9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Transcription

1 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Donald Mackay My wife and I agree with the draft proposal that the parish of Little Budworth remains within the Tarporley Ward 1/1

2 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Tim Mann I am writing to object to your proposal to abolish the garden quarter ward. As a resident of the ward, we have worked hard over many years to build a successful and thriving community which engages students and all sections of our area. We run regular community festivals and are well supported by our local councillor. Your proposal cuts the garden quarter ward completely amd makes no sense in terms of local identity. The former Cambrian community association has successfully merged with the garden quarter to create an even stronger community group that would be lost by your proposal. I urge you to reconsider this for the benefit of our city centre community. I should add that this is the third time I have had to type my comments as your web site kept crashing! Many thanks. 1/1

3 Gabi Maraver Organisation I am writing to beg you not to tear our community apart. I am a Garden Quarter resident and I don't identify with any other areas of Chester. Our area has very distinct issues and values and that's what keeps us a strong community and active citizens in Chester. Official recognition of our existence as a distinct community is dependent on our ward status. We need a focused councillor to represent us over issues that are of a high priority to our own environment and we believe that funding for our local projects may also be affected if the ward is changed. Please, please don't destroy the community we have worked to build for so long.

4 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Marrs, Rob Sent: 12 September :11 To: reviews Subject: Neston Parkgate Burton I read with dismay the plans for the new electoral system for the Neston, Parkgate, Burton, currently 5 planned to go to 3. I have no real interest in party politics and am not really interested in who sits or who doesn t sit on the local council. We are at the periphery of the county and as far as I can see this reduction will lead to less influence, on the edge less will always be in reality a lot less influence. What I am more concerned with is the wholesale acceptance of the Conservative proposal might this have something to do with the fact that: a. They lost the very safe seat of Parkgate because they tried to foist a well out of area candidate into the seat. The seat was taken by the excellent local independent. b. Inclusion of Burton into the current mix will boost Conservative numbers. In addition: c. Having just three councillors in a relatively big area will tend to preclude the election of Independent councillors who are more locally based and this would be a great pity. Essentially the big parties will dominate by a mass dilution effect. d. Local influence will be lost and there will be the potential for bringing in candidates who so not live in the areas. This would be a bad thing. Basically I don t really care that much as a voter, except insofar as we should retain local candidates for local issues. Rob Rob Marrs Professor Rob Marrs DSc FiEEM CEcol CEnv School of Environmental Sciences University of 1

5 10/19/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Carol Mason None I live in Little Budworth. I would like Little Budworth to be in the Tarporley area. We use the facilities in Tarporley regularly e.g. Doctor, Pharmacist, shops, recreational facilities and our postal service comes from Tarporley. Little Budworth is a very rural village with a strong farming tradition, which has more in common with other villages in the Tarporley area than the urban/suburban area of Winsford. Little Budworth is not a suburban commuter village, indeed it has no public transport facilities at all and so it links and identifies more closely with other small rural communities in the Tarporley area. There is a risk that our needs and concerns will not be addressed if Little Budworth is part of Winsford, where the overwhelming needs of an urban population will need to take priority. 1/1

6 10/25/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Charles Mason As a resident of Little Budworth I am strongly in support of the draft recommendation that the parish of Little Budworth remains in the Tarporley Ward. 1/1

7 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: John Sent: 29 September :06 To: reviews Subject: Little Budworth remaining within the Tarporley Ward To whom it may concern. Dear Sir, In response to the leaflet received and as a resident of Little Budworth I am most concerned that there should be any thoughts of taking Little Budworth out of the Tarporley Ward. I would object strongly if anything other than that of remaining in this ward were to be considered. Regards John Mason, 1

8 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Sent: 24 October :00 To: reviews Subject: little budworth draft proposals Dear Sirs We are glad to hear the draft proposal to keep the parish of Little Budworth within the Tarporley Ward we are a rural parish and have much in common with Tarporley Winsford is a large and industrialised town and has nothing in common with Little Budworth we are surrounded by farmland as is Tarporley and there fore we share common pursuits and interests. We have had a long relationship with Tarporley Ward not least being the many friends we have in that ward. we recognise Tarporley each Christmas with their Xmas appeal. we strongly hope the draft proposals mentioned will become firm legislation yours Alastair and Janet Mawson 1

