Local resident submissions to the Exeter City Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5758 Page 1 of 1 28/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Alison Bingham E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I live in very close proximity to St Leonard's church and school. I am completely baffled as to why I would no longer be considered as a resident of St Leonard's. I am concerned about the effect on house prices and school catchment area. As I said I live a 5 minute walk from St Leonard's primary school and it would be completely nonsensical for my children to be outside of the schools catchment area. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 July 2015 11:09 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Boundary Review Exeter - St James Ward Original Message From: Rebecca Bower Sent: 20 July 2015 10:24 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Review Exeter St James Ward I am writing to record my strong objection to the proposed merger of St James with Duryard. St James has its own Neighbourhood Plan and is very different from the area covered by Duryard. I urge you to listen to members of the community of St James like myself and reject this proposal. Rebecca Bower 1
Starkie, Emily From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 21 July 2015 11:48 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Review officer Exeter - St James Ward From: DAVID BRICE Sent: 21 July 2015 10:36 To: reviews Subject: Review officer Exeter St James Ward Dear sir/madam I live at in St James ward, where I have been resident for over 15 years. I am writing to protest against the proposed merger of St James ward with Duryard. These two wards are very different from each other and with very different issues. This is recognised by the City Council and most of the local political parties. We have a Neighbourhood Plan for St James Ward which addesses our unique issues, is widely supported by the electorate, and was financially supported by central government. To understand our particular issues I strongly recommend that you meet with members of St James Forum. If our national goverment really believes in local democracy and community initiatives then this proposal needs to be withdrawn. Yours sincerely David Brice 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5794 Page 1 of 1 06/08/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: John Brownbridge E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Mr Comment text: I accept that this is outside the scope of the current work. However how does these changes affect or Devon County Council Councillors and the areas they represent? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5392 Page 1 of 1 19/06/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Shaun Carter E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I see I have moved from Topsham Ward to Priory Ward - I find this OK especially if I am able to return to Exeter in the Parliamentary elections. Not sure the Glasshouse Lane part of the new Topsham Ward will be equally happy especially if they end up in the East Devon Parliamentary Constituency. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5396 Page 1 of 1 07/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Wendy chalk E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Why change something that's not broke. I live in whipton. If this went ahead I would be moved into Heavitree. I don't want to be heaitree I will always class myself as a whiptoner!! Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
To: The Review Officer (Exeter) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower 21-24 Millbank London SW1P 4QP 6 August 2015 Dear Sir/Madam I write as Secretary of the Exmouth Branch of East Devon Constituency Labour Party and Secretary/Agent of East Devon CLP regarding your recommendations for the future electoral arrangements for the Exeter City Council as far as they concern our interests in that Council, with the request that you consider retaining the present boundaries between the Topsham/St. Loyes and Priory Wards in Exeter. As you will be aware the two Exeter City Wards of St. Loye s and Topsham are currently in the East Devon County Constituency and for us are part of our Exmouth and District Branch Labour Party. My comments on the three Wards in which we share an interest are: St. Loye s. St. Loyes is an historic ward bordering to the East with the village of Heavitree in Exeter. The Honiton Road is a clear northern boundary and until the year 2000 reorganisation of its boundary in the west was Butts Road. It is currently a two member ward, but as I understand it will in future become a three member ward, you may wish to consider reverting to that historic boundary. Priory. Priory Ward has been established for 15 years, since the year 2000. It has two parts the Wonford area and the two parts of historic Countess Wear separated by the swing bridge. Lower Countess Wear is contained within the Polling District LA and Upper Countess Wear within the Polling District LB. It is currently already a three member ward whose electorate numbers fulfil the necessary criteria and as a ward has provided efficient and convenient Local Governance. We hope the Ward will be retained in its current state. Topsham. A great historic town. At present a two member ward, the approved housing development of the Newcourt estates (much already occupied) of the former Royal Navy depot sites will undoubtedly fulfil the electoral numbers criteria for having three councillors by 2021. The Ludwell Lane and M5 link road represent a clear northern boundary for the ward and a new railway station will link Newcourt to Topsham and Exmouth. In view of the above, we request the Boundary Commission to revise their draft recommendations and maintain the existing boundaries between Topsham and Priory and look to expanding St. Loyes as necessary by returning to the pre 2000 western boundary, which was Butts Road. Thank you for considering our comments Yours sincerely Ray Davison
Starkie, Emily From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 21 July 2015 11:40 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Proposed Ward Boundary change - St James, Exeter From: Sheila Dziobon Sent: 20 July 2015 19:36 To: reviews Subject: Proposed Ward Boundary change St James, Exeter Dear Sir/Madam, I am disappointed to learn that the proposals published on June 9th suggest that the ward I live in, St James Exeter, is to be merged with the neighbouring ward of Duryard. There is a lot more than geography in play here and the residents of St James have put in a great deal of effort to maintain a mixed demographic in the ward and have been involved in decisions affecting traffic calming and changes to the roads in the City associated with, for example, the arrival of John Lewis. We differ in many ways to Duryard, not least because it is the actual University that dominates Duryard rather than the masses of students who live in St James. We have a neighbourhood plan which has been carefully thought through and is inclusive of the variety of residents within the ward. These include students, families, the primary school, our retired residents, the Exeter mosque and St James Park Exeter AFC to name a few. We are proud and protective of our ward and whilst I am sure the people of Duryard are charming, they have not been involved in all the recent changes and although we appreciate the wealth the University has brought to the City we are conscious of our need to be able to challenge their advancement. If the University is within our ward our negotiating will be curtailed. I would urge you to meet with members of the Exeter St James Forum who represent us and find out first hand what is at stake. Many thanks for your time, Sheila Dziobon, 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5405 Page 1 of 1 07/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: maggie eveleigh E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I object to the boundary changes. As a local resident of over 30 years I have not heard one positive opinion for this expensive reorganisation. Personally i believe this to be a destructive plan that has no real purpose. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 09 July 2015 08:41 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Review: Exeter Original Message From: Laurie Fentimen Sent: 09 July 2015 08:38 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Commission Review: Exeter Dear Sir or Madam, The proposals for Exeter overall seem sensible as it is clearly desirable to have approximately similar sized wards. However, we feel very strongly that size should not be the overriding factor: coherence is more important: keeping the communities people identify with in the same ward. We therefore support the proposals to relocate our area, upper Countess Wear, from Topsham ward into Priory ward as we feel we have more in common and our focus for public services and community is inwards towards Exeter rather than out to the separate and very different locality of Topsham. We know it is outside the remit of this particular consultation, but on the same point, we would like to register our strong view that the current Parliamentary boundary makes no sense we are in East Devon constituency, yet, as stated above, our focus is Exeter City, and it is Exeter City Council that provides the public services that are most important to us. We very much hope there will be a consultation on this issue in the near future Yours faithfully, Laurie & Carol Fentimen 1
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 July 2015 11:22 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: council ward boundary changes From: Gill, Christopher Sent: 07 July 2015 21:34 To: reviews Cc: Subject: council ward boundary changes I live in the St James council ward in Exeter. I would like to OPPOSE the draft proposal to merge this ward with Duryard. St James and Duryard have very different characters St James is much more densely occupied and has a unique and complex situation between the city centre and the university with its ever increasing need for student accommodation. St James has developed a Neighbourhood plan approved overwhelmingly by a referendum and has its own Forum which is very active. It also has measures designed to avoid the spread of multiple occupancy of housing to retain a balanced community these might be put at risk if the two wards were merged. Duryard is much less densely occupied, and includes most of the university campus. Its interests and configuration is very different and there is no obvious advantage in its merging with St James. The Exeter City council plan did not favour the merging of the two wards. (Mr) Christopher Gill 1
Starkie, Emily From: Jonathan Gosling Sent: 28 July 2015 13:21 To: reviews Subject: Proposed Ward Boundary Changes Dear Review Officer, I see that the Council is planning to combine St James and Dryad wards. I cannot see that this will help us in St James, where the intensity of housing and particular challenges of being on the very edge of the City and two campuses call for responses that are very different to those in Duryard. I think we need our own representation on the Council, and therefore OPPOSE the boundary changes. Please attend a meeting of the Exeter St James Forum to see and hear for yourself the needs of this unique area. Yours sincerely Prof Jonathan Gosling 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5353 Page 1 of 1 09/06/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Steve Grant E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Hi there. I don't understand the need for the changes here. Surely more councillors representing smaller, more focused geographic areas is better for local governance. The loss of smaller wards such Polsoe, Whipton, St Leonards and others in larger ones which have a diverse social makeup - rich and poor, employed and unemployed. Could this end up with the those with a small voice (the poor for instance) being overshadowed by the more economically able people in that ward? A good example of this is the Pennsylvania proposed ward change; the additional area of Polsoe is mostly student rented accommodation. The needs of those in the old Polsoe ward may end up not being represented as they are part of larger (possibly wealthier) area. The old boundaries seem to well represent our diverse city. Losses like this dilute heritage. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5844 Page 1 of 1 11/08/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Sheila Hobden E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I write to support the proposal of 13 three member wards for the Exeter City Council. I note that a submission has been made that the current St James Ward be retained as a two member ward with the present Duryard ward as a one member ward. The case given for this is that Duryard and St James wards are quite different in character and that the proposal would cause difficulties for the St James Forum. I find neither of these arguments persuasive. It is not the case that the two wards are so very different. Each contains a significant student population as well as residential areas. In fact they have much in common. I do not agree that the St James Forum would suffer because of the proposal as the proposed new ward does not cut across the boundary of St James. It can perfectly well function within the new ward boundary. The principal reason for my objection is that since the reasons for this case are far from persuasive it would be quite inequitable to reduce Duryard ward to a one member ward. This would result in Duryard residents having only one opportunity in four years to elect a City Councillor whereas the rest of the city has such a democratic opportunity three time in four years. This would certainly not deliver the electoral equality sought in this boundary review. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 04 August 2015 16:21 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: St James Ward - boundary change. From: G Honeyman Sent: 04 August 2015 15:20 To: reviews <reviews@lgbce.org.uk> Subject: St James Ward boundary change. Dear Sirs, I wish to object to the proposal by LGBCE to merge St James Ward with Duryard Ward and add my support to our local City Council, the Lib Dem Party and the Labour Party in their request to leave St James as it currently is. I was disappointed to find out that the Conservatives had not objected to this proposal (to date anyway) and intend to take the matter up directly with them. Duryard Ward has a vastly different character to that of St James. Myself and other residents who I have discussed this matter with, are of the same opinion; that St James is a unique community, we have our own Neighbourhood plan (agreed to via a referendum) and this mandate was to ensure that we be treated as a unique part of the city. We, as the 'people of St James' would lose our identity and will to take part in community matters if the merge were to take place. We have nothing in common with Duryard. Please don't let the St James Community down, many of us have worked tirelessly over many years to keep the character and neighbourhood spirit alive, this would all be lost if you allowed the boundary change to take place against the democratic will of the community. Yours sincerely, Gillian Honeyman (Mrs) St James Resident since 1996 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5676 Page 1 of 1 14/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Rebecca Housley E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I agree with the idea of having 2 councillors per ward. I also broadly agree with the proposed boundaries. However, I think the Duryard, Pennsylvania and St James area would be better divided horizontally rather than vertically. In other words making Duryard and Pennsylvania a ward and St James, Stoke Hill, Polsloe one ward. Having previously lived in St James and also Polsloe, I feel these areas are significantly different to Duryard and Pennsylvania. St James and Polsloe are both urban areas with different issues to Duryard and Pennsylvania (eg more people in rented accomodation, student accomodation, parking issues, city events such as Great West Run and Respect Festival). Also St James has a community group which would be able to increase to serve Polsloe and Stoke Hill better than serving Duryard and Pennsylvania. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response My original submission, March 2015, was a 15-wards scheme; that was designed to respect local communities whilst providing for effective local government. The Draft has adopted the-city council s 13-wards submission for triple member wards: their poisoned chalice of 14-wards having lacked any credible substantive evidence. My own scheme is revised in the light of the Draft recommendation 13-wards. 18 (eighteen) wards are to be shrunk to thirteen (13) ward. There are a dozen extant names with established identities. Of these four are already 3-member wards: they are Alphington ward, Exwick ward, Priory ward, and Whipton & Barton (Whipton) wards. Two others are forecast to have growth that would make 3-member entitlement, in the near future: they are Topsham ward and Pinhoe ward. Of the extant 2-member wards another quartet have clear historic monastic roots: they are St Thomas, St Loye s, St Leonard, and St David s wards. There are three other historic locations: Heavitree, Polsloe, and Pennsylvania. This objection / approval is in three pieces: they shall be read together so as to comprehend my alternative proposals. The designs proposal s purpose is the wards to be largely coterminous within a County Electoral Division (ED). Only a single ED & ward are coterminous: Pennsylvania & M lake. My best wishes & trust that from analysis some measure of largely coterminous arrangements can appear in both FER s Final Recommendations for Devon (Exeter) and Exeter:. At end of this response are two appendix: Devon (Exeter) and Exeter: these are for comparative purposes usage. Devon-Exeter is 9-EDs, originally dual member submission. Whilst, Exeter is 15-wards, 11 3-member & 3 2-member, so as to be coterminous with the county divisions. === === === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 (#) CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== WEST 21,230 21,781 09 Alphington [AA,AC,AD+AE,] 6505 6964 3-4(3.71 %) [ + BB-s] St Thomas [ R - RA-n,] 7370 7385 3 2(2.12 %) [ + BA-s,BB-n] Exwick [ D + RA-n,] 7355 7432 3 3(2.76 %) [ + BA-n] EAST 12,166 14,591 06 St.Loye s [ Q,] 7077 7525 3 4(4.48 %) [ + LC_n,EB_se] Topsham [ S NO CHANGE] 5089 7066 3-2(2.30 %) SOUTH 13,059 13,474 06 Priory [ L - LC_n,] 6257 6627 3-8(8.37 %) [ + EB_sw] St Leonard s [MA + P ] 6802 6847 3-5(5.33 %) [ + AB,GB_s] CENTRAL 26,722 28,918 12 Whipton [TC,TD + EA_e] 6321 7171 3-1(0.085 %) [ + FB,JA,JB-s] Grand Rougemont Heavitree [EA+KA,] 7325 7694 3 6(6.38 %) [GA-e,GB-n,+TA,TB] Polsloe [KB,KC,] 7027 7194 3-1(0.53 %) [ + NA,GA-w,GC]... St David [MB,MC+NB] 6049 6859 3-5(5.16 %) NORTH 13,503 15,255 06 Pennsylvania [ C + H ] 7474 7505 3 4(3.77 %) &... [ + FA-w,FC-s] Pinhoe [ J JA, JB-s] 6029 7750 3 7(7.16 %) [ + FA-e,FC-n] ============ ==== ---- Cllr/elector CITY 2333 2411 (2410 74 ) ============ ==== ==== ==== ============ Electorate totals 86,680 94,019 39-councillors ============ ========= ====== == (#) the-city s forecast 2021-electorate Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== WEST 21,230 21,781 09 0% * Draft needs to fine tune, Exwick and St Thomas wards: area north of c/l along Newman Rd into Exwick ward. * Good electoral equality, effective & convenient local government:... criteria satisfied for West area. === Alphington 6505 6964 3-4(3.71 %) [AA, AC, AD+AE, + BB-s] The extant, 3-cllr, Alphington ward is -0%: * Dunsford Rd (B3212) is a clear bound; Salmon Pool Bridge revision matches FER Devon: Draft APPROVED. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE retain extant name Alphington ward. === St Thomas 7370 7385 3 2(2.12 %) [ R - RA-n, + BA-s, BB-n] The extant, 2-cllr, St Thomas ward is 2.54 %: OMIT BA-n North-side along Newman Rd s c/l. * Okehampton Road is a clear boundary: APPROVE Draft. * Buddle Ln to be a clear N/S division intra St Thomas. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE retain extant name St Thomas ward. === Exwick 7355 7432 3 3(2.76 %) [ D + RA-n, + BA-n] The extant, 3-cllr, Exwick ward is -8%: INSERT BA-n North-side along Newman Rd s c/l. * Okehampton Road is a clear boundary: APPROVE Draft. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE retain extant name Exwick ward. === === === Exwick INSERT BA-n N-side along c/l of Newman Rd: ISLEWORTH Rd (s-side) 75; BUDDLE Ln (w-side: g-estimate) 15; WELLSWOOD Gdns 55; CHARNLEY Av 65; GREEN Ln 21; PRESCOT Rd 57; SOUTHPORT Av 48; IMPERIAL St 22; ROSEMARY St 27; NEWMAN Ct 4; NEWMAN Rd (n-side: g-estimate) 160 = 549 electors. === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== EAST 12,166 14,591 06 1% * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! * Population s growth in SD : Newcourt estates. * Revision would improve East area s average variances. * Topsham NO CHANGE: effective & convenient government. === St.Loye s 7077 7525 3 4(4.48 %) [ Q, + LC_n,EB_se] The extant, 2-cllr, St Loye s ward is 8%: INSERT EB-se (St Loye s Rd) & LC-n (Wonford Hill) PDs. * OBJECTION: Thornpark estate is nr Heavitree village. * Historic clear north bound B3183/A3015 (Honiton Road), and Ludwell Ln with A3015 are clear nor-east boundary. * Butts Rd & B3183 were ward s clear nor-west boundary: old ward needs extra electors to become 3-cllr ward. * Return of community s id with good electoral equality. The name has continuous usage since 1983: APPROVE retain extant name St.Loye s ward. === Topsham < port for Exeter > 5089 7066 3-2(2.30 %) [ S ie NO CHANGE ward] The extant, 2-cllr, Topsham ward is 47%: * OBJECTION: Countess Wear village must be respected ie Lower Wear + Higher Wear are pieces of Countess Wear. * Topsham s distinct identity recognised in PER 1999 ; south of M5 [ SA PD] is Topsham, a distinct township. * New rail station should soon link Newcourt to Topsham: approved growth forecast in Newcourt beyond AD-2021. * In a growth zone negative variance is future equality. The name has continuous usage since before 1974: APPROVE retain extant name Topsham ward. === === === St Loye s INSERT EB-se - from Heavitree - E of Butts Rd: Attwyll Avenue 127; Avondale Road 42; Broom Close 18; Cran-brook Road 38; East Wonford Hill, south-side, 14; Glenmore Road 46; Heavitree Park 48; Hoker Road 84; Lisa Close 12; Mayfield Road 44; Salter s Ct 34; St. Loye s Road 67; Wood-stock Road 43; Mowbray Court 66 = total 683 electors. Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== SOUTH with CENTRAL 42,392 18-2% * Exe Bridge N, Frog Street, Western Way (A3015), Magdalen Street (B3212), make a very clear easily identifiable bound between South and Central areas; * Prince of Wales Rd, Union Rd, & Prince Charles Rd make clear boundary between Central and North areas. === SOUTH 13,059 13,474 06-7% * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! * Population s forecast growth: LB, PD and GA PDs. === Priory 6,257 6627 3-8(8.37 %) [ L - LC_n, + EB_sw] The extant, 3-cllr, Priory ward is 0%: INSERT 1034-electors from, w. of Butts Road, EB-sw PD; OMIT 1612-electors from LC-n PD into St Loye s, see above, Bovemoor Ln,, Wonford St,, & Ludwell Ln. * OBJECTION: Countess Wear village must be respected ie Lower Wear + Higher Wear are pieces of Countess Wear: * Anecdotal: Families move between Wonford & Lower Wear. * Priory School, re-named Isca College..., is its hub. * PER 1999 combined the Lower Wear with Wonford: Lower Wear includes both sides of Topsham Rd, Countess Wear. Distributor route: between Topsham up to Exeter s city centre. Topsham Rd / Burnthouse Lane is Priory ward s spine. * Since 2000: convenient and effective local government. The name has continuous usage since 2000: APPROVE retain extant name Priory ward. === === === Priory INSERT EB-sw - from Heavitree west of along Butts Road: Baker St; Barrack Rd; Bovemoors La; Butts Road; Carlile Rd; Church La; Church Path La; Church Street; Church Ter; Fore Street; Gordons Pl; Haldon View Terrace; Kingsway; Magdelen Rd; Meadow Way; Salutary Mount; Sherwood Cl; Sivell Place = 1034 electors === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response St Leonard s 6,802 6847 3-5(-5.33 %) [MA + P + AB,GB_s] The extant, 2-cllr, St Leonard s is -17%: INSERT MA (Friar s Green) PD, south of A3015 (Western Way); GB-s (Barnfield), south of B3183; and AB (Haven Bank). * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! OBJECT: Heavitree Rd dissects St Leonard from Newtown. * Until 2000 Western Way (A3015), Magdalen Street, Western Way, & Heavitree Rd (B3183) was this ward s northern bound: these routes makes a clear perimeter; also Barrack Rd retained as a clear eastern boundary. A3015 (Holloway St / Topsham Rd) ward spine retained. * content to accept Haven Bank inclusion in St Len s. * Major revisions improve an historic ward s variances. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE retain extant name St.Leonard s ward. === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== CENTRAL 26,722 28,918 12-0% * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! === Whipton 6321 7171 3-1(0.08 %) [TC,TD + FB,JA,JB-s] The extant, 3-cllr, Whipton ward is -8%: INSERT 1604-electors from JA & JB-s PDs into Whipton, and 845-electors from FB (M lake) PD into Whipton; OMIT: 1853-electors from TA & TB PDs into Heavitree. * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! * Whipton village is NE of & S of between railways: a community s identity clearly defined by railways. * B3183 & A3015 (Honiton Rd) historic clear south bound. * Minor revision can improve a 3-cllr ward s identity. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: suggest retain extant name Whipton ward. === Heavitree 7341 7361 3 2(1.78 %) [EA+KA, + GA-e,GB-n,+TA,TB] The extant, 2-cllr, Heavitree ward is -11%: INSERT: KA (Exeter Cemetery) pd of post-mm Po sloe; 1853-electors from TA & TB PDs into Heavitree. and 2191-electors from GB-n, GA-e PD; OMIT EB pd into Priory ward, & St Loye s ward. * Population s forecast growth in GA PD. * B3183 (Heavitree Rd, and EWH) to be clearer boundary. The name has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE extant name Heavitree ward. === === === Whipton - JA & JB-s - from Pinhoe south of railway / Beacon Heath: 1604-electors Heavitree INSERT GB-n & GA-e - from Newtown East of Western Way: 2191-electors Heavitree - INSERT TA & TB - from Whipton: 1853-electors === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Polsloe (St Sidwell) 7027 7194 3-1(0.53 %) [KB,KC, + NA,GA-w,GC] The extant, 2-cllr, Newtown ward is -12%, and extant, 2-cllr, Polsloe ward is -5%: INSERT: NA (St Sidwell) PD of St James since AD-MM; and 1052 (138+914) electors from Newtown s GA-w & GC PDs; OMIT KA into Heavitree, its pre-mm home ward. * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! * Forecast growth in KC PD: an Edwardian suburb. * Sidwell St, Black Boy Rd & Pinhoe Rd are ward s spine. * Annual elections: provide effective local government. * St Sidwell is a local martyr. Sidwell St was badly blitzed in WWII: in 1950s saw its re-build annually. The name Polsloe has usage since 1970s: suggest revise extant name to be Polsloe St Sidwell ward. === St Peter & St David 6049 6859 3-5(5.16 %) [MB,MC+NB] The extant, 2-cllr, St David s ward is 3%: INSERT NB (Hoopern Valley) PD of extant St James. * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! Draft s scheme is a salad of St David s down-stream to Salmon Pool Bridge: too diverse urban with suburban ward. * Pre-MM St David s all north of Central rail Station. * The main GWR (rail) station is St David s, whilst the cathedral is St Peter s: both in this central area. * Western Way, dual carriageway, is a clear perimeter. * Population s forecast growth in MB+MC, and NB PDs. * Revision makes 3-cllr ward: good electoral equality. * Annual elections: provide effective local government. The name St David s has continuous usage since 1970s. This revised name combines lower + upper pieces of ward: suggest amended name to be St Peter & St David ward. === === === ===. Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== NORTH 13,503 15,255 06 5% * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! * Population s forecast growth: JC, JD and JB PDs. * Major revision improve North area s average variances. * Two wards with continuous usage since 1973: simple continuity for electorate allows effective & convenient local government. === Pennsylvania & Mincinglake 7474 7505 3 4(3.77 %) [ C + H + FA-w,FC-s] The extant Pennsylvania ward is -16%, and the extant Duryard ward is -48%: INSERT: extant Duryard ward to combine with Pennsylvania; and 948-electors from Mincinglake s FA-w & FC-s PDs. * OBJECTION: to be coterminous with County s Division! OBJECT: Pennslyvania & Polsloe are sub-urban & urban: draft s proposal goes south of Prince Charles Road. * University and sub-urbs north beyond Hoopern Valley. Prince of Wales Road is a clear identifiable line, & Mile Lane with Beacon Ln beyond Mincinglake Valley - can make clear east bound along its centre. * the-city's CM / ERO (returning officer) diligent letter 12-i-15:...cohesion between Duryard and Pennsylvania areas, as both more on the rural edge and are more sparsely populated... http://www.lgbce.org.uk/ data/assets/pdf file/0018/24381/exeter -CC-to-LGBCE-Devon-2014-01-09 Redacted.pdf * A coterminous (ED) ward: convenient local government. Duryard s usage as a ward is recent: since AD-MM only. As Pennsylvania has continuous usage since 1970s, before 1983: APPROVE retain extant name Pennsylvania ward. [ see above, alternative name, same as Division s name] === Pennsylvania INSERT FA-w from M lake Pennsylvania INSERT FC-s from M lake === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Pinhoe 6029 7750 3 7(7.16 %) [ J JA,JB-s + FA-e,FC-n] The extant, 2-member, Pinhoe ward is 45%, in 2021, and the extant Mincinglake ward is -13%: INSERT: 2384-electors from Mincinglake s FA-e & FC-n ; OMIT: 1604-electors from JA & JB-s PDs into Whipton. * OBJECTION: community identities were misunderstood! OBJECT: Beacon Heath and Whipton each to be in a ward. * SW-railway to be ward s clear south boundary. * West boundary revision along Mile Ln & (FC) Beacon Ln. * Beacon Heath estates, FA + FC, are north of railway whilst Mincinglake Valley is a topographic feature not housing : that is an opinion of native Exonians. * Whipton village, triangular, is between two railways: a community s identity clearly defined by railways. * Approved housing development in JC estate forecast, justifies this ward s revision into a 3-members ward. * Unification of Beacon Heath can reflect its identity. * Pinhoe s growth: provide effective local government. The name has continuous usage since 1974: APPROVE retain extant name Pinhoe ward. === === === Pinhoe - INSERT FA-e of from M lake east of along Mile Lane:= 1432 electors Pinhoe - INSERT FC-n of from extant Mincinglake north-side, along Beacon La:= 952 electors. === === === === Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Appendix: 9-ED proposal, July 15 Please go to my submission Peter Kingswood
[Type here] FER 2015 City of EXETER a Devon district Draft recommendations, My response Appendix: 15-ward proposal, 30-iii-15 Name of WARD / area 2015 2021 (#) CLLR variance ============ ==== ==== ==== ==== ======== WEST 22,660 23,211 10 River s right-bank Alphington [- AC-pt] 6522 6981 3-3(3.48 %) Exwick [D+RA-pt] 6806 6883 3-5(4.82 %) St Thomas Cowick [B+AC-pt] 4683 4683 2-3(2.85 %) St Thomas [- RA-pt] 4649 4664 2-3(3.26 %) EAST 9,871 12,296 5 St.Loye s [SB,SD+Q] 6425 7814 3 8(8.033 %) Topsham [SA,SC] 3446 4482 2-7(7.052 %) SOUTH with CENTRAL 40,808 17 SOUTH 18,479 Riverside s left-bank Priory [L+EA-pt] 7388 7696 3 6(6.42 %) St Leonard s [MA+P] 4588 4695 2-3(2.61 %) Whipton [T+EA-pt] 6650 7391 3 2(2.19 %) CENTRAL 19,827 Heavitee with Polsloe Polsloe...[K+EBpt,EApt] 7341 7361 3 2(1.78 %) Grand Rougemont St David [MB,MC+NB] 6049 6859 3-5(5.16 %) Newtown...[G,NA] 6437 6806 3-6(5.89 %) NORTH 15,844 17,704 7 Pennsylvania [C+HB,HA-pt] 5154 5184 2 8(7.52 %) Stoke Hill[HA-pt+FA,FB,FC-pt] 4903 4903 2 2(1.70 %) Pinhoe [FC-pt+J] 5787 7617 3 5(5.32 %) ============ ==== ---- Cllr/elector CITY 2333 2411 (2410 74 ) ============ ==== ==== ==== ============ Electorate totals 86,680 94,019 39-councillors ============ ========= ====== == (#) the-city s forecast 2021-electorate Peter Kingswood
