sign in sign up
<<
Home , Abbots Bickington, Awliscombe, Bittadon, Broadhempston, Buckland Filleigh, Clannaborough

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for County Council

Electoral review

May 2015

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for :

Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2015

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 2

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 4

Submissions received 4 Electorate figures 5 Council size 5 Division patterns 5 Detailed divisions 6 District 7 City 10 District 13 District 15 District 18 District 20 23 Borough 25 Conclusions 27 Parish electoral arrangements 27

3 Have your say 29

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for Devon County 31 Council

B Submissions received 38

C Glossary and abbreviations 40

Summary

Who we are

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

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

Electoral review

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

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

Why Devon?

We are conducting an electoral review of as the Council currently has high levels of electoral inequality where some councillors represent many more or many fewer voters than others. This means that the value of each vote in county council elections varies depending on where you live in Devon. Overall, 39% of divisions currently have a variance of greater than 10%.

Our proposals for Devon

Devon County Council currently has 62 councillors. Based on the evidence we received during previous phases of the review, we consider that a decrease in council size by two to 60 members will ensure the Council can discharge its roles and responsibilities effectively.

Electoral arrangements

Our draft recommendations propose that Devon County Council’s 60 councillors should represent 56 single-member divisions and two two-member divisions. None of our proposed 58 divisions would have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for Devon by 2020.

You have until 6 July 2015 to have your say on the recommendations. See page 29 for how to have your say.

1

1 Introduction

1 This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review Devon County Council’s electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the county.

What is an electoral review?

2 Our three main considerations in conducting an electoral review are set out in legislation1 and are to:

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

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

Consultation

4 We wrote to the Council inviting the submission of proposals on council size. We then held a period of consultation on division patterns for the county. The submissions received during our consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 21 October 2014 Provisional decision on council size 28 October 2014 Division pattern consultation 12 May 2015 Draft recommendations consultation 7 July 2015 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations 29 September 2015 Publication of final recommendations

How will the recommendations affect you?

5 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish council ward you vote in. Your division name may also change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change as a result of our recommendations.

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

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

6 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Alison Lowton Sir Tony Redmond Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Jolyon Jackson CBE

3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

7 Legislation2 states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors3 in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward at the end of the review.

8 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral fairness is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum.

9 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors as shown on the table below.

2014 2020 Electorate of Devon 598,645 625,039 County Number of councillors 60 60 Average number of 9,977 10,417 electors per councillor

10 Under our draft recommendations, none of our proposed divisions will have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for the county by 2020. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness for Devon.

11 Additionally, in circumstances where we propose to divide a parish between district wards or county divisions, we are required to divide it into parish wards so that each parish ward is wholly contained within a single district ward or county division. We cannot make amendments to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review.

12 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of Devon County Council or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. There is no evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

13 See Appendix B for details of submissions received. All submissions may be inspected at our offices and can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 4

Electorate figures

14 As prescribed in the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, the Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2020, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2015. These forecasts were broken down to polling district levels and projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 4.4% to 2020. The highest proportion of this growth across the county is expected in the district of East Devon due to the new development of Cranbrook.

15 During our consultation on division arrangements we received several queries from members of the public regarding the electorate forecasts. In each instance we raised these queries with Devon County Council and, accordingly, made some changes to the projections for Exeter City and South Hams District.

16 Having considered the information provided by the Council, we are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time and these figures form the basis of our draft recommendations.

Council size

17 Devon County Council currently has a council size of 62 members. The County Council submitted a proposal to decrease the council size from 62 to 60. We carefully considered the representation received. We consider that the Council’s submission proposing a council of 60 is supported by persuasive evidence and we are content that the Council has sufficiently demonstrated that the authority can operate efficiently and effectively under this council size and ensure effective representation of local residents. We therefore invited proposals for division arrangements based on a council size of 60.

18 We received two submissions concerning council size in response to consultation on division patterns, both of which supported a reduction in council size to 60. We received no other comments. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a council size of 60 elected members.

19 A council size of 60 provides the following allocation between the districts in the county:

 East Devon – 11 councillors  Exeter – nine councillors  Mid Devon – six councillors  North Devon – eight councillors  South Hams – seven councillors  Teignbridge – 10 councillors  Torridge – five councillors  West Devon – four councillors

Division patterns

20 During consultation on division patterns, we received 35 submissions. We did not receive a detailed submission from the County Council, however we did receive 5 one county-wide proposal from a member of the public and one city-wide scheme for Exeter from Exeter Labour Party. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for division arrangements in particular districts.

21 Having carefully considered the proposals received, we were of the view that the proposed patterns of divisions in the county-wide scheme resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the county and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. We have therefore based our draft recommendations broadly on that scheme, modifying it as we considered appropriate, having regard to our statutory considerations.

22 Our draft recommendations are for 56 single-member divisions and two two- member divisions. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we have received such evidence during consultation.

23 A summary of our proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table A1 (on pages 31–37) and on the large map accompanying this report.

