THE seventh of ten Cornwall Council-led public engagement meetings for the Cornwall Community Governance Review was held at the Tregadillett Community Centre on Friday, September 27.

The parishes focused on were Launceston, South Petherwin, St Stephens by Launceston and St Thomas the Apostle Rural.

After Cllr Malcolm Brown, chair of the Electoral Review Panel, opened the meeting and explained what was going on, town and parish councils were invited to indicate whether they would like to see either no change or a change, and if so what that was.

Cllr Brown also explained that Cornwall Council didn’t have to hold these public engagement meetings, but that the panel felt it was in the best interests of everyone concerned.

The first organisation given the opportunity to speak were Launceston Town Council, whose spokesperson was Cllr Rob Tremain, who explained that:

Launceston Town Council submitted three potential proposals to Cornwall Council, outlining changes to its boundaries. The first — the Pennygillam Industrial Estate to be included within the town boundary. This will ensure that the boundary extends to a natural boundary point, whereas currently the industrial estate is across two parishes, the other being South Petherwin.

The second — to move the current boundary from Upper Chapel to the locally named Chapel Top Road so that it runs from the top of St Catherine’s Hill, Trebursye and returns on to the A30 via the eastbound slip road. This will ensure that the proposed Launceston cemetery extension will fall within the town boundary and will also provide a natural boundary point using clear ‘borders’ formed by roadways.

The third — to include the area from Cross Lanes, at the junction with A388 down Millways, along the unnamed road to join the Dutson to St Leonard’s Road down to the River Kensey at St Leonard’s within the town boundary. This proposal is again ensuring that identifiable ‘borders’ formed by roadways are used to define the boundary.

According to Launceston Town Council, there are no residential properties included in the first proposal (Pennygillam). There are 140 new houses proposed in the second (Upper Chapel); and ten current dwellings in the third (Cross Lanes).

The town council did acknowledge that in conversation and subsequent council meetings, which have involved neighbouring parishes, it was highlighted that the surrounding parishes do not support the proposals.

However, the council added that if it is not successful in achieving the boundary changes, then the most detrimental effect will be the loss of a new cemetery as the council will not be in a position to undertake all the necessary groundwork and associated running costs if the site falls outside of the town boundary.

The statement concluded that Launceston Town Council has undertaken significant steps in ensuring that devolution has not been detrimental to the town or neighbouring parishes and in addition to the ‘usual’ services offered, including public toilets, highways grass maintenance, a museum, information service and venues for hire, it has most recently taken on the provision of the library service.

Residents from the surrounding parishes would be affected most, if the changes were to be approved, as they would see a hike in their annual council tax bill.

Once he had explained the proposals, Cllr Tremain added: “A common cause for any councillor is to do our best for the people we represent, and that is what Launceston Town Council has done in this instance. We were approached by Cornwall Council to become involved in the governance review.

“We looked at our town boundary, and realised that in proposing these changes it would have a real benefit for the people of Lanson in the years to come and, more importantly, give the town control of any future developments in these areas.”

Chairman of South Petherwin Parish Council, Cllr Phil Parsons responded: “Launceston Town Council states in their response that they propose to include Pennygillam Industrial Estate in a single parish. The reason being to remove any confusion about where it lies.

“It is proposed by South Petherwin Parish Council that the boundary within Pennygillam Industrial Estate remains the same, and the residential properties at Tresmarrow remain within South Petherwin Parish Council. As per our submission the reasons for this are: 1. Tresmarrow residents feel strongly that they wish to remain in South Petherwin Parish and belong to a rural parish (door to door canvassing carried out). 2. There is no benefit or negative impact to the occupants of Pennygillam Industrial Estate if the boundary remains the same. 3. South Petherwin Parish Council has worked with the decision makers in respect of planning, highways and public enforcement since the development of Pennygillam Industrial Estate, maintaining and overseeing works and planning, proactively and competently. 4. No change retains a historical boundary which is of interest now and for future generations.”

Cllr Parsons then spoke about the proposal relates to the residential properties that fall between the old A30, the current South Petherwin northern boundary which adjoins St Thomas the Apostle Rural, and the new A30. The properties in this area are separated from South Petherwin parish by the major trunk road and are adjacent to properties in St Thomas the Apostle Rural Parish.

Cllr Parsons added: “South Petherwin Parish Council proposes that the boundary on the northern edge of South Petherwin parish be changed from the old A30 to the new A30 and the residents within this area move into St Thomas the Apostle Rural parish. This is based on the clear delineation that the new A30 provides and also the views of residents.

“South Petherwin Parish Council have consulted with parishioners through two consultation meetings. One in conjunction with the neighbouring parish, St Thomas the Apostle Rural, and one in South Petherwin Village Hall. Door-to-door canvassing of opinions was also carried out at the residents that would be affected by this proposed change. Residents were asked if they were content to remain in South Petherwin Parish or would prefer to belong to another parish. In total there are 37 residents affected by this proposal and nine supported change and six supported no change.

“It was felt by both parishes, South Petherwin and St Thomas the Apostle Rural, that St Thomas had the ability to better operate in respect of the needs of these parishioners.”

Once Cllr Parsons had spoken, Cllr Brown informed the audience that there had been more feedback from South Petherwin than anywhere else in Cornwall with 13 getting in touch, 12 of whom that didn’t support Launceston Town Council.

