Local Resident's Submissions to the Chichester District Council Electoral

Local resident’s submissions to the Chichester District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Mayers, Mishka

From: Alastair Alexander Sent: 05 October 2016 11:25 To: reviews Subject: Review of Chichester Wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

This is to advise that I believe the proposed Ward to include Bosham, Appledram, Fishbourne and Donnington is not a good combination of communities. Donnington does not have the same community issues as the others. In any case calling it Bosham and Donnington is a complete nonsense. I am in favour of it being called (if it must include these communities) the Harbour Villages Ward.

Alastair Alexander

Roman Landing 69 Fishbourne Road West CHICHESTER PO19 3JJ

1 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 27 September 2016 10:30 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

From: Fredericka Arrowsmith Sent: 26 September 2016 10:44 To:

Subject: Re: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

Dear Sir/Madame,

I, too, also would like to express my wish for our Paris – Elsted, Treyford and Didling to remain in the Harting ward, as per the email below, citing the same reasons as Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith.

I hope that you will not change the boundary at present which serves and suits our community very well,

Yours faithfully,

Fredericka Arrowsmith

From: Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith Sent: 26 September 2016 10:30 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

Dear Sir/Madame

I would like to express my wish for our Parish – Elsted, Treyford and Didling to remain in the Harting ward. At present we sit comfortably within this boundary, being well served and represented by the rural ward of Harting. Midhurst is an urban ward which will naturally have different concerns and needs to ours, I believe our interests would become subordinate to those of the town dwellers and therefore we would be less well served by a change of boundary.

The school at Harting was enlarged to take the children of Elsted, Treyford and Didling and as a village is a natural destination with a thriving village shop and post office that serves local needs. When people of our parish need to shop it is mainly to Petersfield which guarantees better choice of provisions and parking.

We also share the same church ward which further cements our villages sense of community and natural allegiance. I, therefore, sincerely hope that you will not change the present boundary of our ward.

1 Yours faithfully

Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith

2 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 27 September 2016 10:31 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

From: Joe Arrowsmith Sent: 26 September 2016 10:48 To:

Subject: Re: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

Dear Email Recipient,

Please don't move our parish of Treyford, Elsted cum Didling to become part of Midhurst. South Harting do well by us.

Thank you Joseph Arrowsmith Sent from my iPhone

On 26 Sep 2016, at 10:43, Fredericka Arrowsmith wrote:

Dear Sir/Madame,

I, too, also would like to express my wish for our Paris – Elsted, Treyford and Didling to remain in the Harting ward, as per the email below, citing the same reasons as Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith.

I hope that you will not change the boundary at present which serves and suits our community very well,

Yours faithfully,

Fredericka Arrowsmith

From: Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith Sent: 26 September 2016 10:30 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

Dear Sir/Madame

Yours faithfully

Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith

2 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 27 September 2016 10:30 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

From: Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith Sent: 26 September 2016 10:30 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: Boundaries Elsted, Treyford and DIdling

Dear Sir/Madame

Yours faithfully

Marie‐Claire Arrowsmith

1 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Bannister Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I realise that our local representatives work very hard but in these days of financial constraint any scheme that saves money, providing that services are not compromised, is to be welcomed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8692 1/1 Mayers, Mishka

From: NICHOLAS SHRUBB Sent: 28 September 2016 08:31 To: reviews Subject: Proposed changes to Fishbourne Village

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs

I have been a resident of Fishbourne Village since 1983 and have seen a number of changes during that time. Many of them have been positive but I am of the opinion that the proposed changes to amalgamate the villages of Fishbourne, Bosham, Donnington & Apuldram into one ward is not.

I wish to raise an objection on 2 grounds. Firstly it is in contrast to our Neighbourhood plan and secondly I am fearful that the new ward may create a concept to others, particularly Developers and the Local Authority, that we are one planning unit. In recent years all four villages have had more than their share of housing development and it is very costly and time consuming to continually be fighting to hold on to the feeling of being one village community and preserving our agricultural land for future generations.

