Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 11 January 2018 18:01 To: reviews Subject: Re.: current reviews

Hello. I am informed that you are conducting a review of several small wards around Nottingham, but your website only flags up one ().

In any event, I currently live in , Nottingham. My understanding is that you are seeking to allocate only one councillor to this historically important and prestigious area. Not only would this leave the area grossly under‐represented, but further, it would leave it unable to wield due influence on City Council decision‐making.

Therefore, I wish to express my firm opinion, that

‐ The Park Estate needs to be a multi‐councillor ward, and

‐ any change to the status quo should be in the direction of adopting the 'Castle Ward' proposal, which would better reflect the views and experience of those living and working in The Park Estate, Castle Boulevard, Castle Marina, and parts of such as the .

Thank you for your attention to my response to your public consultation which, I am informed, is due to end on 15 January.

Very truly yours, Elizabeth Chadwick

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Sent: 22 January 2018 14:25 To: reviews Subject: FW:

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

From: Christine Christie [mailt Sent: 22 January 2018 14:24 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan Subject: Mapperley

Dear Sir or Madam

I think that it is important to keep Mapperley a triple member seat.

The current system is positive for Mapperely and the people who live here.

I hope you do listen to the views posed by people within each ward.

Regards

Christine Christie

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 22 January 2018 01:30 To: reviews Subject: Nottingham City Review

Georgia‐Mae Chung (City/Arboretum/The Park/Lenton & East)

I am a university student in Nottingham and as I have lived in this city for a couple of years I wanted to pass on some comments in support of some of the new proposed electoral wards for the parts of the city I am familiar with.

Firstly, regarding the suggested Arboretum ward – this area is largely dominated by students in a mixture of converted older housing and purpose built halls‐of‐residence as it is very close to the City Campus of Nottingham Trent University. Therefore I think that this proposed ward makes sense as it will give stronger representation not just to students but to everyone living in the compact community around Nottingham Arboretum as it will no longer confuse this community with neighbouring ; Radford and St. Ann’s which, as you have stated in your draft recommendations these are clearly separate areas.

Secondly the proposed City ward is a fantastic suggestion as it will give a clear and strong voice to the large population (again both permanent residents and students) living in the city centre, much better than the existing (and unusually named) Bridge ward does. There is a growing number of people choosing to live in the city centre for convenience, along with a substantial number of students at both universities and it is clear to see that it is different from surrounding communities (virtually all the properties available to buy or rent in the city centre are apartments rather than traditional housing) so it clearly now needs a councillor of its own to be able to deal with its unique issues.

Due to the obvious commercial nature of the city centre it is evidently self‐sufficient for residents as there are an endless number of shopping and leisure opportunities available as well as a dynamic array of different employers. Consequently city centre residents do not depend on neighbouring areas in a way that perhaps other communities would.

From looking at the map of your proposed boundaries for this ward the recommendations clearly identify the natural boundaries which separate the city centre residents from the neighbouring non‐commercial and traditional housing estates such as St. Anns; The Meadows and The Park. So as with Arboretum, these suggested boundaries should be adopted.

I also believe that the recommended names “Arboretum” and “City” are appropriate and should be used in the final recommendations.

My only concern is regarding the proposed “Wollaton East & Lenton” ward. During this academic year I live in Lenton and I worry that this proposed ward is quite large and not very cohesive in terms of community connections. There are a large number of students living in this area which means the demographic is broadly similar however the area around Wollaton Park is very different from Lenton both architecturally and in terms of its community. Lenton is substantially separated from the Wollaton Park estate by the areas around Nottingham University’s Jubilee Campus and the QMC Hospital. Surely the housing around that area would be better represented in a ward with the rest of Wollaton? This would then leave Lenton; Dunkirk and the University Park halls‐of‐residence in a smaller ward bordered to the north by Road.

Other than this the proposals for the general inner city areas and around the universities look very positive and are a definite improvement on current wards.

