Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Lincolnshire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from Parish and Town Councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Margaret Boughton
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Addlethorpe Parish Council
Comment text:
At the last meeting of Addlethorpe Parish Council on 12th January 2016, the councillors present discussed the draft recommendations and decided that they were all in agreement with them.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7256 09/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Kathy Algarkirk Sent: 28 January 2016 15:03 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sirs
Further to the information forwarded to Algarkirk Parish Council in relation to review of electoral arrangements, we would like to propose your draft recommendation of Holland Fen and Sutterton be renamed as Boston Rural Ward.
We feel the name of Boston Rural Ward reflects the area in a fairer way than just naming 2 parishes out of a total of eight whole parishes.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Kawthy Partridge Clerk to Algarkirk Parish Council
Sent from Windows Mail
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Joan Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Amber Hill Parish Council
Comment text:
AMBER HILL PARISH COUNCIL have considered the draft recommendations and whilst accepting the change in the number of councillors for Lincolnshire and the proposed electoral divisions THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE NAME CHANGE TO HOLLAND FEN AND SUTTERTON. THIS SHOULD BE BOSTON RURAL.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6928 25/01/2016 Porter, Johanna
From: Malcolm Hall Sent: 12 January 2016 15:08 To: reviews Cc: Ray Wootten Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Madam
I am writing concerning the draft recommendations for Lincolnshire County Council, which were considered by Barkston and Syston Parish Council last night. The Parish Council's area lies wholly within South Kesteven, Lincolnshire, specifically within proposed Division number 48.
The Parish Council have no particular issues with the review, and consider that it will meet two of the three criteria. The criteria which the Parish Council consider is not met is number two, which states that the recommendations should reflect local community interests and identities. In this connection, the only issue is with the proposed name for the Division, which the Parish Council believe most certainly does NOT comply with the above-mentioned recommendation.
The name reflects only two parishes at the northern (Ancaster) and southern (Manthorpe) ends of this large Division. There is no mention of other parishes within the proposed new area, and the suggested name is meaningless to anyone not familiar with the area. The Parish Council see no reason why the name should be changed at all, but if it is to be changed, they consider a far more apt and descriptive name would be GRANTHAM NORTH RURAL. The Grantham North part would reflect the general location, and the Rural part the rural nature of the Division, without specifically mentioning only two of several rural parishes within the Division.
I perhaps should add that this suggestion has the support of the current County Councillor for the area, who has I believe suggested a similar name.
Yours faithfully
Malcolm Hall Clerk to Barkston and Syston Parish Council
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Joan Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: BENINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
Comment text:
BENINGTON PARISH COUNCIL have considered the draft recommendations and whilst accepting the change in the number of councillors for Lincolnshire and the proposed electoral divisions THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE NAME CHANGE TO BUTTERWICK AND WRANGLE. THIS SHOULD BE KEPT AT BOSTON COASTAL (which in your details show covers Fishtoft part, Freiston, Butterwick, Benington, Leverton, Old Leake and Wrangle.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6926 25/01/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Bracebridge Heath Parish Council Sent: 08 February 2016 22:49 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire- Draft Recommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sirs
Bracebridge Heath Parish Council objects to the draft recommendations and the inclusion of Bracebridge Heath in Washingborough division for the following reasons:-
The proposal is contrary to the Commissions own definitions of a good pattern of divisions due to:-
Transport links - there are no physical transport link across the division and no public transport links.
Community Group - There are no community groups that link across this division, there currently are in the existing division links with Waddington and the cluster of Cliff Villages
There are no community links between Bracebridge Heath and Washingborough as above. Bracebridge Heath is closer linked with a number of other villages that the proposed division villages
County and district Councillors currently overlap, do not under the proposal. Heighington village should not be split across two wards as proposed this is not beneficial to residents of Heighington
Facilities - Facilities in Washingborough are not used by residents of Bracebridge Heath and vice- versa, due to lack of transport links which are far more convenient to other villages.
There is no consistency in naming convention, the proposed Washingborough division is not appropriately named. Bracebridge Heath should be the primary name of this division not Washingborough
Regards
J Stanley Clerk to Council Bracebridge Heath Parish Council
Website http://parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/bracebridgeheath/ Facebook: Bracebridge Heath Parish Council
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of Bracebridge Heath Parish Council and the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please forward it to the sender and delete it from your system. Thank You
1 BRANSTON & MERE PARISH COUNCIL
Clerk to the Council Mrs Sarah Stead
Review Officer Local Government Boundary Commission 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 02 June 2015
Dear Sir,
My Council considered the electoral review at their meeting last night.
Branston lies just three miles south of the city with planning proposals likely to narrow the distance. The only thing that is asked of the Commission is that Branston & Mere retains its village identity and does not become absorbed into Greater Lincoln.
During previous changes, Branston was separated from the neighbouring villages; with whom they shared many services including schools, GPs, Police beat and bus services and were linked with the cliff villages some miles away and with whom there were no such connections. Perhaps some thought should be given to parish clusters which strengthen the wider rural community.
Yours sincerely
Clerk to the Council.
BURGH LE MARSH TOWN COUNCIL
MRS. A. JOHNSON-COCCIA (TOWN CLERK)
VIA EMAIL/UPLOAD Local Government Boundary Commission for England
8 February 2015
Dear Sirs,
Re: Consultation – Lincolnshire Electoral Review – Draft Divisions (Dec. 2015 – Feb. 2016)
I write on behalf of Burgh le Marsh Town Council to confirm its continued objection to the proposed redrawing of the electoral divisions wherein the town of Burgh le Marsh would no longer be grouped with Wainfleet and Croft but rather realigned with a section of the coastal town of Skegness to form the division/ward of Skegness South.
Like the surrounding parishes of Wainfleet and Croft, Burgh le Marsh is a distinctly rural yet sustainable community marked by strong social cohesion, and a modest local economy and built landscape that primarily provides amenities sufficient for the residents of the town but also accommodates the visitor population that attends Burgh in the holiday months. There is a natural affinity between the populations of Burgh, Wainfleet and Croft, given the close mirroring of the educational, economic and social needs of each settlement.
By stark contrast, Skegness is a town of coastal, urbanized character with a more divergent and transient - and less cohesive - social structure due to its dual importance as both an economic hub that provides employment through its myriad shops and businesses, and as a tourism destination with additional caravan parks coming into operation year on year.
With differences ranging from population size to crime levels to age, income and other demographics, the Town Council asserts the lack of any correspondence between the communities of Burgh le Marsh and Skegness that would recommend the amalgamation of these two settlements into a shared electoral division and therefore strenuously objects to the proposed division changes. The Town Council does support maintenance of the existing division and boundaries in respect of Burgh le Marsh.
On behalf of the Town Council, I thank you for your attention to the foregoing. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the first instance should you require anything further.
Yours sincerely
Mrs. Angela Johnson-Coccia Town Clerk
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Angela Johnson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Burgh le Marsh Town Council
Comment text:
Burgh le Marsh Town Council confirms its continued objection to the proposed redrawing of the electoral divisions wherein the town of Burgh le Marsh would no longer be grouped with Wainfleet and Croft but rather realigned with a section of the coastal town of Skegness to form the division/ward of Skegness South. Like the surrounding parishes of Wainfleet and Croft, Burgh le Marsh is a distinctly rural yet sustainable community marked by strong social cohesion, and a modest local economy and built landscape that primarily provides amenities sufficient for the residents of the town but also accommodates the visitor population that attends Burgh in the holiday months. There is a natural affinity between the populations of Burgh, Wainfleet and Croft, given the close mirroring of the educational, economic and social needs of each settlement. By stark contrast, Skegness is a town of coastal, urbanized character with a more divergent and transient - and less cohesive - social structure due to its dual importance as both an economic hub that provides employment through its myriad shops and businesses, and as a tourism destination with additional caravan parks coming into operation year on year. With differences ranging from population size to crime levels to age, income and other demographics, the Town Council asserts the lack of any correspondence between the communities of Burgh le Marsh and Skegness that would recommend the amalgamation of these two settlements into a shared electoral division and therefore strenuously objects to the proposed division changes. The Town Council does support maintenance of the existing division and boundaries in respect of Burgh le Marsh.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7630 10/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Burton by Lincoln Parish Clerk Sent: 26 January 2016 06:03 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dears Sirs
I write on behalf of Burton-by-Lincoln Parish Council following the Parish Meeting on 19 th January 2016.
