The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South West
Avon, Somerset and Devon
Initial proposals
Our proposed sub-region of Avon, Somerset and Devon has a combined mathematical entitlement to 29.97 constituencies, resulting in an allocation of 30 constituencies to the sub‑region – an increase of two from the current arrangement. In our initial proposals, we suggested that five constituencies should cross county or unitary authority boundaries within the sub-region. Specifically, two constituencies would cross the boundary between Somerset and unitary authorities within the former Avon county area, two would cross the boundary between two unitary authorities within the former Avon county area, and one would cross the county boundary between Somerset and Devon.
Two of the four existing constituencies in Bristol exceed the permitted electorate range, notably Bristol West, which has an electorate of almost 100,000. We therefore allocated an additional, fifth, constituency to Bristol, which would have to cross local authority boundaries. While extending an existing Bristol constituency northwards into South Gloucestershire was considered to be too disruptive, we proposed a new Bristol North East constituency that extended eastwards into South Gloucestershire. This proposed constituency would encompass the City of Bristol wards of Frome Vale, Eastville, and Hillfields from the existing Bristol East constituency, as well as the ward of Lockleaze from the existing Bristol North West constituency. Additionally, it would include the four South Gloucestershire wards of New Cheltenham, Kingswood, Woodstock, and Staple Hill & Mangotsfield and, we considered, would reflect community ties.
We included the Bishopston & Ashley Down ward in our proposed Bristol North West constituency, which was otherwise unchanged apart from the transfer of the Lockleaze ward to the Bristol North East constituency and renamed the existing Bristol West constituency as Bristol Central. As described above, we significantly modified the existing Kingswood constituency by transferring three wards to our proposed Bristol North East constituency, along with the entire Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward. We included 11 Bath and North East Somerset wards from the current North East Somerset constituency with the four existing Kingswood constituency wards of Hanham, Longwell Green, Bitton & Oldland Common, and Parkwall & Warmley to create a new Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency.
Modest changes were made to the existing Thornbury and Yate, and Filton and Bradley Stoke constituencies in the South Gloucestershire unitary authority. These included realignment with new ward boundaries, as well as the inclusion of the Pilning & Severn Beach ward in Thornbury and Yate, and the Emersons Green ward in Filton and Bradley Stoke from the existing Kingswood constituency.
The low electorate of the existing Bath constituency was addressed by the inclusion of the wards of Bathavon North and Newbridge. We proposed to reduce the electorate of the existing North Somerset constituency by including the Yatton ward in our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. We also reduced the electorate of the Weston-super-Mare constituency by including the three North Somerset wards of Blagdon & Churchill, Banwell & Winscombe, and Congresbury & Puxton in our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency.
Due to large constituency electorates, major configuration changes in Somerset were unavoidable. As previously mentioned, we proposed a new Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. In addition to the wards mentioned above, we included within it the East Polden and West Polden wards from the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency, but not the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward. We proposed a new Frome constituency which would cross the county boundary constituency between Avon and Somerset and would consist of six Bath and North East Somerset wards, including Midsomer Norton, and 13 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency. The South Somerset district ward of Bruton would also be included, as well as the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward from the existing Wells constituency. We proposed a Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, which would consist of 15 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency, including the town of Somerton, and seven wards from the existing Wells constituency, including Glastonbury and Street. Additionally, we included the Hamdon, and The Pennards and Ditcheat wards in the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency.
We proposed minor changes to the Yeovil constituency in order to realign its boundaries with the new local government ward boundaries. Our proposals maintain the entirety of the town of Yeovil within the constituency. We addressed the large electorate of the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency by proposing a Bridgwater constituency that included 13 wards from the existing constituency and four wards from the existing Wells constituency. We proposed a Tiverton and Minehead constituency, crossing county boundaries, with wards from the Mid Devon, and Somerset West and Taunton local authorities, which included the remaining wards from the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency, eight wards from Tiverton and Honiton and three from the Taunton Deane constituency, and the whole of the divided South Quantock, and Wiveliscombe & District wards. We proposed the reconfigured Taunton Deane constituency be renamed Taunton, since Taunton Deane district no longer exists. The changes proposed to the existing Tiverton and Honiton constituency led us to propose a Honiton constituency that included four wards from the existing East Devon constituency that also included the towns of Ottery St. Mary and Sidmouth.
