6/27/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Surely the Lostock Ward should become part of South Ribble, seeing that it ts part of the South Ribble parliamentary constituency?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13229 1/1 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I'm in the Wheelton & Withnell ward. If fewer councillors is the order of the day perhaps a way to help achieve this would be to abolish the Pennine ward (a big lump of it is uninhabited moorland anyway) and hive it off into my own ward, Heath Charnock & Rivington and, to a lesser degree as I suspect they probably have denser populations anyway, Chorley East and Chorley North East wards. On the map there seems to be an anonymous ward to the south of Clayton-le-Woods West & Cuerden and to the north of Astley & Buckshaw. Is this a "Whittle-le-Woods" ward? If so, or indeed even if not, perhaps they too could take a little lump of the ex-Pennine ward. I hesitate to suggest ideas which involve areas outside my own locality. As far as Wheelton & Withnell ward is concerned, I'd be disappointed of we were divorced from Abbey Village (I live in Bury Lane, Withnell) as the old Withnell Urban District council, pre-1974, is a homogenous whole. Good luck sorting what seems to me to be a bag of worms. Whatever you do some folk will be upset.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13237 1/1 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The village of Heskin is separated from the main body of Charnock Richard village by the M6 motorway. The residents of Heskin feel closer in demographic and environment to Mawdesley and Eccleston and I would suggest that the Mawdesley and Eccleston parish includes Heskin Village. I would suggest that Charnock Richard is included in the Coppull or Euxton South. The Chisnall area is within Coppull and does not relate to Heskin in any way, I do understand that this may not be possible as the review is to give each district the sameish amount of residents per Councillor. I would also question why Croston and Bretherton is called Lostock when the River Yarrow runs through the village of Croston. I hope the proposals include a reduction in the number of councillors overall to reduce the costs and admin functions which the councillors amass
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13241 1/1 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Buckshaw Village is a very large, new estate. Currently it is divided between Chorley Borough Council and (in the North West part of the village) , South Ribble Borough Council. Villagers have a strong sense of community and are confused by this division. The village is further divided between parish councils, causing more confusion and a very strong sense that these parish councils are not concerned as much with our residents as they are with the money that comes to them through agreements between developers and borough councils. The Astley and Buckshaw ward is reasonably successful, with a current Chorley Borough Councillor who has quite a strong presence in our village. He does not live locally, however. Residents do know the current Lancashire County Councillor, however, who lives here and is passionate about ensuring that our voices are heard at county council and local council level. As a resident of the -Le-Woods and Whittle- Le-Woods ward, I feel overlooked and ignored for the most part. Buckshaw Village isn't even written into the ward name! The current parish councillor is keen to amend this oversight , but the current Chorley borough councillor has the view that , "Buckshaw will always be a problem" . (I have this in an email he sent me). I do not believe that part of Buckshaw Village should be aligned to another area that appears to have other priorities. Partly because of poor representation at Borough Council level, S126 monies due to Buckshaw Village for local infrastructure improvement has, reportedly, been syphoned off for use on projects outside our village. Thus has, for example, left our pleas for facilities for young people unanswered, while Chorley Council and Lancashire County Council fall over themselves to support using spare land for such facilities ax fast food takeaways, pubs and a betting shop. Objections from residents to a KFC takeaway close to the primary school and people's homes were ignored and planning permission given. Not surprisingly, recent voting figures for borough council elections were very low, Apathy rules where residents feel let down by local government at every turn. Currently, the newest part of Buckshaw Village remains unparished. The vilkage is close to completion. There is a strong sense of community. That unity is under pressure because the village is divided between councils that do not generally appear to work together in our interest and, indeed seem more intent on taking credit for any popular decision than sharing the success. Please change the ward borders and, if possible Buckshaw Village desperately needs to be under the wing of just one borough council. Depending on the number of residents in the completed village, it would be best if it were treated as a single ward, separate from other neighbouring wards. It should have at least two councillors of its own , in view of its size compared to other wars. Buckshaw Village residents have a lot to contend with at present, not least the issue the issue of Leasehold and Freehold abuse by developers, as well as the issue of the flawed Private Estate model. The government and mixed party MPs , such as Sir Lindsay Hoyle are beginning to bring in reform, regulation and possibly, redress for homeowners affect by these issues. Buckshaw Village residents need to be represented by councillors who understand these issues fully. At present, there is very little sign that at least one of our two current councillors fully grasps, or even cares too much about our situation. I believe that , if the village becomes one ward, villagers will have their faith in local politics restored and will become very active in local decisions that affect them. If the wards remain unchanged, our sense of community will suffer and the disillusion with and apathy towards local decisions will persist, as we see other local councillors ignore our apoeals and pass planning and other decisions that have a negative impact on our growing community.