Local resident submissions to the Central Bedfordshire Borough Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 39 submissions from local residents.

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

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

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 17:59 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Commission Recommendations

From: peter banwell Sent: 10 July 2010 11:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary Commission Recommendations

Sir

I write to make representation to you on the proposed change on the ward created in 2004 connecting the village of Heath and Reach with Plantation Ward Leighton Buzzard. This change has been successful and integrates the interests of both communities.

The proposal to place Heath and Reach with Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge, Tilsworth and Chalgrave is illogical. Apart from the fact they all villages they do not have sufficient interest in common and are distinct and separate communities and do not offer the benefit or synergies of the preset arrangement.

I would ask that you take my opinion into consideration in making a decision

Regards

Peter Banwell

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 17:58 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Comments on the proposals for Central Bedfordshire

From: PETER BATE Sent: 09 July 2010 16:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Comments on the proposals for Central Bedfordshire

Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to comment on the proposals for the Leighton-Linslade area of Central Beds. I have lived in this town for 22 years and feel I know it pretty well.

I object to the LGBCE proposals on the following grounds:

1. They appear to simply have accepted the Central Bedfordshire Council (CBC) proposals. CBC is controlled by a Conservative majority and therefore the proposals accepted are those of the local Conservatives.

2. The wards are very large multi-member wards. This makes it difficult for smaller parties and independant candidates to muster the resources to effectively fight these seats. Hardly in the interests of democracy.

3. There appears to be little attempt to take account of local communities. It seems to be a spreadsheet and map job soley concerned with making the numbers work. The central area of Leighton Buzzard for example has little in common with either the Sandhills area or the Cotefield Drive area, yet it is included in the same wards. Central Leighton Linslade consists of largely Victorian & Edwardian properties,often densley packed, little off road parking, significant problems of traffic from peoloe traveling in for the further flung areas such as Sandhills and Cotefield Drive.

4. There are coherent local areas consisting for example of the central area, the triangles between the spoke roads such as Hockliffe Road, Stanbridge Road, PLantation Road and so on. An example from previous arrangements prior are Beaudesert, Brooklands, Planets and Plantation wards. These were enduring and reflected local communities.

5. Multi member wards undermine the connection between a member and their constituents.

I do hope that you will reconsider your flawed proposals as they can only serve to undermine faith in democracy.

Yours sincerely

Peter Bate

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 16 June 2010 16:22 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire Review

From: Christopher Brimmell Sent: 14 June 2010 21:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review

To Whom it may concern.

With my post code being I DO NOT UNDERSTAND HOW MY ADDRESS CANNOT BE CENTRAL.

We are Dunstable Central you cannot get anymore Central and that is how we should remain and our voting rights for this ward should remain the same.

I would have thought that the natural dividing line would have been Houghton Road and Brewers Hill Road not the zig zag line shown on your web map, if it had not been for councillor Julian Murray we would not have been informed of these changes.

Mr C R Brimmell

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Bo wden, Tim Sent: 14 June 2010 08:43 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire Review

Tim Bowden Review Officer The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Tel: 020 7664 8514

www.lgbce.org.uk

From: Les A Calter Sent: 11 June 2010 19:26 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Vicki' Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review

Dear Sirs,

I want to stay in Central Ward.

We moved here from London and as a direct result of the schools Dunstable is able to offer. Should our ward be amended, this will not only affect our choice of schools for our children, but more importantly their education and social influence.

We want to stay in Central Ward.

Thank you.

Les A Calter.

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 05 July 2010 11:21 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Review of Central Bedfordshire

From: Tom Chevalier [ Sent: 04 July 2010 18:14 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Toddington Parish Council' Subject: Review of Central Bedfordshire

http://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/eastern/bedfordshire/central-bedfordshire-electoral-review

In response to your review of CBC wards may I submit the following comments:

The number of councillors should be reduced as best as possible. Your current review makes little comment on the ‘best practice’ across the country. Each councillor costs the community by an average of over £12k per year in allowances. Whist some of the councillors are ‘good value’ others are not. Reducing the number should result in better quality.

