridge. Teignmouth is where more people have an affinity and go for local facilities such as schools, sports centre, medical services etc not Kingsteignton. I strongly object to the proposed boundary change and do not feel it meets any of the tests outlined in the selection criteria. The current boundary serves us very well.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5613 07/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From:

Sent: 26 June 2015 15:59 To: Budden Hinds Cc: reviews Subject: Re: Proposed Changes to the county council wards in Exmouth Devon

Dear Jenny

The Boundary Commission for England is responsible only for the boundaries of Parliamentary constituencies. It is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) that has responsibility for local authority boundary changes.

I have therefore forwarded your email to colleagues at the LGBCE at: [email protected]

Kind regards

On 26 June 2015 at 14:25, wrote: I am responding to your consultation on proposed boundary changes to county council wards in Exmouth. I understand from the Exmouth Journal that the Commission wishes to reduce the number of Devon's county divisions by two and so instead of Littleham Exmouth being part of the town ward for county council elections it would be merged with Budleigh Salterton.

I am writing to totally object to such a change. Littleham is part of Exmouth. It is separated from Budleigh Salterton by a few miles of countryside. Littleham is part of and identifies with Exmouth. Exmouth has 36,000 people whereas Budleigh has I think only 3000. People in Littleham look to Exmouth for all the services that the county council deals with such as roads, transport, education, libraries, adult services and children's services. Budleigh has its own issues and problems which are totally separate from those of Exmouth.

There is no way that a county councillor from Budleigh would have credibility or be seen as legitimate by people in Exmouth in taking up Littleham's problems nor would a county councillor from Exmouth be seen as legitimate by the people of Budleigh. In terms of county services Littleham shares most of the issues that affect the town. Transport issues are the same in the town of Exmouth as they are at Littleham for example and totally

1 separate from those of Budleigh Salterton.

I hope that the Electoral Commission will rethink its proposals which will put it into disrepute if they go ahead. Best Wishes Jenny Budden

2 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 July 2015 11:30 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Objection to loss of identity

From: Joan Cant Sent: 07 July 2015 11:20 To: reviews Subject: Objection to loss of identity

Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to strongly object to the proposal to combine Dartington and Totnes. I also strongly object to the fact that were it not for "the grapevine" I would not even know about this. I ask you to not make any decision and to do a respectful consultation of people living in these areas whose lives it will effect.

Totnes is a small town with a historic unique character appreciated by people all over the world and the people living there. Dartington is a rural village with a unique historic character and connection with Dartington Hall and this is reflected in house prices and the popularity of the place to those who live here and to visitors.

The proposals will create an overlarge county division and a very large area that increases moorland and coastal parishes all of which have unique characters. This overlooking of distinct character is disrespectful, wasteful of hundreds of years of history that has created valuable and unique identity, and unhealthy (small is beautiful). It will make it impossible for county counsellors to represent unique needs.

It will be stressful and confusing to a public already confused by the recent changes and costly at a time of austerity. It should not be a priority as the disadvantages outweigh the presumed advantages which are at best questionable.

I therefore ask you to keep the boundaries as they are representing the unique diversity of each area and not to accept a dehumanising homogenous confusion in which many aspects of quality of life and the value of difference are sacrificed. The proposals weaken democracy and reduce local representation.

Yours sincerely Joan Cant

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Elaine Cawthraw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: None

Comment text:

I strongly object to the ward of Bishopsteignton's inclusion in The Teigntons. The proposal fails several tests as set out in the selection criteria for setting new boundaries e.g. · No common parish council or residents association that represents the area. Bishopsteignton will lose the political relationship it has had with other like communities that surround the estuary · The A380 is a natural boundary between the two sets of the community; this is reinforced by the adopted Plan Teignbridge. · Teignmouth is where more people have an affinity and go for local facilities such as schools, sports centre, medical services etc not Kingsteignton · Kingsteignton is an urban district of Newton Abbot; we have better affinity with those communities that encompass the Teign estuary with a more rural aspect, which would include the communities of Shaldon and Teignmouth. My address is Bishopsteignton, Teignmouth and I'm more than happy to be associated with the town.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5543 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: kevin chun

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to raise awareness that the new boundaries violates the recognised boundaries of St James and the area neighbourhood plan that was passed by referendum in 2013. As a recognised boundary St James Ward should remain as a single entity. Under the new proposals the Ward would be split in half with an element being associate with Duryard and Pennsylvania and another element of the Ward being included in St Sidwells and Newtown. This proposal would break up an existing and recognise community not only recognised by the formation of a neighbourhood forum but also recognise clearly by a referendum on a neighbourhood plan in that area. I therefore propose that the boundaries of the existing St James and St David’s division should be maintained as numbers facilitate. This would ensure that the existing St James boundary and neighbourhood plan is maintained. This would also allow current collaborations between the St David’s neighbourhood partnership and the St James neighbourhood Forum on issues such as Bury Meadow Park and the issues surrounding the expanding student population and consequences of expanding inner city traffic to be managed with by a single County councillor rather than dealing with two or three councillors of different parties. It is therefore rational and sensible that the quay, the inner city and St James inner city community make up one County division when they share such similar issues, problems and concerns. These both have strong links of working together as single communities on issues which are not shared with the new to St Leonards elements being put in the proposed St David and Haven Banks division nor are shared with the community of Newtown who are further from the city centre and therefore

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5282 22/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Matt Collins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed area for Holsworthy Rural takes the village of Buckland Brewer into this area. This village has no relation in terms of community, facilities and amenities to Holsworthy, instead looking towards Bideford for its needs. Buckland Brewer would be better placed in the Bideford South and Hartland area. The proposed area of Bideford East extends some considerable way to the south and includes villages such as Littleham and Monkleigh. This would be better termed as Bideford East and South. A large level of housing development is proposed in west Bideford and Northam, at least 2500 houses. This needs considering in the new boundaries which seem to split the allocated housing sites. The proposed area of Landkey and Chittlehampton includes villages which may be annoyed by not being in the name of the area. ie.e King's Nmypton, Umberleigh and Bishops Tawton. These, and the two named, are all similar sizes. A better name might be East Taw or Taw Rural (after the river). The expansion of Combe Martin Rural will make this one of the least accessible areas. The village of North Molton should be in the South Molton division. If the division is to stay as this, perhaps this name should also change being so big, a lot of places are not related to Combe Martin. Perhaps Exmoor West.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5246 18/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Emma Coppell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the changes to my division (currently Budleigh, to become part of Otter Valley). It seems very sensible for each division to represent a roughly equal number of people and for the boundaries to align as closely as possible with existing parish boundaries. There is an Otter Valley Association that does lots of great work in the local area, so the area covered by the proposed boundary changes is already considered a single entity by other organisations. It therefore seems logical to keep this part of the county together and, although I am not a part of the OVA and cannot speak for them, I would like to think that it would be beneficial for them to be able to work with a single district councillor.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5240 15/05/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Liz Cosford < > Sent: 06 July 2015 16:51 To: reviews Subject: Devon County Council - Local Government Boundary Review

Dear Sir

As a resident of the Littleham area of Exmouth, I wish to protest at the proposals in your Devon County Council boundary recommendations to merge Littleham with Budleigh Salterton to make a new 'Budleigh Salterton Coastal' seat.

It is absolute nonsense to propose cutting Exmouth in two, with Littleham Ward tacked on to Budleigh Salterton. There is no shared identity or community interest in this proposed arrangement. The urban areas in each community are completely separate and are separated by open countryside. There is more identity of interest in Littleham being aligned with roads on the northern side of Salterton Road in Exmouth.

Littleham is completely separate to budleigh so this really does need reviewing before any final decision is made.

Liz cosford

Sent from my iPhone

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Agroforestry Research Trust Sent: 07 July 2015 10:31 To: reviews Subject: Proposed changes to ward divisions

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to object to the proposal for the wards of Dartington and Totnes to be lumped together.

There is a very really risk that Dartington will lose its identity as a separate village and just be treated as a suburb of Totnes. Already Dartington is taking more than its fair share of new houses, and the needs of a village and a town should be dealt with separately.

