Local resident’s submissions to the Redbridge electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
- & & "(( . .6 ! " #$ $%&' () "
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: Sent: 15 August 2016 11:59 To: reviews
Dear Commission, my husband and I live in Granville Road, South Woodford and we’ve been notified about the Draft Redbridge Proposals to change the Ward boundaries in Redbridge.
We don’t agree with your proposals. We specifically object to making a large part of South Woodford into Wanstead Village. South Woodford residents live on both sides of Chigwell Road: their nearest tube station is South Woodford and they use the shops in George Lane and the High Road.
It looks as though you’ve split some of the individual streets themselves so that some residents live in South Woodford and some live in Wanstead Village which makes no sense at all.
From our point of view we would be very unhappy if we were part of the Wanstead Village ward and not South Woodford as we don’t use Wanstead tube station and we don’t shop in Wanstead.
We totally agree with the proposal put forward by the Lib Dem Councillors – please see map below.
25
- & & "(( .7 ! " #$ $%&' () "
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
-----Original Message----- From: Alan Bailey Sent: 12 August 2016 15:14 To: reviews
Dear Sir Please look at the proposals from Roding ward councillors concerning changes to ward boundaries in Redbridge. I feel these are a better fit for our area than the present proposals.
Kind Regards Alan Bailey
28 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Redbridge London Borough
Personal Details:
Name: Elisa Brady Email: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Wanstead Park ward should include · St Mary’s Avenue (West side) · Overton Drive (North side west from St Mary’s)) · Draycot Road · Seagry Road · Felstead Road · Tennyson Avenue · Blake Hall Road (North of Overton Drive) · Woodcote Road · Selsdon Road The A12 is the natural boundary. Odd the proposed plan is to divide the community.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8724 1/1 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Redbridge London Borough
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Owen Branley E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Owen Branley
Comment text:
The primary purpose of the Wanstead Tunnel was to avoid splitting Wanstead into north and south. The Commission have attempted to undo that achievement by splitting Wanstead wards into east and west, i.e. village and park. The boundary should be on Redbridge Lane West from Eastern Avenue to St Mary's Avenue. Furthermore Charlie Brown's magic roundabout does not have that village atmosphere that we cherish so much as it's more like spaghetti junction.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8558 1/1
- & . .5 ! " #$ $%&' () "
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: Geoff Brockett Sent: 14 August 2016 10:10 To: reviews
Regarding the proposed new ward boundaries for Redbridge, I don’t feel that your proposals group the area in which I live with the most logical surrounding areas. Whilst I do use Wanstead High Street on occasions, the area of South Woodford to the east of Chigwell Road is much more closely linked with the rest of South Woodford. I would suggest that a better area would cover roughly the whole of the E18 postcode area to the south of the A406.
Regards
Geoff Brockett
22
' ( ( )$$ * ! " ) - - .- - %& &- +(- # $- , )
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] Sent: 17 August 2016 19:22 To: reviews
I am commenting on the draft Redbridge Proposal for the new boundaries. I do not agree with this proposal and would suggest that the view of the Liberal democrats is much more in keeping with the area. I believe we should keep the South Woodford area together as their draft plan proposal. I hope you will take my view into consideration. Regards. Mrs. Margaret Bye,
6 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Redbridge London Borough
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Philip Carnelley E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I currently live in Wanstead Ward which is an amalgamation of two areas that seem quite distinct, while near neighbours in 'our area' are in a different ward (Snaresbrook). The new boundaries proposed for Wanstead Village and Snaresbrook are eminently sensible, much closer to the actuality of natural boundaries. Am all in favour.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8571 1/1
' ( ( )$$ * / ! " ) %& &+(# $, )
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: DAVID CARRUTHERS Sent: 17 August 2016 21:51 To: reviews
I am commenting on the draft Redbridge proposals.
In our opinion, the proposal to extend "Wanstead Village" up the west side of Hermon Hill/Chigwell Road all the way to Charlie Brown's roundabout is not appropriate. The Northern section of this area where we live (in Onslow Gardens) is clearly part of South Woodford. We, like all the residents in this area, use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road which are much closer to us. We rarely visit Wanstead and do not agree that this area should be appended to Wanstead which we feel is completely different in character and presume is unlikely to be subject to the same issues as those that arise in South Woodford.
David & Kath Carruthers
7
! " # $%& &!
‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE
From: Rich Clare Sent: 19 August 2016 01:24 To: reviews
I live on Lorne Gardens and I think most of my neighbours think of themselves as belonging to Wanstead and I look forward to the creation of a Wanstead village ward, but I feel strongly that the roads north of Nightingale School (Onslow Gardens, Cadogan Gardens, Southview Drive, Hermon Hill etc) are part of South Woodford, not Wanstead, and would do better put together with the rest of South Woodford. Snaresbrook would be a better fit with Wanstead, as the high street and surrounding areas blend together quite smoothly, so perhaps a Snaresbrook and Wanstead ward could be created?
Rich Clare
1
- & . .4 ! " #$ $%&' () "
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
-----Original Message----- From: David Crighton Sent: 12 August 2016 20:38 To: reviews
Keep Onslow gardens as South Woodford.
Regards. David Crighton.
12
! " #$ $%&' () "
From: tricia darvell Sent: 16 August 2016 07:58 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
Please see the image below with the “Our View” divide for new wards suggested by The South Woodfrod Society. As a resident in the area, , I also feel this makes much more sense than that currently proposed by the Commission. kindest Regards Tricia Darvell
5
' ( ( )$$ / 0/ ! " +& ' )(" &$&1" &
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: Nicole Davidoff Sent: 17 August 2016 13:58 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
As a resident of South Woodford, I would like to comment on the new boundary proposals.
The proposed change has little – or, indeed, no bearing on reality. Most residents of South View Drive and the surrounding area consider themselves as part of South Woodford, travel from George Lane bus stops and South Woodford tube station (not from Wanstead!), shop in George Lane (not on Wanstead High Street!). And to artificially extend Wanstead as far north as Charlie Brown's Roundabout will seem ridiculous.
In view of the above, Hermon Hill/Chigwell Road is not an appropriate boundary. A much better layout , and one much more in keeping with residents' habits and preferences, is as presented the on the right hand side of the attached picture.
Please reconsider your proposal.
