I AM a Torridge District Councillor and I have been

amazed and very disappointed by the recent draft

proposal from the Boundary Committee. I have searched

through the 40-plus page document to find arguments

and information to support its assumption that one

unitary authority is the best for all of Devon except

Plymouth and Torbay. I – like so many others – have found

nothing of any substance.

I initially looked to see what the Boundary Committee had

written about the creation of what would be one of the

largest unitary authorities by population and the largest

by geographical area. All I can find is the rather odd

avoidance on page 8, 2.19 'Size is not a factor that

appears in the Secretary of State's guidance to us.' I then

looked at what was being proposed for planning, an area

where it is vital to balance local wishes, environmental

improvement, sustainable growth etc. There is no

reference at all!

Frankly, some of the words used by the Boundary

Committee suggest a mind-set that is hopelessly out of

tune with what people really want. For example, the

comment on page 13, 2.32 about 'shortening the distance

between governors and governed' could have come

straight out of the spoof 'From the Desk of the Supreme

Leader' in Private Eye.

Central government's claims that it had ensured 'no more

boom and bust' by its 'prudence' now look very hollow, as

the bursting of the house price bubble has exposed

frightful/crippling levels of debt (both by government and

consumers) and reckless – to put it mildly – behaviour of

banks and the City.

Rural areas such as ours have been particularly badly

affected. Not only have the vast majority of local younger

people been priced out of buying a home in rural areas

but an urban-centric (?) obsession with 'efficiencies' has

resulted in the closure of many rural post offices that are

well used and provide much needed services.

I sincerely believe that the Department for Communities

and Local Government or the Boundary Committee must

show clear evidence and arguments to support the

contention that further centralisation is needed.

Mr Gill – Director, Boundary Committee – claims in the

Okehampton Times (July 31), 'we want to see stronger,

better-resourced parish and town councils capable of

taking decisions that affect their communities.' Yet if you

read the draft proposal (page 25, 4.17), it states that,

'community boards are not envisaged as service delivery

bodies'.

We all know that there is tremendous waste within the

system and the proliferation of quangos, commissions

and other unelected bodies have soaked up billions of

taxpayers' money and are, in my opinion, one of the main

reasons why this country is now in such a financial mess.

The people of Devon want to see further improvements in

locally provided services; we do not want more waste and

expenditure on consultants and a vast bureaucracy in

Exeter.

Unless the Secretary of State can demonstrate compelling

arguments to show that the proposed gigantic unitary is

not yet another half-baked initiative, I would urge that

this ill-conceived exercise is now abandoned.

David Lausen

Croft

Torrington Road

Winkleigh