Toddington is in the middle of the CBC area which means that to make the wards similar sizes Toddington gets matched up with various communities. As the result of the merger of south & mid beds into central beds the communities of Toddington and Harlington can be joined. There are great similarities between the two communities particularly through the education system. There are also good linkages with Toddington’s other neighbouring communities of Chalton, Chalgrave, Milton Bryan and Tingrith. There is less commonality with Streatley and Sundon. Nevertheless for the reasons you have stated the proposals you have suggested would make the best compromise. In particular I would support your proposal of a larger area with two councillors than the ward split into two with single councillors. This has the advantage of two councillors who can represent the area. I would suggest that having two councillors means it is more likely that at least one of them is sympathetic to your own views, whereas with a choice of one it becomes less likely. It also means you have continuity through sickness, resignation, personal issues or heavy non-council commitments. It also means that if one of the councillors takes on an executive role, the other is a ‘backbencher’ they are able to devote more time to local issues.

Although the M1 and railway do split the communities the major split has been the south/mid district council boundary splits, now that this has been removed by the formation of Central Bedfordshire our communities need to come together on issues like the schooling, motorway junction changes, and provision of railway stations.

As Toddington is the major community in the proposed ward the name should be Toddington. Any other name would not be as concise and mean other communities feeling disenfranchised.

I would hope you will issue final report and conclusions in time to take effect for the elections in 2011.

regards

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:02 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Heath & Reach & Plantation Ward

From: Judy Drury Sent: 11 July 2010 18:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Heath & Reach & Plantation Ward

We feel strongly that Heath & Reach should be a part of Plantation Ward. The northern boundary of Leighton Buzzard we believe is in the parish of Heath & Reach.

Judy ad Tony Drury

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary, Heath and Reach, Bedfordshire

From: Sent: 10 July 2010 17:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary, Heath and Reach, Bedfordshire

10 July 2010

Dear Sirs,

I and my wife are residents in Heath and Reach and have been in the Heath and Reach/Plantation area of Bedfordshire for 25 years. There is a proposal to redraw the boundaries and we are vehemently against any such a move to separate Heath and Reach from Plantation Ward.

We adjoin Plantation and the areas of common interest are crucial to the community and include highways, traffic, schools and recreational facilities whilst we have no common interest or link, physical or otherwise, with the proposed villages that are miles from us and not connected in any way.

The ward was created in 2004 and there is no sound reason to change it.

yours faithfully

Jon and Jean Fleming

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawrenc e, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire - electoral review

From: Albert Fuller Sent: 10 July 2010 14:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire - electoral review

Review Officer

It is with no great surprise that I read the draft proposals you have made regarding the above concerning Heath and Reach.

You have gone along completely with the suggestion made by Central Bedfordshire Council to move Heath and Reach away from the adjacent Plantation purely for arithmetical convenience in order to make the numbers add up. You have received a number of local residents’ views and completely ignored them all.

You state that you “take this consultation very seriously” and that you “welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence”.

I have not seen any “demonstrable evidence” to support the proposal to move Heath and Reach into a hotch potch of Bedfordshire villages all particularly remote from our new County offices in Chicksands. You consider the A5 to be a “strong boundary separating Heath & Reach from communities to its north”, presumably ignoring that Buckinghamshire lies to the north. No doubt you are equally unaware that Chalgrave, which you are linking us to, lies some miles away to the south but on the other side of the A5. I am confident that most residents of Heath and Reach will have not heard of Chalgrave let alone visited and yet you choose to ignore shared community links with the existing Plantation by hiding behind “statutory criteria”.

All your assumptions rest on electorate forecasts made by Central Beds Council showing a 7% rise which you accept based on the past 5% increase. Given the recent budget are you really confident this is now even plausible?

I believe you have met up with 2 Central Beds councillors. To enable you to make a more informed decision I invite you to actually visit us and see for yourselves the locations. A fast non stop train will bring you to Leighton Buzzard in 29 minutes and you can then be driven around the area to make your own judgement. If this is not possible perhaps we can also meet with you personally as the councillors did? I look forward to your earliest response regarding a meeting.

I strongly ask you to leave Heath and Reach linked to Plantation to match up with your quoted need for community identity as this is non existent in your draft proposal for a change.