Yours sincerely
Nicole Davidoff
9
Laura Taylor
From: reviews Sent: 23 August 2016 09:12 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Boundary review for Redbridge Attachments: Final Recommendations on changes to the ward boundaries in LB Redbridge 2 (1).docx
-- Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE
From: Gregor Eglin Sent: 22 August 201 To: reviews The Review Officer (Redbridge) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Dear Madam / Sir, Please find attached our views on the Redbridge Boundary Review. Yours Faithfully Gregor Eglin John Drew 1 22nd. August 2016 The Review Officer (Redbridge) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Towers Millbank London SW1P 4QP reviewselgbce.org.uk Dear Madam / Sir Response to the Draft Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements for the London Borough of Redbridge We are residents of the London Borough of Redbridge living in Snaresbrook Ward. We have a degree of concern as to the draft arrangements for the West of the Borough. While the arrangements for the North, South and East of the Borough follow closely the recommendations of the Council, the recommendations for the West do not. In the rest of the Borough the current ward structure is maintained with some adjustments to boundaries. A new two‐member ward is created to take account of population growth in the South of the Borough. This is constituted from elements of wards that have seen the most growth. All these developments are based on the recommendations of the Council. The proposals for the West of the Borough (Bridge, Church End, Monkhams, Roding, Snaresbrook and Wanstead wards) however, are extremely radical and significantly deviate from the Council’s proposals. The Commissions criteria for drafting new electoral arrangements are as follows: Equality of representation Reflecting community Interests and identities Providing for convenient and effective local government In order to keep the number of councillors at its present level, it was proposed by the Council to reduce the number of councillors in the West by two to accommodate the creation of the new two‐member ward in the South of the Borough. This was to be achieved by the creation of two two‐member wards in the West. This was proposed on the basis of equality of representation and we have no problem with this. This recommendation was accepted by the Commission although implemented in a different way to the original proposals. Monkhams and Wanstead were selected as the two‐member wards and we have no problem with this either. However, there are significant problems with the proposals that would appear to contradict the Commission’s own criteria, in particular ‘reflecting community interests and identities’. Equality of representation While the original Council’s proposals result in a small variance between the Western wards, the Commission’s proposals have significant disparities. The Commission’s proposals would appear to have gone against its own criteria which is puzzling. This might have been understandable if it was designed to take account of community interests and identities but the proposals clearly do not. Reflecting Community interests and identities It is difficult to understand how community interests and identities are maintained under the draft proposals. The current boundaries have been in place for decades, with slight changes from time to time reflecting shifting population developments, and have worked well. The proposals represent the removal of established wards and replacing them with artificial creations. With regard to the Commission’s proposals, the recommendations for Monkhams and Bridge would appear reasonable enough. The proposal for a two‐member ‘Wanstead Parklands’ Ward also has merit. This ward, however, should have Cambridge Park / Eastern Avenue as its boundary. We cannot see the necessity of placing several roads south of this natural boundary into the proposed ‘Wanstead Village’ ward. The other proposals, however, are capable of some criticism. To put it bluntly, the proposed ‘Churchfields’ Ward is a bizarre creation. It is neatly dissected by the Central Line and has no road access between the two halves. The only way of moving from one side to the other is via a footbridge over the railway line. This seems to go against the Commission’s own stipulation that ‘ward boundaries will normally provide for people to move between all parts of the ward without having to venture outside of the ward’. ‘Churchfields, however, is not the most bizarre proposal, that honour goes to ‘South Woodford and Snaresbrook’. While there is a geographical location ‘Snaresbrook’ and there is a Snaresbrook Station and a Snaresbrook Crown Court, Snaresbrook cannot in any way be construed ‘a community’. People in the area consider themselves to be living in Wanstead. Although there is currently a ‘Snaresbrook’ ward, it covers the Geographical area of Wanstead. One might just rename ‘Snaresbrook’ ward ‘Wanstead Village’ without generating much concern. Of concern, however, is the proposed boundary between the proposed ‘Wanstead Village’ and ‘Snaresbrook & South Woodford’ wards. We are hopeful that the Commission will be minded to change its views on the creation of a ‘Snaresbrook and South Woodford’ ward but, on the assumption it does not, then the proposed boundaries between it and Wanstead Village need reviewing. All of the current polling district SN3 including Hollybush Hill and New Wanstead should be in Wanstead Village. The residents of these streets have no community of interest with South Woodford, they see themselves as part of Wanstead. This is also true for polling district SN2, all of which should be in the Wanstead Village ward as the residents, likewise, see themselves as part of Wanstead and not South Woodford. The division between Wanstead and South Woodford wards should, where possible, reflect where people see their identity as stipulated by the Commission’s own criterion in this respect. There is a clearly identified community of South Woodford which is neatly divided by the Central Line. Currently, one side of the railway comprises Church End ward, the other Roding. We cannot see any reason why this arrangement should not continue. The Commission’s own guidance calls for ‘clear and long lasting boundaries’. The current boundaries are reasonably clear and long lasting and there is no argument that we can see for a radical deconstruction of well‐defined and understood existing arrangements. Providing for convenient and effective local government. We cannot see how these proposals will lead to convenient and effective local government. Most of the new wards are artificial creations with no real identity. A couple are dissected by the Central Line with little or no access between the two halves. Several wards are in two constituencies while one, Snaresbrook and South Woodford is in three (Chingford and Woodford Green, Ilford North and Leyton and Wanstead). In summation While there is a geographical location ‘Snaresbrook’, it is in no way a community. People living in this area consider themselves as belonging to Wanstead. The current ‘Snaresbrook’ ward covers, more or less, the same area as the proposed as ‘Wanstead Village’ ward. The South Woodford community is currently divided into ‘Church End’ ward and ‘Roding’ ward, located on either side of the Central Line. To replace these with two wards that straddle the railway is perverse. There is no community of interest between people living in ‘Snaresbrook’ (in reality Wanstead) and those in South Woodford. The recommendations for Monkhams and Bridge are sensible. The recommendation for Wanstead ward is sensible providing all of the current polling district W2 is included. Our Alternative