The electoral review of Lincolnshire was discussed. It was resolved that although Burton-by-Lincoln was content to remain in the Saxilby Ward, it was more appropriate that this parish should form the eastern boundary to the ward as it borders the A15.
The Parish of Riseholme and Grange de Lings are situated on the eastern side of the A15 and more naturally form part of the Nettleham ward. The facilities that these two parishes use are in Nettleham and therefore it would be unusual then for them to be part of the Saxilby ward with which they have no connection.
I trust this assists your deliberations.
Yours faithfully
Caroline
Caroline Emerson Burton-by-Lincoln Parish Clerk
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Joan Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: BUTTERWICK PARISH COUNCIL
Comment text:
BUTTERWICK PARISH COUNCIL have considered the draft recommendations and whilst accepting the change in the number of councillors for Lincolnshire and the proposed electoral divisions THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE NAME CHANGE TO BUTTERWICK AND WRANGLE. THIS SHOULD BE KEPT AT BOSTON COASTAL (which in your details show covers Fishtoft part, Freiston, Butterwick, Benington, Leverton, Old Leake and Wrangle.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6925 25/01/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Canwick Parish Council Sent: 31 January 2016 14:20 To: reviews Cc: CllrR Oxby Subject: CANWICK PARISH COUNCIL COMMENT ON THE ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LINCOLNSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS - JAN 16 Attachments: Boundary Commission Comment - Canwick Parish Council - Jan 16.doc
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sir
My Parish Council comments on the subject review as follows:
Canwick Parish Council objects to the proposed new division boundaries for Lincolnshire County Council. The Boundary Commission proposals show that disparate communities appear to have been simply bundled together and/or split arbitrarily between proposed divisions (in some cases between three divisions) simply to equalise elector numbers.
1. There is no synergy with existing ward and constituency boundaries which predominantly follow natural topography and lines of communication. These largely run north‐south whereas the proposals artificially impose a largely east west plan.
2. The proposals run counter to naturally functioning groups of settlements where geography and shared services mean communities work together. This is reflected politically and administratively in North Kesteven’s cluster group system. Canwick functions naturally with Washingborough, Heighington and Branston sharing such things as schools, surgeries, retail and community facilities. These parishes have successfully worked together in the Four Parishes Cluster Group for over 20 years but would now be split into artificial divisions which do not reflect reality on the ground.
3. The proposal would split the large village of Heighington in two, dividing a civil parish, an ecclesiastical parish and a community in two. How can this possibly improve services to and representation of local residents?
4. The proposed Washingborough division would join Washingborough, Canwick and part of Heighington with Bracebridge Heath. This latter is separated by a mile of open countryside and one of the busiest roads in the Lincoln area. It has no cultural or administrative links with Washingborough, Canwick or Heighington and lies in a different parliamentary constituency.
5. The proposed divisions ignore the pattern of future development set out in the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan which has just completed public consultation. In our immediate locality this allows for 3500 new homes on Canwick Heath in the short to medium term and 6000 in the medium to long term. There are similar anomalies in other parts of the District where major strategic development plans are ignored by the Boundary Commission proposals.
6. For our own division we believe that joining Washingborough, Heighington and Canwick with Branston would be a more logical move to facilitate the necessary reduction in county divisions.
7. We believe re‐cast divisions should bear at least some relationship to the existing pattern of settlements, communications and geography and the way in which communities function together. The Boundary Commission proposals largely ignore these factors, responding instead purely to the driver of balancing numbers to the apparent exclusion of the social, economic and geographical patterns which frame our residents’ lives. In addition the proposals ignore publicly scheduled future development which will render these proposal rapidly out of date.
1
8. In summary the proposed division boundaries will not serve the population of our area well and will make it more difficult to provide them with the service they deserve. As such the proposals run directly against the four criteria describing ‘a good pattern of divisions’ printed on the Commission's own document summarising its proposals.
I have also attached the comment as a Word file for your convenience
Yours Faithfully Mrs P SHAW Clerk to Canwick Parish Council 31 Jan 16
2
Mayers, Mishka
From: Sent: 07 February 2016 15:11 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Review
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Hi Croft Parish Council have seen the Proposals from the boundary commission and do not support them. The Parish Council have also seen the proposals made by Cllr Mr C Pain and are in full agreement with them. Wainfleet / Croft are intermingled and share all of the same facilities including police, fire station, school, football pitch, fish and chip shop, doctors, library, hairdressers, co-op, petrol station, paper shop, chemist, children's clubs, brewery, beauty salon, halls, clubs, societies, jobs, social life, W2 etc. Therefore the Parish Council do not wish to see the proposed split take place. Regards Christine Newton Clerk to Croft Parish Council
1 Mayers, Mishka
From: Crowland PC Sent: 08 February 2016 11:21 To: reviews Cc: 'David Ringham' Subject: Comments regarding the Local Government Boundary commission proposals
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Good morning
The Crowland Parish Council wish to object to the proposals in respect of Crowland Division.
We feel, they do not satisfy your criteria, namely it does not take into account the very important community links forged over many years. They do not reflect the interest and identity of local communities or provide for effective convenient local government. The proposals include a large slice of dense urban development within Spalding and do not take account of the rural nature surrounding Crowland. Should someone being elected from the Spalding area they will have no local knowledge of Crowland and the surrounding area. There are many local services in Crowland upon which the surrounding rural area depends, doctors, chemist, charities, voluntary car schemes etc. With a large slice of dense urban development within Spalding, which will increase in size with further development in the near future, Crowland will be governed by “remote control”. Local community links with surrounding villages is vital to those people living there who form a working relationship with their local County Councillor no matter what their political persuasion. We understand the desire to equalise numbers but this should not outweigh the needs of the local division which has worked very well, forcing a large part of a large town with a small town and rural area which have nothing in common will be non productive and work against the interests of the local community. We urge the Boundary Commission to re‐think the proposals and take account of local opinion. We believe as a Parish Council representing the local community that more effective and convenient local government would be provided by avoiding a small rural community being dominated by needs of a dense urban area and more cost effective. We do nnot want the local community to be disenchanted with local government.
Kind regards
David Ringham Chairman Crowland Parish Council
NB _ PLEASE ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF THIS E‐MAIL
Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your priv acy, Outlo ok prevented auto matic downlo ad o f th i s p i c tu re fr o m th e In ternet. This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.
www.avast.com
1 Mayers, Mishka
From: Julie Fortnum Sent: 08 February 2016 13:50 To: reviews Subject: Response to electoral review of Lincolnshire Attachments: Boundary Changes - Market and West Deeping.pdf
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Good afternoon
At the Council meeting held on Thursday 28 January 2016 the members of Deeping St James Parish Council unanimously resolved to support Market Deeping District Councillor Ashley Baxter's alternative proposal to the boundary changes.
This decision was arrived at because the members agreed that Councillor Baxter's proposal offered a solution to the need to re‐draw the boundaries that satisfied the need for equal representation and also retained the local identity of the Town of Market Deeping and Parish of Deeping St James as well as being largely in‐line with the current district, ward and parish boundaries.
I have attached a copy of Councillor Baxter proposal for your information.
Regards
Julie
Mrs Julie Fortnum Parish Clerk
www.dsjpc.co.uk
The information contained in this e-mail is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or take any action or reliance on it. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately by using the e-mail address or by telephoning 01778 343266.
1 Draft Response to LGBCE Proposed Boundary Changes for County Divisions 2016
Re: The Deepings and South Lincolnshire
The problem
The proposed boundary changes split the historic town of Market Deeping in a way that will inhibit effective and cohesive representation of its inhabitants.
