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. In simple terms, the current system means wealthier people have a greater say.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10266 1/1 South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Sam Bromiley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I write in order to disagree with your draft new boundary proposals to create a new Staple Hill and Mangotsfield 3 member ward. I am lucky to live in such a strong community as Mangotsfield. We have our own range of services, shops, post office and public facilities such as toilets and a car park. We have our own Remembrance services at our Mangotsfield War Memorial. Our children have their own separate Scout Troop and we have Barley Close Primary School and Mangotsfield Secondary School, whereas Staple Hill has Staple Hill Primary School and Downend School. Staple Hill is very different and separate to Mangotsfield and so be unsuited to being combined in a large 3 councillor ward. Mangotsfield should be represented in its own 1 councillor ward with Staple Hill continuing to be a 2 councillor ward, which would reflect the separateness of these two areas. I would also like to comment on the proposed merger of Siston and Boyd Valley. I feel that the areas of Boyd Valley look to Siston and Warmley for local shops and community facilities and would like to also state my support for this proposal.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Ben Brown E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I feel strongly that the label 'University' should be changed to reflect the actual settlements w thin the boundary and not just one featured institut on within it. For myself - as a resident affected by this - I don't want to be living within what might be perceived as the UWE campus (as we have enough problems with the way Stoke Park is being treated by the UWE students already!). I would prefer that the label mirrors the descript on applied to the other boundaries; that is to say, a description of the populations it contains. For example 'Stoke Park and Cheswick'.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10235 1/1 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Tory Brown E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I would really not be happy with naming the ward that I live in "University" as I am most defin tely not a student and don't really want to be lumped in with them! I would much prefer for t to be called "Stoke Park", "Chesw ck" or something similar. I think it's a bit unfair considering that most of the people living on this estate aren't actually students and don't want to be defined by the university. Thanks!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10245 1/1 9/5/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Alun Chave E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I like the proposal to keep the new build areas in Charlton Hayes separate as it is a new area built on the old village of Charlton.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10342 1/1 Starkie, Emily
From: Graham Sent: 06 October 2017 17:10 To: reviews Subject: APPLEAL against the Proposed Boundary-change for Bradley Stoke South
Sirs, The purpose of this email is to register extreme concerns regarding the proposed boundary change affecting:
Berkeley Mead, Little Meadow, Huckley Way, Goose Acre, The Valls and Robbins Close in the township of Bradley Stoke.
We have been advised of this proposal by our local council representatives; Councillors John Ashe and Roger Avenin.
Having studied this proposal, I make the following Observations:
1. There appears to be no relevant justification for this proposal; apart from shift the responsibility for Maintenance and cost of Street Care to an adjacent community. 2. There is a very clear separation between the Township of Bradley Stoke and Stoke Gifford; the Winterbourne Road. This not only obvious on the regional maps, but is a ‘visible divider’ when view on satellite-maps. 3. Aside from the roads, southwards, Bradley Stoke Way (at the north) and Orpheus Avenue (at the south, there is only ONE passage for the two communities to freely communicate, the under-passage from Huckley Way to Ox Barton (under the Winterbourne Road). This passageway has a reputation as a dangerous place, especially after-dark where Fights, Drug-taking and Vandalism frequently occur; usually involving the youth of both communities. 4. The streets of Bradley Stoke are already in serious disrepair after years of neglect exacerbated by numerous (botched and un-monitored) Utility Works. 5. Taking the point at (3) above, I fear that the road maintenance and street-care situation will only worsen when we will be regarded as (potentially) unwanted neighbours of Stoke Gifford. 6. Regarding requests for services or for complaints, The current channel for requests are handled appropriately, but we will now have to deal with Stoke Gifford councillors who (in the past) have made it very clear that they resent so many aspects of the Bradley Stoke development ‘on their door-step’ – and ‘all that traffic through their village’. A recipe for good relations? 7. Regarding the point about our ‘address’ remaining as Bradley Stoke, this is just totally confusing.