I hope you will therefore reconsider in the light of this and other local residents’ views to avoid electors believing that despite your comments about “taking the consultation seriously” it is merely a sham and the decision has already been taken in consultation with Central Beds councillors.

Albert Fuller

c.c. Andrew Selous M.P.

14/07/2010

FW: Boundary Review Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:00 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary Review

From: Edith Griffith Sent: 10 July 2010 12:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Boundary Review

Dear Sir

We understand that the recommendation of the Boundary Commission is to separate Heath and Reach from Plantation Ward in Leighton Buzzard for electoral purposes. This, we believe, is totally inappropriate as the two neighbouring areas work together and complement each other in a wide range and variety of ways.

As residents of Plantation Ward and living close to Heath and Reach we wish to put on record our strong objections to this course of action for which we can see no reasonable justification other than grouping villages together and number crunching.

Sincerely,

William Griffith

Edith Griffith

Katherine Griffith

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 2

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Ward changes in Central Beds

From: John Halstead Sent: 11 July 2010 10:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Ward changes in Central Beds

From To: [email protected] Subject: FW: Ward changes in Central Beds Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:46:21 +0000

From: To: [email protected] Subject: Ward changes in Central Beds Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2010 15:43:18 +0000

Dear Sirs I note that the Boundary Commission is recommending that Heath and Reach should be separated from Plantation Ward, and combined with Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge ,Tilsworth and Chalgrave

I believe this recommendation to be wrong.

Heath and Reach and Plantation adjoin each other, are part of the same community, and share common facilities such as St Leonards C of E church, Stockgrove and Rushmere country parks. My wife and I live in Plantation Ward, but much of our social life is in Heath and Reach. By contrast, Heath and Reach has virtually nothing in common with Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge and Tilsworth, and has no connection at all with Chalgrave, beyond the A5 trunk road. My wife and I have lived at our current address for 35 years, and have never yet had any occasion to visit Chalgrave.

When it comes to local elections, any councillor for the proposed grouping of villages would have six parish meetings at which he/she would be expected to put in an appearance--an onerous task. If he/she lived in Chalgrave, or in one of the other villages, nothing would be known of the issues relevant to Heath and Reach, (such as the sand industry and restitution of old workings, or the new country park at Rushmere). Similarly a councillor based in Heath and Reach would know nothing of Chalgrave's issues, which might be to do with the MI link or spread of Luton.

This just seems to me to be recipe for poor local government and poor representation. Councillors would be likely to stand for personal status and financial gain, rather than to represent their own local community. In contrast, the current arrangement linking Heath and Reach with Plantation ward works well, with councillors usually living within the ward

14/07/2010 Page 2 of 2

and representing their own local homogeneous community.

The current system is not broken, so there should be no need to fix it.

And to replace it something demonstrably worse would be a very serious mistake yours sincerely

John Halstead

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

14/07/2010 Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: URGENT: Review re: Separation of Plantation Ward from Heath and Reach

-----Original Messag From: Sue Halstead Sent: 11 July 2010 11:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: URGENT: Review re: Separation of Plantation Ward from Heath and Reach

I am writing again to protest most strongly about the Boundary Commission's ill thought out recommendation to separate Heath and Reach from Plantation for electoral purposes, and link it with a collection of villages all several miles away. Whilst this may seem fine on paper and add a tick to yet another dubious administrative box, it will not work in real life for very obvious reasons. Heath and Reach has NO links with Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge, Tilsworth, Chalgrave, or any other obscure village. Not surprisingly, because of its linear proximity, its links are with Leighton Buzzard and particularly the close-by Plantation area. Heath and Reach residents walk and cycle through Plantation Ward on a daily basis on their way to the shops, banks, station, work etc. Plantation and Heath residents meet regularly at the church, school gates, Post Office, village WI (with 123 members of whom some 50 come from the Plantation area), the golf clubs, the pubs etc. We do not want to see Plantation and Heath and Reach split up again. We are neighbours - we live in close proximity to each other, we work and socialise together on a daily basis. You have "consulted us" - please, for once, respect our wishes and leave the Plantation and Heath and Reach Ward alone, to continue to work smoothly and efficiently as it has since its formation in 2oo4.