Our proposals provide for four three‐member wards and two two‐member wards. They use natural boundaries (rail lines and major roads) and maintain current strong community identity and cohesion while creating a minimum of disruption to existing constituency and ward boundaries. Bridge: As proposed by the Commission Monkhams (two member): As proposed by the Commission Wanstead ‐ possibly renamed Wanstead Parklands (two member): All the current W2 and W3 Polling districts Snaresbrook – possibly renamed Wanstead Village: All the current ward plus W1 Church End: The current ward plus the southern part of Monkhams as per the Commission’s proposals. Roding: The current ward. Yours Faithfully Gregor Eglin John Drew Laura Taylor From: reviews Sent: 19 August 2016 15:20 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Redbridge LGBC Consultation -- Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE From: Michael Duffel Sent: 19 August 2016 To: reviews Hello, I am broadly supportive of the current plan as laid out in the consultation, although I do have a suggestions on the of one ward. Wanstead Village I’m not sure this is the appropriate name for this ward. Although I agree with the ward layout in general, I do not think the name fairly reflects the ward as a whole. The northeast of the ward (such as Onslow Gardens and Southview) generally look towards South Woodford so I think we would be stretching Wanstead’s reach to the extreme. I would suggest a name such as Nightingale Ward. Nightingale Lane and the Nightingale Pub are well known in the Wanstead side of the Ward, and the Nightingale School is very well known by all those in the north and east of the Ward – and will be used by many of the families in the Ward. This will also stop confusion between Wanstead Park and Wanstead Village wards. Many thanks, Michael Sent from my iPhone 1 ! " #$ $%&' () " From: Vivien Edwards Sent: 16 August 2016 08:39 To: reviews I agree and support your proposal. Keeping South Woodford together and Wanstead village should be the surrounding Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. Best Vivien Vivien Edwards 4 - & . .5 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Margaret Hall Sent: 13 August 2016 10:58 To: reviews Whilst the proposed planned boundary changes, taking the A406 as a ward boundary seems a sensible idea; it would be more appropriate to make South Woodford ward and Wanstead Village ward more relevant to the areas around the stations an shops relative to them. The suggested alternative plan seems more appropriate. Mrs M Hall 19 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough Personal Details: Name: David Hamilton Email: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I live in and wish to included in the Wanstead Village Ward. My day to day transport and social needs are related to Wanstead Village. It is artificial to link my and surrounding roads with an area 1/2 a mile away separated by Epping Forest. Observation of the map shows a clear link with Wanstead Village and not Wanstead Park Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8710 1/1 - & & "(( . ./ ! 0$%&(#$ $1 "( ( & &2$#$3 ! $ $ Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: RICHARD HOSKINS Sent: 15 August 2016 15:29 To: reviews I have lived in Redbridge for some 55 years, and was a Redbridge Councillor for 24 years. Having seen the proposals I agree that the revised boundaries for Church End ward, with the A406 and M11 as southern boundaries make sense. Creating this kind of east west boundary alignment in the eastern part of the borough is a logical return to earlier ward boundaries, and respects current community ties. It should also be applied in the areas currently forming Roding, Wanstead and Snaresbrook wards, and also subject to revision proposals. Before the current ward boundaries were created there was a Snaresbrook ward with a northern boundary along the currently proposed M11 / A406 boundary. That ward boundary then followed the borough boundary southwards, swinging towards the Eagle Pond and cutting eastward to the Woodford Road / Wanstead High Street junction. It then cut across Hermon Hill to the Roding. Broadly following the current alignment of the southern Roding ward boundary. A new ward boundary broadly following this alignment would bring together the South Woodford community currently in Roding ward, the Firs estate currently in Snaresbrook ward and the parts of Hermon Hill focussed on George Lane local centre. This would form a recognisable a new economic and community based South Woodford ward. Creating a new ward like this would also ensure those parts of Wanstead on either side of the High Street could be brought together to become a natural new Wanstead ward. This would be a far more community based configuration than the Commissions proposals. That divides communities in the unsatisfactory way the current ward boundaries do. Wanstead High street is a community centre, not a dividing boundary. Keeping the whole area with its shopping centre, churches and community green spaces in a single ward restores much of the former Wanstead ward into a single entity. It would not disturb the commissions proposals for the two member ward to the south. This proposal also makes good sense, and restores another former ward alignment to the south. Electoral number requirements of course force a slight boundary oddity, but that cannot be avoided. 9 I hope the commission will consider my comments which will restore the local government boundaries to a more natural community based one. Richard Hoskins JP Sent from my iPad 10 Laura Taylor From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 22 August 2016 12:37 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Consultation response: Redbridge Borough Draft Proposal Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Mayers, Mishka On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 22 August 2016 09:34 To: Cooper, Mark Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: CateandSimon Jolley Sent: 19 August 2016 19:01 To: reviews Hi there We agree with the South Woodford Society's proposals to divide South Woodford from Wanstead Village horizontally rather than vertically, as this better matches existing boundaries and neighbourhood identities. Many thanks Cate & Simon Jolley 1 - & & "(( 6 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Kulbinder Singh Kambo Sent: 12 August 2016 11:24 To: reviews Dear Sir, My view is that dividing Wanstead from South Woodford doesn't make sense for following reasons: 1) Hermon Hill and Chigwell Road don't make a good boundary as South Woodford people live on both sides. 