Cooper, Mark From: Cllr Marianne Rixson Sent: 30 March 2017 14:29 To: Cooper, Mark Cc: Cllr Geoffrey Jung; Martin Shaw Subject: Fwd: LBGCE Attachments: Response to BC_29 Mar 17 final.docx; ATT00001.htm Dear Mr Cooper Thank you for your email of 17th March 2017 and the helpful information supplied therein. Please find attached objections and recommendations from East Devon Alliance with regard to the proposed boundary changes at East Devon District Council. Kind regards. Cllr Marianne Rixson Chair, East Devon Alliance Sidmouth-Sidford Ward Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Marianne Rixson < Date: 30 March 2017 at 14:19:00 BST To: Marianne Rixson Subject: LBGCE final version 1 29th March 2017 Mark Cooper Review Officer LGBCE 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP Dear Mr Cooper We welcome the Boundary Commission’s agreement to the number of councillors being raised from 57 to 60. The three main objectives for this Electoral Review are: 1. Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each council represents; 2. Reflect community identity and 3. Provide for effective and convenient local government. However, we believe that placing the main emphasis on the numbers does not serve the other objectives of community identity and effective local representation. Our objections to the new ward patterns recommended are as follows: 1. Clyst Valley • EDDC’s recommendation for Clyst Valley was to split the Parishes of Sowton and Clyst St Mary. This results in splitting the village High St in two, which bizarrely has Clyst St Mary on one side and Sowton on the other. • The Commission recommended that these two parishes should not be split and this decision is welcome. • However, this has resulted in the Parishes of Farringdon and Clyst Honiton becoming what Farringdon Parish Councillors are describing as the “Super Ward of Broadclyst” with three councillors. • Farringdon does not have community identity at all with Broadclyst and, therefore, this Parish wishes to be linked to similar parishes with a common community identity. • We, therefore, agree with the Commission’s Clyst Valley Proposal. 2. Raleigh • The Commission has recommended that this Parish should be joined with larger communities. Joining Woodbury Salterton with the Parish of Woodbury to form an enlarged Woodbury Lympstone Ward does appear to be a sensible move. • However, Raleigh Ward is essentially rural in nature. EDDC’s suggestions were: • either to form a single councillor ward encompassing Otterton, Colaton Raleigh, Bicton plus East Budliegh leaving the town ward of Budliegh Salterton with two councillors, or • one large three councillor ward combining rural villages with the town of Budleigh Salterton. • The second is the chosen option. We would argue that this is neither logical nor efficient. It does not provide effective or convenient local government and definitely does not reflect community identity. • Cllr Ben Ingham, Leader of the Independent Group wrote to the Chief Executive on 27th November 2016 and objected to this proposal (see Appendix A), as follows: “I see the creation of a Budleigh/Raleigh ward as politically divisive and against the grain of your main argument; no logic. I think this aspect stinks. We should be rising above this sort of expedient behaviour. I ask you to put this one issue right in order (retain two wards, reducing BS member number to two) to gain an acceptable format for all to support, based on numbers and divisions, as explained to us by the LGBCE. That is what they will expect.” o We agree with the argument put forward by Cllr Ingham and would argue that the first option is preferable for the rural villages, particularly with a view to representation and community identity. o The “estimated” figure for a 2 Councillor Ward in Budleigh Salterton would result in only 23 voters above the maximum target figure (see Appendix B). • We, therefore, propose that: o Raleigh Ward should be retained and include the villages of Otterton, Colaton Raleigh, Bicton, East Budleigh together with the additional Parish of Farringdon. o Budleigh Salterton should lose one ward member and become a two ward town. 3. Seaton • The proposal is to take part of Seaton in order to boost the numbers in the Beer and Branscombe Ward. • We object to this proposal as Beer and Seaton are two distinctive and separate communities with a strong local identity. • This move is, therefore, opposed by both local residents and Seaton Town Council on the grounds that a small gain in equality would be at the expense of community identity. • Our recommendation is that the Beer boundary should not be merged with Seaton. We agree with the submission already made by Seaton Town Council, which unanimously opposed the recommendation to incorporate West Seaton in the Beer and Branscombe ward. Yours sincerely Cllr Marianne Rixson Chair, East Devon Alliance APPENDIX A From: Cllr Ben Ingham Sent: 27 November 2016 18:58 To: Mark Williams; Cllr Mrs Brenda Taylor; 'Paul Diviani' Subject: Re: LGBCE East Devon Review - UNCLASSIFIED: Dear Mark, I understand and accept your recommendations for Exmouth, Honiton and Sidmouth. The numbers are I believe overwhelming evidence in favour of what you suggest. I say this is what these communities should want to happen. But I look forward to hearing from Brenda and Paul if they are concerned. However, I see the creation of a Budleigh/Raleigh ward as politically divisive and against the grain of your main argument; no logic. I think this aspect stinks. We should be rising above this sort of expedient behaviour. I ask you to put this one issue right in order (retain two wards, reducing BS member number to two) to gain an acceptable format for all to support, based on numbers and divisions, as explained to us by the LGBCE. That is what they will expect. Best regards - Ben APPENDIX B Variance = 10% 2098 = Target per councillor Commission Proposal Comparison with Map Figures Parish Name Map Figures Ward Name Cllrs Minus 10% Target Plus 10% % Budleigh Salterton 4639 Colaton Raleigh 565 Bicton 117 East Budleigh 701 Otterton 580 Budleigh Raleigh 6602 Ward 3 5665 6294 6923 +4.9 Variance vs Map Figures 308 -321 District Councillor Proposal Budleigh Salterton 4639 4639 Budleigh Town 2 3776 4196 4616 +10.5 Variance vs Map Figures 443 23 Colaton Raleigh 565 Bicton 117 East Budleigh 701 Otterton 580 Farringdon 253 2216 Raleigh 1 1888 2098 2308 + 5.6 Variance vs Map Figures 118 -92 The Rural Villages and surrounding countryside need to be treated separately from Urban Areas. Budleigh Salterton is an urban area which has little in common with the rural area in terms of District Council Issues. The estimated figure would result in an increase of only 23 voters vs. the target figure for Budleigh Town (based on +10%) and we suggest that this outweighs the disadvantage of Rural Villages being represented by 3 councillors from the town of Budleigh as currently proposed. .