This proposal comes hot on the tail of other ill-conceived planning and development activities:
a. Like the Metro-Bus – with NO identified Operator b. A route through Bradley Stoke on a road the directly serves NO housing, residents will have to walk miles to use this service. c. Like the Bus Lanes that are non-contiguous, encroaching out into the Traffic lane frequently; without a clear-way for this bus-lane and supporting bridges, it should NEVER have receive approval.
This proposal is the last straw, I want to scream - STOP this madness!!
Finally, with the rapid expansion of BRISTOL Northwards, I can only speculate that it will not be long before the City of Bristol subsumes everything its path; first Stoke Gifford, then Bradley Stoke. UNLESS a really strong planning regulator shows its mettle.
If this proposal is approved, I can only assume that we have a totally uncaring and ‘hands-off’ policy regarding planning approval.
Sincerely, Graham Cheater, a resident of 27 years.
1
2 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Ben Clark E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in the area that you have proposed to call University and I strongly object to the name as it implies that the Univers ty is the central point of the entire area. Res dents in the area already suffer a great deal of issues with the University from massive Parking issues, large numbers of private houses becoming HMO's and anti social behaviour. The University is not a great neighbour and permanent res dents needs are often overlooked. For the Council to call an entire area after the University gives the wrong impression and sets an awful tone. Please give some thought to permanent residents of the area rather and give us an identity that isn't associated with the University.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10247 1/1 Starkie, Emily
From: roger coales Sent: 03 November 2017 17:26 To: reviews Subject: Ward Boundary Consultation - South Gloucestershire Council
South Gloucestershire Council Review
I was one of the councillors who represented Woodstock Ward throughout the period 1983 ‐ 2011, firstly on Kingswood Borough Council and then from 1995 onwards on South Gloucestershire Council.
I write in support of your draft recommendation for Woodstock Ward.
Between 1983 and 2011 (and subsequently) the northern boundary of Woodstock Ward was always the A420. Although this was a clear line on the map, the road did not mark the start or finish of any local communities. I often found it difficult that issues facing residents in Woodstock Ward on one side of the A420 would also equally affect residents on the other side of the road ‐ but they were the responsibility of another set of councillors. Local government services are delivered on both sides of the road and it will be easier for residents if they are served by the same councillors regardless of which side of the road they happen to live. So I think that ceasing to use the A420 as a ward boundary is a major step forward.
Kings Oak Academy (formerly Kingsfield School) has always served secondary aged children on both sides of the A420 and the proposed new Woodstock Ward includes a large part of Kings Oak's catchment area. The school is not just a focus for secondary education in the area, but its sports, arts and drama facilities are also a community focus from both sides of the A420.
All areas within the proposed Woodstock Ward look to Kingswood Town Centre as a significant local shopping area and this is reinforced by a number of bus routes to the Shopping Centre ‐ not just routes using the A420 Hill Street/High Street, but also routes using Holly Hill Road north of the A420 and Cock Road south of the A420.
For these reasons, I support your provisional recommendation and urge that you keep it as part of your final proposals.
Roger Coales
1 9/7/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: PAT Cotterell E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am only interested in Dodington. And I think the change is good for Dodington.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10364 1/1 Starkie, Emily
From: Keith Cranney Sent: 07 November 2017 03:05 To: reviews Subject: LGBC
We believe strongly that Stoke Gifford Ward should remain a 3 member ward, as it is now, and therefore Little Stoke should not be broken off into a 1 member ward, as the LGBC proposal. But we do support the growth of this ward by including an area south main rail line to help electoral parity.
All of Stoke Gifford is in the same civil and ecclesiastical parish with its own Parish Council. The Parish Council actually has its own HQ/ Offices in the Little Stoke part of the parish, where it holds its regular parish council meetings.
The parish church and Vicar of St Michael’s covers all of Stoke Gifford Parish, including Little Stoke. The St Michael’s Parish Centre is used by all residents of the parish, not just those on the south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road. The Centre has meeting rooms, its own café and will soon hold the new Community Library that is been started and will serve all residents of the parish.