2) Chigwell Road, and roads like Onslow Gardens and South View Drive, are clearly part of South Woodford; residents here use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road. No-one thinks Wanstead Village goes as far north as Charlie Brown roundabout! Also, the Commission draft proposal divides Wanstead High Street, with part in the South Woodford & Snaresbrook ward. A more appropriate proposal is shown on the map below which keeps the South Woodford area together and also offers a more sensible Wanstead Village ward focused around Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. Kulbinder Kambo South Woodford resident 39 40 8r Hh x A ) IrvyyFrr1rvyyxrr5 y yqp 3 Tr) "6t! %!!) # U) rvr Tiwrp) 8yhv rr)Srqi vqtr7 tu9 hsQ hy AyyVAyht) Ayy AyhtTh) Ayhttrq Dear Sirs, It has been brought to my attention that you are drawing up plans to change the boundaries of my local area. Whilst I am sad to see the Roding ward disappear, I can understand the reasoning behind using the A406 and M11 as new boundaries. However I am greatly concerned at the way that the Commission has divided Wanstead from South Woodford as it is neither practical nor considerate to those who are actually resident! Hermon Hill and Chigwell Road don't make a good boundary's, as South Woodford people live on both sides and those on the Western side are very much linked with South Woodford in location not Wanstead village. Chigwell Road, and roads like Onslow Gardens and South View Drive, are clearly part of South Woodford; residents here use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road. And no-one thinks Wanstead Village goes as far north as Charlie Brown roundabout! You also can't segregate Snaresbrook from Wanstead – they are entwined in their style and local communities. I lived in Wanstead for 4 years and have been in South Woodford for the last 19 years. I know how the communities are naturally divided. The more appropriate proposal, as shown on the map suggested by the South Woodford Society is one which I agree with. This keeps the South Woodford area together, and also offers a more sensible Wanstead Village ward focused around Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. Please would you rethink this your proposal as it is not realistic to the communities. 1 Thank you in anticipation of your consideration to these points, Yours sincerely, Anita Keen 2 - & . .5 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Fergus Maclaine Sent: 13 August 2016 10:47 To: reviews Dear Sir, I SHOULD LIKE TO RECORD THE FOLLOWING COMMENT TO THE PROPOSAL: The arrangement suggested for the South Woodford & Snaresbrook (SW&S) and Wanstead Village (WV) Wards' Boundary between two Areas strikes one as very peculiar!! From the map illustration there appears to be no relevance or logic as to why some parts of WV need to "intrude" across Hermon Hill into the SW&S Area. What factors govern and necessitate some properties on the SW&S side of Hermon Hill definitively requiring and demand inclusion and association with properties on the opposite side of the road - with which, quite blatantly, they have no connection or functional interest? And yet the properties neighbouring these properties apparently have an intrinsic need to remain in SW&S!!!! Dare I presume, in the hopes of rationality, that such a distortional nonsense will be rectified in the Final Conclusion to this exercise. Yours Faithfully Fergus Maclaine 18 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough P ersonal Details: Nam e: Gavin Manning E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Feature Annotations 11:: I t mmakesakes nnoo ssenseense toto splitsplit SSt.t. MMaar ry'sy's AAvenuevenue ddowow n thethe mmiddleiddle - bothboth sidessides ofof thethe rroadoad sshouldhould bebe inin W ansteadanstead VVillage.illage. Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. M ap Features: Annotation 1: It makes no sense to split St. Mary's Avenue down the middle - both sides of the road should be in Wanstead Village. Comment text: Splitting a road down the middle can only have negative effects. Including both sides of the road would bring the forecast size of Wanstead Village ward closer to the size of Wanstead Park ward (hence the move to include both sides of St. Mary's Avenue in Wanstead Village). Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8562 1/1 - & & "(( .7 ! #$! $# Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Maggie McCann Sent: 12 August 2016 15:16 To: reviews I am commenting on the Draft Redbridge Proposals and whilst agreeing with most of the proposals regarding A406/M11 divisions, most definitely do not agree with the proposals regarding Wanstead, South Woodford and Snaresbrook. Having lived in South Woodford for over 35 years, I consider that South Woodford firmly belongs with Wanstead, at least up to the George Lane divide. Indeed for Church and Catholic School boundaries, this is exactly what happens at the moment and I cannot see why Redbridge would choose to divide it up further. For education (schools boundaries) purposes, South Woodford up to George Lane on either side of Hermon Hill belongs with Wanstead and it would be very confusing if these boundaries were altered. It also does not make sense to join Snaresbrook with South Woodford only as Snaresbrook is a continuation of Wanstead High Street. In my opinion, Wanstead, South Woodford (up to George Lane) and Snaresbrook most definitely belong together. Please consider my comments. Regards, Margaret McCann 29 - & & "(( .7 ! (#$! $ Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Maggie McCann Sent: 12 August 2016 15:10 To: reviews While agreeing with most of the draft proposals affecting the restructure of the above, I most definitely do not agree with comments regarding South Woodford, Snaresbrook and Wanstead. 27 ' ( ( )$$ / 0 ! " +2 34 #%52 66247 3 3 %82 %2 #649"%#7# $%& &, ) Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: LINDA MORSON Sent: 17 August 2016 15:04 To: reviews I would like to oppose the strange boundary re-shuffle proposed by Redbridge and endorse the better proposal put forward by the South Woodford Society. Regards, Linda Morson 11 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough P ersonal Details: Nam e: Rebecca Neill E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Comment text: It seems ridiculous that New Wanstead (the road) will be two different wards depending on which side of the road you are. It would make a lot more sense to either include both sides of the road in Wanstead Village or in South Woodford. Furthermore if resident complaints were received for example about speeding on the road, who would deal with it?! The severity of any complaint or issue may not be evident as half the complaints/comments are being received by a different team of people in the different ward. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8563 1/1 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough Personal Details: Name: Michael New Email: Postcode: E112QA Organisation Name: Comment text: The boundary between Wanstead Village ward and Wanstead Park ward should be along Cambridge Park and Eastern Avenue. Residential road,s to the south of this boundary, are not in any signicant way related to Wanstead Village. The "Village" tends to be the local estate agents marketing tool. It should describe a community with a clear idenitiy. This not the case for the proposed Wanstead Village ward. On the other hand the residential area around Wanstead Park and adjacent to Wanstead Flats is clearly identified by the local community. The established boundary of Wanstead Park is contained within Wanstead ward and the ealier Park ward. To carve out residential roads from the south of Cambridge Park and Eastern Avenue is an arbitrary act that defies a real sense of place and identity and conflicts with the socila and physical grain of our community. Wanstead Park is part of the history of England. I am sure given their terms of reference the Commission will have reflected upon the academic and local accounts of the area. The History of Park Ward Wanstead, published in 1953 for the coronation of Her Majesty Qquen Elizabeth II has a foreword providing an appreciation of Wanstead Park as unique place of special qualities. It is as relevant tday as it was then. "The history of one ward is not often written. To justify it two things are necessary, a suffiency of material and a special reason for restricting the survey to one ward. In Park Ward there is no subject of subject matter, for many stirring events have occurred in it during four hundred years. The compelling circumstances limiting the subject is the growth of a ward consciousness of unusal quality. Some of the greates men and women have come and from Wanstead. thei names live in the history of our land; but their mark is not to be found here. The face of the