Yours faithfully

Sandra Crawford

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Terry Cummings

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

While the maps and the allocated areas look well balanced the whole thing is number based and I can understand this however the diversity of the communities does not seem to be taken into account. In some of the areas where the areas are either rural or predominantly urban they seem to be reasonably balanced But if you take Okehampton rural the issues concerning Okehampton and its hamlets are fundamentally different to the issues of Lifton and Lifton Down or Milton Abbott. I t makes you wonder how a councillor is able to represent these areas with equal ability and knowledge when the areas are so different, and the same goes for the Yelverton Rural ward apart from the difficulty in reaching many of these areas all year around the differences effecting the communities could be along similar lines yet so different. Seems like many of these reviews it is all about the numbers and people with no idea of the terrain and geography of the area are setting these boundaries, in some of the areas the distances required to travel between one point to another is quite substantial especially if the constituents are reliant on public transport wanting to attend meetings with the relevant ward member. And the distances required by the Ward member to attend parish meetings I am not sure how but I am sure if the areas were rejigged to take in to account the more difficult areas to reach are added to zones with the nearest transport links the distances could be reduced and the concerns of the area would be more in keeping with the surrounding areas.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5537 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Crispin Denny

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I understand the proposal is to transfer the parish of Buckerell out of the Ottery st Mary Ward. As Buckerell has had a long and successful association with the rural ward of Ottery I would be resistant to having this change forced upon us. Crispin Denny

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5366 11/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Susan Dove

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have no wish to live in Dawlish, as I am happy living in Teignmouth. If there is further development in Teignmouth and or Dawlish are boundaries going to be re drawn each time? Are rates going to reflect the downgrade from living in Teignmouth?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5358 10/06/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: sophia elek Sent: 06 July 2015 14:52 To: reviews Subject: Dartington, Staverton and Totnes boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Review Body,

As a Dartington resident, I was surprised to hear of the proposal for the merging of boundaries of Dartington, Staverton and Totnes. As you will be aware, Dartington has a strong identity and rich history that I feel would not be recognised if it is to be considered part of an urban area.

The expansion of political/governance boundaries goes against the grain of Government policy relation to increasing Localisation. As a member of the Dartington Neighbourhood Plan group regarding open spaces, play and sport, I feel such a proposition is particularly undermining of the current Urban Planning process

The Parish Councils of both Dartington and Staverton, and Town Council of Totnes have each objected to this. As these are the most appropriate bodies to determine such a decision, to ignore their will and impose such a decision will be undemocratic, undermining of local institutions and contradicting of the new Localisation process.

This proposes a major cultural and political change which people are not aware of and requires much greater public consultation to be legitimate.

I am confident that these points are broadly reflective of the majority of the local population of Dartington who have not had opportunity to make any such similar representation, and as such request that these should be taken into account as part of a fuller public consultation process that can now begin.

Kind regards,

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: David Ellis Sent: 06 July 2015 10:40 To: reviews Subject: Response to proposed boundary changes for Totnes, Dartington & Staverton

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I write with reference to the revision of the county boundaries and ward member boundaries that affect Dartington.

As a committed local resident, I am shocked that I have been completely unaware of any public consultation process in the review. Please can you tell me how, when and where efforts were made to engage the public that would all be affected by such a review? I saw nothing in the local paper, our parish magazine, received nothing delivered to my door or in any recent mailing from the local authority. If you truly wish to engage the public- all council tax payers and voters- then how was this achieved? Under the Localism act - and in the interests of transparency and consultation - I request that the public affected are properly contacted, engaged and letters sent door to door, consultation events held and articles included in the local paper. Then a proper time period must be initiated again to allow real public comment. Otherwise democracy is severely lacking here. Please advise.

I have been informed of the proposed changes, by chance at 11pm on the last day! Still I write in to strongly object to our distinctive rural parish (a patchwork of small rural communities) being included with urban Totnes. Post-boundary change, urban criteria might be applied to planning decisions- a disastrous outcome that could lead to suburban sprawl from a self-contained market town to hamlets and villages through the green fields that separate them. Grouping parishes in the South Hams with very different landscapes, issues and needs will not be a sensible way forward. I feel that a single ward member could not represent such divergent issues.

I strongly request that this proposed change is properly re-advertised and explained to the public, that a proper consultation period is started from now, and that any representations that you DO receive after tomorrow are included in your deliberations. Please advise whether this will be the case. Thank you.

Yours Faithfully, Dr. David M. Ellis Dartington resident

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Sharon Ellis Sent: 06 July 2015 10:44 To: reviews Subject: Fwd: Response to proposed boundary changes for Totnes, Dartington & Staverton

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sir/ Madam,

I write with reference to the revision of the county boundaries and ward member boundaries that affect Dartington.

Yours Faithfully, Mrs. Sharon L. Ellis Dartington resident

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: reviews Sent: 15 May 2015 14:42 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary Review Devon County Council wards

From: John Emms Sent: 15 May 2015 12:12 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Fwd: Boundary Review Devon County Council wards

To: [email protected]

Subject: Boundary Review Devon County Council wards

Dear Sirs, I can only but concur with the sentiments already sent to you by Maurice Pearce, namely;

I cannot stress highly enough that the subdivision of Bideford (EX 39) in its proposed form is both very poor on the criteria of (1) reflecting community identity and (2) will not provide for effective local government. Regarding point (1) Community identity your proposals seek to perpetuate the current situation of splitting Bideford into two huge geographical wards that are more rural in nature (esp. Bideford West) and therefore takes the focus off Bideford town as a place which has the lowest wage rates and GDP in the whole of Devon and is in desperate need of regeneration. It is one town but you seek to divide it. A more appropriate arrangement for Bideford would surely be to place Northam and West Hartland together (all coastal communities from the mouth of the Torridge river west to the Cornwall boundary). You are not currently or proposing to support the community identity. Point (2) Provide for effective local government. Under the proposed and current arrangements Bideford Town Council boundary has two County Councillors to deal with which is an impediment to a smooth channel of communication with DCC. It is possible for these 2 DCC Councillors to have opposing political aims and therefore lead to a stalemate. Bideford, a large market town and distant from DCC headquarters, (out of sight and out of mind), needs a single councillor who is able to speak with one authoritative voice on behalf of its constituents. It is also difficult under the present and proposed arrangements for a constituent to know who his or her representative is. For Bideford to effectively regenerate there needs to be clarity about who represents the electorate at DCC, District and Town/Parish levels for local democracy to be effective and properly served. Finally a great deal of housing is proposed in the new local plan which will substantially alter the population numbers over the next few years and the 'plan' should be given due weight in determining the boundaries now.

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Ben Ervine

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Breaking Haven banks away from Alphington / St thomas makes no sense at all. The st davids area has no correlation to the haven banks area and this new division is ludicrous

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5228 15/05/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 June 2015 08:44 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: LGBCE- comments on Devon draft recommendations for Teignmouth and Dawlish

From: jamie evans Sent: 15 June 2015 23:42 To: reviews Subject: LGBCE‐ comments on Devon draft recommendations for Teignmouth and Dawlish

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please see below my comments as to why I believe Teignmouth's County Council ward/division boundary should mirror its parish boundary, plus additional evidence which I believe should be considered as part of the LGBCE appraisal of alternatives. The evidence I have provided gives the reasons for my objection to the proposal for the County Council division of Dawlish to cover a part of East Teignmouth, which has been identified within the consultation as the Rowdens.

Many Thanks,

Jamie Evans (Resident of Teignmouth)

Evidence to support Teignmouth’s DCC division boundary mirroring the parish boundary

 Residents living in the section of East Teignmouth in question (identified within the consultation as a potential Rowdens ward) identify as Teignmouth residents (their community identity) and definitely not as part of Dawlish. They look to Teignmouth, by a large stretch the nearest town, for medical facilities, education and shopping. Approaching this area from Dawlish by both road and rail, Teignmouth boundary signs will be passed, including a very large sign for Teignmouth from the railway, with which many residents have an emotional connection.  Likewise Dawlish residents definitely do not identify this area as part of Dawlish.  Residents living in the section of East Teignmouth in question are currently located in the East Teignmouth ward for District and Town Council purposes, proposed to become a new Rowdens ward, within Teignmouth. 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.

1  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 for all levels of Local Government, particularly with regards to the plan.  The section of East Teignmouth in question is within the Teignmouth postcode area (TQ14), as opposed to the neighbouring Dawlish (EX7) postcode area.  My 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 Teignbridge (known as Plan Teignbridge) 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 I estimate for Teignmouth over the plan period. This would indicate that the divisions would become unbalanced in terms of population distribution, with a need for the Teignmouth division to expand. Many of the large scale housing developments in Dawlish are already underway. Within the space of a few years, by removing part of Teignmouth and adding it to Dawlish, would be contrary to the objective of the boundary review to create more equal wards and divisions in terms of population, as Dawlish's population would be likely to exceed that of Teignmouth.

Additional evidence for the potential expansion of the Teignmouth Division beyond the parish boundary

The evidence I 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, I believe that the Boundary Commission should also look at the potential for an extension of Teignmouth’s boundaries to 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.