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13242 1/1 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in Buckshaw Village but when I vote I have to vote for someone in Clayton Le Woods & Whittle Le Woods. The councillor for the latter does nothing for Buckshaw and never hear or see. I should be allowed to vote for a councillor that has a lot of input in Buckshaw where I live not Clayton or Whittle.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13245 1/1 6/28/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Why do we need so many Councillors? Gone are the days when contact with the electorate was difficult and transportation links were limited. Today with the use of social media, email and websites, the ability to communicate with and share information with the electorate and vice versa, contact with Councillors is much easier and one 'tweet' can impact on many hundreds at the same time. Councillors ( and MP's for that matter) no longer need a coach and horses to get around their areas. The proposal is for 42 councillors at Borough level, a reduction of 5 on present numbers. Added to this, my Borough ward ( Whittle and Clayton = 3 Borough Councillors existing and proposed) shares an area with two Parish Councils - Clayton-le-Woods & Whittle-le-Woods - another 24 Councillors ! And that is just one Borough Ward. Replicate that across the entire Borough and we have a vast number of councillors at one level or another, not forgetting the County and MP's. Again, why do we need so many councilors? Chorley Borough needs no more than a total of 30 Borough Councillors - any more than this is gross over representation, is unnecessary, costly to the taxpayer, and I submit, does not enhance voter engagement with the political process or provide any added value to the public who at the end of the day are the people paying for it all. Thank you
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13246 1/1
7/2/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in Coppull, currently covered by the Chisnall Ward Councillor. I believe my needs would be best served by the Ward Councillors of Coppull, as the Ward Councillor of Chisnall lives in Charnock Richard, where he spends most of his time dealing with issues there. The Coppull Ward Councillors already assist where I live. It makes much more sense to have the whe of Coppull covered by Ward Councillors already covering the rest of the village.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13283 1/1
8/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Sir or Madam, I would like the boards of Buckshaw constituency to be considered. Buckshaw should not be split between two councils and should be made into one. This would improve the community and be able to have a ward with all of buckshaw in it. The community feels split with one half being in South Ribble and the other in Chorley. With the majority in Chorley, it would make sense for the entire Buckshaw area to be in Chorley. I hope this will be considered,
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13973 1/1 8/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name: n/a
Comment text:
Buckshaw Village is currently split into 2 parish councils, it also has an unelected buckshaw village residents group which is unfunded and does not support the wider community any longer. I have yet to see any benefits that the 2 parish councils have made to Buckshaw village. Instead they each focus on Whittle parish and Euxton parish. I would like to see a new parish council creating covering Buckshaw Village only. Buckshaw has over 2000 houses now and is an entity in itself. I would like to see the boundaries moved to create this new parish, with funds from the residents going into the council who then are responsible for the oversight and governance of the BVMG/RMG who currently manage the estate and grounds. There is no oversight of BVMG/RMG at present. BVCA no longer run residents meetings that I am aware of.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14021 1/1 8/21/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Comment text:
I do not think there is any particular need to re-draw the Ward Boundaries and it is more about the number of councillors needed to service the electorate in a particular Ward. Whilst to a degree geographical area to be covered comes into the equation, if the objective is to reduce the number of councillors from 47 to 42 then this could be achieved quite easily by reducing the number of councillors from 3 to 2 in the following Wards - Chorley East, Chorley North East, Chorley North West, Chorley South East, Chorley South West. Indeed, I would say further reductions could be made quite easily by reducing the number of councillors from 3 to 2 in Clayton-Le-Woods North, Clayton-Le-Woods West & Cuerden, Coppull together with Eccleston & Mawdesley.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14397 1/1 8/21/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Comment text:
My family lives on Spring Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods, which is in the Clayton-le-Woods West and Cuerden Ward. We have lived here for more than thirty years, so have had plenty of opportunity to assimilate a local 'identity'. I shop in Leyland, and feel we live in an area with a significant natural boundary along the A6 to the East of us, and another boundary along the edge of the Cuerden Valley Park to the North of us. I do not feel we belong to Clayton Brook, Bamber Bridge or Cuerden, where many of our current Councillors live. We do not have a Chorley Councillor who lives near us, and none west of the A6. PLEASE DRAW THE NEW BOUNDARY ALONG THE A6 AND PUT BAMBER BRIDGE AND CLAYTON BROOK WITH BRINDLE AND HOGHTON.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14416 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
As a resident of Heapey, within the Pennine Ward, I hope that after any boundary change the new ward of which Heapey will be a part, will continue to be semi-rural. I believe that if Heapey is allocated to a mainly urban ward that the concerns of residents in Heapey will be swamped and drowned out, and our interests will be less well represented.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14555 1/1
9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Should not all of Coppull lie in the Coppull boundary rather than some of it being in Chisnall. Conversely, why are parts of Adlington in Coppull
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14567 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
A couple of questions..... 1) Has anyone thought about the actual demographics of the proposed boundaries and what the implications might be....particularly where one particular group might be unfairly advantaged / disadvantaged? (read elderly, affluent, deprived or any other group where they are a significant minority / majority) 2) Could someone please explain, as it doesn't appear to be covered, how the 3 councillors per ward will be elected? Presumably there will be three voted on the ballot slip and the top 3 will be elected? Will this not make things LESS democratic as independents will be fighting against the electoral machinery of the two (three???) main parties? I am naturally sceptical of QWANGOs (read electoral commission here) and over the last 3-4 years - given elections / votes/ ballets / referenda both at home and abroad, am coming to the conclusion that anyone choosing to stand for election should be automatically prohibited...... our American "friends" and a certain Nigel Farage, who BOTH admit to lying have had successful elections. Need I say more?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14575 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I believe all voters should have equivant value as near as possible. Why should neighbours a very short distance from where I live, virtually across the road, be in a ward with less than 2000 electorate ie Heath Charnock and Rivington. Where as at we apparently are in a ward with nearly 6000 electors. The boundary should distribute voters equally not just follow arbitrary road boundaries. Ie the A6.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14577 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Why are you giving residents only a few days to look into this, especially as it starts on a Bank Holiday when most people are away & why is the Map included just a badly drawn photo of a map & not a proper interactive map.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14579 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Heath Charnock, Adlington and Anderton are closely connected, and indeed you can not drive from one part of Heath Charnock to the other without going through Adlington and Anderton, unless you make a long detour via Chorley. They co-operate on many matters, so it would be logical to combine them in one ward. The link to Rivington is not as strong. Ward boundaries should not split parish council areas, except where there is a case for a new parish council, see below. It would make sense to have a ward for Buckshaw Village, and while it is partly in both South Ribble and Chorley, it needs a combined parish council for the whole village, and it's own ward would be a start in that direction. I believe that there is precedent for a parish council serving an area under two different district councils. Having wards represented by more than one Councillor is an unwelcome complication. Smaller wards with one Councillor would be more democratic, and make an individual's vote more meaningful. Will the population figures used take into account planned housing developments, or will they be out of date before the ink is dry?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14591 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The present Coppull Ward which splits the village is very artificial. It would be better if the numbers work for the whole of the village to be one ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14592 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Comment text:
Some explanation of why the boundaries are being changed would be useful? Is this part of the Conservatives plan to fix the next general election?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14597 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Pennine shouldn't cover Johnson Hillock or Copthurst, the demarcation should be north of White Coppice, this area is Whittle-le-Woods