ward has been moulded by three principal causes, the zeal of of an eighteenth century nobleman for parkland, the nineteenth century Epping Forest litigation and the development of the dormitory susburb....." From this background the enthusiasm, goodwill and local pride of all the residents have found expression. The account continues: "the history of Wanstead is in fact the history of Park Ward. Almost every memorable event in the parish uptoth nineteenth century occured in what is now Park Ward Although Manor Ward lies wholely to the north of Cambridge Park and Eastern Avenue, the manor houses of allthree manors originally lay well to the south of that line...... in 1882 there were still nly a very few houses...... After 1894 the rate of building speeded up on both sides of the park. At the outbreak of World War I all the larger houses had gone..... Aldersbrook estate was in its present shape. Lake House was near completion and all the roads between Blake Hhall Road and St Mary's had been built." The integrity of the area of Cambridge Park and Eastern Avenue makes for good local governance. How can you justify or explain the circumstances of the gate posts of the principal entrance to Wanstead Park that were in place in the 1730's and are still in place at the junction of Overton Drive and Blake Hall Road. Under the boundary proposal one will be in Wanstead Park and one will be in Wanstead Village. Why should Overton Ddrive residents have to respond to two sets of councillors for three sections of the road? Why should residents of St Mary's Avenue have to ask themselves whether the are in the park or the vilage? Why should a short section of road frontage to Blake Hall Road south of Overton Drive be treated differently from the frontage up to Cambridge Park. " Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8714 1/1 - & . .5 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Judy Noble Sent: 13 August 2016 20:51 To: reviews I can see the argument for using the A406 and M11 as new boundaries. However I also think the way that the Commission has divided Wanstead from South Woodford doesn't make sense. Chigwell Road, and roads like Onslow Gardens and South View Drive, are clearly part of South Woodford; residents here use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road. And no-one thinks Wanstead Village goes as far north as Charlie Brown roundabout! Also, the Commission draft proposal divides Wanstead High Street, with part in the South Woodford & Snaresbrook ward. I think the plan drawn up by the South Woodford Society is a more appropriate proposal, as shown on the map. This keeps the South Woodford area together, and also offers a more sensible Wanstead Village ward focused around Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. Im sure others have sent you the map Judy Noble 21 ! " #$ $%&' () " & * + *, -----Original Message----- From: Ros Oke Sent: 16 August 2016 05:46 To: reviews The proposed boundaries for Wanstead Village and South Woodford & Snaresbrook wards do not make sense. This has clearly been drawn up by someone who does not understand the area and local residents. Please keep South Woodford together, and also Wanstead Village, instead of splitting both. 6 ' ( ( )$$ * ! " %& &+(% Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Nat Pabla Sent: 17 August 2016 18:14 To: reviews Good Evening I write to express my surprise at the proposed boundary changes to Council wards in the London Borough of Redbridge. I live in Church End Ward, and with many friends in the Roding Ward, have a clear idea of which part is South Woodford and which is Wanstead. I cannot see why Hermon Hill/Chigwell Road has been proposed as a boundary when it runs through the middle of South Woodford. The area around Charlie Brown's is also very definitely a part of South Woodford; it really doesn't "belong" in a "Wanstead" ward, and my friends and other people I speak to from around that area very definitely identity as living in South Woodford. Surely a Wanstead Village Ward would be better represented were all of the High Street and both Wanstead and Snaresbrook underground stations included. I hope you are able to take into consideration these views when making a final decision. Thank you. Nat Pabla Sent from my iPad 2 - & . .6 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Anne Pearce Sent: 12 August 2016 21:09 To: reviews Re.. Draft Redbridge proposals...... As a resident of the Maybank area for the last 57 years I find your new proposals for the area quite unacceptable. To even think of taking the boundary for Wanstead village to Charlie Browns Roundabout does raise doubts as to whether you actually know the areas you are carving up. Please consider Cllr Ian Bonds proposal which is at least more realistic if the boundaries have to be changed...... Mrs Anne Pearce, 24 - & . .5 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Lesley Pegrum Sent: 13 August 2016 14:30 To: reviews Hi I agree with the proposal to move Hill Farm Estate to Fulwell Ward but believe South Woodford should remain together and not split and put with Wanstead. I support the alternative proposal by our elected counsellors for Roding Ward. Thank you, John and Lesley Pegrum Sent from my iPhone 20 8/8/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough P ersonal Details: Nam e: Clive Power E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: none Comment text: I wish to comment upon the proposal on the number of councillors. In this review, the LGBCE has recommended that the number of councillors should stay about the same as present (63). That would lead to a further stark increase in the number of residents (and electors) per councillor as the population of the borough has been growing and will continue to do so . LB Redbridge should be allocated more councillors, not standstill (or decrease). LB Redbridge population: (2001 popn - from census) 238,635 = 3,788 residents per councillor (2011 popn - from census) 278,970 = 4,428 residents per councillor (2015 popn - figure used by LBR) 296,800 = 4,711 residents per councillor (2021 popn - proj used by LBR) 332,500 = 5,277 residents per councillor Notes 1. These ratios (per councillor) are based on residents, not electors. The latter figures would be better but they are not as easily available. The increasing birth-rate for LB Redbridge (and so an increasing proportion of non-electors) would have the effect of making these ratio increases somewhat less. 2. These ratios have probably been increasing since before 2001 (the earliest year I have data about.) The population of London has been increasing since the 1970s but Redbridge has had its current number of councillors (63) since before 2001. 