Final recommendations

Future electoral arrangements forCornwall CouncilDecember 2009

Translations and other formats

For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Boundary Committee:

Tel: 020 7271 0500Email: publications@boundarycommittee.org.uk

© The Boundary Committee 2009

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the ElectoralCommission with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's StationeryOffice, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes CrownCopyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 03114G

Contents Summary 1 Introduction 3 2 Analysis and final recommendations 7

Submissions received 7

Electorate figures 8 Council size 9 Electoral fairness 10 Draft recommendations 10 General analysis 11

Electoral arrangements 12 Penzance, St Ives & Hayle, Helston & The Lizard, Falmouth & Penryn and Camborne & Redruth

13

China Clay, St Agnes & Perranporth, St Austell, St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel and Truro

21

Newquay, Bodmin, Wadebridge & Padstow, Camelford and Bude

28

Launceston, Liskeard, Looe & Torpoint, Callington and Saltash

34

Conclusions 39 Parish electoral arrangements 39 3 What happens next? 55 4 Mapping 57

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 59 B Code of practice on written consultation 63 C Table C1: Final recommendations for Cornwall Council 65 D Additional legislation we have considered 76

1

Summary The Boundary Committee for England is an independent statutory body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We have conducted an electoral review of Cornwall to ensure that the unitary authority, which took on all local government functions for the county in April 2009, has new and appropriate electoral arrangements. The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each unitary authority councillor is approximately the same. The Electoral Commission directed us to undertake this review. This review was conducted in four stages: Stage Stage starts Description One 26 February 2008 Submission of proposals to us Two 22 April 2008 Our analysis and deliberation Three 2 December 2008 Publication of draft recommendations Four 11 February 2009 Analysis of submissions received, further

consultation and formulation of final recommendations

Draft recommendations Our draft recommendations were for a 123-member council, representing 123 single-member divisions. These recommendations were based on the Cornwall Implementation Executive proposal. However, in a number of areas we moved away from its proposals, where we considered that it had not produced strong boundaries or secured good levels of electoral equality, or where other respondents had put forward alternate proposals that provided stronger electoral arrangements. Submissions received During Stage Three, we received 182 representations. After considering them, we decided that we required further evidence in the Bude, Camborne & Redruth, China Clay, St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel and Crowan & Helston areas. We therefore carried out a period of limited further consultation, starting on 10 August 2009 and ending on 16 September 2009. During this consultation we received 59 representations. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.boundarycommittee.co.uk. Analysis and final recommendations Electorate figures At Stage Three we noted that there were some queries regarding the electorate

2

figures. However, following discussions with Cornwall Council we remain satisfied that they are the most accurate electorate figures that could be provided. Council size In our draft recommendations we proposed a council size of 123. At Stage Three there was generally support for this size of council. We are therefore confirming it as final. General analysis Having considered the representations received during Stage Three and the period of further consultation we are proposing a number of amendments to our draft recommendations, including the creation of a two-member division in the Bude area. As a result, Cornwall will have 121 single-member divisions and one two-member division. We are recommending further significant amendments to division boundaries in the Bude area. In the Camborne & Redruth area we are proposing amendments that enable us to minimise the number of parishes that are divided between two or more electoral divisions. For the same reason, we are also recommending amendments in the China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel areas. In the Crowan & Helston area, as proposed in our further consultation document, we are creating a division based on Crowan and Wendron parishes and a division based on Breage, Germoe & Sithney parishes. As a result we are also recommending changes to the Helston divisions. We are making relatively minor changes to our draft recommendations in the Bodmin, Camelford, Launceston Madron, Newquay, Saltash and Truro areas. These amendments address concerns put forward by respondents during Stage Three, including strengthening boundaries or providing division patterns that better reflect local communities. We consider that these amendments will provide stronger electoral arrangements for Cornwall Council. What happens next? We have now completed our review of the new unitary authority in Cornwall. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for Cornwall Council, in 2013. The full report is available to download at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk.

3

1 Introduction 1 The Electoral Commission directed the Boundary Committee for England to conduct a review of the electoral arrangements for the Cornwall unitary authority. The review commenced on 26 February 2008, a day after the Statutory Instrument which created the new council was passed by Parliament.1 We wrote to the principal local authorities in Cornwall (the county and district councils) together with other interested parties, inviting the submission of proposals to us on the electoral arrangements – the number of councillors and the names, number and boundaries of the new divisions – for the new council. 2 During the first stages of the review, the evidence we received regarding the most appropriate number of councillors was not sufficient for us to take a reasoned, evidenced decision on the issue. We therefore conducted further consultation on the number of councillors specifically. This had implications for the timetable of the electoral review, delaying the process by a number of months. 3 The submissions we received during the initial stages of the review informed our report Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Cornwall Council, which was published on 2 December 2008. We consulted on these recommendations for a ten-week period, which ended on 10 February 2009. 4 As a result of the need to consult further on council size, we were no longer in a position to ensure that our recommendations would be implemented at Cornwall Council’s first elections in 2009. In part as a consequence of this, and following consultation with interested parties, the Government decided that elections for the new Cornwall Council should proceed in June 2009 based on the Committee’s draft recommendations. While that decision was one for Government to take, we considered that it was important that submissions received during the consultation on our draft recommendations were given due consideration, and that we should complete the review, with these electoral arrangements likely to come into force at the local government elections in 2013. 5 We subsequently conducted a six-week period of limited further consultation in four areas, on the basis of evidence put to us during the consultation on our draft recommendations. We have reconsidered the draft recommendations in the light of the further evidence received and decided whether to modify them, and now publish our final recommendations. What is an electoral review? 6 The main aim of an electoral review is to make local government elections fairer by ensuring ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for convenient and effective local government. 7 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for convenient and

1 Cornwall (Structural Change) Order 2008 SI no 491.

4

effective local government – are set out in legislation2 and our task is to strike the

best balance between them when making our recommendations. 8 Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. Why are we conducting a review in Cornwall? 9 In December 2007 the Government approved a bid from ‘One Cornwall’ – representing the County Council – for a unitary council to take over the responsibility for all local government services in Cornwall. These services were provided by the county and six district councils. A Statutory Instrument was subsequently approved by Parliament on 25 February 2008, establishing a new Cornwall unitary authority from 1 April 2009. The Electoral Commission was obliged, by law, to consider whether an electoral review was needed, following such a change in local government. Its view was that an electoral review of Cornwall was appropriate before the first elections in 2009 and it therefore directed the Boundary Committee for England to conduct this review. 10 Since the start of the review, legislation has been passed which has removed responsibility for implementing electoral reviews in England from the Electoral Commission. As a result, the Boundary Committee for England is now responsible for giving effect to all or any of its recommendations. The process we will follow is described in Chapter 3. The legislation also provides for the establishment of a new independent organisation – the Local Government Boundary Commission for England – that will replace the Boundary Committee for England and take on our functions. How will our recommendations affect you? 11 Our recommendations determine how many councillors will serve on the council. They will also decide which electoral division you vote in, which other communities are in that division and, in some instances, which parish or town council wards you vote in. Your electoral division name may change, as may the names of parish or town council wards in the area. The names or boundaries of parishes will not change. 12 The size and scale of the review of Cornwall, and the external influences resulting in regular timetable changes, has made this an unusually complex review, both for the Committee and the officers of the Council who were responsible for providing us with essential information such as mapping and electorate figures. We are very grateful for the support they have provided during the course of the review.

2 Section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992 (LGA 1992), as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, Chapter 2, Section 56.

5

What is the Boundary Committee for England? 13 The Boundary Committee for England is a statutory committee of the Electoral Commission, an independent body set up by Parliament under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is responsible for conducting electoral, boundary and structural reviews of local authorities. The review of Cornwall is an electoral review. Members of the Committee are: Max Caller CBE (Chair) Jane Earl Joan Jones CBE Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Professor Colin Mellors Director: Archie Gall During the course of the review, two other members served on the Committee: Robin Gray (until 31 December 2008) and Professor Ron Johnston (until 8 July 2009).

6

7

2 Analysis and final recommendations 14 We have now finalised our recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Cornwall. 15 As described earlier, our primary aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Cornwall is to make local government elections fairer by ensuring electoral equality – that is, each elector’s vote being worth roughly the same across the authority. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Government Act 1992,3 which states that we should have regard to: • secure effective and convenient local government • reflect the identities and interests of local communities • provide for equality of representation 16 The legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over the next five years. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the divisions we put forward. 17 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral equality is unlikely to be attainable. There must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over a five-year period. 18 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the county of Cornwall or the external boundaries or names of parish or town councils, or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that our recommendations will have an adverse effect on house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. Our proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries, and we are not, therefore, able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues. Submissions received 19 During Stage Three, we received 182 responses to our draft recommendations. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.boundarycommittee.org.uk. Representations can also be viewed at both our offices and those of Cornwall Council. 20 The Cornwall Implementation Executive supported parts of our draft recommendations, and opposed others. It proposed significant amendments in the urban Camborne & Redruth, Saltash, Truro and Bodmin areas. It also proposed

3 Section 13(5) of the LGA 1992, as amended by the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007, Chapter 2, Section 56.

8

significant amendments in the more rural Helston & The Lizard, China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel areas. 21 Across the county the other respondents provided a mixture of support and opposition. There were a particularly significant number of objections to our proposals in the Helston & The Lizard area and the proposal to divide Crowan parish between two divisions. We also received opposition to our proposal to include Marhamchurch parish in the Flexbury & Poughill division. There were also objections to the Poughill area being separated from the rest of the Bude-Stratton parish. 22 Following Stage Three, we decided to seek further views on our proposals in the Bude, Camborne & Redruth, China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel and Crowan & Helston areas. This period of limited further consultation started on 10 August 2009 when we wrote to all those who had submitted representations in these areas and the parish councils in the areas. This further period of limited consultation ended on 16 September 2009 and we received 59 submissions in response to our request for further evidence. 23 We take the evidence received during consultation very seriously and the submissions received were carefully considered before we formulated our final recommendations. Officers from the Committee have also been assisted by officers of Cornwall Council, the former County Council and district councils who have provided relevant information throughout the review. We are grateful to all concerned for their cooperation and assistance. Electorate figures 24 During the last review of Cornwall County Council in 2002, the County Council predicted that the electorate would grow by 5% from 390,343 (in 2002) to 409,633 by 2007. In fact, during this period the electorate grew by 5.4%. As part of this review, the County Council predicted that the electorate in Cornwall will grow by 5.8% from 411,430 in 2007 to 435,093 in 2012. 25 In our draft recommendations we considered the County Council’s projected growth of 5.8%. We acknowledged that this represented a high level of growth, but noted that there had been no opposition to the County Council’s figures and that during the previous five years the electorate had grown faster than the Council had predicted. 26 During Stage Three, we did not receive any specific representation in relation to the electorate forecasts. However, the Implementation Executive revised its forecasts for Saltash, after they had been queried locally. It stated that a major housing development was being completed more quickly than thought and that, as a consequence, further assumptions had been made regarding the levels of development in windfall sites in the town. The Implementation Executive’s new assumptions, following queries it received, had an effect only on the allocation of future development across Saltash, rather than the total development expected in the town. In Penryn, Councillor Hichens questioned whether the Implementation Executive’s figures had considered the level of registration in the Tremough College Campus site.

9

27 We noted the Implementation Executive’s comments over the allocation of the growth in the Saltash. While we had some concerns we accepted its argument that this development will be realised in windfall sites in the area. 28 We also noted the comments of Councillor Hichens regarding levels of electoral registration in the Tremough College Campus site. Although the Implementation Executive acknowledged his comments with interest, it did not alter its forecast assumptions. In light of this we do not consider there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the forecast figures in this area are incorrect. 29 We recognise that forecasting electorate figures is difficult and, having considered the County Council’s figures, we remain persuaded that they are the best estimates that can reasonably be made at this time. We believe the Council has considered all known planning applications across the county within the five-year timeframe, and are satisfied that, at the start of this review, the electorate figures it has provided reflect the growth anticipated over that period. Council size 30 Prior to obtaining unitary status, Cornwall County Council had 82 members, while the six district councils in Cornwall ranged in council size (the term we use to describe the total number of councillors elected to any authority) from 35 to 47 members. 31 Cornwall Council is a new council in which responsibilities from those of the former county and district councils are combined. It was therefore necessary to consider the number of members required for the new authority to provide effective and convenient local government. Furthermore, it was important to consider this independently of the number of county and district councillors in Cornwall, and to consider how the new authority will be managed and how it will engage with and empower its local communities. 32 During Stage One of our review, from 26 February 2008 to 21 April 2008, we received proposals for council size ranging from 80 to 164 councillors. All these submissions are available to be viewed on our website. 33 We gave this issue considerable thought and engaged in a further limited consultation specifically on council size, in June and July 2008, and met with representatives of the council to challenge a number of the assumptions on council size put to us in the early stages of the review. We also met with proponents of a proposal for a 90-member council. Our thinking regarding this issue is laid out in full in our draft recommendations report, available on our website. Having considered all the evidence provided to us during the initial stages of the review, we concluded in our draft recommendations report that the appropriate number of members for the new authority was 123. 34 At Stage Three we did not receive any significant objections to the council size of 123 members. We therefore remain satisfied that a council size of 123 members will provide effective and convenient local government. On the evidence received, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for a council size of 123 as final.

10

Electoral fairness 35 As discussed in the introduction to this report, the primary aim of an electoral review is to make local government elections fairer by trying to ensure electoral equality within a local authority. 36 Electoral equality, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. Our recommendations should provide for fair arrangements while ensuring that we reflect communities in the area, and provide for convenient and effective local government. 37 In seeking to achieve electoral equality, we first work out the average number of electors per councillor. The county average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the county (411,430 in December 2007 and 435,093 by December 2012) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council; 123 under our draft recommendations. Therefore the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 3,344 in 2007 and 3,537 by 2012. 38 Under our draft recommendations, the number of electors per councillor in 16 of the 123 divisions was predicted to vary by more than 10% from the average across the county by 2012. Under our final recommendations, 22 divisions are predicted to vary by more than 10% from the average across the county by 2012. Although this results in lower levels of electoral equality than our draft recommendations, the changes reflect the areas where we have received strong evidence of community identity and therefore are content to recommend worse electoral equality as a result. This is discussed in detail throughout the report. However, overall, we are satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral equality under our final recommendations for Cornwall. Draft recommendations 39 During Stage One we received 86 submissions, including county-wide schemes from the Implementation Executive and the proponents of a 90-member proposal. We received 102 submissions during the further consultation on council size, including the county-wide proposals for the Implementation Executive’s 123-member council. 40 As stated above, following consideration of the evidence received we considered that the new Cornwall Council would be best served by a 123-member council. Apart from the Implementation Executive’s, none of the original Stage One proposals put forward schemes based on a 123-member council. Accordingly, it was difficult for us to base our recommendations on those schemes. We therefore based our draft recommendations on the Cornwall Implementation Executive’s 123-member proposal – based on 123 single-member divisions – but moved away from it where we considered it had not produced strong boundaries or secured good levels of electoral equality. We did not receive any evidence of community identities in support of the Implementation Executive’s pattern of 123 single-member divisions.