24 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations. We also welcome comments on the division names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Detailed divisions

25 The tables on pages 7-26 detail our draft recommendations for each district in Devon. They detail how the proposed division arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

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

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 6

East Devon District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 1 -10% This division is comprised of This division is as proposed by the county-wide submission; the parishes of Axminster, we received no further submissions that commented on this , area. The division reflects the local community and provides , , for effective and convenient local government. and . 2 -4% This division contains the We received one proposal for this division as part of the parishes of , county-wide submission. We also received a submission Broadclyst, Clyst , proposing that parish be included in a division with , Clyst St. George, neighbouring parishes to the west and south. Owing to the Clyst St. Lawrence, Clyst St. new development at Cranbrook this area will see significant Mary, Farringdon, , growth in the electorate to 2020. Having considered the , , Rewe, evidence received during consultation we have taken the view Rockbeare, , Stoke that a two-member division for Broadclyst and the Canon and . surrounding area, as proposed as part of the county-wide submission, provides the best balance between our statutory criteria. The Broadclyst division we have proposed is similar to the existing division. We investigated whether a pattern of single-member divisions could be identified for this area. Our investigations indicated that a pattern of single-member divisions would not reflect community identities and not provide for divisions with reasonable levels of electoral equality. However, we welcome proposals on whether this area could be divided into single-member divisions. Budleigh 1 -8% This division comprises the During our consultation on division arrangements we received Salterton southern part of and one submission that commented on this area. We have Coastal the parish of Budleigh proposed a single-member division comprising . Salterton and the southern part of Exmouth which we consider provides reasonable electoral equality, facilitates effective and convenient local government and uses clear and identifiable boundaries.

7

Exmouth 2 5% This division consists of the We received two submissions that commented on this area. northern part of Exmouth and We consider that our proposed Exmouth division provides the parishes of and good electoral equality and facilitates effective and Woodbury. convenient local government. We welcome proposals on whether this area could be divided into single-member divisions. From our investigations and tour of the area we could not identify an identifiable boundary that would provide for single-member divisions whilst reflecting community identities and providing for divisions with reasonable levels of electoral equality. & 1 -4% This division includes the We received three submissions regarding this area. We have Honiton parishes of , Feniton, adopted this division as proposed as part of the county-wide and Honiton. submission. We consider that the division appears to reflect the local community and provides for effective and convenient local government. Otter Valley 1 -2% This division comprises the During our consultation on division arrangements we received parishes of , Bicton, two submissions regarding this area. Having considered the , East evidence received we have adopted the Otter Valley division Budleigh, as proposed as part of the county-wide submission. & Harpford, and Ottery St. Mary. Seaton & 1 2% This division includes the We received one proposal for this division as part of the Colyton parishes of Beer. , county-wide scheme. We consider that this division appears Colyton, , , to reflect community identity in this area whilst providing for , Seaton, good electoral equality. and . 1 1% This division is coterminous We received two submissions regarding the Sidmouth area with the Sidmouth parish during our consultation on division arrangements. The county- boundary. wide scheme proposed a Sidmouth division coterminous with the parish boundary. This proposal was supported by an additional submission that proposed that Sidmouth, Sidbury and Regis all be contained within one division coterminous with the parish boundary. We consider that the proposed Sidmouth division reflects community identity in the Sidmouth area and facilitates effective and convenient local 8

government. & 1 -5% Whimple & Newbridges Our Whimple & Newbridges division covers much of the rural Newbridges division comprises the northern part of the district and was proposed as part of the parishes of All Saints, county-wide scheme. Having examined this division whilst on , , our tour of the area we are content that, although this division , , spans a large geographical area it does provide for effective , , and convenient local government. The name originally , Kilmington, proposed for this division was ‘Whimple & Rural East’. We , Membury, Monkton, consider this name could potentially be confusing for electors. , , We have proposed the name Whimple & Newbridges for this , , Shute, division as part of our draft recommendations. However, we Stockland, Talaton, Whimple would particularly welcome submissions on this name during and . the consultation on our draft recommendations.