1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name: Lynne Clare E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why are new boundaries needed? What will it achieve? Is it already a done deal? Will any amount of suggestions make any difference to your decision?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10872 1/1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name: Lynne Clare E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why are new boundaries needed? What will it achieve? Is it already a done deal? Will any amount of suggestions make any difference to your decision?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10872 1/1

Dear Sir/Madam

I have just been reading your report on the proposals for the local ward boundaries for . I have to say my initial reaction is disappointment that a single member ward for the and Silverdale ward was not created, I think there is much to be said for the distinctiveness of the Ancient Wilford Parish in comparison to the rest of Clifton. Furthermore, I find it disappointing that despite the assertion in your report that Wilford and Silverdale are both socially, demographically and culturally distinct from the Clifton estate, and in spite of also having enough electors for a single member ward of its own a Wilford and Silverdale ward does not appear in your draft recommendations. In the hope of achieving this I have attached details of my alternative suggestions on the last page of this letter which I sincerely hope you will adopt.

I hope that this letter will give you reason to reconsider your decision as the implications of your report and the reasons explained above have the impact that the commission have extended the ward boundaries of the Clifton North ward southward to incorporate even more of the Clifton area thus reducing the abilities of Councillors and the City Council to deal effectively with Wilford and Silverdale issues and diluting the interests of the communities of Wilford and Silverdale even more than at current.

Naturally, I appreciate that the Commission are required to meet criteria such as ‘good electoral equality’ and I have attached an alternative ward pattern that fits all three of your main criteria and which keeps the entirety of the Clifton Community within two wards- one being a one member ward covering exactly the same boundaries as the Rivergreen Tenants and Residents Association and almost all of the Dovecote Primary School catchment area (the school which serves the northern portion of the estate) which could perhaps be entitled Rivergreen Ward (or Clifton North) and the other being a three member ward covering the rest of Clifton which could be named Glapton Ward (or Clifton South and Barton Green Ward) largely based on the existing Clifton South and which has slightly better equality than the draft ‘Clifton North’ proposal, as well as having a more compact boundary than your Clifton North. This ward would effectively cover the communities to the West of the A453 Remembrance Way which effectively serving as offshoots of the estate (with the exception of the ancient Clifton Village, with many properties remaining as leaseholder properties by the Clifton Family), as well as the rest of the Clifton Estate not covered by my proposed 1-member Clifton North.

As part of my argument that Clifton and Wilford are such distinct communities and should therefore be in different wards to one another, I would refer to the recent Area 8 Committee report (which acts as a medium between community representatives of community associations and the Councillors for Clifton North, Clifton South and Bridge wards) which demonstrates that Clifton North ward issues largely ignore Wilford and Silverdale issues at the expense of items such as Clifton Town Centre. The September report by the council illustrates how a distinct community such as Silverdale and Wilford has its interests drowned out by Clifton and vice versa depending on the inclinations of whoever happens to be a councillor at the time, in the report for example it is notable that the ward budgets for Clifton North are disproportionately allocated to the Clifton part of the ward rather than the Wilford and Silverdale communities at current, yet in the 2011-2015 period of sitting a disproportionate amount was given to the Wilford and Silverdale areas to the detriment of the Estate, thus why Clifton and Wilford should be kept in separate wards.

I therefore believe that the creation of a single member ward for Silverdale and Wilford presents many advantages for those communities as well as the Clifton Area, I believe it would also improve on the ability of both the City Council and Clifton Councillors to deliver good and effective local governance than at current or under your proposed 3-member ‘Clifton North’ ward which contain too many distinct communities and even should it be adopted it should at least refer to Wilford in the title, ‘Clifton North and Wilford’ would be a more appropriate title, although as I said ideally the two communities should be kept separate from each other.

I also believe that my arrangement would lead to better governance for Clifton because simply having four councillors cover the whole of Clifton, will mean that Clifton matters will be at the fore those councillors and they will be able to work collectively to develop plans for the Clifton Community. At the current moment the LGBCE’s plans will mean that councillors will have to react to the interests of the whole of the northern half of Clifton Estate, which now includes the Town Centre (Clifton Town Centre Regeneration being a topic which dominates Area Committee Agendas at the expense of Wilford and Silverdale matters) and the Clifton Village and Barton Green (‘Hartness Road Estate’), in my proposals the Town Centre would not detract from other areas of the ward, such as Wilford and Silverdale that have no cultural, geographic or transportation links to Clifton Town Centre, with only the No.1 NCT bus serving it down Clifton Lane.

To this end, I have proposed a warding pattern which I believe meets the criteria of the Boundary Commission more effectively than the draft recommendations, therefore I propose the following ward boundaries which will all have ‘good electoral equality’ as per the guidelines set out by the LGBCE by 2023, and will lead to more effective governance and more accurate representation of community identities and interests.