11

General analysis Community Network Areas 41 At Stage One, as part of its 123-member proposals to us, the Implementation Executive put forward proposals based on its proposed pattern of Community Network Areas (CNAs). The Implementation Executive stated that CNAs – geographic areas with a collection of parishes and towns – would ‘provide the mechanism for delivering, within each community, effective local democratic governance together with the strong accountable leadership’. It stated that these proposals had received broad support. All of its proposed divisions lay completely within the boundaries of its CNAs. 42 As we accepted the evidence provided regarding the CNAs in our deliberation on council size, we also sought to base our draft recommendations on the Implementation Executive’s CNAs and to only move away from them where we did not consider that its electoral arrangements secured convenient and effective local government, good levels of electoral equality or reflected communities. While we sought not to breach the boundaries of the CNAs, it is important to note that our draft recommendations did not seek to influence the constituent divisions of each CNA as we considered this an issue solely for Cornwall Council, and not one that has an effect on the electoral arrangements for the county. 43 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed concerns about our draft recommendation to breach the boundary between the China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNAs. However, it acknowledged the Committee’s reasons for this decision and proposed transferring Luxulyan parish to the China Clay CNA, while retaining the split of the parish for the purposes of the Council’s electoral arrangements. 44 In addition, it expressed concerns about Portreath parish, arguing that the parish has stronger links to the Redruth area. A number of parishes in the area also supported this view. The Implementation Executive therefore proposed transferring Portreath to the Camborne & Redruth CNA for its own administrative purposes within the CNA structure, while accepting that to secure good electoral equality it must be retained in the Mount Hawke & Portreath division in the St Agnes & Perranporth CNA for electoral purposes. 45 Finally, the Implementation Executive proposed re-drawing the CNAs in the south east of Cornwall creating a Liskeard & Looe CNA, a Saltash & Torpoint CNA and a Callington CNA. The amendments to these CNAs drew local support. None of the divisions in our final recommendations would cross the boundaries of these proposed CNAs. 46 We continue to acknowledge the argument provided to us of the importance of the CNAs to the functioning of Cornwall Council and have sought to respect these where possible. We noted that the Implementation Executive has pragmatic approaches to the issues in the China Clay, St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel and St Agnes & Perranporth CNAs. Our final recommendations respect these CNA boundaries in all but the boundary between the China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNAs and the Camborne & Redruth and St Agnes & Perranporth CNAs, where we have breached the Implementation Executive’s CNA boundaries to secure

12

better levels of electoral equality, convenient and effective local government and to reflect communities. Balancing the statutory criteria 47 As stated above, the starting point for the draft recommendations was the Implementation Executive’s 123-member proposal. We noted that the Implementation Executive put forward a scheme based solely on single-member divisions. We also noted that there was general support for the use of single-member divisions, although a number of respondents did mention the possibility of using multi-member divisions. After consideration of the evidence received, our draft recommendations were based solely on single-member divisions. 48 Our draft recommendations acknowledged the efforts made by the Implementation Executive to secure high levels of electoral equality in its proposals and, given the lack of community identity evidence, we considered this a sensible approach. However, we moved away from its proposals in a number of areas, most notably in some of the urban areas where it based its proposals on existing polling districts. While its proposals secured good levels of electoral equality, we considered that some of the boundaries were weak, creating less effective electoral divisions. 49 In our final recommendations we continue to balance the statutory criteria carefully. In a number of areas we have received additional evidence of community links or evidence of stronger boundaries that has persuaded us to move away from our draft recommendations and marginally worsen electoral equality. We have also made a number of minor boundary amendments that do not affect the number of electors within divisions, but do provide stronger boundaries. These areas are described below. Electoral arrangements 50 This section of the report details the submissions we received, our consideration of them, and our final recommendations for each area of Cornwall. The discussion of the areas is based on the original Community Network Areas (CNAs) put forward by the Implementation Executive at Stage One. While the Implementation Executive has modified a number of its proposed CNAs, for continuity of argument we have based the discussion of our final recommendations on the areas put forward in the draft recommendations. With the exception of the issue of Luxulyan and Portreath parishes, none of the divisions discussed below cross the boundaries of the revised CNAs • Penzance, St Ives & Hayle, Helston & The Lizard, Falmouth & Penryn and

Camborne & Redruth • China Clay, St Agnes & Perranporth, St Austell, St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel,

and Truro • Newquay, Bodmin, Wadebridge & Padstow, Camelford and Bude • Launceston, Liskeard, Looe & Torpoint, Callington and Saltash 51 Details of our final recommendations are set out in Table C1 on pages 65–75. The outline map which accompanies this report shows our final recommendations for the whole county. It also outlines a number of areas for which we have produced more detailed maps. These maps are available to be viewed on our website, and

13

have been distributed to Cornwall Council offices, according to area. If you require a copy of any large-scale detailed map from our website, please contact us using the details found inside the front cover of this report. Penzance, St Ives & Hayle, Helston & The Lizard, Falmouth & Penryn and Camborne & Redruth Penzance 52 During Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed nine divisions for the Penzance CNA. Given the good levels of electoral equality we adopted its St Buryan, Ludgvan, Marazion and St Just in Penwith divisions as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. In the Penzance parish area we proposed a number of modifications to the Implementation Executive’s proposals to improve electoral equality in the Newlyn & Mousehole division and to strengthen some of the boundaries within Penzance, particularly of the Penzance East division. 53 At Stage Three there was general support for the draft recommendations, including the splitting of Madron parish between two divisions. However, the Implementation Executive and Penwith District Council both argued that Morvah parish should be transferred from St Buryan division to Ludgvan division. Penwith stated that residents in Morvah use services in Zennor. The Implementation Executive also proposed renaming Marazion division as Marazion and Perranuthnoe. 54 We noted that this proposal would marginally worsen the electoral equality by 2012 in Ludgvan and St Buryan divisions from 4% more electors than the average and equal to the average, to 2% fewer and 6% more, respectively. We also noted that Ludgvan Parish Council supported the draft recommendations. However, despite the worsening electoral equality and the support from Ludgvan Parish Council, we considered that transferring Morvah parish to Ludgvan division would better reflect local communities. We are therefore confirming it as part of our final recommendations. In the remainder of the Penzance area we noted that there was general support for the draft recommendations. We considered that these proposals provide good electoral arrangements and we are therefore confirming them as final, subject to also adopting the Implementation Executive’s name changes. Our proposals for Penzance are outlined on Map 1 and Map 2 and Table C1. St Ives and Hayle 55 During Stage One the Implementation Executive put forward proposals for six divisions in the St Ives & Hayle CNA. Its St Ives North, St Ives South, Lelant & Carbis Bay, Hayle North, Hayle South and Gwinear-Gwithian & Hayle East divisions secured good electoral equality. We therefore adopted these divisions as part of our draft recommendations, subject to renaming Gwinear-Gwithian & Hayle East division as Gwinear-Gwithian & St Erth. 56 At Stage Three Penwith District Council argued against the use of the B3306 as a boundary between St Ives North and St Ives South division, saying that the boundary actually divides communities. It therefore proposed a significantly redrawn boundary for the St Ives area. These amendments were supported by the Implementation Executive and St Ives Town Council. We noted that this proposal would improve the electoral equality in St Ives South division from 8% fewer electors than the average to 5% fewer by 2012. It would marginally worsen electoral equality in St Ives North division from 3% fewer to 5% fewer electors than the average. We

14

considered that this amendment would reflect local community identities, while still securing good electoral equality. We are therefore adopting it as part of our final recommendations, and renaming the two divisions as St Ives East and St Ives West, to reflect the areas of the town covered. 57 Penwith District Council also proposed a very minor amendment to the boundary between Hayle North and Hayle South divisions. This did not affect any electors and was supported by Hayle Town Council and the Implementation Executive. We are therefore adopting this amendment as part of our final recommendations. In the remainder of the St Ives & Hayle area we received general support for our draft recommendations and are therefore confirming our Lelant & Carbis Bay and Gwinear-Gwithian & St Erth divisions as final. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 3a and Map 3b and Table C1. Helston and The Lizard 58 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed seven divisions in the Helston & The Lizard CNA. Its Breage, Wendron, Helston Central, Helston North, Porthleven & Helston South, Mullion and St Keverne & Meneage divisions secured reasonable electoral equality and used good boundaries. We therefore adopted these proposals as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. 59 At Stage Three we received strong objections to our proposal to divide Crowan parish between Breage and Wendron divisions. Twenty-five respondents objected to the proposals, but did not provide any alternate arrangements. Crowan Parish Council and Councillor Jenkin provided strong evidence for retaining the whole of Crowan parish in a single division and put forward alternate electoral arrangements. They proposed combining Crowan and Wendron in a single division and Breage, Germoe and Sithney in another, retaining the draft recommendations in Helston. The revised divisions would have 13% more and 1% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. 60 The Implementation Executive and Helston Town Council also expressed concerns about the division of Crowan parish and put forward alternate proposals. They both proposed a division comprising Porthleven parish and part of Breage parish, a division comprising Crowan and Germoe parishes and the remainder of Breage parish and, finally, a division comprising Wendron and Sithney parishes and part of Helston parish. These divisions would have 10% more, 4% more and 10% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. The boundaries in the remainder of Helston parish would be redrawn to create two single-member divisions. Helston Town Council argued that Porthleven parish wanted to avoid being in a division with Helston parish. 61 Wendron Parish Council expressed support for the Implementation Executive’s amendments and objected to Crowan Parish Council’s proposal to put Wendron and Crowan parishes in a single division. Breage and Sithney parish councils both expressed support for the draft recommendations. As stated above, Helston Town Council objected to the draft recommendations and proposed the same amendments as the Implementation Executive. In addition, it stated that it did not wish to be in a division with Porthleven parish. A local resident argued in support of the division of Crowan parish, stating that residents look towards Helston and Camborne for facilities.

15

62 In the remainder of this area a number of respondents objected to the inclusion of Gweek parish in the Helston & The Lizard area and argued that it should be transferred to the Falmouth area. We also received objections to the inclusion of Cury parish in Mullion division, citing its links to the parishes within St Keverne & Meneage division. The Implementation Executive recommended that Mullion division is renamed Mullion & Grade-Ruan 63 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received in this area. We noted the suggestion that Gweek parish should be transferred from the St Keverne & Meneage division in the Helston & The Lizard area to Falmouth area. However, if Gweek parish were transferred to the Constantine division it would contain 24% more electors than the county average. We did not consider that respondents had put forward sufficient evidence to justify such a significant electoral imbalance. 64 We also noted the proposal to transfer Cury parish from Mullion to St Keverne & Meneage division, which would improve the electoral equality in Mullion division from 6% more electors than the county average in 2012 to 4% fewer. However, the proposal would worsen electoral equality in St Keverne & Meneage division from 3% more electors to 13% more by 2012. On balance, we considered that the evidence of community links between the two areas was sufficient to accept some worsening in electoral equality. We are therefore adopting this amendment as part of our final recommendations. We are also renaming Mullion division as Mullion & Grade-Ruan. 65 In the remainder of the Helston & The Lizard area we noted the strong objections to the draft recommendation to divide Crowan parish. We considered that Crowan Parish Council put forward strong evidence to highlight the community links within the parish and of how dividing it would adversely affect the running of the Parish Council. 66 We noted that two alternate proposals were put forward for the area, both of which avoided warding Crowan parish. Crowan Parish Council’s proposal worsened electoral equality, creating a division with 13% more electors than the average, while also leaving it with Wendron parish, against Wendron Parish Council’s wishes. It also leaves Porthleven parish in a division with Helston parish, which Helston Town Council did not support. 67 This, however, must be balanced against the Implementation Executive and Helston Town Council proposals. Although their proposal secured slightly better electoral equality than Crowan Parish Council’s proposal, we had strong concerns that its proposal to ward Breage parish would draw similar objections to the proposal to ward Crowan parish. In addition, while their proposal resolved concerns about placing Porthleven and part of Helston parish in a division by transferring Sithney to a division with part of Helston, we note that this goes against Sithney’s Stage Three request to be in a division with rural parishes. Therefore, on balance, although it addresses some issues, it raises new ones. We considered that our concerns about warding Breage parish and transferring Sithney parish to a division with part of Helston were sufficiently strong that we should not consider the proposal further. 68 Although rejecting this proposal meant we were unable to address concerns about Porthleven being placed in a division with Helston parish, we noted that it was possible to adopt the Implementation Executive’s and Helston Parish Council’s revision to our Helston North and a revised Helston South division. We considered

16

that these proposals use stronger boundaries and would reflect local communities better. 69 We considered that the combination of Crowan Parish Council’s proposals and the Implementation Executive and Helston Town Council proposals in this part of the Helston & The Lizard area achieved a better balance of our criteria than those put forward in our draft recommendations. However, we had a concern that the proposals represented a significant amendment to the draft recommendations. We therefore considered that these proposals should be subject to a period of further consultation. The further consultation was limited to this area of the Helston & The Lizard as we considered that we had sufficient information to be able to make a decision in the remainder of the area. We consulted on Crowan & Wendron, Breage, Germoe & Sithney, Porthleven & Helston West, Helston North and Helston South divisions. 70 In response to the further consultation we received strong support for our consultation proposal – based on Crowan Parish Council’s submission to us – including re-stated support from Crowan Parish Council. A number of the responses only commented on Crowan parish and not the remainder of the area. Breage Parish Council supported the retention of Crowan in a single division and the creation of a Breage, Germoe & Sithney division. Wendron Parish Council and a local resident objected to the proposals for Wendron to be included in a division with Crowan parish and expressed support for Helston Town Council’s proposal for a division comprising Wendron, Sithney and part of Helston. Helston Town Council, Councillor Robertson (Helston North division) and two other respondents objected to the proposals to place part of Helston town in a division with Porthleven parish. Helston Town Council reiterated the views expressed in response to our draft recommendations, and included a petition signed by approximately 400 residents. It proposed a division comprising Porthleven parish and part of Breage parish, a division comprising Crowan and Germoe parishes and the remainder of Breage parish and, finally, a division comprising Wendron and Sithney parishes and part of Helston parish. 71 We have given careful consideration to the further evidence received. We noted that there was strong opposition to the splitting of Crowan parish between divisions, and to the inclusion of Porthleven parish in a division with part of Helston. We also noted the objections of Wendron parish to its inclusion with Crowan parish. These objections must, however, be weighed against the support for the alternative further consultation proposal, which avoided warding Crowan, and unlike the Helston Town Council proposal, also avoided warding Breage parish – indeed we noted that Breage Parish Council supported our proposal for this reason. 72 Although our further consultation proposals raised concerns for Helston Town Council, we remain concerned that Helston Town Council’s original amendments transfer the issue of warding parishes to Breage parish. Therefore, on balance, we believe that the recommendations put forward in our further consultation provide the best balance between the criteria we work to, and we are adopting them as part of our final recommendations, while acknowledging the concerns of Helston Town Council. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 4 and Table C1. Falmouth & Penryn 73 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed nine divisions in the Falmouth & Penryn CNA. Its Constantine, Mabe, Penryn East & Mylor and Penryn West divisions provided relatively poor electoral equality with 9% more, 10% more,

17

9% more and 9% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. We noted that under its proposals Penryn parish would be divided between two divisions, but that this was unavoidable without either creating a two-member division or having unacceptably poor electoral equality. We noted that the remaining divisions comprised whole parishes and created sensible division boundaries. We therefore adopted these divisions as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. 74 In the Falmouth town area we noted that the Implementation Executive’s proposals secured good electoral equality, with no division having over 2% more or fewer electors than the average. However, we had significant concerns about the boundaries used in some of the divisions, particularly the Falmouth Arwenack division. As a result of this and more minor concerns over the boundaries of the other divisions, we proposed changes to a number of the boundaries. We did however adopt the Falmouth Trescobeas division without amendment. 75 At Stage Three we received general support for our proposals in the Falmouth town area, although one local resident suggested a number of minor boundary amendments. We also received a number of suggestions of alternate names for the divisions in the Falmouth town area. The Implementation Executive stated that Falmouth Arwenack and Falmouth Gyllyngvase divisions should be renamed Falmouth Killigrew and Falmouth Arwenack, respectively. A local resident also supported renaming Falmouth Gyllyngvase division Falmouth Arwenack. However, he also recommended that Falmouth Arwenack division be renamed Falmouth Smithick and Falmouth Penwerris be renamed Falmouth North Parade. As stated above, a number of respondents argued that Gweek parish should be transferred from the St Keverne & Meneage division in the Helston & The Lizard area to Constantine division in the Falmouth area. 76 There were also objections to the proposals to transfer Mylor parish to a division with part of Penryn parish. The Implementation Executive acknowledged these concerns, but did not put forward alternate proposals. However, Councillor Hichens proposed the transfer of the Tremough Campus from Mabe parish to Penryn, thereby enabling Mylor parish to be transferred to division with Perranarworthal parish. He argued that around 10% of the students on the college site might be expected to register and had not been included in the original Implementation Executive considerations. He proposed amending the boundary between Penryn and Mabe parishes to accommodate his proposal. 77 The Implementation Executive expressed support for our Constantine and Mabe divisions, but requested that they be renamed Constantine, Mawnan & Budock and Mabe, Perranarworthal & St Gluvias divisions, respectively. 78 We noted the concerns over Penryn parish and have given consideration to Councillor Hichens’ proposals. However, we had concerns that his proposals were reliant on the development of the Tremough Campus and a certain level of registration within the student population. We also noted that while the Implementation Executive noted his proposal with interest, it stopped short of endorsing it, arguing only that his assumptions ‘may’ be realised. We do not feel there is sufficient firm evidence to suggest that this will be the case. In addition, we noted that Councillor Hichens was proposing an amendment to the boundary between Mabe and Penryn parishes. While we are unable to recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review, it may have been

