Local resident submissions to the Cotswold Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 27 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.

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 March 2014 09:03 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: boundary

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: Patrick Dixon [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 March 2014 19:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lechlade boundary

To whom it may concern I am very angry about the proposal to split Lechlade into 2 wards - with the second just including Moorgate and the Wern (from Lechlade).

Geographically, culturally and practically Lechlade should be one ward - true the town has grown but not dramatically.

Please can I ask you to drop the proposal to create 2 wards split across the town?

Thanks in advance

Patrick Dixon BSc, MSc, MBA.

1 Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Julie Dolan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Re: South and Kempsford ward Our family live in , Lechlade, and have never considered this to be 'on the edge of Lechlade' as stated in the Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Council. In fact, the complete opposite. We run our medium-sized business, The Priory Motor Company, from Faringdon Road, Lechlade. This employs and serves local people from the town. Our business would be in a separate ward if this proposal was agreed. This does not make sense for us in terms of community interest as we feel we belong in the heart of Lechlade's identity along with the majority of other families that live in our immediate area. Separating this small area of our town, populated with families who have Lechlade's community in their foremost interest, and forcibly connecting it to another town miles away to fulfil quotas is wrong.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3134 17/04/2014 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 March 2014 09:05 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Lechlade Boundary Change

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

-----Original Message----- From: Michael Read [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 March 2014 10:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lechlade Boundary Change

To whom it may concern, I saw and discussed the boundary changes at the neighbourhood development plan open day on Sunday. The proposal of changing the boundaries is ridiculous, in fact it is verging on stupidity. Lechlade should remain one town, has Basil Fawlty come up with hair brained scheme? Clearly the people who make such decisions are not in touch with local opinions.

Yours sincerely Dr M J Read Resident of Lechlade for 30 years

Sent from my iPad

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: John Elsey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I feel the proposal to split the existing single-member Lechlade ward is quite preposterous. I fully understand the rationale for wanting to balance the number of electors looked after by each member but, surely in trying to achieve such a position, common sense should not be thrown out of the window. The proposal is flawed and I recommend that Lechlade remains a single-member ward, even if there is a slight imbalance in numbers. In any case, your recommendations would require the member to attend three, rather than one, parish/town meetings each month, and the time moving between the three locations would comfortably cover the higher level of electors. For goodness sake, isn't it about time common sense played a major part in the decisions made!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3162 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Roderick Evans

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

5: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay in Lechlade and not be placed in Fairford South and Kempsford 4:1:6: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay in Lechlade and not be placed in Fairford South and Kempsford

2: The area Marked with the Green 3: TheLine area should Marked stay within Lechlade the Green andLine not should be placed stay in in Lechlade Fairford and Southnot be and placed Kempsford in Fairford South and Kempsford

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Annotation 2: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Annotation 3: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Annotation 4: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Annotation 5: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Annotation 6: The area Marked with the Green Line should stay

Comment text:

This is a ridiculous recommendation from people who clearly want to destroy local communities and local decision making. The proposed suggestion to split Lechlade with part of it in Lechlade and part of it in Fairford South and Kempsford will destroy our village. How on earth can anyone expect local planning or local considerations to be taken account of when this sort of ludicrous recommendation is proposed? It is an insult to the residents of Lechlade who have seen more and more councils services removed and now we will see our village carved in two. Total nonsense from idiots who have completely ignored the views of the Town Council and the resident. You are TRULY IDIOTS! The Boundary should start at the Roundabout and not take any population from Lechlade. The difference in population is marginal but if you want local representation and local people to take an active role - this suggestion to split Lechlade is not the way to do it. If you want apathy and no involvement from local people ad kill local decision making then go ahead. Where do you come up with these ideas that anyone would want our community split in two parts and one of the parts thrown in with Fairford and Kempsford? What say in their affairs will those disenfranchised Lechlade residents get in the new ward? NONE. They will excluded from Lechlade decision making and totally disenfranchised. Still as long as it balances the size of wards who cares what local people think eh? Clearly you don't!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3102 17/04/2014 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 31 March 2014 16:17 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Electoral reform for Lechlade

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Simon Forster [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 31 March 2014 15:15 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral reform for Lechlade

To whom it may concern:

I am writing, as invited to, to comment on the proposed review for electoral reform.

I have lived in Lechlade since 1974 and my business is in Fairford.

I totally agree with a comment I read that Kempsford sits better with Fairford. It does and there is no further need for discussion on that matter.

What is totally beyond me is which muppet is responsible for cutting off parts of Lechlade, that are inside the Lechlade town boundary, and lumping them in with Fairford?!

Unless there is a hidden agenda somewhere, this is totally ridiculous. Why would a Lechlade resident be interested in policies that affect Fairford? Would the elected member for Fairford really be interested in what is important to what would be a couple of streets in Lechlade? I highly doubt it.

Perhaps when you look at this daft suggestion in the light of day, you may actually see sense!

Regards,

Simon Forster

Simon Forster Director, Ridgeway Estate Agents 01285 712900

Notice: This e‐mail and any attachments are confidential and are legally privileged. The material may also be subject to copyright protection. If you are not the intended receipient then please notify the sender immediately, delete the message and do not disclose the contents to any other person. You may not use the message for any purpose nor store the information in any medium. Disclosure to anyone other than the intended recipient whether inadvertent or otherwise is not intended to waive legal privilege or confidentiality. Although we take steps to ensure that our e‐ 1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:19 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Lechlade & Fairford Wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Michael Freeman [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 02 April 2014 21:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lechlade & Fairford Wards

As residents of Lechlade, we consider the proposal to split Lechlade into two wards, one with Fairford South & Kempsford and the other for the remainder of Lechlade to be totally ridiculous and impractical, leading to split communities and local decisions in Lechlade.

Michael & Elizabeth Freeman

1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 April 2014 10:08 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: two wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 07 April 2014 10:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: two wards

Dear Sirs, I understand that there is a proposal to split Lechlade into two wards. I would like to express my objection to such an idea. Lechlade is a compact community and works well with all parishioners supporting the many and varied activities within the town. Any suspicion that it is made up of two communities must be considerd a bad idea. Although the Wern is relatively new the residents there do feel part of the town and are very much Lechlade. Any suggestion that they have links with Fairford and/or Kempsford is definitely misplaced. I very much support the one member for ALL of Lechlade. Thank you. D.A.Gillard

1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 April 2014 09:29 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cotswold District Council Ward Boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Sent: 21 April 2014 21:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cotswold District Council Ward Boundaries

Dear Sirs,

We have been notified by our Parish Council that the above review is taking place and request that any observations and comments should be passed on to yourselves.

I welcome the fact that our Council should be reduced in numbers to streamline and save costs.

However the proposal to include part of Lechlade with Kempsford and Fairford South is a complete nonsense.

We have no particular affiliation with Lechlade, but are closely linked to Fairford, so that would be a reasonable match.

Fairford and Kempsford have similar issues, ie RAF Fairford, but Lechlade has entirely different issues and problems.

I don't see how a councillor could succesfully represent 3 different communities with differing problems.

I am sure the Lechlade residents who it is being proposed should be added to our ward will be similarly surprised.

Whilst it may be desirable to have wards comprising equal numbers of electors, in practice this is impossible. In any event, 'equal electors' does not mean 'equal residents', and our Councillors represent the whole community not just electors. Speaking to my local councillors they don't mind how many they represent so long as it is a sensible geographical area.

So 'best fit' would be a more sensible approach.

Please add these comments to others I am sure you will receive, but act on these!!

Yours faithfully,

Mr J J Greenhalgh Kempsford Resident

1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 28 April 2014 14:30 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Single Member Ward for Lechlade-on-Thames

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Irene Hammond [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 28 April 2014 13:21 To: Reviews@; MICHAELHAMMOND Subject: Single Member Ward for Lechlade-on-Thames

My husband and I think Lechlade-on-Thames should remain a single-member ward on the following grounds:

1. Geographically, Downington is clearly part of Lechlade.

2. If it is separated to be part of Fairford and Kempsford it is likely that we will have the absurd situation where a) we would need to go to Fairford or Kempsford to vote and b) there is every likelihood that the children of Downington would need to go to primary schools in Fairford or Kempsford!

3. Members of Downington will obviously take part in activities in Lechlade fund-raising, public paths etc. etc. and therefore should have their input in Lechlade.

It is absurd that for administration purposes a random division is being made! Lechlade is a town and if it needs two councillors than one so be it.

Clearly, whoever has come up with this is doing a number exercise with no thought of the communities. Not only geographically but historically Downington and Lechlade have always been one unit. Given the small number of households in Moorgate and the Wern (approximately 40) it seems a very small number of households to be combined with Lechlade and it would avoid the fairly arbitrary sub-division.

We have lived in Lechlade for 28 years and have been associated with the activities of Lechlade in all that time. We think this plan is absolutely illogical.

Michael and Irene Hammond

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Kevin Hannigan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: none

Comment text:

The driving force, when looking at small populations, is the cohesion of the unit and not absolute numbers achieved by combining separate communities to make nothing more than just a "number".Lechlade should be treated as a unit in and of itself, and not parceled up as proposed. The issue changes when looking at much larger populations such as parliamentary seats.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3036 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: colin harris

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Lechlade ward I have lived in the area all my life (47years). This is the natural development boundary that Lechlade should take

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Lechlade wardI have lived in the area all my life

Comment text:

It is ridiculous to imagine that the western area of Lechlade (Downington) is 'looked after' by a Fairford ward. It is also better to reflect each area from the ground, and not be confined to number of voters per councillor. My boundary defines a better reflection of the identity of local communities It would be much better represented by our local councillors

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3170 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Hill Derek

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that there should be only one single member for Lechlade Ward as all residents are entitled to the same representation on the Cotswold District Council. To split the town in half to balance the residents per councillor is frankly ridiculous, and I believe that it would be detrimental to the wellbeing and future of Lechlade .I believe that if the Cotswold District Council intend to go ahead with this ridiculous Idea then they should hold a referendum so that all of the residents of each ward could decide the future of their own Ward in a democratic fashion as is their right.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3038 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Sandra Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Lechlade,Fairford and Kempsford are three separate areas all with their own individual issues which should be represented by three separate councillors. As for splitting an area in two it is so wrong and would cause so much bad feeling within a community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3039 17/04/2014 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 March 2014 14:00 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: proposed new ward boundaries for Lechlade

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: M Hing [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 March 2014 11:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: proposed new ward boundaries for Lechlade

Dear Sir

I wish to express concern over the proposed new ward boundaries affecting Lechlade. The town is on the very fringe of the county and seems to be having a very raw deal. First, the police station was closed, then the library and now it appears will have to share a councillor with Fairford and Kempsford, ‐ quite a work load for anyone!

Lechlade is a substantial town and surely would be best served by a single councillor who has the time to spend on it.

Can I also mention that the ‘consultation.lgbce.org.uk’ web site is flagged by my virus software – BT Net protect plus which strongly warned me not to continue… Not very helpful.

Regards

Margaret Hing

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Ann Hirons

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The suggestion to transfer voters in part of Lechlade to Fairford is totally unworkable. Lechlade must be treated as one ward and could be treated better by one councillor.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3084 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Hirons

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The new proposals transfers important parts of Lechlade to a neighbouring town This is totally unworkable, and it is essential that all of Lechlade is dealt with as a single ward. This is much more important than equalising the number of voters

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3083 17/04/2014 Morrison, William

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 23 April 2014 10:39 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Splitting Lechade into two wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Hi Will,

Please see the below submission for Cotswold.

Regards, Helen

From: Gary Holland [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 23 April 2014 10:08 To: Reviews@ Subject: Splitting Lechade into two wards

With reference to the proposal to amend the ward boundaries in Lechlade.

This is a TERRIBLE idea. I live in Downington in LECHLADE. I am not part of Kempsford or Fairford.

We have been well served by CDC councillors particularly in respect of the flooding issues the area has encountered. I do not believe an "outside" person would be able to understand the intracacies of the issues. Further, I am concerned that the modest number of the electorate being hived off would lead to our being dis-enfranchised.

Keep Lechlade whole as a ward and consign this ridiculous idea to the waste bin where it belongs

Gary Holland Orchard House South Downington Lechlade

______Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 9710 (20140423) ______

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 28 April 2014 09:40 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Splitting Lechlade into two wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: Karen Holland [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 April 2014 16:44 To: Reviews@ Subject: Splitting Lechlade into two wards

With reference to the proposal to split the ward boundaries I strongly disagree.

I live in Lechlade (Downington), not Kempsford or Fairford. I have chosen to live in Lechlade and feel the the idea of splitting the town ridiculous. Please keep Lechlade whole so we all feel part of this lovely Cotswold town.

Karen Holland

Downington Lechlade

______Information from ESET Smart Security, version of virus signature database 9726 (20140426) ______

The message was checked by ESET Smart Security. http://www.eset.com

1

Morrison, William

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 13:43 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Change to electoral boundaries, Lechlade Glos.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Hi Will,

Please see below a submission for Cotswold.

Regards, Helen

From: Ian Hurst Sent: 25 March 2014 20:56 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Re: Change to electoral boundaries, Lechlade Glos.

I am emailing you to make my views on the proposed amendments to local representation known.

In my view, the proposals put forward by your review committee, represent tinkering for tinkerings sake. In fact, I feel that whilst the excercise may keep some bureaucrats employed, one has to ask, for the benefit of whom?

The proposal to merge Downington with parts of Fairford and Kempsford is flawed. I believe it is flawed for the following reasons.

Downington, which is the historic name for the area you wish to hive off from Lechlade, is the oldest settled part of Lechlade, with buildings dating as far back as Elizabethan times. Little London remains evidence of the coach trade between the West of England and London, and is the heart of Downington. The remainder of the town dates from later periods.

Downington has nothing in common with Fairford and Kempsford and looks to the east, not to the west and south west for services and facilities.

In my opinion, the local population feel that their interests are best served by a representative with a knowledge and a feel for the local issues affecting the town, and our present representatives fulfill this function admirably.

In the scheme of things, is it necessary to 'balance' representation to the nth degree, because I am sure that the majority of Lechlade's population do not feel either under or over represented in local government. in fact why is money being wasted on this futile excercise when I doubt whether turnout in local elections ever reaches a figure of 20%. On a personal basis, I have always excercised my right to use the franchise that

1 entitles me to vote, but if your proposals are accepted and implemented, then you will find one less elector excersising their right to vote.

See sense, and abandon this ridiculous 'politically' correct excercise.

Ian A Hurst.

2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Jenkins B

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that Lechlade should be represented by one single councillor and the town treated as a whole. Residents to the west of the town should be included in Lechlade and not become part of the Fairford South/Kempsford ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3165 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: H Jenkins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Even though there would be more electors per ward member than is being recommended, I strongly believe Lechlade should not be split into two separate wards. The housing area to the west of the town is very much a part of Lechlade and should remain within the new Lechlade ward

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3169 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cotswold District

Personal Details:

Name: Louise Jenkins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Lechlade should not be split into two wards. Even though there would be more voters per ward than is recommended, Lechlade should be treated as one single ward. Moving some of the Lechlade voters to "Fairford South" would not be in their best interests.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3086 17/04/2014