Local Residents submissions to the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council electoral review

Transcription

1 Local Residents submissions to the Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Local Residents. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Surnames M

2

3 Porter, Johanna From: Lynda Mack < > Sent: 28 September :24 To: Subject: Alterations to the draft recommendations for Doncaster Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Thank you for the detailing the alterations to the draft recommendations for Doncaster. I am happy with the new proposal to unite the whole of Edenthorpe with Kirk Sandall. I feel that this reflects the strength of community identity and cohesiveness in the area. I am pleased that the views of residents have been taken into account. Lynda Mack 1

4

5

6 Porter, Johanna From: Jeff Maddison Sent: 14 October :21 To: Subject: Observation and objection to LGBC proposal to merge Barnby Dun and Stainforth to create new Electoral Ward I wish to endorse Barnby Dun with Kirk Sandall Parish Council's objection to the LGBC proposal to merge Barnby Dun with Stainforth to create a new Electoral Ward. As a long standing resident of Barnby Dun I am aware of the close links between our villages which are geographically closer than with Stainforth and form more of a cohesive Community with combined facilities which include parish halls, schools,churches shops and sports facilities some which lie in linking positions at the edges of the villages. Movement is also facilitated by closer links by road and footpaths to our nearer neighbours with the railway station at Kirk Sandall offering rapid transit to Doncaster. No pavement exists on the Barnby Dun to Stainforth Road or even foot paths (which usually record historic links) compared to the several linking footpath routes to our both Kirk Sandall and Edenthorpe. I consider the proposal to be ill considered and offers little to the residents of this area. R. J. Maddison 1

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16 Starkie, Emily From: Sent: 23 October :57 To: Subject: Proposed Electoral Ward boundary change to Barnby Dun Dear Sir or Madam I was born and brought up in Kirk Sandall and am a Trustee of the Glass Park. I am writing to oppose the proposed Electoral Ward boundary changes which are threatening to split Barnby Dun from Kirk Sandall and Edenthorpe. The three villages share a long history together and a very strong sense of shared community. Indeed, many of the local amenities, support groups and organised events are jointly shared by all the residents. The Glass Park was created for the recreational use of the three villages and is situated side by side with the Sports Association. The Sports Association has teams derived from all three villages representing local talent in cricket and football, including the junior league. The Barnby Dun scouts and cubs share the same scout hut facilities with Kirk Sandall. In education, the links between the three villages continue with a natural progression of our primary school pupils to Hungerhill School at Edenthorpe, continuing the relationships and building on the shared sense of community into secondary education. A decision to split the three villages at this stage has implications for the funding of these mutual public amenities, will negatively impact this tight knit community and would be intrinsically wrong. I do hope you will consider these points and leave Edenthorpe, Kirk Sandall and Barnby Dun as one Ward. Yours faithfully Lynne McWhinnie 1

17

18 2. On what basis was it deemed appropriate that Sutton could be re-united with Norton & Askern on the strength of one letter, yet you ignore all 150 of our letters. More specifically you ignore the 57 letters of Skelbrooke and Hampole residents requesting to be re-united with Sprotbrough. How can you subsequently profess to follow a fair and democratic process in this review? 3. Your requirements for transport links are that residents can move freely within the ward using well defined road networks. You even quote that there must be a way of traversing parishes within each ward. Yet, one cannot access Askern and Norton from Skelbrooke and Hampole without going out of the ward to the south, and out of the county to the north. Again, how does this meet your very demanding criteria for allocating parishes to wards? 4. You say that you do not want to split communities and want to preserve well-established historical and cultural connections between areas. We have proved beyond doubt that the old Sprotbrough ward was such a community and yet your revised proposal splits us into three wards. How does splitting us into three different wards meet the above criteria which you have gone out of your way to preserve in other areas, based on far less evidence? This means that potentially, given your current proposal, each joint windfarm or joint parish meeting will need to be attended by 8 councillors. Please explain how this will provide for effective and convenient local government? 5. The Boundary Commission has been actually quoted as firmly believing that every submission by a Labour Councillor or Party Branch can be deemed to accurately represent every resident in the county, and therefore should be incorporated accordingly, instead of taking into account letters from local residents. I was led to believe that this review was non-partisan and was being undertaken to improve electoral equality and not to pander to local labour aspirations for the new wards. I would have thought it was obvious that if residents take the time to write in letters expressing their opinions about the future of the wards in Doncaster that these letters should be read and incorporated into your revised proposal rather than relying purely on a politically biased group of people who cannot represent residents better than they can represent themselves. Please explain why you think that a labour member can represent a resident better than they can represent themselves? Please also outline in your response exactly what action was taken within your revised proposal for all points raised in politically biased letters? It would seem that every single labour suggestion was incorporated and therefore one could conclude that your revised draft proposal is, in fact, either politically motivated or naïve in the extreme. 6. The Boundary Commission stated that all letters on the first draft proposal should be backed up with a detailed alternative proposal that would meet the residents requirements for their ward if they were not satisfied by the Commission. The Joint Parish Council of the old Sprotbrough ward was the only submission that actually did this and ensured that the resulting electorate met your criteria. This was not done in isolation as we impactassessed the neighbouring wards in order to maintain good electoral equality. Please 2