18

possible to create a parish ward of Mabe parish. However, we are not persuaded that this level of growth would be achieved in the area and therefore decided against adopting the councillor’s proposals. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Penryn West and Penryn East & Mylor as final. We are also confirming our draft recommendations for Constantine and Mabe divisions as final, subject to renaming them Constantine, Mawnan & Budock and Mabe, Perranarworthal & St Gluvias as suggested by the Implementation Executive. 79 In the Falmouth town area there was general support for our draft recommendations, subject to some concerns over division names. We noted the proposals of a local resident for minor boundary amendments, but that the other respondents supported the draft recommendations. We are therefore confirming the boundaries of these divisions as final. 80 We noted the agreement over the renaming of Falmouth Gyllyngvase as Falmouth Arwenack and have decided to adopt this name change. We also noted the respondents agreed that the division we proposed calling Falmouth Arwenack in our draft recommendations should be renamed. We received two options, but consider that a local resident put forward strong evidence for calling the division Falmouth Smithick. We are therefore adopting this name as part of our final recommendations. Finally, we noted the request to rename Falmouth Penwerris as Falmouth North Parade, but since no other respondent proposed renaming the division, we have decided against this change. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 10 and Table C1. Camborne & Redruth 81 At Stage One the Implementation Executive put forward proposals for 13 divisions in the Camborne & Redruth CNA. We noted that its Stithians division had a relatively poor electoral equality, with 12% more electors than the county average, while neighbouring St Day & Lanner division has 1% fewer electors. However, we noted that the proposals were based on whole parishes that have reasonable transport links. We therefore adopted them without amendment. 82 In the Camborne area we adopted the Implementation Executive’s Camborne West division without amendment. Although we had some concerns about joining the rural west area to a predominantly urban division we noted that the area has reasonable links into Camborne and that it was necessary to secure reasonable electoral equality. However, in the remainder of Camborne we had a number of concerns about the Implementation Executive’s proposals, particularly its Camborne North division which, while securing good electoral equality, we noted had limited road links between the east and west. We therefore proposed amendments to this division and the other Camborne divisions to address access issues. These amendments resulted in marginal improvements in electoral equality in Camborne Central and Camborne East divisions, while worsening the levels marginally in Camborne North division. We also proposed renaming these divisions to better reflect their configuration across the area. 83 We adopted the Implementation Executive’s Illogan and Redruth South divisions without amendment. We proposed a minor revision to the Implementation Executive’s Carn Brea North and Carn Brea South to provide improved electoral equality in Carn Brea North division. In the remainder of Redruth we proposed more significant revisions to the Implementation Executive’s proposals to provide stronger boundaries. These amendments worsened electoral equality in Redruth Central and

19

Redruth North divisions, but created more compact divisions and avoided joining areas in the centre and south of Redruth with the north and rural areas to the north. 84 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive submitted significantly different proposals for the Camborne and Redruth areas, based on proposals put forward by Camborne and Redruth town councils, with some minor amendments. Camborne and Redruth town councils also submitted these proposals directly to us. The Implementation Executive also considered but rejected proposals to transfer Portreath parish to the Camborne & Redruth area (this is discussed in more detail below). The Implementation Executive proposed Camborne Treslothan, Camborne Treswithian, Camborne Pendarves, Camborne Roskear and Camborne Trelowarren divisions which would have 13% fewer, 13% fewer, 9% more, equal to the average and 12% fewer electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. These five divisions would be wholly contained within Camborne parish. It also proposed Four Lanes, Illogan and Pool & Tehidy divisions covering the parishes of Illogan and Carn Brea. These divisions would have 1% more, 10% more and 7% fewer electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. Finally, it proposed Redruth Central, Redruth North and Redruth South divisions, which would have 6% more, 6% more and 11% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively. These divisions would be wholly contained within Redruth parish. 85 A number of other respondents objected to the draft recommendations on the grounds that they breached a number of parish boundaries in the area. Illogan Parish Council expressed support for the draft recommendations, while Carn Brea Parish Council put forward comments on parish electoral arrangements. 86 In the remainder of this area there were objections to the groupings of parishes under the draft recommendations for St Day & Lanner and Stithians divisions. Carharrack, St Day and Stithians parish councils all proposed alternate arrangements for these parishes. They proposed combining Stithians and Lanner parishes to create a division with a variance of 7% and combining Carharrack, Gwennap and St Day parishes to create a division with a variance of 4%. A number of respondents, including Councillor Thomas and Lanner Parish Council, stated that they would be in favour of creating a two-member division covering these parishes, arguing that all five parishes have strong links through mining. Lanner and St Day parishes also submitted further responses stating that they would favour a two-member division. 87 We noted the objections to our proposals in Camborne and Redruth and the concerns about breaching parish boundaries. In particular, we noted that the Implementation Executive had based its proposals on those put forward by Camborne and Redruth town councils. Although these proposals would worsen electoral equality in a number of divisions, we considered that this would be offset by the merits of providing for compact divisions that avoided breaching parish boundaries. They were also supported locally. However, since these proposals represented a significant change from our draft recommendations, we considered that they should be subject to a period of further consultation. 88 In response to our further consultation, both Camborne and Redruth town councils expressed general support for the modifications put forward for consultation in their respective areas. Illogan Parish Council put forward proposals for its area. We received general support for our further consultation proposals in this area, including a submission from Councillor Sheppard. Camborne & Redruth Constituency Labour

20

Group expressed support for the proposals in the Camborne and Redruth parish areas, but objected to the proposals for the Carn Brea and Illogan area and put forward alternate arrangements which would have the effect of transferring Portreath parish into the Camborne & Redruth area. It also put forward alternate arrangements for the St Agnes & Perranporth area to compensate for the removal of Portreath parish. Cornwall Council stated that, on balance, it preferred the draft recommendations, as these were the boundaries on which the 2009 elections had been held. Cornwall Conservative Party also expressed support for the draft recommendations. 89 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received as part of our further consultation while also considering the evidence received at Stage Three. We noted that there was general support for our proposals in the Camborne and Redruth areas. We noted that Cornwall Council objected to the proposals its Implementation Executive had put forward prior to elections in June 2009. Although we acknowledge its concerns about further changes to electoral arrangements, that is not, in our view, a relevant factor; our task is to reach conclusions on the most appropriate division pattern having regard to our statutory criteria and to the evidence we receive during the course of the review. In our view, our further consultation proposals provided the most appropriate division pattern of this area. 90 Unfortunately, we have since noted that the Implementation Executive’s Stage Three proposals contained a discrepancy between the mapping and the figures provided for the boundary between Pool & Tehidy and Four Lanes divisions around Moorfield Road and Balkin Way. The boundary illustrated on the mapping supplied by the Implementation Executive, and subsequently used in our further consultation, would result in Pool & Tehidy division having 18% fewer electors than the average and Four Lanes having 12% more electors. We did not consider that there was sufficient evidence to justify the creation of a division with 18% fewer electors. We therefore revisited our proposals for this boundary. In order to secure better electoral variances we are proposing a minor amendment to transfer 402 electors from our Pool & Tehidy division to Four Lanes division. The final recommendations boundary is illustrated on Sheet 6 of the large maps available on our website. 91 In the remainder of this area we noted the alternate proposal put forward by the Camborne & Redruth Constituency Labour group and the alternate proposal of Illogan Parish Council. We acknowledge that the Camborne & Redruth Labour Group’s proposals could possibly have provided a solution to the issue of the exclusion of Portreath parish from the Camborne and Redruth area. However, while its proposals secure good electoral equality, it represents a substantial alteration to our draft recommendations and our further consultation proposals in the St Agnes & Perranporth area – an area on which we had not sought further views – and also the remainder of the Camborne and Redruth areas. Given this, and the late stage we had reached in the review process, we do not consider we can consider wholly new proposals and therefore decided not to pursue Camborne & Redruth Labour Groups proposals. We are therefore confirming the proposals put forward in our further consultation document as final. 92 We also noted the strong opposition to our recommendations for St Day & Lanner and Stithians divisions and the agreement about how the constituent parishes might be regrouped to reflect community identities better. We considered the suggestion that these parishes should be covered by a two-member division against the support for single-member divisions. We believe, on balance, that multi-member

21

divisions should be avoided in this instance, given the strong support for single-member divisions. We therefore recommend a single-member Carharrack, Gwennap & St Day division and a single-member Lanner & Stithians division. 93 Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 5 and Map 6 and Table C1. China Clay, St Agnes & Perranporth, St Austell, St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel and Truro China Clay and St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel 94 At Stage One the Implementation Executive put forward proposals for six divisions in the China Clay area. However, as stated in our draft recommendations, we noted that four of the six proposed divisions had significantly fewer electors than the county average, while three of its divisions in the neighbouring St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNA had significantly more electors. This meant that the allocation of councillors between these areas was unbalanced. We also noted that the Implementation Executive’s Treverbyn South division included the village of Whitemoor from St Dennis parish, but that there are no direct road links between the village and the remainder of the division. 95 We therefore sought to address both these issues, concluding that the most effective option would be to transfer an area in the north of Luxulyan parish in St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNA into China Clay CNA. We acknowledged that dividing a parish between CNAs was not ideal, but noted that the area has stronger road links into China Clay CNA than it does to the remainder of the parish. This amendment also enabled us to address the issue of Treverbyn South division. 96 In the China Clay CNA, as a result of this amendment, we proposed a number of consequential amendments to the Implementation Executive’s Bugle, Roche, St Dennis and St Treverbyn divisions. We renamed St Treverbyn division Penwithick division. We adopted the Implementation Executive’s St Enoder and St Stephen divisions without amendment. 97 In the neighbouring St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel CNA we adopted the Implementation Executive’s Lostwithiel division without amendment as part of our draft recommendations. In the remainder of the area we proposed a number of amendments to provide stronger boundaries and more compact divisions and reflect the transfer of part of Luxulyan parish to the China Clay CNA. We proposed amendments between the St Blaise and Tywardreath divisions to strengthen boundaries and improve the electoral equality. 98 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive proposed significant amendments to the draft recommendations. These amendments stemmed from its proposal to avoid dividing Luxulyan parish between divisions and its proposal to transfer Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. 99 The Implementation Executive, Restormel Borough Council and Luxulyan Parish Council objected to the draft recommendation to divide Luxulyan parish between two divisions. While Luxulyan Parish Council stated that it had no connections to the China Clay area, the Implementation Executive and Restormel Borough Council proposed transferring Luxulyan parish to Bugle division within the

22

China Clay area. As a result of this amendment, the Implementation Executive proposed a number of consequential amendments to the divisions in the China Clay area. It argued that its amendments had the advantage of reducing the number of parishes in the area that would be divided between divisions. 100 As a result of the transfer of Luxulyan parish, the Implementation Executive proposed reuniting part of Roche parish with the remainder of the parish in Roche division. This enabled it to transfer the part of St Dennis parish in our proposed Roche division to St Dennis division. These amendments meant that both Roche and St Dennis parishes would be united in single divisions. St Dennis Parish Council supported the Implementation Executive’s amendment, which would improve the electoral equality in Bugle, Roche and St Dennis divisions from 9% fewer, 12% fewer and 6% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 respectively to 6% more, 10% fewer and equal to the average, respectively. The Implementation Executive did not propose any amendments to Penwithick, St Stephen or St Enoder divisions. It did however, suggest that Penwithick division should be renamed Penwithick & Boscoppa and St Stephen division renamed St Stephen-in-Brannel. It also suggested that St Dennis division is renamed St Dennis & Nanpean. 101 We noted that the Implementation Executive’s proposals would secure an improvement in electoral equality and significantly reduce the number of parishes that would be divided between divisions. 102 We have considered carefully all the options related to Luxulyan parish. Having visited the area, we note that it has good links to the Fowey area but that it also has road links to the China Clay area. Retaining the whole of Luxulyan parish in the revised Fowey & Tywardreath division would have the effect of worsening electoral equality in this division to over 30%. In our view, the Implementation Executive’s proposals would provide a compromise solution. It would retain whole parishes within divisions, one of Luxulyan Parish Council’s objectives, while improving electoral equality in the area. We therefore decided to consult further on the Implementation Executive’s proposal. 103 In response to our further consultation we received general support for our proposal to transfer the whole of Luxulyan parish to the China Clay area and for consequential amendments to the Roche and St Dennis divisions. Luxulyan Parish Council continued to argue for its links to the Fowey area to be reflected in the division pattern, albeit acknowledging that the further consultation proposal enables the whole parish to remain in a single division. 104 We noted the general support for our further consultation proposals in this area. We remained concerned about the impact on Luxulyan parish, but considered the consultation document proposal had the advantage of retaining the parish in a single division. In addition, it improved the electoral arrangements in the remainder of the China Clay area. We are therefore confirming these recommendations as final, subject to adopting the Implementation Executive’s division names of St Stephen-in-Brannel and St Dennis & Nanpean. 105 At Stage Three in the St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel area, in addition to the removal of Luxulyan parish, the Implementation Executive proposed transferring Lanteglos parish to the Looe West & Lansallos division in the Looe area. Lanteglos Parish Council put forward strong evidence, including transport, tourism links, the strategic plan and access to facilities, to argue that it should be transferred out of the

23

Lostwithiel division. There was some limited support and opposition to the transfer of Lanteglos parish. 106 The Implementation Executive also expressed concerns about the draft recommendation to divide the Roselyon estate in St Blaise. Restormel Borough Council expressed similar concerns. In addition, it argued that Fowey parish should be in a division with parts of Tywardreath. 107 As a result of the transfer of Lanteglos and Luxulyan parishes and the general concern over draft recommendations in St Blaise and Tywardreath, the Implementation Executive put forward significant amendments, including name changes. Electoral equality in its revised Lostwithiel, St Blazey and Fowey & Tywardreath divisions would improve from 10% more, 10% more and 6% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively, to 3% fewer, 6% fewer and 1% more, respectively. Electoral equality its revised Par & St Blazey Gate division would worsen from 4% more electors than the county average in 2012 to 8% fewer. Restormel Borough Council put forward identical proposals. 108 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received in this area. We noted the evidence for transferring Lanteglos parish to Looe West & Lansallos division in the Looe area and that this amendment would worsen the electoral equality in Looe West & Lansallos division from 10% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 14% more. In addition, we noted that there was limited opposition to the proposal, including from Looe Parish Council. However, these concerns have been balanced against the very strong evidence put forward by Lanteglos parish council. We therefore decided to seek further local views. 109 In response to our further consultation, Looe, Lanteglos and Lansallos parishes all expressed support for the transfer of Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. Councillor Hughes also expressed support for the transfer of Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. However, he also proposed a number of changes in the St Blaise and Tywardreath area. Tywardreath & Park and Fowey parish councils both expressed support for Councillor Hughes’ amendments. 110 We noted the general support for the proposal to transfer Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. As we had stated in our consultation, this worsens electoral equality, but given the support received in response to our further consultation we are adopting it as part of our final recommendations. 111 We also noted Councillor Hughes’ alternate proposal for the St Blaise and Tywardreath divisions. However, we also noted that a number of his divisions had poor electoral equality, including two divisions with 18% fewer and 19% more electors than the county average. Given this, and the late stage we had reached in the review process, we do not consider we can consider wholly new proposals and therefore decided not to pursue Councillor Hughes’ proposals. 112 In the remainder of the area we considered that the Implementation Executive’s proposals had a negligible impact on electoral equality. We also considered that its proposals would produce stronger, locally-generated boundaries and have decided to adopt them as part of our final recommendations. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 12, Map 13b and Map 14 and Table C1.