3. It is often argued that census figures have (increasingly) not been able to accurately record some sectors of the population, such as some non-legal migrants. Whilst some of these residents may not be electors, they would have the effect of making these ratio increases somewhat more. So LB Redbridge needs more councillors - not standstill. Clive Power Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8659 1/1 8r Hh x A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %6t! % ")! U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )8rq hsSrqi vqtrQ hy Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Sandra Reekie Sent: 16 August 2016 12:02 To: reviews We wish to register our strongest objections to the proposed boundary changes. The existing boundaries have served our Borough perfectly well for decades and there is a strong suspicion that these changes are being sought for purely political purposes and at a time when there is no money in the coffers for far more urgent and important projects. To divide South Woodford, Wanstead and Snaresbrook up in the notch potch way proposed makes no sense and is dividing communities. I believe the South Woodford Society have forwarded a much more reasonable proposal to you, that is, if changes have to be made at all. Sandra & David Reekie 1 Laura Taylor From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 22 August 2016 12:38 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Reconfiguration of Roding Ward Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Mayers, Mishka On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 22 August 2016 09:33 To: Cooper, Mark Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Beryl Rickards Sent: 19 August 2016 To: reviews This is to advise that although the alteration of boundaries is necessary, the new wards to not take into the natural division between Wanstead and South Woodford. I would , therefore, be prepared to support a vertical break and use the post code boundary to separate Wanstead and Woodford. The whole of the E18 post code area would be better together and the Wanstead E11 area should be included in the new Wanstead Village Ward. From Beryl Rickards 1 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough Personal Details: Name: Mairead O'Riordan Email: Postcode: Organisation Name: Mambaer of public Comment text: Proposed Wanstead Village/Park Wards. I have lived in for 15 years and have always felt closer to ‘Wanstead Park’ and ‘Wanstead Flats’, both areas are regularly used by my family and neighbours. I understand that the boundaries may need to be adjusted, but feel that I have more connection with the residents of Wanstead Park and Flats than I do with the residents in the existing southern area of Roding Ward. The issues that existing Wanstead ward residents have are specific and deeply rooted in the historical connections we have to the surrounding areas we use daily. I feel that the confusion of Wanstead Station being in the ‘Park’ ward will be exacerbated by the amalgamation of Snaresbrook with ‘Church End’ ward. It reminds me of a proposal to permanently close the width restriction on Overton Drive, shortly after we moved into . This proposal was very sensible retracted by the existing Council because it would have cut Wanstead in half (Us and them). I feel that the new proposal will further distance the residents within Wanstead Ward from each other and cause a huge amount of confusion. Thankyou for your kind consideration. M. O’Riordan. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8713 1/1 !" # $ %& &'( )* $ Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Robertson, Barbara Sent: 12 August 2016 12:00 To: reviews Dear Sirs, I am writing with regard to the above draft proposal. I believe that the new boundaries proposed do not take into account the current circumstances in Redbridge and of residents. I believe the proposed boundaries in the diagram below, suggested by two of the current Roding councillors, is a much better option, dividing the area along neighbourhood lines and allowing the new wards to remain much more in keeping the individual nature of each of locality. 1 Yours faithfully Barbara Robertson 2 - & . .4 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Paul Rohm Sent: 13 August 2016 08:57 To: reviews Dear Sir, I strongly agree with the proposal put forward by Roding Liberal Democrats. This fits in much better with the feeling of the area in which you live. It simply makes sense. Yours Sincerely, Paul Rohm From: Cllr Ian Bond Sent: 12 August 2016 10:17 To: PaulRohm Subject: Your chance to comment on your future ward Your chance to comment on which ward you will live in after 2018 The Boundary Commission is now looking at the future of Roding Ward You have just the next week to have your say! The Commission draft proposes (as shown in the map below): - to transfer Hill Farm Estate to Fulwell Ward; - to create a new "Churchfields Ward" north of the A406, combining the Maybank Community area with the 15 Churchfields and Chelmsford Road areas West of the Central Line; - to divide the rest of Roding between a new "Wanstead Village Ward", covering Hermon Hill and Chigwell Road, right up to Charlie Brown roundabout, plus all roads to the East. All roads to the West then become a new "South Woodford & Snaresbrook Ward", across to the Epping Forest extension. The Commission is now asking for your views. You can have your say (by the end of next week), by email to the Commission (use our link, or send to [email protected]). All you need to do is mention you are commenting on the Draft Redbridge Proposals and send in your comments (which can be as brief or as long as you wish!). Our view is that, whilst we will be sad to see Roding ward disappear, we can see the argument for using the A406 and M11 as new boundaries. However we think the way that the Commission has divided Wanstead from South Woodford doesn't make sense! Hermon Hill and Chigwell Road don't make a good boundary to start with, as South Woodford people live on both sides. But the Commission isn't even proposing to use the road as the boundary line, since they suggest all the houses on the western side of these roads should be in Wanstead Village ward as well! Chigwell Road, and roads like Onslow Gardens and South View Drive, are clearly part of South Woodford; residents here use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road. And no-one thinks Wanstead Village goes as far north as Charlie Brown roundabout! Also, the Commission draft proposal divides Wanstead High Street, with part in the South Woodford & Snaresbrook ward. We think we have come up with a more appropriate proposal, as shown on the map. This keeps the South Woodford area together, and also offers a more sensible Wanstead Village ward focused around Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. If you agree with us, please let the Commission know! 16 view email in browser | unsubscribe | forward to a friend Published and promoted by Gwyneth Deakins, Printed (dispatched) by MailChimp, 512 Means St NW Ste 404, Atlanta, GA. This email was sent to why did I get this? unsubscribe from this list update subscription preferences Roding Liberal Democrats · Roding Ward · South Woodford · London, E18 · United Kingdom 17 - & & "(( 6 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Steve Rothon Sent: 12 August 2016 11:01 To: reviews Dear Sirs, I am writing to comment on the Commission’s Draft Redbridge Proposals to reconfigure Roding, South Woodford/Snaresbrook & Wanstead Village Wards. We think the way that the Commission has divided Wanstead from South Woodford doesn't make sense. Hermon Hill and Chigwell Road don't make a good boundary to start with, as South Woodford people live on both sides. The Commission doesn’t appear to be proposing to use the road as the boundary line, since the houses on the western side of these roads should be in Wanstead Village ward as well. Chigwell Road, and roads like Onslow Gardens and South View Drive, are clearly part of South Woodford; residents here use South Woodford station and the shops in George Lane and the High Road. And no-one thinks Wanstead Village goes as far north as Charlie Brown’s roundabout. Also, the Commission’s draft proposal divides Wanstead High Street, with part in the South Woodford & Snaresbrook ward. We agree that the Lib Dems have come up with a more appropriate proposal, as shown on the map below. This keeps the South Woodford area together, and also offers a more sensible Wanstead Village ward focused around Wanstead and Snaresbrook stations. Regards Steve & Dorothy Rothon 37 ' ( ( )$$ * / ! " %& &+(% Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: jitendra sahgal Sent: 18 August 2016 00:57 To: reviews I reside with my wife at, and frequently (if not always) use the shops, restaurants and sundry public services in George Lane and South Woodford area. I frequent the South Woodford Library which is also adjacent to my G.P's surgery. Most of my neighbours and I feel very strongly part of South Woodford. Even physically, we feel remote from Wanstead. We often walk to South Woodford Underground station for travelling. It does not make sense for us to be "plucked" from South Woodford and attached to Wanstead where we do not belong. We, therefore look forward to a continued residence in South Woodford. 