Local Resident's Submissions to the Derbyshire County Council Electoral Review

Local resident’s submissions to the Derbyshire County Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 50 submissions from local residents.

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

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:13 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: proposed boundary change

From: Barry [mailto: Sent: 02 June 2012 17:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: proposed boundary change

The Review Officer (Derbyshire) LGBCE Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

As residents of Waingroves for 45 years my wife and I object to the proposal to move Waingroves from the Ripley electoral division to the Heanor division. Our objections are :- The elected representatives for Waingroves are based in Ripley not Heanor and they understand the comunity and any problems, Heanor representatives would be at a disadvantage by not knowing the area. Local residents use Ripley (which is in easy walking distance) for shopping and entertainment not Heanor. Waingroves Primary School is in the catchment area for Ripley Mill Hill School not a Heanor school. Waingroves postal address is DE5 the same as Ripley not Heanor that is DE75. Waingroves Methodist Church is part of the Ripley based circuit. There are large housing developments in the area that would put Waingroves in the Ripley urban area. We can see know valid reason why the present boundaries need to change. Please acknowledge this email and give the reason for the alteration of the present boundaries.

Thank you Barry and Margaret Bailey

06/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:14 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Proposal to move waingroves into the Heanor electoral division

From: Shirley Bailey [mailto: Sent: 03 June 2012 14:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposal to move waingroves into the Heanor electoral division

My partner and I wish to object to the proposal to move Waingroves from the Ripley to the Heanor electoral division. The Waingroves ward is part of the area which Ripley Town Council covers and it has always been so. Waingroves has always been linked to Ripley and it has no connections with Heanor.

 The residents of Waingroves use Ripley for shopping, services and entertainment and Ripley is seen as their local town not Heanor. Ripley is within walking distance of Waingroves. Transport is required to reach Heanor.  The Waingroves primary school is in the catchment of Ripley Mill Hill secondary school not Heanor. The school is part of the Ripley cluster not Heanor.  GP cover for Waingroves is through Ripley surgeries and hospital appointments are routinely at Ripley hospital not Heanor .  The postcode for Waingroves is DE5, the postal address using Ripley as it’s town, not DE75 which is the Heanor postcode.  Fire services are based at Ripley Fire Station not Heanor.  Ambulance services are based at Ripley.  Police services are based in Ripley.

The Waingroves Community has a long connection with Ripley and they would elect to keep the village in the Ripley Ward.Waingroves is a single seat ward on Ripley Town Council and it shares a Borough Councillor with Codnor. It makes no sense to change this.

Shirley Bailey and Brian Sargent

I am using the Free version of SPAMfighter. SPAMfighter has removed 186 of my spam emails to date.

Do you have a slow PC? Try free scan!

06/06/2012

Mr I Barlow

Date 07/06/2012 Tel

Re: The Derbyshire County Council Boundary Changes

Dear Sir I am writing about the proposed boundary changes that will effect Grassmoor and the Parish of Grassmoor Hasland & Winsick. The government is telling us that communities should pull together under the localism bill and look for volunteers to help run things you propose to cut our village in half. This will put our ward with no natural boundary’s.

The village wants to keep its own identity, I would ask you before you make a final decision to come and meet us and see for yourselves what is being proposed.

The cheapest way would have been to increase the County Council by one seat.

Yours truly,

Ian Barlow

Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 29 May 2012 22:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1145 Time of Submission: May 29th 2012 at 9:20pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.151.34.132

Form Answers

Name: LYNSEY BOOTH Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I live in Waingroves which is currently served by the "Ripley" Councillor. Under the new proposals it appears that Waingroves would come under the "Greater Heanor" area. This is not in line with the way that the local area works. Waingroves comes under Ripley Town Council, has separate members for Amber Valley Borough Council (along with Codnor). Waingroves is seen locally as part of the wider Ripley suburbs, and local issues relate around Ripley. There is no connection in that way with Heanor. By moving our rep any issues affecting the village of Waingroves would not be dealt with by someone who understands the village and the area. This does not reflect the local community set up. File upload:

30/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 07 June 2012 14:04 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 June 2012 07:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1159 Time of Submission: Jun 7th 2012 at 6:39am IP Address: ::ffff:109.156.164.149

Form Answers

Name: Wendy Burridge Address 1: , Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Codnor and Waingroves should not be moved into the Heanor division and should remain in the Ripley division. Our post code quite clearly states DE5, which is a Ripley code. Although I live in Waingroves my GP is based in Ripley and I'm not prepared to move GP's under any circumstances due to suffering from MS. Ripley patients are referred to Derby hospitals where I'm under a superb neurologist. I do not wished to be referred to Nottingham hospitals,

07/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

where the stress and traveling experience is far worst and affects my condition. When shopping we always go to Ripley and would not be urged to go to Heanor. Codnor and Waingroves share a Borough Councillor and it makes absolutely no sense to add another layer of complexity to local government administration by adding another electoral complication. Codnor and Waingroves are the catchment area for Ripley Mill Hill secondary school, not a Heanor School. So to conclude do not move Waingroves and Codnor under the Heanor Division, it makes no sense!!!!!!! File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

07/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: K CARTER Sent: 23 May 2012 20:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary review From

We wish to object to the proposed change to the boundaries of a number of Derbyshire County Councils electoral divisions. These include moving a substantial part of Codnor and Waingroves from the Ripley division into Heanor.

We have never had any links with Heanor whereas Waingroves has always been linked to Ripley both in terms of the Urban District Council days and also Derbyshire County Council days. The postal addresses uses Ripley as its town and has the postcode DE5 and not DE75 (which is Heanor)

Waingroves Primary School has Ripley Mill Hill secondary school as its preferred link to further education and is also a part of the Ripley 'cluster' of schools who consult and work with each other.