24

St Agnes & Perranporth 113 At Stage One, the Implementation Executive’s proposals in the St Agnes & Perranporth CNA secured good electoral equality, with no division having a variance of over 8%. Although we noted that a number of parishes were divided between divisions, this was necessary given the size of their electorate. We considered that the Implementation Executive used good boundaries and we therefore adopted its divisions without amendment. 114 At Stage Three, the Implementation Executive considered transferring Portreath parish to the Camborne & Redruth area, as discussed previously in this report. While it agreed that Portreath parish is an integral part of the Camborne & Redruth CNA, it argued that moving it there for electoral purposes would cause ‘major complications’ to division boundaries in the Camborne & Redruth and St Agnes & Perranporth areas. It therefore concluded that Portreath parish should be moved to the Camborne & Redruth for CNA purposes, but remain in the Mount Hawke & Portreath division for electoral purposes. Portreath Parish Council stated that it should be in a division in the Camborne & Redruth area, arguing that it had stronger links to the more urban areas than to the rural area. 115 The Implementation Executive did, however, propose an amendment between the St Agnes & Perranporth and Truro areas, transferring St Allen Parish from our Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division to Perranporth division. It also proposed retaining the Rose Hill area in Newlyn & Goonhavern division. St Allen Parish Council also requested that it be transferred to the St Agnes & Perranporth area, citing the use of services in Perranporth, Newquay and Goonhavern. However, it added that it would rather be in the Newlyn & Goonhavern division than a division with Perranporth or St Agnes, arguing that they share rural characteristics. 116 As a consequence of this transfer, the Implementation Executive proposed further modifications to our draft recommendations for Newlyn & Goonhavern and Perranporth divisions, retaining the whole of the Rose Hill area in Newlyn & Goonhavern division. A number of respondents expressed support for our Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division, which included St Allen parish. 117 St Agnes Parish Council and St Agnes Liberal Democrats expressed concern about the draft recommendation to divide Blackwater from Skinners Bottom and Wheal Rose. 118 A number of respondents expressed support for the Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division and therefore the retention of St Allen in this division. Under this proposal, electoral equality in both divisions would worsen from 5% more and 7% more electors than the average, respectively, to 11% more in each. 119 We noted the concerns about Portreath parish, but given the size of the parish (around 1,100 electors) it is not possible to transfer it without very significant knock-on effects in the surrounding divisions. We noted that the Implementation Executive had been unable to recommend how this could be accommodated. Nor have we been able to identify an adequate solution. Therefore, we do not propose transferring Portreath parish to a division in the Camborne & Redruth CNA. 120 We noted that the Implementation Executive proposed transferring St Allen parish to Perranporth division, while St Allen Parish Council said it would prefer to be transferred to the Newlyn & Goonhavern division. We noted that under the

25

Implementation Executive’s proposals – including subsequent amendments to accommodate the transfer of St Allen parish – electoral equality in the Perranporth and Newlyn & Goonhavern divisions would worsen from 5% more and 7% more electors than the county average by 2012, respectively, to 11% more electors in each. In addition, electoral equality in the Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division in the Truro area would worsen from 1% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 12% fewer. 121 We were concerned that the proposal to transfer St Allen parish to the Perranporth division worsened electoral fairness in the three divisions that would be affected. We were also concerned that the Implementation Executive proposed transferring St Allen parish to the Perranporth division, while St Allen Parish Council considered this a secondary preference to its request to be in a division with Newlyn & Goonhavern. Indeed, from our tour of the area, while we noted that parts of St Allen parish lie to the north of the A30, there are road links to the south, under the A30. In addition, a significant, although less populated, part of the parish lies to the south of the A30. Finally, we noted that there was some support for our proposed Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division, with the inclusion of St Allen parish. Therefore, on balance, we decided against adopting this amendment as part of our final recommendations. 122 Finally, we noted the concerns about the Blackwater area. Although no respondent detailed specific boundaries, we looked at the issue and it would be possible to transfer part of Blackwater parish ward to St Agnes division. However, this would worsen electoral equality in St Agnes division from 4% more electors than the county average by 2012 to 13% more. We did not consider there was sufficient evidence to justify this worsening of electoral equality. Therefore in the remainder of the St Agnes & Perranporth area, we are also confirming our draft recommendations as final. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 7 and Map 8 and Table C1. St Austell 123 In our draft recommendations we noted that, in the St Austell CNA, the Implementation Executive’s St Mewan division had a worse level of electoral equality than we would usually recommend. However, we also noted that this division comprised whole parishes and therefore adopted it and the Mevagissey division without amendment. In the St Austell town area the Implementation Executive’s proposals secured good electoral equality, with no division having a variance greater than 9% by 2012. However, we proposed a minor amendment to the boundary between St Austell Gover and St Austell Poltair divisions to tie the boundary to the railway line. We adopted the remaining St Austell divisions without amendment. 124 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed general support for the draft recommendations in the St Austell area, subject to a minor amendment to the boundary between Mount Charles and St Austell Bay divisions to avoid the division of the Birdcage estate. The St Austell Bay Temporary Parish Council and Mevagissey Parish Council argued that the whole of St Austell Bay parish should be in St Austell Bay division. 125 We noted the Implementation Executive’s proposed amendment to the boundary between Mount Charles and St Austell Bay divisions, which would create a St Austell Bay division with 12% more electors than the county average by 2012. However, if we also adopted the amendment to transfer the whole of St Austell Bay

26

parish into the St Austell division, St Austell Bay division would have 16% more electors than the county average by 2012. While we acknowledge the concerns of both parties, we do not consider there is sufficient evidence to adopt both amendments and create a division that would have the poorest level of electoral equality in the county by 2012. We noted that just transferring the St Austell Bay area to the St Austell Bay division would result in this division having 9% more electors than the county average by 2012. 126 On balance, we considered that the concern to unite the recently created St Austell Bay parish in a single division was stronger than those about dividing the Birdcage estate. In addition, just adopting this amendment created a better electoral equality than adopting both amendments, or just the transfer of the Birdcage estate. We are therefore adopting the proposal to transfer the area of St Austell Bay currently in Mevagissey division to the St Austell Bay division. In the remainder of the area we noted the general support for our draft recommendations and are therefore confirming them as final. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 13a and Map 14 and Table C1. Truro 127 At Stage One the Implementation Executive’s proposals for the Truro urban area secured reasonable electoral equality. However, we noted that its Chacewater & St Clement division included St Clement parish but that the parish has no road links to the remainder of the division and is separated from it by the estuary of the River Truro. In addition we had concerns about its proposals to split Threemilestone and include part of it in a division with the surrounding rural area. 128 We therefore proposed a number of significant amendments to address these issues. By transferring the whole of Threemilestone to an urban division, electoral equality in the rural area and the Truro urban area would worsen in comparison to the Implementation Executive’s proposals. However, we considered this acceptable given the other improvements it secures. 129 In the rural area we proposed amendments to the Implementation Executive’s Probus and Roseland divisions and transferred Ladock parish to our Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division. These amendments worsened electoral equality in Roseland and Probus divisions. We also proposed further amendment to our Ladock St Clement & St Erme division and to the Chacewater & Kenwyn and Feock & Kea divisions. 130 In the Truro city area, we also proposed a number of amendments as a consequence of our proposal to retain the whole of Threemilestone in a single division. As a result of these amendments, electoral equality in Truro Trehaverne would marginally improve, while they would worsen in Truro Boscawen, Truro Moresk and Truro Tregolls. We acknowledged that electoral equality had worsened in some areas, but considered this acceptable given the need to address issues in Threemilestone and St Clement. 131 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive broadly supported our proposals in the Truro area. However, it proposed a number of significant amendments in the city. The Implementation Executive argued that these amendments would secure reasonable electoral equality. In the surrounding rural area it proposed a number of other amendments. As discussed above, it proposed transferring St Allen parish to the St Agnes & Perranporth area. It also proposed exchanging Cuby and St Michael

27

Penkevil parishes between the Probus and Roseland divisions. It also proposed renaming Chacewater & Kenwyn division as Chacewater, Kenwyn & Baldhu and renaming Probus division as Probus, Tregony & Grampound. 132 A local resident put forward alternate proposals for the Truro area, but included a revised Threemilestone & Gloweth division which would have 21% more electors than the county average. 133 We received strong argument for exchanging Cuby and St Michael Penkevil parishes between the Probus and Roseland divisions, including submissions from the affected parishes and others in those divisions. Councillor Currie, Kea Parish Council and a number of other respondents objected to the proposal to transfer Calenick to the Chacewater & Kenwyn division, citing its links to Playing Place. Feock Parish Council expressed concern that Kea parish would have two councillors representing it, given that it would be split between divisions. 134 St Erme Parish Council and Councillor McCullock expressed support for the Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division, while St Clement Parish Council objected to it, requesting that it be transferred to a division with St Michael Penkevil parish. Kenwyn Parish Council and a local resident put forward a minor amendment to the boundary between Threemilestone & Gloweth and Chacewater & Kenwyn divisions. As stated earlier, St Allen Parish Council requested that it be transferred from the Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division to the St Agnes & Perranporth area, favouring the Newlyn & Goonhavern division. 135 We noted the Implementation Executive’s amendments to our proposals in the Truro City area. These amendments would worsen electoral equality in Truro Moresk (which it proposed naming Truro Boscawen) and Truro Trehaverne divisions from 9% more and 7% more electors to 12% more and 11% more, respectively. However, its amendments would improve electoral equality in Truro Tregolls and Truro Boscawen (which the Implementation Executive proposed renaming Truro Redannick) divisions from 12% more and 13% more electors than the county average by 2013 to 9% more and 8% more, respectively. We also noted the alternate arrangements put forward by a local resident, but we did not consider there was sufficient evidence to support the creation of a division with 21% more electors than the county average. On balance, we consider that the Implementation Executive’s proposals represented locally generated amendments to our draft recommendations that also secure reasonable electoral equality. We therefore propose adopting them as part of our final recommendations. 136 In the surrounding rural area, we noted the general consensus over the transfer of Cuby parish to the Probus division in exchange for transferring St Michael Penkevil parish to the Roseland division. We noted that this proposal would marginally improve electoral equality in Roseland division from 12% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 11% fewer under the Implementation Executive’s proposals. Electoral equality in the Probus division would remain at 13% fewer electors, as under the draft recommendations. Given the local support for this amendment and the negligible impact on the levels of electoral equality we are adopting this as part of our final recommendations. 137 As discussed earlier we have also considered the proposals to transfer St Allen parish from Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division to the St Agnes & Perranporth area. We were concerned, among other matters, that the transfer of St Allen parish

28

would worsen electoral equality in three divisions, and we decided against adopting this amendment as part of our final recommendations. 138 We also noted St Clement Parish Council’s request to be in a division with St Michael Penkevil parish. However, transferring St Clement parish would worsen electoral equality in Ladock, St Clement & St Erme division from 1% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 28% fewer. We were unable to address this without significantly altering the electoral arrangements across the area. In addition, we noted that there was support for our proposed Ladock, St Clement & St Erme and have therefore decided against adopting this proposal as part of our final recommendations. 139 Finally, we gave consideration to the minor amendments between the Chacewater, Kenwyn & Baldhu, Feock & Kea and Threemilestone & Gloweth divisions. These amendments would result in a marginally worse electoral equality, with Chacewater, Kenwyn & Baldhu, Feock & Kea and Threemilestone & Gloweth divisions worsening from 12% fewer, 8% more and 1% fewer electors than the county average in 2012 to 13% fewer, 9% more and 2% fewer, respectively. We consider the worsening of electoral equality to be acceptable given the stronger boundaries provided for and are therefore adopting these amendments as part of our final recommendations. We also accept the argument from the Implementation Executive to rename Chacewater & Kenwyn division as Chacewater, Kenwyn & Baldhu; Probus division as Probus, Tregony & Grampound; and Feock & Kea division as Feock & Playing Place. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 7, Map 8 and Map 9 and Table C1. Newquay, Bodmin, Wadebridge & Padstow, Camelford and Bude Newquay 140 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed seven divisions in the Newquay CNA. We adopted its rural St Columb and Colan & Mawgan divisions as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. In the urban part of Newquay parish we adopted its Newquay Tretherras and Newquay Treviglas divisions without amendment. In the remainder of Newquay we proposed a number of minor amendments to the Implementation Executive’s divisions to provide stronger boundaries. 141 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed general support for our draft recommendations, but proposed a number of minor amendments and name changes. We also received some limited further support for our draft recommendations in this area. The Implementation Executive proposed transferring a small area of Newquay Tretherras to Newquay Treviglas, and a small area of Colan & Mawgan to Newquay Tretherras. As a result, electoral equality in Colan & Mawgan would worsen from 8% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 11% fewer. Electoral equality in Newquay Tretherras and Newquay Treviglas, would improve from 7% fewer and 8% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 5% fewer in both divisions. It proposed these amendments to strengthen boundaries. It also proposed renaming Newquay Gannel as Newquay Pentire, renaming Colan & Mawgan as St Mawgan & Colan and renaming St Columb division as St Columb Major.

29

142 We noted that the Implementation Executive’s amendments to our draft recommendations would result in some divisions worsening in electoral equality and some improving. On balance, we considered that its amendments would strengthen the boundaries and provide a better reflection of communities, and are therefore adopting them as part of the final recommendations. We also propose adopting its proposed division name changes. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 11 and Table C1. Bodmin 143 At Stage One the Implementation Executive put forward proposals for four divisions in the Bodmin area. Its Lanivet division comprised whole parishes and secured reasonable electoral equality. We therefore adopted it without amendment. In Bodmin parish, we noted that the Implementation Executive’s proposals did not secure good electoral quality. In addition, we had concerns about the strength of the boundaries of Bodmin Central division. We therefore proposed a number of amendments to its proposals. 144 At Stage Three in the Bodmin area we received three proposals making amendments to the three Bodmin town divisions. Bodmin Town Council and Councillor Stubbs put forward identical proposals for amendments to our draft recommendations in Bodmin. Councillors Kerridge and Rogerson put forward a joint proposal, making a number of minor amendments to Bodmin Town Council and Councillor Stubbs’ proposals. Finally, the Implementation Executive put forward modifications to our draft recommendations that, it argued, reflected elements of all the amendments put forward by Councillor Stubbs, Bodmin Town Council and councillors Kerridge and Rogerson. All the respondents stated that the draft recommendations divided the Berryfields estate and put forward proposals to address this. In addition, all respondents proposed identical amendments to the division names. They proposed that Bodmin East is renamed Bodmin St Petroc; Bodmin West is renamed Bodmin St Mary’s and Bodmin Central renamed Bodmin St Leonard. 145 We have given consideration to the evidence received and, while the differences between the proposals were small, we considered that the Implementation Executive’s proposals provided the strongest boundaries while securing reasonable electoral equality. As a result of its amendments electoral equality in Bodmin East division would worsen from 11% more electors than the county average by 2012 to 12% more. Electoral equality would improve in Bodmin West division from 10% more electors to 9% and remain 10% more electors in Bodmin Central division, as under our draft recommendations. We are therefore adopting these amendments as part of our final recommendations,. 146 In addition, we noted that there was agreement on revisions to the division names. We are therefore also adopting the proposed name changes. Finally, we noted that there were no objections to the boundaries of our proposed Lanivet division, although the Implementation Executive proposed renaming it Lanivet & Blisland division. We are therefore confirming our Lanivet division as final, subject to renaming it Lanivet & Blisland. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 16a and Table C1. Wadebridge and Padstow 147 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed five divisions for its Wadebridge & Padstow CNA. We adopted its Padstow division without amendment.