I therefore propose a warding pattern as follows:

Wilford and Silverdale ward- 1 Member

CLNA- 986

CLNB-1535

CLNC- 1456

Total: 3977

Average number of electors per councillor for this ward: 3977

Variance as of 2023 figures-= +3.5%

Rivergreen ward (Clifton North)- 1 Member

CLNE- 2358

CLNG- 1740

Total: 4098

Average number of electors per councillor for this ward: 4098

Variance as of 2023 figures= +6.69%

Glapton Ward (Clifton South and Barton Green) ward- 3 Members

CLND - 933

CLNF - 1099 CLSA -1287

CLSB -1300

CLSC -2900

CLSD - 1238

CLSE - 1478

CLSF - 1124

CLSG - 1256

Total: 12,615

Average number of electors per councillor for this ward: 4205

Variance as of 2023 figures for this ward: +9.47%

In my calculations I have found that it is not possible to create a 2-member Clifton North and a two member Clifton South ward without one of them exceeding the 10% variance and hence why I have suggested a 1 member ward and a 3-member ward. In an ideal world I believe Clifton would have four councillors in a Clifton Ward but I appreciate that four-member wards are not customary to the LGBCE and hence why I think two wards covering the whole of Clifton would be more efficient.

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Sent: 22 January 2018 09:53 To: reviews Subject: FW: Mapperley

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

From: IAN CLEGG [ Sent: 21 January 2018 10:37 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan Subject: Mapperley

Dear Sir I really that think that the choice to keep Mapperley a triple member seat is enormously positive for the area. Not changing the boundaries to any really extra keeps this community together for the future. This is positive for Mapperely and the people who live here. It’s great to have such a strong sense of community within out area and three councillors to represent us. I hope you do listen to the views posed by people within each ward. Kind regards, Ian Cleg Resident

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Jacob C Sent: 03 January 2018 19:14 To: reviews Subject: Nottingham Ward Boundaries Review

To whoever it may concern,

I write to you in response to your proposals for the Nottingham Local Government Boundary Review and in particular your proposed new Lenton and Wollaton East Ward and to express my view on single member wards, being proposed for the first time in Nottingham, which I do not support.

The proposal for Lenton and Wollaton East Ward incorporates a 3 member ward which I think recognises the challenges presented by a ward with two campuses and the Queen's Medical Centre, and has benefits which I demonstrate below. Although this review has been unfair on young people using an arbitrary cut off date, the proposal for this ward respects the local beat patrols for our police officers and community protection officers as well as our local parks in Dunkirk and Lenton.

I wish to express my opposition to single member wards. In an age where councillors are more connected to local residents than ever before through the use of social media and electronic communications, the demands placed upon councillors have increased. This workload should be shared out between councillors to avoid deterring those with families or other jobs from standing to represent Nottingham residents - multi-member wards achieve this.

It should be the aim of all councils to increase the representation of disabled people within their communities. Single member wards limit the areas those with disabilities affecting their mobility can represent. Councillors in multi-member wards can share responsibilities to cater to these needs so becoming a councillor is not exclusive to those without disability.

In addition to helping increase representation, multi-member wards recognise that all councillors have different skills and abilities which can be shared to effectively represent residents of a particular ward. For newer councillors, serving in a multi-member ward means working alongside more experienced members who can give guidance and in turn a better service to the community.

I hope you will recognise that Nottingham as a large core city needs the benefits which multi-member wards bring, as your Commission has done with the Leeds, Manchester and Newcastle Boundary reviews.

Yours, Jacob Collier

1 Ms Nancy Collins-Burgess

To the Boundary Commission,

As a local resident of the Meadows I wish to voice my opposition to the proposals to split the Meadows into 2 separate single-member wards. I believe doing this ignores the very fabric of the community and by splitting the ward I fear that it has the potential to cause division amongst neighbours and close communities.

I have lived in the Meadows for 5 years, I have friends and family across the area and the strength of the area is its community, its people and its diversity. I live in one of the new houses, new people move into the ward which has added new faces to the community. I worry that splitting the ward will have a negative impact on community cohesion. I have always been proud of our mixed community in the Meadows, it is our strength, and creating an area of predominantly white, middle-class people will damage all of that.

The Meadows has a rich history, one which the people that live here are proud of. There are shared pasts and to ignore this I think loses sight of the sense of community identity which people in the Meadows are proud of. It is for this reason, I object to the Commission’s proposal to create 2 separate single-member wards in Bridge ward.