19 explain why, when ours was the only alternative proposal put forward, the Boundary Commission chose to prioritise other wish lists which did not meet the guidance that had been specifically given in your Draft Recommendations? And please explain, given that we worked through the detail of those wards that we impacted in our proposal, what exactly did you expect us to do in order to have our proposal taken seriously and not branded as being done in isolation? Should we have done a revised proposal for the whole of Doncaster borough? Isn t that what you are paid for? 7. How can you justify going to the lengths of adding an extra councillor for Edenthorpe ward, when you have blatantly ignored the Joint Parish Council request for a re-united Sprotbrough ward? Residents letters for a re-united Sprotbrough total 30% of your overall response to the Draft Proposal. How is it possible that a fair and democratic process ignores 30% of its consultation evidence? The Boundary Commission Draft Recommendations published in May 2014 state the following on page 5: The draft recommendations are evidence based. I would also like to highlight the Boundary Commission references to the Parish Of Skelbrooke and Hampole: Draft Recommendations May 2014, Adwick-le-Street proposal: We also propose to include the parishes of Hampole, Hooton Pagnell and Clayton with Frickley, which access primarily through Brodsworth, in this ward, along with the parishes of Hickleton and Marr, in order to improve electoral equality. Draft Recommendations September 2014, Askern & Norton proposal: The Commission proposes that Norton & Askern ward be increased in size to incorporate the parish of Hampole. Please provide me with the detailed evidence upon which you have seen fit to put my parish first in the Adwick-le-Street ward and then in the Askern & Norton ward, especially in light of all the evidence provided which recommends we be re-united with the mother village of Sprotbrough. The above comments do not constitute any evidence at all and the Boundary Commission does like to stress the importance of providing evidence rather than relying on assertion. In conclusion, I would like to say that to the untrained eye it seems that the Boundary Commission has taken the path of least resistance and pandered to labour party politically motivated suggestions for ward boundaries in order to save time and avoid any confrontation and lengthy delays emanating from the Doncaster Council which might have arisen by following through on our re-united Sprotbrough proposal. It would also appear that the Parish of Skelbrooke and Hampole has been deemed unimportant and slotted into the Askern & Norton ward on a whim - or worse, at the suggestion of the Adwick Labour Group perhaps in a hurry to get to a sign off meeting. By providing detailed answers to my questions, which you must already have by virtue of the fact you will have followed your own strict criteria for allocating parishes to wards, you will go some way to restoring my faith in the process and 3

