Parish and town council submissions to the East Devon District Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from parish and town councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. 8r Hh x
A ) 6TQ88yr x1hppyr x5 t hvyp 3 Tr) "Ari h ! & %)!! U) rvr Tiwrp) @yrp hy rvrs@h9r! &
Thank you for your letter of the 7th February 2017 and enclosures.
Members of All Saints parish council are in broad agreement with the proposed boundary changes affecting the eastern catchment of the East Devon district and welcome the inclusion of Hawkchurch parish into the (former) Yarty ward, with Yarcombe being re-assigned to Dunkeswell and Otterhead, given the links already existing between the parishes.
Members do, however, feel that the proposed name of this ward - Membury and All Saints - does not sufficiently represent either the history of the parish (All Saints was, until 1990, a part of Chardstock parish) nor the fact that Chardstock is the most heavily populated parish, with the largest electorate; conversely, Membury is actually the smallest parish in electorate terms.
Therefore, All Saints parish council would prefer that the ward remain as Yarty, as opposed to the name proposed within your draft document; alternatively, taking on board the comments above, the name AXE VALE might be more suited so as not to exclude or offend any individual parish or parishioner. As a final option, given the fact that all 4 parishes are indeed rural, and are all adjoining Axminster, then the previous ward name of Axminster Rural might again be considered.
Many thanks
PGH
Paul Hayward SILCM Clerk to All Saints Parish Council
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Bec Davey Sent: 28 February 2017 14:49 To: reviews Subject: East Devon Boundary Review response Attachments: LGBCE East Devon.docx
Hi,
Please find attached a letter from Axmouth Parish Council in response to the proposed East Devon boundaries.
Kind Regards
Becki
Becki Davey Axmouth Parish Clerk
Please consider the environment before printing this email
The e-mail you have received (including attachments) is private and may be confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the Council of the error in transmission, delete the e-mail from your system and must not print, copy or distribute it to anyone else. Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before opening attachments, since the Parish Council accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by software viruses. Senders and recipients of e-mail should be aware that under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation these contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request. Nothing in this e-mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of Axmouth Parish Council unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Council.
1
Review Officer (East Devon) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 15th February 2017
Dear Sirs, Local Government Boundary Commission Electoral Review of East Devon: Draft Recommendations Axmouth Parish Council should like to support the proposed wards for East Devon with Axmouth remaining within the Trinity Ward.
It is noted with disappointment that the Parish of Axmouth will no longer be part of the Seaton (and Colyton) division, but will become part of the revised Axminster division following the final recommendations of the Electoral Review of Devon, but at least by remaining within the Trinity Ward some semblance of continuity will remain.
Kind Regards
Becki Davey Axmouth Parish Clerk
Cooper, Mark
From: Angie Hurren Sent: 04 April 2017 14:55 To: reviews Subject: FW: Mark Cooper. East Devon Electoral review. Broadclyst Parish Council comment. Attachments: Broadclyst Parish Council consultation response 20170403.doc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Hi Mark
Please forgive the delay in getting this in to you; I can blame nothing other than being side‐tracked by the very important business of a small child’s birthday (which involved copious amounts of jelly and ice cream, remnants of which can still be found in my hair) and being over‐excited about the year‐end accounts and audit. I appreciate the consultation closed yesterday, however hope that you are still able to accept this late submission. Would you like a hard copy in the post tonight? Hoping this finds you well.
Kind regards
Angie Hurren
Member Institute of Local Council Management Broadclyst Parish Council Clerk
Find us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter https://www.gov.uk/register‐to‐vote
IMPORTANT NOTICE: This e‐mail message is sent on behalf of Broadclyst Parish Council and is intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged / confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient, you must not copy, print, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please return it t and delete it and any attached files from your system. Senders and recipients of e‐mail should be aware that under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation these contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request. This e mail message has been scanned for computer viruses, however Broadclyst Parish Council does not accept any liability in respect of damage caused by any virus which is not detected.
1
Mark Cooper
Review Officer
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Broadclyst Parish Council 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 05/04/2017
Dear Mark
Ref: Broadclyst Ward Boundary changes
Thank you for inviting comments on the Commissions draft recommendations for the Electoral review of East Devon.