2 Pascoe, Mark

From: John Farrand-Rogers Sent: 01 July 2015 21:22 To: reviews Subject: Devon County

1st July 2015

Local Government Boundary Commission for England 3rd Floor, Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Devon County Council Boundaries

Dear Sirs

I should like to make some comments on the current proposals for Devon County. I am doing this in a totally personal capacity.

1. Personal position. I was a member of Moretonhampstead Parish Council for the period 2011- 2015, and also served on the General Purposes Committee of the Devon Association of Local Councils (DALC) for the same period, as a representative from Teignbridge District. I was also a candidate in the elections for the Teignbridge North Ward of Teignbridge District this year, and am currently the organiser for the Liberal Democrats for the County Division based on Chudleigh.

2. In general, bearing in mind the requirement of reduce the number of divisions from 62 to 60, and to keep the number of electors broadly similar, I support the changes and proposed borders of the divisions that I know about.

3. In particular, I support the proposed boundaries for the new divisions based on Bovey, Chudleigh and Exminster (in all of which areas I have stood as a candidate recently).

4. Moretonhampstead. At the last meeting of Moretonhampstead Parish Council, there was a short speech from Cty Cllr George Gribble (the sitting member) in which he declared that he would fight tooth and nail to keep Moretonhampstead Parish within the Bovey Division (as at present). However, he gave no reasons for wanting this, still less did he suggest any consequent adjustments to compensate for the change in numbers. Nevertheless, at the end of this, the Parish Council resolved without discussion that the Parish should remain within the Bovey Division. It seems to me that these positions are pure posturing, and that the Commission should not take undue notice of them (assuming, in any case, they have submitted comments).

5. Further, I would support this change, in that road communications are as good along the road towards Exeter, through Doccombe and Dunsford, and from there down to Chudleigh, as they are to Bovey Tracey and Widdecombe.

1 6. Whitestone and Holcombe Burnell Parishes. These are two parishes in the Teignbridge North Ward of Teignbridge District and, though it would perhaps be convenient to keep the ward intact, there is no real reason why they should not be in the proposed Division based on Exminster. Road communications with Exminster seem to be at least as good as those with Chudleigh (with which they are linked at present).

7. However, I would like to suggest different names for two of the Divisions. The new Chudleigh and Teign Valley Division takes its proposed name from two existing wards in Teignbridge District. However, it also includes the larger part of Moorland Ward (ie Moretonhampstead Parish) and the larger part of Teignbridge North Ward (ie Tedburn Parish). The suggested name is therefore confusing, and I would like to suggest that it should be called "Chudleigh Rural", as it is, in fact, at present..

8. Similarly, the name for the Exminster and Haldon Division takes as its second component a small, obscure settlement, which is in any case very close to Exminster, and adds nothing to the definition of the Division. If it were desired to demark its extent, it would include the names of Whitestone, Kenton and Starcross, though that would become rather cumbersome. I would suggest the name of "Exminster Rural" as a shorter and more appropriate name.

9. Of more import, though rather more remote from my immediate sphere of interest, I would like to comment on the two two-member divisions. This is an innovation for Devon County, and one of which I strongly disapprove - not least because having divisions of 20,000 electors makes it extremely dificult for an individual candidate to mount a serious challenge, which he might wish to do on some specific issue.

10. I understand that it is difficult for you to decide precisely how these large divisions might be divided neatly. However, looking at the figures, it does appear that the AC polling district of Broadclyst ward will contain 10,983 electors, which would make it a suitable size for a County Division. The second division in this area could consist of the wards of Exe Valley and Clyst Valley, along with the remainder of Broadclyst Parish.

11. Similarly, I think the proposed division based on Exmouth should be split into two, for the same reasons. I do not know the area sufficiently well to be able to suggest appropriate boundaries; but in a sense, identifiable boundaries of community interest are of little importance, since Exmouth is essentially a single community. I think that having two manageable divisions of 10,000 electors is more important than looking for a boundary which does not exist. This could be fairly arbitrary.

Thank you very much for taking these comments into consideration.

Yours faithfully,

John Farrand-Rogers

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Gary Fisher

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

What is the justification for the 2 two-member divisions? If we already had 58 divisions and someone proposed the merging of 4 "singles" into 2 "doubles" what reasons would they give? I doubt there are any such justifications so I recommend these 2 are halved into "singles". In the unlikely even that there are some compelling reasons - do these apply in other divisions? My recommendation is therefore that we should have all single-member divisions.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5265 18/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul French

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: on committee of several local organisations

Comment text:

Devon is a large geographic county, with a low population, a large network of roads and an economically critical tourist industry with massive north/south and east/west variations. We have Parish, District, and County Councillors; plus MEP's and MP's with massive overlapping remits. What we need is less layers of Government and a move responsive, empowered "Local Region" administration ie do away with DCC all together and boost the powers of the Districts. This saves money and improves "localism" and the accountability of the Local Unity Authority.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5326 04/08/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Sophie Galleymore Bird Sent: 06 July 2015 11:49 To: reviews Subject: County division of Dartington & Totnes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

To whom it may concern,

With reference to the revision of the county boundaries and ward member boundaries that affect Dartington, how come the first anyone has heard of this has been a post on Facebook? Surely a decision that affects so many people should have had a proper public review.

How, when and where were efforts made to inform and engage the public? There has been nothing in the local paper, Dartington's parish magazine, nor any recent mailing from the local authority. Under the Localism act, the public affected should be properly contacted and a proper time period must be initiated to allow real public comment. Otherwise, all the work put in to the Neighbourhood Plans has been a waste of time.

I am no longer a resident of Dartington, but I am aware of the very strong feeling there that it is, and wants to remain, a separate community, with buffers of green belt to maintain its distinct character. Local infrastructure is not such that the two settlements can be happily conjoined, and lumping them together is detrimental to the long term future of both.

I understand this communication may arrive outside the consultation period but, as there hasn't been one worthy of the name, I ask that you include it in your deliberations, and extend the deadline so others can make their views known.

Yours sincerely,

Sophie Galleymore Bird

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: David Gollin Sent: 05 July 2015 10:10 To: reviews Subject: Re: Devon County Council Divisions Review

I am most concerned about the geographically very large proposed division called Whimple & Newbridges. Although this may appear to be a homogenous rural division, it covers three very distinct areas. First, the area between Exeter and Ottery St. Mary, which contains both the named localities. Second, the large area in the northern section, which lies within the Blackdown Hills AONB. Third, the South East section around Axminster. These areas do not have anything much in common and the very large area makes it hard for a single member to represent them all properly. The first area very much looks to Exeter as its focal point and has more in common with either Ottery St. Mary or with Honiton than with the remainder of the proposed division. The third area looks to Axminster as its focal point and has little in common with the rest of the area. Cutting them off from their urban centres does neither area a service. The largest part is the northern section that is in the Blackdown Hills AONB. Its inclusion with two other, unrelated areas, will further reduce the impact and ability of the AONB to defend the area. Unfortunately the small population means that it cannot be a division on its own but a variation of the proposed boundary to include one or two of the nearby small towns would produce a more coherent division. In any event, the words “Blackdown Hills” should be included in the name of the Division. Thank you. David Gollin

Sent from Windows Mail

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Christopher Grimshaw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

In wish to comment on the lgbce proposal for The Teigntons. I believe that the proposal as it stands to include our village and surrounding area with kingsteignton is flawed as it seeks to combine two areas that are incompatible in terms of geography, demographics, economies, development, social requirements, land use and transport. I will take those titles individually. Geography. Kingsteignton is an urban suburb of Newton Abbot. In recent years it has grown into a town in size, orientation and infrastructure. It is proposed to further develop this area now and in the future beyond any recognition of the village status that it once had. Bishopsteignton on the other hand is a village of just over 2,000 population surrounded by open countryside on three sides and the Teign estuary on the fourth. It is completely oriented towards the coastal corridor of the lower Teign and Teignmouth itself which is now able to offer all the facilities requires by the village. The area of Teignmouth, Bishopsteignton and Shaldon should be grouped together in order to manage their future with conservation and protection of their biodiversity being of major importance. Most importantly there is the physical divide of the A380, a dual carriageway that has created a natural barrier between the two areas and a barrier that serves as a break between the urban developed area and the coastal corridor of the lower Teign Valley. Demographics. Kingsteignton is an urban conurbation with a diverse cross section of population in terms of age and social requirements. People living in Kingsteignton will orientate themselves towards Newton Abbot and the town facilities. Bishopsteignton, Shaldon and Teignmouth have sizeable retired populations producing a contrasting demographic pattern with different needs and desires. The three areas work well together and stand in stark contrast to Kingsteignton and its surroundings. Economies. In Kingsteignton there is considerable industrial development with the Watts, Blake and Bearn quarries, large employers on the various industrial estates and a variety of edge of town retail providing further employment. Bishopsteignton on the other hand is a village with no industrial development, relying on tourism and agriculture for employment, with others in the community working in Exeter and Teignmouth. Shaldon is a largely retirement village but has an excellent selection of small local retail outlets, office users, cafes, restaurants and acts as a tourist destination. Teignmouth is a popular coastal resort orientated to tourism with an agricultural hinterland but offers good modern retail facilities both in town and edge of town which are more than capable of providing the needs of the area. Development. Kingsteignton is undergoing a vast amount of residential development to the west, north and east of the town. The houses are low to medium value and the increased population produces will put intolerable pressure on the local education, transport and health infrastructure. Bishopsteignton and Shaldon have very limited development plans and want to remain that way in order to protect their heritage, conservation areas, the undeveloped coastal area and biodiversity. Teignmouth has a certain amount of residential development able to provide for the immediate area and has just had two new supermarkets open, one in town and one edge of town. Social requirements. Kingsteignton requires the full social support of a town in terms of education, health, transport, infrastructure, retail and social outlets. New school s will be needed to cope with the added developments, the hospital will come under pressure as residential commercial and industrial units are created. Bishopsteignton and Shaldon will not require more facilities than are already provided in the area, save for minor improvements and developments. Above those the facilities provided by Teignmouth are adequate for the area. Land Use. Mostly covered under the demographic profile above.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5504 03/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