Electoral data Using this sheet: Fill in the cells for each polling district. Please make sure that the names of each parish, parish Check your data 2015 2021 Number of councillors: 39 39 Overall electorate: 86,680 94,019 Average electorate per cllr: 2,223 2,411 Scroll right to see the second table Scroll left to see the first table What is the polling district code? Is there any other description you use for this area? Is this polling district contained in a parish? If not, leave this cell blank. Is this polling district contained in a parish ward? If not, leave this cell blank. What uelectoral division is this polling district in? What is the current electorate? What is the predicted electorate? Fill in the name of each ward once Fill in the number of councillors per division These cells will show you the electorate and variance. They change depending what you enter in the table to the left. Polling neighbourhood, as district extant AREA District ward, as proposed Electorate 2015 Electorate 2021 Name of city ward Number of cllrs per ward Electorate 2015 Varia nce 2015 Electorate 2021 Variance 2021 EX1 Example 1 EX2 Example 2 EX3 Example 3 EX4 Example 4 EX5 Example 5 Little Example Even Littler Example Medium Example Big Example Big Example Big Example East Big Example West Example 480 502 Alphington 3 6,505-2% 6,964-4% Example 67 68 Cowick 0 ##### #DIV/0! Example 893 897 Example 759 780 Exwick 3 7,355 10% 7,432 3% Example 803 824 Heavitree 3 7,325 10% 7,694 6% Stoke Hill 0 ##### #DIV/0! AA WEST Alphington 692 692 Newtown 0 ##### #DIV/0! AB Haven Banks ' SOUTH St. Leonard's 1430 1430 Pennsylvania 3 7,474 12% 7,505 4% AB-s nil habitation WEST 0 0 AC Alphington 1247 1247 Pinhoe 3 6,029-10% 7,750 7% AD Alphington 1254 1274 Polsloe 3 7,027 5% 7,194-1% AE Alphington 2092 2531 Priory 3 6,257-6% 6,627-8% BB-s B3212 (Dunsford Rd), s-of Alphington 1220 1220 BA-s Nadder Brook St. Thomas 1471 1471 & St. David 3 6,049-9% 6,859-5%
BB-n Pocombe Bridge St. Thomas 1250 1250 BA-n Bowhay Ln (FP) & Newman Rd, n-of Exwick 549 549 St. Leonard's 3 6,802 2% 6,847-5% CA Pre-MM: St David's NORTH Pennsylvania 668 668 St. Loye's 3 7,077 6% 7,525 4% CB Pre-MM: St David's ward Pennsylvania 1804 1835 St. Thomas 3 7,370 11% 7,385 2% DA WEST Exwick 2187 2187 Topsham 3 5,089-24% 7,066-2% DB Exwick 1507 1528 Whipton 3 6,321-5% 7,171-1% DC Exwick 1809 1809 DD Exwick 1023 1079 39 86,680 94,019 RA-n Okehampton Rd & Stree WEST Exwick 280 280 EA CENTRAL Heavitree 2564 2564 EB-se Pre-MM: St Loye's ward EAST St. Loye's 683 683 EB-sw Butts Rd, w-of SOUTH Priory 1034 1034 FA-w Mile Ln, w-of NORTH Pennsylvania 89 89 FC-w Beacon Ln, s-of Pennsylvania 859 859 FB Whipton Village south <go to lwr row> Whipton 0 0 FA-e Beacon Heath NORTH Pinhoe 1432 1432 FC-n Beacon Heath Pinhoe 952 952 GA-w Sidwell Street, se-of CENTRAL Polsloe 138 138 GA-e Heavitree 1598 1967 GB-n Heavitree Rd, n-of Heavitree 224 224 GC Polsloe 914 914 GB-s Barnfield SOUTH St. Leonard's 914 914 HA Stoke Hill' NORTH Pennsylvania 2281 2281 HB Pennsylvania 1773 1773 JA Whipton Village south / central Whipton 1326 1326 JB-s Beacon Heath, s-of Whipton 169 278 JB-n 'Beacon Hill ' NORTH Pinhoe 406 406 JC Pinhoe 1541 2895 JD Pinhoe 1698 2065 KA Pre-MM: Heavitree ward CENTRAL Heavitree 1086 1086 KB Polsloe 2028 2028 KC Polsloe 1298 1465 LA SOUTH Priory 1571 1571 LB--n SalmonPool Bridge, n-of Priory 130 192 LB--s Priory 639 947 LC-s Bovemoor Ln, & Ludwell Ln, s-of Priory 350 350 LD Priory 2533 2533 MA ' Friars Green ' SOUTH St. Leonard's 510 510 MB CENTRAL & St. David 2429 2774 MC & St. David 1453 1664
NA 'Saint Sidwell ' Polsloe 2649 2649 NB Pre-MM: St David's ward & St. David 2167 2421 PA SOUTH St. Leonard's 1083 1083 PB St. Leonard's 907 907 PC St. Leonard's 752 752 PD St. Leonard's 1206 1251 QA Digby_&_Sowton EAST St. Loye's 1990 2438 QB St. Loye's 1493 1493 QC 'Broafields ' St. Loye's 1299 1299 LC-n Pre-MM: St Loye's ward St. Loye's 1612 1612 RA-s WEST St. Thomas 1393 1408 RB St. Thomas 2170 2170 RC St. Thomas 1086 1086 SA ' Topsham, inner ' EAST Topsham 2917 2969 SB ' Ludwell valley ' Topsham 764 884 SC T opsham, Newport' Topsham 529 1513 SD ' Topsham, outer ' Topsham 879 1700 TA Barton CENTRAL Heavitree 626 626 TB Barton Heavitree 1227 1227 TC Whipton south / central Whipton 1606 1606 TD Whipton Village Whipton 2375 3116 FB Whipton Village Whipton 845 845 86680 94019
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5733 Page 1 of 1 22/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Paul Layton E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: ELECTORAL REVIEW EXETER 21 July 2015 Re. St James Ward As a resident of St James I am dismayed that you have ignored the wishes of the local community as expressed during the initial consultation on warding arrangements by Exeter City Council, both our ward Councillors, Exeter St James Forum and Exeter St James Community Trust Ltd. Since its creation in 2001 St James residents have worked hard to create what is now a firmly established and clearly defined community, a recognised neighbourhood with a strong sense of identity and shared interests bordering the city centre. The proposal to merge with Duryard, a more rural area removed from the city centre with a completely different demographic and different challenges, makes little sense. The need to secure equality of representation, according to your proposals based on forecast electorate numbers, is readily achieved by a mixed approach to electoral representation in the case of St James and Duryard. Should you be disinclined to allow St James to continue in it its present form and be incorporated instead into a new three member ward I would urge retention of two elected members for St James and one elected member for Duryard. I believe such an arrangement satisfies the imperative for electoral equality. This arrangement would also reflect more faithfully the identity and interests of St James which, as previously mentioned, differ from those of Duryard. Furthermore it would not compromise the integrity of the Exeter St James Neighbourhood Plan, a binding factor in the community cohesion of the present ward, which makes St James a unique case in Exeter and lends itself to effective and convenient local government. I trust these comments are taken seriously and will not, as in the earlier public consultation, be ignored. Yours sincerely, Paul Layton Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 June 2015 08:40 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Exeter Review of Ward Boundaries : Consultation on Draft Recommendations Importance: High From: Colin Lomax Sent: 20 June 2015 19:57 To: reviews Subject: Exeter Review of Ward Boundaries : Consultation on Draft Recommendations Importance: High I refer to the consultation you are undertaking in response to the above. I welcome your recommendations and fully support them so far as the proposed changes to bring part of the existing Priory Ward into the Topsham Ward where, incidentally, this property at used to be! I agree entirely with your logic that Bridge Road and the Countess Wear Roundabout is a natural boundary. Certainly I associate myself, and the property in which I reside, as looking first to Topsham. I am a member of the Topsham Bowling Club. My daily newspaper is delivered from Topsham. I visit Topsham Market on a Saturday morning. If I have to go by train, I go to Topsham station. My bank is in Topsham. My telephone exchange is Topsham. So, yes please restore this property to the Topsham Ward which is where it was before the last review. Colin Lomax 1
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 August 2015 10:42 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Exeter Review of Ward Boundries: Consultation on Drafts Recommdations Original Message From: Rosemary Lomax Sent: 11 August 2015 10:38 To: reviews <reviews@lgbce.org.uk> Subject: Exeter Review of Ward Boundries: Consultation on Drafts Recommdations I refer to the consultation youare undertaking in response to the above. I welcome your recommendations and fully support them so far as the proposed changes to bring part of the existing Priory Ward into Topsham Ward where, incidentally, this property use to be. I agree entirely with your logic that Bridge Road and the Countess Wear Roundabout is a natural boundary. Certainly I associate myself, and the property in which I live, as looking first to Topsham. I am a member of Topsham Art Society, Topsham Nadfas and Topsham Flower Club. My paper is delivered from Topsham. If I go By Train I go via Topsham. My bank is in Topsham. My telephone exchange is Topsham. So yes please restore this property to the Topsham Ward which is where it was before the last review. Rosemary Lomax 1
