Local residents submissions to the Borough Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 19 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.

Dear Mark,

Having now had chance to see your draft maps and recommended boundary changes I have the following to add to my initial objection/ alterations:

To have severely shrunk Ward and knocked the Councillor total back to two, whilst simulateously enlarging Park and increasing the Councillors there to three is illogical and against the interests of both communities, which are already reeling from the changes introduced in 2002/3.

There are residents presently in Clairville, who were in what was then Kirby Ward and who consistently refuse to attend Clairville Community Council on the grounds that they have nothing whatsoever to do with the residents in that Ward, thus they asked to be able to attend Linthorpe community Council bringing the leaflets needed up to 4200. Now it is proposed that they change to attend Park Ward, with whom again they have nothing in common. Furthermore, residents just down the road, from where I live here, again prefer not to have to walk to Park Ward and so attend Linthorpe Ward Community Council instead .

Then to exclude the residents of Ravenscroft altogether and add them to Acklam Ward is totally bewildering since you have used the natural boundary of West Beck for the split between Beechwood and Park. Why then is Ravenscroft singled out to go with Acklam, which is on the other side of Emerson Avenue when Ravenscroft itself is clearly within the West Beck boundary for Park?

None of this would have occurred if the old Kirby/ Linthorpe boundary had remained as it was intended when Kirby Ward was eliminated by a secret agreement between The Conservatives and Labour, for their own political advantage, without consulting the residents about their wishes. It is quite obvious that the residents have their own sense of community and it does not involve changes every ten years for political gain!

It is also not fair to take on board only the opinions of the three main parties, when as Independents we have a voice and more accurately reflect the views of all residents, not just party members. I know what I am talking about because not only have I lived in this neck of the woods for over 69 years but I was Kirby Ward Counciilor for 8 years and likewise was also Linthorpe Ward Councillor for 8 years up until 2011 when I was targeted by Labour and The Lib Dems because I spoke up for the people against the ruling Labour stranglehold. All these changes will do will be to silence the views of voters who object/ disagree with the main parties, in particular Labour and by moving these roads, where free voters live, into Labour strongholds will not only negate their voices and views, thus not only not reflect the true nature of those communities but deter voters altogether and thus ensure that nobody but party diehards are elected, which is the real reason for the changes submitted by the Labour party in cahoots with sympathetic Officers chosen by them to do their bidding. This was not an all party/ councillor agreement for Middlesbrough but a Labour Party submission that does not reflect the views of the residents of Middlesbrough.

It would be far better to leave well alone and go with the existing Ward Boundaries than to confuse people once more, take away their sense of community and views and ensure nothing other than apathy electorally.

So, to sum up: (1)The proposals do not reflect the interests of the communities, about which in any case they have not been consulted.

(2)Natural boundaries, whilst helpful geographically are not always helpful community -wise but if you are to use them then why go against your own decision by excluding a whole community from that boundary?

(3) The whole purpose allegedly for these change is to make the Councillors more representative and accountable to the community. During my days both in Kirby and Linthorpe as Ward Councillor I was always available and worked for the whole ward ( 4000 respectively 6000) but was never personally consulted by anywhere near 50 residents constantly, so where does the idea that Councillors cannot represent over 2000 residents come from? It is a myth. By replacing one big Ward with another ( Park for Linthorpe) nothing is gained in this regard either. There are good Councillors and lazy Councillors, whatever the numbers involved, so trying to set a firm limit on the number of people they represent is totally useless in this respect.

(4) It is not the fault of yourselves that these changes are being considered and I appreciate it cannot be easy for you to try to encompass all views but there is no better yardstick than the views of those who have constantly not only lived here but also served, to the best of their ability without prejudice or party advantage, the greater community.

(5) If changes must be made then it were better simply either to leave the status quo or to revert to the old Kirby Ward, Park and Linthorpe boundaries in which there were only c 4000 residents, because these were proper communities. In the case of Kirby alas destroyed totally for political trade off. That way both Linthorpe and Park would also revert to two Councillors only and by your own rules be more manageable. All of which would also be less confusing for the residents of each community and their identities.

(6) The views of all , regardless of so - called social standing presently, should be equally weighed and not just those of sitting Councillors from the main parties, all of whom allegedly may have their own interests, not necessarily those of the wider community, uppermost.

I trust these opinions, from one who has consistently lived in Linthorpe for over 69 years and thus knows the area and people/ communities inside out, conform with your own criteria. Thus I submit them in all honesty for the benefit of the wider communities here involved. I sincerely hope they will be given due and careful consideration for the people's sakes.

Thank you for your attention and assistance throughout this very important issue.