The solution
Redraw the boundaries in a way that retains coterminosity of boundaries as well as the historic and contemporary identities of both the town of Market Deeping and the village of Deeping St James.
The problem in detail
Market Deeping Town Council responded to the original Boundary Review consultation, back in July 2015, to state their firm view that Market Deeping and Deeping St James wish to retain their own identities and Councils1. Unfortunately, the draft divisions appear to overlooked this aspiration in order to maintain a system of wards of consistent size. This has resulted in the draft boundaries splitting representation of the town of Market Deeping in a way which leaves most electors, and even the town hall, in a ward called Deeping St James. This draft divisions would likely lead to confusion and resentment among local people.
It is also understood that the Boundary commission requires contiguous wards.
The ancient settlements of Market Deeping and Deeping St James have always been identifiable as two separate parishes and communities. The parishes are similar in size. Most people living in the two areas are well aware of the boundary either by involvement in local community activities, council precept payments and/or folklore e.g. the award-winning eponymous ‘Boundary fish-shop’ marks the point at which the parishes split.
The solution in detail:
In order to meet the aspirations of the LGBCE towards evenly sized wards it is suggested the Deeping St James ward be extended North to include the parish of Langtoft as well as large but sparsely populated area of Market Deeping Parish.
Meanwhile, the existing Division of Market and West Deeping should be extended West to include the surrounding villages (Baston, Barholm, Bracebridge, Greatford, Tallington, Uffington, Wilsthorpe and West Deeping). Inhabitants of all these villages would probably regard Market Deeping as their closest town for shopping, sport, community services etc. For example, Appendix 1 shows that all but one of the villages fall within the catchment of the Deepings Medical Practice which is the main GP practice in the area.
1 Market Deeping response to LGBCE July 2015 http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/25866/Lincolnshire-parish-and-town-councils-combined-2015-08-17.pdf The solution appreciates the need for contiguous wards and this is why part of Market Deeping parish has been ‘surrendered’ to the Deeping St James Division. It is recognised that this will result in ‘warding’ of the Town Council and the proposed boundary has been drawn to accommodate sufficient electors (400) to elect at least one town councillor. The proposed warding arrangement is attached at Appendix 2.
This solution not only satisfies issues of local identity and representation. It also largely retains a coterminosity with existing district, ward and parish boundaries.
Appendix 1
Existing Divisions
Appendix 2
LGBCE Proposed Divisions
Appendix 3
Suggested Alternative Divisional Structure
Appendix 4
Proposed wards within Market Deeping Town Parish
Appendix 4
Arithmetic
A spreadsheet is attached showing the workings of various permutations of wards.
The following shows why the solution suggested above is the most favourable.
The columns marked ‘Balance’ indicate the comparative sizes of the two Deepings wards. The columns marked ‘Variance’ indicate variance from the target Lincolnshire ward size.
Balance Balance Variance Variance
2015 2021 2015 2021 Deeping St James proposed 8165 8237 52% 52% 2% -1% Baston and Barholm proposed 7465 7634 48% 48% -6% -8% 15630 15872
Deeping St James plus Langtoft 7448 7404 48% 47% -7% -11% Market Deeping plus surrounding 8182 8468 52% 53% 3% 2% villages (excl Langtoft) 15630 15872
Preferred solution Deeping St James plus Langtoft 7848 7804 50% 49% -2% -6% + 400 (Swines Meadow) Market Deeping plus villages 7782 8068 50% 51% -2% -3% - 400 (Swines Meadow) 15630 15872
Appendix 5
The Deepings Area
The settlements of the Deepings date back to the Domesday book. They are generally accepted to include the following villages (and town):
Market Deeping (South Kesteven and Lincolnshire) Deeping St James (South Kesteven and Lincolnshire) Deeping Gate (Peterborough) Deeping St Nicholas (South Holland and Lincolnshire) West Deeping (South Kesteven and Lincolnshire)
The nearby village of Langtoft is closely associated with the Deepings e.g. its school forms part of the Deepings cluster of schools.
Appendix 6
Extracts from LGBCE proposed new divisions
Division Number Variance Description Detail name of Cllrs 2021 Deeping St 1 -1% This division comprises We received a single division James the pattern parish of Deeping St proposal and a submission James relating to the Deepings area of the division. The respondent commented on the boundary arrangement for West Deeping, Market Deeping and Deeping St James but did not provide a pattern of divisions or supporting evidence. The current division boundaries provide for very poor electoral equality so could not be maintained. Baston & 1 -1% This division comprises We received a single division Barholm eight whole parishes pattern including Baston, proposal and no further Uffington, West Deeping submissions for this division. and also the western The division varies along the extent on Market south- Deeping. eastern boundary from that proposed to allow for good electoral equality across the district.
52 As a result of our proposed division boundaries and having regard to the statutory criteria set out in schedule 2 to the 2009 Act, we are providing revised parish electoral arrangements for Market Deeping parish.
Draft recommendation Market Deeping Town Council should comprise 13 councillors, as at present, representing two wards: Mill Field (returning seven members) and Swine’s Meadow (returning six members)
http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/27184/LGBCE-15121- LincolnshireDraftRecommendations-Final.pdf
Electoral Review of Lincolnshire by the Boundaries Commission
As an adjoining parish council we are quite unable to understand the current proposal drawn up by the Boundaries Commission, which would result in our neighbouring village of Welton being divided into two, solely in an attempt to balance the size of electorates of different divisions for Lincolnshire County Council. We can find no practical evidence to indicate that this might be necessary and can see no possible advantage in dissecting a parish whose current council is working very well for its residents. The proposal smacks of change for the sake of change, and we are quite unable to see exactly what balance is being sought, and what possible gain the proposed change might achieve for the residents of Welton’s current electoral area.
The proposed boundary, along Cliff Road, Rylands Road and Hackthorn Road makes no sense at all, as Welton is a thriving and functioning village that has a strong sense of community and history. It has a clear understanding of its identity, and is working to develop its future strategy of growth and direction for all of its residents.
We have consulted with residents from Dunholme and Welton, discussed the proposed changes with our West Lindsey District Councillors, our Lincolnshire County Councillor and our Member of Parliament and found a unanimous view that this boundary change is neither necessary nor desirable.
Dunholme Parish Council met in January and resolved to support Welton Parish Council in how they wish any changes be made to their Parish or not, according to their wishes.
Dunholme Parish Council will continue to support Welton Parish Council, with which we work very closely. This close association between our two distinct communities is for the simple but practical reason that we share a significant number of local facilities, including shops, infrastructure, highways, healthcare and education facilities, and sports, leisure and recreational amenities. At District level, Welton and Dunholme Ward is represented by three councillors, who all live in Welton, but represent both our villages equally well, on the basis that what affects Welton also affects Dunholme, and vice-versa.
Accordingly, we must state categorically that we can see no advantages at all in the current proposal, which could result only in confusion and the fragmentation of our neighbouring village, undoing much of the good work which is currently in progress.
Anjum Sawhney Chairman Dunholme Parish Council Mayers, Mishka
From: Kathy Fishtoft Sent: 01 February 2016 10:49 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sirs
Further to your letter of 21 December and the draft recommendations report for Lincolnshire County Council, I list below comments from Fishtoft Parish Council.