20 re-assuring the whole of the old Sprotbrough parish that aim of the Boundary Commission is truly to reflect local communities and to ensure electoral equality. If this cannot be easily provided I suggest you spend the time you have remaining striving to follow due process and re-unite the old Sprotbrough ward, which should never have been divided in your first proposal. Yours sincerely, Annalisa Metcalf From: To: Date: Wed, 24 Sep :45: Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DONCASTER: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 24 September 2014 Dear Ms. Metcalf, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DONCASTER: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Thank you for your recent letter setting out your views in respect of new council ward boundaries for Doncaster. The Commission published draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Doncaster in May During the following eleven week consultation, over 550 local people and groups provided representations to the Commission which we have now considered. In light of the persuasive evidence presented during the previous stage of consultation, the Commission has decided to make a number of changes to the recommendations in order to ensure that the new ward boundaries provide a good balance between our statutory criteria: to ensure electoral fairness for voters, to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to provide effective and convenient local government to citizens. Given the scale of these changes, the Commission has decided to consult again with local people before deciding on its final recommendations. This additional phase of public consultation will take place between 24 September 2014 and 24 October During this period we will welcome your views on these new proposals. You can take part in the consultation online by visiting: A letter to the Chief Executive of Doncaster Borough Council which describes these further draft recommendations is available to view at: 4

21 data/assets/pdf file/0018/23454/doncaster Further Draft Recommendations Letter FINAL.pdf along with maps of some of the areas where we have made changes to the draft recommendations: data/assets/pdf file/0017/23453/doncaster Further Draft Recommendations mapping.pdf. 5

22

23 Porter, Johanna From: Annalisa Metcalf < > Sent: 07 October :01 To: Porter, Johanna; Cc: Subject: Attachments: RE: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DONCASTER: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Boundaries Commission Letter doc 7th October 2014 Johanna Porter Reviews Officer Doncaster Review Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London, EC1M 5LG Ref: Electoral Review of Doncaster Dear Johanna I appreciate that undertaking a full electoral review of the borough of Doncaster is both complicated and challenging. You have many parties to satisfy and no doubt need to meet tight deadlines and satisfy many conflicting criteria. That said, I am both astounded and disappointed at the manner in which you have chosen to deal with the Parish of Skelbrooke and Hampole. I would therefore like a direct response to my letter and detailed explanation for your logic behind allocating Skelbrooke and Hampole Parish to Askern and Norton, and why you chose to ignore the considered and well-balanced proposal put forward by the Joint Parish Council for the Rural Villages given the weight of evidence supporting this proposal versus the scant and politically biased responses you chose to incorporate into your revised draft for Doncaster. In your reply please respond to the following points: 1. There were over 150 letters from residents of the former Sprotbrough ward supporting the proposal to re-unite this ward based on shared community ties and history. There were at least 57 letters from residents of Skelbrooke and Hampole specifically. Please outline, using your own list of criteria, exactly why when faced with this quantity of evidence you chose to put us in with Askern and Norton? 1

24 2. On what basis was it deemed appropriate that Sutton could be re-united with Norton & Askern on the strength of one letter, yet you ignore all 150 of our letters. More specifically you ignore the 57 letters of Skelbrooke and Hampole residents requesting to be re-united with Sprotbrough. How can you subsequently profess to follow a fair and democratic process in this review? 3. Your requirements for transport links are that residents can move freely within the ward using well defined road networks. You even quote that there must be a way of traversing parishes within each ward. Yet, one cannot access Askern and Norton from Skelbrooke and Hampole without going out of the ward to the south, and out of the county to the north. Again, how does this meet your very demanding criteria for allocating parishes to wards? 4. You say that you do not want to split communities and want to preserve well-established historical and cultural connections between areas. We have proved beyond doubt that the old Sprotbrough ward was such a community and yet your revised proposal splits us into three wards. How does splitting us into three different wards meet the above criteria which you have gone out of your way to preserve in other areas, based on far less evidence? This means that potentially, given your current proposal, each joint windfarm or joint parish meeting will need to be attended by 8 councillors. Please explain how this will provide for effective and convenient local government? 5. The Boundary Commission has been actually quoted as firmly believing that every submission by a Labour Councillor or Party Branch can be deemed to accurately represent every resident in the county, and therefore should be incorporated accordingly, instead of taking into account letters from local residents. I was led to believe that this review was non-partisan and was being undertaken to improve electoral equality and not to pander to local labour aspirations for the new wards. I would have thought it was obvious that if residents take the time to write in letters expressing their opinions about the future of the wards in Doncaster that these letters should be read and incorporated into your revised proposal rather than relying purely on a politically biased group of people who cannot represent residents better than they can represent themselves. Please explain why you think that a labour member can represent a resident better than they can represent themselves? Please also outline in your response exactly what action was taken within your revised proposal for all points raised in politically biased letters? It would seem that every single labour suggestion was incorporated and therefore one could conclude that your revised draft proposal is, in fact, either politically motivated or naïve in the extreme. 6. The Boundary Commission stated that all letters on the first draft proposal should be backed up with a detailed alternative proposal that would meet the residents requirements for their ward if they were not satisfied by the Commission. The Joint Parish Council of the old Sprotbrough ward was the only submission that actually did this and ensured that the resulting electorate met your criteria. This was not done in isolation as we impactassessed the neighbouring wards in order to maintain good electoral equality. Please explain why, when ours was the only alternative proposal put forward, the Boundary Commission chose to prioritise other wish lists which did not meet the guidance that had 2