The electorate of the existing Exeter constituency was above the permitted range. We therefore proposed the inclusion of three wards that had been divided by changes to local government ward boundaries in our proposed Exmouth constituency, namely, Priory, St. Loyes, and Topsham.
The existing North Devon constituency was unchanged from the existing constituency in our initial proposals, and only minor adjustments were proposed to the existing Newton Abbot, Torbay, and Central Devon constituencies to realign their boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. Our proposed Central Devon constituency would still contain wards from four local authorities. We proposed minor changes to the existing Totnes constituency by the inclusion of the Charterlands ward from the South West Devon constituency. The Torridge and West Devon, and South West Devon constituencies were largely unchanged in our proposals, apart from the inclusion of the Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards from the existing Torridge and West Devon to our proposed South West Devon constituency. Our proposed Torridge and West Devon constituency would continue to encompass the whole of the District of Torridge, along with nine District of West Devon wards, and was renamed Torridge and Tavistock.
The electorate of the existing Plymouth Moor View constituency was below the permitted range, while that of the Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport constituency was above. Exchanging two wards would bring both within the permitted range, but would include rural areas in the same constituency as the historic port. To maintain community ties, we proposed the division of the Peverell ward along the Outland Road, resulting in the three polling districts of KA, KB and KC being included in the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, and the KC and KD polling districts in the Plymouth Moor View constituency.
Our proposals for the Bristol constituencies were generally well supported, and there was a consensus that the Bristol constituencies should not expand northwards into Filton and Bradley Stoke, but eastwards into the existing constituency of Kingswood. However, there was some limited opposition to the inclusion of parts of Knowle from the existing Bristol South constituency to our proposed Bristol East constituency with it being claimed this would divide communities.
There was some opposition to the relatively modest changes in South Gloucestershire, particularly from those who supported the counter proposals that suggested a reconfiguration of the South Gloucestershire constituencies into a broadly east/west arrangement: South Gloucestershire West would succeed Filton and Bradley Stoke and include the wards of Severn Vale and Thornbury from the existing Thornbury and Yate constituency, the entire Winterbourne ward, and the Pilning & Severn Beach ward. The South Gloucestershire East constituency would comprise six wards from the existing Thornbury and Yate constituency, along with the entire Boyd Valley, Frenchay & Downend, and Emersons Green wards.
A significant number of representations objecting to the proposed Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency were received. Most objected to the transfer of the Bathavon South ward and the town of Midsomer Norton to our proposed Frome constituency, the fact that the existing Kingswood constituency would no longer exist in its current form, and for the lack of commonality between areas north and south of the river Avon. The name of the constituency was also criticised for being misleading, as Keynsham was already part of North East Somerset. However, we also received support for our proposed Frome constituency, as well as for our proposed Bath constituency.
Our proposed Weston-super-Mare constituency elicited relatively few representations. The configuration of the North Somerset constituency itself was not particularly contentious, but a significant level of opposition was received regarding our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. Some came from the Congresbury & Puxton ward, but most commented on the inclusion from North Somerset of the Yatton ward, lying adjacent to the Bristol Channel, with it being claimed that the constituency made no sense. However, support was received from others for our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. Under our initial proposals the town of Somerton was included in the newly configured Glastonbury and Somerton constituency. There was some limited objection, but also support for the proposed constituency. A counter proposal suggested that The Pennards and Ditcheat ward should be included in Frome rather than Glastonbury and Somerton and exchanged with the Bruton ward.
Although there was general support for the proposed Bridgwater constituency, some concerns were raised regarding the inclusion of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station development in our proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency, rather than in Bridgwater. Opposition to our proposed Yeovil constituency was limited, although it was proposed that the Northstone, Ivelchester & St. Michael’s ward, which is currently split between existing constituencies, should be split, with the area in the south that is currently part of the Yeovil constituency remaining in Yeovil.
The proposed Tiverton and Minehead cross-county boundary constituency was supported, with some representations saying that the proposed constituency was geographically cohesive, but this was outweighed by significant opposition to the inclusion of parts of two different counties in the same constituency. The proposed Taunton constituency was much opposed, with it being claimed that the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward was an integral part of the town of Taunton, with much compelling evidence presented. A number of representations suggested that the ward could be exchanged between constituencies, with the Upper Culm ward instead being included in Tiverton and Minehead. This would also restore the link between the ward with the Lower Culm ward, which was already included in the proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency.