9

Exeter City

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 Alphington & 1 5% This division lies in the south- We received three submissions in regard to Exeter. We have St Thomas west of the city and comprises adopted the Alphington & St Thomas division proposed as the communities of Alphington part of the city-wide scheme that we received for Exeter, and St. Thomas. subject to some modifications to the northern and eastern boundaries of the division. We consider that these alterations provide clearer boundaries and better reflect community identity in this area. Duryard & 1 -1% This division comprises the We received three submissions in regard to Exeter and we Pennsylvania communities of Duryard and have adopted the boundaries as proposed in the city-wide Pennsylvania and lies to the scheme. However, we have made a minor amendment to the north of the city centre. southern boundary of this division so that it runs along the railway line to the south of Blackall Road, rather than along Longbrook Street. We are content that this division appears to reflect community identity in this area and that it provides a good level of electoral equality. Heavitree & 1 0% This division lies in the east of This division is based on the city-wide proposal we received Whipton Exeter and comprises the for Exeter. However, we have made two minor amendments Barton communities of Heavitree and to the boundary between this division and the neighbouring St Whipton Barton. Sidwells & Newtown division, which we consider better reflect community identity in this area. Pinhoe & 1 1% Pinhoe & Mincinglake division This division is as proposed as part of the city-wide Mincinglake includes the community of submission we received for Exeter during our consultation on Pinhoe, the Beacon Heath warding arrangements. We are content that this division Estate and Mincinglake Valley appears to reflect community identity and provides a good Park. level of electoral equality. Redhills & 1 -5% This division lies in the north- This division is as proposed by the city-wide submission that Exwick west of the city and comprises we received for Exeter, subject to a minor amendment to the the communities of Redhills southern boundary which we consider provides an improved and Exwick. reflection of community identity and better electoral equality. St David's & 1 -7% This division incorporates This division is broadly as proposed by the city-wide

10

Haven Banks much of the city centre, submission that we received for Exeter, subject to some including and amendments. In the south-west of the division we propose Exeter St. David’s railway using the railway line as the boundary, which avoids dividing station, as well as Haven the community of St. Thomas and keeps it all within one Banks on the western side of division. In the south-east of the division we propose that the the . boundary should run to the south of County Hall rather than along Magdalen Road, which we consider also provides a better reflection of community identity for this part of Exeter. Finally in the north-east of the division we propose that the boundary should run along Heavitree Road in its entirety, rather than deviating along Gladstone Road and Polsloe Road. We consider that this modification results in a clearer and more identifiable boundary. St Sidwells & 1 -3% This division contains the St. This division is based on the city-wide proposal received for Newtown Sidwells and Newtown areas Exeter, subject to some minor amendments to the southern of the city. and eastern boundaries of the division to provide clearer and more identifiable boundaries. We are content that this division appears to reflect community identity and it provides for good electoral equality. Wearside & 1 -7% This division includes the This division is broadly as proposed by the city-wide Topsham community of Topsham and submission that we received for Exeter, subject to some the A3015 (Topsham Road) amendments. In the north of the division we propose that the provides a central ‘spine’ that boundary should run to the south of County Hall, which runs through the division. avoids dividing the residential community to the north. We have also amended the eastern boundary so that The West Of England School & College and Southbrook School and the surrounding residential roads are also included in this division. We consider that as the road access for these areas is from Topsham Road this provides a better reflection of community identity and provides for more effective and convenient local government. 1 -5% This division includes the This division is based on the city-wide proposal received for Wonford & St communities of Wonford and Exeter, subject to an amendment to the western boundary Loyest. St. Loyes and lies in the east between Wonford & St Loyes and Wearside & Topsham. In Loyes of the city. the city-wide submission received, the western boundary ran 11

along Topsham Road, incorporating The West of England School & College and Southbrook School and the surrounding residential roads in this division. We consider that the schools and surrounding area would be better placed in the Wearside & Topsham division and therefore propose that the western boundary of our Wonford & St.Loyes division should run to the east of those buildings.

12

Mid Devon District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 1 4% This division comprises the We received one proposal for this division as part of the parishes of Bow, Cheriton county-wide scheme, which is identical to the current Crediton Bishop, , division. We are content that this division reflects community Colebrooke, , identity in this area and that it provides for good electoral Crediton, equality. and . & 1 4% This division contains the We received three submissions in total regarding this area. parishes of Bradninch, We have adopted the Cullompton & Bradninch division as , Cullompton and proposed as part of the county-wide scheme. We consider . that this division reflects community identity in this area and facilitates effective and convenient local government. Silverton & 1 4% This division comprises the We received two submissions that commented on this area Taw parishes of Bickleigh, Brush- during our consultation on division arrangements. This ford, Cadbury, , division is as proposed by the county-wide submission and is , , broadly similar to the existing division, with the addition of , , Silverton parish. The division reflects the local community and Down St. Mary, , provides for effective and convenient local government. We , , have adopted the name Silverton & Taw for this division as , Newton St. part of our draft recommendations although we would Cyres, , Poug- welcome any submissions on this proposed division name. hill, Puddington, Sandford, , Silverton, , , , , Upton Hellions, , , Woolfardisworthy and .

13

Tiverton East 1 7% This division comprises the We received one submission that commented on this part of eastern part of Tiverton parish Devon. The county wide scheme proposed a two-member and the parishes of division for Tiverton and the surrounding rural area. We and . consider that two single-member divisions provide a better balance between our statutory criteria. Our proposed Tiverton East division is broadly similar to the existing Tiverton East division with a minor amendment to the boundary in Tiverton town which results in improved electoral equality. Having visited Tiverton on our tour of the county we consider that our proposed division boundary is clear and identifiable. Tiverton West 1 -1% Tiverton West division We received one submission that commented on this part of comprises the western part of Devon. The county wide scheme proposed a two-member Tiverton parish and the division for Tiverton and the surrounding rural area. We parishes of Bampton, consider that two single-member divisions provide a better , , Oakford, balance between our statutory criteria. Our proposed Tiverton , Templeton and West division is broadly similar to the existing Tiverton West . division with a minor amendment to the boundary in Tiverton town which results in improved electoral equality. Having visited Tiverton on our tour of the county we consider that our proposed division boundary is clear and identifiable. & 1 0% This division comprises the We received two submissions that commented on this area parishes of , during our consultation on division arrangements. This Clayhanger, , division is as proposed by the county-wide scheme. However, , , we have decided to retain the existing name for the division , , rather than the proposed name of Culm Valley. We would , , welcome any submissions on the proposed name of this Uffculme and Willand. division.