Kind regards and best wishes,

From: Allan Bell [ Sent: 31 July 2013 21:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: local government boundaries as a local resident of I am disappointed that the boundary commission has chosen to overrule the proposal to reinstate a Berwick hills ward in the review of boundaries

Berwick hills is a well established community and residents are proud of their area and welcomed the proposal put forward by Middlesbrough council for a two member ward based. largely on the traditional Berwick hills boundaries.this proposal was unanimously supported by the local community council and welcomed by the many people I have spoken with. it is my view that the two member ward is the best form of representation and allows for the building of relationships with councillors and local groups without causing confusion that can be evident in three member wards both in the election and the years between elections the Berwick hills ward would allow two members to be fully focused on Berwick hills issues.whilst we have been well served by our two local councillors it must have been difficult to balance the interests of two distinct communities in the current boundaries and in the commissions proposals

I have been an active resident chairing the local community council and a resident run environment group and a member of the tenants panel. in all capacities I have represented the interests of local residents and would hope the commission will reconsider its proposals for Berwick hills ward

7/24/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

Middlesbrough

Personal Details:

Name: Jordan Blyth

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: I live on Beech Grove Road, what is currently Clairville Ward, and under these proposals would become Park Ward, yet I have always identified more with being from Linthorpe, so it would perhas make more sense for that area to be included with Linthorpe Ward, as the people there consider themselves to live in Linthorpe.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2091 1/1 Jeannette Bowen

Dear Mr Pascoe

Thank you for your email dated 14th February relating to my earlier response to the Electoral Review Middlesbrough.

I am now writing to express my delight that you have listened to the views of the public concerning the plans submitted by Middlesbrough Council Labour group.

Your decision to adopt Councillor Williams and the Conservative group's proposals for the two- member ward, three member ward, and the two, two member wards for Marton West and Marton (East), following the strong existing boundaries, is to be commended.

We feel that democracy has been upheld.

My only query is the removal of St Cuthbert Avenue from Marton West into Nunthorpe. It seems to be against the principle of a 'strong boundary' using Dixons Bank as the line.

Yours sincerely

Jeannette Bowen

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 17 May 2013 14:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral ward review

Sent from my iPad. I am extremely happy at the recommendation for Marton. Peter Elsdon.

From: STUART FLINTHAM Sent: 19 June 2013 14:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundry Change Comment

Good Afternoon,

Having read the Middlesbrough FER document I wish to make the following comments for consideration : -

Where I do not challenge the need for local government boundary change proposals due to potential population shift as outlined in the Middlesbrough LDF with additional local new- builds under that initiative ~ what I Do Object to is the proposed Ward Name Change from Brookfield to Trimdon.

Trimdon is the name of one road into the present estate and has / will have No Relevance to present location and post local new-builds. Also 'The Trimdons' are located in and being proud of my heritage, we are still ! So why not just retain Brookfield ?

Failing this then the next best is Stainsby Ward, which historically was the name of the local Secondary School, which may established residents attended and also incorporates the land on which the future new-builds will be located, presently named Stainsby Farm.

If you require further 'in-depth' comments, then do not hesitate to contact me, initially via e- mail.

Regards, Stuart Flintham. 19.06.2013

7/29/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Middlesbrough

Personal Details:

Name: George Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

4: Gypsy Lane rail station. 1: 2: Swans Corner roundabout

3: Nunthorpe By-pass where Rail line crosses beneath

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

Map Features:

1:

2: Swans Corner roundabout

3: Nunthorpe By-pass where Rail line crosses beneath

4: Gypsy Lane rail station.

Comment text: Join up and integrate Nunthorpe again instead of the current M'bro CC / Cleveland & Redcar split Nunthorpe by the rail line. This can be done by the Middlesbrough boundary of Nunthorpe Parish / Ward being re-drawn / moved to include the area taken from Gypsy Lane rail crossing to Swans Corner roundabout and the Rail line crossing the Nunthorpe By-pass. Better still move the revised Nunthorpe Parish/Ward into district () https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2113 1/2 7/29/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Nunthorpe Parish/Ward into Stokesley district (North Yorkshire)

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2113 2/2 6/20/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Middlesbrough

Personal Details:

Name: Judith Hockridge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Member of the public

1:

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

Map Features:

1:

Comment text: I am an active member of the present Linthorpe branch. The proposals would put my house in a different branch .If the boundary was extended to include the two semidetached houses 43 and 45 Emerson avenue into Park ward this would solve my problem with the addition of only four residents (two in each house)I should be most grateful if you could consider my proposal. Judith Hockridge

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/1846 1/1

8/5/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Middlesbrough

Personal Details:

Name: David Kerr

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: I would request that the Commission reconsider it's proposal with regard to the name of the new "Trimdon" Ward and, instead, name it "Thornhill Ward". This would reflect the fact that most, if not all, of the new ward was developed on land forming Thornhill Farm (in the same way that Kader Ward was developed on Kader Farm)and is called "Thornhill Estate". The name "Trimdon" merely reflects the name of one of the access roads - which presumably was selected for street naming purposes because it was in line with the other names selected for the new estate i.e. the names of towns and villages in County Durham. It has no other relevance or local connection to the area.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2154 1/1 -----Original Message----- From: Dennis Lane Sent: 14 May 2013 22:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundaries

Dear Sirs,

I have read your Draft Recommendations and spent a few hours studying them in detail. I cannot fault them in any way. You have done a really marvellous job of work. I sincerely hope the Draft is introduced in it's entirety.

