Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 541 Parish Review DISTRICT OF EAST DEVON LOCAL GOVSHNMH1T BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOH ENGLAND RETORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell FRIGS FSVA MEMBERS Lady Ackner Mr G R Prentice Professor G E Cherry Mr K J L Newell Mr B Scholes OBE THE RT. HON. NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT EAST DEVON PARISH REVIEW 1. On 10 December 1986 we submitted to you our Reports Nos. 521 and 522 following our consideration of the review of the City of Exeter's boundary with the Districts of East Devon and Teignbridge in the County of Devon, and of part of the parish review of the District of East Devon. 2. In our Report No. 522 we proposed the realignment of the boundary between the Parishes of Woodbury and Clyst St. George in order to place the village of Ebford within Clyst. St. George. \3e made this proposal under section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in advance of our other proposals on the East Devon parish review, with the request that the proposal be implemented concurrently with those on the District of Exeter boundary review if they were implemented. In your Department's letter of 3 April 1987 we were informed of your decision to make an Order under section 51(2) of the Act giving effect to the proposal set out in our Report No. 522 without modification. 3. We considered the District Council's parish review report, the Council's Working Party's report and associated comments, in accordance with the requirements of section 48(9) of the Act, together with the enclosed representations which were received direct, and which are listed in the attached Schedule A. Copies of the District Council's and the Council's Working Party's reports and supporting documents are enclosed. 4. Our Report No. 522 explained the reasons for our decision to exercise the powers conferred on us by section 48(9) of the 1972 Act to conduct our own review of the parish pattern of the district. In brief, the District Council had decided to make no recommendations to us. We had some reservations about this decision since we observed that the Council's Working Party had received many suggestions for change and the Council had indeed published draft recommendations affecting no fewer than 27 parishes. We therefore requested a copy of the Working Party's report, which the District Council supplied. This showed that, prima facie, some at least of the suggestions appeared to have merit. We therefore decided we should conduct our own review and so informed the District Council which took note of our decision. On 22 May 1985 we issued a consultation letter announcing the start of a review and publishing our draft proposals based on the Working Party's final recommendations. The letter was addressed to East Devon District Council: copies were sent to the County Council of Devon; all parishes within the district; the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned; the headquarters of the main political parties; the editors both of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press; the local radio and television stations serving the area; and to individuals and organisations who had commented on the review. The start of the review was further publicised by notices in the local press and views were invited from members of the public and interested bodies. Comments were invited by 17 July 1985. 5. Our letter pointed out that the recommendations of the Council's Working Party had excluded some areas where new parishes might be created, particularly Exmouth, or where boundary changes might be made, and invited the District Council's comments on the representations which we had received in respect of those areas. Copies of the maps illustrating our draft proposals are enclosed, together with a copy of our draft proposals letter of 22 May 1985, which proposed changes in 37 areas. For ease of reference we have identified our draft proposals by area numbers, details of which are given in the attached Schedule B. The proposed changes affected the following parishes: Awliscombe Feniton Axminster Gittisham Axraouth Monkton Bicton Musbury Broadclyst Newton Poppleford Budleigh Salterton Qffwell Chardstock Otterton Clyst St. George Ottery St. Mary Clyst St. Mary Payhembury Colaton Raleigh Rockbeare Combpyne-Rousdon Talaton Cotleigh Uplyme Dunkeswell Widworthy East Budleigh Woodbury RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS 6. We received 48 comments in response to our draft proposals. A list of those who commented is given in the attached Schedule C, and the various comments are summarised below under the respective area numbers. The comments received in respect of our draft proposal for Area 36 affecting the boundaries of the Parishes of Uoodbury and Clyst St. George were dealt with in our Report No, 522. The County Council of Devon and the Parishes of Farway and Seaton stated that they had no comments to make on our draft proposals. (a) Areas Nos. 1 and 2 (Lympstone and Woodbury) 6.1 The District Council and the Parish of Woodbury supported both draft proposals. The Parish of Lympstone supported our draft proposal for Area 2, but opposed the proposal for Area 1 and instead suggested an alternative boundary which would result in a rather larger area being transferred to them from the Parish of Woodbury. (b) Areas Nos. 3. 