Kingsteignton is an urban area with considerable industrial and commercial development and is oriented towards the hub of Newton Abbot. Bishopsteignton and Shaldon are estuary and coastal villages with a sparsely populated agricultural hinterland oriented towards the coastal resort of Teignmouth. The land uses of the two areas are totally different as are their requirements. Transport. Transport infrastructure for the area is currently adequate (save for the erosion problems of the coastal railway). The urban area of kingsteignton will need increased bus facilities to serve the large amounts of residential development and increased train services to Exeter. Bishopsteignton, Shaldon and Teignmouth have adequate transport within the existing facilities and provided that they are not overloaded by the development of Kingsteignton and Newton Abbot, they will be able to cope. Conclusion. From the above analysis it can be seen that to place Bishopsteignton in the same boundary as Kingsteignton is inappropriate in terms of all the above headings with the exception of transport. The village Parish Council do not want it, neither do the parishioners. It is a mistake to put the two together that would lead to conflict on interests on all of the above criteria.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5504 03/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: reviews Sent: 18 May 2015 09:01 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Devon County Divisional Review

From: Roger Hallett Sent: 17 May 2015 09:39 To: reviews Subject: Devon County Divisional Review

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to comment on the current proposals for the Yealmpton Division. Previously Brixton and Sherford were going to be included in the Division and I had commented that the large development in Sherford would increase and thereby distort the population numbers displayed. The latest proposals exclude Brixton and Sherford from the Division boundaries - instead the boundary has been extended to include a large area to the north taking in what appears to be the edge of Dartmoor and increasing the population covered from 10,159 to 10,800.

The proposed Division is in my opinion physically too large to be looked after by one County Councillor. I suggest that the northernmost part consisting of Holne and Buckfastleigh Moor should naturally become part of the Ashburton Division - the sparse population there already identifies itself as part of the Dartmoor border community. If this were to be redrawn the Yealmpton Division would still cover some 10 Parish Councils, each of which meets once and sometimes twice a month; the County Councillor is expected to attend, listen to the Parish Councils' proposals and problems and also to report to the Parish Councils on the activities of the County Council at each of the Meetings. This is normally an evening function which takes place after and in addition to the daily tasks concerned with the County Council itself.

I hope you will take these comments into account.

Yours faithfully,

Roger Hallett

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Adele HEARNE

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

How about you leave the Teignmouth Letters in Teignmouth rather than them becoming a part of Dawlish... that manoeuvre is literally laughable! I can see the reasoning of evening out the number of people in each area, but that particular change is pointless as no one lives there, and stupid as obviously Teignmouth Letter's should be in Teignmouth!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5356 10/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Rosalind Hearn

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live at Bishopsteignton. The proposal for Bishopsteignton to be in the Teigntons area is not logical. It would be better if we were joined with Teignmouth and the Shaldon area. I always shop n Teignmouth and this is where the main doctor's surgery is, and the gymnasium. I feel a community connection with Teignmouth. I am passionate about preserving the estuary and think that Teignmouth has more in common with the other estuary villages. I do not think that the concerns of Kingsteignton are the same as rural Bishopsteignton and that there would be incompatibilities about the vision of the respective communities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5615 07/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Henderson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: South Molton Ward Redrawn Boundary

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: South Molton Ward Redrawn Boundary

Comment text:

The current proposed definition for the South Molton Ward does not in any way reflect the local community identity to which the local populace identify with. I've redrawn the map to reflect where the border should be. My exclusions to the East should fall under Tiverton while the inclusions to the North should fall under South Molton. In terms of population shift, the switch I defined should not materially affect the number of required voters within the ward. I feel pretty well placed to make this recommendation as I own the local newspaper here and have a good understanding of local allegiances. I'm happy to come and discuss this with you if necessary. The current proposals are to put it bluntly complete madness!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5294 27/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Jeremy Holdridge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Exmouth boundary should be Exmouth in geographic area or be Exmouth and Woodbury in name as it is currently suggested. As Exmouth is the 5th largest settlement in Devon the town has different requirements to rural areas, disadvantaging both in representation. Would it not make more sense to have Exmouth, Woodbury and Budleigh and the Otter Valley?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5299 28/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: David Hollingsworth

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

My Wife and I relocated to Bishopsteinton which we knew had an affinity with Teignmouth. Kingsteignton is an urban district of Newton Abbot and we do not see Bishopsteinton having any real connection with Kingsteignton or Newton Abbot. The new proposed Council Boundary changes are inappropriate and consequently we do not support the new proposal. Regards David & Lottie Hollingsworth :

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5446 01/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: brian Horseman

E-mail:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposal to create this bizarre grouping of 'The Taintons'. It would have no common parish council. It would straddle to A380, which is a recognized boundary between communities. This is a flawed proposal I trust will not proceed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5558 06/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Howard

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My initial comment concerns the ridiculous title for the ward St David's and Haven Banks. It would be stretching the cr debility of even the DCC to refer to St Leonard's and the city centre areas as St David's and Haven Banks. A different more descriptive name at least required eg "Central and Riverside"would be more apt

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5245 18/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Tim Hugill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have just viewed these maps for the first time, and am reporting an error in the labelling. Under "Devon Existing Divisions", the labels for "Newton St.Cyres and Sandford" and "Willand and Uffculme" would appear to be incorrect. Could you please review and correct this error and check for any other potential errors that would affect this review. Thank you. Tim Hugill

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5283 22/05/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: mark jefferys Sent: 06 July 2015 16:10 To: reviews Subject: Proposed boundary changes

Dear Sirs,

I write with reference to the revision of the county boundaries and ward member boundaries that affect Dartington.

As a lacal campaigner to retain Dartington’s rural character, I am shocked that I have been completely unaware of any public consultation process in the review. Please can you tell me how, when and where efforts were made to engage the public that would all be affected by such a review? I saw nothing in the local paper, our parish magazine, received nothing delivered to my door or in any recent mailing from the local authority. If you truly wish to engage the public‐ all council tax payers and voters‐ then how was this achieved?

Under the Localism act‐ and in the interests of transparency and consultation, I request that the public affected are properly contacted, engaged and letters sent door to door, consultation events held and articles included in the local paper, then a proper time period must be initiated again to allow real public comment. Otherwise democracy is severely lacking here. Please advise.

I have been informed of the changes, by chance, on the last day! Still I write in to strongly object to our distinctive scattered and rural parish being included with Totnes. Once done, urban criteria may be applied to planning decisions‐ a disastrous outcome that could lead to suburban sprawl from self contained market town to village through the green fields that separate both. Grouping parishes in the South Hams with very different landscapes, issues and needs will not be a sensible way forward since 1 ward member cannot represent such divergent issues.

I strongly request that this proposed change is properly readvertised, that a proper consultation period is started from now‐ and that any representations that you DO receive after tomorrow are included in your deliberations. Please advise whether this will be the case and I will keep my MP informed, Thank you.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Jefferys

1 Pascoe, Mark

From:

Sent: 03 July 2015 13:08 To: Anita Jennings Cc: reviews Subject: Re: electoral boundaries in and around Budleigh Salterton, E.Devon

Dear Ms Jennings

I have therefore forwarded your email to colleagues at the LGBCE at: [email protected]

Kind regards

On 3 July 2015 at 12:22, Anita Jennings wrote: I have lived in Budleigh Salterton for over 50 years. I am a Founder Member of the Otter Valley Association (its area of benefit covers Budleigh Salterton, East Budleigh, Otterton, Colaton Raleigh and Newton Poppleford) I am interested in local history and in population changes..