Broadclyst Parish Council is largely in support of the proposals put forward in your Draft, however would like to respond to and agree with Farringdon Parish Council’s response that the communities have little in common. Broadclyst Parish Council would like to submit an alternative suggestion, given that Broadclyst has far more in common with Poltimore Parish Council immediately to its north and west.
The Exeter and East Devon growth point is bringing forwards an unprecedented amount of strategic growth in the ‘West End of East Devon’ and the parishes most affected are Broadclyst, Clyst Honiton, Cranbrook, and Poltimore. It is proposed that a new Ward of Cranbrook is formed, comprising 3 Members; Broadclyst Parish Council supports this proposal.
The parishes of Broadclyst, Clyst Honiton and Poltimore share the challenges and pressures on infrastructure associated with strategic development. There is a huge amount of work for the Ward Members and Planning department associated with delivery of the residential sites of Pinn Court, Tithebarn Green, Old Park Farm, Moonhill Copse and Mosshayne. Poltimore’s community feels the impact of this development as much as Broadclyst and Clyst Honiton’s, especially in relation to healthcare, education, and highways/traffic matters.
The Exe Valley dynamic is very different to that of Broadclyst Ward. Broadclyst Parish Council respectfully suggests that the communities of Broadclyst, Clyst Honiton and Poltimore would be served in a more holistic manner by the proposed 3 Broadclyst Ward Members than would be practical by splitting Poltimore off to a single-member ward where the focus is several miles away.
Yours Sincerely
Angie
Angie Hurren (Mrs)
Member of Institute of Local Council Management Broadclyst Parish Council Clerk
Website: www.broadclyst.org
Cooper, Mark
From: Paul Spearing Sent: 24 March 2017 09:36 To: reviews Cc: Paul Hayward Subject: Electoral Review of East Devon - new ward name for the parishes All Saints, Chardstock, Hawkchurch and Membury
Dear Sirs
I have discussed the naming of the new ward encompassing All Saints, Chardstock, Hawkchurch and Membury with my fellow parish councillors and also discussed with the chairmen of the other three parishes of All Saints, Hawkchurch and Membury.
We have all universally rejected the suggested name of ‘All Saints and Membury’ on the grounds that it excludes Chardstock and Hawkchurch and thus does not correctly represent the constitution of the new ward parishes.
Several new names have been put forward and each of the parishes will be responding on an individual basis.
For my parish of Chardstock we have agreed at our last parish council meeting to put forward the ward name of ‘Four Rivers’ as this represents the four rivers that are associated with each parish.
We would therefore be grateful if you would put this name (Four Rivers) forward when reviewing the boundary/ward changes.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss any of the above before coming to a conclusion.
Your faithfully
Cllr Paul Spearing Chairman Chardstock Parish Council
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Clyst Honiton Clerk Sent: 24 February 2017 14:31 To: reviews Subject: East Devon residents to have their say on new ward boundaries
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
To whom it may concern.
Following their meeting on 16th February 2017, Clyst Honiton Parish Council are happy with the present boundary arrangements and would wish to remain as they are with Broadclyst Parish.
I have been asked to submit this response on behalf of the PC.
Regards,
Mandy Westlake Clerk to Clyst Honiton Parish Council
Virus-free. www.avast.com
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Janine Gardner Sent: 23 February 2017 11:23 To: reviews Subject: RE: Electoral Review of East Devon: Draft Recommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Review Officer (East Devon),
Cranbrook Town Council welcomes the Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations for the future electoral arrangements for East Devon District Council.
The Council is of the view that three district councillors would provide a sufficient level of representation until the next electoral review of East Devon but reiterates that the development of Cranbrook needs to remain sensitive to and meeting the needs of the surrounding villages and that it needs to remain integral to the wider locale in the West End of East Devon, and not a stand-alone entity operating in isolation which could create a “them and us” situation.
If I can be of any further assistance please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours faithfully,
Janine Gardner Town Clerk Cranbrook Town Council
Younghayes Centre | 169 Younghayes Road | Cranbrook | EX5 7DR
Web: www.cranbrooktowncouncil.gov.uk
From: Smith, Rebecca Sent: 07 February 2017 12:33 To: Subject: Electoral Review of East Devon: Draft Recommendations
Dear Ms Gardener,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for East Devon District Council. Today is the start of an eight-week public consultation on the Commission's draft recommendations on new ward boundaries across East Devon District Council.