The community uses Ripley for entertainment, shopping and services, not Heanor.

Waingroves is a single seat ward on Ripley Town Council.

Fire cover is from Ripley and not Heanor Fire Station.

Health cover for Waingroves is through Ripley GP surgeries and hospital appointments for Waingroves people are routinely at Ripley and Derby hospitals, not Heanor hospitals.

The church circuit is with Ripley and not Heanor.

Waingroves is closer to Ripley in distance than it is to Heanor.

Yours sincerely Ken, Lynne and Jenny Carter

30/05/2012

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 08 June 2012 10:40 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary changes in Eckington,N.E.Derbyshire

From: wendy chisholm [mailto: Sent: 08 June 2012 09:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes in Eckington,N.E.Derbyshire

As residents of the village of Eckington, North East Derbyshire we would like to register our objections to the proposed redefining of the boundaries, which will in effect split the village in two and result in the loss of its name. In these days of "The Big Society" we feel disrupting a whole village grossly unfair. Especially as people in the village are desperately trying to bring about regeneration to the area as a whole. While it is appreciated that a reduction in administrative areas is necessary, to do so in what appears to be a seemingly ill thought out way is wholly inappropriate. A rethink of this poor decision is needed. Wendy and Brian Chisholm (Mr.& Mrs.)

08/06/2012

Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 29 May 2012 10:08 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1142 Time of Submission: May 29th 2012 at 9:08am IP Address: ::ffff:86.147.163.176

Form Answers

Name: Philip Cracknell Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you resident/community organisation belong to: Your feedback: I object as a resident of Waingroves to the plans to move Waingroves from Ripley to Heanor for electoral purposes.

Waingroves is a village which historically has its associations with Ripley having been developed by the Butterley Company from Ripley.

Physically it is closer to Ripley around a mile and a half as opposed to the two and a half miles from Heanor.

The village is traditionally allied to Ripley the Primary School being a feeder for Secondary Education at Ripley Mill Hill School.

The majority of support services Health Leisure Centre Fire

30/05/2012 Page 2 of 2

Cover, Hospital Services are provided to the Waingroves Community by Ripley.

As a member of Waingroves Methodist Church our natural affinity is with other Methodist Churches in the Ripley area, i.e Codnor, Ripley, Marehay, Nether Heage etc.

At a time of such pressure on Public finances it is a change for changes sake which is just not required or can indeed be financially justified. File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

30/05/2012 Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:14 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: changes in elctoral boundary for Codnor and waingroves

-----Original Message----- From: Janet Cresswell [mailto: Sent: 03 June 2012 11:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: changes in elctoral boundary for Codnor and waingroves

I have read with dismay the proposal to "move" Waingroves (and Codnor) from Ripley to Heanor and wish to register my objections to this . I can think of many reasons why this proposal shoud not take pklace and no reasons?benefits for doing it. 1. Waingroves does not have it's own Parish Council, it is a single seat ward on Ripley town council. What is the point of introducing yet another electoral complication. 2. we have our own primary school at Waingroves,( as does Codnor), from there the children have a few minutes walk to Ripley Mill Hill swecondary school. Re arranging catchment areas will no doubt mean a bus ride to Heanor then either another one to Aldercar or a walk up nthe hill to Heanor Gate. I understand that neither of these schools have as good an Offrsted record as Mill Hill, but in any case what is the point of making them move? 3. All emergency service cover inc Dr's comes from Ripley. 4. Waingroves postal code is DE5 indeed we don't even have to include "Waingroves" in our address 5. Changing the post code from DE% to DE75 will have an adverse affect on property prices.

I could go on, but the truth of the matter is that we do not want to be part of Heanor we wish to be affiliated to Ripley

Janet Cresswell

Phil and Karen Davies, ,

5th June 2012. The Review Officer (Derbyshire), LGBCE, Layden House, 76-78, Turnmill Street, London, EC1M 5LG.

Dear Sir/ Madam, We are absolutely against the proposal to move a considerable part of the villages of Waingroves and Codnor from the town of Ripley and moving these into the town of Heanor, as a result of electoral boundary changes.

We have lived in Waingroves since February 2011. We moved here from Greater Manchester. It was not a move that we took lightly! We spent a long time researching the areas that we viewed houses in. We chose to avoid certain areas on the recommendation of family members, who know them better than we then did. We chose to look at Ripley, but not at Heanor (which in truth, we kept well away from!). After all the research, cost and effort, the last thing that we want, or indeed need, is for the area that we have moved into, to become part of a town that we deliberately avoided. The thought of this is indeed, unacceptable to us!

As far as we are concerned, as residents of Waingroves, we have no links whatsoever with Heanor; our ‘loyalty’ (if this is the right word to use) lies with our close town of Ripley. We shop in Ripley; one of us works in Ripley; we refer to the town for all our activities, such as leisure. Ripley is on our doorstep- it is walkable from our house. There are local footpaths, which make a walk into the town centre a pleasant, often ‘countrified’ walk along green lanes created for this purpose. Even if a car journey is required, it is less than two miles from our house to the centre of Ripley. If we had to travel to Heanor- it is a considerable walk of nearly an hour (with no footpaths that take us directly there), and even in the car, it takes between 10 and fifteen minutes to make a journey, which we do not regard as pleasant, given the condition of both the traffic and roads between home and the centre of Heanor.

The areas of Codnor and Waingroves have no green and open space separating the areas from Ripley. Between these same areas and Heanor there is, as well as other distinct areas such as Loscoe and Crosshill. Indeed, Waingroves and Codnor share an area of open green space, often referred to in the locality as ‘Codgroves’! The two areas though, retain their own distinct characteristics and traditions: both were founded as a consequence of coal mining in the 18th century. The mine that was worked in Waingroves until the early 20th Century remains a key part of the village history and present day traditions. It is entirely possible that the mine that existed near the centre of Ripley had galleries that fanned out under both Waingroves and Codnor. Certainly, the local mines were owned by the Ripley Butterley Company. So as the social and employment infrastructure developed in the area, everything gravitated towards Ripley and everyone looked to Ripley. This remains the situation in the 21st Century.

The communities of Waingroves and Codnor use Ripley for entertainment, shopping and other local services- not Heanor.

The area of Amber Valley has many electoral complexities, with local government and county government vying for control of areas. Codnor has its own Parish council; Waingroves is a single seat ward on Ripley Town Council. In addition to this, Codnor and Waingroves also share a Borough Councillor. It makes absolutely NO sense whatsoever, either electorally or financially, in these times of recession and financial constraint, to add yet another unnecessary electoral complication!

We have four year old twins. In September, they will start in the Reception class at Waingroves Primary School. The school is part of the Ripley cluster of schools, as is the primary school in Codnor. We are very pleased that this is the situation! This again demonstrates historical links with Ripley and not Heanor.

In an emergency, we would receive our fire cover from Ripley Fire station, which is less than two miles away. We are again, happy with this situation. Heanor fire station is a good deal further away than this. Should our lives depend on the speed of a turn out in the event of a fire, we would be glad of the proximity of Ripley!

Our local hospital is at Ripley. We have had need to use it as an emergency hospital with one of our twins, when he had an accident in December. We have also made use of both the hospital out of hours’ facility, when one of them was poorly a couple of months ago, and in addition, we have attended routine appointments for vision checks when we have been referred on by our local doctors’ surgery, at Ivy Grove,(again in Ripley)! Neither of us knows the whereabouts of a hospital in Heanor, nor would it enter our minds to seek out a GP there, as we are too far away.

Finally, our post code is DE5, not DE75.

What is the need to change something that requires no change? This, apart from the mayhem caused by large property developers, is a very stable and popular area to live. We like living in Ripley; other people share this view! For goodness sake, apply some common sense to this situation and retain the status quo with regards the boundary. Please!

Yours,

Phil and Karen Davies

Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 01 June 2012 10:02 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 May 2012 21:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1149 Time of Submission: May 31st 2012 at 8:51pm IP Address: ::ffff:78.144.46.156

Form Answers

Name: Kevin Eansworth Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to comment on the proposed boundary changes for North Wingfield and the proposal to split the village in two.Currently we have 5 public houses,an old Saxon Church and a few shops and a post office at the top of the village, We are a very close nit community andwe do not really have anything in common with the other places that you intend to place us

01/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

with .Currently we do not even have a regular bus service so unless you hsve s vcar you cannot get to Clay Cross. I would therefore respectfully request that the North Wingfield Boundary remains as in is. Yours faithfully. Kevin Eansworth File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

01/06/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 07 June 2012 14:09 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 June 2012 14:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1161 Time of Submission: Jun 7th 2012 at 1:02pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.186.1.58

Form Answers

Name: Roland Emmas-Williams Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I wish to object to the proposal to transfer part of Codnor & Waingroves from the Ripley division into Heanor. Codnor & Waingroves have always been connected to Ripley so it makes no sense to move them to the Heanor division. Codnor has its own Parish Council; Waingroves is a single seat 'ward' and has a seat on Ripley Town Council; the Amber Valley Borough Councillor is shared between Codnor and Waingroves so nothing is

07/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

connected to Heanor. There are a number of other reasons for leaving Codnor & Waingroves with Ripley such as the catchment area for Ripley Mill Hill school being the primary schools of Codnor and Waingroves,fire service cover, shared local GP services between Waingroves and Ripley and religion. So common sence should prevail!!! File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

07/06/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 01 June 2012 10:04 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 May 2012 10:21 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1146 Time of Submission: May 31st 2012 at 9:21am IP Address: ::ffff:86.159.40.42

Form Answers

Name: Mr Stephen Foote Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Re Proposal to combine two Divisions of Glossop into one

I write to express my concern about the proposal to combine the Divisions of Glossop North and Rural and Glossop South into one two Division Ward. I feel that with any two two member ward voters are confused as to who to contact and often end up contacting both. This leads to duplication and often delay in that the workload

01/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

for each Councillor is nearlly doubled which means the response to the concern is delayed. I also think it gives the wrong message to the electorate as they may perceive paying twice the cost (in terms of allowances etc) for their Division than the one next to them No Parliamentary seat has 2 MP's (even though town may be divided into two parliamentary constituencies so why County Divisions File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

01/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 08 June 2012 10:39 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 June 2012 23:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1167 Time of Submission: Jun 7th 2012 at 10:00pm IP Address: ::ffff:176.254.226.237

Form Answers

Name: Christopher Gaunt Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode:

Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you other (please specify in your submission) belong to: Your feedback: Sirs, I wish to add my voice to the residents of Eckington N E Derbyshire who object to the proposed changes to the electoral boundry. We wish to remain (as a communtity) under the existing boundry system. File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

08/06/2012

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 23 May 2012 16:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1135 Time of Submission: May 23rd 2012 at 3:33pm IP Address: ::ffff:194.73.114.209

Form Answers

Name: Linda Grooby Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I support the proposal to change the boundary for Derbyshire North & East. Sunnyfields & Sterndale Moor are already considered to be part of Harpur Hill. File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

30/05/2012

Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 28 May 2012 23:11 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1141 Time of Submission: May 28th 2012 at 10:11pm IP Address: ::ffff:95.150.52.180

Form Answers

Name: Virginia Hogg Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I object to your proposal for Waingroves and Codnor. Your literature states you wish to"Reflect local community interests and identities." why then can you suggest large parts of our community will come under Heanor? We are real people who chose to live where we are. Linked to Ripley not Heanor. We don't see the need for all this wasted time and money spent by bureaucrats. Local communities are just that. Waingroves and Codnor have nothing to do with Heanor, our primary schools are the catchment for Ripley Mill Hill Secondary school not one in Heanor. Our church circuit is with Ripley not Heanor. Our post code is DE5 not DE75. Please rethink this matter. File upload:

30/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:17 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 June 2012 17:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1155 Time of Submission: Jun 4th 2012 at 4:10pm IP Address: ::ffff:88.111.112.176

Form Answers

Name: Mrs Hazel Hollingsworth Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I am very worried about the proposed changes to the Eckington Electoral area changeing. We have No affiliation with either Unstone or Apperknowle and now we do not even have a bus to get us there. I do fully understand why they are being changed so as to make the number of votes per area more equal and that does make more sence in a way. But we are MORE affiliated to Killamarsh and Ridgeway as that is the

06/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

catchment area that all the children who come to our senior school come from. Please do not take away our identy are Eckington ward. we are in the doomsday book as Eckington not anything else. The next step would Be Sheffield trying to get their hands on us again. NO Please NO. File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

06/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: MARY HOPKINSON Sent: 14 May 2012 13:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review THIS NEW BOUNDARY WILL ALLOW GREATER COMMUNITY IDENTITY WITHIN THE TOWN OF ILKESTON M HOPKINSON

15/05/2012 Review Officer Dr Alan Jones Derbyshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 7 June 2012

Dear Sir,

Comments on the draft proposals for new electoral arrangements for Derbyshire County Council

As a resident of the proposed Melbourne Division I would like to make the following comments on these proposals;

1. I am surprised about the proposal to include the Parishes of Stanton‐by‐Bridge, Ingleby and Foremark which lie to the south of the River Trent in the proposed Aston Division, the remainder of which lies on the north side of the river. Stanton‐by‐Bridge has strong links throughl loca organisations and primary education arrangements with the town of Melbourne, while Foremark and Ingleby have no cross river transport links, and generally look towards Repton. Whether the latter two parishes were included in the Etwall and Repton Division or the Melbourne Division, drawing the boundary line along the River Trent would follow the local major natural boundary, reduce the disproportionately large electorate of the proposed Aston Division, and improve local community links.

2. Can the proposed Melbourne Division be renamed the Melbourne and Hartshorne Division ? The town of Melbourne is located at the extreme eastern end of the proposed division and including the name of the second largest parish would improve understanding of the extent of the electoral area.

Yours sincerely,

Alan Jones Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 01 June 2012 10:05 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: (no subject)

From: Sent: 30 May 2012 13:28 To: Reviews@ Subject: (no subject)

Dear Sir I have recently heard that proposals have been put forward to move parts of Waingroves and Codnor out of Ripley and into the Heanor Electoral Division. I often wonder who suggests these proposals and why....it seems to me it is change for changes sake. I have always lived in the Ripley or Waingroves area. I shop there , was schooled there and grown up there. At age 53 my post code has always began with DE5.... not DE75. I have never associated myself with Heanor ...always drawn to my home town of Ripley as it is nearer to walk or drive. The catchment area for the schools for my children was always Waingroves or Ripley....definitely not Heanor Our Doctors and hospitals are at Ripley....not Heanor. My churches are all circuit based in Ripley too. The history of Waingroves has been always linked to Ripley...pits,brickworks. I do not really have anything to do with Heanor....except occassional shopping there. I do not want to be part of Heanor at all.... I am proud to be part of Ripley in every way. Again I state this is change for changes sake. I do not know how "Electoral boundary changes" will affect me and I do not wish to find out. These boundaries have stayed the same for many years why mess with them? Please leave the boundaries as they are. Thank you Kimbre Lawrence

01/06/2012

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Líam Pennington Sent: 17 April 2012 13:33 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: RE: Derbyshire - Submission Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attachments: d-sug.docx Please find attached my submissions in relation to the Derbyshire electoral area review

I have included some points where I agree with the Commission as well as parts I do not. In any case any areas I do not mention should be taken as points where I agree with the Commission without question.

Yours faithfully

Liam Pennington

======More time is put into writing a witty signature than the e-mail itself.

26/04/2012 Derbyshire review

1. I am concerned by the Commission’s decision to propose a two‐member division in Alfreton and Somercotes. 1.1. Lancashire, where I live, is a County Council authority, with single‐member divisions throughout, regardless of geographical constraints. As the Commission is doubtlessly aware, uniform membership for Councils have the advantage of being easy to administer by authorities and can be more understandable for electors. 1.2. Having an ‘errant’ multi‐member division may increase the cost of administrating elections, and may not produce effective representation in areas where ‘division’ by candidates or elected representatives mean certain communities are excluded. 1.3. Although the Commission has noticed that there would be an exceptionally high variance from the county average under the original Council submission, the proposed Ripley West and Heage starts as 13% above and drops to 10% above in a five‐year period. 1.4. As there appears to be no indication of how the Swanwick and Riddings division would have sat within the electoral average, I cannot be certain that the Commission has made the correct choice. In conclusion, I suggest the Commission look at whether it could be possible to create single‐member divisions in this area, to avoid the danger inherent in creating an ‘exceptional case’. 1.5. If the Commission has no choice but to make this division, I suggest it is renamed to ensure those electors who live within its boundaries. My suggestion is Alfreton and Riddings as this covers its entire area in an accurate and compact way. 2. I object to the names of proposed divisions numbered 5, and 7. 2.1. Division number 5 covers the south of Heanor and its rural hinterland. The proposed name is Greater Heanor. 2.2. The current division has that name, though I believe in the context of a regional wide review, these things should not always be considered set and absolutes. I propose Rural Heanor, which is just as accurate, uses a much more commonly understood term for a division of its kind, and reduces potential confusion amongst electors as to the extent of its boundaries. 2.3. I successfully argued to the LGBCE many years ago to change a proposed division name to Preston Rural, a title which has been used in two County Council elections and which will be done so again next year. I believe the similarities between the areas in question mean that a similar name change can occur here. 2.4. Division number 7 covers two electoral wards and six parish councils. It has the proposed name Horsley from its greatest population centre. 2.5. Under the circumstances of a regional wide review, I believe that it is necessary in this case to add the name of Kilburn, to make Horsley and Kilburn to the division name. This allows the description to reflect the large extent of the division without becoming too wordy and descriptive, avoids the use of potentially confusion compass point or authority names, and eases the threat of potential confusion amongst electors and administrators. 3. I broadly recommend the Commission’s proposals for Bolsover. 3.1. The Commission has made broadly sensible decisions on the specific boundaries for the proposed divisions, of which I have only limited geographic knowledge. 3.2. I think the Commission has been sensible in avoiding the “roll call” of villages in the proposed names, although with that said I believe there could be room for some slight adjustment and improvement. 3.3. Bolsover South, numbered division 12, covers a wider part of the town of Bolsover and then spreads to the substantially sparse rural expanse of Scarcliffe. As such I am mindful of how potentially misleading the name “Bolsover South” might be. Given the nature of the division, and is relationship to the current division of almost exact size and shape, I propose Bolsover South West and Scarcliffe. 3.4. This has the advantage of remaining succinct whilst being accurate, reduces confusion amongst electors, and maintains a tie with the existing seat. 3.5. Bolsover North, numbered division 11, would cover an area largely identical to the existing division of Bolsover North West, Elmton and Whitwell. 3.6. I agree with the Commission that this name is cumbersome and clumsy, and as such broadly agree with the suggested shorter replacement. However, it is worth noting that the town of Bolsover is almost entirely absent from the ward, and therefore “Bolsover North” could be potentially misleading and confusing. 3.7. Therefore I recommend Bolsover Rural North, which has the advantage of accuracy over pedantry, and allows for the neighbouring Barlborough and Clowne division to retain its name as those named areas are substantial enough not to be mistaken for parts of the proposed ward to its south and east. There would also be a reduced chance of confusion for voters in the town of Bolsover who might be under the impression that “Bolsover North” is a local authority ward rather than a council division. 4. The Commission has adopted the Council’s proposals for Derbyshire Dales in full. 4.1. In the past, the Commission has tended not to accept alternative names to division when adopting Council or party Group proposals in full. I respect this attitude although hope that the Commission will consider the options I am putting forward. 4.2. Division number 25, Ashbourne, divides the Ashbourne parish, and incorporates Ashbourne South, Clifton and Bradley, Brailsford, and Doveridge and Sudbury. I understand there are options to choose for a division of this size and nature: based on the local authority, or based on substantial population centres. I would like to use the latter, as “Ashbourne” standing alone is potentially misleading and does not represent the entire width or breadth of the division as proposed. 4.3. I suggest Ashbourne Rural South. This avoids the potential confusion of a division of a large rural size having the name of a single population centre, avoids omitting rural communities from a roll‐call type name, and identifies the division within the context of the wider authority. I am concerned that “Ashbourne” on its own could, for a County Council division, give the false impression of being an electoral ward for the whole town. 5. The Commission proposes to follow, largely, the submitted proposals for Erewash. 5.1. I am not convinced by the proposal for the name of division 31, Breadsall, which lies to the west of Ilkeston. The name covers one parish within the proposed division, the size of which is substantial. 5.2. Given the size and nature of the division, and the nature of all those others in the Erewash area, I suggest one of two alternatives. Either Erewash Rural or Ilkeston Rural would be more representative as names, more so because the other areas within the authority boundaries have distinctive names which these would not be confused with. 5.3. I am not the first to suggest names which use Local Authority names, indeed I successfully persuaded the Local Government Boundary Commission to replace four divisions on that basis some years ago in Lancashire. However I am satisfied that “Erewash Rural” would be acceptable in the context of a County‐wide assembly, and on the same basis “Ilkeston Rural” identifies its place with accuracy and precision. 6. The Commission has chosen to replace a ‘doughnut’ division for Glossop in its modified provisional recommendations in the High Peak authority area 6.1. Given the nature of the ward shapes in Glossop, not least the circular nature of them, division has to be done carefully and respectfully. It appears impossible to create a seat in Glossop without dividing either the town, or Hadfield, and therefore I accept that the Commission has no better proposals than those they’ve presented.] 6.2. As argued earlier in this submission, multi‐member wards are not without their problems. Electorally, they can present challenges to administrators (not least because, due to the electoral system used, both sets of candidates must be presented on the same ballot paper, making counting of the votes more cumbersome). However the alternative appears to be a predominately rural division sprawling across the national park, separated from an artificially divided urban heart, and on that basis the fight between the rock and a hard place has to come out somewhere. 6.3. I have no suggestions for alternative names. Glossop and Charlesworth seems acceptable under the circumstances, as it adequately represents the nature of the division, given the constraints of the geography in this area. The predecessor division, Glossop North and Rural, cannot be adapted for the proposal without a clumsy repetition of one of those terms, and in any case ‘Rural’ is an obvious characteristic of an authority covering the Peak District National Park. 7. The Commission has proposed some alterations to the submitted suggestions for North East Derbyshire 7.1. I approve of the Commission’s provisional proposed for Dronfield West and Walton, as it reflects the two extremes of the large, mostly rural division. Those communities closest to each part should feel included with this name. 7.2. Division 47, Apperknowle, is a division at the north of the County covering bits of substantial population centres (Eckington, Coal Aston) a whole parish(Unstone) an electoral ward. As such, including the name of just one village within the division, even if this linked to precedent, seems unacceptable within the context of a region wide review. 7.3. I propose, therefore, Eckington East and Unstone, as this represents significant population centres within the division and does so with precision and accuracy. 7.4. I approve of the proposed Wingerworth and Shirland division name, as it too reflects the top and tail of the boundaries. Given the size and shape, particularly the isolated nature of Wingerworth at the ‘tip’, I can see no reason why an alternative name would be needed. 8. The Commission has proposed largely following the submitted suggestions for South Derbyshire 8.1. Division number 55 is called Aston and covers a largely curved, east‐west area to the south of the city of Derby. It incorporates the whole of the Aston electoral ward of South Derbyshire council, in addition to dividing the Repton ward between divisions. 8.2. Under the circumstances, I am unconvinced by the choice of the name ‘Aston’, as it is inaccurate and potentially confusing to have two electoral areas (one ward, one division) covering different areas with the same name. Although some cases can allow, it is not always possible and I feel this is one of those situations. 8.3. I therefore propose Aston and District, which is not ideal, but does nonetheless allow for the whole of the ward to be incorporated into its identity without an unwieldy roll‐call of villages. 8.4. The use of both Repton and Etwall in the name of division number 56 is to be welcomed. It describes the division in an accurate and precise way, and as such there is no other alternative option. Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: carly green Sent: 28 May 2012 19:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Waingroves to Heanor! I have today been given information that parts of Waingroves and Codnor could become in the division of Heanor and not Ripley!

I have to say that I'm very against this idea and think it's absolutely ridiculous.

We walk to Ripley everyday because it's up the road, we don't have to catch a bus to our nearest town!

If this happens will the schools be effected? Because up the road is Ripley Mill Hill which my children will be attending not to Heanor gate which is miles away!

Would this also mean that our emergency services would come from heanor and not Ripley? I'd feel much better knowing that an ambulance or fire engine were coming from up the road rather than 3-4 miles away.

On a few occasions if one of my children have been ill out of hours in an emergency I have taken them to Ripley hospital because that is our nearest not Heanor.

I'm not sure as to why the need to change but as you can see above there are many reasons not to, we are Ripley people always have been, always will be. We can shop there, walk there, go to school there. Why on earth would we be classed as Heanor!

I am 100% against this idea and I hope there are enough emails to you to stop this stupid plan taking place.

Kind regards

Carly Polkey Waingroves resident

30/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 12 May 2012 21:25 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1120 Time of Submission: May 12th 2012 at 8:25pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.190.134.38

Form Answers

Name: David Ridley Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you parish/town council belong to: Your feedback: I really feel your proposals exhibit that you are completely out of touch with the people. Your criteria for the proposal state that you consider Equality of the Electorate and Community Identity. Why on earth do you put the arithmatic before the community. I contend that the electorate don't give a damn about whether districts and wards have equal numbers but they do identify with a community. Eckington is a village mentioned in the Doomsday Book and a lively Parish Community. It is a centre for neighbouring Marsh Lane, Handley and Renishaw. Apperknowle must be associated with Unstone, though I suspect both communities spend time outside NE Derbyshire in Coal Aston and Dronfield.

15/05/2012 Page 2 of 2

If you want to reduce the number of Counciiors and Wards it would make much more sense to have an Eckington Ward with 12 parish concillors replacing the existing 4 wards and 14 concillors. In the Community we are much more committed to the Parish Council than the County Council. On the County Divisions I have no problem with Eckington being part of a greater area File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

15/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Hinds, Alex Sent: 15 May 2012 09:14 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

Alex Hinds Review Assistant Local Government Boundary Commission for England 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Tel: 020 7664 8534 | Fax: 020 7296 6227 Email: [email protected] Web: www.lgbce.org.uk  Think of the environment...please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 May 2012 23:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 1121 Time of Submission: May 12th 2012 at 10:38pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.190.134.38

Form Answers

Your name: M Ridley Your email: I am: a member of the public Comment/enquiry your local boundaries type: Comments: The proposed division and elimination of Eckington is appalling. This is a community with a clear identity, a market, a library, church,swimming pool, sports centre, theatre, schools and businesses, all of whom consider this village as a centre. Eckington

15/05/2012 Page 2 of 2

was in the Dooms Day Book. How can Eckington Church over 900 years old now be part of Apperknowle? This is letting numbers wipe out any local interests. This does not "reflect local community interests and identities" or "promote effective and convenient local government" these are two of your stated aims in your draft recommendations. Please reconsider this for the sake of our community This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Contact us Email

15/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Reviews@ Sent: 24 May 2012 08:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1136 Time of Submission: May 24th 2012 at 7:44am IP Address: ::ffff:78.144.179.41

Form Answers

Name: Mr Ian Ringstead Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Derbyshire submission refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: As I have lived in Eckington for the last 30 years and lived near to it since my birth 56 years ago, I am passionate about the town which has about 10,000 inhabitants.The new proposals to change the boundaries for electoral county wards seems crazy to me .I feel if Eckington is split in two between Killamarsh/Spinkhill on one side and Apperknowle on the other then our sense of identity will be lost.We have no established links with these other places which are very difference communities and I don't see why we should be associated with them.Eckington is a large community in its own right and was mentioned in the Doomsday book .I and many others in this area feel very strongly about these proposed changes and wish to object to them.Keep Eckington separately to the other wards.

30/05/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:16 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 03 June 2012 22:57 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1154 Time of Submission: Jun 3rd 2012 at 9:57pm IP Address: ::ffff:86.147.56.142

Form Answers

Name: s.ryalls Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode:

Area your submission Derbyshire refers to: Organisation you resident/community organisation belong to: Your feedback: I do not agree with the boundary changes. Eckington needs to remain one ward. We are a close knit community. We are not a part of any of the places which you propose to join us to. We do not even have public transport to Unstone, yet you say that we identify with that area. I do not know anyone who knows someone in Unstone or Apperknowle. I do not think that you have considered the people in these areas, but have simply been concerned with political

06/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

advantage. It is time that you put your parishoners interests before your political ones! File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

06/06/2012

31 May 2012

The Review Officer (Derbyshire) LGBCE Layden House 76 – 86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Commissioners

Draft proposals for Derbyshire in particular the area affecting North Wingfield

I write concerning the draft proposals that have been published by you; I live in North Wingfield, in North East Derbyshire. I was astounded that the Boundary Commission has endorsed the Conservative county council‟s proposals for the area in which I live.

I always believed that the Boundary Commission was a big enough organisation that carried out its obligations without being influenced by a political party that will use its influence to keep political power, by whatever means.

Your so called proposals for North Wingfield to be included in Clay Cross North and Clay Cross South are ridiculous. I know it‟s a number game but why abolish North Wingfield and create two seats that have absolutely nothing in common with the area?

Reading the minutes of the county council Cabinet (wholly made up of Conservative councillors) it is no surprise to see that they enthusiastically endorsed your draft proposals which, to quote, “are the same as the authority‟s proposals.”

I notice that the Commission would consider other responses to the draft recommendations before making final recommendations for Derbyshire. You also say you reserve the right to undertake further „information gathering‟ and/or consultation if responses did not lead to a clear picture of the degree to which the draft recommendations were acceptable to local people.

I wear many voluntary hats within this community and I can assure you that the people of North Wingfield are dismayed that the Boundary Commission is carrying out the conservative party proposals for Derbyshire rather than its own. Isn‟t that what you are supposed to do? Be impartial?

Yes the numbers are important but so are the people. Who in their right mind would dream up a proposal where whole areas are cut up to satisfy the electoral whims of the controlling conservative party at County Hall?

If you want to see what a mess these proposals are I suggest you get out of London and come and see for yourselves.

To do nothing is shirking your responsibility.

Yours faithfully,

David Skinner

Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 08 June 2012 10:40 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Objection to the proposal to move Waingroves and Codnor from the Derbyshire County Council Electoral Ripley Division to Heanor Division

From: RICHARD SMITH [mailto: Sent: 08 June 2012 07:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Objection to the proposal to move Waingroves and Codnor from the Derbyshire County Council Electoral Ripley Division to Heanor Division

The Review Officer (Derbyshire) 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

My wife and I wish to strongly object to the proposal to move Waingroves and Codnor from the Derbyshire County Council Electoral Ripley Division to Heanor Division.

As long term residents our objections are based on:

1. Waingroves and Codnor have little or no community connections with Heanor: the two communities are within easy walking distance of Ripley - a bus/car journey of greater distance (therefore cost) is needed to Heanor the majority of local people use shops in Ripley including the Sainsburys shop on the outskirts of the town of Ripley all local primary schools are part of the 'Ripley Cluster' and feeders for Ripley Mill Hill comprehensive Fire cover is from Ripley not Heanor Police cover is from Ripley Ambulance base is in Ripley the parish church at Codnor and the two village Methodists churches are part of a Ripley based 'circuit' Medical services are through local surgeries in Codnor and Ripley with Ripley Hospital used for minor injuries, some specialist care and care for the elderly.

2. The local political system is Ripley connected and not Heanor: It is very important to have elected representatives who know and understand their community linking Waingroves Codnor with Heanor would place an elected member in a very difficult position where their ward communities are disconnected and some residents feeling disenfranchised and even more apathy on voting days Waingroves is a ward within Ripley Town Council Codnor has its own Parish council

3. The post codes are different: Waingroves Codnor and Ripley are DE5 Heanor is DE75

08/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

Ripley Post office (adjacent to a local Co-operative store) is only a short distance away rather than a longer bus/car journey to Heanor

4. History The area grew from the mining and iron industries founded through the then Ripley based Butterley Company which had significant impact on the growth of local communities with Waingroves having company based coal mining and a large brick making industry. Although this has largely disappeared community relationships are still linked to this very strong foundation in and around Ripley.

5. Impending Housing Development Very significant housing developments are proposed which if successful will put Codnor and Waingroves firmly in the 'urban area' of Ripley

In conclusion, there is no community or other reasonable cause to change what is a totally appropriate electoral Division of Ripley where Waingroves and Codnor are properly included.

Please leave things alone OR make the case for change and that case must include benefits for the community which at present are totally absent.

Thank you.

Richard and Angela Smith

08/06/2012 Page 1 of 2

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 01 June 2012 10:02 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: FORMAL OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL TO REMOVE WAINGROVES AND CODNOR FROM THE DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RIPLEY ELECTORAL DIVISION

From: John Stamp [mailto: Sent: 31 May 2012 11:07 To: Reviews@; Chris Emmas-Williams; Chris Emmas-Williams; David Bowley; DAVID WILLIAMS; COUNCILLOR ROBERT PHILLIPS-FORSYTH; Robert Phillips-forsythe; Adam Maycock; Allison Oldfield; Coral Thorpe; Craig Plunkett; David Smith; Julie Flint; Julie Flint; ken & Lynn Carter; Kim Lawrence; Lynsey Booth; Margaret Bailey; Richard bott; Richard Smith; Shirley Bailey; Spen Stanway; Sue Eley; Simon Ratcliffe; Ruth Beresford; Slyvia Mason; MILLS, Nigel; Reverend Stuart Radford Subject: FORMAL OBJECTION TO PROPOSAL TO REMOVE WAINGROVES AND CODNOR FROM THE DERBYSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL RIPLEY ELECTORAL DIVISION

The Review Officer (Derbyshire) 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

My wife and I wish to strongly object to the proposal to move Waingroves and Codnor from the Derbyshire County Council Electoral Ripley Division to Heanor Division.

As long term residents our objections are based on:

01/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

3. The post codes are different: Waingroves Codnor and Ripley are DE5 Heanor is DE75 Ripley Post office (adjacent to a local Co-operative store) is only a short distance away rather than a longer bus/car journey to Heanor

5. Impending Housing Development Very significant housing developments are proposed which if successful will put Codnor and Waingroves firmly in the 'urban area' of Ripley

In conclusion, there is no community or other reasonable cause to change what is a totally appropriate electoral Division of Ripley where Waingroves and Codnor are properly included.

Please leave things alone OR make the case for change and that case must include benefits for the community which at present are totally absent.

We would appreciate an acknowledgement of receipt of this email.

Thank you.

John & Geraldine Stamp

01/06/2012



David Stephenson Sent: 29 April 2012 22:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Changes in Derbyshire

I have read and considered your proposals for new boundaries in the Erewash borough in general and Ilkeston in particular. I live in Ilkeston. The proposal to divide the town along a line running approximately north/south is very sensible. Ilkeston is logically divided by four roads: Heanor Road, Bath Street, South Street and Stanton Road. This means that the natural, urban boundary should be the east and west of those roads. Your proposals are very sensible and should be put into force. Thank you, David Stephenson Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 11 June 2012 14:03 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Eckington, North East Derbyshire Importance: High

From: Brenda Stocks [mailto Sent: 08 June 2012 20:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Eckington, North East Derbyshire Importance: High

Good afternoon

After speaking to friends, relatives and business colleagues living and working in Eckington, North East Derbyshire, we are strongly opposed to your proposals to change the boundaries of Eckington.

We have little or nothing in common with Unstone, Coal Aston, Apperknowle, Spinkhill etc. We do not have direct bus routes to connect us with most of these villages. I am sure that people in Coal Aston and the other villages affected by your draft proposals, have no wish to be incorporated into Eckington.

We also have no wish to have part of Eckington moved into South Yorkshire. We fought to stay in Derbyshire when Mosborough, Halfway and others were integrated into the Sheffield suburbs in 1967.

I am signing this on behalf of myself, Brenda Stocks, Mary and Terry Brightmore and their family, Lynne Simcox, Mary and Terry Bond and their family and many more inhabitants of Eckington.

Yours sincerely,

Brenda Stocks

(Born and bred in Eckington, Derbyshire)

12/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:13 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: change of electoral divisions

From: cindy strange [mailto: Sent: 01 June 2012 22:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: change of electoral divisions

I write about the changes you are making to the electoral divisions. I done think this is right you are upsetting a lot of people, what the point in putting our area under another division which is more miles away from us, causing problem for school children(secondary)we have a secondary school at top of the road not a bus/car ride away.

We are part of Ripley not Heanor, people use ripley doctors not Heanor and dont require to change, changing doctors will causing a lot of problems for a lot of people, changing doctors means you have to get used to your new doctor and this takes a lot of time the doctors you have had for years know you inside and out and can spot problems with you straight away, meaning you dont have to start at the beginning.

Why should our postcode have to change to DE75 instead of DE5, this causing loads of problems for business and local people whom will have to change all there address labels and lots of other things, making people spend money they cant afford.

It will take longer for fire engine to come from Heanor then Ripley, it that time someone could have died because of the change over of divisions.

Hospitals appointment for routine appointments are better at Ripley and easier to get to and car parking. Heanor is out of the way and if doctors etc are changed to Heanor division this means hostipal appointments will be Nottingham or Ilkeston, well out of the road and more costly to anyone(petrol or bus).

I live in the Waingroves and have lived there over 30 years, there as been no problems with the electoral divisions in that time why change it now.

c. strange

06/06/2012

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 06 June 2012 10:13 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: DCC electoral division proposals re Waingroves @ Codnor

From: ROGER VANE [mailto: Sent: 03 June 2012 10:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: DCC electoral division proposals re Waingroves @ Codnor

Dear Sir/Madam, I am appalled at the suggestion that there is a proposal to move both villages from the electoral division of Ripley to that of Heanor. I have lived in Waingroves for the last 20 years and without exception we, my wife and two chidren, have looked towards Ripley for all our personal requirments. Our doctors there, our dentist, the hospital with small a@e facilities, we bank there, pay our community charges there and shop there. I could go on but the major issue is that, should I need to, I can walk to all of these facilities from my home, hardly the case where Heanor is concerned which is obviously much furthor away. As can be seen we consider Ripley as our "home town" and strongly urge you to reject this proposal and keep Waingroves @ Codnor in the Ripley divsion.

Yours faithfully,

06/06/2012

Page 1 of 1

Lawrence, Arion

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 08 June 2012 10:38 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Eckington, Derbyshire

From: Sent: 07 June 2012 19:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Eckington

To whom it may concern I wish you take into account that I do not agree with proposals of splitting Eckington in half, this is a ill thought out procedure, does not take into account the people of Eckington and there welfare. It appears that this action is just for political reasons. So I along with majority of people in Eckington do not want these plans to go any further. C J Ward Eckington resident.

08/06/2012