Yours Sincerely (member of the public)

Dennis Lane

Gwyneth Lewis

I think the recommendations for the reduction of the number of Middlesbrough's councillors is excellent. Leave Marton West as it is with 2 councillors and reduce the numbers in the areas of the town where there are few voters, which is not likely to change in the foreseeable future. Thank you. GM Lewis

-----Original Message----- From: Barbara Neal Sent: 02 July 2013 19:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Middlesbrough Review

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please keep the Marton West Ward! I understand that, as part of the review, it is proposed to keep the ward and I would like to add my voice to that of others to ensure this proposal is ratified.

Many thanks,

Barbara Neal Marton Middlesbrough

From: e-mail anne.rogersobrien Sent: 28 July 2013 12:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Middlesbrough ward boundary comment

. 28th July 2013

Dear Sir I would like to make my observations on your proposals for the Acklam ward in Middlesbrough.. Over the last thirty years the boundaries of Acklam have been altered at least twice. The last reorganisation in the early years of this century seemed to offer an almost ideal situation for the area in that it became a seemingly more politically balanced ward Your proposal to remove the area at the southwest corner of the ward and transfer it into the Kader ward and splitting a historical feature of the area as well as crossing a natural boundary to achieve your. aim seems strange to me.. The transfer of the area of Emerson Avenue and Ravenscroft Avenue from Linthorpe into the Acklam ward seems equally puzzling to me.. This patch has never in my time had a connection with Acklam and was always recognised as part of Linthorpe and previously known as part of Kirby ward and again crossing a natural boundary. I would like to formally register my objection to your proposals and hope that you will take it into account when you make your final deliberations as your proposals do not seem to have any support in this vicinity

Yours faithfully. Mrs Anne O'Brien.

From: Sent: 30 May 2013 16:48 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Middlesbrough Ward Boundary Proposals

MARTON WEST WARD BOUNDARY PROPOSALS From Eric Smith ,17 Avenue , Marton , Middlesbrough TS78JY

I am not affiliated to any political party or associated with any lobby or protest group. I am writing as a resident who has lived in the ward for the past 42 years I note that the Commission propose to retain our ward almost unaltered. In fully supporting this decision I am sure I speak for the vast majority of residents in the ward .This will afford continuity and enable them along with our local Councillors Chris and John Hobson to build on the Community spirit already well established This would not have been possible had Middlesbrough Councils "jig saw map "proposals for the area been adopted Eric Smith

Boundary Commission review Middlesbrough

Dear Sir,

I would like to comment on the above proposals with particular reference to ACKLAM ward.

I know from previous correspondence to Mr Mark Pascoe that before this review that independenly Acklam ward was after 2016 projections were taken into account within the councillor/electrate ratio that the Boundary Commission uses and so needed no changes.

However looking at the proposals,the main problem I feel is the triangular section between Acklam road and the avenue of trees that would be transferred to Kader ward.This section has been an integral part of the existing Acklam ward.It is bounded by Acklam road which is a major busy road which acts as a significant boundary to the ward.Moving this section to Kader which would predominantly across this road would effectively isolate this area.

Historically, the Avenue of Trees,an important local feature which complements Middlesbrough's only grade 1 listed building belongs within Acklam,but this proposal splits Acklam Hall from the avenue. The avenue is not a boundary,it is open space where people mix for recreation.

Residents from this triangular area are also active within the local community council and the local environmental group Acklam 20/20.Indeed Acklam 20/20 recently raised £9000 to install historically authentic railings to the avenue entrance.

The local community council recently negotiated a deal with Middlesbrough Council to spend feed in tarrif monies collected from a wind turbine constructed in what would be Acklam on projects in the area that is proposed to be in Kader!

Another proposed change would be to move residents from Ravenscroft avenue into Acklam, this is clearly in Linthorpe,with a clear division being Emmerson Avenue.This proposal is simply perverse.

I personally as a resident have recently helped with a scheme to get 20 verge side trees planted thoughout Acklam.

I feel strongly that there was no need to change Acklam ward at all and that the proposed changes are wrong.