The consultation closes on 3rd April 2017.
1
! "# $% & '( ! ) *+ , ! , - . -'( /. 0'0 / - * *1
Dear Review Officer
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Please find attached the response by Farringdon Parish Council (East Devon) to the recommendations you propose. We strongly object to the recommendations proposed as seen in our comments. Please confirm you have received our comments and keep us updated with the finalising of the recommendations.
We are very against the recommendations.
Yours faithfully
Mrs Alana Sayers Clerk to the Council
1 FARRINGDON PARISH COUNCIL Mrs Alana Sayers Parish Clerk
Review Officer (East Devon) 17 February 2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir / Madam
FARRINGDON PARISH COUNCIL RESPONSE TO THE ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
This letter represents the views of Farringdon Parish Council; each Councillor having had his / her opportunity to contribute accordingly.
From information gleaned from your website, it appears that the proposed recommendations will see Farringdon Parish becoming part of a newly created Broadclyst ‘Super’ Ward, requiring the stewardship of 3 District Councillors. This will mean a separation away from our present Clyst Valley Ward, and the end of a long association. Farringdon Parish Council, having reviewed these proposed changes, wishes to register its objections most strongly.
With reference to the three points of the Commission’s criteria when undertaking such a review, we would like to state the case for our objections.
1. “That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.”
Has a realistic and objective view really been taken when considering the geographical relationship between Broadclyst and Farringdon; against that of Clyst Valley and Farringdon? We suspect not; or not at least with any real degree of investigation. With reference to the screen shot of your online map, Farringdon Parish has been highlighted in red for clarity. (see below)
A30
A3052
The vast majority of Farringdon’s Parish area is ‘sandwiched’ between Exeter Airport / the A30 to the north, and the A3052 to the south. Although Farringdon covers a reasonably large area; it is a relatively small rural community, in terms of both dwellings and registered electors. Currently, there are approximately 140 dwellings, and 276 registered electors. The Parish is largely deemed as being ‘open countryside’ within the Local E.D.D.C. Plan, with little scope for development on a large scale. There are four primary areas of population concentration – the village of Farringdon itself, Farringdon House and The Drive, Farringdon Cross alongside the A3052, and a part of Perkins Village on the eastern boundary. Other dwellings are scattered - farms and the odd cottage etc
Nothing in the Broadclyst area has any bearing on what goes on here at Farringdon, and vice- versa. We would effectively be at the southern most extreme of the Broadclyst Ward. In short, what happens north of Exeter Airport / the A30 as such is of no concern to us. We as a Parish Council are not aware of the issues Broadclyst and its immediate environs have. We have our own issues to deal with, but in turn, these would equally be of no interest to anybody in the Broadclyst area.
By nature of geography / location, we have a more common identity with our Clyst Valley Ward; sharing similar common interests / issues, these primarily being the A3052 corridor and associated traffic, and the continued pressure for development / expansion of Hill Barton Industrial estate.
We note, from an email sent to our Parish Clerk by Rebecca Smith, Review Assistant, on the 13th February 2017, the following comment:
“Your current councillor, if he wishes to run in the next local election, can choose which ward to run in”.
This is frankly an easy ‘cop-out’; a pacifying approach to take, rather than an understanding and constructive one. Why would our current District Councillor wish to run for election in another Ward? He grew up and still lives in his Ward, and is an integral part of the local community whom he represents supremely. We doubt that there would be the same degree of understanding from an ‘outside’ / ‘unknown’ District Councillor as we have with our existing Clyst Valley Councillor. Living in one Ward, but being the Councillor for another really does not ‘cut the mustard’, and shows a total lack of understanding for what really goes on at a local community, grass roots level. It would be akin to asking the England Rugby team to consider the Principality Stadium in Cardiff as being the the new spiritual ‘home’ for English Rugby. It’s a bit of nonsense frankly!