The initial proposals for the Honiton constituency were largely supported and the inclusion of the town of Sidmouth in the constituency was welcomed. However, some representations claimed that the inclusion of Ottery St. Mary in this constituency would separate it from the West Hill & Aylesbeare ward, with which there were strong links and which we had included in our proposed Exmouth constituency. There were also a number of representations proposing to rename the constituency Honiton and Sidmouth.
The proposals for the Exeter and Exmouth constituencies garnered a huge number of representations, with near unanimous opposition. More than 500 written representations and petitions containing 1,853 names were received. The primary point of objection was the inclusion of the Priory ward in the Exmouth constituency. Numerous representations were made, detailing the ward’s historic links to the centre of Exeter with much detailed and compelling evidence. Many suggested that the Pinhoe ward, rather than Priory, should be included in the Exmouth constituency.
With regard to the Central Devon constituency, although the existing constituency had been unchanged in our initial proposals, apart from realignments due to local government boundary changes, there were proposals for the Exe Valley ward to be included in the Exmouth constituency, thereby eliminating its status as an orphan ward in Central Devon. It was also suggested that the Newton Poppleford & Harpford ward, given its close proximity to Sidmouth, should be included in the Honiton constituency. This change would allow for the inclusion of the Exe Valley ward in the Exmouth constituency, thereby eliminating the orphan ward in Central Devon, and reducing the number of local authorities contained within the constituency from four to three.
In our initial proposals, there were no changes to the existing Newton Abbot, and Torbay constituencies, apart from minor alterations to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. Our proposals for these constituencies were not contentious, although there were suggestions for the Newton Abbot constituency to be renamed Teignbridge, which had been a former name of the constituency.
Despite the relatively minor changes proposed to the existing Totnes constituency, there was still some opposition. This largely came from residents in the Brixham area, who believed that they should be included in the Torbay constituency. However, due to the electorate of the Torbay constituency, this was not possible. Additionally, there were over 200 representations and a petition in support of renaming the Totnes constituency as South Devon.
Few representations were received with regard to the North Devon constituency, which was unchanged in our initial proposals. The existing Torridge and West Devon, and South West Devon constituencies were largely unchanged in our initial proposals, but the inclusion of the Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards in South West Devon was objected to in a number of representations. It was claimed that the wards’ ties are with the town of Tavistock in our proposed Torridge and Tavistock constituency, and that the proposals would divide Dartmoor National Park across constituencies. However, there was also support for the proposed constituencies.
In Plymouth, a significant number of representations were received which fell roughly equally between support for and opposition to our initial proposals. However, we received counter proposals that suggested a three-way split of Plymouth with Plymouth East, Plymouth North and Ivybridge, and Plymouth West constituencies. Our Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded by these, but considered that the proposals to split either the Peverell or Devonport wards had merit, but were also contentious. This was an area in which the Assistant Commissioners considered that a site visit might be required to observe both the proposed splits, and their implications ‘on the ground’ before making any revised recommendations.
In view of the degree of support for our proposed constituencies in Bristol, we considered that no further modifications were necessary for the constituencies of Bristol Central, Bristol East, Bristol North East, Bristol North West, and Bristol South. In South Gloucestershire, we noted the support for our initial proposals and opposition to the counter proposal for the two constituencies. We were not persuaded that the counter proposal, which suggested a significant reconfiguration of the constituencies which had been only modestly altered in our initial proposals, was a suitable alternative. We therefore proposed no amendments to the constituencies of Filton and Bradley Stoke, and Thornbury and Yate, apart from an alteration to the designation of Filton and Bradley Stoke to a borough constituency in view of its high electorate density.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted both the support for, and opposition to, our proposed Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency and they acknowledged that our proposed name was not an accurate description of the constituency. Therefore, we recommended the name North East Somerset and Hanham, which was suggested at the public hearing held in Bath, as a more appropriate name. No other changes to the constituency were proposed. The electorate of the Bath constituency was such that it was not possible to also include the Bathavon South ward, as suggested in a number of representations. We therefore proposed no changes to the Bath constituency. We noted both the support and opposition (largely with regard to the Bathavon South ward) to our proposed Frome constituency, and the alternative names that had been suggested. One representation claimed that our proposals were much more coherent than the existing Somerton and Frome constituency. We were not persuaded to make any further changes to the constituency,
Relatively few representations were received with regard to the proposed Weston-super-Mare constituency. There was a greater degree of opposition to the proposed North Somerset constituency, but much of this was in opposition to the composition of the surrounding constituencies that had an impact on North Somerset, particularly the inclusion of the Yatton and Kenn areas (Yatton ward) in our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency that crossed the boundary between North Somerset unitary authority and Somerset. However, we also received some support and we agreed with our Assistant Commissioners that neither constituency should be modified, as to do so would have knock-on effects elsewhere.