Exmouth has grown at a huge rate throughout the last 50 years. Extensive housing estates have been built along its Eastern and Northern borders, as a result of which the population has more than doubled from 20,000 to 47,000. The gap between Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton has shrunk to the point that the the two communities are nearly conjoint, separated by only a small strip of open countryside. The whole of Budleigh Saltertion lies within an Area Outstanding Natural Beauty, and so does the land between the parish boundaries of Budleigh Salterton and Exmouth. .

From the historical point of view, Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton have developed quite separately. Budleigh Salterton has more in common with East Budleigh and Otterton (Lower Otter Valley) than with Exmouth (bordering the River Exe). Budleigh Salterton started as a fishing village when East Budleigh and Otterton were established communities of the Lower Otter Valley. The whole Otter Valley South of the A3052 is designated as an AONB.

Budleigh Salterton has very little in common with the Exmouth suburb called Littleham. This is a fast growing community quite distinct from the River Otter. Exmouth and Budleigh Salterton are separated by the parish of Littleham, now part of the creeping urban sprawl of Exmouth. Littleham Cross has become a traffic bottleneck, about to get worsen when the next housing scheme (with planning consent) will be built.

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your priv acy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic downlo ad o f th i s p i c tu re fr o m th e In ternet. Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

www.avast.com

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Ben Jones

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

4: Estuary, cycle lane and A road.

3: What is the population of this area?

5: Why not name Eastern Exe Esturary Ward?

2: What is the population for this area?

1: Beach tourism

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Beach tourism

Annotation 2: What is the population for this area?

Annotation 3: What is the population of this area?

Annotation 4: Estuary, cycle lane and A road.

Annotation 5: Why not name Eastern Exe Esturary Ward?

Comment text:

This is in relation to the creation of Exmouth Ward and Budleigh costal ward. I would first like to question the number of people that live in both wards as the Exmouth ward seems incredibly large compared to Budleigh Costal. Secondly Exmouth ward does not just contain Exmouth but a number of rural villages, it would therefore make more sense to call the Exmouth ward either "Exmouth and rural ward" due to the number of villages or the "East Estuary Ward"/ "Exe Estuary Ward" (or something inbetween) as a large proportion of the ward runs along the River Exe estuary. Much like how Budleigh coastal ward is a large coastal ward that runs along the Jurassic coast. In this case why was the Budleigh ward not called the Eastern Jurassic Coast ward due to the historical relevance of its positioning on the Jurassic Coast and its geographical and political position with East Devon? Whilst I am aware of the need for councillors to represent similar numbers of people and for the number of councillors to be decreased at the same time. I still find it extraordinary that this is being done whilst the population of Devon is growing. How can it be justified that a councillor can represent half of Exmouth and rural villages? Or that a councillor will fairly represent all within that area when it would require half an hour roughly to go from end to end. I would also question the number of people in this area. As shown below are statistics of this taken from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/your-community/exmouth/ The population of the Exmouth Devon Town area for 2009 is 47950. In the last 10 years, the population has increased by 5.41%. Whilst this data is not from 2015 it can only be assumed that the population of Exmouth has grown which leaves the question as to how only 2 representatives can represent the area when there are more than 50,000 people (including Budleigh) + the rural areas included in Exmouth Ward. For this reason why do we not have more representation in this area? Yet by car this does mean that the councillor can be more responsible for dealing with issues relating to the congestion caused by traffic from Exmouth heading towards the Clyst St Mary roundabout during commute times. But an advantage of the Exmouth ward is that it no longer cuts through Woodbury Parish meaning that the entire ward can now be represented by one councillor. However in Exmouth it does cut through the old boundary of Exmouth Town and Littleham which was a boundary and I do wonder how putting Exmouth Littleham and Budleigh together will affect the ward as well as jettisoning parts of the original Budleigh Ward into Otter Valley. Other than this the effort to modernise boundaries does link up very well with roads "Exmouth to Budleigh" and "Exmouth to Exeter". The same applies to cycle paths as well, but whether this will have any effect on traffic flow remains to be seen. Finally the separation of these areas also serves business and tourism because the Exmouth ward runs along the Exe estuary and the Budleigh coastal ward runs along the coast both of which for individual reasons are accredited sites for either wildlife or tourism attraction. Please see document attached for response.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5262 18/05/2015 Response to county consultation

Secondly Exmouth ward does not just contain Exmouth but a number of rural villages, it would therefore make more sense to call the Exmouth ward either "Exmouth and rural ward" due to the number of villages or the "East Estuary Ward"/ "Exe Estuary Ward" (or something inbetween) as a large proportion of the ward runs along the River Exe estuary. Much like how Budleigh coastal ward is a large coastal ward that runs along the Jurassic coast. In this case why was the Budleigh ward not called the Eastern Jurassic Coast ward due to the historical relevance of its positioning on the Jurassic Coast and its geographical and political position with East Devon?

Whilst I am aware of the need for councillors to represent similar numbers of people and for the number of councillors to be decreased at the same time. I still find it extraordinary that this is being done whilst the population of Devon is growing. How can it be justified that a councillor can represent half of Exmouth and rural villages? Or that a councillor will fairly represent all within that area when it would require half an hour roughly to go from end to end. I would also question the number of people in this area. As shown below are statistics of this taken from: http://www.devon.gov.uk/your-community/exmouth/

The population of the Exmouth Devon Town area for 2009 is 47950.

In the last 10 years, the population has increased by 5.41%.

Whilst this data is not from 2015 it can only be assumed that the population of Exmouth has grown which leaves the question as to how only 2 representatives can represent the area when there are more than 50,000 people (including Budleigh) + the rural areas included in Exmouth Ward. For this reason why do we not have more representation in this area?

Yet by car this does mean that the councillor can be more responsible for dealing with issues relating to the congestion caused by traffic from Exmouth heading towards the Clyst St Mary roundabout during commute times.

But an advantage of the Exmouth ward is that it no longer cuts through Woodbury Parish meaning that the entire ward can now be represented by one councillor. However in Exmouth it does cut through the old boundary of Exmouth Town and Littleham which was a boundary and I do wonder how putting Exmouth Littleham and Budleigh together will affect the ward as well as jettisoning parts of the original Budleigh Ward into Otter Valley. Other than this the effort to modernise boundaries does link up very well with roads "Exmouth to Budleigh" and "Exmouth to Exeter". The same applies to cycle paths as well, but whether this will have any effect on traffic flow remains to be seen. Finally the separation of these areas also serves business and tourism because the Exmouth ward runs along the Exe estuary and the Budleigh coastal ward runs along the coast both of which for individual reasons are accredited sites for either wildlife or tourism attraction. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: kath jones

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Bishopsteigton should stay in the boundary with teignmouth and shaldon within the teign estuary, to change to the boundary with kingsteignton and newton abbot is a dangerous idea. We need to make sure Bishoppsteignton is looked after we do not want extra development along the teign estuary.This is a craft idea whoever thought it up.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5573 06/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Karin Home Sent: 06 July 2015 22:03 To: reviews Subject: Boundary changes - strongly object to Dartington becoming Totnes

Dear staff dealing with boundary changes > > I have only just discovered the proposed boundary changes. I live in Dartington and have had absolutely no notice of consultation whatsoever. I read the local paper and have not seen any notification of the consultation. I am active in the village and have not heard about this from anyone or seen any notices on Parish Council, village hall or other public notice boards. I would like details of the consultation process. > > I strongly object to merging Dartington with Totnes. We are a small rural village and I chose to live here for exactly that reason. I used to live in Totnes and enjoy visiting; if I wanted to live there I would. I do not want to live there. Dartington has village character in terms of architecture, lay out, size and activities. We have a thriving village community with one dlocal pub an a two village shops. We are developing a wonderful neighbourhood plan via wide ranging, diverse and inclusive consultation, it does not include merging with Totnes. I chose Dartington Village for a particular way of life which will be negatively impacted by any merging of boundaries > > Please register my objection and supply consultation information, > > With best wishes > Karin > Karin Jordan

1 FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Until 12-i-15 the forecast electorates were provisional. Finalised quantities remain the same in 7-of-8 districts except within city of Exeter: its forecast electorates were revised, shrinkage of 6-dozen electors, and revised larger electoral forecast in extant Topsham ward. A revised schedule is offered below ...