14

North Devon District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 1 7% This division consists of the We received one submission regarding this area during our North northern part of Barnstaple consultation on division arrangements. The county-wide parish. scheme proposed a two-member Barnstaple division coterminous with the parish boundary. We consider that whilst this proposal had some merit, the existing pattern of two single-member divisions for Barnstaple provides a better balance between our statutory criteria. We are therefore proposing a Barnstaple North division that is identical to the existing division. Barnstaple 1 4% This division comprises the We received one submission regarding this area during our South southern part of Barnstaple consultation on division arrangements. The county-wide parish as well as parts of scheme proposed a two-member Barnstaple division Fremington and coterminous with the parish boundary. We consider that whilst parishes to the north and south this proposal had some merit, the existing pattern of two of Road. single-member divisions for Barnstaple provides a better balance between our statutory criteria. We are therefore proposing a Barnstaple South division that is identical to the existing division. 1 -8% Braunton Rural division We received one submission regarding this area during our Rural comprises the parishes of consultation on division arrangements. Our proposed Ashford, Braunton, Braunton Rural division retains the boundaries of the existing and Heanton division. The county-wide proposal was for a broadly similar Punchardon. division with the addition of parish. As part of our draft recommendations we have decided to include West Down parish in our division. Our reasons for this are detailed in the Ilfracombe section below. Combe 1 -5% This division contains the Having considered the county-wide submission in regard to Martin Rural parishes of Arlington, this area we decided to explore an alternative division

15

Berrynarbor, , Bratton arrangement for rural North Devon. We acknowledge that our Fleming, , & proposed Rural division covers a large Countisbury, , geographic area owing to the sparsely populated nature of Combe Martin, East & West the parishes that make up the division. However, having Buckland, East Down, visited the area on our tour of Devon we consider that our , , proposed division provides for effective and convenient local , & , government and appears to reflect community identity in this , Marwood, , area. , , Pilton West, , , and Twitchen. Fremington 1 -9% Fremington Rural division Having considered the county-wide submission in regard to Rural comprises the parishes of this area we have decided to retain the existing division of , Westleigh and Fremington Rural. We consider that this division appears to Horwood, Lovacott & Newton reflect community identity in this area and provides for Tracey as well as the majority effective and convenient local government. of Fremington parish. Ilfracombe 1 8% This division contains the We received one submission regarding this area during our parishes of Ilfracombe, consultation on division arrangements. The county-wide and West Down. scheme proposal was for a broadly similar division, however, it included West Down parish in the neighbouring Braunton Rural division. As part of our draft recommendations, we propose that West Down parish be included in our Ilfracombe division. We consider the parish has shared community interests with given they are in the same district ward. We also consider this proposal provides for a division with good road links and identifiable boundaries. & 1 -4% This division contains the Having considered the county-wide submission, we have Chittlehampt- parishes of Atherington, decided to explore alternative division arrangements for this on Bishop’s Tawton, area. We consider that our proposed Landkey & , division appears to reflect community identity

16

Chittlehampton, , King’s in this area and provides a good level of electoral equality. Nympton, Landkey, Satterleigh & Warkleigh, and Tawstock. 1 -7% South Molton division Having considered the county-wide submission in regard to comprises the parishes of this area we have decided to explore alternative warding Bishop’s Nympton, Burrington, arrangements for this area. We consider that our proposed , , East South Molton division appears to reflect community identity in Worlington, , this area and provides for effective and convenient local , Mariansleigh, government. , Queen’s Nympton, , , , South Molton, and Witheridge.