There was some limited objection to the proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, but we had also received some support for our initial proposals. On balance our Assistant Commissioners were not minded to modify our initial proposals. We agreed with them.
The proposed Bridgwater constituency was largely supported. Our Assistant Commissioners considered the issue of the Hinkley Point nuclear power station development, but noted that no-one had made a clear counter proposal that retained the power station in the Bridgwater constituency without causing disruption elsewhere. We were not persuaded that the name of the Bridgwater constituency should be changed to Bridgwater Bay, Bridgwater and Burnham, or anything similar and therefore proposed no further changes to the Bridgwater constituency.
Opposition to our initial proposals for the Yeovil constituency was limited. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the suggestion that the southern part of the newly enlarged ward of Northstone, Ivelchester & St. Michael’s should be split, with the villages south of the A303 being retained within the Yeovil constituency, was not feasible. The electorate of our proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency was just within the permitted range and could only tolerate the loss of 266 electors without further consequences affecting other proposed constituencies. We noted that there were 1,434 electors in the polling district that covers the village of Ilchester alone. The Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded of the merits of the proposed split ward and, in acknowledging the general level of support for the constituencies in this area, they proposed no change to the Yeovil constituency as initially proposed. We agreed with them and proposed no changes to our initially proposed Yeovil constituency.
The Assistant Commissioners noted the considerable opposition to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency of Tiverton and Minehead, with a number of representations claiming that we had disregarded community ties and the boundaries of the historic counties of Somerset and Devon. However, there was also support, and some claimed that the new constituency was cohesive. Much of the opposition concerned the inclusion of the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in this constituency rather than in the Taunton constituency: Detailed evidence was provided of the strong links of Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward with Taunton. We and our Assistant Commissioners found this evidence to be persuasive. A compensatory alteration to allow for the ward’s inclusion would, however, be necessary. As proposed in a number of representations, we therefore amended our initial proposals to include the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in the Taunton constituency, and the Upper Culm ward in the Tiverton and Minehead constituency, thereby uniting the ward with the Lower Culm ward. However, we were not persuaded to include Wellington in the name of the Taunton constituency, as had been suggested.
We agreed with those who proposed that the Honiton constituency be renamed Honiton and Sidmouth, to reflect the inclusion of this sizeable town within the constituency. We also considered the evidence to include both the West Hill & Aylesbeare, and Newton Poppleford & Harpford wards in the Honiton constituency to be persuasive, although we considered suggestions to also include the Budleigh & Rayleigh ward were not feasible given the other changes that were being proposed. We also noted that these changes would allow for the Exe Valley ward to be included in the Exmouth constituency, leading to benefits for the Central Devon constituency that have been highlighted elsewhere in this report. We therefore proposed a reconfigured and renamed Honiton and Sidmouth constituency, and the changes to the Central Devon constituency, as part of our revised proposals.
We noted the strength of opposition to our proposals for the Exeter and Exmouth constituencies, and in particular, the compelling evidence regarding the Priory ward. We therefore proposed that the Priory ward would remain in the Exeter constituency, in exchange for the Pinhoe ward, which would be included in the renamed Exeter East and Exmouth constituency.
We considered the rationale for the Totnes constituency to be renamed South Devon to be persuasive and also noted the considerable support for this change. We accordingly revised our initial proposals to change the name of the constituency to South Devon. We acknowledged the frustrations of those living in the Brixham area at not being included in the Torbay constituency. However, the electorate of Torbay is such that this is not possible. We noted the support for the Newton Abbot constituency, but were not persuaded that a change of name was required here. We therefore proposed no change to the Torbay and Newton Abbot constituencies, as initially proposed.
We did not consider the opposition, or the evidence received with regard to the South West Devon, and Torridge and Tavistock constituencies to be sufficiently persuasive as to warrant any alterations to these constituencies.