9 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Sent: 03 November :16 To: reviews Subject: Re proposals following the initial consultation on the Electoral Review of Cheshire West and Chester Dear Sir/Madam I am writing to express my deep concerns regarding the proposal to combine the current Lache ward with Westminster Park and Handbridge ward to create an Overleigh Ward. I question the resaons given for this consideration within the Draft Recommendations point 64: "We fully accept that there appears to be little to differentiate Lache and parts of Westminster Park and those residents across the area have shared facilities." As a resident in the area for 42 years and having taught in a faith high school which serves the areas concerned as well as serving the city of Chester and surrounding parishes I know that the comparative description given above is a grossly inaccurate one. The two primary school which serve the Lache area draw the vast majority of pupils from two wards. The two wards experience the same level of Children and Young people deprivation as that of the 1% most deprived super output areas in England and the lowest 1% and 2% for Education, Skills and Training. Recent data from one of the schools indicates that over half the pupils in the school shave postcodes which fall into SOA E (ranked 79 out of 32,844 Decile 1 for Education,Skills and Training and ranked 118, Decile 1 for Children and Young people). Westminster Park around its primary school is ranked 32,010 out of 32,884 Decile 10 for multiple derivation whereas parts of Lache are ranked 412 out of 32,884 Decile 1. I believe there is a great deal to differentiate the Lache and parts of Westminster Park not recognised within the Report. A potential change to the boundaries could have a long term and significant impact on the schools and the children within them in the Lache ward when deprivation indices are next visited and the impact that this could have on funding and consequently Learning and Teaching. Lache needs to be recognised and understood for the area it is; an area where a focus for sustainable improvement and development is not lost through misrepresentation as part of a larger and more affluent area. Yours sincerely John Mc Cann 3rs November

10 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Clare McCormack none The Garden Quarter is a unique and diverse pocket of Chester and where I have lived for the last 25 years. It has community and integrity all it's own. To split this ward would be a total injustice to the very fabric of the area. I can only implore that the proposed redefining of these boundaries does not take place and they remain exactly as they are at present. 1/1

11 9/8/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Paul Mccormick My postcode is Our properties face the upton parish and countess country park. We are also on the chester side of the welcome sign. Residents in our group do not use any of the blacon facilities as chester or upton facilities are closer. The parish boundary in this area would be better presented by drawing along the line of the canal to the rear of the properties rather than using the A540 Parkgate Road. 1/1

12 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Carol McCudden Sent: 31 October :46 To: reviews Subject: boundary review Dear Boundary Commission, I believe the boundary commission has recommended splitting the Garden Quarter into the City Ward and Blacon. I would like to raise my objection to such a boundary split. As the commission states The pattern of wards should reflect the interests and identities of local communities as well as promoting effective local government. The proposed spilt appears to have not taken the first part of this aim into account. The Garden Quarter has reclaimed an historical name and the residents have tried to reflect its original focus by introducing flora and fauna. It has a focus on community and community activities neither of these exist in either of the proposed wards. The community has continued to fight for its specific issues with its councillors. As the University of Chester continues to grow, impacting on the residents of the Garden Quarter, it is imperative that we as a community have a voice. If the ward boundaries were changed we would no longer have an individual councillor to represent us. Neither Blacon nor the City suffer from the amount of HMO that the Garden Quarter has. The Quarter is trying hard to maintain a community focus, which is increasingly difficult for the long term residents and those with young children who are all having to deal with anti social behaviours from residents in HMO. I am also extremely disappointed that this electoral review for ward boundaries consultation has been so low key. Yours sincerely, Dr Carol McCudden Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1

13 11/1/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Jayne McGovern I do not agree that the boundray of Curzon and Westminster should be joined with Handbridge. The Lache Estate has already been changed to cut it in half, becoming Curzon and Wesrtminister. This Estate is a very different than the other wards. unemployment is high, 60% of children are on free school meals. Very deprived area, low income families poor health and disability where over 60 % live in poverty. To co,pare it with Hanbridge, Curzon Park, Queens Park is not viable. The contrast between the wards is stark.the area is know multipal deprivation from a 2010 survey.the draft proposal will repeat the damaging situation, Lache needs a dedicated Councillor a strong advocate for the community which already suffers from high levels of stigma. I speak for lots of residents who do not even know how to put there fears into words, have no access to Internet or how to put a letter together. I strongly believe the Wards should remain as they are. 1/1

14 11/1/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Rachael Molly Mcgovern I am submitting my objection to the change I The Boundarys of Chester, Lache, Curzon. Westminster and Handbridgeq. To say that all the wards are similar based on the statement that there is little to differentiate (Lacheand parts of Westminster p17 paragraph 64) is incorrect. Lache is very different is incorrect. The Lache is a highly deprived area with low income families, high unemployment. The Lache school has a high rate of children on free school meals,50% of older people are living in income deprivation. Over 20% of residents claim Council tax benifit and over 50% claim income Support. This area needs to stay the same with a Councillor who can concentrate on the many problems that come from living in such a deprived are. I oppose the boundary changes 1/1