Sue Halstead

______

1 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: ann hardie Sent: 14 June 2010 10:39 To: Reviews@ Cc: [email protected] Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review

Dear Review Committee

I have been made aware of the proposed changes to wards and am strongly opposed to moving to Northfields Ward, I live in Crabtree Way within walking distance of the town centre and never go to Houghton Regis for shopping or anything else and, therefore, I wish to remain in the Central Ward.

Mrs A Hardie

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 14 June 2010 17:40 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire Review

From: Debbie Hawkesworth Sent: 14 June 2010 12:19 To: Reviews@

Subject: Fwd: Central Bedfordshire Review

------Forwarded message ------From: Debbie Hawkesworth Date: 14 June 2010 12:16 Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review To: [email protected]

As a resident of Crabtree Way in Dunstable, I understand that the boundary Commission has made a recommendation to move our road from Dunstable Central Ward to Northfields Ward.

I understood that one of the criteria for establishing new Wards was the identification of strong community boundaries. As a resident of Crabtree Way, I can assure you that people in our neighbourhood tend to look toward the town centre for shopping, post office services, worship, Doctors, entertainment etc, as our road borders Grove house gardens in Central Dunstable. We do not need to take a car out for all of the above services, as we can walk into town in about 2 minutes. Indeed, Grove house is our local polling station, which is in the gardens that border our Road in the centre of town. Moving our Ward would mean having to get the car out to drive out of town to Northfields ward, or a 25 minute walk there. This is not an area used by us at all for local services, and I fear that any elderly people on our estate (which includes Printers way, Sheriden close, Readers close and indeed Park street) would possibly not be able to vote in future, as many of them do not have cars and are able to walk to the town centre from where we live but would not be able to walk further.

Please do not be swayed by the road layout in this area, I can assure you that from here we walk to town and do not need to use the main Road to do this as we walk directly through the park from the top of Crabtree way (the end with low numbered houses). This is obviously an environmental issue as well as one of convenience.

I hope that you are able to take account of the above comments.

Yours Sincerely,

Mrs Debbie Hawkesworth, Mr R Hawkesworth, Mr T Hawkesworth, Mr J Hawkesworth at

14/07/2010

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 16 June 2010 16:22 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire Review

-----Original Messag From: sara le-surf Sent: 15 June 2010 22:16 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review

Dear Sirs

I have been notified by a loacl councillor that my address is subject to a boundary review in Duns dfordshire. I would simply like to express my support to keep Falcon Close ( in the Dunstable Central Ward.

I do not want to be part of Northfields ward. I live in central Dunstable.

Thank you.

Kind regards Sara Le-Surf

1 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:00 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Heath & Reach - Boundary Commission Review

From: Alan Lynch Sent: 10 July 2010 10:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Heath & Reach - Boundary Commission Review

----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Lynch To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 10:39 AM Subject: Fw: Heath & Reach - Boundary Commission Review

----- Original Message ----- From: Alan Lynch To: [email protected] Sent: Saturday, July 10, 2010 8:09 AM Subject: Heath & Reach - Boundary Commission Review

Dear Sir/Madam

We live in Heath & Reach, and we have noted your recommendation that under the review, our village of Heath & Reach is to be separated from Plantation ward, and linked with a variety of villages.

It is our view that this is wrong. There is a strong link between the residents of both Heath & Reach and Plantation Ward, with many common interests both socially and also in many other matters relating to living in this area. There are no links between Heath & Reach and the villages that recommend we join.

We therefore ask that you reverse this recommendation and enable the strong links that have been established between Heath & Reach and Plantation Ward to continue.

Your faithfully

Alan & Yvonne Lynch

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary

From: Jean Marshall Sent: 11 July 2010 08:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary

We do not wish Heath and Reach to be combined with, Hockliffe, Eggington, Stanbridge, Tilsworth or Chalgrave.

We believe our existing ward as created in 2004 Heath and Reach with the plantation should stay.

Jean Marshall and George Marshall

Jean Marshall

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 2

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 17 June 2010 15:23 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire review Attachments: ATT00001; Central Bedfordshire Review

From: Pauline McHugh Sent: 16 June 2010 22:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: Central Bedfordshire review

I WANT TO STAY IN CENTRAL WARD

Regards

Mr James McHugh

14/07/2010 Page 2 of 2

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

Get a new e-mail account with Hotmail - Free. Sign-up now.