In view of the contentious nature of our proposed Plymouth constituencies and the lack of consensus on which ward should be split, a site visit to the area was undertaken. We considered that the counter proposal to split the Devonport ward would divide the Devonport Docks effectively across the middle, excluding the administrative buildings and Headquarters of HM Naval Base Devonport from the maritime-focused Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency. We also struggled to see how, despite the counter claims, the long-standing and historical reference to Devonport could continue to be appropriate for just one of the constituency names if the counter proposal were to be adopted. We considered that the splitting of the Peverell ward broadly along the A386 Outland Road, while not perfect, provided for a better pattern of constituencies. We therefore proposed no amendments to the Plymouth Moor View, and Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituencies, as initially proposed.
Few representations were received with regard to the Bristol constituencies, with the only notable opposition, albeit minor, continuing to be some opposition to the inclusion of parts of Knowle from the existing Bristol South constituency to the proposed Bristol East constituency and the perceived division of the community between constituencies.
Of the representations received regarding the Thornbury and Yate constituency, the majority supported our proposed constituency. Few representations were received with regard to Filton and Bradley Stoke. Most of these were in objection to the inclusion of the Emersons Green ward from the former Kingswood constituency or contained general comments about the perceived northward expansion of Bristol.
The Bath constituency garnered widespread support, with very few representations received. However, among these, some continued to suggest the inclusion of the Midford, Monkton Combe, Southstoke and Wellow, and Claverton parishes (Bathavon South ward) in the Bath constituency.
Relatively few further representations commenting on the configuration of the proposed North East Somerset and Hanham constituency were received, and no alternative proposals with persuasive justification were received. There remained some disappointment about the proposed name, with suggestions that the largest town, Keynsham, should be incorporated into the name, citing Hanham as a small suburb.
Very few representations were received with regard to the Weston-super-Mare constituency and no significant new evidence provided. The opposition to the North Somerset, and Wells and Mendip Hills constituencies was still significant, with approximately 70 representations across both constituencies, and continued to largely concern (as in the responses to the initial proposals) the inclusion of the Yatton ward in the Wells and Mendip Hill constituency. Aside from this issue, there was limited opposition to the revised proposals concerning other areas of the constituency. Some alternative names were proposed for the Wells and Mendip Hills constituency, including Mid Somerset, Wells and The Western Mendips, and simply Wells.
Few representations were received regarding the Glastonbury and Somerton, and Yeovil constituencies, and no significant new evidence was presented. We received a mixture of support and opposition to our proposed Frome constituency. The issues raised in these representations were similar to those in the initial proposals and many concerned the name of the constituency, with a variety of names suggested that included Frome and Radstock, Midsomer Norton and Frome, or East Somerset and Frome. Some representations, as in the initial proposals, suggested that the Bruton ward should be included in our proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency. It was argued that the inclusion of the Bruton ward in the Frome constituency split the community of Bruton between constituencies. It was stated that there were strong links between the ward and the village of Pitcombe, which is located in the Tower ward, and Castle Cary, which is located in the Cary ward, both of which are included in our proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency. One representation, in common with a counter proposal submitted during the consultation on the initial proposals, proposed an exchange of the Bruton, and The Pennards and Ditcheat wards between the two constituencies. The point was made that the inclusion of the Bruton ward in the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency resulted in it being an orphan ward, and that an exchange of these two wards between constituencies would rectify this, thereby reducing the number of local authorities in Glastonbury and Somerton from three to two.
There remained some surprise that the Hinkley Point nuclear power station was not included in the Bridgwater constituency, but no concrete counter proposal was suggested. Our proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency continued to attract some opposition, but these were now fewer in number. Whilst there was strong support for the inclusion of the Norton Fitzwarren & Staplegrove ward in the Taunton constituency, we also received a number of representations that proposed the constituency be renamed Taunton and Wellington in order to reflect the different communities included in the constituency.
With regard to the North Devon, Newton Abbot, Torbay, and South Devon constituencies, there were a limited number of representations, mostly suggesting name changes, which, apart from continued suggestions for Newton Abbot to be renamed Teignbridge, were not supported in other representations. However, objections persisted about including wards containing Brixham within the proposed South Devon constituency, as the town was claimed to be an integral part of the English Riviera and separating it from Torbay would be a ‘disservice’ to the whole area.