17

South Hams District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 Bickleigh & 1 -9% This division consists of the We received seven submissions that commented on the parishes of Bickleigh, Brixton, western part of South Hams District. Having considered all of , Harford, Shaugh the evidence received, we propose to retain the existing Prior, and Wembury. Bickleigh & Wembury division in its entirety. We are content that this division appears to reflect community identity and provides a reasonable level of electoral equality. Dartmouth & 1 -1% This division is comprised of We received one submission regarding this area during our the parishes of , consultation on division arrangements. We have adopted the , Dartmouth, proposal made as part of the county-wide scheme for a , , single-member Dartmouth & Marldon division. We are content , Marldon, Stoke that this division appears to reflect community identity in this Gabriel and the rural part of area and it provides a good level of electoral equality. parish. 1 9% This division is comprised of We received two submissions in regard to this area. The the parishes of , county-wide submission proposed a two-member division , , East covering much of the south of South Hams District. Having Allington, , considered the evidence received, we have used the same Frogmore & Sherford, external boundaries for this area. However, we consider that Kingsbridge, Slapton, South two single-member divisions of Kingsbridge and Salcombe Pool, , provide a better balance between our statutory criteria. , and . 1 -8% Ivybridge division contains the This division is as proposed by the county-wide submission. parish of Ivybridge and the Much of the division boundary is coterminous with the Filham area of Ivybridge parish boundary and we are therefore content that parish. division reflects the local community. In the east of the division we have incorporated part of Ugborough parish. A submission from Ivybridge Town Council indicated that a Community Governance Review is planned for this area

18

which would extend the Ivybridge parish boundary further to the east. This would also reflect the new ward boundaries recommended as part of the South Hams District Council review. Salcombe 1 -7% This division comprises the We received two submissions in regard to this area. The parishes of , county-wide submission proposed a two-member division , Buckland-Tout-Saints, covering much of the south of South Hams District. Having , Kingston, considered the evidence received, we have used the same , , external boundaries for this area. However, we consider that , Moreleigh, two single-member divisions of Kingsbridge and Salcombe , Salcombe, South provide a better balance between our statutory criteria. Huish, , , , and Woodleigh. & 1 3% This division comprises the We received one submission regarding this area during our parishes Dartington, consultation on division arrangements. We have adopted the , Staverton, Totnes proposal made as part of the county-wide scheme for a and part of Berry Pomeroy single-member Totnes & Dartington division. We are content parish. that this division appears to reflect community identity in this area provides a good level of electoral equality and facilitates effective and convenient local government. 1 4% This division comprises the We received seven submissions that commented on the parishes of , western part of South Hams District. Of these, four , Ermington, , submissions proposed the retention of the existing Yealmpton , Newton & Noss, North division. Having considered the evidence received and having Huish, , , taken into account the spread of electors across the entire West , Yealmpton district, we explored alternative arrangements to those and the majority of Ugborough proposed. Having visited the area on our tour of Devon we parish. are content that our proposed Yealmpton division provides for effective and convenient local government whilst also providing a good level of electoral equality.

19

Teignbridge District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 Ashburton & 1 -7% This division comprises the This division is based on the county-wide submission that we Buckfastleigh parishes of Ashburton, received during our consultation on division arrangements. , Buckfastleigh, We received no further submissions in regard to this area of Denbury & Torbryan, Ogwell Teignbridge. We consider that this division appears to reflect and Woodland. community identity and allows for effective and convenient local government and are therefore including it as part of our draft recommendations. However, we propose the name Ashburton & Buckfastleigh rather than Buckfast as proposed. Bovey Rural 1 -4% This division is comprised of This division is as proposed in the county-wide submission, the parishes of Bickington, however, we propose that it is named Bovey Rural rather than , Buckland-in- Bovey & Rural South Central. We received no further the-Moor, , , submissions in regard to this area. The division appears to , and reflect the local community and provides for effective and Widecombe-in-the-Moor. convenient local government. & 1 -3% This division consists of the This division is based on the county-wide submission that we Teign Valley parishes of Ashton, , received during our consultation on division arrangements. , Chudleigh, We received no further submissions in regard to this area of , , Teignbridge. We consider that this division appears to reflect , , community identity and allows for effective and convenient Tedburn St. Mary and local government and are therefore including it as part of our . draft recommendations. 1 7% This division consists of the We received three submissions in regard to this part of parish of Dawlish and part of Teignbridge. Having considered the evidence received we eastern . propose a Dawlish division that is largely coterminous with the Dawlish parish boundary. However, in order to provide a reasonable level of electoral equality in the neighbouring Teignmouth division, we have incorporated part of Teignbridge parish into our Dawlish division. Having visited

20

the area on tour we are content that there are good road links between the two areas and would provide for a pattern of divisions with reasonable levels of electoral equality. & 1 -5% This division consists of the This division is based on the county-wide submission that we Haldon parishes of , received during our consultation on division arrangements. , Exminster, We received no further submissions in regard to this area of , Ide, Kenn, Teignbridge. We are content that this division appears to Kenton, , reflect community identity and allows for effective and Powderham, Shillingford St. convenient local government and are therefore including it as George, and part of our draft recommendations. Whitestone. Newton 1 6% This division comprises the We received one submission that commented on North northern part of Newton Abbot Abbot. The county-wide scheme proposed a two-member parish, bounded by the River division covering Newton Abbot parish. We have taken the Lemon and East Street and view that two single-member divisions provide a better Road to the south. balance between our statutory criteria. We have retained the existing boundary between the north and south Newton Abbot divisions. We consider that the boundary is clear and identifiable and reflects community identities in Newton Abbot. Newton 1 0% This division comprises the We received one submission that commented on Newton Abbot South southern part of Newton Abbot Abbot. The county-wide scheme proposed a two-member parish, bounded by the River division covering Newton Abbot parish. We have taken the Lemon and East Street and view that two single-member divisions provide a better Torquay Road to the north, balance between our statutory criteria. We have retained the and that part of Haccombe with existing boundary between the north and south Newton Abbot Combe parish to the south of divisions. We consider that the boundary is clear and Haccombe Path. identifiable and reflects community identities in Newton Abbot. Teignhead & 1 -3% Teignhead & Kerswell contains We received two submissions that commented on the south Kerswell the parishes of , of Teignbridge District. Abbotskerswell Parish Council made a , , submission proposing that the parish should be in a division , Shaldon, with other rural parishes. Our draft recommendations are for a and the rural Teignhead & Kerswell division as proposed as part of the