Our Councillor lives and deals with the very problems which we as a Parish endure - the local road issues, the constant and numerous attempts at more development within our rural area and so on. He has empathy with our situation, and at a time when we are developing our Neighbourhood Plan, his understanding and substantial knowledge is an asset for us. We do not wish to lose the close working relationship we have spent many years developing. That is certainly not in our best interests.
2. “To deliver electoral equality where each district councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the district”
To use the word ‘roughly’, rather than approximately, in an official format does not bode well. It can imply that the whole process is being ‘roughly’ conducted, which we are sure it is not.
However, as mentioned previously, Farringdon has approximately 276 registered electors, taking into account recent property sales and movement of parishioners. Under the current Clyst Valley Ward boundary, and according to your figures, we make up the part of the current 1708 total registered electorate within the Ward. Your forecast figure, and it is only a forecast, suggests this will increase to 2082 under a revised and reduced in area, i.e. with no Farringdon included, Clyst Valley Ward. This no doubt reflects the current hive of building activity in and around Clyst St Mary village.
Even if, and it is only an IF, your forecast figures were accurate, and we British are noted for being very sceptical about forecasts are we not?, and the Clyst Valley Ward boundary remained as is, that would only see a total electorate of 2359, including Farringdon’s total. It is not an excessive amount of electorate for one Councillor to have, and would be ‘roughly’, to use your word, comparable to the following future Wards:
Whimple and Rockbeare - 1 Councillor, Electorate 2249
Feniton – 1 Councillor, Electorate 2245
Dunkeswell and Otterhead – 2 Councillors, Electorate 4608 – 2304 per Councillor.
If you wish to compare electoral equality further, some Councillors are forecast, again according to your figures, to have less than 2000 electors within their Wards; Newton Poppleford & Harpford and Sidmouth Rural Wards to name but two of them.
By removing Farringdon from Clyst Valley Ward, and ‘lumping it in’ to a Broadclyst Ward certainly does not show any degree of equality for the electorate of Farringdon Parish. The equality is a two way street. We as the electorate must have faith in our District Councillor, and be happy that he will look after our interests. In turn, as is proven time and time again, our Councillor stands up for and protects our interests. (Reference the comments as per the last two paragraphs in point 1 to emphasise and reiterate this point).
As a suggestion, and looking at the overall equality, instead of reducing Clyst Valley’s Ward area, by removing Farringdon Parish to Broadclyst, it would instead be far more sensible in include the parish of Clyst Honiton, making the Clyst Valley Ward boundary as shown below. As can be seen, there is a significant area of Clyst Honiton’s Parish boundary which protrudes between those of Sowton and Farringdon Parishes, and adjoining near Clyst St Mary Parish also. This means that we again share common interests and issues, namely the A3052 road issues, and those concerning Hill Barton Industrial Estate. The effect in terms of additional electorate would see the total increase to 2592; Clyst Honiton’s current electorate being 233. It’s still within the bounds, ‘roughly’, for one District Councillor to handle.
This would make for a tighter, stronger Ward, which would mean keeping our existing Councillor fighting the same common causes. It could be argued that such a change would be worth the consideration of having 2 District Councillors i.e. 1296 electors per Councillor. Both Broadclyst and Clyst Valley Wards could balance by having 2 Councillors apiece. Better equality and balance for the electorate, again reflecting “the interests and identities of local communities.”
3. “That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government”.
We refer to our responses to points 1 and 2. For Farringdon, “effective and convenient local government” would be best served for our Parish by a. leaving things exactly as they are; or b. by re-drawing the proposed Ward boundaries to reflect the suggestion above.
In conclusion, Farringdon may be small, and maybe regarded by those who ‘make the decisions’ as a being a backwater and insignificant, but we do not consider ourselves to be either. Neither do we consider ourselves to be a ‘pawn’ to be used for the sake of some Government recommendation. Farringdon Parish Council and the Farringdon residents have fought tooth and nail over various issues; issues which affect the very being and soul of our community. Farringdon under the ‘wing’ of a new Broadclyst Ward would be about as useful as playing cricket with a golf club. It simply will not “reflect the interests and identities of the local communities”. This recommendation is about “as far as possible” AWAY from the spirit of the criteria as set out by you. It simply will not be in Farringdon’s best interests at all.