15 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Ray McHal Sent: 30 August :49 To: reviews Subject: Boundary review - Cheshire West & Chester (Ellesmere Port) Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged I write concerning my views on the proposed new boundaries in my area of Ellesmere Port the South West of the town. First however, I would comment on the name of 2 wards; Whitby Heath and Whitby Groves. The ward you name as Whitby Heath contains the part of Ellesmere Port called The Goves (just west of Chester road) and the The Groves Sports Club. This area has never, in the 35 years I have lived here, been referred to as Whitby Heath, On the otherhand, the ward you have named Whitby Groves doesn t contain The Groves, but contains the popular Whitby Heath Primary School. This area has not, to my knowledge, ever been call Whitby Groves or The Groves, This would be a serious cause of confusion. These wards should either have their names swapped, or should be re-named. I live in the current Strawberry Ward which seems to continually change. However, the one good point of the last change was that it got rid of the stupid long adjoining ward named Sutton Green and Manor which ran for about 2 miles to the west of the A41. Instead the areas both sides of the A41 were brought into the same ward. Now you proposed to revert back to the old arrangement. I believe this is a retrograde step in terms of community cohesion and links. To achieve this you make another long north / south ward Sutton and Strawberry. From my view point there is a clear argument for these wards being cut East / West instead of North / South. The new housing from Foxall Way south has no links to the older communities off Green Lane. A division which brings Foxall Way and all properties to the south into a ward with Strawberry Fields and Hope Farm, perhaps dividing along Kendal Drive, seems a much better idea. The areas off Green Lane can then link to adjacent areas of Sutton Ward across the A41. A ward should have an element of natural cohesion and the old Sutton Green and Manor has never had that. Now you are chopping up the new Strawberry Ward, just as it is about to expand westwards again, while the remnants of Strawberry is being thrown in with areas right down to Sutton Way and Overpool Road. Frankly my general view is this whole re-organisation is a waste of money. Some councillors struggle to represent the size of the wards already and they are now to increase in size. Some were intend on change so they could push for single member wards. This is not being offered. So it is an expensive switch around just to cut the number of Councillors. It represents 10 years of change at every local election. Ray McHale 1

16 Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Sandy McKnight Sent: 17 September :53 To: reviews Subject: Proposed boundary plan Further to the proposed boundary plan for Little Budworth I am writing to say how pleased I was to see that you do not propose to change our area. I hope this can be confirmed soon as it will be good for Little Budworth and also for Tarporley. Mrs. A McKnight Virus-free. 1

17 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Hilarie McNae I have lived in Upton for more than 35 years.although we are so close to Chester, Upton maintains a distinct identity.there are, I understand, more than 100 local clubs, societies and interest groups that you can join.i am a member of eg, Upton Horticultural Society and the Zoo. We have a number of local shops within the Ward. There`s a popular Library, Doctors`s Surgery and new Pavilion, which is increasingly busy. It now does drinks and snacks for the well used Playing Fields, Bowling Green and Tennis Courts, as well as the Children`s Play park and the different sports on the playing fields, including matches.these are all on the same site and contribute to a feeling of community. The local churches organise churches together events, which also foster a sense of belonging.we have our own guiding and scout groups,nurseries, primary schools and a secondary school. There`s a branch of the Royal British Legion, and on Rememberance Day they will hold a service at our War Memorial.We are one of the few parished areas in Chester. You can see that Upton is a thriving place, not eclipsed by being a suburb of Chester-it maintains an individual and complimentary identity to Chester. I think that your proposals for representation for Upton are correct.we need a two member ward-there`s a lot going on, and clear and united leadership is essential for Upton to maintain its existing facitities, and to be an even better place to live and work in. It would be immensely awkward to divide the area-i can`t think of a sensible way in which it could be done without damaging what we have. 1/1

18 9/19/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Kerry McRae I can't draw on the map!! What should happen is the boundary of blacon should stop at the canal on the east side. The properties along Parkate Road should then fall under Upton. 1/1

19 David Mead Organisation I object to the proposal to combine Hoole and Newton Wards in Chester. They are two quite distinct areas, separated by an old railway line, now used as a footpath/cycleway. Each area has its own character. In particular, much of Hoole is a historical Victorian area associated with the development of the railways in Chester and is focused around the Faulkner Street shopping area. Newton has a quite separate shopping area and an altogether different character. It would be much better to retain the existing ward structure with separate councillors dealing with just their own areas. At the previous boundary review, I sent submission that Newton itself should be divided into two smaller wards, as the two parts of the existing ward are very different. I still think this would be an improvement. I also object to the proposal to divide up the Garden Quarter ward. This was created at the last boundary review in response to the entirely justified claim that the area has a strong cohesive community spirit. I experienced this when I was a councillor for the ward (College Ward) that previously included the Garden Quarter from 2004 to Davis Mead, Tel:

20 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Andrew Merrill Sent: 24 October :30 To: reviews Subject: Review Dear Sirs, I am writing in support of your recommendation (paragraphs 47 49, page 12 & 13) for the creation of a Mickle Trafford and Elton Ward as proposed within the Draft Recommendations on the Electoral Arrangements for Cheshire West and Chester Council. These 2 main and surrounding smaller villages have been linked before historically as a former Chester City Council Ward so have historic ties that would be welcomed in being re-established. Mickle Trafford and Elton both have strong Parish Councils in fact all the villages within the new proposed ward are covered by Parish Councils which give them their unique identities. However, given the rural nature of the area and the close proximity they have with each other the issues they face are by and large similar in nature and therefore makes sense to include them all together in one northern rural ward. I also support the inclusion of the village of Guilden Sutton into this new Mickle Trafford and Elton Ward as the 2 villages of Mickle Trafford and Guilden Sutton are virtually merged with only a very small gap between the 2 villages and large amount of cross border activity takes place between the residents of the 2 villages with Guilden Sutton containing a dental practice that covers both villages, the local vicar covers both churches in Mickle Trafford and Guilden Sutton and lives in Guilden Sutton and events held in each of the 2 villages Village Halls/Community Centre are supported by residents from both villages. However, I would ask that you look closely at the boundary of the proposed Mickle Trafford and Elton Ward with its neighbour of Saughall and Mollington Ward at the point where they meet on Whitby Lane (the A5032) in the Parish of Little Stanney. If possible could you shift the Ward boundary along that particular road up to the Ellesmere Port side of the motorway bridge so that we end the situation of the last 3 houses on one side of Whitby lane and the last house opposite on the other side of the road being in one council ward and the rest of the houses along Whitby Lane on the Ellesmere Port side of the motorway bridge being in another. Regards, Andrew Merrill A W Merrill 1

21 2

22 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: victoria mills Sent: 04 November :26 To: reviews Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for England Council Name, Parish, Cheshire West & Chester Council It would be more sensible to have an odd number of councillors (e.g. 69 or 71) so a party/coalition can always have a majority. It would be preferable to have single member wards for this rural section of Cheshire West the proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward would be too large geographically for councillors to sustain effective relationships with the smaller communities located across the ward. Councillors are also more likely to prioritise the more populated villages (Mickle Trafford, Guilden Sutton, Barrow and Elton) over the many smaller parishes the geographic footprint therefore has to be small enough for a councillor to work effectively. It would be preferable to maintain the current Elton Ward as this is the best way to reflect local identities. The current collection of parishes (Croughton, Elton, Ince, Little Stanney, Stoak, Thornton le Moors & Wervin) have a lot in common: they are all rural green belt communities; most are small settlements (with the exception of Elton); they stem off the A5117 which provides a major transport connection for the ward; the only major bus route in the area (X2) runs through or best most of the PCs; residents share the same local services (Elton Primary School and children s centre, GP, pharmacy, post office services etc); shared interest in local industries and retail (e.g. Cheshire Oaks, Stanlow/Essar, Protos, University of Chester, igas fracking proposals etc). If the LGBCE does not find the argument strong enough to maintain the status quo for the current Elton ward, then it would be preferable to include Dunham on the Hill and Hapsford CP in the proposal. This would ensure electoral equality as well as still reflecting community identity and allowing for effective local government because: this area also stems from the A5117 and shares the X2 bus route; this is also a small rural green belt community; residents share/access similar local facilities and services; they have a similar demographic (including a GRT settlement, social housing etc); shared interest in local issues such as the M56, wind farm, igas fracking proposals, recently proposed solar farm etc. This identity is not shared in the same way with Mickle Trafford CP or Guilden Sutton these settlements appear to look to Chester and access different services/facilities. The LGBCE should consider how these areas could sustain their own single councillor ward or continue with their links with Christleton and Waverton (current Chester Villages ward). 1

23 This identity is also not shared with Barrow CP. The current proposals mean that the River Gowy acts as a natural boundary, splitting Barrow off from the rest of the ward. This would create a detached ward and mean that it would be difficult to have effective local government. The LGBCE may wish to consider placing Barrow CP with the proposed Manley ward. Mr A Mills Sent from my Samsung Galaxy smartphone. 2