Yours faithfully

Marion Coombes-Shrubb (Mrs)

Mayers, Mishka

From: Hand Sent: 02 October 2016 13:02 To: reviews Subject: Recommendations for Changes in Chichester District Council Wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Review Officer (Chichester),

I am writing to express my concern at the proposed new ward which will encompass Bosham, Fishbourne, Appledram and Donnington with three District Councillors, and I note your main considerations for an electoral review.

Firstly having three councillors for a combined ward of four parishes seems less likely to be capable of "effective and convenient local government". One councillor responsible for a particular area would be more effective than three whose responsibilities are spread across the whole area, however they might be apportioned, presumably at the whim of the individuals concerned.

Secondly, the proposed new ward currently entitled Bosham - Donnington does not reflect the actual area. By omitting Fishbourne and Appledram these parishes become of less noticeable importance to Bosham and Donnington. I recognise that Bosham and Donnington are probably named as the east and west extremes of the area but in people's mind they will become the dominant partners with the risk that Fishbourne and Appledram's interests will be under represented, whatever might be said or written down.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly in the current climate of pressure to build houses wherever land can be bought, developers and planners are likely to perceive the whole new ward as one planning unit with detrimental effects on the availability of local facilities transport etc currently focused on the established settlement pattern.

What is needed therefore in the name is something that preserves rather than obliterates the identities of the four individual villages and not one that focusses on just two of them. The name suggested by Fishbourne Parish Council of "Harbour Villages Ward" seems to describe the ward accurately and avoids the danger of the area beng perceived as one entity.

Finally, a small historical note - Fishbourne suffered for years from being split between Bosham and Chichester at parish level, and after a long struggle achieved first a neighbourhood council and then a parish council in its own right. This was in the 1980s after which time it has been able to develop many community facilities and a community identity. It would be a great shame to repeat the mistakes of the past and the same neglectful situation arose now at District level, where planning decisions affect the environment in perpetuity. Names are crucial elements in our perceptions of things and should reflect the area as accurately as possible and not be to the detriment of some of the constituent parts!

Yours sincerely, Mary Hand (Editor of The Fishbourne Book - Lottery Heritage Project 2006)

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: alan hay Sent: 06 October 2016 11:49 To: reviews Subject: Fw: Proposed new Ward encompassing Apuldram, Fishbourne, Bosham and Donnington.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: alan hay Sent: 04 October 2016 15:14 To: [email protected] Subject: Proposed new Ward encompassing Apuldram, Fishbourne, Bosham and Donnington.

Dear Sir or Madam I have just become aware of the proposed changes for the new Ward as above and find part of the proposal quite alarming, I accept that the existing amount of Wards may require reduction and making one large Ward seems logical but in the Title of this new Ward you have not included the historic Village of Fishbourne where I reside. Without Fishbourne being included it will encourage the predator housing developer to believe that the Village has no individual status and since it has no Title is of no importance to be protected from over development, they will I feel use this Title omission with the Planning Authorities to pursue development that the villagers do not agree with. The problem we are facing at this time as a Village is that the separation gaps between Chichester and Fishbourne and Fishbourne and Bosham are being eroded leaving very little countryside between. Another reason to include Fishbourne is it's historical links to the ancient Empire of Rome. The excavated Villa and the Estuary giving access to Chichester having great importance to Archeology, the Estuary being a protected area should on it's own in my opinion show the importance of being included in the new Ward Title. This mail to yourselves is a plea to reconsider your proposal and help to protect this much loved and Historical Village and should be included in the proposed Title of your Boundary changes. Kind Regard, Alan Hay.