Concerns the proposed changes will entail Fishtoft Parish having 3 County Councillors instead of the current 1. Will the 3 LCC representatives work together for the benefit of the whole of Fishtoft in relation to highways, policing, schools, etc It is important the residents of Fishtoft feel they will continue to be represented in a fair and unbiased way, can this be achieved with the parish being split up Would wholly oppose the proposed change of name to Butterwick and Wrangle when the division comprises of 6 whole parishes and parts of Fishtoft; our proposal would be Boston Coastal Ward
Yours sincerely
Mrs Kathy Partridge
Sent from Windows Mail
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Joan Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Freiston Parish Council
Comment text:
FREISTON PARISH COUNCIL have considered the draft recommendations and whilst accepting the change in the number of councillors for Lincolnshire and the proposed electoral divisions THEY DO NOT ACCEPT THE NAME CHANGE TO BUTTERWICK AND WRANGLE. THIS SHOULD BE KEPT AT BOSTON COASTAL (which in your details show covers Fishtoft part, Freiston, Butterwick, Benington, Leverton, Old Leake and Wrangle
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6927 25/01/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Richard Dixon-Warren Sent: 08 February 2016 16:20 To: reviews Subject: New Electoral Arrangements for Lincolnshire County Council - Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council Comment
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
From Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council, Lincolnshire
Review Officer (Lincolnshire) LGBCE 14th floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on your draft recommendations on new electoral arrangements for Lincolnshire County Council. Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council discussed the relevant recommendations at some length, taking due note of your three main considerations. Generally, we think that your recommendations are right for Lincolnshire and we agree with your basing these recommendations on a council size of 70.
We wish to suggest an alternative to the recommended boundary between divisions in South Kesteven. This is to incorporate the Haconby and Stainfield Civil Parish (H&SCP) into the proposed ‘Bourne Woodview and Morton’ division rather than ‘Upper Glens’ by running the boundary along the northern parish boundary (between Haconby and Dunsby) rather than the southern boundary (between Haconby and Morton). Our rationale is primarily based on reflecting the interests and identities of our local communities, and promoting effective and convenient local government, as follows:
- Shared Interests. Haconby and Stainfield are more closely affiliated, geographically, economically and socially, with Morton, Hanthorpe, and the town of Bourne, than the villages to their north. The nearest post office is in Morton and Bourne is the centre of gravity for leisure facilities (restaurants, pubs, clubs and gyms), shopping facilities (supermarkets and high street shops) and neighbourhood policing.
- Education / Transport Links. The nearest primary school is in Morton, and the majority of primary aged children who do not go to this school attend primary schools in Bourne. The majority of secondary school children in the village also attend schools in Bourne. The local bus service that runs through the villages to Morton and Bourne takes the children to these schools.
- Effective Local Government. Haconby and Stainfield’s relationship with the Bourne Abbey County Councillor is very close and we would lose this if we were incorporated into the proposed Upper Glens. We are concerned that the County Councillor responsible for the proposed Upper Glens will not be able to represent our community as effectively as the County Councillor for the proposed Bourne Woodview and Morton.
We fully support the requirement to improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents. The draft recommendations do not, however, reflect community identity from the H&SCP viewpoint and, if implemented, would very likely degrade what is currently effective and convenient local government. We believe that the best balance between these factors lies in maintaining community identity and effective local government, and accepting any minor change to the variance from the average that might result, by aligning the proposed division boundary with H&SCP’s northern (rather than southern) boundary.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Dixon-Warren
RA Dixon-Warren
1 Interim Chair Haconby & Stainfield Parish Council Haconby
2 Harmston Parish Council
Clerk to the Parish Council Mrs G Dixon,
Website: www.harmston.info Chair: Cllr. Frances Mannsåker
Response to the Electoral Review of Lincolnshire: Draft Recommendations
The Parish Council considered the draft proposals at its meeting of 19th January 2016. It general, it supports the proposals for the reduction in the number of the County Councillors and the principle of one member one division as sensible and straightforward. It has real concerns, however, when it comes to the divisional boundaries as proposed.
One of the objects for the proposals is, in the words of the covering letter, that "the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities", and again, in the words of the summary proposals, that they should "reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links". These are important aspirations, and necessary to make effective and efficient representation at County level, and have our full support. Regrettably, however, no one making the proposals appears to have looked at a physical map of Lincolnshire and considered how the physical landscape has over the centuries defined the pattern of settlement.
In Lincolnshire, the one really distinctive feature of its inland geography is the great escarpment which stretches down most of its western border and is known locally as the Lincoln Edge. The Central Lincolnshire Local Plan, currently being finalized, talks of the distinctiveness and importance of the Lincoln Edge as a defining feature of the landscape and its settlements. From its high point in Lincoln, the escarpment runs southwards through the villages collectively known as the “cliff villages” – Waddington, Harmston, Coleby, Boothby Gaffoe, Navenby, Wellingore and Welborne. Here there is a long-established farming pattern of Low and High Fields for each village, with the upland Heath stretching eastwards and creating a divide between the cliff and the villages further to the east.
This historic pattern is very much a feature of today’s community. These villages are linked by the Lincoln to Grantham main road, the A607, which runs along the escarpment edge and holds the villages together. There is a regular bus service along the road. The local shops are in Waddington and Navenby. Harmston children go to Coleby and Navenby primary schools and fall into the same catchment area as the other cliff villages for senior schools. The Cliff Villages Medical Practice serves the community of the Edge. The villages fall into the North Kesteven District Council Cliff Villages Ward.
Looking at the new proposals, the above considerations suggest that, of the cliff villages, Boothby Graffoe, Navenby and Wellingore are now better placed together with their low fields and the nearby villages of the plain. We recognize also that the growth of Waddington makes it sensible to have its own division, although this leaves its nearest cliff neighbour, Bracebridge Heath, entirely isolated. Harmston and Coleby, however, are cut off from the other cliff villages as an awkward bite is taken out of the straight connecting line of the A607. Both are divided from their natural and established local community, separated from Waddington (1 ½ miles away along the A607) and Navenby (3 miles away along the A607) and instead placed with Potterhanworth and Branston. Both Potterhanworth and Branston are cut off from the Edge by the heath, not to mention the Waddington Air Field and the major road from Lincoln to Sleaford, the A15. There are only minor country roads to connect us and no linking bus service or other public transport. There are no naturally shared local shops, schools, medical practices or other services.
We recognize that the previous pattern was not as sensible as it might have been in reflecting the cliff community, but at least it was not quite as anomalous as the new proposals. The decision to match the County Councillors each to a single division will necessarily exacerbate any artificial boundaries and gives greater importance to the principle of community identity. If the Commission is serious about reflecting local identity, we would suggest that the line is simply re-drawn to the east of the A607, so Harmston and Coleby can be placed with Navenby and Wellingore in a division which reflects both villages’ sense of their own neighbourhood. This might unbalance your population numbers a little, but that is, we believe, preferable to isolating us artificially from our historic closest neighbours.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Frances Mannsaker
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Harmston Parish Council
Feature Annotations
1: A line along the old Ermine Street or just to the west of the A15 would reunite Harmston and Coleby with the other cliff villages.
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: A line along the old Ermine Street or just to the west of the A15 would reunite Harmston and Coleby with the other cliff villages.
Comment text:
Harmston Parish Council has reviewed your proposals and finds the basic principles sensible and straightforward. It takes issue, however, with your proposed divisional boundaries which, in many cases, do not follow natural, geographic and historically established local communities, but rather appear constructed to make the numbers tally. Our response concentrates specifically on how our village has been entirely detached from its strong and long established identity as one of the 'cliff villages', stretching along the escarpment south of Lincoln. The attached document addresses this in more detail. I am submitting it as Chair of the Council and on its behalf.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7607 10/02/2016
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: chris seymour
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: holbeach parish council
Comment text:
At the meeting of Holbeach Parish Council on the 25th January 2016,The Chairman of the Parish Council informed Members that her concern was that the proposed changes would mean that the County Councillor for the new ward of Moulton Seas End would be covering potentially four different Parishes and therefore would need to attend four different Parish Council Meetings to maintain contact with the Parish Councillors. Councillor Graham Rudkin also expressed concern that he felt the Rural Wards would not get proper representation. it was proposed that the Parish Council collectively suggest that the alternative proposal that was put forward by Lincolnshire County Council, which included the Town of Holbeach as a whole, be the Parish Councils choice rather than the one above
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7217 03/02/2016 Porter, Johanna
From: Stephen Welbourn Sent: 07 January 2016 21:29 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of lincolnshire County Council - Draft Recommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Review Officer,
Following receipt of the draft recommendations, Holland Fen with Brothertoft Parish Council would like to make comments about the proposals. We are pleased with the proposed division of Holland Fen with Brothertoft, Amber Hill, Swineshead and Five Villages being one division. However the Parish Council feel that the proposed name of 'Holland Fen with Sutterton' is not appropriate, we would prefer to be called Boston Rural or Rural Boston as we feel it more aptly describes the area.