A couple of residents from South Petherwin – John Aska and Dawn Rogers, who is also a parish councillor and moved to the village with her husband Roy in 1971, made it clear that they don’t want the boundary with Launceston to change.

Mr Asaka said: “I’m new to the area, I’ve only been here for 15 months but I’ve been impressed by the area and we’re well served by the parish council.

Mrs Rogers said: “We want to stay in the parish due to its community spirit and feeling of being home.  Although we live on the outer edge of the parish it that makes no difference to the activities that we can enjoy within South Petherwin.”

“We are pleased to see that Launceston Town Council, in their proposed takeover, for all of the Pennygillam Industrial Estate Launceston Town Council have now excluded our three residential dwellings, we have never been part of Pennygillam we are Tresmarrow. Nevertheless the South Petherwin half of Pennygillam should stay in South Petherwin. At the end of the day we are proud to be South Petherwin-ers and do not wish to become part of an urban area. Please do not divide the south side of our parish.”

Next to speak was the chairman of St Stephens by Launceston Rural, Joan Heaton, who was also against any change.

She said: “St Stephen by Launceston Rural Parish Council see no justification for the proposal to absorb the area of our parish from Millways on Dutson Road (A388) south to Polson into the Launceston town boundary.

“There are ten properties in this rural area to the east of our parish so we see little financial gain in terms of revenue. There are no sound evidential facts to support this proposal. Launceston Town Council has offered no proposals to better represent the residents in our area.

“The parish council and a lay representative visited each property in this disputed area with a questionnaire. One property was vacant and another property is the home of an elderly lady who we were asked not to disturb. All of the other eight properties strongly expressed their desire to remain in the rural parish and not to be governed by Launceston Town Council.”

St Stephens by Rural resident Jenny Coppen said: “We are a small and very rural parish with a very active council. The rates which we pay are reasonable and adequately cover the needs of our parish. Parishioners are easily able to convey their views to the parish council and there are always members of the public at council meetings. I live on the western side of the parish but I am very familiar with all parts of the area as I help produce and deliver the parish newsletter, so I regularly speak to other parishioners.”

Ms Coppen then echoed Mrs Heaton’s comments about the ten residents and the Neighbourhood Development Plan, before going on to criticise the town council.

She said: “The town council said at their meeting that the move would increase the revenue for the town, though they had no facts and figures to support this. They are talking about ten houses. At band D rates this equates to £2,202 a year. Not enough to justify the huge upheaval which would be caused by the proposed change, especially as the council electoral review panel said income from council tax should not be used as a deciding factor for change.

“The town council also said ‘This will ensure the parish boundary is consistent and coherent following a recognisable boundary.’ It already has a recognisable boundary and it’s fairly immovable as it consists of two roads and the River Kensey and it’s been there since 1894 so people do know where it is.”

Terry Jones, on behalf of St Thomas the Apostle, said: “We have one proposal and one objection. The proposal is to move the boundary [in the village] from the old A30 to the new A30. Between 80-90% of the village is in St Thomas Parish, with the remainder in South Petherwin parish. They all enjoy the facilities offered in the parish/village. But we will be guided by the research and recommendations of South Petherwin Parish Council which is actively canvassing that particular section. They will be making their own recommendations.

“While St Thomas were happy to work with South Petherwin, Launceston Town Council’s proposal was met with a firm ‘no’.

“An overriding comment from all has been `look at the title — it is a rural parish’. We commend their letters to you. That is the ‘will’ of the people! A verbal comment was ‘We have always looked upon ourselves as being in a rural parish and never a part of the town’.

“We strongly doubt if Launceston Town Council has done any research or consultation. They had promised, several months ago, to consult with this parish council — but have gone ahead with their proposal, regardless. Any further encroachment from the town westwards would eventually remove the identity of the village itself.”

Cllr Tremain and Cllr Parsons then agreed about the need for the town council and South Petherwin Parish Council to communicate more.

It was then the turn of members of the public to have their say, with all saying they want to stay as they are.

Cllr John Conway, who is clerk of St Stephens by Rural Parish Council, asked: “Why do Launceston Town Council want to take on this part of St Stephen? There’s only ten houses. It’s a very rural area, more sheep and cows than people, we’re not an urban area.

“The residents have been surveyed, 100% of people said they want to stay. It’s been a boundary for over 130 years, Launceston only want some easy ground. Let us stay on our own.”

St Thomas resident John Langdon said: “I’ve lived here for 40 years and been a parish councillor for 30 years. They [LTC] bought some land and then sold it. We want to stay as we are.”

Another St Thomas resident, Tamsin Hurford talked about how the 140 new homes should never have been allowed and that any changes would ‘alter the fabric of the area’, and that the ‘urban boundary’ is being ignored.

Michael Millard told the audience that: “It strikes me all they want to do is have the money,” While St Stephen by Rural resident, Chris Frost, said there’s ‘no solid justification behind the town council’s proposals’.

Three Cornwall Councillors for the surrounding area, Adam Paynter, Neil Burden and Gemma Massey, were then asked to give their opinions.

Cllr Burden, who was absent, left a statement to be read out and urged Cornwall Council to ‘keep the status quo’ while Cllr Paynter and Cllr Massey kept their opinions quiet.

Cllr Brown then thanked everyone for coming and that part of the meeting was concluded.

The Electoral Review Panel is expected to make its final recommendation to full council in July 2010, aftr which the full council will make its final decision. The Reorganisation Order is expected to be made in September.