1 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Nigel JohnsonHill Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Re HARTING ward: it makes no sense at all to separate Elsted & Treyford from Harting. Please be sure to include Elsted & Treyford with HARTING.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8689 1/1

9/7/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Jeremy Mantell Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of Elsted, I am strongly of the view that ELSTED should remain part of the HARTING ward and not be merged with MIDHURST. This is because we have an affinity with Harting in that 1) we are part of the same church parish 2) we share a village shop) 3) our phone exchange is, I believe, in Harting 4) our social lives are more entwined with Harting than with Midhurst 5) We are more likely to visit and or shop in Harting (and in Petersfield) than in Midhurst as the travelling is easier, parking better and altogether it is more convenient. Until Midhurst sorts out its road and parking chaos it positively discourages us to visit it. I'd also far prefer to be represented by one councillor than by two. We area rural community, as is Harting and so have a similar attitude to so may issues compared to the semiurban outlook of the majority of Midhurst's residents. It ain't broke so please don't try to fix it we're happy as we are by being part of Harting. Dr Jeremy Mantell

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8733 1/1

Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 30 August 2016 10:47 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Review

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE

From: dawn nelson Sent: 27 August 2016 08:48 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Local Government Boundary Review

Dear Review Officer (Chichester),

I agree with the Parish Council of Elsted with Treyford cum Didling.

I feel we have an historic link with Harting Ward and a lot more in common with it, due to our size and rural location, than we do with Midhurst; which is a town and will ignore most of our needs, as they themselves are ignored by Chichester.

Regards Dawn Nelson

1 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 30 August 2016 10:47 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundary Review

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE

From: TED NELSON Sent: 27 August 2016 10:35 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Review

Dear Review Officer (Chichester),

I agree with the Parish Council of Elsted with Treyford cum Didling.

Regards Ted Nelson

1 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 30 August 2016 10:47 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: local government boundary rview

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE

From: Tessa Nelson Sent: 27 August 2016 10:17 To: reviews Cc: Subject: local government boundary rview

Dear Review Officer (Chichester),

I agree with the Parish Council of Elsted with Treyford cum Didling.

Regards Tessa Nelson

1 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 19 August 2016 15:43 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Chichester DC bondaries review

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE

From: John Newman Sent: 19 August 2016 12:30 To: reviews Subject: Chichester DC bondaries review

19th August, 2016

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

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed revision of electoral boundaries for the Chichester District. I am writing as a local resident. I was a teacher in Midhurst for most of my career, which is why I have responded more about the northern part of the district.

I welcome the three principles under which you are operating and set out in paragraphs 19 and 24.

I am afraid that I do not think that I have sufficient knowledge meaningfully to comment on particular boundary proposals, but would like to express a view on two main issues.

Firstly, I would question the case for the reduction of the number of councillors from 48 to 36. While I can understand the financial case for this, I think that it risks a democratic deficit. We need more rather than less democratic representatives to monitor both central and local government, and, while I appreciate that you believe that fewer councillors can mean that effective and convenient local government could be provided, surely more councillors should mean that monitoring and listening to residents can be done more effectively and more heed taken of communities when determining electoral boundaries. We should be willing to pay for democracy – but I fear that a political decision has been made otherwise (nationally and locally)!

I think that the proposed nomenclature of some of the wards is unfortunate, and rides roughshod over community identifications:‐

1  The concept of “Fittleworth” appals me, as that covers a spread of villages, many of whom would see little identification with Fittleworth. At a bare minimum, how about thinking in terms of Fittleworth and Graffham?  I would argue that the same issue obtains in the proposed Loxwood division – so perhaps Northchapel, Loxwood and Wisborough Green division?  I would go for Fernhurst and Camelsdale.  If Lavant and Funtington, two very different communities, must be combined, why not keep both in the name of the division?  Should it be Bosham, Fishbourne and Donnington division?

Identification with local government has long been a problem, not least with the very low electoral turnouts. I would argue that picking out one (or at best two) villages in the name of divisions that constitute very different communities being thrown together is unhelpful.

If the question of the reduction of the number of councillors can be revisited, perhaps some of this double lack of democracy could be addressed?