To: The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Dear Emily As a resident of Countess Wear in Exeter, interested in efficient local government, may I make the following comments on yours and others current proposals for Exeter City Council s future electoral arrangements. Unnecessary change is not a virtue, but probably will add to confusion, which your current proposals re Exeter County and City boundaries will certainly do. After considering all the submitted proposals I find myself supporting those from Mr Kingswood and those from Mr Wingfield-Digby. These result in the least disturbance to the existing electoral arrangements. (If it ain t broke, don t try to fix it). They also avoid the necessity of creating a Ward with a river running through the middle of the Ward. In Mr Wingfield-Digby s cases 9 Ward boundaries remain exactly as at present: Alphington; Exwick; Pinhoe; Priory; Topsham; Whipton (all three member Wards) and Cowick; St. Loyes; St. Thomas (all two member Wards). However as Mr Wingfield-Digby has chosen to go for 14 Wards, as he states, some of the additional 5 wards appear to have electoral variances beyond what is acceptable and would need further adjustment. In Mr Kingswood proposals he has overcome this problem by creating a 15 Ward structure where the variances are all acceptable and Topsham retains its very distinct township. Also in the main, all Wards are made up of existing Wards plus complete Polling Districts from others, the exceptions being the break-up of Polling Districts EA & EB of Heavitree Ward, FC of Mincinglake Ward and HA of Pennsylvania. As co-terminosity with County Divisions, which I believe is covered by provide for effective and convenient local government, appears not to have been taken into account, I consider you are doing Exeter a great disservice. I hope even at this late stage you will re-consider your recommended proposals in favour of those submitted by Mr. Kingswood or Mr Wingfield-Digby. I understand Exeter City Council continues to support yearly elections with one third retiring each year, but was very surprised to be told by a councillor that the reason Exeter had to have 13 x 3 member Wards was that any variation (as we have at present, a mix of 2 and 3 member Wards) would preclude us from yearly elections. Is this correct? Would you please confirm the veracity of this statement? I understand that there is a preference but surely the City Council would be the best judge of that issue. As the electorate numbers dictate there are to be nine County Divisions, only by having a mixture of two and three member City Wards, could there be any relationship with any County Division boundaries. One of the criteria you state for yourselves is to provide for effective and convenient local government. This I believe you have not done! The Criteria have not been met at all, as what we will be faced with is not convenient local government. I would have thought that one area of convenient local government would mean a relationship between the boundaries of County Divisions and City Wards. In Exeter the effect of your proposals for County Divisions and City Wards means for example:
If a by-election for a City Ward is to be held on the same day as County Council Elections (or vice-versa) then some electors could find they need to visit two separate Polling Stations to cast their votes. County councillors will find themselves answerable to residents in various City Wards, for example under your recommended proposals. A County Councillor for Heavitree/Whipton Barton Division will find themselves answerable to electors in 4 different Wards, eg. Part of Mincinglake/Whipton, part of Pinhoe, part of St. Loyes, part of Heavitree. The pattern is similar for the County Councillor in St Sidwells/Newtown and the County Councillor in Wearside/Topsham. Exeter City Council will administratively have to produce numerous extra registers and maintain them as areas of individual City wards are in different Divisions. Not only do I believe this to be inconvenient local government, I fear it will act as a negative in finding persons prepared to come forward as Councillors to serve their community, which itself will be to the detriment of democracy. I have always believed democracy, and particularly local government is best served by electors being able to regularly judge the actions of their local authority. This I believe is realised most efficiently by their being yearly elections wherever possible. This allows - both electors to express their views democratically, and local councils to have continuity without the turmoil created by 4 year elections, which inevitably reflect the national political scene on that particular date. When I lived in London in the 60 s councils (which have four yearly elections) lost good, committed, hardworking councillors from all parties due to the results reflecting electors disdain for the government of the time. In 1968, Lambeth for example went from 57 Lab 3 Tory councillors at the beginning of the election day to a reversal of 3 Lab 57 Tory councillors at the end of the day. I understand that political parties have a structure of accountability for their Councillors, anyone faced with having to attend four different branches in a month to report on their activities will surely be put off standing for election. Finally as a long-time resident of Countess Wear, can I point out that my links are not with Topsham but with the village of Countess Wear. As its history states, The road and Countess Wear bridge across the Exe bisects Countess Wear, with the main village to the north, (Higher Countess Wear) and the Glasshouse Lane estate to the south (Lower Countess Wear). Although Exeter has grown and encroached on all its rural neighbours during the last two hundred years, the village of Countess Wear has not changed so much as some other parts of the City. It is still very much a village between Topsham and the City. (My bold italics) And for the same reasons, the council estate of Glasshouse Lane & Lower Wear Road (opposite us) constructed from 1951 are part of Countess Wear, not Topsham, as you have in your City proposals. Yours sincerely Eddie Lopez
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5488 Page 1 of 1 07/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Penelope Matthews E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I live in Polsloe and think it strange that we will be absorbed into Pennsylvania. We are closer to Heavitree and the area is similar whereas Pennsylvania is quite a different area and the issues will be different. We will be on the edge of any area but it would be preferable to be aligned with Heavitree which a lot of people think we are anyway. The schools children in this area go to are not in Pennsylvania. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5841 Page 1 of 1 11/08/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: John McKenzie E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I wish to comment on the proposed creation of a joint Duryard & St James ward in Exeter. I oppose the proposal because it contradicts the view of the people of St James expressed in the the St James neighbourhood plan, endorsed by local referendum and adopted by Exeter City Council in 2011. As you will be aware, this was the first urban area to have such a plan adopted under the provisions of the Localism Act of 2011. The proposed merger of St James with Duryard would undermine the sense of local identity identified in and furthered by the St James Plan. It would also undermine the spirit of the national localism legislation. I can see the administrative appeal of three-member symmetry for the wards of Exeter but adminsitrative neatness should not be an end in itself. Local government should serve the interests of the people of Exeter -- it's not the job of the people to abandon their newly-won identity for the sake of uniformity in local government. I'm reminded of the lines written by Bertolt Brecht after the East Berlin uprising of 1953 when the workforce revolted again their communist rulers: Wouldn't it be simpler if the government dissolved the people and elected another? John McKenzie, Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 July 2015 08:40 