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14605 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Looking through all this it would appear that constant building and area changes require MORE councillors, not fewer. For instance, the Astley and Buckshaw wards should be split to make them more manageable for each councillor, and this would also serve the residents better. With such an increase of population since the last review and another 18% increased projected in the next 20 years I don't see how a cut in wards and councillors can be justified.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14610 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Why do we still need so many Councilors? Even 42 in my opinion is still too many. Add in Parish Councillors ( 15 in my area of Clayton le Woods ), a total of 42 Borough Councillors, 68 at the County Hall for Lancashire in total. We are over governed and needlessly over represented. The days are long gone of councillors needing horse and cart to get around their wards and constituencies and maintain contact with the electorate. Social media, email, texting and websites provide many more channels of contact opportunity in far greater numbers at one press of a 'Send' button. Cull the numbers of councillors in total. 1 per ward is more than adequate.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14613 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in Heath Charnock on Babylon Lane. I think that Heath Charnock should be looked at in an integrated way with Anderton & Adlington and not put with place such as Withnell, Brinscall etc. How this translates into seats, I am not sure
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14616 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I'm happy with the propose arrangement and agree that a rebalancing and pruning of the council is in order.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14626 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Why are you not showing the draft proposal of the new boundaries? That is what we need to see. This is not really a proper consultation.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14653 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Comment text:
The Lostock Ward should be retained as a whole because it will form part of the future South Ribble Parliamentary constituency. For this reason other areas that will be in the Chorley constituency should not be added to it.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14660 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I live in Anderton and as a rural community, I think it makes more sense for Anderton to be placed in a larger rural ward with Rivington and Heath Charnock. Nothing against being with Adlington as it's my home town, but Adlington as the largest town out of the quintet should stand alone and the other three rural outlying parishes would be better suited together as they have the same challenges as far as rural crime, excessive over building on green land and management of the countryside is at the heart of what matters to people around here. Failing that, a larger Adlington and District Ward covering all four parishes would be okay too.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14684 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Please could some consideration be given to separating Buckshaw and Astley? The two villages have very different demographics and needs. While Buckshaw need support dealing with formulating an expanding community and all of the issues that come with an estate still under development, Astley sometimes feel sidelined as the poor relation. it would be nice to be given the opportunity to raise our issues with someone there solely for the benefit of our area.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14789 1/1
9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The proposals submitted by Chorley Council do not respect Parish boundaries and suggest that parts of Euxton are carved up and put with four other villages, increasing residents' travel times/distances. Euxton as a whole (including all the residents in Buckshaw Village but who actually live in Euxton) is nearly large enough to keep as two (3 member) wards to prevent carving part of 16A off, also 02B and 02C being carved up and off into different communities. To achieve this may have to include Astley Village (02A). Again, it is proposed, residents in 02C are being used as 'Fillers' for other wards and again will probably get a ward name which does not even mention ‘Euxton’, as they have been stuck with a ward name of two other village names for a number of years now (namely Astley and Buckshaw) which is very unfair as most, apart from the Astley Village residents - all the rest are Euxton residents. One ward in the proposal, containing Euxton'ers in 02B is mis-matched with two other villages (Astley Village and Whittle-le-Woods) and so contains 4 different communities - this does not respect Euxton's identity or, indeed, Astley Village's or Whittle-le-Woods' parish identity as villages in their own right. Buckshaw Village is difficult in that it spans two villages and has parts in a different Borough but, the residents are part of two distinct Parishes (of Whittle and Euxton) and if Buckshaw cannot be recognised as a whole (because it is too small and spans two villages and two boroughs) it should be respected that it should remain with its respective ‘parish’ and not used, as Euxton is being used, to be carved up and made to be fillers for other wards. The wards containing the residents of Euxton should be kept together, respect the parish boundaries and given appropriate names to reflect the community they belong to and not two other village that happen to be in their ward. The plans do not respect parish boundaries in other villages, namely, Euxton, Whittle-le-Woods, Clayton-le-Woods whereas other villages are preserved and this feels unfair to residents living in these village communities.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14820 1/1 9/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Chorley District