Yours sincerely,

John Newman

2 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 07 September 2016 09:13 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Review - Elsted and Treyford Parish

From: Sent: 06 September 2016 16:13 To: reviews Subject: Local Government Boundary Review ‐ Elsted and Treyford Parish

To: Review Officer (Chichester) [email protected] Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

From: Brad Novak

Date: 06‐09‐2016

Re: Local Government Boundary Review ‐ Elsted and Treyford Parish

I would like to raise a strongly held objection to the proposal that Elsted and Treyford Parish should be part of a larger Midhurst Ward. We should remain part of Harting Ward as recommended by the Elsted and Treyford Parish Council. Elsted is a rural community and the proposed combined urban / rural ward will create a bias, probably and understandably towards the major population centre (Midhurst) rather the periphery (Elsted and Treyford). Elsted and Harting are tightly linked communities that share church duties and village school as well as each other’s shops, pubs and sporting facilities.

______

This message is for information purposes only, it is not a recommendation, advice, offer or solicitation to buy or sell a product or service nor an official confirmation of any transaction. It is directed at persons who are professionals and is not intended for retail customer use. Intended for recipient only. This message is subject to the terms at: www.barclays.com/emaildisclaimer.

For important disclosures, please see: www.barclays.com/salesandtradingdisclaimer regarding market commentary from Barclays Sales and/or Trading, who are active market participants; and in respect of

1 Barclays Research, including disclosures relating to specific issuers, please see http://publicresearch.barclays.com.

______

Mayers, Mishka

From: simon oakley Sent: 04 October 2016 00:48 To: reviews Subject: RE: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CHICHESTER: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sir

Please find below my response to this consultation. Though I am a Tangmere Parish Councillor, the District Councillor for Tangmere Ward and the County Councillor for Chichester East Division, the views below are sent in a personal capacity.

Regards

Simon Oakley

Though the LGBCE proposals for the Bosham to Tangmere arc South of Chichester City are mainly based on the need for electoral equality (i.e. removing the >10% variances in CDC's originally submitted scheme), it was based on an electorate projection for Shopwyke Lakes that was based on an assumption (of 240 dwelling occupations up to March 2021) that is clearly contradicted by CDC assessments with regard build rates at other Chichester strategic development locations (100 ‐ 125 dwellings per year) included in its 5 year housing land supply projections and by the developers own projection of 298 completions by 2019/20.

Evidence for the latter rate of build is contained within the CDC Planning Cttee report for Application No. 16/01785/FUL (report para 8.5). CDC 's original submission assumed only 240 dwellings coming forward within the review period (now potentially plus 45 allowing for its extension to end 2021). Noting the progress on site (initial buildings now up to roof level), that 398 dwellings have Full permission, that the whole site's permitted in Outline capacity is now 585 and the above mentioned developer build rate projection only applies to the phase permitted in Full, it is clear that the LGBCE's proposed 2 Member Mundham and Tangmere Ward will exceed the +10% variance by the end of the review period. This is without any allowance for other windfall development, which was included in the overall District and County electorate projections and any progress on the Tangmere Strategic Development Location. Please see the end of this e‐ mail for the supporting numbers and calculations.

It is worth noting that the LGBCE accepted the inclusion of the 160 dwelling Lower Graylingwell site at the second consultation stage of the WSCC review and in the CDC review projections, based on only an Outline permission and a Government backed delivery programme. Central Government has also facilitated funding for the Shopwyke scheme. The LGBCE has apparently also partly based its revised Crawley County Division arrangements on the submitted rational that they provide long term headroom for committed development.

The originally proposed single Member N Mundham/Oving Ward will in all reasonable probability be within the ‐10% variance by end 2021 and have the headroom to accommodate the whole of the permitted Shopwyke Lakes development. A single Member Tangmere Ward (at @ ‐9.9% not allowing for windfalls) would have maximum capacity to absorb new electors arising from the Tangmere SDL. It would therefore appear, in the interests of minimising risks to long term electoral representational arrangement stability and localised electoral equality, that the original CDC proposal stand.

1 Given the limited (or even lack of) common identity between the various Villages within this arc and the two LGBCE proposed Wards, the risk exists that Members will concentrate on individual Parishes and not the whole of the Ward. Single Member Wards are therefore the best for this type of rural/semi‐rural area where they can directly link with fewer distinct communities.