4 and 5 fBudleigh Salterton and East Budleigh^ 6.2 The District Council supported our draft proposals but the Parish of East Budleigh with Bicton opposed all three on the grounds that the loss of Area 4 containing rateable hereditaments and land which might be developed would reduce their rate income. A resident of East Budleigh also opposed our proposals for Areas 3 and 4 and expressed concern over the financial consequences to Che Parish of East Budleigh with Bicton from the loss of Area 4. (c) Areas Nos. 6. 7. 8. 9 and 10 (East Budleigh. Budleigh Salterton and Otterton 6.3 The District Council and the Parishes of Otterton and Colaton Raleigh supported our draft proposals. (d) Areas Nos. 11 and 12 (Otterton. East Budleigh and Bicton) 6.4 The District Council supported both draft proposals. The Parish of East Budleigh with Bicton opposed them on the grounds that the they would lose rate income. The Parish of Otterton opposed our proposal for Area 11 and instead suggested an alternative boundary involving the transfer of land adjacent to the River Otter from the Parishes of Colaton Raleigh and East Budleigh to their parish. (e) Area No. 13 (East.Budleigh and Bictonl 6.5 The District Council supported our draft proposal, but the Parish Council of East Budleigh with Bicton opposed it and considered that as the Parishes of East Budleigh and Bicton had a common parish council it was unnecessary to alter the boundary between them. (f) Areas Nos. 14. 15 and 16 fColaton Raleigh, Otterton and Newton Poppleford and Harpfordl 6.6 The District Council and the Parishes of Colaton Raleigh and Otterton supported our draft proposals for these areas. (g) Areas Nos. 17. 18 and 19 fBroadclvst and Rockbeare) 6.7 The Parish of Broadclyst suggested an amendment to our draft proposals in order to realign the boundary between their parish and the Parish of Rockbeare to the line of the stream called Cranna, instead of the London - Exeter railway line adopted in our draft proposals. The District Council supported this amendment. The Parish of Rockbeare supported our draft proposals but suggested an amendment in respect of the proposal for Area 17 in order to include the property known as Stone Villa within their parish. Mr R K Taylor, a County Councillor, supported the amendment suggested. (h) Araes _ tjos.... 20 and 21 CFenitonand Pavhemburv') 6.8 The District Council stated that they would only support a change if the different boundaries agreed by their Working Party were adopted instead. The Parish of Payherabury supported our draft proposal. (I) Areas Nos. 22 (Dunkeswell and AwliscQ_mb_el_ and 23 and 24 JLMonkton and Cotleigh) 6.9 The District Council supported our draft proposals for these areas, (j) Areas Nos. 25 and 26 CWidworthv and Offwell) 6.10 The District Council and the Parish of Widworthy supported our draft proposals for these areas. (k) Area_No. 27 (Axmouth and Combpyne-Rousdon) 6.11 The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon suggested an amendment to our draft proposal which would increase the amount of land to be transferred to them from the Parish of Axmouth. The District Council supported this amendment. The Parish of Axmouth opposed our draft proposal mainly on the grounds of the financial loss to their parish. (1) Area No. 28 (Combpyne-Rousdon and Uplyme) 6.12 The District Council supported our draft proposal. The Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon opposed this proposal and felt that there was no good reason to change the present boundary, particularly as most of the land involved belonged to farms situated within Corabpyne-Rousdon. (m) Areas Nos. 29 and 30 (Musburv. Combpnve-Rousdon and Uplvme) 6.13 The District Council supported both draft proposals but the Parish of Combpyne-Rousdon supported the draft proposal for Area 29 only. The Parish of Musbury opposed the draft proposal for Area 29 and saw no valid reason for the transfer of the area to Combpyne-Rousdon. (n) Areas Nos. 31 and 32 (Uplvme and Axminster) 6.14 The District Council supported both draft proposals, (o) Area No. 33 CChardstock') 6.15 The District Council supported our draft proposal for the creation of a new parish of All Saints from part of the existing Parish of Chardstock.