The Stoke Gifford Baptist Church’s congregation is drawn from across all part of the parish, not from one particular area.
The Stoke Gifford‐Little Stoke‐Harry Stoke‐Cheswick‐UWE Community Engagement Forum hold the meetings here in Little Stoke /Parish Councils facilities.
Little Stoke Community Social club is situated here in Little Stoke and serves the whole community and its members from Stoke Gifford / Little Stoke with facilities and teams e.g. skittle, darts teams and social events held by members and families from across the whole of Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke these facilities are also regularly used by Stoke Gifford parish council for community related meetings, Little Stoke /Stoke Gifford Bee Keepers Association have there bee hives and facilities here and hold their meetings on site.. .
The Stoke Gifford /Little Stoke NHW meetings are held on behalf of the whole community in the Little Stoke area. The Stoke Gifford Police N/H beat team hold their Police surgeries on behalf of Little Stoke / Stoke Gifford area in Little Stoke.
The two youth clubs in the parish work closely together and each draw young people from across the whole parish, not just in their immediate areas. . There are two primary schools St Michael and Little Stoke. As St Michael School is always over‐ subscribed, children from the south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road will attend Little Stoke School as well. The same occur with the different play groups across the parish e.g. Bright Sparks 1 Nursery and pre‐school serves the whole of the Stoke Gifford community from its facility here in Little Stoke.
There are many uniformed groups in the parish eg cubs, rainbows, guides and especially Scouts have been running since 1952 also army cadets all are drawn from all parts of the parish, so Little Stoke cannot be treated as a separate entity on its own.
The Stoke Gifford Cenotaph is positioned on Stoke Gifford village green in recognition of the many local residents who lost their lives from the Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke Community.
The two secondary schools in the area draw children from all parts of the Stoke Gifford Parish, so pupils from Little Stoke attend both and so do those living south of Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road attend both schools.
The large Medical Centre and pharmacy at Braydon Ave ‐ Little Stoke is used by all residents across the parish of Stoke Gifford . Little Stoke residents tend to use ASDA and Sainsbury (south of the main railway line) for shopping as the bus does not go to the Willow Centre in Bradley Stoke. There are many local Stoke Gifford organisations that have members jointly from Little Stoke and the rest of Stoke Gifford. These include the Town Women’s Guild and The Gardening Club, Slimmers World, Royal British Legion, Stokes Phoenix Club. The Budgerigar Society, Stoke Gifford Taxi Assoc. Bristol Extreme Allstar Cheerleaders Club, Stoke Gifford Short Mat Bowls Club.Stoke Gifford Striders Running Club, Stoke Lane Athletic Football Club, The Stokes Cycling Club.
The parish allotments are owned by Stoke Gifford Parish Council are sited south of the Gypsy Patch Lane/Winterbourne Road and are used by residents from all parts of the parish including those who live within Little Stoke and the site is cared for by Little Stoke Garden Society who’s members are also from across Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke area..
There are three playing field spread across the parish which are managed by the Parish Council. each field has a different role and function so residents of the parish will potentially use all three of them depending on their particular need.
Mead Park is kept as a playing field with regularly cut grass, children’s play equipment and sand pits. Forty Arcres ground is kept as a wild life haven and is managed as such by volunteers from across the whole of Stoke Gifford /Little Stoke area.
Little Stoke Park is laid out with various and different sport pitches such as rugby and football, children’s play area and equipment for all ages and also has a BMX track which is used by children from across the whole of Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke area. Tennis courts are provided for the residents of Stoke Gifford and Little Stoke from a facility within North Rd Stoke Gifford.
Al parts of the parish receive the Stoke Gifford Journal and Little Stoke Gifford Community Matters and Bradley Stoke Matters magazine.
Therefore we believe it would be against the local community identity and also impractical in terms of representation, to have Little Stoke as its own single member ward.