This would leave a 2 Member Bosham to Fishbourne Ward in excess of +10% but there is no significant new housing development allocated or projected for that area. The excess could be mitigated by a transfer of (a relatively detached) part of Fishbourne Parish to the single Member Apuldram/Donnington/Hunston Ward (which itself has no significant housing additions allocated or projected).

The original CDC proposal also limited the degree of overlap between District Wards and County Divisions.

In summary, though the LGBCE proposals address the 2 Member Bosham and Fishbourne electoral equality issue, because of overly conservative estimates for build rates at Shopwyke Lakes, the overall proposed arrangement appears incorrectly based on the assumption that it removes an electoral equality issue at N Mundham/Oving. In addition it would create a 2 Member electoral equality imbalance before end 2021.

Therefore the original CDC proposal represents the best medium and long term arrangement with regards all three LGBCE criteria.

Regards

Simon

The numbers:

CDC's original proposals: N Mundham/Oving Ward ‐ 1 Member, end March 2021 projected electorate 2341 (‐14.7%); Tangmere Ward ‐ 1 Member, end March 2021 projected electorate 2472 (‐9.9%).

LGBCE proposals: Hunston, N Mundham, Oving and Tangmere Ward ‐ 2 Members, end March 2021 projected electorate 5734 (electors per Cllr 2867, +4.5%).

Average assumption of electors per new dwelling is 1.8.

Therefore it would take 72 additional new dwellings (total 312) at Shopwyke Lakes for a single Member N Mundham/Oving Ward to reach the ‐10% variance and 168 (total 408) to exceed the +10% variance for a 2 Member Hunston to Tangmere Ward. An 80dpy build rate from September 2016 to December 2021 = 420 dwellings.

20% of the 2744 district wide average elector per Cllr distribution = 548 electors or 305 new dwellings.

From: Laura Taylor [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 August 2016 10:13 Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CHICHESTER: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Dear Town/Parish Clerk,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CHICHESTER: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Chichester District Council. Today is the start of an eight week public consultation on the Commission's draft recommendations on new ward boundaries across Chichester District Council. The consultation closes on 10 October 2016. View the draft recommendations You can view the Commission's draft recommendations at https://www.lgbce.org.uk/current- reviews/south-east/west-sussex/chichester where you can find interactive maps, a report and guidance on how to have your say. The Commission has not finalised its conclusions and now invites representations on the draft recommendations. Attached to this email is a summary outlining the Commission's draft recommendations and a copy of the letter sent to the Chief Executive of Chichester District Council. An interactive map of the Commission's recommendations for Chichester, electorate figures and guidance on how to propose new wards is available on the consultation area at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/6923. Further information about the review and the Commission’s work is also published on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk. Have your say We encourage everyone who has a view on the draft recommendations to contact us whether you support them or whether you wish to propose alternative arrangements. Before finalising the recommendations, the Commission will consider every representation received during consultation whether it is submitted by an individual, a local group or an organisation. We will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements:

 To deliver electoral equality where each councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the district.

 That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

 That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. It is important that you take account of the criteria if you are suggesting an alternative pattern of wards. You can find additional guidance and information about previous electoral reviews on our website to help you or your organisation make a submission. Get in touch The Commission welcomes comments on the recommendations report by 10 October 2016. Representations should be made:

3  Through our interactive consultation portal where you can explore the maps of the recommendations, draw your own boundaries and supply comments at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/6923.

 By email to: [email protected].