30

However, in the remainder of the area we noted that its St Issey division included St Minver Lowlands parish which has no direct road links to the remainder of the division as it is separated from it by the River Camel estuary. We did not consider that this would provide for convenient or effective local government and therefore explored a number of alternative options. 148 One option included the creation of a division running across the width of the area. The alternative involved splitting Wadebridge parish between three divisions, including two predominantly rural divisions and a division straddling the River Camel. On balance, although we had concerns about the large rural St Issey division, we considered this was preferable to dividing Wadebridge parish between three divisions. We therefore adopted this as part of our draft recommendations. 149 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed concern about our proposed St Issey division, but acknowledged that it was unable to provide a better alternative. It did however recommend that St Endellion division is renamed St Minver & St Endellion and that St Issey division is renamed St Issey & St Tudy. St Issey Parish Council also objected to this proposal and argued that it should be in a division with Padstow parish. A local resident put forward substantial amendments to the divisions in this area and the neighbouring areas. 150 We noted the concerns of St Issey Parish Council. However, the geographic constraints of the coast and the River Camel, and the size of the electorates of the parishes in the area, means that we are unable to put it in a division with Padstow parish. As stated in our draft recommendations, we explored alternatives, but these create we were unable to find a solution that suitably divided Wadebridge parish. We also looked at the alternate proposals put forward by the local resident, but noted that these would require the redrawing of electoral arrangements in a wide area. We do not consider that he provided sufficient evidence to justify such amendments. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for this area as final, subject to the name changes put forward by the Implementation Executive. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 17a and Map 17b and Table C1. Camelford 151 At Stage One the Implementation Executive’s proposed three divisions for the Camelford CNA. We had some concerns about the links within its St Teath division but on balance considered that they were reasonable, particularly given the levels of electoral equality they achieved. We therefore adopted its proposals as part of draft recommendations, without amendment. 152 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed general support for the draft recommendations, but requested the transfer of Tremaine parish to the Camelford division. It stated that it sometimes holds joint parish meetings with Treneglos and Tresmeer parishes. The Implementation Executive also requested that St Teath division is renamed St Teath & St Breward division. Finally, it also corrected an error in the electorate figures in the draft recommendations. The table in the draft recommendations report stated that Camelford and Tintagel divisions would have 1% more and 12% fewer electors than the average by 2012. The correct figures of 7% fewer and 2% more electors were quoted in the text. 153 Tremaine Parish Council also argued that it should be transferred to Camelford division, putting forward similar arguments to those of the Implementation Executive.

31

154 We noted the Implementation Executive’s correction to the figures in our draft recommendations and confirm this as correct. We also noted the request to transfer Tremaine parish to the Camelford division. Transferring Tremaine parish would improve electoral equality in Camelford and Tintagel division from 7% fewer and 2% more electors than the county average by 2012, to 5% fewer and equal to the average, respectively. We considered that this amendment would better reflect local communities and, given the improvement in electoral equality, we are adopting it as part of our final recommendations. Finally, we are also adopting the Implementation Executive’s recommendation to rename St Teath division, St Teath & St Breward division. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Table C1. Bude 155 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed four divisions in the Bude CNA. Its Bude South, Bude North & Stratton, Flexbury & Poughill and Poundstock divisions all used good boundaries and secured good electoral equality, with no division varying by more than 7% from the county average by 2012. We therefore adopted these proposals without amendment. 156 At Stage Three we received significant objections regarding two areas of our draft recommendations for the Bude CNA: Marhamchurch and Poughill. Nine respondents put forward strong evidence for the transfer of Marhamchurch parish from Flexbury & Poughill division to Poundstock division. Councillor Booker put forward strong evidence for Marhamchurch’s links to the parishes to the south, including Poundstock and Week St Mary. He argued that residents of Week St Mary use schools in Marhamchurch and that the village of Widemouth Bay lies between Marhamchurch and Poundstock parishes. He considered that it would be wrong to divide Widemouth Bay between divisions. However, he also acknowledged that the proposal to transfer Marhamchurch parish from Flexbury & Poughill division to Poundstock division would significantly worsen electoral equality in Flexbury & Poughill division. Eight other respondents expressed support for the transfer of Marhamchurch, including Poundstock and Marhamchurch parish councils. The Implementation Executive expressed support for the draft recommendations for Poundstock and Flexbury & Poughill divisions, subject to revised names. 157 Bude-Stratton Town Council put forward evidence that the Poughill area of Bude-Stratton parish should not be in the Flexbury & Poughill division, but rather within the Bude divisions. Councillor Macey also objected to this proposal. He argued that Poughill is a suburb of Bude and that all its services, including schools, hospitals, doctors, shops and entertainment are provided there and that it does not have links to the surrounding rural communities. A further six respondents also argued that the Poughill area should be retained with the Bude divisions. The Implementation Executive supported the draft recommendation to place the Poughill area in the Flexbury & Poughill division, while acknowledging the strong opposition to that proposal. In its discussion of the Bude divisions, it stated that there was some support for a two-member division as it was difficult to divide the town using logical boundaries. Indeed, it also stated that some local councillors might favour a three-member division. We also received a number of objections to the name Flexbury & Poughill division, with respondents stating that the Flexbury area is not actually in the proposed division. 158 We gave careful consideration to the evidence received and noted the concerns about our draft recommendations in this area, but also noted that both of the proposed amendments would significantly worsen electoral equality. Transferring

32

Marhamchurch parish from Flexbury & Poughill division to Poundstock division would worsen electoral equality in these division wards from 1% more and 7% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 18% fewer and 12% more, respectively. 159 We also noted that transferring the Poughill area from Flexbury & Poughill division to the Bude divisions (without considering the Marhamchurch proposal) would worsen electoral equality in the Flexbury & Poughill division from 1% more electors than the county average by 2012 to 18% fewer. In addition, we noted that this would mean that the Bude divisions would have to be redrawn and that the best level of electoral equality that could be achieved in each division by 2012 would be 13% more electors than the county average, rather than 4% more and 5% more in the two Bude divisions in our draft recommendation. Finally, we noted that adopting both the transfer of the Poughill area and Marhamchurch parish would leave the Flexbury & Poughill division with 37% fewer electors by 2012 than the county average. We would be unable to consider a division with such poor electoral equality. 160 We did not consider that any respondent had put forward sufficient evidence to justify our accepting a division with such poor electoral equality as either 18% or 19% fewer electors than the county average. We considered that there was even less evidence to justify the creation of a Flexbury & Poughill division with 37% fewer electors than the county average. 161 We therefore considered it necessary to examine alternative options that might address the concerns raised by respondents, while also securing good electoral equality. In considering alternative proposals, we sought to reflect the argument for the transfer of Marhamchurch parish to the Poundstock division, so long as good electoral equality could be achieved in the Flexbury & Poughill and Bude divisions. 162 We noted the support for a two-member division covering the two single-member Bude divisions. We therefore explored expanding this concept of a multi-member division to create a three-member division covering the Bude divisions and the Flexbury & Poughill division area – less Marhamchurch parish, which would be transferred to the Poundstock division. The resulting three-member division would have 3% fewer electors than the county average by 2012. While we acknowledged that there may be concerns about the size of the proposed division we noted that it would enable Poughill to be in a division with the remainder of Bude and Marhamchurch to be in the Poundstock division. 163 The second option that we considered would reunite the Poughill area with the Bude divisions, but with the Stratton area transferred out to the Flexbury & Poughill division in order to achieve acceptable levels of electoral equality. Under this option Marhamchurch parish would be transferred to Poundstock division. We concluded that it was not possible to create two single-member divisions without transferring part of the Bude town area to a division containing the Flexbury and Poughill areas. 164 The two-member Bude division, comprising Bude-Stratton parish less the Stratton area, would have 5% fewer electors than the county average. The Stratton area would be transferred to a division with Launcells, Kilkhampton and Morwenstow parishes. This division would have 1% more electors than the average. We acknowledged that while this would transfer Poughill back to a division with Bude, it would see Stratton transferred to a division with the surrounding rural area. However, based on our tour of the area, we noted that while the Stratton area clearly neighbours Bude and has links with the town, it lies some distance from the centre of

33

Bude and lies to the east of the A39. Indeed, based on our tour, we considered that these links appear similar to those between Poughill and the Flexbury area of Bude. As stated, this reflects a compromise and beyond the option of a three-member division, it is not possible to accommodate the concerns of all parties in this area without generating very poor electoral equality. 165 We considered that the two alternative options merited further consideration and we therefore conducted further consultation on both options. In response to our further consultation, we received support for Option Two from Marhamchurch, Kilkhampton and Morwenstow parish councils. Bude-Stratton Town Council also expressed support for Option Two, but also argued for the creation of a three-member division covering the Bude-Stratton parish area. Launcells Parish Council objected to the proposals to place the Stratton area of Bude-Stratton parish in a division with the surrounding rural parishes. 166 Cornwall Council also expressed support for Option Two, although it restated its preference for single-member divisions. Councillors Bale and Pearce put forward a joint submission opposing the transfer of Marhamchurch to Poundstock division and arguing that it should be included in the three-member division proposed under Option One. Councillor Dolphin objected to the transfer of Marhamchurch to the Poundstock division and proposed alternate division arrangements covering this area of Bude. Cornwall County Labour Party supported the transfer of Marhamchurch parish to Poundstock division, but objected to the creation of either a two- or three-member division in the remainder of the area, expressing a preference for single-member divisions. A number of respondents, including two of the affected parishes, also argued that Grenville be included in the name of Stratton & Kilkhampton division. Marhamchurch Parish Council and a local resident requested that Poundstock division be renamed Penfound division. 167 We noted that a number of respondents put forward different amendments to those proposed as part of our further consultation. While we have given careful consideration to these further amendments and in some areas they may have some merit, we do not consider that they have been sufficiently developed, provide strong evidence of local support and good electoral equality. The Committee does not consider that at this stage of the process it can consider wholly new proposals.. Therefore, we have not considered these proposals further. 168 In our view, there remains support for the transfer of Marhamchurch parish to the Poundstock division and the creation of a two-member Bude division and single-member Stratton & Kilkhampton division. Although we noted the objections to the transfer of Marhamchurch, these must be weighed not only against the support received as part of the further consultation, but also the support received during the consultation on the draft recommendations. We are therefore recommending that Marhamchurch parish is transferred to Poundstock division as part of our final recommendations. Although we note the request to rename this division Penfound, we note this was only supported by one of the parishes in the division and are not persuaded that it would draw local support. We are therefore recommending that the division is called Poundstock. 169 In the remainder of the area, we noted that there is less agreement. While there is some support for the creation of a three-member division, there are also objections to this proposal and greater support for the creation of the two-member Bude division and single-member Stratton & Kilkhampton division. We also noted that there is

34

support for the latter from a number of the parishes affected by the proposals, although we also acknowledge the concerns of the two members representing the current Bude divisions. We noted that a number of respondents suggested single-member divisions, but we have been unable to determine a pattern of divisions that secure good electoral equality and strong boundaries. Therefore, on balance, we consider that the argument for the creation of a two-member Bude division and single-member Stratton & Kilkhampton division is stronger. This has the advantage of enabling the rural area surrounding Bude parish to be included with a smaller part of the town. Finally, we noted the local support for including Grenville in the name of the Stratton & Kilkhampton. We are therefore renaming this Grenville & Stratton division. We are therefore confirming the creation of a two-member Bude division and single-member Grenville & Stratton division as part of our final recommendations. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 20a and Table C1. Launceston, Liskeard, Looe & Torpoint, Callington and Saltash Launceston 170 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed five divisions for the Launceston CNA. We noted that its Stokeclimsland division had 14% fewer electors than the county average by 2012. Although we usually seek to improve on such imbalances, we noted that the division lay at the edge of the county and the options for improvement were limited. We therefore adopted it as part of our draft recommendations. In the remainder of the Launceston CNA, although the Implementation Executive’s boundaries secured good electoral equality, we did not consider that it provided a strong boundary between of its Launceston Central and Launceston North divisions. We therefore examined a number of alternative proposals. We concluded that, unlike the Truro area, it was not possible to create rural divisions with reasonable electoral equality without transferring part of the town to the surrounding area. It was therefore necessary to transfer part of Launceston into a division with the surrounding rural area. On balance, we concluded that the Implementation Executive’s proposals transferred the most appropriate area. We therefore adopted them without amendment. 171 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive proposed a number of amendments for the Launceston area. It proposed transferring North Hill parish from Stokeclimsland division to Altarnun division, arguing that this would retain the ‘moorland’ parishes in a single division. It also proposed transferring Laneast parish to Altarnun division. It proposed offsetting this by the transfer of South Petherwin and Trewen parishes from Altarnun division to Stokeclimsland division, while St Thomas the Apostle Rural would be transferred to the Launceston North division. It proposed a further amendment to Launceston North, to avoid the division of the Lanstephen estate and subsequent amendments to Launceston Central and Launceston South divisions. It recommended that this Launceston North division is renamed Launceston North & North Petherwin. 172 Launceston Town Council put forward the same proposals as the Implementation Executive, arguing that its amendments would avoid the division of the Lanstephen estate and ensure that the whole of the ‘central older part of the town’ is in Launceston Central division. South Petherwin parish argued that it should be transferred to the Stokeclimsland division along with St Thomas the Apostle Rural parish. Councillor Facks-Martin proposed the transfer of South Petherwin parish to Stokeclimsland division and North Hill parish to Altarnun division.

35

173 We noted that the Implementation Executive’s proposals would worsen electoral equality in Altarnun and Stokeclimsland divisions from 7% fewer and 14% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 10% fewer and 16% fewer, respectively. While also transferring St Thomas the Apostle Rural parish to the Stokeclimsland division would improve electoral equality in Stokeclimsland division to 3% more electors than the county average by 2012, it would worsen it in Launceston North division to 19% fewer. The Implementation Executive’s proposals for Launceston North and Launceston Central would improve electoral equality from 7% fewer and 11% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 0% and 5% fewer, respectively. Electoral equality in Launceston South division would worsen from 4% fewer electors than the county average in 2012 to 13% fewer. 174 We noted that the Implementation Executive’s proposals worsen electoral equality in Stokeclimsland and Launceston South division and that electoral equality in Stokeclimsland division would be the worst in the county. However, we also considered that more compact divisions would be created in both Stokeclimsland and Altarnun. In addition, since the Stokeclimsland division lies at the edge of the county there are fewer options for seeking to improve electoral equality in this area. Finally, we also noted that a number of respondents have proposed identical amendments. We noted South Petherwin Parish Council’s proposal to also transfer St Thomas the Apostle Rural to Stokeclimsland division, but did not consider that it provided sufficient evidence to justify a division with 19% fewer electors than the county average. On balance, we considered that the Implementation Executive’s amendments secured reasonable electoral equality and good boundaries. We are therefore adopting them as part of our final recommendations. 175 In the Launceston town and Launceston North areas, we are also adopting the Implementation Executive’s amendments, including its proposed name change. Although we have some concerns about the creation of a Launceston South division with 13% fewer electors than the county average by 2012, we noted that this helps retain the old town centre in a single division and avoid splitting the Lanstephen estate. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 20b and Table C1. Liskeard 176 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed five divisions in the Liskeard CNA. We considered that these divisions secured reasonable electoral equality and, although we had minor concerns about the links in the Menheniot division, we noted that it is not possible to address them given the size and configuration of the parishes in the area. We therefore adopted the Implementation Executive’s proposals as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. 177 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive expressed general support for the draft recommendations, subject to a minor amendment to the boundary between Menheniot and Liskeard South & Dobwalls divisions. It proposed transferring a small number of properties to the Liskeard South & Dobwalls division. Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council also argued that Doublebois should remain in a division with Dobwalls. St Cleer Parish Council expressed support for the St Cleer division. 178 The Implementation Executive also requested that Liskeard South & Dobwalls and Liskeard Central divisions be renamed Liskeard West & Dobwalls and Liskeard East divisions, respectively.