NAME of DISTRICT 2014 2020 CLLR VARIANCE ======

DEVON 590 645 625 039 60 0% (0.00)

------

EAST DEVON district 104 489 112 296 11 -2%(212%)

TEIGNBRIDGE district 102 928 104 730 10 1%(0525%)

SOUTH HAMS district 68 805 71 937 7 -1%(1.36%)

WEST DEVON 43 684 44 667 4 7%(7184%)

TORRIDGE district 51 508 53 586 5 3%(2868%)

NORTH DEVON district 76 216 81 904 8 -2%(174%)

MID-DEVON district 60 534 64 448 6 3%(3101%)

EXETER, city of 90 481 91 470 9 -2%(24%)

------

In parished Devon County, without Exeter, the-Commission’s Draft is generally welcome: 58-EDs. Three more 2-members divisions (ED) needed, suggestions to follow: 55-EDs. And alternative names with real evidence are to be suggested.

______1 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Janus the classical Roman god / deity looked both ways: to the previous & the future. . A clearer couple of FER are needed for the city-of-Exeter and Devon County’s Exeter district envelope: their Final recommendations need to be co-ordinate so as to allow convenient with effective local government, by both ‘civic centre’ and the major political parties in Exeter District.

My objection is to the fact that ‘the City wide scheme’ was made prior to the choice of district warding in Exeter, for future electoral arrangements. Last January the FER’s commissioner, Dr Peter Knight briefed the City’s members & officers: please study ERO’s letter ...

FER 2015 Exeter district (JS) City's corporate Manager / ERO (returning officer) letter 21-i-15 https://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/24470/ ExeterCC-Exeter-2015-01-21-CouncilSize_Redacted.pdf

" During the briefing, Dr [P] Knight made reference to the fact that there is presumption towards [3-member wards], but that circumstances on the ground may suit mixed approach to ward representation, provided the overall number of councillors was a derivative of 39 [or 42]. Several Councillors at the Council meeting made reference to this, ... we shall be considering this ... when drawing-up Council's suggested ... boundaries ... "

A couple of by-elections for county and district vacancy could be an administrative nightmare for the-City’s ERC: electors having to visit two (2) polling places (pp) so as to make their shire & district ballots. PPs for division & ward may be in separate locations.

If the city had whit, able to comprehend the Commissioner’s kind presentation: a mixed arrangement of dual & triple member wards, as suggested by two (2) residents, could have been proposed / suggested by city’s council. Now to blend 9-EDs with 13-wards: a struggle to balance identity respect & make convenient with effective local government.

______2 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

DRAFT PROPOSAL Welcome the adoption of ‘the county wide submission’ for a score of divisions (EDs) in southern Devon.

In South Hams district APPROVE the Draft’s Totnes_&_Dartington, Ivybridge, and Dartmouth & Maldon ED.

In Teignbridge district APPROVE the Draft’s The Teigntons, Teignhead & Kerswell, Exminster & Haldon, Chudleigh & Teign Valley, and bED. But, object to the name ‘Bovey Rural’ ‘cause it is a lazy- name: Bovey is ‘near-the-Moor’ – several of its parishes use the suffix ‘-in-the-Moor’ in their own name.

In East Devon APPROVE the Draft’s Axminster, Sidmouth, Seaton & Colyton, Otter Valley, and Feniton & Honiton. Also, APPROVE the Draft’s 2-councillor BroadClyst ED, but, object to the proposed names lack of foreward thinking. With respect, recently there was created Cranbrook CP, its new town council started recently, in April 2015. Six parishes contain the noun ‘Clyst’; the tributary of the Exe that meets in the Exe Estuary, south of Topsham. Suggest re-visit the name ‘Clyst Cranbrook’ or ‘Cranbrook’: soon the new township would have grown to be a town.

In West Devon welcome draft’s minimalism: respects CPs.

NAMES The Draft invites suggestions of names: In rural divisions (EDs) double-barreled names can assist comprehension of large EDs eg Okehampton Rural.

Alternative names: Wimple & Blackhills ED, an AONB; Lynton & North Molton ED, not CMR – significant towns; Taw Valley ED – please re-visit – housing growth area; Bovey-near-the-Moor, see above; Holsworthy & Walden ED – ward and river; Torrington & Winkleigh (Tor Valley) ED; Okehampton & Lifton ED, the A38 corridor ver Cornwall; Lydford & Yelverton ED, Lydford retained in ED’s revision.

______3 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

OBJECTION – NEED DUAL DIVISIONs

In South Hams the county-wide proposal suggested a two (2) member Kingsbridge Estuary ED. The Draft’s Kingsbridge ED and Salcombe ED have poor variance, whilst, their intra area line divides wards: +9% and -&% respectively.

Suggest re-visit Kingsbridge Estuary ED.

In Mid-Devon the county-wide proposal suggested a two (2) member Tiverton ED. The Draft’s two ED have variances of 7% and -1%: combination would make good electoral equality.

Suggest re-visit tiverton ED.

DUAL MEMBER DIVISIONs Again welcome the Draft’s BroadClyst ED: a prime example that justifies a multi-member division.

EXETER My counter proposal for nine divisions follows: it is to be substantiated by an XLS with ‘street count’ schedule.

______4 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

EXETER 10,163.34 average/cllr ======City of EXETER 90 481 91 470 9 -2%(24%) ======The Commission had the choice between two (2) alternative proposals: a simple combining of extant divisions (EDs) or a radical single member ‘city-wide scheme’ for the EDs. Draft recommendation’s adoption of ‘city-wide scheme’ is too too radical: suggest revise the current arrangements.

Name of ED 2014 2020 CLLR variance ======WEST 21,687 20 779 2 -0% * OBJECTION: city-wide schemes should respect identity. * Minor revisions can improve variances eg Dunsford Rd. * respect identity: retain/reuse Cowick/St-Thomas bound; omit ‘Haven Banks’: effective & convenient government. ===

Alphington St Thomas 10,405 9836 1 -6%(5.8%) [- AC-pt] The extant Alphington & Cowick ED is 7%: INSERT extant St Thomas ward: “… pt of city-wide scheme …”;

OMIT extant Cowick ward into Exwick & Redhills ED; OMIT ‘AB’ (Haven Banks) into Priory St Leonard ED; and OMIT 280-elector from ‘RA’ up into Exwick ward, see below.

* minor bound revisions to clarify St Thomas’ identity: Okehampton Rd (Street) is clearer bound along its c/l. * electoral equality could revise; so to assist West’s effective & convenient local government.

The names have continuous usage since 1970s, before 1985: Accept draft name Alphington St Thomas ED. ===

______5 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Exwick & Redhills 11,284 10,943 1 5%(5.01%) [D+RA-pt] The extant Exwick & St Thomas ED is 7%: INSERT extant Cowick from extant Alphington & Cowick ED. INSERT 280-electors from St Thomas’s ‘RA’ polling district; OMIT St Thomas ward into Alphington & St Thomas ED;

* Okehampton Road is clearer boundary along its centre: minor bound revision to clarify St Thomas’s identity. * minor bound revision to improve electoral equality: * OMIT south of B3212 (Dunsford Rd) into Alphington ward could assist to improve electoral equality.

The names have continuous usage since 1970s, before 1985: suggest revised name Exwick & Redhills ED. ======(?) OMIT 1220-electors from ‘BB’ into Alphington ward / ED. The river Exe, along waterway centre making a clear easily identifiable bound between its banks, within Exeter: note recent FER for Exeter’s Haven Banks inc Salmon Pool bridge.

An alternative that would make better convenient local government.

Alphington & St Thomas goXLS 11,056 1 6%(612%) [- AC-pt] INSERT 1220-electors from ‘BB’ into Alphington ward / ED. OMIMISSIONs - as above. * Dunsford Rd to be clear ward / ED bound, see below: as in recent Draft for FER 2015 Exeter.

Exwick & Redhills goXLS 9723 1 -7%(6.67%) [D+RA-pt] The extant Exwick & St Thomas ED is 7%: INSERT – as above. OMIT 1220-electors from ‘BB’ into Alphington ward / ED. * B3212 is clearer boundary along its centre: * OMIT south of B3212 (Dunsford Rd) into Alphington ward could assist to improve electoral equality.