25 been specifically given in your Draft Recommendations? And please explain, given that we worked through the detail of those wards that we impacted in our proposal, what exactly did you expect us to do in order to have our proposal taken seriously and not branded as being done in isolation? Should we have done a revised proposal for the whole of Doncaster borough? Isn t that what you are paid for? 7. How can you justify going to the lengths of adding an extra councillor for Edenthorpe ward, when you have blatantly ignored the Joint Parish Council request for a re-united Sprotbrough ward? Residents letters for a re-united Sprotbrough total 30% of your overall response to the Draft Proposal. How is it possible that a fair and democratic process ignores 30% of its consultation evidence? The Boundary Commission Draft Recommendations published in May 2014 state the following on page 5: The draft recommendations are evidence based. I would also like to highlight the Boundary Commission references to the Parish Of Skelbrooke and Hampole: Draft Recommendations May 2014, Adwick-le-Street proposal: We also propose to include the parishes of Hampole, Hooton Pagnell and Clayton with Frickley, which access primarily through Brodsworth, in this ward, along with the parishes of Hickleton and Marr, in order to improve electoral equality. Draft Recommendations September 2014, Askern & Norton proposal: The Commission proposes that Norton & Askern ward be increased in size to incorporate the parish of Hampole. Please provide me with the detailed evidence upon which you have seen fit to put my parish first in the Adwick-le-Street ward and then in the Askern & Norton ward, especially in light of all the evidence provided which recommends we be re-united with the mother village of Sprotbrough. The above comments do not constitute any evidence at all and the Boundary Commission does like to stress the importance of providing evidence rather than relying on assertion. In conclusion, I would like to say that to the untrained eye it seems that the Boundary Commission has taken the path of least resistance and pandered to labour party politically motivated suggestions for ward boundaries in order to save time and avoid any confrontation and lengthy delays emanating from the Doncaster Council which might have arisen by following through on our re-united Sprotbrough proposal. It would also appear that the Parish of Skelbrooke and Hampole has been deemed unimportant and slotted into the Askern & Norton ward on a whim - or worse, at the suggestion of the Adwick Labour Group perhaps in a hurry to get to a sign off meeting. By providing detailed answers to my questions, which you must already have by virtue of the fact you will have followed your own strict criteria for allocating parishes to wards, you will go some way to restoring my faith in the process and re-assuring the whole of the old Sprotbrough parish that aim of the Boundary Commission is truly to reflect local communities and to ensure electoral equality. 3

26 If this cannot be easily provided I suggest you spend the time you have remaining striving to follow due process and re-unite the old Sprotbrough ward, which should never have been divided in your first proposal. Yours sincerely, Annalisa Metcalf From: To: Date: Wed, 24 Sep :45: Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DONCASTER: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 24 September 2014 Dear Ms. Metcalf, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF DONCASTER: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS Thank you for your recent letter setting out your views in respect of new council ward boundaries for Doncaster. The Commission published draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements for Doncaster in May During the following eleven week consultation, over 550 local people and groups provided representations to the Commission which we have now considered. In light of the persuasive evidence presented during the previous stage of consultation, the Commission has decided to make a number of changes to the recommendations in order to ensure that the new ward boundaries provide a good balance between our statutory criteria: to ensure electoral fairness for voters, to reflect the interests and identities of local communities and to provide effective and convenient local government to citizens. Given the scale of these changes, the Commission has decided to consult again with local people before deciding on its final recommendations. This additional phase of public consultation will take place between 24 September 2014 and 24 October During this period we will welcome your views on these new proposals. You can take part in the consultation online by visiting: A letter to the Chief Executive of Doncaster Borough Council which describes these further draft recommendations is available to view at: data/assets/pdf_file/0018/23454/doncaster Further Draft Recommendations Letter FINAL.pdf along with maps of some of the areas where we have made changes to the draft 4