Yours sincerely, Nancy Collins-Burgess Mr Jonathan Collins

LGBCE’s proposals for Bridge Ward

Introduction

I moved to the Meadows 5 years ago. It is a thriving and distinctive community where people are part of a single community. I can walk through the Meadows, through the Victoria Embankment and family-occupied terrace houses, through to the city centre.

People know the Meadows as an area bounded by Queen’s Drive and London Road. I feel that the Commission’s proposals artificially divide the area and damage its community identity. To suggest splitting these vibrant services over two wards loses sight of what is a strength – it’s a sense of community identity, and a thriving local community. I shop at the Bridgeway Centre, local shops are easily accessible for residents throughout the Meadows with well-established transport links, like the Green Line city bus which rides through the heart of the Meadows.

Multi-cultural community

The Meadows is about its people, I’ve always valued the mix of tenures that provide homes, the mix of cultures, people and races that have lived together as one community for generations.

The Meadows is a ward with a history of multi-culturalism, people from different backgrounds and race living together, side by side as one community. This is what makes the Meadows a place where I want to live, and a place where my children have lived.

The last thing I would want is for that to be lost or divided and people to part of an area that is predominantly owner-occupier, white and middle class.

Single member ward

As a resident I don’t want to be represented by just one councillor. What happens to me and my views when a local councillor has a period of absence? What if my councillor disagrees with me and doesn’t take up my concerns over a particular issue? With two or three councillors representing me, I have the opportunity to talk to two or three people and that is two or three people representing me at the Council out of fifty five members. It is for these reasons that I object to the Commission’s proposals.

Jonathan Collins

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Josh Cook Sent: 23 January 2018 20:13 To: reviews Subject: Submission made 8:08

Dear Sir/Madam, I am aware that the LGBCE's closing date for the Nottingham City Council is tonight at 9:00 PM, I have been unable to submit due to some sort of computer and am emailing my submission and wonder if you would be so kind as to publish and accept it. I'd like to submit the following case for a Clifton East Ward and am happy to have it published by the commission for the public to see, and to have it considered by the commission, I also agree to your terms and conditions as set out on the website. This email is sent at 8:13 and should thus be included as part of the review. Kind Regards, Mr Joseph Cook

My case is as follows:

To whomever it may concern, I am writing this because I am not thrilled with your proposals for ‘Clifton North’ and ‘Clifton South’ wards, having lived in Clifton all my life I passionately believe that a ward covering as much of the Clifton Estate as possible would be the most appropriate course of action, this would provide a strong boundary following the A453 or Clifton Lane and would mean that the interests of Clifton Estate would be better managed. I also have to say that it is my belief that community identity was not reflected in the draft recommendations, the Wilford and Silverdale areas are very different from the estate and they have no transport links to the middle of the estate (Wilford and Silverdale would be lumped into Clifton North at current, which contains the heart of the estate, with which it has no links). I have read the proposals that Nottingham City Council have published in their documents for Full Council dated 22nd January 2018 and I largely agree with their proposals for a ‘Clifton East’ and a ‘Clifton West’ ward (if adopted I suggest the title of ‘Clifton West and Wilford’ ward as a more accurate description of communities in that ward). Having read the report I would like to iterate further some points that the commission may or not realise, as I have pointed out previously the Wilford and Silverdale areas {especially Silverdale} are cut off from the main estate, however there are very strong links between these two areas and the smaller communities which could be described as ‘Clifton West’, not just because of demographic factors such as similar age profiles in the ward, or indices of deprivation but also because of the present of strong transport links between the communities. Nottingham City transport for instance employs the Number 1 bus which has operated for nearly 100 years which follows from the City Centre, through the area of Rushcliffe before following Wilford and Clifton Lane and terminating near Lark Hill Retirement Village (which would conveniently also be in the Clifton West ward), this would lead to more effective governance as Councillors would be easily able to access all of the smaller ‘minority communities’ such as Wilford, Silverdale, Clifton Grove, Clifton Village, Barton Green and Lark Hill from the A453 corridor, either by bus or car. If we compare this to the current proposed ‘Clifton North’ there is no such bus that performs a circuit offering a route between Wilford and through the estate, and many of the areas to the West of Clifton are difficult to access via tram being on the periphery of Clifton, and therefore on that basis weight should be added to the proposal for a ‘Clifton West and Wilford ward’.