______6 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Name of ED 2014 2020 CLLR variance ======EAST-&-SOUTH --,--- 32,021 3.10 2%

* OBJECTION: city-wide schemes should respect identity. * Population’s growth eg in ‘SC’, ‘QA’, ‘LB’ and ‘TD’. * Revision would improve East & South’s variances. * ADD ‘Haven Banks’: effective & convenient government. * Three EDs with continuous usage since, 2000 &, 1983: continuity allows effective & convenient government. === * east of the Exe Bridge N, A3015, B3212, & A3015 make a clearly identifiable bound between South and Central. ===

Topsham St Loye goXLS 10,550 1 1%(1.3%) [SA,SC] The extant Topsham & St Loye’s ED is 12%: * approved housing forecast make need to omit electors: choice is either ‘SB’ Ludwell or ‘QC’ Broadfields. INSERT – not applicable - OMIT 1079-electors from ‘QC’ into Whipton … ED, see below.

* minor bound revision to clarify division’s identity: Quarry Ln is clear boundary along its centre. * A3015 (Honiton Rd) historic clear northern bound. * a major planned growth forecast in ‘SC’, near Topsham: Newcourt’s identity will be linked by rail to Topsham. * Negative variance needed to protect town’s identity.

The name has continuous usage since 1974: suggest retain extant name Topsham St loye ED. ===

______7 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Priory St Leonard goXLS 11,134 1 7%(6.9%) [L+EA-pt] The extant Priory & St Leonard ED is 3%: INSERT ‘AB’ (Haven Banks) from extant Alphington ward; and INSERT ‘MA’ (Friar’s Green) south of A3015 (Western Way); OMIT 1664-electors from ‘LC’ into Whipton Heavitree ED.

* PER 1999 combined Lower Wear with Wonford: Lower Wear (LA) includes both sides of Topsham Road. Topsham Rd / Burnthouse Lane is extant Priory ward’s spine. Anecdotal: Families move between Wonford & Lower Wear. * Since 2000: convenient and effective local government.

* St.Leonard’s name has continuous usage since 1970s.

* Until 2000 Western Way was St Leon’s northern bound: this inner distribution route makes a clear perimeter; A3015 (Holloway St / Topsham Rd) is St Leon’s spine.

The name has continuous usage since 2005: suggest retain extant name Priory St Leonard ED. ======

Whipton & Heavitree goXLS 10 337 1 -1%(0.7%) [T+EA-pt] The extant Whipton & Heavitree ED is 1%: INSERT 1079-electors from ‘QC-n’ of north of Quarry Ln; INSERT 1664-electors from ‘LC-n’ in extant Priory ward; OMIT 1197-electors from ‘EB-sw’ PD, and 1730-electors from ‘EA-nw’ into Newtown & Polsloe ED.

* A3015 (Honiton Rd) historic clear south bound; and ‘QC-n’ Quarry Ln is clear boundary along its centre. * ‘LC-n’: Bovemoor Ln, …, Wonford St, …, & Ludwell Ln.

* historic ED: effective convenient local government.

The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1985: suggest retain extant name Whipton heavitree ED. ===

______8 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

======

______9 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Name of ED 2014 2020 CLLR variance ======CENTRAL_&_North 38,670 -7%

CENTRAL goXLS 19,403 2 -7%

* Population’s forecast growth in ‘MB+MC’, and ‘NB’ PDs. * Minor revision improves Central’s average variances. ===

St David & St James ED goXLS 9601 1 -8(7.8%) [MB,MC+NB] The extant St David’s & St James ED is -12%: INSERT ‘GC’ (Newtown) from Newton_&_Polsloe ED; and INSERT 138-electors from ‘GA’ (Newtown) w of Western Way.

* The main GWR (rail) station is St David’s. * until 2000 western Way was division’s southern bound.

The name St David’s has continuous usage since 1970s: Suggest retain historic name St David’s & St James ED. ===

Newtown Polsloe ED goXLS 9802 1 -6(5.89%) [G,NA] The extant Newtown & Polsloe is -25%: INSERT 1197-electors from ‘EB-w’ pd, and INSERT 1730-electors from ‘EA-nw’ of extant Heavitree ward. OMIT ‘GC’, & 138-electors form ‘GA’ into SS David_&_James.

* Population’s forecast growth in ‘GA’ PD. * Forecast growth in ‘KC’ PD: an Edwardian suburb. * Combining with Heavitree is good electoral equality: and would allow effective & convenient government.

The name Polsloe has usage since 1970s, before 1985: suggest retain extant name to be Newtown & Polsloe ED. ======.

______10 Peter Kingswood FER 2014 DEVON COUNTY … an administrative shire

Draft recommendations, my response

Name of ED 2015 2021 CLLR variance ======NORTH goXLS 19,267 2 -7%

* Population’s forecast growth: ‘JC’, ‘JD’ and ‘JB’ PDs. * Minor revision improves North’s average variances. === Pennsylvania & Mincinglake goXLS 9,695 1 -7%(6.94%) [C+HB,HA-pt] The extant Duryard & Pennsylvania ED is -16% INSERT: 89-electors from Mincinglake ‘FA-w’ pd; and INSERT: 220-electors from Mincinglake ‘FC-s’ pd; OMIT – not applicable, below.

* University and sub-urbs north beyond Hoopern Valley. Prince of Wales Road is a clear identifiable line . * minor bound revision to clarify division’s identity: Mile Ln, east of Mincinglake Park, is clear boundary. * Consolidated ward: effective & convenient government.

Duryard’s usage as a ward-name is recent: since AD-MM only. The name Pennsylvania has usage since 1970s, before 1985: suggest revised name to be Pennsylvania & Mincinglake ED. ===

Pinhoe & Beacon Heath goXLS 9,572 1 -8%(8.12%) [FC-pt+J] The extant Pinhoe & Mincinglake ED is 1%, in 2020: INSERT: – not applicable, see above. OMIT: 89-electors from ‘FA-w’ east of Mincinglake Pk; and OMIT: 859-electors from Min’lake ‘FC-s’ into Pennsylvania.

* minor bound revisions along Mile Ln & Beacon Ln. * Approved housing development in ‘JC’ estate forecast. Note: the-City’s own submission shows Pinhoe House in Monkerton, beyond Hill Barton Rd, to be a piece of their new Pinhoe ward. * Pin Brook flows between Beacon Heath & Beacon Heath. * Pinhoe’s growth: effective & convenient government.

The name, Pinhoe, has continuous usage since 1974: suggest revise extant name Pinhoe & Beacon Heath ED. ======

______11 Peter Kingswood

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Ryan Knight

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

To whom it may concern, The residents of buckerell currently belong to the buckerell parish and the Ottery St Mary rural. Under your proposals our parish would be removed and we would become part of 'feniton and honiton'. The 200 or so residents of buckerell associate and identify with Ottery St Mary, as well as most of us use the Kings School and Coleridge Medical Centre (both in Ottery St Mary). I am strongly against buckerell village becoming part of honiton. Yours faithfully Ryan Knight

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5338 08/06/2015 Local Government Boundary Commission Consultation on draft recommendations for Devon County Council

Dear Sir/Madam,

I consider this review a waste of money and an attack on democracy.

The proposed reduction from 62 to 60 councillors will lead to larger wards, meaning councillors will have to travel further and attempt to fit additional parishes into an already busy schedule. Any savings made will be more than offset by additional expenditure, though this may well be from a different budget. Whilst the principle of basing wards on population may well be feasible in urban areas, in rural areas such as Devon, geography and travel infrastructure would be a far better principle on which to base any changes.

Given the severe cuts made to many essential services, with more to come, I deeply resent scarce resources allocated to this review.

Helen Kummer

5.7.2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Layton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am concerned at the draft proposals affecting the city of Exeter and in particular the impact on the existing Devon division of St Davids and St James. The present constituency combines the two Devon wards (St Davids and St James) both of which represent a similar demographic and, situated as they are between the city centre and the campus of the University of Exeter, share interests in common. The proposal to split the constituency between the two new divisions of St Sidwells & Newtown and Duryard & Pennsylvania appears to have no regard for the sense of identity fostered and engendered by each of the respective communities through the St Davids Neighbourhood Partnership and the St James Forum. In the case of St James the ward is divided by an arbitrary boundary (Pennsylvania Road) which demarcates its western half to Duryard & Pennsylvania and its eastern half to St Sidwells & Newtown. In effect the current ward is decimated which is dispiriting for all those who have worked so hard to create its identity since the last electoral review in 2001 and is in complete disregard of the unique nature of St James, its Forum and Neighbourhood Plan. So much for localism and the empowerment of our local community! I am strongly opposed to any arrangement which threatens the integrity and cohesion of St James and would urge the retention of the ward in its entirety within any new proposed electoral division. Ideally this would be, as present, combined with St Davids as I believe the status quo would deliver electoral equality for voters without the need to change the existing division.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5470 01/07/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Mary Light Sent: 09 July 2015 22:30 To: reviews Subject: dartington