21

part of county-wide scheme. Under this proposal Abbotskerswell parish. parish is included in a division with other rural parishes. We consider that this division reflects the evidence received and provides a good balance between our statutory criteria. Teignmouth 1 10% This division contains most of We received two submissions regarding Teignmouth. As part Teignmouth parish apart from of the county-wide scheme we received a proposal for a the area that lies between division coterminous with the Teignmouth parish boundary. Dawlish Road and Sprey Point. This would result in a variance of 12%. We have not received evidence to persuade us that this level of electoral inequality can be justified. We therefore investigated alternative division patterns. Our proposed Teignmouth division is largely coterminous with the parish boundary; however, we have included the properties that lie between Dawlish Road and Sprey Point in the neighbouring Dawlish division in order to provide a more acceptable level of electoral equality. The 1 4% This division comprises the This division is based on the county-wide submission that we Teigntons parishes of , received during our consultation on division arrangements. Ideford and . We received no further submissions in regard to this area. We are content that this division appears to reflect community identity and allows for effective and convenient local government and are therefore including it as part of our draft recommendations.

22

Torridge District

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 East 1 5% Bideford East division Having considered the evidence received during our comprises the parishes of consultation in regard to Bideford, and having visited the area , , during our tour of Devon, we decided to explore alternative Landcross, , division arrangements in this part of Torridge District. We , and consider that our proposed Bideford East division, which the eastern part of Bideford. combines the eastern part of Bideford town with the rural area to the south and east, provides a good balance between our statutory criteria in reflecting community identity and allowing for effective and convenient local government. We considered a two-member division covering Bideford and the rural area but considered including all of Bideford in a large division with neighbouring parishes would not provide for a better balance between our statutory criteria. We also noted that Bideford is currently divided between the existing county divisions. Bideford 1 6% This division comprises Having taken into account the evidence received during our West & parishes of , consultation in regard to Bideford and the surrounding rural Hartland , , area, and having visited the area during our tour of Devon, we , Hartland, , decided to explore alternative division arrangements. We , Woolfardisworthy consider that our proposed Bideford West division, which and the western part of combines the western part of Bideford town with the rural Bideford. area to the west stretching out to Hartland, provides a good balance between our statutory criteria in reflecting community identity and allowing for effective and convenient local government. As detailed above, we considered a two-member division covering Bideford and the surrounding area but considered that single-member divisions would provide for a better balance between our statutory criteria. 1 2% This division contains the Having considered the evidence received during our

23

Rural parishes of , consultation in regard to the south of Torridge District we , , decided to explore alternative division arrangements for the Bradford, , area. We consider that our proposed Holsworthy Rural , Buckland division provides a good balance between our statutory Brewer, , , criteria in reflecting community identity and allowing for , , effective and convenient local government. , , Holsworthy, , , , Newton St. Petrock, Northcott, , , , Sheep- wash, St. Giles on the Heath, , , Thornbury, and . Northam 1 0% This division contains the This division is as proposed by the county-wide submission parish of Northam. and also reflects the existing arrangement for Northam. We are content that this division, coterminous with the Northam parish boundary, provides a good balance between our statutory criteria and also provides a good level of electoral equality. Torrington 1 1% This division comprises the Having considered the evidence received during our Rural parishes of , consultation on division arrangements, we have decided to , , retain the existing Torrington Rural division subject to the Dolton, Dowland, , addition of Frithelstock parish. We consider that this division , High appears to reflect community identity and facilitates effective Bickington, Huish, , and convenient local government. , Merton, , , Roborough, , and .

