9/5/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
9/5/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Kaleem Arshad E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Mr. Comment text: Hi ...I live on Mangotsfield. We border Siston Common. Could you please keep the Beaufort Vale development So thing Siston. Kind Regards Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10335 1/1 10/18/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Erica Baccus E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Member of the public Comment text: Hi I live in Cheswick Village for over 4.5 years with a postcode of counting as being in Bristol boundary... well seemingly just. It has been difficult to simply explain (sometimes Bristol local authorities forget they listed my council tax banding being Bristol) that I'm in Bristol when South Glos boundary line is l terally across the road in Danby Street Aroura Spring section of the estate. I get the impression that where I'm located is rather confusing for all when my buildings are cons dered being in the Lockleaze ward for voting yet have BS16 Bristol postcode (many remark as Fishponds/Frenchay as I'm M32 side of estate and my Gp map area implies I'm in Frenchay area) in the Stoke Gifford Parish (Uwe) next to Frenchay area with Filton cemetery near to the regularly use estate entrance onto Long Down Drive Cheswick Village estate passing Stoke Lodge park estate woods as you drive. I don't mention Stoke Gifford on my address anymore even though that's what I'm meant to due to post and people mistaking for Little Stoke or my address being in South Glos despite BS16 postcode. Yes it's rather confusing for all as other assumpt ons are made that I live in Filton or Stoke Gifford South Glos (not recognising the Bristol part I live in) or Abbey Wood or Lockleaze or even Stoke Park. Many commun ty transport simply refuse to come to me due the boundary lines saying how this affects their funding. Please explain how this proposed opt on going to work as well as in what ways will this reduce confusion for all? Please also explain how my area location will still be recognised being in Bristol boundary line? How post people, taxis, voting polls, medical, local Bristol author ties, bin collect ons, prescription service etc and a whole lot of services etc are going to know where to find me and others in Danby Street in the once known Aurora Springs section of Cheswick village Stoke Gifford non South Glos part of the estate though upon accessing estate entrance many may view as being in South Glos? Curious why the name replacement of 'Univers ty' is suggested when the part of the estate I live in is nearer to Stoke Lodge park, Lockleaze and M32? When most of the estate may not even dentify with this too. Seems misleading from this point view. Did I miss a poll on a selection of names as I'm in the Bristol section of the estate? Will I be remaining in the Bristol boundaries or going over to South Glos? Agree that something needs to be done to simplify but with the layout of the estate as t is presently, I'm baffled. Reassurances please for us non South Glos part of the estate (currently known as Cheswick Village) res dents. Kind regards Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10724 1/1 South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: J Baldwin E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have no strong views on the proposed boundary changes. Please just do it carefully and act for citizens, not just politicians. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Rachael Bardoe E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Ser ously? Why are we changing the wards? This smacks of gerrymandering. What a disgrace! Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10296 1/1 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Ross Barnes E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I do not agree with making an entire area 'university's this makes the area and surrounding roads part of the university campus which is not going to have positive connotat ons it is likely to loose families from the area. The area should incorporate the nice surrounding areas - stoke park. There are a number of business (mod), uwe and homes. The new name should demonstrate the whole area not just 'university's - a lazy name Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10244 1/1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Edward Beavis E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: We have been residence in for some 45 years and wish to remain in Patchway ward not as a current proposal in Charlton and Cribbs ward,we cons der ourselves Patchwegiens and wish to remain as such. Your sincerely Edward and Elizabeth Beavis Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10867 1/1 South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Sheila Bennett E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: The parish is being ripped apart. I object to the proposed changes to Siston parish . Bridgeyate is included in the new Boyd Valley area which is mostly comprised of rural villages. Bridgeyate is urban. We are attached to Warmley and Oldland Common it is difficult to see where one area stops and starts we are that close. The council tax letters are always addressed to us at Bridgeyate Warmley. Siston is being split apart with no central focus it will loose its identity. Siston has a long history and identity which should be retained. If would be far better to keep Siston intact as it almost meets the levelling criteria. The proposed new area is far too large and has no community heart. Even with 2 councillors it will be difficult to address the residents needs. The other issue which has not been addresed is council tax. Some proposed changes will move people into higher council tax areas. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 10/13/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Julia Bernau E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: As a resident of Old Sodbury I object to the proposal to reduce thenumber of Town Councillors for Old Sodbury to two. Old Sodbury is spread over a wide area and councillors have a lot of ground to cover. In addition there are proposals for housing developments in the next few years which would significantly increase the population. The Review does not take account of these factors but should do so. In para 10 of the draft recommendations you state that proposals should reflect commun ty dentity but you appear to have based you recommendat ons solely on the size of the elctorate without taking account of the geographical factors. With only two councillors Old Sodbury wouldhave very little say in decis ons which would affect it. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10689 1/1 8/31/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Catherine Biggs E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I am pleased that Emersons Green Ward has been extended to include the whole of the Lyde Green development in the new proposals. It will make a big difference to residents there as residents in neighbouring streets will be able to contact the same Councillors. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10261 1/1 10/18/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Terri Bourton E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I don’t think university is a good name. I think with t being so close to the university post may end up mistakingly being sent to the university. Additionally telling people you live in ‘university’. I am moving to the area and really dislike the name of an area being ‘university.’ Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10726 1/1 8/29/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Andrew Brace E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Why not transfer all the wards inside the M4 into Bristol as they have 0117 phone codes and as for BS15 and BS16, cross over the boundary. They are treated as Bristol. The wards on the other s de of the M4 are rural and have 01454 telephone codes and separate post codes Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10233 1/1 8/31/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal South Gloucestershire Personal Details: Name: Clare Bradshaw E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I've read the proposals and think this works very well. It's absolutely essential that we work to achieve equality with each vote, as the current system where a person's vote could be twice as important as another's, and more if you happen to live in areas of Scotland, goes against our democratic principles. Try putting a map of average people per constituency against a map of average wealth? You'll quickly see a significant correlation.