1 Furthermore, I would like to add that many of the community groups of the minority groups are different in nature to those in the estate, and it would be beneficial for Councillors to be more accustom to the nature of the way these groups operate, for instance the areas to the West of Clifton have been socially divided from the main Estate due to the horrific North/South split, which has lumped in areas of widely diverging demographics with each other, making efficient management of these areas difficult for councillors to juggle, thus I do indeed feel that a ‘Clifton East’ ward would be better as councillors for that ward would be able to work with Clifton Estate specific groups such as ‘Clifton Family and Support Group, Clifton Donation Group and the Clifton Community Group (which is effectively exclusive to residents of the Estate), Friends of Clifton Flower Park, Highbank Community Group, Rivergreen Tenants and Residents Association etc. All of these groups are active in promoting Estate specific facilities, whereas all of the minority communities in the ‘Clifton West and Wilford ward all have their own individual community groups (with the exception of Clifton Grove Estate; and the NTU campus is very much separate but represented by the Nottingham Trent University Students Union) To this end I believe that the commission should support a ‘Clifton West and Wilford Ward’, and a ‘Clifton East’, I have lived in Clifton for many years and believe that the councils submission makes sense for both the demographic, transport and community links that I have outlined above. I sincerely hope that the nonsense of the North/South split is therefore finally dispensed with for good. Mr Joseph Cook

2

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Sent: 18 January 2018 15:18 To: reviews Subject: FW: Boundary review: Arboretum ward, Nottingham

Hi, we're accepting Nottingham submissions until the 23rd as the Council's submission is late.

Thanks

Dan

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

-----Original Message----- From: Benedict Coope Sent: 18 January 2018 15:05 To: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Subject: Boundary review: Arboretum ward, Nottingham

To the Boundary Commissioners

I have lived in what you are proposing as the new Arboretum Ward for a three years. I don't like the fact that you are cutting this ward down in size and representation. We are being cut off from the area where most of our services are, in Hyson Green.

Hyson Green has all the services people in Arboretum use regularly, the supermarkets, shops, Mary Potter Health Centre, the Library, Bridgeway Centre, New Art Exchange and the playground and sports pitches on the Forest, so I cannot understand why you are isolating us. We should be joined together as one ward, with the same Councillors who understand the needs of the local community representing us.

We should also have more than one Councillor. If we only have one, what happens if they are ill or go off on holiday? Who will cover the surgeries and community meetings where people who need to go for advice or help go to talk to their representatives? If we were joined onto Hyson Green we would all have more Councillors to share, and would be able to choose who to go to if we had a problem.

I hope you will listen to reason.

Yours Sincerely, Ben Cooper

-- Benedict Cooper Freelance journalist

1

2

Review Officer (Nottingham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

Dear Review Officer

I am writing to you to comment on your proposals to change the ward boundaries of Radford and Park, Dunkirk and Lenton and Wollaton East and . I am a resident of Radford and Park and was employed for 8 years as the Manager of the Dunkirk and Lenton Forum, a voluntary organisation which was originally funded by One Nottingham to carry out community development work and social cohesion. I am therefore very well acquainted with the issues and identify of Dunkirk and Lenton and its surrounding neighbours.

I strongly disagree that Dunkirk and Lenton ward should be combined with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey. The areas do not share a common identity and a combined area would not result in effective and convenient local government. I also strongly disagree that the Park Estate should be a single-member ward.

The simple solution to Wollaton West and Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey is to combine them into 2 2 member wards. Both wards share the same characteristics: 1. suburban with housing built post-1920 2. low-density housing, 3. access to good schools – all children in catchment for Fernwood Secondary School 4. thriving local shops 5. wide open green tranquil spaces. 6. low crime rate. 7. Easy access to Wollaton Park and mostly situated around the 4 sides of the Park. 8. Same Area Committee 7 for decision making and consulation with public

One of the key arguments for keeping these wards together rather than combining with wards with few or no similarities is the Council’s Area Committee system. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey and Wollaton West are in the same Area Committee, known as Area 7. This is the current system for governing arrangements within the Council and as far as I know, works effectively. The Committee section is for making decisions, discussing issues common to both wards and making residents representatives aware of new initiatives and changes.