We do hope you consider these comments. Regards
Jane Welbourn Parish Clerk to Holland Fen with Brothertoft Parish Council
1 Mayers, Mishka
From: Michael Paske Sent: 17 May 2015 07:04 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Thank you for all the information on this important consultation. Our Parish Meeting will not be held until later in the year after the period of consultation closes. I have therefore sort the views of as many residence as possible and all are agreed to your principle objectives. In particular to reduce the number of councilors both at county and local levels with a fairer distribution and more even representation. Michael R. A. Paske Clerk to Honinhton Parish Meeting
1 Mayers, Mishka
From: Horncastle Town Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Horncastle Town Council supports the changes being proposed
Regards
Gillian Mauger Town Clerk
Horncastle Town Council Community Access Point & Library Wharf Road HORNCASTLE LN9 5HL
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. This communication may contain confidential material. If you are not the intended recipient or the person responsible for delivering the email to the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender. Any correspondence with the sender will be subject to automatic monitoring for inappropriate content. Your information will be processed in accordance with the law, in particular the Data Protection Act 1998. The information that you provide will only be used for Council purposes unless there is a legal authority to do otherwise. The contents of e-mails may have to be disclosed to a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000.
1
Response to LGBCE from Market Deeping Town Council
Re: The Deeping s and South Lincolnshire
The problem
The proposed boundary changes split the historic town of Market Deeping in a way that will inhibit effective and cohesive representations of its inhabitants.
The potential solutions
1. Retain the status quo 2. Extend Deeping St James East to include all or part of Deeping St Nicholas retaining existing parish Eastern boundary for all Market Deeping residents 3. Extend Deeping St James North to Langtoft retaining most Market Deeping residents within the Market & West Deeping Ward
The problem in detail
Market Deeping Town Council responded to the original Boundary Review consultation back in July 2015 to state their firm view that Market Deeping and Deeping St James wish to retain their own identities and Councils(1). Unfortunately, the draft divisions appear to have overlooked this aspiration in order to maintain a system of wards of consistent size. This has resulted in the draft boundaries splitting representation of the town of Market Deeping in a way which leaves most electors, and even the town hall, in a ward called Deeping St James. This draft divisions would likely lead to confusion and resentment among local people.
It is understood that the Boundary commission requires contiguous wards.
The ancient settlements of Market Deeping and Deeping St James have always been identifiable as two separate parishes and communities. The parishes are similar in size. Most people living in the two areas are well aware of the boundary either by involvement in local community activities, council precept payments and/or folklore e.g. the award‐winning eponymous ‘Boundary fish‐shop’ marks the point at which the parishes split.
(1)Market Deeping response to LGBCE July 2015 http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/25866/Lincolnshire‐parish‐and‐town‐councils‐combined‐2015‐08‐17.pdf The solutions in detail:
1. Retain the status quo
This would be Market Deeping’s preferred option as the existing boundary of Market Deeping, West Deeping and Langtoft parishes form a unit with sufficient electors to meet the 8,000 desired population
Unfortunately this leaves the Deeping St James Division with insufficient electors to meet the threshold of electors and nowhere to expand.
2. Extend Deeping St James East to include all or part of Deeping St Nicholas retaining existing parish Eastern boundary for all Market Deeping residents
This would be Market Deeping Town Council’s second option as the existing boundary of Market Deeping, West Deeping and Langtoft parishes form a unit with sufficient electors to meet the 8,000 desired population.
Unfortunately this would require a county divisional boundary to straddle a District Council boundary which may contravene a LGBCE convention
3. Extend Deeping St James North to Langtoft retaining most Market Deeping residents within the Market & West Deeping Ward
In order to meet the aspirations of the LGBCE towards evenly sized wards it is suggested the Deeping St James ward be extended North to include the parish of Langtoft as well as large but sparsely populated area of Market Deeping Parish. Meanwhile, the existing Division of Market and West Deeping should be extended West to include the surrounding villages (Baston, Barholm, Bracebridge, Greatford, Tallington, Uffington, Wilsthorpe and West Deeping). Inhabitants of all these villages would probably regard Market Deeping as their closest town for shopping, sport, community services etc. For example, all but one of the villages fall within the catchment of the Deepings Medical Practice which is the main GP practice in the area.
The solution appreciates the need for contiguous wards and this is why part of Market Deeping parish has been ‘surrendered’ to the Deeping St James Division. It is recognised that this will result in ‘warding’ of the Town Council and the proposed boundary has been drawn to accommodate sufficient electors (100) to elect at least one town councillor. The proposed warding arrangement is attached at Appendix 1.
If 100 is considered insufficient electors to form a Town Council ward then the border could be shifted Westwards to include Lancaster Way, Shackleton Close and Wellington Way. This would have the disadvantage of including the Industrial Estate which most tenants would prefer to remain in the town of Market Deeping rather than the village of Deeping St James
This solution not only satisfies issues of local identity and representation. It also largely retains a coterminosity with existing district, ward and parish boundaries.
Appendix 1
MOULTON PARISH COUNCIL SPALDING LINCOLNSHIRE Mrs H Worth
E-mail: [email protected]
Review Officer (Lincolnshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
7th February 2016
Dear Sirs,
Electoral Review of Lincolnshire: Draft Recommendations
Following receipt of the afore-mentioned Draft Recommendations, I have been asked by the Councillors to contact you with their observations.
Whilst you have three main criteria for your recommendations, it would be fair to say that these are fine for more densely populated urban Counties, however, for a County such as Lincolnshire, which is one of the largest in the Country, the proposed boundaries are wholly unfair and do not give consideration to the geo-graphics and huge distances which are involved.
The Parish Council support the maps which were submitted by the Lincolnshire County Council last year however they are not supportive of those submitted by the Boundary Commission for the following reasons.
a. The electorate figures in the County submission were within the 10% variance. b. The town centre of Spalding has no affinity with the proposed division of Moulton Seas End and Moulton Marsh. c. The Boundary Commission divides Holbeach Marsh from Holbeach and this should not be included in the Moulton division. d. There should be continuity between County and District boundaries and this is not the case with the proposed boundaries by the Commission. e. The proposed name ‘Moulton Seas End’ by the Commission should be known as ‘The Moultons’ as this better reflects the electorate it represents and will soon be the new name of Moulton Parish Council which will represent Moulton Marsh, Moulton Seas End, Moulton village, Moulton Chapel and Moulton Eaugate.
I sincerely hope you will give serious consideration to the Parish Council views and those of the residents and look forward to hearing from you in due course.
Kind regards,
Helen Worth Clerk to the Council
Mayers, Mishka
From: parish Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
For the attention of Johanna Porter, Review Officer
Dear Johanna
Further to your letter of the 15 December 2015, Nettleham Parish Council discussed this matter at its January 2016 meeting and would comment as follows:-
1. The Parish Council accepts the suggestion that Nettleham would no longer be under the same divisional boundary as Saxilby. 2. The clustering of parishes in the same area is a great improvement 3. However, the proposed new area No.67 splits the Parish of Welton in two which in the view of Parish Council is impractical and Welton should be either be all in area No.67 or all in area No.66.