36

179 We noted the general support for our proposals and also the Implementation Executive’s minor amendment that affects around 20 electors. We also note the proposal put forward by Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council, but note that this amendment would worsen electoral equality in Menheniot division from 10% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 to 15% fewer, but improve electoral equality in Liskeard South & Dobwalls from 9% fewer electors to 5% fewer. The Implementation Executive’s amendment would worsen electoral equality in Menheniot to 11% fewer electors. 180 Although we noted that the Doublebois area is geographically close to the Dobwalls area, following our tour of the area we also noted that it also has good links to the Menheniot division. On balance, we do not consider that the worsening of electoral equality under both the Implementation Executive and Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council proposals can be justified in this instance. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations in this area as final, subject to the name changes proposed by the Implementation Executive. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 16b and Table C1. Looe & Torpoint 181 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed six divisions in the Looe & Torpoint CNA. Its Rame, Torpoint East and Torpoint West divisions secured reasonable electoral equality, provided strong boundaries and used whole parishes or existing parish wards. We therefore adopted them as part of our draft recommendations, without amendment. We proposed a minor amendment between Looe East and Pelynt divisions. While the Implementation Executive’s proposals secured good electoral equality, we were concerned at its proposals to transfer Seaton village from Deviock parish to the Looe East division. Although transferring it back to Deviock parish and Pelynt division worsened electoral equality, we considered that this better reflected communities and therefore adopted this modification as part of our draft recommendations. Finally, we also adopted the Implementation Executive’s Looe West & Lansallos division without amendment. 182 At Stage Three there was general support for the draft recommendations. However, there was also some support for the inclusion of Lanteglos parish in the Looe West & Lansallos division. As stated earlier in the report, Lanteglos Parish Council put forward very strong evidence in support of being transferred to this division, citing transport, tourism links, the strategic plan and deprivation and access to facilities. The Implementation Executive expressed support for the transfer of Lanteglos parish to Looe West & Lansallos. Looe Town Council supported the draft recommendations. It also acknowledged the concerns of Lanteglos parish, but expressed concern that any plan to transfer it to Looe parish would lead to the proposed boundaries in Looe being redrawn. Torpoint Town Council expressed support for the draft recommendations for the Torpoint divisions. A number of respondents also proposed renaming Pelynt division as Trelawny division. The Implementation Executive also proposed that Rame division is renamed as Rame Peninsular division. 183 We noted the general support for our draft recommendations, with the exception of the Looe West & Lansallos division. We noted the concerns of Lanteglos Parish Council, but had concerns that its inclusion in a Looe West & Lansallos division would result in a worsening of electoral equality from 10% fewer electors than the

37

county average by 2012 to 14% more. Nevertheless, we felt it was appropriate to carry out some further consultation on this matter. 184 In response to our further consultation Looe, Lanteglos and Lansallos parishes all expressed support for the transfer of Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. Councillor Hughes also expressed support for the transfer of Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. A number of respondents also requested that the division is named Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos division. 185 We noted the general support for the proposal to transfer Lanteglos parish to the Looe area. As stated in the consultation paper, we acknowledge that this worsens electoral equality, but given the support received in response to our further consultation we are adopting it as part of our final recommendations, subject to renaming Looe West & Lansallos division as Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos division; Pelynt division as Trelawny division; and Rame division as Rame Peninsular division. We are confirming as final our draft recommendations for this area. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1, Map 16c and Map 18 and Table C1. Callington 186 At Stage One the Implementation Executive proposed four divisions for the Callington CNA. We had some concerns about the proposal to put the Kelly Bray area of Callington parish in a separate division from the remainder of the parish. However, we concluded that it was not possible to retain these areas in a single division and therefore adopted the Implementation Executive’s Kelly Bray, Gunnislake, Callington and St Ive divisions as part of our draft recommendations without amendment. 187 At Stage Three we received general support for the draft recommendations in the Callington area, including from the Implementation Executive and Calstock, Linkinhorne and South Hill parish councils. Calstock Parish Council and the Implementation Executive argued that Kelly Bray division should be renamed St Dominick, Harrowbarrow & Kelly Bray. The Implementation Executive and Calstock Parish Council argued that Gunnislake division should be renamed Gunnislake & Calstock division. Finally, the Implementation Executive and Linkinhorne and South Hill parish council’s argued that St Ive division should be renamed Lynher division. A local resident argued that Pillaton parish should be in a division with St Mellion parish. 188 We noted the general support for our proposals, subject to some concerns about division names. We were unable to transfer St Mellion parish to Pillaton without significantly worsening electoral equality. In addition, this must be weighed against the support for the boundaries put forward by our draft recommendations. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for this area, subject to the following name changes. Kelly Bray division should be renamed St Dominick, Harrowbarrow & Kelly Bray; Gunnislake division renamed Gunnislake & Calstock and, finally, St Ive division renamed Lynher. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 19 and Table C1. Saltash 189 At Stage One the Implementation Executive put forward proposals for five divisions within the Saltash CNA. We noted that its proposals secured good electoral equality. However, we had particular concerns about the boundaries of its Saltash St Stephen division, particularly around Old Ferry Road. We sought to address this, but

38

found that it was not possible to do so without significantly altering the Implementation Executive’s proposals. We therefore made substantial amendments to its proposals, in order to create strong boundaries across the area. 190 At Stage Three the Implementation Executive and Saltash Town Council put forward a number of amendments to our draft recommendations, and correcting some of the former’s original assumptions regarding the spread of housing development across the Saltash area. They also corrected an error in our draft recommendations – we had incorrectly labelled Saltash Burraton division as Saltash St Stephen division, and vice versa. The Implementation Executive proposed renaming the divisions as Saltash North, Saltash East, Saltash South and Saltash West to reflect the geographic areas. 191 Both the Implementation Executive and Saltash Town Council proposed transferring the rural Latchbrook area to the Saltash Burraton division (Saltash West under their proposals). They also proposed a number of minor boundary amendments between their Saltash South, Saltash West and Saltash North divisions. Saltash Town Council proposed an additional amendment, between its Saltash North and Saltash East divisions. 192 We also received some general support for our draft recommendations. Pillaton Parish Council argued that it should be in a division in the Callington area and not the Saltash area. Landulph Parish Council requested that St Germans division should be renamed Taymar Lynher division. The Implementation Executive requested that St Germans division be renamed as St Germans & Landulph. 193 We noted that there was some support for our draft recommendations. However, given the revised figures provided for the spread of housing development, we acknowledged that there was a need to revisit our draft recommendations in the Saltash area. We noted that Saltash Town Council and the Implementation Executive were broadly in agreement over the proposed amendments. However, the differences between their proposals resulted in the Saltash Town Council proposal creating a Saltash North division with 17% fewer electors than the county average by 2012 and a Saltash East division with 16% more electors. In contrast, the Implementation Executive’s proposals for these divisions would provide a Saltash North division with 8% fewer electors and a Saltash East division with 7% more electors. While we acknowledge that the Saltash Town Council proposal uses a strong boundary in the Pill areas, we did not consider that this justified such poor electoral equality, particularly in an urban area where alternative electoral arrangements with better electoral equality had been proposed. We therefore do not propose adopting the full set of amendments put forward by Saltash Town Council, but rather those that were also supported by the Implementation Executive. 194 In the remainder of the Saltash area we noted the concerns of Pillaton Parish Council, but are unable to transfer the parish to a division in the Callington area without significantly worsening electoral equality. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations in the remainder of this area as final, subject to renaming the divisions in Saltash. We are also renaming St Germans division as St Germans & Landulph. Our proposals for this area are outlined on Map 1 and Map 18 and Table C1.

39

Conclusions 195 Table 1 shows the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2007 and 2012 electorate figures. Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements Final recommendations

2007 2012

Number of councillors 123 123

Number of electoral divisions 122 122

Average number of electors per councillor 3,344 3,537

Number of electoral divisions with a variance more than 10% from the average 37 22

Number of electoral divisions with a variance more than 20% from the average 7 0

Final recommendation Cornwall Council should comprise 123 councillors serving 122 divisions, as detailed and named in Table C1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report. Parish electoral arrangements 196 As part of an electoral review, we are required to comply as far as possible with the rules set out in Schedule 11, Local Government Act 1972 (LGA 1972). The Schedule provides that if a parish is to be divided between different divisions it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single division. We cannot recommend changes to the external boundaries of parishes as part of an electoral review. 197 During Stage One, some parishes requested changes to parish electoral arrangements, specifically to parish warding and the number of parish councillors. The LGA 1972 sets out that as part of an electoral review, we can change parish electoral arrangements where there is no impact on the principal authority’s electoral arrangements. 198 However, the Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 provides for parish electoral arrangements to be resolved by local authorities. In addition, the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 provides that, once the Local Government Boundary Commission for England takes on all the powers of the Boundary Committee for England, the Commission will only have statutory power to change parish electoral arrangements as a consequence of ward or division electoral arrangements, rather than at the request of a parish council. Accordingly, the Committee has taken the view that parish warding arrangements unaffected by any recommendations we make for division boundaries

40

should be dealt with locally. Cornwall Council has powers under the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 to conduct community governance reviews to effect changes to parish electoral arrangements. 199 We propose consequential parish warding arrangements for the parishes of Bodmin, Bude-Stratton, Callington, Calstock, Camborne, Carn Brea, Dobwalls & Trewidland, Egloshayle, Falmouth, Hayle, Helston, Kea, Kenwyn, Launceston Liskeard, Looe, Madron Newquay, Penryn, Penzance, Perranzabuloe, Redruth, Saltash, St Agnes, St Austell ,St Blaise, St Ives, St Kew, St Stephen-in-Brannel, Treverbyn, Truro, Tywardreath & Par and Wadebridge. 200 In the St Austell area four new parishes were established in April 2009: the parishes of Carlyon, Pentewan, St Austell and St Austell Bay. Our final recommendations also provide revised electoral arrangements in St Austell parish. Parish electoral arrangements in Carlyon, Pentewan and St Austell Bay parishes are unaffected by our final recommendations. 201 As part of our draft recommendations, as result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed the creation of new parish wards in a number of parishes that are currently unwarded. However, as a result of amendments made to electoral divisions for our final recommendations, we are no longer are recommending warding the following parishes: Luxulyan, Roche and St Dennis. The electoral arrangements of these parishes will remain as they currently are. 202 At Stage One, Deviock Parish Council, currently warded, requested that it be unwarded. We adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. However, as detailed above, we have since taken the view that parish warding arrangements unaffected by any recommendations we make for division boundaries should be dealt with locally, by Cornwall Council. We therefore are not making any recommendations relating to Deviock Parish Council 203 The parish of Bodmin is currently divided into two parish wards: St Petroc (returning eight members) and St Mary’s (returning eight members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our proposed electoral division boundaries and having regard to the rules set out in Schedule 11 to the LGA of 1972, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Bodmin parish. 204 At Stage Three Bodmin Town Council acknowledged the need for parish boundaries to reflect the division boundaries, but argued that these changes should not be implemented before the next elections on the Cornwall Council boundaries in 2013. We received no specific objections our proposed parish wards. As a result of amendments to our draft recommendations we are proposing a number of minor consequential amendments to the parish ward boundaries as part of our final recommendations.

Final recommendations Bodmin Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, one more than present: St Petroc (returning five members), St Mary’s (returning six members) and St Leonard (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 16a.

41

205 The parish of Bude-Stratton is currently divided into two parish wards: Bude (returning nine members) and Poughill & Stratton (returning nine members). At Stage one, we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Bude-Stratton parish. 206 As a result of our consultation at Stage Three and further consultation, we are recommending revisions to our draft recommendations and, as a result, revisions to the parish ward arrangements in Bude-Stratton. We are recommending the creation of a third parish ward comprising the areas of Flexbury and Poughill.

Final recommendations Bude-Stratton Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, one more than at present: Bude (returning nine members), Flexbury & Poughill (returning six members) and Stratton (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 20a. 207 The parish of Callington is currently unwarded, returning 12 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Callington parish. 208 At Stage Three we did not receive any objections to the new arrangements and are confirming them as final.

Final recommendations Callington Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Callington (returning 10 members) and Kelly Bray (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 19. 209 The parish of Calstock is currently divided into five wards: Calstock, (returning three members), Chilsworthy (returning two members), Delaware (returning four members), Gunnislake (returning five members) and Harrowbarrow (returning four members). At Stages One and Three we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area, nor do our proposals change the existing parish wards. However, because we have been unable to identify the legal Order which lays out the electoral arrangements of the parish wards, for the avoidance of doubt we confirm the following arrangements as part of our final recommendations.

Final recommendations Calstock Parish Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Calstock, (returning three members), Chilsworthy (returning two members), Delaware (returning four members), Gunnislake (returning five members) and Harrowbarrow (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 19.

42

210 The parish of Camborne is currently divided into three parish wards: North (returning six members), South (returning six members) and West (returning six members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Camborne parish. 211 At Stage Three and during our further consultation we received limited comments on our proposed parish wards for this area. However, Camborne Town Council did express support for our revisions to the division boundaries. As a result of the amendments put forward in our further consultation we are making a number of amendments to the boundaries and names of the parish wards in Camborne. We have also proposed some changes to the names of the parish wards, based on the views expressed to us.

Final recommendations Camborne Town Council should comprise 18 councillors, as at present, representing five wards, two more than at present: Pendarves (returning four members), Roskear (returning four members), Trelowarren (returning four members), Treslothan (returning three members) and Treswithian (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 5. 212 The parish of Carn Brea is currently divided into four wards: Barncoose (returning five members), East Hill (returning one member), Four Lanes (returning five members) and Pool (returning five members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we are proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Carn Brea parish. 213 At Stage Three, Carn Brea Parish Council proposed a number of amendments to the number of councillors in its parish wards and also requested the creation of an additional parish ward. However, we noted that these comments were based on our draft recommendations. The final recommendations require a revised set of parish wards to reflect the new electoral divisions. As a consequence, we have created a fifth parish ward, to reflect the transfer of part of the existing Barncoose parish ward to Illogan division.

Final recommendations Carn Brea Parish Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing five wards, one more than at present: Barncoose (returning four members), East Hill (returning one member), Four Lanes (returning five members), Pool (returning five members) and Tolgus (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1, 5 and 6. 214 The parish of Dobwalls & Trewidland is currently unwarded, returning 11 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we are proposing revised parish electoral arrangements for Dobwalls & Trewidland parish.

43

215 At Stage Three we did not receive any comments on the parish warding for Dobwalls & Trewidland parish. While we note the objections to our electoral divisions, as described earlier, we are recommending these as final. As a result, we are confirming the parish ward arrangements for Dobwalls & Trewidland parish as final.

Final recommendations Dobwalls & Trewidland Parish Council should comprise eleven councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Dobwalls (returning eight members) and Trewidland (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 16b. 216 The parish of Egloshayle is currently unwarded, and served by 10 members. We received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we are proposing revised parish electoral arrangements for Egloshayle parish. 217 At Stage Three we did not receive any comments on the parish warding for Egloshayle parish. While we note the objections to our electoral divisions, as described earlier, we are recommending these as final. As a result, we are confirming the parish ward arrangements for Egloshayle parish as final.

Final recommendations Egloshayle Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Egloshayle North (returning five members) and Egloshayle South (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 17b. 218 The parish of Falmouth is currently divided into four wards: Arwenack (returning five members), Boslowick (returning four members), Penwerris (returning four members) and Trescobeas (returning three members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Falmouth parish. 219 At Stage Three Falmouth Town Council expressed general support for our proposals in this area. We also received a number of requests for amendments to the division names. We are recommending that Falmouth Gyllyngvase is renamed Falmouth Arwenack and that Falmouth Arwenack is renamed Falmouth Smithick. We are also recommending that the parish ward names be amendment to reflect these amendments to the electoral division names.