To quote Sir Winston Churchill “Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak. Courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen”. We have stood up, had our say, and given you our views / suggestions. All that we ask is that you now have the courage to ‘sit down and listen’, and take into account the very real concerns we have with this. Make the right choice; the right choice for Farringdon Parish; the choice we wish to have as a community. We would gladly welcome members of the Commission to come and visit us, and to allow us the opportunity of discussing in person.
Thank You.
Yours faithfully
Alana Sayers (Mrs) Parish Clerk Farringdon Parish Council cc The Rt. Hon. Sir Hugo Swire MP (East Devon) cc Mike Howe District Councillor (Clyst Valley Ward)
Cooper, Mark
From: Otterton PC Sent: 23 March 2017 12:15 To: Cooper, Mark Cc: 'Ian Simpson' Subject: RE: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON
Dear Mark
The Parish Council considered the draft recommendations at its meeting on 13 March 2017. The Council remains of the view previously expressed – that it is broadly content with the proposed new 3 member Budleigh and Raleigh Ward
All best wishes
Mike
Mike Miller Clerk to Otterton Parish Council
Email:
Telephone:
Mobile:
Website: www.otterton.info
Confidentiality Notice: the information contained in this email and any attachments may be legally privileged and confidential. If you are not an intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and permanently delete the e-mail and any attachments immediately. You should not retain, copy or use this e-mail or any attachments for any purpose, nor disclose all or any part of the contents to any other person
From: Cooper, Mark [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 December 2016 09:58 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST DEVON
Thank you for your e-mail setting out your views in respect of the review of electoral arrangements in East Devon.
Your views have been noted, and will be taken into account by the Local Government Boundary Commission in formulating its draft recommendations. Please note that this stage of the review is a public consultation, and the Commission places great importance on ensuring openness and transparency in the way it deals with all representations. Accordingly, at the end of this stage of the review, full copies of all submissions received will be available for viewing on the Commission’s website, at www.lgbce.org.uk
If you do not want all or any part of your response or name made public, please state this clearly in reply to this email and we will endeavour to respect your wish. Any such request should explain why
1 Cooper, Mark
From: Jennifer Edwards Sent: 04 April 2017 17:49 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review East Devon Attachments: Electoral Review 17.doc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Mr Cooper
Please find attached a proposal from Poltimore Parish Council with regard to the Review of the warding arrangements.
Yours sincerely
Jennie
Jennie Edwards Clerk to Poltimore Parish Council
1
Mrs J Edwards
www.poltimoreparishcouncil.org
Review Officer (East Devon) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P4QP
4th April 2017
Dear Mr Cooper
Re: Electoral Review of East Devon: Warding Arrangements
On behalf of Poltimore Parish Council and residents I wish to draw your attention to the proposed recommendations to transfer Poltimore from the Broadclyst ward to Exe Valley.
We have for many years been part of the Broadclyst Ward. We have shared with them the problems and growth of the new developments in the West End of East Devon and we have been very much involved. With the closeness of our village to these developments it has had a tremendous effect on our daily lives and we feel that to move us to Exe Valley, where we do not have any connection, we would not enjoy the same level of support. We are much closer to Broadclyst and therefore share the same problems. Most of our children attend the schools at Broadclyst, use the bus service, local shops and sports facilities. Overall, we have much more common ground with Broadclyst.
The District Councillors have always been supportive to our village, (not to say that a District Councillor in Exe Valley would not be), but we are a lot closer to Broadclyst in many aspects not only distance and therefore we feel most strongly that the status quo should remain.
We ask that you consider these points favourably when making your decisions.
Yours sincerely
Jennie Edwards Clerk to Poltimore Parish Council
Cooper, Mark
From: Town Clerk Sent: 16 March 2017 12:15 To: reviews Subject: FW: Electoral Review of East Devon: Draft Recommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Sir/Madam,
Further to the letter I received from Rebecca Smith, I hereby attach the result ions and response of Sidmouth Town Council in relation to the Boundary Review of East Devon District Council. Please note that Resolution No 3 was made to address the inconsistencies within the Boundary Commission paperwork where ward names between the District and Town Wards have been transposed or part transposed. Having spoken to a Boundary Commission representative, they advised that the Council make this clear in its response which is included below.