Personal Details:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The premise of attempting to introduce uniform 3 member wards in an area comprising an urban conurbation and sparesley populated rural wards is, at best, ill judged. In order to achieve this a number of wholly unconnected electors are being 'transferred' to wards containing communities they do not identify with which fails to meet the criterion of reflecting the interests and identities of local communities. Unsurprisingly, the proposal put forward by the Borough Council is an obvious and blatant attempt at political gain designed to improve the chances of the ruling administration obtaining the best possible results at election time. The recommendation to reduce the number of elected members has merit however, any proposal to hold 3 times the number of elections which would be required in an 'all out' scheme and should be dismissed out of hand as a total waste of public funds at a time when local authorites are pleading poverty.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/14821 1/1
Electoral Review of Chorley Council Proposed pattern of wards I wish to object to the proposed revision of electoral ward boundaries made to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) by Chorley Borough Council (CBC) as approved at their meeting on 8th September 2018. This objection was not submitted during the LGBCE consultation period as the CBC proposal was not submitted until after the end of the consultation period. I would apologise if my comments can not be considered at this stage and, if necessary, will repeat my objection when the LGBCE publishes for consultation its proposed new ward boundaries in November. My objection relates to the proposals for the electoral wards in the parish of Euxton. CBC has proposed dividing the parish such that its electors would, if the proposal was accepted, be allocated to some 5 different wards only one of which would include “Euxton” in its name. Other electors, living in areas that are clearly part of the residential area of Euxton, would be allocated to wards that have no obvious common identity with Euxton. They would possibly have to travel to polling stations some distance outside the parish to cast their vote. I, for example, living in , on the edge of but very much part of the Euxton residential area and in a polling district that has a polling station in Euxton Primary School, have been allocated to a ward, across the River Yarrow (generally), comprised of, and named for all of the separate parishes of Eccleston, Heskin and Charnock. This objection does not question the basic parameters that the proposed ward arrangements seek to meet except to note that the reduction in the number of councillors from 47 to 42 in part gives rise to the difficulties that have led to such an unacceptable outcome for Euxton. I accept that the part of Euxton within Buckshaw should be placed in a ward with other parts of Buckshaw. Inevitably, at some future time, Buckshaw will also become a new parish separate from Euxton. 3182 members of the electorate are lost in this way. As a result the remaining part of Euxton has a population too large for a single ward but too small for two wards – if the criteria set by the LGCBE and CBC are to be met. If Euxton (less Buckshaw) was to have a single ward it would need an additional councillor, at odds with the criteria. If this is not acceptable then it does appear sensible, as is proposed, that one ward should be defined that takes the majority of the electorate. However, the shape of the proposed ward, with a narrow neck separating north west Euxton from south east Euxton does suggest though that a rather devious approach to this issue has been sought with who knows what outcome intended. It is the fate of the remaining parts of Euxton that are the issue of greatest concern, with 247 electors transferred to Chorley North, 322 to Eccleston, Heskin and Charnock and 721 to Lostock and Mawdesley – a total of 1290. The link with Euxton is lost in the names of these wards and it is unlikely that prospective councillors, whose “mission” is to serve the Euxton community, will stand in these wards. Because of the numbers there is, as noted above, no conveniently satisfactory solution. I would suggest though that a preferable grouping would allow a main Euxton ward and another grouping where the size of the Euxton electorate would justify the “Euxton” being included in the ward name. So, either: 1) the main ward could be made up of polling districts in the south and centre of Euxton with the northern minority grouped with either Chorley North or Buckshaw and Whittle or 2)the main ward could be made up of polling districts in the North and Centre of Euxton with the southern minority grouped with either Lostock and Mawdesley or Eccleston, Heskin and Charnock. The new ward name that includes the Euxton minority should include “Euxton North” or “Euxton South” as appropriate. Such a ward would have polling districts and polling stations within Euxton. Of course, either of these alternatives would require consequent adjustments to other proposals, which are beyond my resources to calculate. I do consider though that the current proposals would diminish the involvement of the Euxton South community in local elections and would reduce the likelihood of them being represented by a councillor who genuinely wishes to and is able to serve that community. I therefore request that LGCBE should ignore the CBC proposals as they relate to Euxton.