2 Please could you kindly confirm receipt of this submission.
Sent from my iPad
3 10/30/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Rob Creer E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I feel that the Chipping Sodbury Ward should also include Old Sodbury so the best way to resolve this is to make Cotswold edge and Sodbury wards one ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10799 1/1 Starkie, Emily
From: Valerie Sent: 04 November 2017 13:57 To: reviews Subject: Draft Recommendation
Dear Sir or Madam I object to the draft recommendation to move Patchway into Charlton & Cribbs.. I have live in Patchway for many years & I am part of Patchway & not part of the new developments that are being built. My house was built in the 1930's & I am only the third owner
I love the traditional Patchway!!! Regards Katrina A Curley
Sent from my iPad
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Simon Curtis Sent: 29 October 2017 12:48 To: reviews Subject: Re: South Gloucestershire Council Proposal
On 29 Oct 2017 11:03, "Simon Curtis" wrote: Dear Sir,
I would like to express my objection to Huckley Way being placed in the Stoke Gifford Ward of South Gloucestershire Council for the purpose of council elections.
Huckley Way has no connection with Stoke Gifford and therefore how can a Councillor have the residents of the affected roads interests at heart?
Where am I supposed to vote for my new Councillor? In Stoke Gifford? I walk down Baileys Court Road at the moment and am represented by someone who lives in the Ward. This makes sense to me and I see no reason to change it.
Why can't some Wards be larger than others?
I think it's disrespectfull to Bradley Stoke as a Town to change it's boundaries and they should remain the same.
I'm not surprised that South Gloucestershire Council want to make these changes, given the nonsensical ideas they have; re. Hatchet Lane, Stoke Gifford Bus Lane to improve bus times by 30 seconds in the Rush hour!
Yours hopefully
Simon Curtis
1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Gloucestershire
Personal Details:
Name: Morgan Daly E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
'the ward proposed for my area represents a cohesive area where family connect ons exist and where children attend local schools' 'the proposed ward is based around local shops and serv ces that residents use' 'natural boundaries that local residents recognize and feel comfortable with are used.'
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10859 1/1
Starkie, Emily
From: Mark Eastham Sent: 03 November 2017 16:29 To: reviews Subject: Proposed boundary changes in my area (South Glos: Downend/Frenchay)
It makes no sense for Frenchay to share a ward with the proposed Downend (3 seat):
1> They are distinct communities that do NOT share good road links with one another, as claimed in the Conservative parties submission. The vast majority of Downend residents never pass through Frenchay, at all, they bypass it using the ring road. The only link, Cleeve Wood Road, is hard to navigate (narrow) and only ever used as a cut through to the ring road by residents in that area, not as any sort of connection between the communities.
2> They are split by the river Frome.
3> They don't share common facilities, Frenchay residents never shop in Downend always using the, far more convenient to them, retail outlets in Fishponds, Bristol, as do the residents of Winterbourne, which access them via the same road, the B4058.
3> The schools in Frenchay never share events/facilities with the Downend schools, preferring to do so with the Winterbourne ones. Indeed I am told the Frenchay schools have made specific requests NOT to have any of Downend included in their catchment area.
4> The Churches in Frenchay align themselves with Bristol ones, not those in Downend.
5> The semi rural nature and history of the whole area and specifically the housing stock is far more in keeping with the Winterbourne ward, further out of Bristol along the B4058 than it is with anywhere in Downend which was predominately built later.
Therefore it makes much more sense to put Frenchay into the same ward as Winterbourne making a new 3 seat ward (currently proposed to be 2), and reducing Downend to be a 2 seat ward.
Regards,
Mark Eastham (Downend Resident)
1
Starkie, Emily
From: Alison Fowler Sent: 03 November 2017 21:10 To: reviews Subject: Patchway Ward
Review Officer As a resident of Patchway for 44 years I am strongly against being moved into the Charlton Hayes ward. As there are plans for a further large housing development on the runway this will leave the residents of Ashford, Callicroft, Hazeldene and Southsea in my opinion will be marginalised to a great degree. I therefore register my objections to the draft recommendations.
Kind regards
Alison Fowler
1