I believe the easy solution would be to combine both the Wollaton Wards and then divide equally into 2 2-member wards. The variances would be:

Ward Polling District Electoral Forecast Wollaton West WOWA 2,433 Wollaton West WOWB 2,110 Wollaton West WOWC 1,381 Wollaton West WOWD 2,182 Wollaton West WOWE 3,076 Wollaton East and WLAA 1,148 Lenton Abbey Wollaton East and WLAB 856 Lenton Abbey Wollaton East and WLAC 1,033 Lenton Abbey Wollaton East and WLAD 902 Lenton Abbey Wollaton East and WLAE 811 Lenton Abbey TOTAL FOR BOTH 15,932 WOLLATON WARDS AVERAGE FOR 2 2- 7,966 MEMBER WARDS Variance for 2 2- + 3.7% member wards

This variance of +3.7% would provide very good electoral equality.

Dunkirk and Lenton is combined in the Area Committee 4 with the Park Estate, and other polling districts in Radford and Arboretum ward. Issues which this area committee discusses frequently include night-time noise, fly tipping and dirty streets and houses in multiple occupation. The postal code of NG7 is characterised by being close to the City Centre and containing large, older housing stock which in many cases is owned by private landlords and rented to multiple occupants. These issues have nothing in common with Wollaton or Lenton Abbey.

Other issues which Dunkirk and Lenton ward has in common with the Park Estate but not with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey are:

1. The two areas both have strong residents associations (The Nottingham Park Residents Association www.parknews.co.uk) and the Lenton Drives and Neighbours Residents Association. The two associations share information and write articles for each other’s publications. Both residents associations take part in the same charity fundraising for the Lenton Centre, a volunteer-run community and leisure/swimming centre. 2. Children who live in the Park Estate and who attend state school will generally attend Edna G Olds Academy in Lenton. 3. There are two public rights of way linking the Park Estate with Lenton. One of those joining Park Road with Lenton Road was officially recognised at a public enquiry by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 20/11/2013 (Ref FPS/Q3060/7/1). In favour of recognising the order of a right of way, the Inspector said: “I consider that a public footpath from Lenton to Nottingham, across The Park, has an ancient origin and had come into existence by the end of the 17C. “ 4. The two areas also share the same concerns about planning and how to resist conversion of family houses into houses of multiple occupancy (HMO) and how to attract as many non-transient residents to live in the area so a more sustainable community can be obtained. Since around 2000, both communities have been substantially altered by the boom in private rented accommodation. The Park Estate is estimated to have at least one third of properties privately rented, whilst Dunkirk and Lenton is around 50%. The transience of populations in private rented accommodation undermines the cohesion and sustainability of the communities and should be addressed by joint measures. 5. The two communities also share night-time noise concerns caused by house parties in converted HMOs. The past 2 years has seen combined campaigning by both communities to ask for more resources to fight noise and ASB at night-time. Both communities are concerned with the licencing of sales of alcohol which can affect ASB issues. There is a Community Trigger in progress at the moment to look at noise and low-level ASB and attended by residents in Lenton and the Park Estate who have been affected by the problems. 6. The communities also have conservation areas in common. The Park Estate is one large conservation area which was designated in 1987 whilst Lenton contains 2 conservation areas: New Lenton (designated 1976) and Old Lenton (designated 1978). The Park Estate houses a number of residents who take an active part in campaigning for the conservation area to be maintained as agreed and these residents could be helpful in supporting the Lenton Conservation areas which have been more undermined and need a more active voice to support them. Details of the conservation areas can be found at https://nottinghaminsight.org.uk/f/96135.

Lenton is an historic community dating back to before the establishment of by the Cluniac order of monks in 1108. An offshoot of the Priory, the Rock Chapel of St Mary is within the Park Estate boundary. There are protected monuments in both wards.

Geographically there are other strong ties: both communities are boarded by the Derby Road (an ancient trackway now a major arterial route) on one side and the Nottingham Canal (constructed 1790s) on the other.

Both areas are urban in nature and proudly independent. The Park Estate has its own company to take care of the streets and gas lighting, Lenton has its own independent cinema and volunteer-run historic swimming pool.

I propose you join Dunkirk/Lenton, The Park Estate and the City Centre into a 3-member ward as such:

2016 2023 DUNA 2,647 2,909 DUNB 1,602 1,605 DUNC 852 855 RPAF 2,878 3,296 BRIB 2333 3423 10,312 12,088

This would result in a variance of +4.9% and provide an excellent electoral equality and join together polling districts which are set to see unprecedented increases in electors and changes to their demographics over the coming 6 years. Local councillors will be able to concentrate expertise on licencing, transient populations and ASB.