Yours sincerely
Julia Finn Clerk to Nettleham Parish Council The Parish Office Scothern Road Nettleham Lincoln LN2 2TU
Office Opening Hours – Monday to Thursday 9.00am to 12.00noon
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Tracey Broughton
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: North Hykeham Town Council
Comment text:
From North Hykeham Town Council 1. All the Town Council Ward names should contain historical relevance - please consider re-naming Jaguar Ward to Post Mill Ward. 2. That the Ward Boundaries, both the Town and division should be identifiable to the community and that both should be reviewed to reflect the constituent communities and community identity. 3. "Hykeham" the name should be included in each Division Ward as each of the three divisions contain a substantial amount of population residing in Hykeham. 4. The Town Council would like to object to the proposals of the new ward boundaries.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7574 09/02/2016
Mayers, Mishka
From: Riseholme Parish Council Sent: 16 January 2016 13:59 To: reviews Subject: Fwd: Riseholme Parish Council Electoral Review of Lincolnshire Draft Reccommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
------Forwarded message ------From: Riseholme Parish Council
Dear Sir,
I write following the request of the Riseholme Parish Councillors at their parish council meeting on 12 January to register concern regarding the proposals you have made in relation to this parish.
We have been advised that we would no longer form part of the Nettleham ward but rather be incorporated into the Saxilby ward.
Riseholme is some 15 minutes away by car from Saxilby and yet less than 5 minutes from Nettleham.
We do not have our own polling station but use that of Nettleham. We do not have our own shops, medical centre, pubs,schools or other community facilities. In looking to use facilities in the immediate proximity we would use those of Nettleham and indeed we are in their catchment area for schools and doctors.
The only community building we have is a small church and that comes under the the Rector of Nettleham.
We have no ties to Saxilby facilities at all.
If you look at the geography of the area we, as are Nettleham and our neighbouring parish Grange de Lings, to the east of the A15. This is the same as Nettleham. The A15 is a main route that runs from Lincoln to the north.
On the western side of A15 sits Saxilby. Therefore, geographically we are more aligned with Nettleham.
Therefore, on behalf of the Parish Council I am formally writing to you for you to reconsider your position in the light of the above. We are small in number as a parish but this is a significant step for us to be separated from the Nettleham ward.
Yours faithfully
Caroline Emerson
1 .
2 Mayers, Mishka
From: Jane Bratton Sent: 04 February 2016 09:59 To: reviews Cc: 'CllrP Wood' Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire: draft Recommentdations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sir or Madam,
At our Parish Council Meeting on the 13 January 2016, the Parish Councillors wishes to object to Hough electoral division increasing with the addition of Great Gonerby with the villages of Allington, Sedgebrook and Honnington being omitted.
Yours faithfully
Jane
Mrs Jane Bratton Clerk to Sedgebrook Parish Council
Email: [email protected] Website: www.sedgebrookvillage.weebly.com
1
Town Hall, St. Mary’s Hill, Stamford, Lincolnshire PE9 2DR
18 February 2016
Review Officer (Lincolnshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir,
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LINCOLNSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Stamford Town Counc il wishes to suppor t the recom mendation of the Boundary Commission to reduce the current Lincol nshire County Council representation for Stamford to two and dividing the area up into two W ards – Stamford East and Stamford West.
Apologies for this not being able to reach you sooner.
Yours sincerely,
Patricia Stuart-Mogg Town Clerk
Town Clerk: Mrs. P Stuart-Mogg E-mail: [email protected] Website: www.stamfordtowncouncil.gov.uk 5 February 2016
The Review Officer (Lincolnshire) LGBCE 14th Floor Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir
CONSULTATION ON NEW ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL.
THE PARISH OF CRANWELL WITH BYARD'S LEAP AND BRAUNCEWELL
I note and support the aims of the boundary revision exercise for Lincolnshire County Council, but believe that the proposals for the Parish of Cranwell with Byard's Leap and Brauncewell are not in the best interests of the local community and do not reflect the stated underlying policies.
1 The boundary proposals for the above area will divide the Parish in half, Cranwell Village and RAF College Cranwell are one complete area.
2 RAF College Cranwell has a high percentage of houses that are owned and rented by a large civilian population. Similarly a considerable number of Air Force personnel dwell in Cranwell Village; it would be abnormal to divide the two areas.
3 Both Byard's Leap and Brauncewell are small hamlets - one located at the opposite side of the A17, the other off the A15, have been a part of Cranwell for many years. Moving boundaries will totally isolate the people in these areas.
4 We have a Village Hall, Social Club, four Churches, Primary School, pre schools Romper Room, The 'Kidz Zone' Nursery and after schools clubs, Scouts, Brownies, Cubs, Beavers and Rainbows, all community Clubs, Post Offices and three general stores. Proposed boundary changes will split Churches, Primary School, pre Schools, Romper Room and Clubs into different Parishes.
5. The Parish boundaries have been changed previously for example Brauncewell with Leasingham, Cranwell with South Rauceby, Cranwell with Quarrington, none of which worked well. The present arrangement has worked excellently and does not need further disruption. In the past RAF Cranwell straddled the boundary of Cranwell and Brauncewell which caused a number of problems, these were finally resolved by an amendment to The Pastoral Measure 1983 by a second enactment dated 19 January 2012 which integrated Brauncewell into 'Cranwell, Byard's Leap and Brauncewell'.
6 It is felt to be totally alien to alter the boundaries of this Community for electoral purposes. People within our community wish to deal with the same County Councillor as this will provide liaison to all and the same information will be passed on within the whole Parish. All Parish organisations have worked tirelessly to keep the community together. Ecclesiastically this division would revert to a previously unworkable situation bringing back all the problems encountered prior to the present cohesive Parish boundary.
The proposed changes would separate a cohesive community and result in an unworkable division of the needs of the population.
Yours faithfully
(Mrs) Mary O'Connor Secretary to St Andrew's Church PCC Cranwell Village Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Yvonne CLARK
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Sturton by stow parish council
Comment text:
Sturton-by-Stow Parish Council strongly OBJECT to the proposal by the Boundary Commission to place our village in to a new County Council electoral district to be known as Saxilby. The parish have few links with Saxilby, which is a quickly expanding commuter village. Sturton-by- Stow is a rural village with traditional ties with adjacent villages to the North, being Stow ( hence the village name – Sturton-by-STOW ) and Willingham; and to a lesser extent Upton and Kexby. The District Council electoral District encompasses Sturton, Stow and Willingham ,whilst many of the services and Utilities terminate between Sturton and Saxilby, including telephone exchanges, electricity company areas, school catchments and a myriad of other services, which are extremely important to rural life. The Parish Council feel very strongly that their representative on the county council should have an empathy with the issues affecting rural communities and consider that this would be best served by retaining the links with the Gainsborough Rural South villages. It is understood that the exercise is designed to attempt to even out electorate numbers in each constituency. However, the proposed Ancholme constituency is already below the average for the County and proposals within the emerging Local Plan would suggest that electorate numbers in this constituency would be further eroded from the average due to the designation of the villages within that area. Conversely, Saxilby has plans for large scale development, some of which have already received approval, which, when implemented in the very near future, would realise a growth potential well in excess of 1100 electors. As a consequence, to return Sturton-by-Stow to its existing base ,now known as Ancholme, would obviate the necessity of reviewing the boundaries in the very near future . The Parish Council request that the Boundary Commission review their proposals and, in the light of the evidence submitted, return Sturton-by-Stow to its natural base to the North of the village.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7336 09/02/2016
Mayers, Mishka
From: Ann Fletcher Sent: 20 January 2016 11:15 To: reviews Subject: Comments on the Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Good Morning. I have been asked to submit a comment on behalf of Swineshead Parish Council in respect of the proposed change of name of our area from “Boston Rural Division” to” Holland Fen and Sutterton”. The Council feels that this name is not suitable for the area that it covers as by naming two parishes only, the title leads people to believe that these are the only parishes in this area. Swineshead is a large Parish included in this area and by retaining the existing title, this will avoid any confusion.
Ann Fletcher, Clerk Swineshead Parish Council
E mail: [email protected] Web: parishes.lincolnshire.gov.uk/ swineshead
1 Mayers, Mishka
From: Bernard Champness Sent: 05 February 2016 15:22 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire: Draft Recommendations.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sir,
I am writing to you as Clerk to Thurlby Parish Council (Near Bourne) and also as Clerk to Witham on the Hill Parish Council.