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:02 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Objection to the propsed 3 member Sandy Ward

From: ruth quirk Sent: 11 July 2010 21:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: Objection to the propsed 3 member Sandy Ward

10th July 2010

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Bedford / Central Bedfordshire Review Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED 3 MEMBER SANDY WARD

Dear Boundary Commission

As a resident of Brook End (Northill & Blunham Ward) I write to fully support the views put forward by Central Bedfordshire Council as set out below;

There is not a community link betwee n Blunham and Sandy parishes and to incorporate it with Sandy will simply see the interests of the residents of Blunham overtaken by the pressing need s of a thriving urban community.

The village of Blunham has less than 8 00 residents who maintain a rural lifestyle, they have a very close connection with the neighbouring parish of Moggerhanger as well as a natural affinity to Great Barford in the adjoining borough council area. Indeed, the infant and middle schools in Blunham and Great Barford serve both pa rishes and it wo uld not be unusual for a secondary school placement to be sought in Biggleswade rather than Sandy.

In respect of children’s activity groups such as the Cubs, Brownies and Beavers the parish would have its own groups h owever whenever there are insufficient numbers to maintain a particular children’s group then membership and interest has transferred to Great Barford. The churches within Great Barford and Blunham are served by the same vicar.

In the majority of cases a shopping trip from Bl unham would be to the nearby town of Bedford and not Sandy. Moreover, the plethora of events run in the nearby Moggerhanger Park is fully supported by the residents of Blunham. Indeed, the lo cal foo tball team is from the combined villages of Blunham and Moggerhanger.

The parish of Blunham is a thriving community that intertwines its country activi ties with its immediate rural neighbours and we would very much re-enfor ce our proposal of combining the parishes o f Tempsford, Old Warden, Blunham, Southill, Moggerhanger and Northill together with the two adjoining town wards of San dy (Fallowfield) and Sandy (Beeston) to make a two-member rural ward to reflect the interests and identities of the local community.

I hope you take my comments into consideration and amend your recommendations.

Yours faithfully

Ruth Quirk

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 09 June 2010 12:13 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire Review

From: C PINE Sent: 09 June 2010 12:02 To: Reviews@ Cc: j Subject: Fw: Central Bedfordshire Review

Apologies- I sent the wrong email address

--- On Wed, 9/6/10, C PINE

From: C PINE Subject: Central Bedfordshire Review To: [email protected] Cc: Date: Wednesday, 9 June, 2010, 11:59

Dear Sirs,

Please be aware that I wish to remain in Central Ward as most of my amenities are close at hand rather than travelling to other parts of Dunstable.

Kind regards,

Pat Saxon (Mrs) Readers Close,

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 2

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 09 July 2010 10:10 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Bedfordshire - Objection to Sandy Ward recommendation

From: Lucinda Slingsby Sent: 08 July 2010 17:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Central Bedfordshire - Objection to Sandy Ward recommendation

8th July 2010

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Bedford / Central Bedfordshire Review Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED 3 MEMBER SANDY WARD

Dear Boundary Commission

As a resident of Hat ch I write to fully support the views put forward by Central Bedfordshire Council on why Northill & Blunham should remain a 2 member ward as Blunham does not have a community link with the Sandy parishes. To incorporate it with Sandy will simply see the interests of the reside nts of Blunham overta ken by the pressing needs of a thriving urban community.

The village of Blunham has less than 800 residents who maintain a rural lifestyle, they have a very close connection with the neighbouring parish of Moggerhanger as well as a natural affinity to Great Barford in the adjoining borough council area. Indeed, the infant and middle schools in Blunham and Great Barford serve both parishes and it would not be unusual for a secondary school placement to be sought in Biggleswade rather than Sandy.

In respect of childre n’s activity groups such as the Cubs, Brownies and Beavers the parish would have it s own groups however whenever there are insufficient numbers to main tain a particular children’s group then membership and interest has transferred to Great Barford. The churches within Great Barford and Blunham are served by the same vicar.