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: St James, Exeter From: Sent: 21 July 2015 22:37 To: reviews <reviews@lgbce.org.uk> Subject: Re: St James, Exeter To the Review Officer (Exeter) Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to voice our objections to the proposal that St James in Exeter be merged with Duryard Ward. The St James area in Exeter has its own unique character, something like a small village, which although somewhat spoiled by the large amount of student accommodation which has been allowed to be built or converted from what were once family homes, still has a community of residents who enjoy living in this area close to the city centre. The community spirit is fairly robust as evinced by the setting up of the St James Neighbourhood Plan - a first for the country apparently, which has an electoral mandate to be treated differently. As one of our much respected former Lib Dem councillors has stated you 'clearly do not understand the unique issues faced by the St James community'. We are a much more densely populated ward than Duryard, with a greater number of small terraced houses (as opposed to larger townhouses, semi-detached or detached properties) and the population is of a more cosmopolitan diverse mix contributing to a vibrant and interesting character. St James residents are quite vociferous and protective of this staying as it is. We would urge you to meet with members of the Exeter St James Forum (even though we ourselves are not members!) to hear what they have to say. As residents of St James we are fairly certain that fellow residents do not want the area simply to increasingly become a student ghetto alongside the University campus and its suburban environs. We think it likely that residents of the two distinctly different areas will have more ability to affect their future if the wards are not combined and their differing interests not put at odds with one another or watered down through having the same councillor(s). It would seem to be a somewhat anti-democratic move. Please reconsider. Yours faithfully, Helen Mills & Ian Gurney 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5394 Page 1 of 1 19/06/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Cath Nickels E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Could I suggest that the Newtown/St Leonards ward is moved down to the river. This would incorporating Rivermead, Egham, Feltrim Avenue et al. I would suggest the parties in this area very much consider the area they live in to be St Leonards. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Starkie, Emily From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 21 July 2015 12:26 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: St James Exeter From: Anne Parsons Sent: 21 July 2015 12:14 To: reviews Subject: Fwd: St James Exeter ----Original message---- From : Date : 21/07/2015-09:23 (UTC) To : Subject : St James Exeter To whom it may concern I am concerned about the boundary changes regarding a proposal to merge Duryard and St James Wards in Exeter. These wards are completely different in character and also we have spent considerable time and effort in developing a Neighbourhood Plan for St James following a sponsorship from the government amounting to c. 10,000. This cannot make sense. It does not make good use of tax payers' money to then unravel a plan which was fully supported by the government and was promoted nationally as a shining example of practice and achievement. I would ask you to reconsider this proposal as quickly as possible to prevent further time and effort being spent on it. Many thanks Anne Parsons Brice 1
Starkie, Emily From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 July 2015 09:57 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Boundary Reviews Exeter From: Janet Penrose Sent: 06 July 2015 09:40 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Boundary Reviews Exeter Dears Sirs I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed change in boundary to the ward of St James in Exeter. The local community fought long and hard to develop the St James Forum, and develop a strong identity for the ward, in order to promote good community wide relations and have a stronger voice within local government. In particular to strengthen residents position with regard to Planning issues, and Community spaces the St James Neighbourhood plan is a direct result of this. It is particularly alarming to see that it is proposed that we merge with Duryard, with which we have absolutely no commune of interest. The City Council has suggested that the ward be left as it is, and I wholeheartedly agree with this. I would urge you to meet with members of the Forum in order to understand beeter our position in this matter. Janet Penrose 1
Review Officer (Exeter) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP 1 August 2015 Re: Exeter Review: Draft recommendations for Exeter Duryard & St James ward Dear Local Government Boundary Commission for England, I have now lived in St James, Exeter, for 22 years. Even before 2001, when St James became an official Exeter City Council ward, this neighbourhood has always been known as St James, due to the presence of St James Park football ground, St James Park railway station and the 3 streets: St James Terrace, St James Road and St James Close. The reason that I have continued to live in this locality is due to the friendly sense of community which has always persisted here. In 2011, in anticipation of the Localism Act which was given Royal Assent in November of that year, a group of residents associations and individuals, representing most parts of St James, joined forces as the Exeter St James Forum (ESJF) with the aim of preparing a Neighbourhood Plan for the ward. Following a two year process the Plan received a 91.6% endorsement in a referendum on 2 May 2013. The Plan was adopted as a statutory planning document by Exeter City Council in July 2013. As such it was the first urban Neighbourhood Plan in the country to be adopted. The now fully adopted plan sets out a vision for St James and our priorities for the future. The membership of ESJF, which is both open to all residents of St James and free, is in the hundreds and in 2014 we incorporated the Exeter St James Community Trust Ltd, a charitable registered society under the Co-operative and Community Benefit Act 2014 (Registration No. 32444R), to progress our ambitions for St James and its community (another first for St James). For instance, the regeneration of a green space in the centre of St James, called Queens Crescent Garden, which we envisage as St James' future village green. Again the Trust has hundreds of members who have each invested a minimum of 5 to become one of its shareholders. The Trust and Forum jointly have even just started printing a biannual About St James newsletter which is distributed to every residence in the ward. Thus, and especially since 2011, there is a clear St James community identity and cohesion with a common purpose to improve the amenity of our local environment. St James is situated just on the edge of Exeter city centre. It mainly consists of Victorian terraced housing. About 40% of its residents are students, due to its close proximity to the University. As such it is a vibrant place to live with a lively night-time economy. And consequently the average age of its residents is low, with many in their early twenties. The