144 Local Government Boundary Commission for England – Draft recommendations on the new arrangements for East Devon District Council Members were asked to consider the Town Clerk’s report and map of the draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for EDDC. RESOLVED: 1) That Sidmouth Town Council notes the recommended changes made to the East Devon District Council boundaries;
2) That Sidmouth Town Council did not support the creation of single Member wards within the Town Council as this would not lead to more effective and convenient representation for Sidmouth residents for the following reasons; Single Member wards would cause problems with reporting to the Planning Committee, especially in an area with so many properties in a conservation area and tree applications. A single Member ward for East Ward would not work as although there are fewer residents, there was much more case work as this area covers the majority of shops and businesses in Sidmouth town. Sidbury was a large geographical area which was three times as large as any other ward in Sidmouth – the ward should therefore also have two Members.
Sidmouth Town Council proposed that the wards should be represented as follows: Current Proposed no. of no. of Town Ward Name Cllrs Cllrs
Primley 2 3
Salcombe Regis 2 2
Sidbury 2 2
Sidford Village 2 2
1 Sidmouth East 2 2
Sidmouth North 3 3
Sidmouth South 3 3
Sidmouth West 3 2
3) That the current Town Council ward names of Sidmouth North, South, East, West, Primley, Sidbury and Salcombe Regis be retained and not as listed on the Boundary Commission consultation maps.
Should you swish to have further clarification, do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards,
Christopher E Holland Town Clerk
Sidmouth Town Council Woolcombe House Sidmouth Devon. EX10 9BB
Tel: 01395 512424 Web: www.sidmouth.gov.uk
Sidmouth Town Council
Do you really need to print this email? Please think about the environment.
The e‐mail you have received (including attachments) is private and may be confidential. It is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed.
If you are not the intended recipient, you should notify the Council of the error in transmission, delete the e‐mail from your system and must not print, copy or distribute it to anyone else.
Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before opening attachments, since the Town Council accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by software viruses.
Senders and recipients of e‐mail should be aware that under UK Data Protection and Freedom of Information legislation these contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request.
Nothing in this e‐mail message amounts to a contractual or other legal commitment on the part of Sidmouth Town Council unless confirmed by a communication signed on behalf of the Council.
2
Cooper, Mark
From: Sarah-Jane Sent: 31 March 2 To: reviews Cc: Lesley Pidgeon; Nick Randle; Steve Horner Subject: Letter concerning the proposed Boundary changes affecting Yarcombe, Devon Attachments: Letter to the Boundary Commission.docx
Dear Sir
Please find attached our letter to the Boundary Commission, concerning the affect on the Yarcombe Parish and a couple of points / recommendations we would like to propose.
A copy of the letter is also in the post,
With kind regards,
Sarah-Jane Martin Clerk, Yarcombe Parish Council
1 The Review Officer (East Devon) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
Letter by 1st class mail and e-mail [email protected]
Dear Sir
Yarcombe Parish Council met on the evening of 29th March 2017 to review the draft recommendations of the Boundary Commission in so far as this affects the new Ward boundaries for East Devon District Council.
In summary the proposed changes, if implemented as they presently stand, would result in Yarcombe Parish leaving the Yarty Ward and would then form part of the proposed Otterhead and Dunkeswell Ward. This Ward would be represented by two Councillors.
I have been requested by the Yarcombe Parish Council to make two points to your Commission which are as follows
1. The new Ward, presently called Otterhead and Dunkeswell, covers a large rural area and would be represented by two District Councillors, we would suggest that for the purposes of continuity and good governance that one District Councillor should be specifically appointed to provide specific liaison between our Parish and the East Devon District Council while both should keep abreast of parish issues 2. Under the changed voting structure Yarcombe Parish would be less well represented in the new structure than has been enjoyed under the present structure and this reinforces the need for particular focus as outlined above.
Apart from the above Parish Council being in support of the proposed boundary changes, however the Council would strongly recommend that the proposed title for the new Ward presently entitled Otterhead and Dunkeswell should be changed to Blackdown Hills Ward being one contiguous area and thus would be properly named to be in recognition of the geographic area which it serves. It will also be more acceptable to Yarcombe residents than a title that refers to communities other than ours.
Yours faithfully
Sarah-Jane Martin Yarcombe Parish Clerk