I look forward to hearing from you, Yours faithfully Fiona Corbett

Review Officer (Nottingham) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

18 January 2018

Dear Nottingham City Review Officer

As a long term resident, I would like to argue against your current proposals and submit an alternative view which I believe will ensure there is more convenient and effective local government and also provides a good electoral equality.

I have comments to make about the current wards Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey , Wollaton West, Dunkirk and Lenton, and Radford and Park. I have examined the polling district data on your website.

I strongly disagree that Dunkirk and Lenton ward should be combined with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey. The areas do not share a common identity and a combined area would not result in effective and convenient local government. I also strongly disagree that the Park Estate should be a single- member ward.

Wollaton West and Wollaton East/ Lenton Abbey

The simple solution to Wollaton West and Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey is to combine them into 2 2-councillor wards. Both wards share the same characteristics: ● Suburban, low-density housing built post-1920 ● access to good schools – all children in catchment for Fernwood Secondary School ● thriving local shops ● wide open green tranquil spaces. ● low crime rate. ● Easy access to Wollaton Park and mostly situated around the 4 sides of the Park. ● Same Area Committee 7 for decision making and consultation with public

One of the key arguments for keeping these wards together rather than combining with wards with few or no similarities is the Council’s Area Committee system. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey and Wollaton West are in the same Area Committee, known as Area 7. The Committee section is for making decisions, discussing issues common to both wards and making residents representatives aware of new initiatives and changes.

I suggest creating 2 wards of Wollaton West and Abbey, and Wollaton Park in the following manner:

Combining both the Wollaton Wards and splitting roughly equally into 2 2- councillor wards would result in the following: Wollaton West and Abbey

Ward Polling District Electoral Forecast Wollaton West and 8,046 Abbey WOWD, WOWE, WLAC, WLAD, WLAE Variance for a 2 2- +4.7% member ward Wollaton Park WLAA, WLAB, WOWA, 7,946 WOWB, WOWC Variance for 2 2- +3.7% councillor wards

This variances of +4.7% for Wollaton West and Abbey and +3.7% for Wollaton Park would provide very good electoral equalities.

Dunkirk and Lenton

Dunkirk and Lenton is combined in the Area Committee 4 with the Park Estate, and other polling districts in Radford and Arboretum ward. Issues which this area committee discusses frequently include night-time noise, fly tipping and dirty streets and houses in multiple occupation. The postal code of NG7 is characterised by being close to the City Centre and containing large, older housing stock which in many cases is owned by private landlords and rented to multiple occupants. These issues have nothing in common with Wollaton or Lenton Abbey.

Other issues which Dunkirk and Lenton ward has in common with the Park Estate but not with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey are:

● The two areas both have strong residents associations (The Nottingham Park Residents Association www.parknews.co.uk) and the Lenton Drives and Neighbours Residents Association. Both residents associations take part in the same charity fundraising for the Lenton Centre, a volunteer-run community and leisure/swimming centre. ● Children who live in the Park Estate and who attend state school will generally attend Edna G Olds Academy in Lenton or Dunkirk Primary. ● There are two public rights of way linking the Park Estate with Lenton. One of those joining Park Road with Lenton Road was officially recognised at a public enquiry by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 20/11/2013 (Ref FPS/Q3060/7/1). ● The two areas also share the same concerns about planning and how to resist conversion of family houses into houses of multiple occupancy (HMO) .Since around 2000, both communities have been substantially altered by the boom in private rented accommodation. The Park Estate is estimated to have at least one third of properties privately rented, whilst Dunkirk and Lenton is around 50%. The transience of populations in private rented accommodation undermines the cohesion and sustainability of the communities and should be addressed by joint measures. ● The two communities also share night-time noise concerns caused by house parties in converted HMOs. The past 2 years has seen combined campaigning by both communities to ask for more resources to fight noise and ASB at night-time. Both communities are concerned with the licencing of sales of alcohol which can affect ASB issues. There is a Community Trigger in progress at the moment to look at noise and low-level ASB and attended by residents in Lenton and the Park Estate who have been affected by the problems. ● The communities also have conservation areas in common. The Park Estate is one large conservation area which was designated in 1987 whilst Lenton contains 2 conservation areas: New Lenton (designated 1976) and Old Lenton (designated 1978).