Final recommendations Falmouth Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing five wards, one more than at present: Smithick (returning three members), Boslowick (returning four members), Arwenack, (returning three members), Penwerris (returning three members) and Trescobeas (returning three members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 10.

44

220 The parish of Hayle is currently divided into three wards: North (returning seven members), East (returning two members) and South (returning six members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we therefore proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Hayle parish. 221 At Stage Three Hayle Town Council proposed a minor amendment to the division and parish ward boundary to utilise the A30 as a strong boundary. As stated earlier, we support this amendment and as have revised the boundary of the parish wards accordingly. We noted that this amendment does not affect any electors and therefore do not propose any change to the total number of councillors or allocation of councillors between the parish wards.

Final recommendations Hayle Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards, one fewer than at present: North (returning eight members) and South (returning seven members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 3b. 222 The parish of Helston is currently divided into three wards, Helston East (returning four members), Helston North (returning six members) and Helston West (returning two members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Helston parish. 223 At Stage Three Helston Town Council put forward alternate electoral division arrangements and therefore alternate parish warding arrangements. However, following the further consultation to address the issue of Crowan parish (discussed earlier) we are proposing further revisions to our draft recommendations. We also propose renaming the Helston parish wards as North, South and West to reflect the geographic division of the parish.

Final recommendations Helston Town Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, as at present: Helston South (returning five members), Helston North (returning five members) and Helston West (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 4. 224 The parish of Kea is currently divided into two wards: Baldhu (returning four members) and Kea (returning eight members). At Stage One we noted that Kea Parish Council requested that the existing parish wards be abolished, to create an unwarded parish. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we revised the parish electoral arrangements for Kea parish. 225 At Stage Three Kea Parish Council requested a minor amendment to the boundary between Baldhu and Kea parish wards. Since we are also adopting this amendment as part of our final recommendations for electoral divisions, we are

45

adopting it as part of the recommendations for parish ward boundaries. As a result we are confirming the existing allocation of councillors to the parish wards as final.

Final recommendations Kea Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards, as at present: Baldhu (returning four members) and Kea (returning eight members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 9. 226 The parish of Kenwyn is currently divided into three wards, Gloweth (returning three members), Shortlanesend (returning three members) and Threemilestone (returning eight members). At Stage One we noted that Kenywn Parish Council requested the retention of the existing electoral arrangements in Kenwyn parish. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Kenwyn parish. 227 At Stage Three Kenywn Parish Council expressed support for the creation of a fourth parish ward. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations Kenwyn Parish Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing four wards, one more than at present: Gloweth (returning four members), Greenbottom (returning one members), Shortlanesend (returning three members) and Threemilestone (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1, 8 and 9. 228 The parish of Launceston is currently divided into two wards: North (returning eight members) and South (returning eight members). At Stage One Launceston Town Council requested that the town should no longer be warded on the grounds that parish wards are divisive. We noted the Town Council’s comments; however, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Launceston parish. As a result of our proposed divisions, Launceston should be divided into three parish wards. 229 At Stage Three Launceston Town Council expressed concerns about our draft recommendations which it argued divide the Lanstephen estate and transfer the town centre to the southern division.. As stated earlier, we have made a number of amendments to our draft recommendations in the Launceston area. These amendments generally address the concerns put forward by Launceston Town Council. As a result of these amendments we are making a number of amendments to the boundaries of the parish wards in Launceston.

Final recommendations Launceston Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, one more than at present: Launceston Central (returning seven members), Launceston North (returning two members) and Launceston South (returning seven members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 20b.

46

230 The parish of Liskeard is currently divided into two wards: Liskeard North (returning eight members) and Liskeard South (returning eight members). At Stage One Liskeard Town Council requested that if the town was divided into three parish wards then each parish ward should have five members. As a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Liskeard parish. Liskeard Town Council should be divided into three wards; however, we also propose reducing the number of councillors from 16 to 15, in line with the Council’s request. 231 At Stage Three we did not receive any comments about our proposals for Liskeard parish. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations Liskeard Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, one fewer than at present, representing three wards, one more than at present: Liskeard East, (returning five members), Liskeard North (returning five members) and Liskeard West (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 16b. 232 The parish of Looe is currently unwarded and returns 15 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Looe parish. 233 At Stage Three Looe Town Council expressed support for our proposal to create two parish wards. It also supported our allocation of councillors. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations Looe Town Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: East, (returning nine members) and West (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 16c. 234 The parish of Madron is currently divided into two wards: Gulval (returning six members) and New Mill (returning six members). We received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area, nor do our proposals change the existing parish wards. However, because we have been unable to identify the legal Order which lays out the electoral arrangements of the parish wards, for the avoidance of doubt we confirm the following arrangements as part of our final recommendations.

Final recommendations Madron Parish Council should comprise 12 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Gulval (returning six members) and Madron (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 2. 235 The parish of Newquay is currently divided into six wards: Edgcumbe East (returning two members), Edgcumbe West (returning two members), Gannel (returning six members), Newquay North (returning two members), Newquay South (returning four members), and Rialton (returning four members). At Stage One we

47

received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Newquay parish. 236 At Stage Three we received general support for our proposals in Newquay, subject to very minor boundary amendments. However, we also received a number of requests to revise parish wards names. Our final recommendations for the parish electoral arrangements reflect these changes.

Final recommendations Newquay Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing seven wards, one more than at present: Newquay Tretherras (returning three members), Newquay Treloggan (returning four members), Newquay Central (returning three members), Newquay Pentire (returning four members), Newquay Treviglas (returning four members), Rialton (returning one member) and Whipsiderry (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 11. 237 The parish of Penryn is currently unwarded and has 16 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Penryn parish. 238 At Stage Three Penryn Town Council objected to our draft recommendation to divide the parish between divisions. We note these concerns, but in order to secure the best electoral divisions it remains necessary to divide the parish. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations Penryn Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: East (returning five members) and West (returning 11 members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 10. 239 The parish of Penzance is currently divided into six wards: Central (returning three members), East (returning five members), Gulval, (returning one member), Heamoor (returning three members), Promenade (returning three members) and South (returning five members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Penzance parish. 240 At Stage Three Penzance Town Council expressed general support for the draft recommendations. However, it also requested that Gulval and Heamoor parish wards could be represented by one and three members, respectively.

48

Final recommendations Penzance Town Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing six wards, as at present: Central (returning four members), East (returning four members), Gulval (returning one members), Heamoor (returning three members), Newlyn & Mousehole (returning four members) and Promenade (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 2. 241 The parish of Perranzabuloe is currently divided into three wards: Goonhavern (returning four members), Penhallow (returning three members) and Perranporth (returning eight members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Perranzabuloe parish. 242 At Stage Three we received a number of objections to our electoral division pattern in this area. However, as stated earlier we are not adopting these and are confirming our draft recommendations as final. We did not receive any specific comments about the parish wards in Perranzabuloe parish and are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations Perranzabuloe Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing four wards, one more than at present: Goonhavern (returning three members) Penhallow (returning two members), Perranporth (returning nine members) and Rose (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 8. 243 The parish of Redruth is currently divided into two wards: North (returning seven members) and South (returning seven members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Redruth parish. 244 At Stage Three Redruth Town Council put forward substantially revised proposals for division boundaries. The Implementation Executive expressed general support for these proposals. We held a period of further consultation on revised boundaries for the Redruth area. Redruth Town Council expressed support for these and stated that the parish wards should reflect the division boundaries. We are therefore proposing substantial modifications to our draft recommendations and recommending that the parish wards should reflect the new division boundaries discussed earlier.

Final recommendations Redruth Town Council should comprise 14 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, one more than at present: Central (returning four members), North (returning five members) and South (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 6.

49

245 The parish of Saltash is currently divided into four wards: Saltash Burraton, Saltash Essa, Saltash Pill and Saltash St Stephen, all returning four members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Saltash parish. 246 At Stage Three Saltash Town Council put forward revised proposals for the Saltash area, including revised division and parish ward names. The Implementation Executive supported these, but also put forward a revised version that secured better levels of electoral equality. As stated earlier, we considered the Implementation Executive’s proposals secured good electoral arrangements and adopted them as part of our final recommendations. We are amending the Saltash parish wards to reflect the division boundaries and division names.

Final recommendations Saltash Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing four wards, as at present: Saltash North (returning four members), Saltash East (returning four members), Saltash South (returning four members) and Saltash West (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 18. 247 The parish of St Agnes is currently divided into five wards: Blackwater (returning two members), Mithian (returning two members), Mount Hawke (returning three members), Porthtowan (returning two members) and St Agnes (returning seven members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Agnes parish. 248 At Stage Three St Agnes Parish Council proposed a revision to its parish boundary. It also objected to our proposal to divide the parish between divisions, arguing that this would impact on the communities around the Blackwater area. As stated earlier, we acknowledge the concerns of St Agnes Parish Council. We are unable to amend the boundary of the parish as part of this review. We also note its concerns about being divided between divisions, but as outlined earlier we are unable to address this without significantly worsening electoral equality. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

Final recommendations St Agnes Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing five wards, as at present: Blackwater (returning one member), Mithian (returning one member), Mount Hawke (returning five members), Porthtowan (returning two members) and St Agnes (returning seven members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 7. 249 The parish of St Austell is currently divided into five wards: Bethel (returning five members), Gover (returning four members), Mount Charles (returning five members), Poltair (returning four members) and St Austell Bay (returning two members). At Stages One and Three we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division

50

boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Austell parish.

Final recommendations St Austell Parish Council should comprise 20 councillors, as at present, representing five wards: Bethel (returning five members), Gover (returning four members), Mount Charles (returning five members), Poltair (returning four members) and St Austell Bay (returning two members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 14. 250 The parish of St Blaise is currently unwarded, and represented by 10 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Blaise parish. 251 As part of our final recommendations, we are proposing substantially revisions to our draft recommendations in the St Blaise area. We are therefore revising the parish wards for St Blaise parish.

Final recommendations St Blaise Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: St Blaise North (returning six members) and St Blaise South (returning four members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1, 13b and 14. 252 The parish of St Ives is currently divided into three wards: Lelant & Carbis Bay (returning five members), St Ives North (returning five members) and St Ives South (returning six members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Ives parish. 253 At Stage Three St Ives Town Council expressed support for revisions to the parish boundaries put forward by Penwith District Council. The Implementation Executive also put forward the same amendments. As stated earlier, we are adopting these amendments and are therefore amending the parish ward boundaries accordingly, including a redistribution of members to reflect the number of electors in each parish ward area. We are also changing the names of North and South parish wards, to West and East, to better reflect the areas represented.

Final recommendations St Ives Town Council should comprise 16 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, as at present: Lelant & Carbis Bay (returning six members), East (returning five members) and West (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 3a. 254 The parish of St Kew is currently unwarded and returns nine members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to

51

comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Kew parish. At Stage Three we did not receive any comments on our draft recommendations and are therefore confirming them as final.

Final recommendations St Kew Parish Council should comprise nine councillors, as at present, representing two wards: St Kew Highway (returning eight members) and Pendoggett (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 17a. 255 The parish of St Stephen-in-Brannel is currently divided into two wards: St Stephen-in-Brannel (returning 14 members) and Whitemoor (returning one member). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for St Stephen-in-Brannel parish. 256 At Stage Three St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council expressed concerns over the omission of ‘in-Brannel’ from the division name. It also objected to the revised parish warding arrangements. We note the objections to the omission of ‘in-Brannel’ and have amended our final recommendations accordingly. However, we are unable to address its concerns over parish wards as these have been amended to reflect the division boundaries. As stated earlier, we are confirming the division boundaries in the St Stephen-in-Brannel area as final and are therefore confirming the parish wards as final.

Final recommendations St Stephen-in-Brannel Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, one more than at present: Nanpean (returning four members), St Stephen-in-Brannel (returning 10 members) and Whitemoor (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 12. 257 The parish of Treverbyn is currently divided into four wards: Boscoppa (returning two members), Carclaze (returning two members), Treverbyn (returning 10 members) and Trethowel (returning one member). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Treverbyn parish 258 At Stage Three we did not receive any comments on our draft recommendations and are therefore confirming them as final.

Final recommendations Treverbyn Parish Council should comprise 15 councillors, as at present, representing five wards, one more than at present: Boscoppa (returning three members), Bugle (returning six members), Carclaze (returning one member), Penwithick (returning four members) and Trethowel (returning one member). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1, 14 and 15.

52

259 The parish of Truro is currently divided into four wards: Boscawen (returning six members), Moresk (returning six members), Tregolls (returning six members) and Trehaverne (returning six members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Truro parish. 260 At Stage Three we are proposing modifications to the divisions in this area. We are therefore revising our proposed parish ward boundaries and renaming Moresk division as Redannick division.

Final recommendations Truro City Council should comprise 24 councillors, as at present, representing four wards, as at present: Boscawen (returning six members), Redannick (returning six members), Tregolls (returning six members) and Trehaverne (returning six members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 9. 261 The parish of Tywardreath & Par is currently divided into three wards: Highway (returning two members), Par (returning three members) and Priory (returning five members). At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Tywardreath & Par parish. 262 At Stage Three we carried out a period of further consultation on the boundaries in this area. Tywardreath & Par Parish Council expressed support for the proposals put forward by Councillor Hughes. As stated earlier, we are not adopting Councillor Hughes’ proposals and are confirming the proposals put forward in our further consultation as final. We are therefore confirming the proposals for parish wards as final.

Final recommendations Tywardreath & Par Parish Council should comprise 10 councillors, as at present, representing three wards, as at present: Highway (returning two members), Par (returning three members) and Priory (returning five members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 13b. 263 The parish of Wadebridge is currently unwarded and represented by 13 members. At Stage One we received no proposals for new parish electoral arrangements in this area. However, as a result of our revised electoral division boundaries and the need to comply with the rules referred to above, we proposed revised parish electoral arrangements for Wadebridge parish. 264 At Stage Three we received no comments on parish warding in Wadebridge parish and are therefore confirming our draft recommendations as final.

53

Final recommendations Wadebridge Town Council should comprise 13 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Wadebridge East (returning five members) and Wadebridge West (returning eight members). The proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated and named on Maps 1 and 17b.

54

55

3 What happens next? 265 We have now completed our review of the new unitary authority in Cornwall. The changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Parliament can either accept or reject our recommendations. If accepted, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the next elections for Cornwall Council, in 2013.

56

57

4 Mapping Final recommendations for Cornwall The following maps illustrate our proposed electoral division boundaries for Cornwall Council: • Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed divisions for Cornwall

Council. • Sheet 2, Map 2 illustrates the proposed divisions in Penzance and Madron. • Sheet 3, Map 3a illustrates the proposed divisions in St Ives. • Sheet 3, Map 3b illustrates the proposed divisions in Hayle. • Sheet 4, Map 4 illustrates the proposed divisions in Helston. • Sheet 5, Map 5 illustrates the proposed divisions in Camborne and Illogan. • Sheet 6, Map 6 illustrates the proposed divisions in Carn Brea and Redruth. • Sheet 7, Map 7 illustrates the proposed divisions in St Agnes. • Sheet 8, Map 8 illustrates the proposed divisions in Perranzabuloe. • Sheet 9, Map 9 illustrates the proposed divisions in Truro and Kea. • Sheet 10, Map 10 illustrates the proposed divisions in Falmouth and Penryn. • Sheet 11 Map 11 illustrates the proposed divisions in Newquay. • Sheet 12, Map 12 illustrates the proposed divisions in St Dennis and St

Stephen-in-Brannel. • Sheet 13, Map 13a illustrates the proposed divisions in Pentewan Valley. • Sheet 13, Map 13b illustrates the proposed divisions in Tywardreath. • Sheet 14, Map 14 illustrates the proposed divisions in St Austell. • Sheet 15, Map 15 illustrates the proposed divisions in Luxulyan and Bugle. • Sheet 16, Map 16a illustrates the proposed divisions in Bodmin. • Sheet 16, Map 16b illustrates the proposed divisions in Liskeard. • Sheet 16, Map 16c illustrates the proposed divisions in Looe. • Sheet 17, Map 17a illustrates the proposed divisions in St Kew.