Dear Sirs, I am a retired nurse living in Dartington, Devon. I am shocked to discover that there is a plan to revise ward member boundaries and group together our village of Dartington with the town of Totnes. It is puzzling that there has been a complete absence of information about this and no consultation involving us, the public. I am adding my voice to the voices of others who are asking for due attention to be paid to the Localism Act. The public who are affected should be properly contacted, engaged and letters sent, consultation events held and articles included in the local paper. Then a proper time period must be initiated again to allow real public comment. Otherwise democracy is severely lacking here. I strongly object to our distinctive scattered and rural parish being included with Totnes. Once done, urban criteria may be applied to planning decisions - a disastrous outcome that could lead to suburban sprawl from self contained market town to village through the green fields that separate both. Grouping parishes in the South Hams with very different landscapes, issues and needs will not be a sensible way forward since one ward member cannot represent such divergent issues. I request that this proposed change is properly re-advertised, that a proper consultation period is started from now - and that any representations that you receive are included in your deliberations. Yours sincerely Mary Light

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Rainbow-Leaf Lovejoy Sent: 10 July 2015 17:47 To: reviews; Bowden, Tim; Fuller, Heather; Bowell, Marcus Subject: Devon County electoral review draft divisions

Dear Boundary/Electoral Review Commission,

Thank you for consulting on the proposed changes to Devon's electoral divisions, and for providing an interactive map by which to visualise and understand interrelations among parishes, wards, draft divisions, and existing divisions, and propose and outline alternative divisions if desired. Thank you also for extending the deadline in the light of difficulties with accessing and using the map and other online resources for the consultation.

This response is intended to comment on rather than criticise aspects of the draft divisions and contribute to recognition of some geological and geographical features that might be seen as salient in current social and political developments including electoral review, especially given anticipated climate change and its expected impacts, in particular flooding.

While several locally expressed concerns regarding aspects of this electoral review are raised for consideration by lgbce, no alternative draft divisions are proposed, as the proposed draft divisions seem to offer potential improvements over the existing divisions in regard to the implementation of the various statutory criteria. This email is intended as a contribution to comprehensive consideration of issues and concerns regarding the current process of Devon's electoral review.

A recent South Devon AONB annual open meeting showcased the National Trust's Operation Neptune conservation of coastlines and estuaries, along with community projects developing extensive community identities within settlements along catchment basins and valley systems and physical and social resilience for their properties and products. Such considerations might inform electoral representation and democratic governance, including designation of divisions.

A historic source and definer of identity among Devon communities has been the rivers that run from Dartmoor to the sea, with their associated catchment basins and valley systems. The draft divisions seem to reflect the river-landscape aspect, in seeming to extend rather more north-to- south than do the existing divisions.

Draft divisions, besides meeting the criteria of electoral equality, and effective and convenient geographical connectivity, should reflect community identity, including geographical identity, both pysical and social. Some existing divisions are seen as having a distinctive community identity, and as they also meet the two other criteria have been left unchanged.

Given the various statutory criteria constraining the geographical and political arrangements within which lgbce must work, the draft divisions seem to propose reasonable and sensible changes in geographical extent and community inclusion, which in some cases may facilitate representation by reducing divisions' geographical size, as for instance the proposed Dartmouth and Marldon and Totnes and Dartington divisions, that with an eastwards extension of Yealmpton take in and take over the existing South Brent and Dartington division.

There is however a pervasive perception that this review is motivated mostly or entirely by the need or desire to reduce Devon County Councillor numbers, albeit by only 2, from 62 to 60. This view has been widely expressed locally, and coupled with difficulties in viewing and using the

1 map, has informed and inclined some responses to be directed solely towards the inference that the review exercise wastes time, effort and money for little gain, which seems unfortunate.

Some concerns have been mentioned over the sheer geographical extent of some divisions in relation to the effort required for road travel within them. The length of the new Yealmpton division in relation to the limited moorland and rural roads in parts of it may be a case in point.

Proposal and implementation of different divisions is likely to impact community identities that may have existed or been formed among constituent parishes and/or wards in previous divisions, especially after a similar effect of recent adoption of new wards. Concerns have been raised over generic loss of existing community identities at ward and division levels, given reorganisation that is reported to have been motivated mainly by the desire to cut County Councillor numbers by 2.

Concerns have been expressed that the changes to existing South Brent and Dartington, Dartmouth and Kingswear, and Totnes Rural, to form a larger or rather longer Yealmpton incorporating Totnes Rural and the west of South Brent and Dartington, may be unlikely to meet any requirement other than that to produce electoral equality, as existing community identity and representative effectiveness of divisions has been asserted as likely to be adversely impacted by abolition of their existing divisions and loss of 'their' County Councillor.

Concerns have also been voiced locally by councillors and ordinary community members as to whether any common community identity exists or might emerge in regard to both the new East Dart ward and the draft division of Dartmouth and Marldon, as the inclusion of part of West Dart ward has seemed to some to orient Dartmouth and Marldon towards Dart River and Dartmouth and Kingswear towns, potentially disenfranchising rural non-riverine non-riparian settlements and their communities.

For example Stoke Gabriel parish is presently in South Brent and Dartington division, extending east and west around Totnes, with other inland communities both upriver, along both Dart and Avon rivers, and away from rivers, so potentially sharing rural inland and/or upriver community concerns, whereas the new north-to-south divisions run largely along and around rivers and their associated valley systems and catchment basins, potentially requiring a change of shared identity.

For some commentators, the main issues for this consultation are a) whether the proposed divisions do now or can ever reflect or foster a coherent community identity, and b) whether large divisions reformed or reorganised in order to reduce the number of county councillors by 2, so from 62 to 60, justify either the cost of the review, drafting new divisions, and public consultation, or any eventual changes.

It would have been very helpful to this consultation to know specific factors and generic rationales influencing the drafting of the proposed new divisions, so that the review would be seen as more than just 'a numbers game' and the consultation could have raised and addressed issues and concerns relevant to those specific factors and generic rationales, or could have whole-heartedly endorsed them. The identification of particular factors seen as contributing to currently existing or potential future development of community identity (such as are mentioned for Bickleigh and Wembury) and/or convenient representive effectiveness would show that local aspects and implementations of statutory criteria had been specifically considered in drafting electoral divisions. Such an account seems important for representativeness and representation.

As already stated, these comments are sent as a contribution to lgbce's considerations during this electoral review.

Thank you for your consideration.

2 Leaf Lovejoy

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

Devon County

Personal Details:

Name: Leaf Lovejoy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Boundary/Electoral Review Commission, Thank you for consulting on the proposed changes, and for providing an interactive map. However, at some crucial scales of zoom inspection this map drops ward labels, which has made it difficult to impossible to understand the full picture of proposed change. At this scale (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/add/informed-representation/4141? bbox=247433.5,78085,302883.5,108085) neither East Dart nor Marldon and Littlehempston Wards' names are shown. This makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the overall changes to often large existing divisions proposed by draft divisions, as adequate zoomed-out overview as well as zoomed-in detailed scrutiny both of proposed new divisions, and of present wards and existing divisions, are needed. The main issues for this consultation are whether the proposed divisions do or can have a coherent community identity, and whether large divisions reformed or reorganised in order to reduce the number of county councillors by 2 can justify either the cost of consultation, or the changes. The changes to existing South Brent and Dartington, Dartmouth and Kingswear, and Totnes Rural to form a larger or rather longer Yealmpton incorporating Totnes Rural and the west of South Brent and Dartington seem unlikely to meet any requirement other than that to produce electoral equality. Given the three statutory criteria within which lgbce must work, the draft divisions would seem at first glance to propose statutorily reasonable and apparently sensible changes in extent and inclusion, which in some cases may facilitate representation by reducing divisions' geographical size, as for instance with the proposed Dartmouth and Marldon division. However concerns have been mentioned over the sheer geographical extent of some divisions in relation to the effort required for road travel within them. The length of the new Yealmpton division in relation to the sorts of moorland and rural roads available may be a case in point. Previously much of the northern part of what is proposed to be Yealmpton was in a similarly extensive divison spreading east-west (South Brent and Dartington, which also included Stoke Gabriel and some of the East Dart ward). Concerns have also been voiced locally by councillors and ordinary community members as to whether any common community identity exists or might emerge in regard to both the new East Dart ward and the draft division of Dartmouth and Marldon, as the inclusion of part of West Dart ward has seemed to orient Dartmouth and Marldon towards the Dart River and Dartmouth and Kingswear towns, potentially disenfranchising rural non-riverine non-riparian settlements. The map has just vanished entirely. Not being sure whether any comments here will upload, will copy and past into an email. At this point my computer froze and would not restart. It is now after midnight so this will probably not upload. But will try just in case.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5651 07/07/2015