24

West Devon Borough

Division Number of Variance Description Detail name Cllrs 2020 & 1 7% This division comprises the During our consultation on division arrangements we received parishes of , three submissions that commented on this area including a , , proposal made as part of the county-wide scheme. Having , Chagford, considered the evidence received, we have decided to retain , , the existing Hatherleigh & Chagford division subject to two , Hatherleigh, amendments. We have incorporated the parish of Belstone , , into this division and included the northern part of , , Hamlets parish in the neighbouring , , Okehampton Rural division. We consider that this division , , appears to reflect community identity and facilitates effective , South and convenient local government. Tawton, , and . Okehampton 1 9% This division contains the We received three submissions that commented on this area Rural parishes of , Bratton during our consultation on division arrangements, including a Clovelly, , Coryton, proposal made as part of the county-wide scheme. Having , , considered the evidence received during our consultation we Kelly, , Lifton, decided to explore alternative division arrangements for this , Marystow, part of West Devon. We consider that our proposed , Okehampton, Okehampton Rural division appears to reflect community , identity and allow for effective and convenient local , , Sydenham government. Damerel and . 1 6% This division consists of the We received one proposal for this area during our parishes of and consultation on division arrangements. Having considered the Tavistock. evidence received during our consultation we decided to explore alternative division arrangements for Tavistock and the surrounding area. We consider that our proposed

25

Tavistock division, which links the parishes of Gulworthy and Tavistock, appears to reflect community identity and allow for effective and convenient local government in this area. Yelverton 1 7% This division comprises the Having considered the evidence received during the Rural parishes of , consultation on division arrangements we decided to explore , Buckland alternative division arrangements for the southern part of Monachorum, West Devon. We consider that our Yelverton Rural division, Forest, , , which is broadly similar to the existing Yelverton Rural , , , division, provides a good level of electoral equality whilst also , , reflecting community identity. and Whitchurch.

26

Conclusions

26 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2014 and 2020 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2014 2020

Number of councillors 60 60

Number of electoral divisions 58 58

Average number of electors per councillor 9,977 10,417

Number of divisions with a variance more 16 0 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 2 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Devon County Council should comprise 60 councillors serving 56 single-member divisions and two two-member divisions. The details and names are shown in Table A1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Devon. You can also view our draft recommendations for Devon on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

Parish electoral arrangements

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

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

27

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

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

Draft recommendation Exmouth Town Council should comprise 25 councillors, as at present, representing six wards: Brixington (returning five members), Halsdon (returning five members) Littleham (returning six members) Richmond Road (returning one member), Town (returning four members) and Withycombe (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

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

Draft recommendation Teignmouth Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing four wards: Central (returning four members) East (returning three members), West (returning four members) and Rowdens (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

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

Draft recommendation Tiverton Town Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Castle (returning four members), Central (returning one member), Cranmore (returning five members), Lowman (returning nine members) and Westexe (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Map 1.

28

3 Have your say

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

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

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

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

The Commission aims to propose a pattern of divisions for Devon which delivers:  Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters  Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities  Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively

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

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

Community identity:  Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area?  Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area?  Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

Effective local government:  Are any of the proposed divisions too large or small to be represented effectively? 29

 Are the proposed names of the divisions appropriate?  Are there good links across your proposed divisions? Is there any form of public transport?

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

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

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

39 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for Devon County Council in 2017.

Equalities

40 This report has been screened for impact on equalities, with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

30

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Division name electors per electors per councillors (2014) average (2020) average councillor councillor % % East Devon District

1 Axminster 1 7,958 7,958 -20% 9,379 9,379 -10%

2 Broadclyst 2 7,629 3,815 -62% 20,103 10,052 -4% Budleigh 3 1 10,127 10,127 1% 9,586 9,586 -8% Salterton Coastal 4 Exmouth 2 23,895 11,948 20% 21,976 10,988 5%

5 Feniton & Honiton 1 10,663 10,663 7% 10,046 10,046 -4%

6 Otter Valley 1 10,663 10,663 7% 10,173 10,173 -2%

7 Seaton & Colyton 1 11,138 11,138 12% 10,600 10,600 2%

8 Sidmouth 1 11,659 11,659 17% 10,546 10,546 1% Whimple & 9 1 10,757 10,757 8% 9,887 9,887 -5% Newbridges

31

Table A1: Draft recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Division name electors per electors per councillors (2014) average (2020) average councillor councillor % % Exeter City Alphington & St 10 1 11,250 11,250 13% 10,911 10,911 5% Thomas Duryard & 11 1 10,952 10,952 10% 10,319 10,319 -1% Pennsylvania Heavitree & 12 1 10,236 10,236 3% 10,429 10,429 0% Whipton Barton Pinhoe & 13 1 9,290 9,290 -7% 10,520 10,520 1% Mincinglake 14 Redhills & Exwick 1 10,437 10,437 5% 9,868 9,868 -5% St David's & 15 1 10,008 10,008 0% 9,725 9,725 -7% Haven Banks St Sidwells & 16 1 10,509 10,509 5% 10,091 10,091 -3% Newtown Wearside & 17 1 8,301 8,301 -17% 9,668 9,668 -7% Topsham Wonford & St 18 1 9,498 9,498 -5% 9,939 9,939 -5% Loyes

32

Table A1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Number of Number of Variance from Number of Electorate from Electorate Division name electors per electors per average councillors (2014) average (2020) councillor councillor % % Mid Devon District

19 Crediton 1 10,010 10,010 0% 10,886 10,886 4% Cullompton & 20 1 9,100 9,100 -9% 10,804 10,804 4% Bradninch 21 Silverton & Taw 1 10,895 10,895 9% 10,872 10,872 4%

