I would like to bring to fellow readers’ attention what appears to be misinformation and malpractice associated with the published proposals for merging the South Hams District and West Devon Borough Councils.

I am keenly interested in the proposed merger, not least because my council tax would be expected to increase to harmonise with the higher West Devon rate but also because lifetime experience tells me that large cost-saving measures often, or even usually, prove to be will-o’-the-wisp.

I therefore approached the statements on the merger by the leader of SHDC, Cllr John Tucker, with some expectation of his in-house knowledge of the matter giving me useful guidance.

Unfortunately, it is far from so. Cllr Tucker’s reported statement can be fairly described as rambling incoherence.

As to rambling, the councillor takes us on a tour of Devon, starting with the proposed merger, then a divorce from West Devon, followed by one-time unitary proposals to include Teignbridge, then on a three-hour unitary trip to Ilfracombe and ending with Truro in Cornwall and Trowbridge in Wiltshire.

As to incoherence, I cannot see any sensible logic in his words. We are supposed to be considering a merger, not a divorce. If the merger does not take place, shared services and the savings from them, of benefit to both authorities, will surely continue. Talk of a divorce is distracting nonsense, or is there something we are not told about?

As to savings, it is far from clear where these would be coming from.

To escape Cllr Tucker’s musings, I examined the onecoun cil.org.uk website, which purports to clearly explain the proposal.

No, it doesn’t. It is well laid out but misses out much of primary importance.

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the explanations on the website are biased in favour of merger, having been authored by those who expect to benefit from it, either from increased salaries and bonuses in regard of the increased responsibilities for those retained, or handsome redundancy packages for those who are not.

In reading between the lines of the statements, it seems that the authors have been very economical with the truth.

For example, the setting-up cost for the single council “is estimated to be £325,000 which includes project management, consultation on the proposal, remodelling of the council finances and creating a new website and identity for the new council.”

What about the other costs, which could be far in excess of the £325,000 quoted? The redundancy and associated costs mentioned above are not mentioned. Whether the new council would operate from a single site: Totnes, Tavistock or elsewhere, or from the existing sites using video conferencing and other distance communication is not mentioned.

There is much expense in any of those options. The costs of resettling staff are likewise not mentioned.

But the monstrous lacuna in all the figures is the absence of any background data leading to the claimed savings on merger.

This figure of £0.5m a year floats in mid-air like the Cheshire cat and is just as disembodied. How is this figure arrived at? What confidence can we have in its validity?

There are many other disturbing factors in the merger proposal but I have written enough for you to guess where I stand at this juncture.

I think the proposal is snake oil and currently I wouldn’t touch it with a barge pole.

However, this brings me to the final feature which damns the whole business.

I am unable to communicate my ‘no’ view on the online questionnaire because, having declared myself to be a South Hams resident, I cannot proceed further through the questionnaire without agreeing to one of the options for raising the council tax, were the merger to proceed. My ‘no’ vote has therefore not been registered. This arrangement appears to be designed to deter ‘no’ voters and bias the results in favour of a ‘yes’ vote. This is electoral malpractice.

Brian Parker

Crossparks, Dartmouth