8 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough P ersonal Details: Nam e: David Sampson E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Feature Annotations 11:: SSouthouth W oodfordoodford W ardard Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. M ap Features: Annotation 1: South Woodford Ward Comment text: As a resident of Cadogan Gardens I strongly feel that the Onslow Gardens, Cadogan Gardens and Southview area has South Woodford identity as this is its area centre for tube station, shops, doctors etc and certainly NOT Wanstead. Snaresbrook and Wanstead are effectively a different identifiable area (their high streets merge into each other with their tube stations at either end). I feel as such the proposed wards should be for a ”Wanstead & Snaresbrook ward” and a “South Woodford ward” with the boundary being approximately along Ashbourne Ave. I have indicated in the map area “1” which would be my general proposal for the South Woodford ward. I feel your current proposals will leave an awful situation if my area is put in the Wanstead Village ward as proposed, resulting in decisions regarding the area most affecting me (ie regarding South Woodford) being made where I have no ward councillor representation and I would only have representation for an area with which I have minimal association. The old Roding ward which I am currently within, is not fit for purpose and I agree with the part of the proposal moving the areas on the outside of the physical boundary of the North Circular to a new Clayhall ward. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8580 1/1 8r Hh x A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) #E y! % ")! U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )TrrFvt8uhq ryyXh q7qh vr From: Kishen Sedani Sent: 04 July 2016 11:16 To: reviews Dear Sir/Madam, I would like to raise my concern about the Christie Gardens Park. I attend the Chadwell Heath Academy and many of the students from the lower years enjoy using the local park. Now we have had no trouble in the past with these boundaries. This is why I do not feel that the boundaries for this area should change. I would like it to be the same because it will be difficult if we want to raise an issue about the park. I live on Barley Lane, on the border of the Seven Kings and the Chadwell wards and I have a concern. If I am looking at websites or even using Google I am told that I am part of Chadwell Heath. I would like there to be an even spit and clear boundaries. I do not want to walk to my back garden and be in the Chadwell Ward while I am registered in the Seven Kings ward. Please view the picture for support of the area I am addressing. I hope you will take my concerns and make the relevant changes. I look forward to your response. -- 1 Thank You Kishen M. Sedani 2 8/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough Personal Details: Name: Patience Seebohm Email: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: We live in and the draft proposal puts us in Wanstead Village. This does not reflect our geographical, social or historical identity. Geographically we are only a few yards from the Park (across the road) and a very short walk from Bush Wood which is an important amenity for us. We are connected through the Park to Leytonstone and we are as close to Leytonstone shops and station as Wanstead. Indeed, our postal address is officially Leytonstone, not Wanstead, according to the Post Office. There is no geographical justification for putting us in with Wanstead village. Moreover, there are strong historical and architectural ties between our road, with its arches and building history, and Wanstead Park. Socially we do not feel part of any Wanstead village we connect more with the Park, Bush Wood and the main Flats beyond. Whilst we like Wanstead High Street and visit there often, we also like Leytonstone High Street and visit there often too. The barrier of the A12 and Eastern Avenue ensure we do not link ourselves so closely with Wanstead High Street it would not be a natural grouping if we were in the same ward but would rather be a totally artificial boundary made for the convenience of some bureaucracy that has no awareness of or respect for the people affected by its decisions. Please find a more sensitive and appropriate boundary which strengthens natural ties rather than denying important connections and associations rooted in our historical, physical and social geography. We feel very strongly that this proposal is wrong. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8711 1/1 - & . .4 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Matthew Shaw Sent: 13 August 2016 08:27 To: reviews To whom it may concern. I live very close to the Hermon Hill / Chigwell Road and to use that as a boundary has no logic at all. People in Onslow Gardens and Southview Drive Consider themselves to be part of South Woodford. I totally agree with the Cllr Bond’s thoughts on the boundary and I have attached a copy of his vision. Currently a local plan is being developed for South Woodford and this would put the area of the Local Plan into three wards rather than two which again is less then ideal. I am sure that you are aware of the alternative proposal however I have attached a copy of the Map. 13 Kindest regards Matthew Shaw 14 ' ( ( )$$ * ! " (# $, )$ %& & & Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Kate Skilbeck Sent: 17 August 2016 18:42 To: reviews Dear Sir/Madam Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft proposal for new boundaries in Redbridge. It makes a lot of sense to use the M11 and A406 as boundary perimeters. However, I think South Woodford Society’s suggestion of rearranging the wards ‘horizontally’, rather than ‘vertically’ would be more appropriate, as per the map below: I always associate Snaresbrook and Wanstead as being closely linked areas, naturally paired, naturally merging; I used to live in Snaresbrook. I think it would be better to have Wanstead Village ward encompassing Snaresbrook, rather than Snaresbrook being paired with South Woodford. Wanstead Village ward would then be centred around Wanstead and Snaresbrook tube stations. People who live in Chigwell Road and the roads off eg Onslow Gardens and South View Gardens are, in my opinion, residents of South Woodford, not Wanstead/Snaresbrook. They use South Woodford tube station and George Lane shops. I really don’t consider the area leading up to Charlie Brown’s roundabout as being Snaresbrook/Wanstead! Much more appropriate that it be within South Woodford ward. 3 It also seems very illogical to me to divide Wanstead High Street between Wanstead Village and South Woodford & Snaresbrook. It would make much more sense for the whole of Wanstead High Street to be within Wanstead Village ward. It’s very important to me that the South Woodford area is defined as a single area, rather than being paired with Snaresbrook. It makes much more sense for Snaresbrook to be within/part of Wanstead Village ward. Thank you for considering my comments. Yours faithfully Kate Skilbeck (Ms) 4 ' ( ( )$$ * ! " ) %& &+(# $, ) Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Kate Skilbeck Sent: 17 August 2016 18:52 To: reviews Dear Sir/Madam