Starkie, Emily From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 27 July 2015 08:59 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Proposals for new ward boundaries in Exeter From: Helen Powell Sent: 24 July 2015 18:28 To: reviews <reviews@lgbce.org.uk> Subject: re: Proposals for new ward boundaries in Exeter I object to the proposals to split the current St Leonard's ward into St David's and St Leonard's and Newton wards on the following grounds: * St Leonard's church is the centre point of this area of the city so it must be in the council ward of St Leonard's! * The pattern of wards needs to reflect local people's shopping, leisure and medical needs. In the current neighbourhood of St Leonard's we have an outstanding parade of high quality shops, excellent doctor's and dental surgeries, and leisure facilities comprising playparks (Bullmeadow) and Pyramids swimming pool, plus tennis, bridge and badminton clubs. * We have a thriving St Leonard's neighbourhood assocation. * We have close links with Exeter University (St Luke's site), the RD&E hospital, including the hopsice and Mardon House which are situated in St Leonard's. *Our Primary school is rated outstanding by Ofsted. Both Exeter and the Maynard schools are very successful. * This ward is well established and house prices in the area are buoyant. By changing the ward name there will be a detrimental effect on housing stock. * By using Topsham Road as a demarcation between the 2 wards you will alienate thos residents living on this side of the road. * The St Leonard's community is the strongest and most successful community in the city. Helen Powell 1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5395 Page 1 of 1 19/06/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: conall ryan E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: n/a Comment text: I strongly object to the Cowick ward being replaced and the area around Eton Walk becoming St Thomas - I bought in this area as it was not St Thomas as St Thomas has a bad image and if this proposal goes ahead it will reflect in the house prices coming down. Cowick has always been known as a nice area but will under this be gone! Please do not go ahead with this - we are already are suffering with the council trying to take away our evening bus service please do not also take away our name!!! Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5663 Page 1 of 1 10/07/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Peter Sankey E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I am strongly opposed to the breaking in half of the St Leonards ward. This is a ward with a strong identity, with local St Leonards clubs and a St Leonards magazine etc. Also the St Leonards church which is active in the community is proposed to be in the St David's ward. This is a nonsense. I would suggest the existing ward of St Leonards is combined with Newtown and not breaking up St Leonards and adding part of this to New Town. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5835 Page 1 of 1 11/08/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Tim Smith E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I wish to object to the use of the name St David s to describe the ward proposed for the city centre and riverside area of Exeter, as the name has no historic or geographic relevance to much of the proposed ward area. Historically St David s parish was to the North of the old City Walls, St Leonards to the South and St Thomas to the West. The adoption of the parish name St David s is, for the proposed ward area, no more appropriate that adopting the name St Thomas, St Leonards or a number of other historic city centre parishes within the proposed boundary. In geographic terms the proposed names makes even less sense as it is simply not associated with much of the proposed ward area; in fact most people would associate St David s with the area around St David s station, which is quite some distance from the parts of St Thomas and St Leonards (including St Leonard s Church) which you are now proposing to include in the new ward. Furthermore there is no obviously social cohesion between the three main parts of the proposed ward, which will be a ward of three distinct communities, two of which will inevitably continue to look towards St Leonard s and St Thomas respectively. While recognising the desire of those in St David s to retain the traditional name for their area, I believe some residents in the detached part of St Leonard s would be most unhappy to find the St David s name being applied to their community. I would therefore suggest that a more geographically neutral name should be adopted for the ward: possibly Exe Ward, Central Ward (as it embraces the original centre of the city, Central Station and the site of the original Central School) or your original proposal of Riverside. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5837 Page 1 of 1 11/08/2015 Exeter District Personal Details: Name: Julia Taylor E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I think that the change of ward boundary in St Leonards to NOT encompass South of Topsham Road is very wrong. We live, shop, attend schools, Pre Schools, clubs and church in the St Leonards area, but living South of the Topsham Road will mean that our votes will be cast for St Davids Ward which is not an area we as a family or our neighbours spend our time/send our children to school/attend shops/clubs/church etc. PLEASE LEAVE THE BOUNDARY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS, WITH THE SOUTHERLY BORDER AT THE RIVER, AND EASTERLY BORDER AT SALMON POOL LANE. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded
Review of Local Authority Boundaries Devon Exeter City in the matter of St James Ward. I would like to have the following issues considered in the redistribution of Ward boundaries within the City of Exeter with particular reference to the current St James Ward. Most of them relate directly to matters concerning the reflection of Community interests and identity, which the commission lay out as being one of the prime objectives in redistribution. 1. The current St James Ward, which has existed since 2000, has long been identified by Exeter City Council as an area which has specific issues with regard to its proximity to the Exeter University Campus and the availability of student housing in the form of HMO s. In 2007 the City Council identified two areas within the ward as having high student populations. These areas are outlined in a City Council document Student Accommodation Development in Residential areas issues as a draft supplementary planning guidance. Since that report the number of students living within the ward has further increased (and will increase further as more purpose built student accommodation is built within the ward. This has meant that St James Ward has a distinctive patchwork of mixed housing stock. 2. Attendant with a large student and transitory population is the matter of the night-time economy and fast food outlets within the ward, as well as a number of licenced premises which have extended opening hours. These matters give the ward a number of specific issues which have little resonance with the proposal to join the ward with a geographical adjacent, but completely different ward of Duryard. 3. The Planning document referred to in point 1 above identified part of the current Polsloe Ward as having issues similar to, though not identical with the current St James Ward. In part of the Newtown Ward there is also a pattern of mixed housing stock and transitory population. It would seem rather more expedient in considering new Ward boundaries to consider the inclusion of parts of these areas in a new ward, rather than conjoining it with an area which has few of the social issues outlined above. 4. The Neighbourhood Plan submitted by the St James Forum as part of its submission under the terms of The Localism Act has, in my opinion, brought about a unity of purpose and direction which is starting to achieve success in building a Community identity within the current Ward boundaries. Whereas other Community Groups exist in adjoining wards, there is no such equivalent in the current Duryard Ward, and it would be unfortunate if the hard work that has engendered positive change within St James were to be diluted by attachment to a ward with almost completely different issues, problems and outlook, simply for the sake of administrative convenience.
5. It is telling that at the end of the Academic Year/Graduation events the current St James Ward is the only ward in the City that has pre-arranged extra waste collection and disposal facilities. The attached photographs give an indication of the specific issues attendant on having large areas of late 19 th century terraced premises which are in close proximity to each other. This contrasts with the nature of the existing Duryard Ward. I would urge that the Commission reconsider the proposed boundary changes and consider change which does not include conjunction with the present Duryard Ward. This submission is made by; Dr David Treharne, Telephone E mail;