Both Parish Councils have considered the draft recommendations and would like to make the following comments and objections to the proposals:
1. It seems that both Thurlby and Witham on the Hill have been placed in a totally disjointed division just to satisfy the equalization of votes. 2. The group will have 23 Parish councils in it and this does not satisfy any of the Good Patterns sown on page 4 and will not bring about effective local government 3. There are no community links with any of the mentioned villages in Colsterworth Rural Division which stretches from Thurlby to Colsterworth and the borders of Barrowby and Ancaster and as we know , none are linked by public transport. 4. Any County Councillor elected to this Division would have a minimum of 6 Parish councils to represent and attend meetings, with the furthest up to 25/30 miles apart. 5. Even the proposed title does not include Thurlby or Witham in the name and Thurlby is the largest village and defined by SKDC as a Local service Centre. 6. Can we remind you that out natural neighbours should be along the A15 corridor and suggest Thurlby at least is included with Langtoft and Baston. 7. If what we suggest above is not acceptable because of the numbers can we suggest that the Councillors numbers be increased to 71and then have a division to include the following Thurlby, Manthorpe, Toft, Lound, Braceborough, Wilsthorpe, Greatford, Carlby and Witham on the Hill 8 At least then the above villages are within an 8 mile radius, have local connectivity and would be a manageable workload for a County Councillor. 9. We suspect that we have been removed from the present Ward due to the numbers expected to live in the Elsea Park estate in Bourne.
Please consider these comments and please do not proceed with your present proposals.
Kind regards
Bernard Champness Clerk to Thurlby Parish Council and Witham on the Hill Parish council.
1 Toft with Lound & Manthorpe, Parish Council
Clerk Rosemary Woolley
25th January 2016
Review Officer (Lincolnshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank LONDON SW1P 4QP
Dear Sir
Ref:- South Kesteven
I have been asked by m embers of th e Parish C ouncil t o re spond t o t he draft recommendations by th e Boun dary Re view in regards to the proposed alterations of divisions in South Kesteven.
No 54 Colsterworth Rural = 8925 variance 8%
It was felt that Toft cum Lound & Manthorpe Parishes had no relationship to the north of the district eg Denton , Gr antham and should therefore b e removed and placed in the proposed division of Baston & Barholm with Witham on the Hill. The reason being the polling station for all parishes takes place at Witham on the Hill.
This would a lso require the p arish of Thurlby t o be pl aced in with Bou rne Croft & Twenty as it has greater identity with the market town of Bourne which is situated along the A15 corridor on the edge of the fens.
Toft cum Lound & Manthorpe as the name suggests is made up of three villages with an electoral population of 265. It asso ciates itself with Stamford & Bourne for its leisure facilities, shopping, doctors, dentists & schools.
Parish Councillors:‐ Richard Stephenson, Jeremy Dawson, Richard Hartley, Graham Freeland, David Kreutzberger 1 Toft with Lound & Manthorpe, Parish Council
The Parish Council makes the following recommendations:-
1. Colsterworth Rural electorate year 2021 = 8925 8925 - Thurlby = 1837 - Toft cum Lound & Manthorpe = 259 - Witham on the Hill = 190 + Corby Glen = 841 + Swayfield = 271 + Swinstead = 192 = 7943 TOTAL
2. Bourne Croft & Twenty electorate = 8556 variance 3% Prop osed division Thurlby = 1837 Bourne Austerby Ward BNA1 1600 Bourne Austerby Ward BNB1 2186 Bourne Austerby Ward BNC1 752 Bourne Austerby Ward BND1 446 Bourne East Ward BNK1 1429 = 8250 TOTAL
The name of Twenty to be removed and replaced with Thurlby.
3. Upper Glens Division electorate = 7827 variance -6% - Corby Glen 841 - Swayfield 271 - Swinstead 192 + Morton & Hanthorpe 1998 = 8521 TOTAL
4. Bourne Woodview & Morton 7696 -7% Proposed division Bourne West Ward BNR1 2107 Bourne West Ward BNS1 2529 Bourne West Ward BNT1 795 Bourne East Ward-Dyke BNL1 266 Bourne East Ward BNJ1 1998 Bourne East Ward-Twenty BNM1 144 = 7839 TOTAL
The name of Morton to be removed.
5. Baston & Barholm 7634 variance – 8% + Toft Lound & Manthorpe 259 + Witham on the Hill 190 = 8083 TOTAL
Parish Councillors:‐ Richard Stephenson, Jeremy Dawson, Richard Hartley, Graham Freeland, David Kreutzberger 2 Toft with Lound & Manthorpe, Parish Council
In your brief it states that there are certain obligations which have to be met by law which include t he p romotion of ef fective & conve nient lo cal gov ernment. In t he case o f Colsterworth Rural is difficult to envisage how this would take place due to the distance of approximately 25 mile from Denton in the north to Thurlby in the south east & Carlby in the south.
It also says that it should reflect local community interests and identities. The south of the district identifies more with the fens and small market towns of Stamford & Bourne than Grantham. People from the south of the district would be more likely to gravitate to Peterborough as the main shopping area than Grantham.
In conclusion the Parish Council objects to the proposed division of Colsterworth Rural and feel that they would be better suited in the proposed division of Baston & Barholm.
Yours faithfully
R H Woolley
Rosemary H Woolley Clerk to Toft cum Lound & Manthorpe Parish Council.
Parish Councillors:‐ Richard Stephenson, Jeremy Dawson, Richard Hartley, Graham Freeland, David Kreutzberger 3 BOUNDARY COMMISSION
Cllr. Sheehan Queried the proposed name of Baston & Barholm for new Division of which Uffington would be part. After Baston and Langtoft Uffington has the third largest population in the proposed Division and geography Division such that they define boundaries. Would it therefore be logical and representative to name the Division Baston & Uffington.
Cllr. Brown agreed with the above it would be more logical and define the extent of the boundaries.
Cllr. Babbs although the proposed Baston & Barholm rolls off the tongue more easily would be in favour of Baston & Uffington and agreed with Cllr. Sheehan’s comment this also may offer some protection against being swallowed up by “Stamford East” in a future Boundary Review.
Cllr. K. Genever agree with Cllr. Sheehan’s comments.
Cllr. Dodsworth agree with comments of Cllr Babbs but why can’t it be Uffington and Baston
Cllr. P. Genever states obviously everyone cannot agree and we all want our village named. Barholm, which must be the smallest village with no Parish Council in this proposed division is central and of course the home of C.Cllr. M. Trollope‐Bellew who has represented us for nearly 20 years.
Suggestions Baston and Uffington Uffington and Baston Or just Barholm (with Casewick perhaps)
Yvonne Genever Clerk Uffington Parish Council
Mayers, Mishka
From: Parish Clerk Sent: 22 January 2016 10:57 To: reviews Subject: Comments on Electoral Review of Lincolnshire
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Good morning
Please find below comments made by Washingborough Parish Council on the Electoral Review Of Lincolnshire: Draft Recommendations.
With regard to the boundary changes affecting Washingborough Parish the Council would like to say – they believe that no consideration has been given to the natural boundaries of the area (Washingborough & Heighington actually join with some boundaries running down the middle of roads). By recommending that Washingborough & Heighington separate in to different electorates this review is splitting an ecclesiastical parish as the two villages are joint in this. The Council would like to know if the review has taken in to account the proposed housing developments of the current boundaries and the proposed ones. Council cannot see any positive recommendations of the review.
Thank you Karen Broddle
Clerk to the Parish Council Civic Office
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Sue Aikman
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Wellingore Parih Council
Comment text:
At the recent meeting of Wellingore Parish Council is was unanimously agreed that the Council felt strongly that the Cliff Villages should remain together rather than the changes suggested in the Electoral Review. The reasons are: The Cliff Villages already work together on common issues and have regular Cliff Cluster meetings. We share many resources including the village magazine, Church groups, Speed Indicator Device, Community activities (particularly the use of The Venue at Navenby), Voluntary car scheme, recycling, activities for young people. We regularly meet as well as discuss informally our shared issues including the A607, a natural travel to work route and to reach local amenities, and improvements to transport.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7305 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Julie Murray
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Welton Parish Council
Comment text:
Statement from Welton Parish Council attached.
