Local resident submissions to the Hertfordshire Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 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.
D-I
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Martin Davies
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I support all the boundary proposals in this review.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4164 03/11/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:04 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council - Consultation response
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Day, Sally Sent: 02 November 2014 09:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response
To whom it may concern,
Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response
I am writing to endorse the proposal that Croxley Green is retained as one ward for the county council elections, with a small addition, so that it keeps its local identity and it will be effective and convenient for local government.
Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support the environment, sport and leisure and the Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of many local initiatives, including the joint community plan which is being written. The community is a cohesive unit for local government and therefore should have representation at county level to reflect local issues.
I urge the review to keep Croxley Green together.
Yours sincerely
Sally Day
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Peter Dean
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I support the proposal made by the boundary commission.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4082 16/10/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 October 2014 16:28 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: New South Oxhey & Eastbury County Division
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
-----Original Message----- From: Anindita Doig Sent: 07 October 2014 15:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: New South Oxhey & Eastbury County Division
Dear Sir / Madam
I am writing in relation to the proposal for a new county division for South Oxhey & Eastbury. We moved to this area in August 2014, and therefore don't have any existing attachment to boundaries or divisions. However, in getting to know this area and understand the way people, traffic and activity flow, we have some general views:
1. The current country border between Herts and Hillingdon cuts rights through Northwood. For instance, the main shopping and amenity area around Northwood tube station on Green Lane, falls within Hillingdon, but a large minority / possibly the majority of users live in Herts. Hillingdon offers a discount for parking, but as a Herts resident I don't qualify.
2. Watford Road should be a great dividing line between east and west, but it is not. Instead it's an arterial north / south road along which everyone who lives or works around here travels, but there is plenty of communication between its east and west sides. As a result, residents from Moor Park head south to Northwood - the big Waitrose and the banks and other amenities are a great draw. They do not go to Carpenders Park which also has a small high street.
3. The more natural boundary is the Oxhey Nature Reserve, which does cleave this area between the users of central Northwood, and Carpenders Park / South Oxhey who do not.
4. We believe that dividing areas along levels of deprivation is a callous and wrong way to divide an area. That said, when slicing up an area, the different groups who make up the population do need to be taken into consideration so a permanent numerically-disadvantaged community does not consistently have its needs marginalised. The residents of Moor Park & Eastbury might be seen as affluent, but they are also disproportionately elderly retirees. We have met 5 of our new neighbours: we are the only family with small children, everyone else is 70+.
1 5. Creating a new Moor Park & Eastbury division is the most sensitive division and takes best account of community needs and identities, as well as reflecting the reality on the ground of people's lives, the flows of people, traffic and commerce.
Kind regards
Roger & Anindita Doig
2 Morrison, William
From: Dolan Family
Begin forwarded message:
From: Dolan Family Subject: Fwd: Local Government Boundary Changes Date: 15 October 2014 10:26:14 BST To: [email protected]
Sir/Madam, I have just received the email below and am very concerned at the proposal that Loudwater becomes part of Croxley County Division for all of the reasons outlined below. We have lived in this area for 20 years and have four children who have all attended Chorleywood schools (Christ Church and St Clement Danes). Our GP practice is in Chorleywood and we use many other amenities in the village but never in Croxley. We cherish the rural nature of our small enclave and do not see any logical reason for becoming part of the Croxley urban division. Your faithfully
Dr Elizabeth Dolan
Begin forwarded message:
From: LRA
Dear Resident
The Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. Our existing Division will be reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. Our County Councillor, Chris Hayward, is most concerned about this proposal as Loudwater has traditionally been part of Chorleywood. If you object to this, please contact the Boundary Commission to register your disapproval.
It would be advantageous to note various points why we should not be joined with Croxley. The following are suggestions you may wish to include, although they are not exhaustive points.
1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level
1 as part of Chorleywood.
2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment.
3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley.
4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley.
5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields.
If you wish to object, please act by 3rd November. You can either e-mail to : [email protected] or send in writing to : Review Officer, Hertfordshire Review, The Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG
Thank you for your support
Kind regards Heather Kenison Chairman, LRA
2
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Nicholas Edlin
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: N/A
Comment text:
I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal to move the Parish of Aldbury into the Bridgewater Division of Hertfordshire County Council. The description of a County Councillor may be simply distilled as “a person elected to represent the views and interests of their electorate”. In order to fulfil this obligation they need to be connected at all levels with their constituents and therefore the needs, wants and aspirations of the settlements within their division. Thus it is essential that there is a connection and cohesion between those settlements. Aldbury and Tring are inextricably linked. Residents of the Parish turn to the town of Tring for all services; Secondary school Doctors Dentists Banking Food and retail shopping Equally important is the fact that Tring Main Line Railway Station is actually situated within the Parish of Aldbury. In addition matters relating to the A41 (which is in close proximity to both Aldbury and Tring) should not be overlooked. Thus there is an overwhelming need to retain the existing Tring Division in order to provide the Parish of Aldbury with a County Councillor, and therefore a voice, which is best placed to represent us. Conversely there is little if any connection with the settlements within the existing Bridgewater Division which is exacerbated by the physical barrier of the Ashridge Forest. With the greatest respect to any Elected Member for the Bridgewater Division, they will not be able to adequately represent the electorate of the Parish. In fact it is not inconceivable that at times, the wishes of the Parish may be contrary to the remainder of that division and that Member feels that they must to side with the majority. We are already faced with a Parliamentary Constituency which is a disparate grouping of disconnected settlements (resulting from need to create constituencies with “equal” numbers of voters) and thus an MP with divided loyalties. I do not believe that the present proposals will assist us with retaining a representative “voice” at least at County level. I trust that the foregoing illustrates that the removal of Parish from the Tring Division will deprive us of a County Councillor who is able to truly represent our interests. In addition the small number of electors within the Parish does not make any significant contribution to “balancing the books”.In these circumstances I respectfully ask that the removal of Aldbury from the Tring Division is given further consideration and hopefully will be allowed to remain within the present division.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4210 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Sally Edwards
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
You do not display our district. We live in Northwood, Hertfordshire which we have long been trying to be reflected in our postcode as we would get cheaper household and car insurance but no one is interested in our predicamemt. If we are put into a new ward, would we then be given a WD postcost? If we stayed in Northwood/Moor Park we still should be entitled to a WD postcode, why cannot it be given. We were originally told that it would delay our post by one day, but the service is now so deplorable that one day would be neither here nor there. We do not wish to go into a South Oxhey ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3962 02/10/2014 To whom it may concern
Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response
We are writing to endorse the proposal that Croxley Green is retained as one ward for the County Council elections, with a small addition, so that it keeps its local identity and it will be effective and convenient for local government.
Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support the environment, sport and leisure and the Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of many local initiatives including the joint Community Plan which is being written. The community is a cohesive unit for local government and therefore should have representation at County level to reflect local issues.
We urge the review to keep Croxley Green together. We work very hard within our community to keep it special and new comers into Croxley Green say what a lovely, friendly place it is to live – please do not destroy it by breaking up Croxley Green for ANY reason.
Yours sincerely
Roger and June Emson
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Heather Evens
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
2: New "Welwyn Garden City South" area
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: New "Haldens" area
Annotation 2: New "Welwyn Garden City South" area You have 215 remaining characters
Comment text:
1. This new "Haldens" area is not connected in any logical way with the rest of Haldens. By road, you must go around Shire Park to reach the rest of Haldens. This area is far more affected by issues affecting "Welwyn" to the north and "Handside & Peartree" to the south than it is by Haldens. 2. This area is a part of Panshanger, and whereas the rest of Panshanger is in the Haldens division, this small set of roads has been moved into Welwyn Garden City South. It has footpaths and cycle paths linked to Panshanger's system of paths. It makes no logical sense to exclude this area from Haldens when it is directly affected by issues affecting the neighbouring roads and schools.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3812 26/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Martin and Jennifer FLETCHER
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
It is proposed to include Cunningham Ward, St. Albans, with London Colney. This is not acceptable. We are part of St. Albans City and wish to remain so; London Colney considers itself a Village and wishes to remain so. All the time we have lived here St. Albans Council and ourselves have been very conscious that we do not want the two to meet and be one urban mess. The A414 and the London Colney roundabout make ideal demarcation boundaries and long may them remain so.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4170 03/11/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:04 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Boundary Chances
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
-----Original Message----- From: Michelle Sent: 01 November 2014 14:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Chances
Dear sir/ madam
I am writing to you as I live in Stevenage, Hertfordshire, in the Bedwell area.
I wanted to air my views on the changes.
Having seen the changes I am in full support of them.
I believe the changes are better for myself and those who live in my community and will give us better representation and I do think that where I live the residents will feel they have a stronger link with their elected candidate I know I will. Also we will know they will be representing us and working for us and our area/community, making time to listen to what really matters
Thank you for reading my email, I am not sure if my view will have any barring but I do care about where I live and I know a lot of my neighbours do too.
Kind Regards
Mrs Michelle Frith
Sent from my iPad
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Judith Gamse
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 3: Line indicates proposal to incorporate the west
Comment text:
For the Borehamwood South ward - why not incorporate the whole of Eldon Avenue into Borehamwood South, or at least the properties on the West side of the road - it would make much more logical sense, a neater boundary and with the new development planned for Hertsmere / Isopad house by the war memorial of an additional 136 properties, this would help to even out the numbers.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3775 26/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Brian Gauci
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I support your recommendations for 'No Change' for Watford.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4090 17/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Devampika Getkahn
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: N/A
Comment text:
I'm very keen to express my support for the Three Rivers proposal. I live in Croxley Green and I'd prefer to continue to vote in a separate area.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4174 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: David Gilmartin
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1: Area of Interest
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: Area of Interest
Comment text:
The proposal to extend the London Colney draft division boundary into St. Albans, specifically the annotated "Area of Interest" near the southern end of the A1081, London Road, is very poorly chosen and should be withdrawn. The A414 presents a major boundary between St. Albans and London Colney and should instead be used to delimit the two areas. Existing boundaries clearly follow the A414, such as the parish of London Colney and Cunningham ward in St.Albans. It is very unsatisfactory to arbitrarily change an area represented by St. Albans City Council (not London Colney Parish Council) to be part of London Colney in regards to County Council matters. Such a change is confusing, illogical, and represents a lack of knowledge in regards to local communities, their "centres of gravity" and different local issues. In the "Area of Interest", the natural centre is St. Albans city, not London Colney. Matters which affect London Colney are of little or no importance to people in St. Albans, even those on the periphery. St. Albans and London Colney are distinctly different areas, the communities are separate and therefore local issues are notably different. Attempting to align the two disparate communities within a single division is highly objectionable, and is inherently prone to fail to represent constituents within the County Council. Implementing the proposed change would weaken the effectiveness of the local government and should be rejected. Synopsis: The London Colney boundary should not encroach into the existing St. Albans area (Cunningham ward), as it wilfully ignores established social and geographic boundaries to the detriment of the constituents therein.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4131 24/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: robert gordon
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The revised boundaries proposed to create South Oxhey & Eastbury seem to ignore the existing community in the Northwood and Moor park area. The use of railways to create boundaries is an artificial approach when it was the railways and their stations which drove the growth of communities around them. The barrier created by the A4125 and Oxhey Woods is a far more substantial barrier which splits Eastbury from South Oxhey. There is no community link between the two areas. There are strong links across the Metropolitan Line to the area immediately to the west.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4205 03/11/2014
Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 October 2014 08:51 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Howard Gray Sent: 23 October 2014 14:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Changes
Dear Sirs,
It has come to my attention that you are planning to move Loudwater which is where I live from the Three Rivers Rural Division which is it’s logical location to become part of the Croxley County Division which is in the most part more Urban.
I strongly disagree with this suggestion along with the majority of my neighbours and am sure you will hear from them as well. Hoping you will bear this protest in consideration and that you will be able to reconsider this proposal.
Loudwater should definitely be part of the proposed Three Rivers Rural Division.
Please feel free to contact me if you wish to discuss this further as my address and contact details are below.
Sincerely,
Howard Gray
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: John Hale
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I object to the proposed changes to the county divisions within the St Albans District. In making its proposals the Commission has concentrated on electoral numbers, without giving due consideration to other factors such as communities and geography. The proposed changes do not alter the number of divisions within the District and therefore are unnecessary. The current divisions align with Parish Council boundaries, each division (apart from those in the unparished City) aligning with one or more Parish Council. The one exception is Harpenden Town Council, where two County Divisions align with the parish. With the exception of Harpenden, no County Division contains only part of a parish. Under the proposals, Sandridge Parish would be split between two divisions and the link between the County Councillor and the Parish Council significantly weakened. The proposals would also result in a geographically large division - Harpenden Rural covering the whole or parts of four Parish Councils. In addition, in order to make the numbers balance, the commission has joined parts of one community onto another e.g. the inclusion of parts of Marshalswick South ward in the proposed Colney Heath and Marshalswick division. Those residents will be in Marshalswick South for the District Council, and joined to Marshalswick North as part of the County Division, but will not be in Sandridge Parish. Likewise, the Jersey Farm polling district will be in Sandridge Parish, Sandridge ward (District Council), Colney Heath & Marshalswick (County Division) and the Harpenden & Hitchin parliamentary constituency! A similar absurdity occurs with the new London Colney division that has parts of Cunningham ward joined to it, despite those parts being the other side of the A414 with little relationship to London Colney. Furthermore, the District Council is currently consulting on its draft Strategic Plan, if approved this plan would see significant developments in both Redbourn and Sandridge parishes. Those developments would reduce the current numerical imbalance. The proposals would result in disruption to existing relationships between county councillors and their divisions and is unnecessary as it does not result in any change in the number of county councillors representing residents in the District. In the absence of any need to change the number of councillors the existing division boundaries, which reflect Parish Council boundaries should be retained. The discrepancy in electoral numbers is not so great as to warrant the break of that important link.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4204 03/11/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:03 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW:
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Rose Hanscomb Sent: 02 November 2014 12:53 To: Reviews@ Subject:
To whom it may concern,
Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response
I am writing to endorse the proposal that Croxley Green is retained as one ward for the county council elections, with a small addition, so that it keeps its local identity and it will be effective and convenient for local government.
Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support the environment, sport and leisure and the Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of many local initiatives, including the joint community plan which is being written. The community is a cohesive unit for local government and therefore should have representation at county level to reflect local issues.
I urge the review to keep Croxley Green together.
Yours sincerely
1 Rosemary Hanscomb
Committee Member
Croxley Green Residents Association
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Vanessa Higginson
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Apparently your map does not recognise our postcode! Nothing new there then! As a long term teacher at Eastbury Farm School, authorities always denied our existence! It would be nice if somebody took the relevant steps to get Eastbury Farm recognised by Hertforshire, within the boundaries which it currently exist, instead of changing the boundaries to put us into a district with which we have no commonalities! We have a thriving Residents Association which has operated for many years and we feel a far greater link to Moor Park as has always been the case. Please leave our boundaries alone!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3832 26/09/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:03 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Consultation response - Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Croxley Green
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Fabian Hiscock Sent: 02 November 2014 11:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Consultation response - Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Croxley Green
I write in support of the proposal that Croxley Green, with the suggested small addition, is retained as a single Ward for the County Council elections. I believe that this will allow Croxley Green to keep its local identity as a distinct community, and will permit continued effective and convenient local government.
Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support care for the environment, sport and leisure, and activities for young people. Its Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of local initiatives, including the joint community plan now in preparation. This community forms a strong, coherent and cohesive unit for the purposes of local government, and should be represented as such at County level.
I urge the review to keep Croxley Green together.
Yours sincerely
Fabian Hiscock
1 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 September 2014 12:08 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Proposed new County Council boundaries
Importance: High
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Hobden, Gena (Britvic GB) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 September 2014 12:05 To: Reviews@ Cc: Malcolm Briggs ([email protected]) Subject: FW: Proposed new County Council boundaries Importance: High
To whom it may concern,
What is happening to Turnford? I moved to the area 9 years ago and there was lovely countryside view’s, pleasant area’s to walk with my children, local shops and no parking or rubbish issues, which is why I moved from Edmonton. In the last few years Canada Fields has become a drug haven. The A10 is used as a racing track, along with police sirens every 15 mins The Hertford Regional College has expanded and caused parking issues 2 large estate’s have gone up blocking views, causing more rubbish issue’s, anti social behaviour, and even more parking issues. The New River Arms is about to be knocked down for yet more housing. And now you want to change the boundaries why? What is the benefit in doing this? Perhaps the council needs to stop wasting time and money on changing boundaires and start looking at how resident’s in the area are going to cope with even more people needing resources ie doctors, rubbish disposal, parking, police etc The big lotto, was awarded to Wormley & Turnford, because they are classified as deprived areas, yet it is being made even more deprived because of the amount of people being squashed into it and you want to effectively take it away, by changing boundaires. What happens with this money if the boundaries are changed? Maybe you could think about putting a few swings and slide’s on the roundabout, as it seems that is will be all that is left green and not built on. Is this just another way of basically taking the monies awarded to Turnford and Wormley and musing the somewhere else? Gena Hobden
This email is sent on behalf of a member of the Britvic group of companies, whose holding company is Britvic plc, registered in England and Wales with number 5604923 and with registered office at Breakspear Park, Breakspear Way, Hemel Hempstead, Herts, HP2 4TZ. Any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify us immediately and then delete the email and any copies of it. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Britvic plc and/or any of its subsidiaries. Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses. Britvic plc and/or any of its subsidiaries accepts no liability for any damage 1 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 29 October 2014 09:22 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Local Government boundary changes
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Barbara & Mike Holden Sent: 28 October 2014 14:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government boundary changes
We understand that the local government boundary commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council election in 2017.One of the proposals is for Loudwater to become part of the Croxley County Division to which we strongly object. As Loudwater is part of the parish area of Chorleywood it is represented at both Parish and District level as part of Chorleywood. If Loudwater is removed from the Three Rivers Rural division and joined to Croxley it would then not represent the type of community that Loudwater is as the County Division has issues which are not typical of our environment. Residents shopo regularly in Chorleywood rather than Croxley. Many of the local children aattend Christ Church C of E primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rathan than schools in Croxley. To sum up Loudwater has never had any relationshiop with Croxley as the 2 areas are very different and we trust that the above points will be seriously considered before making any changaes.
Barbara & Michael Holden Loudwater Drive
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Robert Holgate
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The current boundary for royston would seem the most sensible as it encapsulates the whole town in a single ward. Splitting it in to two to accommodate rural areas seems a worst of all world scenario. Rural issues are different to town issues and now rather than a councillor who can focus on town issues and one who can do the same for country issues, now you need two councillors both of whom have to compromise by trying to keep both groups happy. It seems a somewhat stupid decision. Incidentally, do you really need 77 councillors for Hertfordshire? Just sums up the bloated public sector. Incidentally most people in Royston are fairly disconnected with the county of Herts. The town is far more Cambridge focussed and so Herts does not seem to represent us or take notice of our needs. We would rather be part of Cambridgeshire than Hertfordshire.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4234 04/11/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:03 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Review of Local Government Boundary - Loudwater, Hertfordshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
-----Original Message----- From: Bill Hope Sent: 02 November 2014 10:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Review of Local Government Boundary - Loudwater, Hertfordshire
Dear Sirs,
Re:- review of boundary Loudwater/ Croxley Green
We have lived in Loudwater for 40 years, and during that time our area has always been closely associated with Chorleywood at both the Parish and District levels. Croxley Green does not represent any of the issues of our very rural environment and is a totally different type of area. Most of Loudwater children go to either Rickmansworth or Chorleywood schools, not Croxley ones.
We are definitely not in favour of any boundary changes that would give us closer links to Croxley Green.
Yours faithfully,
Mr. and Mrs. W. Hope
Sent from my iPad
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Anna hornan
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Re: Proposed new 'South Oxhey & Eastbury' County Division. I disagree with linking Eastbury with South Oxhey. I think it preferable to link South Oxhey with Carpenders Park. This is far more logical for the following reasons: 1. There is a lack of community identity between Eastbury and South Oxhey as few facilities are shared by these two areas (many facilities are shared by South Oxhey and Carpenders Park, though). 2. Eastbury residents mostly use shops, banks, doctors, places of worship and schools in Moor Park, Northwood and Rickmansworth. Travel into these centres, west and south of South Oxhey, does not involve going through South Oxhey. 3. Bus links from South Oxhey are very limited and only skirt the eastern boundary of Eastbury. 4. Oxhey Woods provides a natural boundary between the two areas. 5. London and Watford commuters in Eastbury travel to and from Northwood, Moor Park or Rickmansworth using the Metropolitan Line which does not necessitate travel through South Oxhey. 6. Carpenders Park Station serves both South Oxhey and Carpenders Park communities. Although they are either side of the railway line there is a road over the railway as well as a pedestrian underpass which links the two areas giving easy access to shops, library, post office, schools, places of worship and sports facilities. eg Oxhey Park choir includes people from South Oxhey AND Carpenders Park. In summary, I think Eastbury should continue to be linked with Moor Park and not be split in two. The argument about road links between South Oxhey and Eastbury is tenuous. Other factors (including those listed above) are more important. It takes more than road links to create a community identity.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4100 21/10/2014 Morrison, William
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 31 October 2014 08:18 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Proposed changes to boundary
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Robert Hunter Sent: 30 October 2014 13:25 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed changes to boundary
For the attention of the Review Officer,
I was very concerned to hear that about the proposed changes to Loudwater’s boundary Division that is being reviewed prior to the next County Council elections in 2017 and would like to register my disapproval of these plans.
I strongly believe Loudwater should remain part of the parished area of Chorleywood and fall under the newly proposed Three Rivers Rural Division rather than becoming part of the Croxley County Division. A Rural Division is much more representative of the nature of our community – I am concerned that removing us from this division will have a longer ranging impact on our community as issues that concern a County Division will not be reflective of our environment.
Having young children, I am especially concerned about the impact this will have on already over‐subscribed schooling provision. Many children within our community attend Chorleywood schools – Christ Church CofE and St Clement Danes – rather than Croxley schools. Loudwater historically has had no relationship with Croxley – they are currently two separate entities divided by fields – and as a Loudwater resident, I tend to use Chorleywood shopping and amenities rather than Croxley.
I hope that the views of Loudwater residents are considered before agreeing this proposal.
Kind regards
Rob Hunter
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Andrew Ingram
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1: Birklands area
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: Birklands area
Comment text:
Moving the area I've termed the "Birklands Area" into the London Colney area makes no sense whatsoever. You have bisected a strong community which shares a single residents association. The people in the area I have highlighted are St Albans residents who all shop in St Albans and want to be able to effect changes in the area they live in. This change would remove that basic right from them, and just as damaging, give them a say in a area they do not belong to, shop in, and (probably) don't care about. And for what? Being able to level areas up a bit so it looks a bit better in a spreadsheet somewhere? This change benefits nobody in that area and would significantly harm the feeling of community which already exists, as well as letting people have a say in the area and community they actually live in, rather than one down the road. This southern section of St Albans has a blindingly obvious boundary to London Colney of the North Orbital Road. I cannot understand why it wouldn't be used.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4126 24/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Hertfordshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Victoria Ingram
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I do not understand why our area has been joined with the London Colney division as I do not live in London Colney and do not concern myself with their affairs. I am, however, concerned about plans for St Albans and would find it odd that my neighbours down the road get to speak with their councillor etc on those matters but I do not or at least I would perceive that a London Colney division would not give equal standing to issues not linked to London Colney. I dont see why I should lose out on issues that are pertinent to me due to an issue of numbers. I think that the current division boundary for my immediate area is fine - it meets our needs.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4139 27/10/2014