 Or in writing to: Review Officer (Chichester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

The Commission aims to publish every response it receives during phases of consultation. If you do not want all or any part of your response or name to be made public, you must state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary. All responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). This is the last opportunity to influence the Commission's recommendations before they are finalised. We therefore encourage local people to get in touch with us and have their say. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Paul Kingsley Review Officer [email protected] 0330 500 1525

4 Mayers, Mishka

From: Patricia Sent: 05 October 2016 11:32 To: reviews Subject: Local Government Boundary Review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Review Officer Chichester. With regard to the above I would like to say I would be more than happy to stay as we are and become part of a larger Midhurst Ward. I find shopping in the Petersfield area so much easier, I have restricted mobility and find parking in Midhurst a nightmare, so much traffic to contend with and not able to park near the shops. Petersfield also has a mobility Scooter Centre which is a great asset. We have a lot more in common with Harting, with social , religious and school ties. Harting is very much a rural parish like Elsted whereas Midhurst is more urban. Please take all these points into consideration when making your decision for us older inhabitants as I am one of them. I am not alone in this matter but not everyone will express their views.

Yours Sincerely

Patricia O'Brien.

Sent from my iPad

Mayers, Mishka

From: reviews Sent: 30 September 2016 09:46 To: Kingsley, Paul Cc: reviews Subject: FW: Donnington & Bosham Ward proposal

Categories: Green category

From: Dave redstone Sent: 27 September 2016 23:30 To: reviews Subject: Donnington & Bosham Ward proposal

Please can the following be considered;

Will three councillors, representing a 4-parish ward be likely to provide effective and convenient local government? If there must be a new Ward its name ought to reflect the fact that it represents four communities rather than the two suggested I agree with a proposal made that the new name should be “Harbour Villages Ward”.

9/1/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Rebecca Townsend Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I currently live in North Selsey. I do not believe that combining this area with Sidlesham will work in anyway. Sidlesham is a very rural area in contrast to North Selsey. North Selsey has a much greater diversity in its demographic of population than Sidlesham. How can you expect these two areas to have the same wants, needs and ideas for there futures. If you are trying to save money, by reducing the number of councilors, how about other cost savings such as reducing admin staff or removing flexi time from staff contracts. Making departments resposible for completing projects on time and within budget. This should also apply to outside contractors with plenties for late completion of the job. I am sure if local and national government was run as if it was your own family business then alot of cost savings could be found!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8729 1/1

8/30/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Walker Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that Elsted and Treyford cum Didling should remain part of the Harting Ward and not be moved to the Midhurst Ward. My reason is that it has more in common with the Harting Ward than it will ever have with the Midhurst Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8726 1/1 Kingsley, Paul

From: reviews Sent: 10 October 2016 16:42 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Elsted Boundrys

From: CAROL WALKER Sent: 10 October 2016 16:05 To: reviews Subject: Elsted Boundrys

Dear Sir or madame, I would like to record that I feel we at Elsted should remain as we are as part of the Harting ward. I see no good reason to change, This is the opinion of , .Thank you .

10/10/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Chichester District

Personal Details:

Name: Victoria Warrender Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly believe that Elsted and Treyford must remain in the Harting Ward, NOT Midhurst. Elsted is a rural parish with similar settlements in the Harting Ward there are strong ties with the church, village halls, local pubs, village shop, and vitally for us, the village primary school in Harting. Midhurst is an urban Ward, which will create a bias towards the major population centre (Midhurst) rather than periphery (Elsted). Furthermore, Midhurst is 5 miles from Elsted with no automatic affiliation it has secondrate shops and traffic (many Elsted residents use the easily accessible town of Petersfield not Midhurst). We did not move to a rural community to be part of an urban/semiurban Ward, and enjoy being part of Harting Ward and all the benefits attached to the ties between the rural villages within the Ward. We also choose this Ward with a view to the local village primary school.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8825 1/1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Ronnie Williamson Sent: 28 September 2016 07:32 To: reviews Subject: Fishbourne

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

So basically we, the tax payer ‐ the funding source of your salary ‐ loose our community identity because you want to justify drawing your wages? Hmm How about : You leave our community cohesion alone, leave our group identity alone, sack yourself ‐ go and get a value adding job elsewhere and we save on the cost of your employ? Try it! No ? You have not got the guts....

Ronnie Williamson Happy Fishbourne Resident ‐ until you came along ‐ and do not blame the Government! They are all expenses thieves and rogues ; as well.