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7295 09/02/2016 Statement from Welton-by-Lincoln Parish Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England 4th February 2016
At the Parish Council meeting on Monday 11th January 2016, it was apparent that all Councillors felt very strongly that the proposed split of the Parish to accommodate what is at heart a statistical exercise to reduce the number of County Councillors, would have a detrimental effect on the future governance of the village.
It is proposed to split the village in two, part in the Ancholme Cliff division and the remainder in the Nettleham division. For a village the size of Welton and with the amount of development due to take place in the near future – planning permission for 526 dwellings has already been granted; equating to a 29% increase in the size of the village with the potential of another 1000+ electors - to have to negotiate through separate County Council representatives dependent upon the locality of the issue, is to put it mildly, ludicrous. It makes more sense to have one voice speaking to represent the community as a whole.
Assuming that Welton in its entirety would be included into Ancholme Cliff, then the division should be called Welton Cliff to reflect its historic position, coupled with it being the largest settlement within the area covered and the only one in West Lindsey included in the consultation.
Welton Parish Council has thirteen seats and it is proposed to reduce numbers to nine, these being allocated from two areas; one being “Well” with four members and the other “Ryland” with five; neither of these areas are in existence today. This is a retrograde step particularly with the amount of work the council undertakes. It is a very active council and consideration should be given to the fact that we are facing a future when more Parish Councils will be delivering services that are being devolved from higher tiers of Government.
The Parish Council believes that reducing its numbers and dividing the village is not acceptable.
In view of the above, the following resolution was unanimously passed at the Parish Council meeting held on 11th January 2016;
“The Parish of Welton in its entirety should be included into the Ancholme Cliff Division, furthermore in view of the size of the settlement of Welton, it should be re-named Welton Cliff and the number of Parish Councillors should remain at 13 as at present”
A number of Parish Councillors attended the West Lindsey District Council meeting held on 25th January 2016 at which they resolved overwhelmingly to support the Parish Council’s resolution, an extract from the minutes of which reads:
“the views expressed by Welton Parish Council be supported and the commission proposals for the re-warding of Welton Parish and reduction in numbers of councillors be condemned”. Mayers, Mishka
From: West Rasen Parish Meeting Sent: 03 February 2016 17:17 To: reviews Subject: Have your say. West Rasen Parish Meeting, Lincolnshire.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sir/Madam,
West Rasen Parish Meeting Review of Electoral Arrangements for Lincolnshire County Council. ______
Dear Sir/Madam, , We humbly and respectfully request a reconsideration of your recommendations on the above in respect of Ancholme Cliff: thankyou for the opportunity.
Yours faithfully, John Ward Secretary.
Howzat. One line one sentence. Ingratiously gratuitous, short sharp to the point with thanks. Workings‐ 70, your answer, 70 hours research and draft, 70 years old. (Must do better). Humourous and factual analogies, from 1915 to 2015 prepared and discarded. "Say" to be delivered as review, Review, of the Aims and Objectives. Gently suggesting alternative interpretation. Discarded. It started on the M11 (Re preficfered routes and WRPM concerns) ,led through Review of DC electoral arrangements to ending with Review of CC voting arrangements and Govt. resurrecting M11 . FACT You might say,"What sort of cheese was that" as the Chairman of The Cheese Society is a resident. Alternately these mushrooms who refuse to take the bait are actually eating them. NOT. (DIVI D ANTI RHINUM) When "Poke it in middle its soft / PM is polishing pooh" does not gain immediate rebuke and suspension from the House. RE[PETITION] FACT "EU do you think your are kidding Mr Cameron" is newspaper headline, along with many good others" Chancellor appears against backdrop of FSB. Boris appears as rough sleeper, disguised as a smerf pushing a bike, obviously not one of his. Half asleep or under the weather, FACT Looking for a dog, minus a cigar.FICTION Not entirely! Is he delusional and itsa noat Napoleon who he wantza everyone to believe he is. SUPPA CAD not Hister. When Catherine Zita with a sore throat tells she was the only one "On theBeach" without a dog as a girl. One has to take a reality check. GUMSUPPACCAD. Now should the Home Sec. cosy up to the PM on this referendum thing anywhere near the 15th of a month show mild concern. SPECULATION. If he leaves and as a reward/punishment becomes, president, No, wait, of the EU. There is absolutely no doubin my mind that the invisible man who has just disappeared again wilt be ICEU re ‐ form. SPECULUM If by some mischance the author becomes Pap A. Bull in a China sop as ever. First uterreance will be that," Your god, Ma god anygodattall is in the eye of the candle holder." If thatz al reet by oo. Where's the rope theres an eagle? If Kim gets il, and its only wind, then look out if a dodgy mountain climber isona podus lunches a cruze, after bernie sanders son of the river is refused entry to the uk on a Count he is not an assylum seeking red indian refugee, but actually lives in Paisley, and is noted for saying Never, Neiver, as he cant take likkering. AnderBumminson hover bitz stats tumous orror.
1
TKAMEX Ali BAH BAH sez H1, ( Vegan Juicest moved in to ISIS housing on Forgery Lane scheme lichen N.I.C.E. family) Terry Pyn would lieky to remine U dat his'G'Rating is late again, Sally One‐ Arm, come down from egrets she could 't come. azzer hoof is lee king sanchez catchen inabin widder laden '' Look these are posh folks who havent time for quips like that.
Joy and sadness by the lake are only woven fine if micro soft int' ead init watching is pogrom,
Try and forget Brian Hair agasin ifn Dan DARE. WRPM. Tks for the op its been a peach.
Countingwrybumkilikn.
NO Joke SERIOUS On the way ,seriously, a germ of an idea on LG reform, about due in 2024 has occurred. Fully meeting criterion, flexible, economical in all aspects, truthful, fits in with regionalisation /northern /east midland/lincolnshire powerhouse idea in or out of EU and totally democratic. Able to equally and fully represent electors.
If of no interest please pass to FOGMEISTER, Architects of Localism Act. I am prepared to forgive, but not forget, if I can get a first strike in to save my or my successors time in the future.
Our very best wishes to you for success in everyones favour in the future.
Honoured to be trusted with the future of our democratic rights by the Chairman and people of West Rasen. It is presented as this, to gain attention to make a mark and stand against potential loss. We are proud to be here and honour our forebears who died to make it so. We welcome all who come to join in with us whenever from wherever. Please settle in first, as us' incomers' had to do before even thinking about changes. Remember Crecy, Little sprurn head and Broken Back are just up the road.
THE END
2
3 Mayers, Mishka
From: John&Mary Piper Sent: 02 February 2016 16:49 To: reviews Subject: Wigtoft Parish Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Dear Sir
Wigtoft Parish Council would like it placed on record that it would like to keep the name Boston 5 villages instead of the proposed Holland Fen & Sutterton.
Regards Mary Piper(Clerk)
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lincolnshire County
Personal Details:
Name: Mrs J. Cooper
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Withern with Stain & Tothill Parish Council
Feature Annotations
1: Withern with Stain preferred area
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: Withern with Stain preferred area
Comment text:
withern with Stain Parish Council is dissapointed to be in with a coastal region of Mablethorpe, as Withern with Stain is a rural village and is more aligned with the rural villages. It has different needs to the coast and if it were to be part of the Mablethorpe ward it is likely that Withern's needs would be swallowed by the needs of the coast.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6902 1/21/2016 Mayers, Mishka
From: Sent: 07 February 2016 15:33 To: reviews Subject: Consultation re: Lincolnshire County Council
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed
Good afternoon
Wrangle Parish Council have no comments to make on the actual boundaries of the proposed Wards for Lincolnshire, but would like to request that the name of BOSTON COASTAL WARD be retained for this area.
Regards
Edwina Arnold Clerk to Wrangle Parish Council
1