Geographically there are other strong ties: both communities are boarded by the Derby Road (an ancient track, now a major arterial route) on one side and the Nottingham Canal (constructed 1790s) on the other.

Both areas are urban with strong identities. The Park Estate has its own company to take care of the streets and gas lighting, Lenton has its own independent cinema and volunteer-run historic swimming pool.

I propose you join Dunkirk/Lenton, The Park Estate and the City Centre into a 3-councillor ward as such:

2016 2023 DUNA 2,647 2,909 DUNB 1,602 1,605 DUNC 852 855 RPAF 2,878 3,296 BRIB 2333 3423 10,312 12,088

This would result in a variance of +4.9% and provide an excellent electoral equality and join together polling districts which are set to see unprecedented increases in electors and changes to their demographics over the coming 6 years. Local councillors will be able to concentrate expertise on licencing, transient populations and ASB.

I look forward to hearing from you John Curran

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Gary de Banke Sent: 15 January 2018 11:01 To: reviews Subject: Nottingham City Council - Ward Boundary Changes

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write in respect of proposed changes to ward boundaries in Nottingham City. I reside in the Nottingham East area and can see no need whatsoever for any changes to its constituent wards.

I am aware of plans to create a one member ward for Arboretum and a two member ward for Hyson Green. I believe very strongly that multi-member wards offer more to residents as better representation is provided in terms of membership of committees and also providing easier access to a Councillors and a mitigation against holidays, illness, etc. These two areas share facilities such as the Forest Recreation ground and are similar in terms of demographics. I believe this is a compelling case for a three-member ward covering both areas.

Yours sincerely,

Gary de Banke

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Sent: 19 January 2018 09:33 To: reviews Subject: FW:

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

From: Xander Edgal [mailto: Sent: 18 January 2018 23:04 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan Subject:

Dear Sir or Madam I am thoroughly dissatisfied at what has been suggested for the Radford and Park area.

Whilst I do note that the Radford/Lenton area on paper has very little in common with the Park the shared use of Derby Road and the transport links on it, and the fact the part is pretty much surrounded by the Lenton, it is a close community, even if it does not appear so at first glance. Due to the number of flat conversions in the Park there is even a healthy number of students in that area, connecting it even more to the surrounding area.

I am also bemused at the sliver or Radford to the north, an area with is very much a part of Radford, being carved off and added to another ward. Radford is a distinct an area as the Park and yet it does not seem to be given the same due because of the fact it is a much poorer area.

I have some suggestions I would like you to listen to: ‐ Re‐add the Park to Radford and rejoin the Radford ward. ‐ I note that one of your submissions suggested the Park has more in similar with the City. Perhaps that is the case. In that case, instead of having a single member ward in the Park and in the City, create a Park and City ward. I don’t like what has been suggested for my ward and I hope you see fit to change it in the final recommendations.

Your Sincerley, Xander

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. Virus-free. www.avg.com

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan Sent: 22 January 2018 09:53 To: reviews Subject: RE: Boundary Review, Nottingham

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

From: On Behalf Of Matt Southall Sent: 20 January 2018 23:58 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan Subject: Boundary Review, Nottingham

Hi,

Would just like to add my voice to what I suspect is a growing chorus ‐ multi‐member wards are beneficial for residents and I'll be very pleased to see Mapperley (my own ward) remain a 3‐member ward. I'd also like to see other Nottingham wards left as they are, with multiple members, rather than creating new single‐member wards, to little gain and substantial loss of choice and representation to their residents.

Regards,

Matt

‐‐ Worktribe Ltd

1 City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name: Mark Evans

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Thank you for sending me this information and taking note of my original comments specifically in relation to establishing "The Park" as a standalone ward. As a Nottingham resident of many years I'm actually quite taken aback that you have listened to people. People in Nottingham know that on matters of importance Nottingham City Council makes a decision first and then carries out a "consultation", the results of which are then ignored. I have to say that the work you have carried out is impressive and actually visiting the areas before deciding where to place boundaries is very sensible. For a long time the conflation of Radford with The Park has meant that The Park is ignored by councillors who focus only on the Radford area as that is where their votes come from. My attempts to engage my councillors were always ignored. It will be refreshing to have our own councillor in The Park who will represent our views. I hope that the changes you have put forward are adopted

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded