Councillors, Mps and Political Groups' Submissions to the Oxfordshire

Home , Kingston Bagpuize, Longworth, Southmoor, Tubney, Wantage

Local resident submissions to the Oxfordshire County Council electoral review (surnames A-M)

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames starting with the letters A to M. It also contains two anonymous submissions.

Some versions of Adobe Acrobat 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.

From: Sent: 09 October 2011 15:23 To: Reviews@ Subject: easington/bloxham i am 10 years of age and i don't think easington should be part of bloxham, because it might make bloxham more of a tourist place ,so it will make bloxham not as peacefall and more louder and popular.so more houses will be built and that=more noise and people might not want to live here any more so houes will get dimolished.SO know one will every here so bloxham will be like a dump and years to come and thats how people will rember bloxham. FROM

From: ANTONY BARBER Sent: 09 October 2011 18:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed county council electoral divisions - cumnor parish ward

For the attention of the Review Officer (Oxfordshire)

We wish to register our total opposition to the current proposal to change the existing cumnor parish ward boundaries in order to create two new divisions to include Cumnor Hill and its environs with Dean Court. Cumnor parish council has served the area well and we can see no benefit to the local community in general and its educational arrangements in particular offered to it by this present proposal. A possible solution might be a single two-member division embracing the Boundary commision's proposed Kingston and Cumnor division combined with the proposed North Hinksey Division.

Antony C.H. Barber Margaret I.L. Barber Charles R.H. Barber

Page 1 of 2

Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica

From: Dunkeyson, Nicholas Sent: 10 October 2011 16:21 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: FW: Bloxham Ward proposed canges ARE wrong Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Yellow

From: Peter Barwell Sent: 10 October 2011 15:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Bloxham Ward proposed canges ARE wrong

From Hon Alderman Peter J P Barwell MBE Hon CSM Email:

Review Officer, Oxfordshire review, The Local Government Boundary Commssion for England,Layden House, 76 - 86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs

BLOXHAM WARD joining Banbury Town

I sincerely ask you to re-consider Bloxham Village becoming part of a Banbury Ward. Bloxham is still a village and very different in character being rural to the southern part of Banbury a sprawling town.

There is a natural boundary SOR BROOK which runs through the countryside between Banbury in Bloxham which ought to be the boundary line.

Bloxham should be joined to the other villages south of Banbury which are more in keeping with Bloxham and NOT Banbury

I fully understand that you are endeavouring to create Wards of equal size and therefore I suggest that you review your proposals in line with my revised plan below continuing the Sor Brook Boundary through to Bodicote.

11/10/2011 Page 2 of 2

Peter J P Barwell BLOXHAM VILLAGER REGISTRAR – Bloxham Village Museum

11/10/2011

From: Sent: 09 October 2011 21:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: For the attention of the Review Officer (Oxfordshire)

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Electoral Review of Oxfordshire: Draft Recommendations I write to comment on the Local Government Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations as they apply to the proposed Kingston & Cumnor and North Hinksey divisions. While I fully understand and appreciate the need to carry out this review, I oppose the Commission’s recommendations. This is because I believe the recommendations involving the above divisions will cause serious, and I’m sure unintended, damage to the parish of Cumnor and its parishioners. The key concerns will have doubtless already been widely reported to you by other correspondents. While the recommendations might allow the Commission to meet numerical targets, I believe they are electorally unfair and will break established linkages. The recommendations will also adversely affect governance at the parish level and are likely to effectively disenfranchise a number of parishioners. Along with others, I approached my neighbours with a petition opposing the recommendations and including a counter-proposal, which was readily signed by virtually all to whom I spoke. Had there been sufficient time to approach all households across the parish, I have no doubt that more than 98% of the entire electorate would have willingly signed. I have never felt such anger on the doorsteps. The Commission’s proposals have done something that I have never seen before: they have united the Parish. In my view, were the proposals to go through, they would cause deep and lasting resentment within the parish of Cumnor. This is not because local people oppose change. It is because the recommendations are patently unfair and do not sufficiently take into account local circumstances. The proposed change of ward boundaries for example is deeply offensive. While at the Parliamentary level, the electorate might willingly accept change because such boundaries are often poorly understood and generally do not involve allegiance to a particular area, at the local level this is not so. One cannot simply remove or add on territory at the ward level and continue to use the name historically associated with that area. Names are applied for good reasons, whether they be: family, street, ward, parish, district or town level. Over time they become the symbol to which we give our allegiance. Indeed they often define who WE are. They separate US from THEM. Names are important to all of us. They make a difference to the way we feel about ourselves. They also give a sense of identity and reflect our history, heritage and sense of community. Names should not be changed without very good reason. The desire to meet numerical targets is not a sufficiently good reason.

From: Jake Brumby Sent: 07 October 2011 15:23 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County boundary review

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing in support of the Oxfordshire County boundary review submission titled “Oxford City Liberal Democrat Group” which was drawn up in partnership with the Oxford City Green Party Group and has the support of the two Conservative Constituency Parties covering Oxford. Unlike the City Council proposals, which only represent the views of one political party, this submission has the support of three.

I am concerned that the Commission draft recommendations are in danger of repeating problems that resulted from the last boundary review 7 years ago, with residents in some areas of Oxford finding that County Councillors covering unconnected areas are less able to represent the views of all residents.

Max Caller, Chair of the LGBCE, in his announcement of this boundary review, has stated that the rules set out in law for such reviews "should – as far as possible – reflect the natural communities of Oxfordshire." and "...help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.”.

Oxford has a high turnover in population due mainly to the two Universities and the high cost of living. Along with much pressure to development land in Oxford, single homes, offices and other small buildings are being redeveloped or converted to flats or high density student accommodation. The high cost of living has created a pressure to turn houses into HMO's (House in Multiple Occupation) and changes in the benefits system will only incease this pressure with many single people unable to afford their own home into their mid 30's. It is also becoming apparent that some houses that are listed as single occupancy are being used by several people (mainly students) further distorting the population figures in some areas. Finally, there are ongoing concerns about the shortfall in census figures, which again makes it difficult to accurately predict numbers.

The high cost of housing, together with the number of people on the Council housing list led to a Government Inspector allowing Oxford a policy that requires 50% of any development of homes to be social housing – a direct acceptance of Oxford’s housing problems.

As Max Caller says “Having fair electoral boundaries for your council is important." and I understand the requirement for County Councillors to represent "...around the same number of electors." but given the circumstances set out above I believe that the only way to really achieve fairness in Oxford is to give greater weight to your your second criteria of "natural communities".

As Max Caller quite rightly says "...local people know Oxfordshire best." which is why I

On a modern map, the A420 and B4017 appear to represent natural boundaries. However the roads developed in the 20th century and they take no account of the way the Parish has grown over the past 1000 years. Cumnor village grew up independently of Botley, isolated to some extent by the steepness of the routes between them. Until the mid 1970s Cumnor was part of Berkshire and had stronger links to Abingdon than Oxford. The Boundary commission has accepted Appleton’s argument that Appleton (south-west of Cumnor) has important historical links with Cumnor village but Appleton’s local secondary school is Matthew Arnold School, Cumnor (north-east of Cumnor and proposed to be in the separate North Hinksey Division). This is but one of many examples of breaking established linkages.

I object to the changes in ward size as proposed and request the Boundary Commission to re-appraise the proposals, keeping Cumnor Parish as a single entity.

Yours faithfully Vanessa Cheel (Dr)

From: Barbara Colaco Sent: 07 October 2011 10:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County boundary review

As Max Caller quite rightly says "...local people know Oxfordshire best." which is why I am asking you to accept the above submission, which clearly sets out why it is the most sensible and cohesive option for Oxford.

Yours Sincerely,

Barbara Colaco

From: Sarah Coles Sent: 10 October 2011 12:26 To: Reviews@ Subject:

I am writing to view my bitter opposition to the proposal to make Bloxham part of Banbury in light of the proposal for the boundary changes. The idea of combining Easington in Banbury and the villages of Milton and Bloxham is crazy. Bloxham and Milton are rural villages and Easington is part of the town. It would be much more suited to combining Bloxham with somewhere like Adderbury.

Kind Regards

Sarah Coles

This e-mail message (including any attachment) is intended only for the personal use of the recipient(s) named above. This message is confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not an intended recipient, you may not review, copy or distribute this message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by e-mail and delete the original message.

From: Janet Craven Sent: 17 September 2011 14:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire CC review

Regarding boundaries review in Oxforshire, relating to Cumnor Parish

Dear Sir or Madam I am writing on behalf myself and my husband to express our strong objections to the current proposals relating to Cumnor parish, in which we live. The proposal is that much of Village ward will become part of Dean Court ward, which will be grouped with North Hinksey. A reduced Cumnor Village ward would be grouped with Appleton and Kingston Bagpuize. The boundary change for Cumnor Village ward would exclude all residents east of the B4017 and south of the A420. This means that a large part of what, in nature and location, belongs with the village of Cumnor would be 'lumped in with' Dean Court - an area with which it has little in common. The roads may appear to be 'natural boundaries' on a map, but they are not natural boundaries on the ground, they are just roads you walk across (B4017) or over (A420). These roads do not cut the village into parts. The current proposal takes houses that form a natural part of Cumnor, being on the high ground and close to the village centre, but not actually in the historic centre of the village, and makes them part of a ward that is geographically separate (on low ground, 1.0-1.5 miles by foot or road) and distinct in character. In addition to the illogical division of Village ward, there is the question of schools. Children living in Village ward go to Cumnor Primary school. This is an easy walk or ride for most of the residents you are proposing to exclude from Village ward. Botley Primary School, where children from Dean Court ward go, is, on the other hand, a long walk away, over 1.5 miles for most of the residents whose ward assignation you are proposing to change. Few, if any, with primary school age children would undertake this 1.5-mile walk twice a day, or attempt to get their children to and from school by bike when it's 1.5 miles along a main road, and steeply uphill on the way home. Many children from the current Village ward walk or ride to Cumnor School. If local arguments are not persuasive, and the proposed enlarged Dean Court ward is created, how will this meet your Commission's own test of electoral fairness? With the ongoing development in Chawley (currently Village ward, 192 dwellings) and the proposed development at Tilbury lane (Dean Court ward, 80 dwellings), the proposed Dean Court ward would have about five and a half times as many electors as the remaining 'rump' of Village ward - how is that fair for Parish Councillors or candidates for election to the Parish Council? In District Council elections, Cumnor is paired with Appleton in a 3-member ward. As an ex- Parish Councillor, I know that this arrangement works well - but your commission rejected this solution. The most equitable solution for the County Council divisions, which would not necessitate breaking up Cumnor wards, would be a single, two-member division embracing your proposed divisions of Kingston, Cumnor and North Hinksey. With all of Cumnor parish in one electoral division, there would be no need to move the Cumnor ward boundaries around. This solution would allow local identities and long-established linkages to remain intact. Surely this is a better solution? In common with all our near neighbours, we live in Village ward - not actually in the village but nonetheless we're just around the corner from the village centre and we're part of Cumnor, not Dean Court - that's a mile and a half down hill, about 30 minutes on foot, it's another ward of the parish but it's somewhere else, it's not where we live. In hope that our voices will be heard. Yours faithfully Janet and Richard Craven

From: Tian Davidson [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 October 2011 00:21 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: Boundary review - 2nd consultation - responding as a resident of Appleton with Eaton Parish

Dear Jessica

I am replying to the 2nd consultation of the Boundary review as a resident of Appleton with Eaton Parish.

I am pleased that as a Parish we are linked in with Cumnor village.

The revised division consisting of rural parishes appear to be a sound one as the Parishes will have many issues in common. Children atending Appleton Primary School live in Cumnor, Tubney, Fyfield, Southmoor, and Longworth.

The churches in some of these parishes meet together to hold 'collected' services.

However, I am concerned that the current Cumnor division will be split as a result of this draft recommendation. The community of Cumnor will be affected by this change.

Is there no way of keeping Cumnor intact? The essence of a Parish is its community.

On the other side, I am also concerned with Cumnor PC's proposal of a 2 member division.

It is going to be very big and I am not sure that a 2 member division would be to the best interest of my Parish.

What happens if the 2 members elected are from different political parties? Would they serve the division as effectively as one member division? Should there be a conflict of opinion, what would be the outcome?

My ideal solution would be to keep the community of Cumnor intact but, at the same time, to keep the division around 8,000, represented by one member.

Please acknowlede receipt of this email.

Kind regards Tian Davidson

Dr/Mrs T Davidson Resident of Appleton with Eaton Parish

From: Margery Dent Sent: 07 October 2011 16:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: Cumnor Parish proposed changes to the Review Officer, Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House, 76-78 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir,

I write concerning the proposed changes in Parish Ward Boundaries. I believe that these are electorally unfair, and I support the proposal for a combined two- member Division for North Hinksey, Cumnor, Appleton and Kingston Bagpuize.

Yours sincerely,

Mrs Margery Dent

From: Sent: 12 September 2011 13:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: CUMNOR - Oxfordshire

For the attention of the Review Officer (Oxfordshire).

Dear Sirs re Proposed County Council Electoral Divisions - CUMNOR - Oxfordshire

I am writing to oppose in the strongest possible terms the Boundary Commission's proposals as they affect the Parish of Cumnor, Oxfordshire.

In reaching its decision I understand that the Commission aims to take into account the following considerations : 1. Electoral fairness: the aim is each person's vote should have equal merit 2. The desirability of natural boundaries: it is desirable that the boundaries should be easily identified 3. The desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any established linkages

Cumnor Parish Council will be responding to you separately. I have seen their response and agree fully with it.

In essence I am of the opinion that, for electoral fairness, Cumnor Parish should be treated as a whole electorally. Parish boundaries have stood the test of 1000 years of history and, in spite of the steady expansion of the population in recent years, the parish still has a very strong sense of community identity. Cumnor is now one of the largest parishes in the Vale of White Horse District Council, 4993 electors at present, and in addition is already warded for electoral purposes. It seems to me to be utterly wrong that those ward boundaries should be altered without any clear rationale simply in an attempt to make the numbers add up for the Commission's purposes. In changing the ward boudaries as is being proposed, various natural links would be broken. Thus, for example, the residents of the upper slopes of Cumnor Hill have always seen themselves as being a part of the old village of Cumnor, which is indeed situated within close walking or cycling distance. The residents tend to look towards Cumnor village for shops, the church, the village hall and all that goes on there, and for the primary school. In contrast there are no natural links between the upper slopes of Cumnor Hill and Dean Court.

It makes no sense to use the A420 as a boundary. Though the A420 is readily identified, it has no historic role in the village and cannot be said to be a 'natural' boundary. Thus it is impossible to get from the upper part of the historic village of Cumnor or the neighbouring parts of the parish to Dean Court using the A420, because of the way that the exits and entrances onto the A420 have been planned and laid out; rather one has to use the 'historic' route, ie. going down the old road of Cumnor Hill. Frankly the choice of the A420 as a boundary for electoral purposes is arbitrary and lacks any rationale.

As regards 'historic linkages', the current ward boundaries reflect these within the parish and it would be wong to change them. As regards links with other parishes, the principal links in the past have been with the parishes of Appleton and North Hinksey. Historically there have been no links with Kingston Bagpuize, which, as a much more rural parish, has very different perspectives and needs to Cumnor. There is simply no rationale in creating an entirely new Division consisting solely of the rump of Cumnor village, Appleton and Kingston Bagpuize. Please, please make every effort to retain current linkages.

In summary

From: Neil Fawcett Sent: 11 October 2011 10:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County Council Review

I would like to make comments on your draft proposals relating to the Abingdon area of the Vale of White Horse District, where I live, and the Kidlington area of Cherwell District, which is one of the places I work.

Vale of White Horse District

I would like to support your proposals for Abingdon which retains three single member divisions within the town and is similar to the my earlier submission.

I would also like to support you proposals for the North East Vale divisions where you have come up with a solution which balances electoral equality with community boundaries.

Cherwell District

Your proposals for the Kidlington area do not make sense on community grounds, nor even on the basis of the comments in your own report.

Your report (Para 64) criticised the submissions from the County Council and Kidlington Parish Council for combining parts of Kidlington centre (which is a village!) with rural wards, your draft proposal creates two divisions that do exactly that. Your Kirtlington division includes more than half of Kidlington and its centre with rural villages to the north while your proposed Kidlington division combines less than half of Kidlington and its centre with rural villages to the west and south.

Kidlington as a whole is too large to form one division but it would be best served by having one Kidlington division covering 80% of the village and a second division made up of the remainder of Kidlington and surrounding villages. The most obvious part of Kidlington to combine with neighbouring parishes is Orchard Ward as it has such close community ties with Gosford.

If your concern is to keep Kidlington village centre together then you could achieve this by altering the boundary between St Mary's Ward and Orchard Ward so that St Mary's includes the whole High Street area. Your draft proposal splits the village centre even more than the County Council proposal by splitting Exeter Hall and its neighbouring facilities from the High Street area.

Your report is also wrong in stating (Para 63) that there is no direct road link from Gosford & Water Eaton to Islip. There is, I have travelled it regularly, and it takes less than 10 minutes, a far shorter journey than between many other villages that are combined in County divisions.

I would urge you to revisit your proposals for the Kidlington area an create at least one County division that is wholly based on Kidlington.

If you continue with your draft proposal then better names for the two divisions would be Kidlington North and Kidlington South, as the Kidlington population in each is significantly larger than any other settlement.

Yours sincerely,

Neil Fawcett, Former County Councillor for Abingdon South.

From: John Guillebaud Sent: 03 October 2011 10:41 To: Reviews@ Cc: Harriet Bretherton Subject: Local Govt Boundary Commission - implications for Cumnor Hill

Dear Review Officer (Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street EC1M 5LG)

We live on Cumnor Hill which has historically been seen as part of Cumnor village - and are strongly opposed to any proposal to divide us from the village and specifially from the catchment area for Cumnor village school.

Hence we disagree with the current proposal for a Division 1 (Kingston, Cumnor Village and Appleton) and Division 2 (Farmoor, Dean Court with Cumnor Hill and North Hinksey). We support the Cumnor Parish Council's proposed 2-Member Electoral Division to include Kingston, All wards of Cumnor, Appleton and North Hinkseywhich means that all of Cumnor Parish remains in the same electoral divison and no need to change the ward boundaries.

We strongly believe this proposal meets all the criteria mentioned on your website, namely that it ensures "electoral equality for voters with each county councillor representing around the same number of electors. Second, the new divisions should – as far as possible – reflect the natural communities of Oxfordshire. And finally, (that) the proposals should help the council deliver effective and convenient local government".

Warm regards

John Guillebaud

Emeritus Professor of Family Planning & Reproductive Health, UCL

On behalf also of Gwyneth Guillebaud, Lisa and Antony Hankin, all resident at:

From: John Hedderley Sent: 25 July 2011 18:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County Council

Gentlemen

I am writing in connection with your current review into the size of Oxfordshire County Council and in particular into the arrangement proposed for Wantage and Grove.

The current arrangement - which is one you propose should continue - is for a two member electoral division. It is of note that this is not the basis you propose for many other areas in Oxfordshire.

On reading your review it would seem that the main reason you put forward is that for there to be a single member division for Wantage and for Grove it would be necessary to include part of what is currently Wantage in the Grove division.

Over the years fairly large areas of Grove have become parts of Wantage and although the current boundary between the two ( mainly marked by Mably Way ) is fairly obvious it is only a very recent decision.

I consider that Wantage and Grove are two separate entries ( with largely different concerns ) and that their interests would be best covered by having their own county council member. As it happens ( at the current time ) one of the County Council members lives in Wantage and one in Grove - which probably means that they in fact represent different parts of the division however that need not always be the case.

Although it is likely that with a divided electoral division the political scene would not change that too might not always be the case which could lead to one part of the division feeling that its concerns were not being adequate represented ( although I hasten to add that is neither the current feeling or situation ).

However I strongly feel that there should be separate electoral divisions for Wantage and for Grove and if - to achieve this - for the time being - part of Wantage has to be transfered to the Grove division - that is a price worth paying.

Yours faithfully

John Hedderley

Grove resident for 40 years

-----Original Message----- From: Dave Howard Sent: 06 October 2011 17:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes

Re: Banbury, Bloxham and Milcombe

I live in the village of Bloxham. Neither Bloxham or Milcombe have any affinity with Easington OR Banbury. They are both clearly defined villages with their own infrastructure. Also, should you decide to go ahead with this crazy proposal you will seriously affect the value of properties in both villages. The ONLY positive would be to strengthen Bloxham Parish Council. They are hopelessly inept and invariably ineffective ..... especially given the funds they manage. In my opinion, the Parish Clerk should be put out to grass ...... The sooner the better.

Regards

David S Howard

Sent from my iPad

-----Original Message----- From: Jeremy Hughes Sent: 07 October 2011 09:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Oxfordshire County boundary review

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in support of the Oxfordshire County boundary review submission titled "Oxford City Liberal Democrat Group" which was drawn up in partnership with the Oxford City Green Party Group and has the support of the two Conservative Constituency Parties covering Oxford. Unlike the City Council proposals, which only represent the views of one political party, this submission has the support of three.

Max Caller, Chair of the LGBCE, in his announcement of this boundary review, has stated that the rules set out in law for such reviews "*should - as far as possible - reflect the natural communities of Oxfordshire.*" and "*...help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.*".

The high cost of housing, together with the number of people on the Council housing list led to a Government Inspector allowing Oxford a policy that requires 50% of any development of homes to be social housing - a direct acceptance of Oxford's housing problems.

As Max Caller says "*Having fair electoral boundaries for your council is important.*" and I understand the requirement for County Councillors to represent "*...around the same number of electors.*" but given the circumstances set out above I believe that the only way to really achieve fairness in Oxford is to give greater weight to your your second criteria of "*natural communities*".

As Max Caller quite rightly says "*...local people know Oxfordshire best.*" which is why I am asking you to accept the above submission, which clearly sets out why it is the most sensible and cohesive option for Oxford.

Yours,

Jeremy Hughes

From: DESMOND JONES Sent: 06 October 2011 20:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary change - Bloxham- Banbury

Sirs,

I would like to add my objection to your proposal to change the Bloxham ward to become part of the Banbury Easington ward. This has little logic to it in terms of like groups being combined resulting in potential conflicts of views between the views held by each ward. Easington is an integral part of Banbury whilst Bloxham is a village independent of Banbury and should be associated with other similar locations.

Des Jones

From: sarah lasenby Sent: 07 October 2011 15:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Changes - Oxford City

The Review Officer

Dear Sir or Madam

I have looked carefully at the boundaries proposed and the suggestions. I know the South of the City better but have a knowledge of the whole of the city having lived her for 21 years.

I am anxious that as far as is possible the boundaries reflect the natural communities and I think the modifications suggested will do this better than the original suggestion. This is really important where there are so many transient residents, particularly students.

For all these reasons I would ask you to accept the above, I should not be happy to remain with the previous suggestions as they do not seem in some ways to meet the relevant criteria.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Lasenby -

From: Patricia Mansfield Sent: 07 October 2011 16:08 To: Reviews@ Subject: Review of Oxford City constituency boundaries for local government - Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Dear Sir

From: Lizzie McHale Sent: 10 October 2011 11:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: BOUNDARY CONSULTATION

Yours E McHale