58

• Sheet 17, Map 17b illustrates the proposed divisions in Wadebridge. • Sheet 18, Map 18 illustrates the proposed divisions in Saltash and Torpoint. • Sheet 19, Map 19 illustrates the proposed divisions in Calstock and Callington. • Sheet 20, Map 20a illustrates the proposed divisions in Bude. • Sheet 20, Map 20b illustrates the proposed divisions in Launceston.

59

Appendix A Glossary and abbreviations AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

A landscape whose distinctive character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Boundary Committee The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the Electoral Commission, responsible for undertaking electoral reviews

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral Commission An independent body that was set up by the UK Parliament. Its aim is integrity and public confidence in the democratic process. It regulates party and election finance and sets standards for well-run elections

Electoral fairness When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

60

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 12 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town Council’

61

Parish (or Town) Council electoral arrangements

The total number of councillors on any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Committee for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town Council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

62

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

63

Appendix B Code of practice on written consultation The Cabinet Office’s Code of Practice on Written Consultation (November 2000), (http://archive.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/servicefirst/2000/consult/code/_consultation.pdf) requires all government departments and agencies to adhere to certain criteria, set out below, on the conduct of public consultations. Public bodies, such as the Boundary Committee for England, are encouraged to follow the Code. The Code of Practice applies to consultation documents published after 1 January 2001, which should reproduce the criteria, give explanations of any departures, and confirm that the criteria have otherwise been followed. Table B1: The Boundary Committee for England’s compliance with Code criteria

Criteria Compliance/departure

Timing of consultation should be built into the planning process for a policy (including legislation) or service from the start, so that it has the best prospect of improving the proposals concerned, and so that sufficient time is left for it at each stage.

We comply with this requirement.

It should be clear who is being consulted, about what questions, in what timescale and for what purpose.

We comply with this requirement.

A consultation document should be as simple and concise as possible. It should include a summary, in two pages at most, of the main questions it seeks views on. It should make it as easy as possible for readers to respond, make contact or complain.

We comply with this requirement.

Documents should be made widely available, with the fullest use of electronic means (though not to the exclusion of others), and effectively drawn to the attention of all interested groups and individuals.

We comply with this requirement.

Sufficient time should be allowed for considered responses from all groups with an interest. Twelve weeks should be the standard minimum period for a consultation.

Given the initial expectation that our recommendations were to be implemented in 2009 we were unable to ensure that each consultation period lasted 12 weeks. However, the combined period of consultation for this review was 24 weeks.

64

Responses should be carefully and open-mindedly analysed, and the results made widely available, with an account of the views expressed, and reasons for decisions finally taken.

We comply with this requirement.

Departments should monitor and evaluate consultations, designating a consultation coordinator who will ensure the lessons are disseminated.

We comply with this requirement.

Appendix C Table C1: Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

65

Electoral

division name Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Penzance

1 St Buryan 1 3,648 3,648 9 3,755 3,755 6

2 St Just In Penwith 1 3,819 3,819 14 3,879 3,879 10

3 Newlyn & Mousehole

1 3,677 3,677 10 3,661 3,661 3

4 Gulval & Heamoor 1 3,447 3,447 3 3,466 3,466 -2

5 Penzance Central 1 3,175 3,175 -5 3,457 3,457 -2

6 Penzance Promenade

1 3,115 3,115 -7 3,479 3,479 -2

7 Penzance East 1 3,483 3,483 4 3,580 3,580 1

8 Ludgvan 1 3,479 3,479 4 3,470 3,470 -2

9 Marazion & Perranuthnoe

1 3,591 3,591 7 3,648 3,648 3

St Ives & Hayle

10 St Ives West 1 3,174 3,174 -5 3,353 3,353 -5

11 St Ives East 1 3,187 3,187 -5 3,359 3,359 -5

Table C1: Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

66

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

12 Lelant & Carbis Bay

1 3,055 3,055 -9 3,387 3,387 -4

13 Hayle North 1 3,375 3,375 1 3,735 3,735 6

14 Hayle South 1 3,313 3,313 -1 3,469 3,469 -2

15 Gwinear-Gwithian & St Erth

1 3,589 3,589 7 3,710 3,710 5

Helston & The Lizard

16 Breage, Germoe & Sithney

1 3,474 3,474 4 3,578 3,578 1

17 Crowan & Wendron

1 3,963 3,963 18 4,011 4,011 13

18 Helston North 1 3,748 3,748 12 3,852 3,852 9

19 Helston South 1 3,134 3,134 -6 3,712 3,712 5

20 Porthleven & Helston West

1 3,719 3,719 11 3,897 3,897 10

21 Mullion & Grade-Ruan

1 3,259 3,259 -3 3,410 3,410 -4

22 St Keverne & Meneage

1 3, 848 3,848 15 3, 983 3,983 13

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

67

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Camborne & Redruth

23 Four Lanes 1 3,242 3, 242 -3 3, 566 3, 566 1

24 Pool & Tehidy 1 3,10` 3,101 -7 3, 287 3, 287 -7

25 Camborne Treslothan

1 3,040 3,040 -9 3,076 3,076 -13

26 Camborne Treswithian

1 2,923 2,923 -13 3,080 3,080 -13

27 Camborne Pendarves

1 3,613 3,613 8 3,843 3,843 9

28 Camborne Roskear

1 3,521 3,521 5 3,532 3,532 0

29 Camborne Trelowarren

1 2,546 2,546 -24 3,119 3,119 -12

30 Illogan 1 3,825 3,825 14 3,874 3,874 10

31 Redruth Central 1 3,448 3,448 3 3,747 3,747 6

32 Redruth North 1 3,226 3,226 -4 3,764 3,764 6

33 Redruth South 1 3,068 3,068 -8 3,927 3,927 11

34 Carharrack, Gwennap & St Day

1 3,666 3,666 10 3,678 3,678 4

35 Lanner & Stithians 1 3,734 3,734 12 3,794 3,794 7

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

68

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Falmouth & Penryn

36 Constantine, Mawnan & Budock

1 3,825 3,825 14 3,864 3,864 9

37 Mabe, Perranarworthal & St Gluvias

1 3,572 3,572 7 3,885 3,885 10

38 Falmouth Boslowick

1 3,072 3,072 -8 3,474 3,474 -2

39 Falmouth Smithick 1 3,413 3,413 2 3,451 3,451 -2

40 Falmouth Arwenack

1 3,022 3,022 -10 3,441 3,441 -3

41 Falmouth Penwerris

1 3,446 3,446 3 3,516 3,516 -1

42 Falmouth Trescobeas

1 3,759 3,759 12 3,836 3,836 8

43 Penryn East & Mylor

1 3,882 3,882 16 3,843 3,843 9

44 Penryn West 1 3,453 3,453 3 3,865 3,865 9

Truro

45 Feock & Playing Place

1 3,889 3,889 16 3,856 3,856 9

46 Truro Redannick 1 3,359 3,359 0 3,817 3,817 8

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

69

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

47 Truro Tregolls 1 3,638 3,638 9 3,852 3,852 9

48 Truro Boscawen 1 3,801 3,801 14 3,973 3,973 12

49 Truro Trehaverne 1 3,684 3,684 10 3,941 3,941 11

50 Threemilestone & Gloweth

1 2,618 2,618 -22 3,477 3,477 -2

51 Ladock, St Clement & St Erme

1 3,471 3,471 4 3,493 3,493 -1

52 Chacewater, Kenwyn & Baldhu

1 3,096 3,096 -7 3,080 3,080 -13

53 Probus, Tregony & Grampound

1 3,056 3,056 -9 3,076 3,076 -13

54 Roseland 1 3,133 3,133 -6 3,132 3,132 -11

St Agnes & Perranporth

55 Mount Hawke & Portreath

1 3,553 3,553 6 3,678 3,678 4

56 St Agnes 1 3,547 3,547 6 3,673 3,673 4

57 Perranporth 1 3,707 3,707 11 3,713 3,713 5

58 Newlyn & Goonhavern

1 3,756 3,756 12 3,807 3,807 8

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

70

Electoral

division name Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Newquay

59 Newquay Pentire 1 3,081 3,081 -8 3,459 3,459 -2

60 Newquay Treloggan

1 3,177 3,177 -5 3,461 3,461 -2

61 Newquay Central 1 2,639 2,639 -21 3,274 3,274 -7

62 Newquay Tretherras

1 2,979 2,979 -11 3,350 3,350 -5

63 Newquay Treviglas

1 3,280 3,280 -2 3,345 3,345 -5

64 St Mawgan & Colan

1 2,624 2,624 -22 3,148 3,148 -11

65 St Columb Major 1 3,399 3,399 2 3,627 3,627 3

China Clay

66 Roche 1 2,838 2,838 -15 3,172 3,172 -10

67 Penwithick & Boscoppa

1 3,201 3,201 -4 3,290 3,290 -7

68 Bugle 1 3,467 3,467 4 3,744 3,744 6

69 St Enoder 1 3,334 3,334 0 3,627 3,627 3

70 St Stephen-In-Brannel

1 3,603 3,603 8 3,637 3,637 3

71 St Dennis & Nanpean

1 3,384 3,384 1 3,529 3,529 0

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

71

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

St Austell

72 St Mewan 1 3,024 3,024 -10 3,120 3,120 -12

73 St Austell Gover 1 3,420 3,420 2 3,675 3,675 4

74 St Austell Poltair 1 3,239 3,239 -3 3,640 3,640 3

75 Mount Charles 1 3,501 3,501 5 3,852 3,852 9

76 St Austell Bethel 1 3,713 3,713 11 3,785 3,785 7

77 Mevagissey 1 3,427 3,427 2 3,462 3,462 -2

78 St Austell Bay 1 3,346 3,346 0 3,867 3,867 9

St Blazey, Fowey & Lostwithiel

79 Par & St Blazey Gate

1 3,092 3,092 -8 3,261 3,261 -8

80 St Blazey 1 3,317 3,317 -1 3,330 3,330 -6

81 Fowey & Tywardreath

1 3,537 3,537 6 3,560 3,560 1

82 Lostwithiel 1 3,397 3,397 2 3,430 3,430 -3

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

72

Electoral

division name Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Looe & Torpoint

83 Looe East 1 2,860 2,860 -14 3,136 3,136 -11

84 Looe West, Lansallos & Lanteglos

1 4,027 4,027 20 4,039 4,039 14

85 Trelawny 1 3,730 3,730 12 3,799 3,799 7

86 Rame Peninsular 1 3,865 3,865 16 3,891 3,891 10

87 Torpoint East 1 3,178 3,178 -5 3,140 3,140 -11

88 Torpoint West 1 3,222 3,222 -4 3,158 3,158 -11

Saltash

89 Saltash North 1 2,970 2,970 -11 3,189 3,189 -10

90 Saltash West 1 3,534 3,534 6 3,575 3,575 1

91 Saltash South 1 3,277 3, 277 -2 3,232 3, 232 -9

92 Saltash East 1 3,451 3,451 3 3, 911 3,911 11

93 St Germans & Landulph

1 3,458 3,458 3 3,429 3,429 -3

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

73

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Liskeard

94 Liskeard North 1 2,526 2,526 -24 3,287 3,287 -7

95 Liskeard East 1 2,589 2,589 -23 3,266 3,266 -8

96 Liskeard West & Dobwalls

1 3,260 3,260 -3 3,233 3,233 -9

97 St Cleer 1 3,714 3,714 11 3,671 3,671 4

98 Menheniot 1 3,145 3,145 -6 3,172 3,172 -10

Callington

99 St Dominick, Harrowbarrow & Kelly Bray

1 3,322 3,322 -1 3,414 3,414 -3

100 Gunnislake & Calstock

1 3,619 3,619 8 3,637 3,637 3

101 Callington 1 3,751 3,751 12 3,839 3,839 9

102 Lynher 1 3,474 3,474 4 3,434 3,434 -3

Bodmin

103 Lanivet & Blisland 1 3,198 3,198 -4 3,234 3,234 -9

104 Bodmin St Petroc 1 3,464 3,464 4 3,978 3,978 12

105 Bodmin St Mary’s 1 3,829 3,829 14 3,841 3,841 9

106 Bodmin St Leonard 1 3,504 3,504 5 3,898 3,898 10

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

74

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Wadebridge & Padstow

107 Padstow 1 3,477 3,477 4 3,605 3,605 2

108 St Minver & St Endellion

1 2,895 2,895 -13 3,107 3,107 -12

109 Wadebridge West 1 2,961 2,961 -11 3,330 3,330 -6

110 Wadebridge East 1 3,091 3,091 -8 3,123 3,123 -12

111 St Issey & St Tudy 1 3,300 3,300 -1 3,396 3,396 -4

Camelford

112 Camelford 1 3,026 3,026 -10 3,362 3,362 -5

113 St Teath & St Breward 1 3,123 3,123 -7 3,322 3,322 -6

114 Tintagel 1 3,319 3,319 -1 3,530 3,530 0

Launceston

115 Altarnun 1 3,065 3,065 -8 3,186 3,186 -10

116 Stokeclimsland 1 2,876 2,876 -14 2,977 2,977 -16

117 Launceston South 1 2,522 2,522 -25 3,087 3,087 -13

118 Launceston Central 1 2,825 2,825 -16 3,346 3,346 -5

119 Launceston North & North Petherwin

1 3,383 3,383 1 3,550 3,550 0

Table C1 (continued): Final recommendations for Cornwall Council

75

Electoral division name

Number of councillors

Electorate (2007)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Electorate (2012)

Number of electors per councillor

Variance from

average %

Bude

120 Poundstock 1 3,758 3,758 12 3,967 3,967 12

121 Bude 2 6,390 3,195 -4 6,697 3,349 -5

122 Grenville & Stratton 1 3,456 3,456 3 3,579 3,579 1

Totals 123

411,430

– – 435,093

– –

Averages – – 3,344 – – 3,537 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Cornwall Council. Noted: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral division varies from the average for the county. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

76

Appendix D Additional legislation we have considered Equal opportunities In preparing this report we have had regard to the general duty set out in Section 71(1) of the Race Relations Act 1976 and the statutory Code of Practice on the Duty to Promote Race Equality (Commission for Racial Equality, May 2002), i.e. to have due regard to the need to: • eliminate unlawful racial discrimination • promote equality of opportunity • promote good relations between people of different racial groups National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and the Broads We have also had regard to: • Section 11A(2) of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949

(as inserted by Section 62 of the Environment Act 1995). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in a National Park, any relevant authority shall have regard to the Park’s purposes. If there is a conflict between those purposes, a relevant authority shall attach greater weight to the purpose of conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the Park.

• Section 85 of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000. This states that, in

exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in an AONB, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purpose of the AONB.

• Section 17A of the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act (as inserted by Section 97

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000). This states that, in exercising or performing any functions in relation to, or so as to affect, land in the Broads, a relevant authority shall have regard to the purposes of the Broads.

The Boundary Committee for England is a committee of the ElectoralCommission, an independent body set up by the UK Parliament. TheCommittee’s main role is to conduct electoral reviews of local authoritiesin England with the aim of ensuring the number of electors representedby each councillor is approximately the same. Other duties includereviewing local authority boundaries and advising the Government onlocal authority bids for unitary status.

The Boundary CommitteeTrevelyan HouseGreat Peter StreetLondon SW1P 2HW

Tel 020 7271 0500Fax 020 7271 0505reviews@boundarycommittee.org.ukwww.boundarycommittee.org.uk