PARISHES were urged to have their say on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) consultation on re-drawing the division boundaries across Cornwall, at a meeting near Launceston last week.

A public meeting was held at Langore village hall on Thursday, January 18, to thrash out ideas for when the number of Cornwall councillors is reduced from 123 to 87.

The aim of the LGBCE’s electoral review is to recommend division boundaries that mean each councillor represents approximately the same number of voters. The LGBCE also aims to ensure that the pattern of divisions reflects the interests and identities of local communities as well as promotes effective local government.

The idea behind the public meeting, which drew representatives from Yeolmbridge/Werrington, North Petherwin and Lawhitton parishes, was to ‘try and get representatives from the adjacent parishes together, see if we have got common problems, if we have got anything where a joint parish approach would make better sense’, said St Stephen by Launceston Rural Parish Council clerk John Conway.

The meeting heard that Launceston Town Council has supported the idea of creating a two-member ward for Launceston town centre, also incorporating the parishes of Lawhitton, South Petherwin, St Stephen by Launceston, St Thomas the Apostle and Werrington.

A separate one-member ward for the community network area, as suggested by the town council, would include Altarnun, Boyton, Egloskerry, Laneast, Lewannick, Lezant, North Hill, North Petherwin and Trewen, with the omission of Stoke Climsland and suggestion that it move to the Callington community network, to produce a ward with an electorate number that would be acceptable to the LGBCE.

However, it was stressed that ‘in no way’ should any parish feel it should have to abide by the town council’s suggestions, and people were urged to make their personal views known to the LGBCE, before the February 19 deadline on its consultation on warding arrangements.

Mr Conway said: “The town council proposal is that Stoke Climsland is basically hived off — about 1,000 people. Then you get roughly the right number of people for three councillors. How you split the three councillors is totally up for debate.”

St Stephen by Launceston Rural Parish councillor Joan Heaton asked what Stoke Climsland has said about the suggestion to move it from the Launceston community network area to Callington.

Launceston town councillor Paul O’Brien said: “I don’t know about Stoke Climsland council. I do know that the ward member at Cornwall Council has objected to the principle of Stoke Climsland being moved.”

He explained that Cornwall Council had set up its own electoral review panel to look at the boundary review, adding: “They are thinking because the Stoke Climsland member has agreed for the retention of Stoke Climsland in this area, that we are going to have to hive some off somewhere else.

“I think what they are actually thinking of, beyond North Petherwin, these areas basically being taken into the Bude area. It either has to be some from the top end heading towards Bude or some out to the west heading more towards Camelford. Personally, I think it’s wrong.”

The meeting also heard that ‘it is likely that there will be a Cornwall Council governance review that will consider parish boundaries’ in future.

“That’s what’s putting alarm bells in my mind,” added Mr Conway. “If you look at any town and towns are expanding, the urban areas, some of that is no longer in the town council boundaries, it’s in the various parishes.”

Langore resident Jenny Coppen said: “There is a lot of feeling locally as the next parish to Launceston town, we don’t want to be in the town, thank you, we want to stay as rural as possible.”

St Stephen by Launceston Rural Parish Councillor Joe Caudle added: “We have a lot of rural deprivation issues that will not relate to the town. We do relate more to the North Cornwall rural areas than to the town.”

The concern was raised as to how a councillor would serve constituents equally in a ward containing both rural and urban areas, but the meeting heard this would have to be the case in Launceston.

“We don’t make the decision, we just have to work with it,” town councillor John Harris said.

Mr Conway said: “If your parishes have any great proposals for where they get to go please get them into the boundary commission fairly soon so that it can be considered.”

Outside of the meeting, Cllr Neil Burden, Cornwall Council member for Stoke Climsland, asked last week: “How can it be said I was against Stoke Climsland parish going to Callington? I have never written it down or said so in a meeting.

“Just look at the number game, it is simply a non starter as the numbers do not get anywhere near the 10% variation.

“I was the only Cornwall Councillor from the east who attended the boundary review last week when the final submission was being debated before it goes to council.

“I have said very little publicly on the subject as in previous boundary reviews they start in the west and east Cornwall is last to be carved up.

“The changes from the initial suggestions I would assume the people of Launceston would strongly support having a Launceston town division — this is surely what the electorate would understand as they did in the former Cornwall county council days.

“At the County Hall meeting there was a good general debate area by area and it went on all day doing our area at 6.30pm.

“The issues along the Tamar are constrained by the county boundary, Callington town numbers are nearly there and the addition of St Dominic fitted, Calstock is a entity alone so the maneuverability is limited.

“What in essence this informal group are suggesting would mean far more than a local adjustment but have a knock-on affect much further afield.

“There are some officers and members who have spent hours trying to make the changes from the original suggested divisions and keeping with the 10% variation keeping rural and town apart and what fits e.g. coastal communities and trying not to split divisions by the many estuaries we have e.g. Camel, Fowey and with Rame and Torpoint all south of the Lyhner, and so on.

“Yes it is also getting political where some ‘dyed in the wool’ political supporters try to get a division they think is winnable — that will always be so.

“The Boundary Commission makes the final decision as they did with the number of seats not accepting the Cornwall Council’s recommendation and being an autonomous body what will be we have to accept.

“I just hope what ever changes are imposed the electorate feel they belong to the new division and a community they can identify with and that their elected member serves them well.”

A spokesperson for Cornwall Council said: “The council is still considering multiple options and hopes to finalise them at the Electoral Review Panel meeting on February 2. Full council will finalise the council’s consultation response at its meeting on February 13.”

To respond to the LGBCE’s consultation on division arrangements before February 19, visit www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/cornwall/cornwall