In the majority of cases a shopping trip from Blunham would be to the nearby town of Bedford and not Sandy. Moreover, the plethora of events run in t he nearby Moggerhanger Park is fully supported by t he residen ts of Blunham. I ndeed, the local football team is from th e combined villages of Blunham and Moggerhanger.

The parish of Blunham is a thriving community that intertwines its country activit ies with its immediate rural neighbours and I wo uld very much re-enforce our proposal of combining the parishes of Old Ward en, Blunham, Southill, Moggerhanger, Tempsford and Northill togethe r with the two adjoining town wards of Sandy (Fallowfield) and Sandy (Beeston) to make a two- member rural ward to reflect the interests and identities of the local community.

We have been fully en joyed the support of 2 me mbers of Central Bedfordshire Council since May 2009 their working relat ionship to cover the ward has been excellent, there is always one available to call on if the other is away etc and we want to see this continuing.

14/07/2010 Page 2 of 2

I hope you take these comments into consideration and amend your recommendations.

Yours faithfully

Lucinda Slingsby

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 08 July 2010 10:42 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Central Beds Boundary Changes in regard to Ampthill

From: Mark Smith Sent: 08 July 2010 00:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Central Beds Boundary Changes in regard to Ampthill

Dear Sirs

Having read the Third Stage recommendations of the Central Bedfordshire Electoral Boundary Review, I feel I must object to the proposal to have a 3 member ward for Ampthill, comprising Ampthill, Maulden & Clophill on a number of points:

 Such a move disenfranchises those that wish to stand as Independents, as it potentially makes standing too expensive to finance, which means that such elections becomes the domain of the major parties.  There is the loss of local representation potentially for any of the 3 communities, as the communities may not elect any of their residents, so for example all three members might be elected from Ampthill, with little knowledge of the issues in Maulden & Clophill.  I’m not quite clear why the residents of Millbrook have been taken out of the equation, as close links have been built up over the years. There seems to be no regard for this in the report.  I do wonder why the Conservative Group are so keen on the proposal for the Ampthill, Maulden & Clophill 3 member ward. My suspicion is that the reason is to disenfranchise Independents and to ensure that the largely non‐conservative voting majority in urban Ampthill is dissipated by the largely conservative voting majority in the largely rural Clophill & Maulden!!

I hope my objections to the current proposal in respect of the electoral boundary changes for Ampthill are taken into account.

Your Sincerely

Mark Smith

Website: www.ampthill.info - Ampthill Past Present & Future Website: www.ampthill.org.uk - Ampthill & District Directory

14/07/2010

Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary changes

From: Dave+Donna Venn Sent: 11 July 2010 10:17 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes

We feel very strongly that the Heath & Reach, Plantation boundary should be left as it is, continuing our association with Plantation ward.

The proposed changes would like us with villages that have no connection with us geographically or in any other way.

Regards,

David and Donna Venn

Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 17:59 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Heath & Reach Ward - separation from Plantation Ward

From: JOHN WILLIAMS Sent: 10 July 2010 11:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Heath & Reach Ward - separation from Plantation Ward

Dear Sirs I refer to the Boundary Commission's recommendation that Heath & Reach Ward be separated from Plantation Ward and wish to register my objection to the proposal. I believe that the existing Wards as created in 2004, provide a correct and proper link between the Wards and should be continued John Vaughan Williams

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:01 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Heath & Reach Ward - Separation from Plantation Ward

From: Sent: 10 July 2010 21:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Heath & Reach Ward - Separation from Plantation Ward

Dear Sirs I refer to the Boundary Commission's recommendation that Heath & Reach Ward be separated from Plantation Ward and wish to register my objection to the proposal. I believe that the existing Wards as created in 2004, provide a correct and proper link between the Wards and should be continued Sylvia Williams Leighton Buzzard

14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1

Gregory, Eleanor

From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 05 July 2010 15:52 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 04 July 2010 13:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Contact us Email,

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

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: 93 Time of Submission: Jul 4th 2010 at 1:22pm IP Address: ::ffff:92.30.165.201

Form Answers

Your name: allan young Your email: I am: a member of the public Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: i am a house owner of crabtree way dunstable and im totally against the changing of the WARD boundery as our area is more central dunstable than northfields so as i said earlier im totatally against the boundary change This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Contact us Email

14/07/2010