Unlike the initial proposals, there were relatively few representations with regard to the proposed Exeter, and Exeter East and Exmouth constituencies, although there was some limited opposition to the exclusion from Exeter of the Pinhoe ward. However, a significant number of representations requested that the Exeter East and Exmouth constituency be renamed Exmouth and East Exeter, or Exmouth and Exeter East, to reflect that the population of Exmouth surpasses the combined population of the three Exeter wards. One suggestion was to name it Exmouth and the Clysts, while another representation suggested that Exeter should be renamed Exeter West. Very few representations were received regarding the inclusion of the Exe Valley ward in the revised Exeter East and Exmouth constituency.
A small number of representations continued to be received regarding the Torridge and Tavistock, and South West Devon constituencies. There was generally some support for both constituencies, but we continued to receive representations opposing the inclusion of Buckland Monachorum and Burrator wards in South West Devon, rather than in Torridge and Tavistock. It continued to be claimed that the Dartmoor National Park would be divided between two constituencies in our proposals, although this is already the case with the existing constituency pattern.
In Plymouth, we received few representations, with the majority of these opposing our revised proposals; however, no significant new evidence was received.
We noted that there continued to be calls for the inclusion of the Midford, Monkton Combe, Southstoke and Wellow, and Claverton parishes (Bathavon South ward) in the Bath constituency. This would entail significant changes to the Bath and surrounding constituencies, and we do not consider that there has been a clear or compelling rationale provided for how Bath would benefit from such an inclusion.
Having considered all the evidence received, we do not consider there is sufficient support or persuasive evidence for us to recommend any changes to the boundaries of our revised proposals for this sub-region, apart from in two areas. We reconsidered the representations regarding the Bruton ward and counter proposals that had suggested that the ward could be transferred from the Frome constituency to Glastonbury and Somerton, with The Pennards and Ditcheat ward going from that constituency to Frome. We noted that this would remove the anomaly of an orphan ward in Glastonbury and Somerton, reduce the number of local authorities from three to two, and would recognise the links of the ward with the communities of Pitcombe and Castle Cary. In considering the evidence again, we concluded that this proposal did have merit and we therefore propose to revise further our proposals here and recommend that the Bruton ward be included in the Glastonbury and Somerset constituency, and that The Pennards and Ditcheat ward be included in the Frome constituency, as part of our final recommendations.
We noted that a number of alternative names had been suggested for a number of constituencies. Most of these did not garner any particular support, although we considered that there was some degree of support for the Frome constituency to be renamed to include some reference to East Somerset. We were persuaded that such a name change would better describe the constituency and we therefore recommend that the Frome constituency be renamed Frome and East Somerset.
There was a considerable degree of support for calls to include the town of Wellington in our proposed Taunton constituency. We noted that the town does have a significant population, we considered the evidence, and concluded that the proposal had merit. We therefore recommend that the Taunton constituency be renamed Taunton and Wellington. Similarly, we noted that there is significant support for changing the name of the Exeter East and Exmouth constituency to Exmouth and Exeter East. We noted that the population of Exmouth surpasses the combined population of the three Exeter wards. We therefore revise our proposals and change the name of the constituency to Exmouth and Exeter East. We acknowledge the logic of renaming Exeter as Exeter West, but the constituency, apart from minor readjustments, is otherwise unchanged from the existing constituency and we saw no support for this proposal.
We have again considered the evidence received in relation to our proposed constituencies in Avon, Somerset and Devon. We recognised that we had received some opposition to our revised proposals and therefore investigated the alternatives. However, having considered the evidence received, we consider our revised proposals for the remaining constituencies in this sub-region continued to provide the best balance between the statutory factors.
Our final recommendations for Avon, Somerset and Devon are therefore for constituencies of: Bath; Bridgwater; Bristol Central; Bristol East; Bristol North East; Bristol North West; Bristol South; Central Devon; Exeter; Exmouth and Exeter East; Filton and Bradley Stoke; Frome and East Somerset; Glastonbury and Somerton; Honiton and Sidmouth; Newton Abbot; North Devon; North East Somerset and Hanham; North Somerset; Plymouth Moor View; Plymouth Sutton and Devonport; South Devon; South West Devon; Taunton and Wellington; Thornbury and Yate; Tiverton and Minehead; Torbay; Torridge and Tavistock; Wells and Mendip Hills; Weston-super-Mare; and Yeovil. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