24 9/11/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Jessica Minshull Part of Chester walls is outside of the city centre boundary! This makes no sense. Also, why are the boundaries being changed? I feel that there is no point to this when it was done only a few years ago. It seems that it will create a lot of paperwork and burocracy for little return to the residents. Also it is possible that the change will affect land value and therefore property value. Has this impact on residents been properly considered? The whole garden quarter is gone and Newton and Hoole are now one entity. 1/1

25 10/11/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Angela Mohan I have lived in Handbridge for thirty four years and have seen many changes in that time. The one thing that hasn't changed is the pride and community spirit of its residents. We, as a family of five, have enjoyed the local schools, local shops, the proximity of the town centre, the local parks, the easy access to the river Dee and Duke's Drive for walking and the convenience of North Wales only a couple of miles away. People are often amazed at the change from one sde of the Old Dee Bridge to the other. It's like going from city to village in one quick walk. Most of us in Handbridge feel we are in the middle when it comes to Council attention. The most and least deprived areas of Chester appear to get far more done so we have formed residents' associations to try to combat this problem. This year, we have had work parties out tackling the litter problem and digging up weeds in overlooked areas. With the persistence of the associations, we have persuaded the council to repair hazardous footpaths and support us in our voluntary work, which will continue. I feel we are less demanding than other social groups and are willing to provide labour and funding for various projects and are happy to work in conjunctiona with the council. The affluent areas of Queen's Park, Curzon Park and Belgrave Park have similar residential status and are geographically linked to Handbridge. The present size of Westminster Park is similar to Handbridge but the proposed new build of 1400 houses will increase the population by thousands and will bring problems of overcrowded medical centres, traffic and overstretched infrastructure. To form a new ward to include fhe current Handbridge Park, Lache and the new housing would result in the three councillors having to concentrate on the most urgent cases and I feel Handbridge and similar housing areas would be generally placed at the bottom of priorities. I am appalled at the proposal for one main medical centre covering this vast area. We are an increasingly elderly community who are still able to walk down to the local medical centre but would struggle to go elsewhere. The current Lache area has its own social problems and despite being almost 70% privately owned now, still retains a high level of crime and needs within the community, far less than the current Handbridge Park. For this reason, I feel it should continue having its own councillor/s to fight their causes and not become part of a vast new ward, Overleigh. Due to the proximity of Westminster Park to the Lache, would it not be more sensible to have a ward covering Lache and Westminster Park (including the 1400 new households) with two councillors and one councillor for a separate ward for Handbridge, Queen's Park, Curzon Park and Belgrave Park. The housing and residents of the two areas would be of similar minds and I expect generate simlar problems. I know my feelings are reciprocated in many fellow residents and I would be grateful if you would take them into consideration. 1/1

26 10/17/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation John Morgan I live in Aston, near Frodsham. I believe that the proposal to include Aston and Sutton Weaver in the 'Marbury' ward is incorrect. Functionally, for example regarding education, transport and amenities, Aston and Sutton Weaver are very much aligned with Frodsham and district, and have little connection with the rural areas to the east. I would therefore propose that Aston and Sutton Weaver should be included ideally in the 'Frodsham' ward, or alternatively 'Manley', rather than 'Marbury'. 1/1

27 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan From: Viv Mountford Sent: 27 October :55 To: reviews Subject: parish council boundaries - Boughton Heath, Chester Here are my formal comments. I live at Heath ward., i.e. in the proposed Boughton I agree with the proposal to split Vicar s Cross and Boughton Heath into two separate onecouncillor wards. 1) I feel these are two separate villages, each with their own identity. 2) It would be easier to just have one point of contact for council matters, and to know that that one councillor is just focussing on matters that are pertinent to the village I live in. 3) I don t know Vicar s Cross so well, and I don t identify with that area s shops, schools or greenspace as well as my own area. 4) I would feel better represented by one councillor who just represents my area. Yours Sincerely Ms Vivien Anne Mountford Viv Mountford, Publicity officer, RSPB Chester group. Facebook admin, MARINET UK facebook.com/rspbchester facebook.com/marinetuk

28 10/9/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation Karen Mullins I have lived in or over 25 years. It is in Little Sutton and should stay that way. 1/1

29 10/30/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Organisation A Murphy I live in what is proposed to be the leftwich ward - I note that this has been separated from the kingsmead and Davenham ward. This should not be happening as I believe focus will be lost on improvements for leftwich and the new affluent areas of kingsmead will be focused on. I own my home and pay as much council tax as those in kingsmead but do not get as good a service. With roads left in poor repair and damaged verges If kingsmead and leftwich are left as one ward there will be greater equality of council money and time 1/1