22 Tiverton East 1 9,710 9,710 -3% 11,158 11,158 7%

23 Tiverton West 1 10,416 10,416 4% 10,346 10,346 -1% Willand & 24 1 10,403 10,403 4% 10,381 10,381 0% Uffculme North Devon District

25 Barnstaple North 1 10,912 10,912 9% 11,152 11,152 7%

26 Barnstaple South 1 10,343 10,343 4% 10,870 10,870 4%

27 Braunton Rural 1 9,578 9,578 -4% 9,577 9,577 -8% Combe Martin 28 1 9,880 9,880 -1% 9,932 9,932 -5% Rural 29 Fremington Rural 1 8,629 8,629 -14% 9,518 9,518 -9%

33

Table A1 (cont.): Final recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Number of Number of Variance from Number of Electorate from Electorate Division name electors per electors per average councillors (2014) average (2020) councillor councillor % % 30 Ilfracombe 1 11,205 11,205 12% 11,204 11,204 8% Landkey & 31 1 6,024 6,024 -40% 10,006 10,006 -4% Chittlehampton 32 South Molton 1 9,645 9,645 -3% 9,644 9,644 -7%

South Hams District Bickleigh & 33 1 9,439 9,439 -5% 9,462 9,462 -9% Wembury Dartmouth & 34 1 9,992 9,992 0% 10,349 10,349 -1% Marldon 35 Kingsbridge 1 10,555 10,555 6% 11,347 11,347 9%

36 Ivybridge 1 9,486 9,486 -5% 9,546 9,546 -8%

37 Salcombe 1 9,288 9,288 -7% 9,706 9,706 -7% Totnes & 38 1 9,886 9,886 -1% 10,728 10,728 3% Dartington 39 Yealmpton 1 10,159 10,159 2% 10,800 10,800 4%

34

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Division name electors per electors per councillors (2014) average (2020) average councillor councillor % % Teignbridge District Ashburton & 40 1 9,679 9,679 -3% 9,690 9,690 -7% Buckfastleigh 41 Bovey Rural 1 10,191 10,191 2% 10,027 10,027 -4% Chudleigh & 42 1 10,160 10,160 2% 10,117 10,117 -3% Teign Valley 43 Dawlish 1 11,408 11,408 14% 11,170 11,170 7% Exminster & 44 1 8,551 8,551 -14% 9,852 9,852 -5% Haldon Newton Abbot 45 1 9,585 9,585 -4% 11,062 11,062 6% North Newton Abbot 46 1 9,986 9,986 0% 10,450 10,450 0% South Teignhead & 47 1 10,300 10,300 3% 10,129 10,129 -3% Kerswell 48 Teignmouth 1 11,856 11,856 19% 11,448 11,448 10%

49 The Teigntons 1 11,212 11,212 12% 10,784 10,784 4%

35

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for Devon County Council

Variance Variance Number of Number of Number of Electorate from Electorate from Division name electors per electors per councillors (2014) average (2020) average councillor councillor % % Torridge District

50 Bideford East 1 9,986 9,986 0% 10,979 10,979 5% Bideford West & 51 1 9,465 9,465 -5% 11,026 11,026 6% Hartland 52 Holsworthy Rural 1 10,994 10,994 10% 10,625 10,625 2%

53 Northam 1 10,073 10,073 1% 10,433 10,433 0%

54 Torrington Rural 1 10,990 10,990 10% 10,524 10,524 1%

West Devon Borough Hatherleigh & 55 1 10,432 10,432 5% 11,179 11,179 7% Chagford Okehampton 56 1 11,250 11,250 13% 11,323 11,323 9% Rural 57 Tavistock 1 10,345 10,345 4% 10,994 10,994 6%

58 Yelverton Rural 1 11,657 11,657 17% 11,171 11,171 7%

Totals 60 598,645 – – 625,039 – – 10,417 Averages – – 9,977 – – –

36

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Devon County Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

37

Appendix B

Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/devon/devon-county-council

Local authority

 Devon County Council

District councils

 Exeter City Council  Mid Devon District Council

County councillors

 Councillor R. Hosking

Parish councillor

 Parish Councillor J. Gardner

Political groups

 Exeter Labour Party

Parish and town councils

 Abbotskerswell Parish Council  Bradninch Town Council  Chagford Parish Council  Dawlish Town Council  Gittisham Parish Council  Ivybridge Town Council  Landkey Parish Council  Milton Damerel Parish Council  Okehampton Hamlets Parish Council  Town Council  Rockbeare Parish Council  Sidmouth Town Council  South Brent Parish Council  Parish Council  Ugborough Parish Council  Wembury Parish Council  Yealmpton Parish Council  Zeal Monachorum Council

38 Local organisations

 Woodbury Salterton Residents Associations

Members of Public

 10 Members of public

39

Appendix C

Glossary and abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

40

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

41

42