Further to my email earlier this evening, I apologise that I had not realised the alternative boundary change (Churchfields, South Woodford, Wanstead Village - arranged vertically) was proposed by the Liberal Democrat councillors for this area. I attributed the alternative suggestion to South Woodford Society. Thank you. Yours faithfully Kate Skilbeck 5 ! " #$ $%&' () " From: MICHAEL SMALLWOOD Sent: 16 August 2016 11:05 To: reviews The proposal to move the boundaries of the Wanstead and South Woodford wards does not make sense. It will split the communities of Wanstead and South Woodford and they have alrady been split before which has altered the dynamic of the area. Please reconsider. B.A.Smallwood 1 - & & "(( //7 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Anna Smith Sent: 12 August 2016 13:34 To: reviews Dear Sirs, I am really upset at your proposals to change the boundaries so that I will then live in the new 'Wanstead Village Ward'. I have lived at since 1986 and I have always lived in South Woodford. I use the shops in and off of George Lane and the nearest tube station to me, within walking distance is South Woodford. I would like it for you to register my objection to the changes regarding new boundaries between South Woodford and Wanstead Village Wards as I believe they do not make sense and I would find it very upsetting, should this become a fact. Regards, Mrs Anna Smith 31 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Redbridge London Borough P ersonal Details: Nam e: Sara Taggart E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Comment text: Many thanks for sharing this. As a resident of Royston Gardens, I think it is crazy that we are the only road on the Wanstead side of the Redbridge roundabout, that currently doesn't fall into a Wanstead ward. I am extremely pleased that this is being reviewed as the proposals make a lot more sense than what is there at present.mWhilst this might not be the time or place to mention, I am also very keen to look at whether my road, again the only one on the Wanstead side with an IG1 postcode, might be relooked at in terms of postal address too. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8572 1/1 - & . .4 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Kathie Teahan Sent: 12 August 2016 18:46 To: reviews I agree with the alternative that keeps South Woodford together. It makes more sense. 11 !" # $% &"' (("'# %(% From: Kathie Teahan Sent: 16 August 2016 13:32 To: reviews I have to say that as a resident affected by the proposed changes I can see no logic or sense to the Commission's plan. It severs the community in a detrimental way. The alternative proposal of the LibDem council group looks more sensible to me. Yours Kathie Teahan 1 !"!# ! $ %& ' () * + ) * ,)-)./0) -1+,-2+/134-)4) ( ) -' -+,) .* + -50 * /1 !" & ' 667' 678 7 6 7 9% Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Chris Underhill Sent: 16 August 2016 20:09 To: reviews Subject: LONDON BOROUGH OF REDBRIDGE ‐ PROPOSALS FOR WARD BOUNDARY CHANGES 2016 Dear Sirs I should like in particular to comment on the boundary between two of the proposed new wards - South Woodford/Snaresbrook and Wanstead Village. Your proposed layout, as shown on the left side of my attachment, looks attractive on the surface. Unfortunately it has little bearing on reality, rather like the convincing-looking but arbitrary lines which politicians and generals once drew on maps of conquered territory. Hermon Hill/Chigwell Road is not an appropriate boundary. Most residents of South View Drive and its offshoots consider themselves to be very much part of South Woodford. They use buses from the stops in George Lane and travel by Tube from South Woodford station, not from Wanstead. They shop in George Lane, not on Wanstead High Street. And to extend Wanstead as far north as Charlie Brown's Roundabout will simply seem absurd in the eyes of local people. A more reasonable solution, and one much more in keeping with residents' habits and preferences, is as shown on the right side of the attachment. I sincerely hope that you will reconsider this proposal Yours faithfully C. N. UNDERHILL 1 !"!# $ %& ' ()*(* + * )' ),-* ./ , )01 / 23 !" & ' 445' 456 5 4 5 7% Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Helena U Sent: 17 August 2016 03:39 To: reviews Subject: PROPOSALS FOR WARD BOUNDARY CHANGES 2016 Dear Sir/Madam I live in South Woodford. The proposed change would divide it which I feel is not a good idea. Would you please reconsider your proposal and consider the much better layout on the right hand side of the attached picture. Yours faithfully Helena Underhill 1 - & & "(( 6 ! " #$ $%&' () " Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Heather Ward Sent: 12 August 2016 10:43 To: reviews I have just seen the draft proposal on the proposed boundary changes. I live in Roding Ward. I completely agree with transferring the Hill Farm estate to Fulwell and the creation of Churchfields. The boundaries around the major roads makes complete sense. As of now Roding is an odd grouping, with such different issues on either side of the A406. With regards to the new proposal for South Woodford I agree with my local councillors to keep South Woodford together. There are similar issues on both sides of the Central line with regards to the shops and other local issues. Regards, Heather Ward 36 Laura Taylor From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 22 August 2016 12:38 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Consultation response: Redbridge Borough Draft Proposal Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Mayers, Mishka On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 22 August 2016 08:58 To: Cooper, Mark Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: mark.wicks Sent: 21 August 20 To: reviews Re the above I wish to notify you that I agree with the counter proposals suggested by my local councillor (Ian Bond) Mark Wicks, Sent from my Samsung device 1 ' ( ( )$$ / 0/ ! " &!( Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 -----Original Message----- From: Julia Wood Sent: 17 August 2016 13:49 To: reviews We have as a family lived at sine 1983 33 years. We do not want our ward to change to Wanstead, we visit local shops in South Woodford the library and gym facilities in South Woodford. Our location is in South Woodford. We walk down to the church hall along Hermon Hill to vote and have a community spirt with all our neighbours regardless of what side of the road we live on have all lived as far as we are concerned in South Woodford. Would like to add have the authorities involved in this got nothing better to do with their time needless to say the costs involved in this stupid idea. Yours faithfully Julia Wood Sent from my iPad 10 Laura Taylor From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 22 August 2016 12:38 To: Laura Taylor Subject: FW: Redbridge Draft Plan Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Mayers, Mishka On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 22 August 2016 09:34 To: Cooper, Mark Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251 From: Elizabeth Wood Sent: 19 August 2016 2 To: reviews Dear Sir I wish to comment. I am a South Woodford resident, my family have been here since the 1940's. We own our home and are part of the local community, although I work full time out of Redbridge I have various charity positions locally. I think the proposed split of Church End at the A406 is wrong it works as it is and doing this will make the community divided, I feel it should stay as it is. I do not agree with the South Woodfords Society proposal either as this keeps the division. I am most concerned with the proposal and the societies proposal. Yours faithfully Liz Wood 1