27 recommendations: data/assets/pdf_file/0017/23453/doncaster Further Draft Recommendations mapping.pdf. 5

28 As well as taking part in this consultation online, you can also make comments on the recommendations in writing to: Review Officer (Doncaster) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Or by to Further information about the Commission and electoral reviews can be found on our website at If you have any queries, please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely Johanna Porter Review Officer 6

29 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 23/10/2014 Doncaster District Personal Details: Name: Louise Micklethwaite Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I recently ed to raise my concerns regarding the proposed new ward boundaries as I live in Wadworth and was concerned that we would be aligned with Edlington - I have no connection at all with Edlington 9i have no children so no connection with the Comprehensive School as others will have). However, my husband and I would like to endorse the new draft proposal to create a Tickhill and Wadworth Ward, also taking in Loversall, Braithwell, etc. Tickhill is less than 2 miles away and we regularly use the facilities there as an extension of our own village - butchers, post office, general store, other shops and pubs and I am a member of Tickhill Running Club. We feel very much part of a 'Tickhill and Wadworth Community' and support Tickhill events as much as those taking place in our own village. We would really welcome the latest proposal. Thank you. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

30

31 Porter, Johanna From: shaun millward < > Sent: 24 September :59 To: Subject: Bessacarr ward Boundary. Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Completed Thank you for your e mail which outlines the draft boundaries. However the one that interests me is the Bessacarr ward Boundary. I have lived in the Bessacarr / Cantley ward all my life and I can assure you I know as would any other long standing resident of the area where the areas boundaries are. Bessacarr and Cantley always have been and still are a SUBURB of Doncaster, and not part of the rural Finningly ward. The arbitrary line drawn through the suburb not only denies a large number of the residents from being able to vote for a representative that truly represents the ward and the confusion the boundary line causes the local council. What affects the Bessacarr ward affects me. What happens in Finningley doesn't. This boundary I strongly suspect is to suit the politicians and not the electorate. These same politicians are always harping on about being inclusive, and getting people interested in politics. Give the residents the chance to have a meaningful vote, not one that keeps the politicians on the gravy train that seem to expect as a right. Which certainly is the case with this currant boundary. Shaun Millward. 1

32

33 Porter, Johanna From: Sent: 14 October :42 To: Subject: Merging of Barnby Dun with Stainforth Ward I wish to strongly oppose your proposal to merge Barnby Dun Ward with Stainforth Ward. Barnby Dun has lots of links with our current Ward of Kirk Sandall. Our Parish Council is already linked with Kirk Sandall and works perfectly for the benefit of both villages. Our Childrens Centre is also linked with Kirk Sandall and Edenthorpe and again this works with no problems. Barnby Dun has no links with Stainforth at all, and is separated by a good distance. My children attend the local Barmby Dun Primary Academy and will naturally progress to Hungerhill School, which has an outstanding grade from OFSTED. I most certainly don't want my children to attend a different secondary school which if you change boundaries they may have to do. I don't see any benefit to us joining Stainforth, in fact I believe it would be a great mistake. Why do you have to mess with a system that works well as it is? It is ridiculous. Sheila Milnes 1

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 10/10/2014 Doncaster District Personal Details: Name: Kieron Murray Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Since the boundaries of Skellow & Carcroft are vague they should stay together. They should also be part of Adwick not Askern. Askern may as well be a million miles away as there is no interaction between them and Skellow & Carcroft. Skellow & carcroft need to stand together alone or if the are not large enough be included in Adwick. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

42

43