Local Residents submissions to the Metropolitan Borough Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 19 submissions from Local Residents.

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

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

Porter, Johanna

From: Chris Ing < > Sent: 10 August 2014 09:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary Changes - Wadworth

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs

I write to request that you reconsider that part of the Doncaster Borough boundary change proposal which moves Wadworth into Ward.

I have lived in Wadworth for 40 years now, and have far more relevant relationships with the Torne Valley villages (notably ) than I have with Metropolitan Doncaster, let alone with Edlington or Warmsworth. I should like the interests of our village to continue to be represented by Councillors who look after the places with which I am familiar and which have meaningful relationships with our community. This seems to me a much more sensible arrangement than one which lays arbitrary boundary lines across the map.

Please place Wadworth where it logically belongs - i.e. in the new Tickhill Ward. It is Tickhill which provides the key local facilities that we use on a daily basis, not Doncaster or Edlington.

Doreen W. Ing

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 23 June 2014 10:52 To: Morrison, William Cc: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: boundary division Edenthorpe

From: Diane Jackson Sent: 22 June 2014 15 To: Reviews@ Subject: boundary division Edenthorpe

I am writing to you to object to the recent boundary changes... I wish to stay within Barnby‐dun/ kirk sandal ward or within Edenthorpe as one. The proposed division along Thorne road makes no sense only to pinch residents to make up the numbers for the Armthorpe ward. You are basically chopping a long standing community/village in half to warrant the number of counsellor's which I object to..... very deceitful, and not a good start to the meaning of TRUST and to the people of Edenthorpe that you wish to represent... Therefore I vehemently reject the proposed boundary changes.

Mrs Jackson,

1

Reviews Officer Doncaster Review Local government boundary commission for Layden house 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

To whom it may concern,

First of all I would like to stress I am in total admiration of what the Boundary Commission is trying to achieve in bringing electoral equality to Doncaster. I understand how complicated and time consuming this process has been, even more so as I assume no one on your board is from the local population of Doncaster, so I appreciate that you may not have access to some local knowledge. For example how certain communities act as one even though they may be many, with this taken into account and your main considerations for the new proposed wards, I would like to voice my concerns with your current proposal. The proposal I refer to is the one which moves the village of Marr (where I live) and the close surrounding rural villages into the new proposed ward of Adwick.

I would just like to bring a few points to your attention relating to why you might be failing your own criteria without not necessarily realising. I would be most grateful if you would take the time to seriously consider the following concerns:

 Marr and the surrounding rural villages are all agricultural, just like the majority of Sprotbrough village. However, the majority of the new proposed Adwick ward is industrial, urban and highly populated due to the fact that they have grown in size through supporting and working coal extraction from the now redundant mines. These two separate communities could and would not ever be beneficial to each other as they have completely different needs and purposes.  As far as electoral equality goes, I believe that if Marr and the surrounding villages do go into the new proposed ward of Adwick, I personally will feel no need to vote. I strongly believe that my voice will not be heard as the needs of myself and my village will not be taken into account. The needs of the much larger, urban communities are far more likely to be heard than those of the tiny suburban communities, such as Marr. With this taken into account, how would my vote be heard when I have conflicting interests with a much greater number? If I were to vote for a councilor with a rural outlook, which would benefit my village, the other communities within the proposed Adwick ward would be far more likely to vote for a competing councilor with a more urban outlook. With these conflicting views and my community the minority, my voice would never be heard. I believe that The Boundary Commission in this case is failing my electoral equality.  Transport is my next issue; Adwick (the most dominant village in the new ward) has an abundance of easily accessible public transport which is of great benefit to them. However, only there is no direct transport link for the residents of Marr to travel to Adwick without driving, or going via Doncaster town centre, hence creating a much larger carbon footprint. If Marr was to stay within the current ward of Sprotbrough, the residents here could walk down their local byway (which is actually called Sprotbrough byway) to the village itself, creating no carbon footprint or use public transport which takes us into & around our existing ward and Scawsby. The residents of Marr and the surrounding villages are currently far more likely to use the amenities in Sprotbrough, rather than the inaccessible amenities in Adwick. We already feel we are a part of the Sprotbrough community, therefore it would make far more sense for us to stay within the Sprotbrough Ward.  Historically, all the rural villages and Sprotbrough have always been associated. Many local people view Sprotbrough as the mother village and the heart of the community. Separating the tiny rural villages from the similar but larger village of Sprotbrough would be comparable to separating a child from a nurturing parent. In essence, the Boundary Commission’s proposal goes against any common sense. The outcome of the boundary change would be detrimental to the small villages. Many of these could very well die off due to the lack of support from local councilors who have a secure understanding of rural communities and have their best interests at heart. The new ward would just be too large to manage, so the majority of their time is likely to be spent on the densely populated areas and their needs. Again, this fails my electoral equality.

In addition to this letter, I am also aware the Marr Parish Meeting will be submitting a proposal to the Boundary Commission, which having both seen and participated on all of the points raised I would like to whole heartedly support. The Marr proposal I believe does not just ensure electoral equality for the villages, but also for all urban areas. If the communities within each ward are closely linked and share similar interests, issues and concerns, the councilors elected to support those wards will be much better equipped to provide the best care possible for every natural community within their ward.

I truly hope that this letter has given the Boundary Commission a fuller picture of the effects of their proposed boundary change. A ward is far more than a group of villages; it is a group of communities. By moving small, rural communities to a ward with large, urban communities, you are destroying our community links and the rural way of life. This would quickly be forgotten if we were tied to more urban areas. Having previously lived in a densely populated area, my needs as a voter now have drastically changed, so this I can say from experience.

Thank you for taking the time to read and consider my concerns. I really do hope that you will seriously take these points into account. Your proposal will not just change boundaries, but it will also change the lives of local people.

Kind Regards

Nathan Jenkins & Hannah Elliott (Marr residents)

Review Officer Doncaster Review Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76 – 86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 30th July 2014

Dear Sir, As a resident in the rural village of Marr, I would like to take the opportunity to respond to the Boundary Commissions draft proposals on the new warding and electoral arrangements for DMBC. I would like to formally register my objection to the LGBCE’s current proposals where Marr and its neighbouring rural villages are to be included within the newly formed Adwick-le-Street, Carcroft and Woodlands Ward. I would urge the Boundary Commission to reconsider its draft proposal and instead look favorably on retaining Marr and its neighbouring villages within the current Sprotbrough Ward. The proposed boundary change does not reflect our rural local community, our shared interests, identities and common purpose however I strongly believe that our current Ward best reflects and addresses those characteristics. So much so that I would also like to propose to rename this Ward - “The Sprotbrough Rural Wards” and would ask that the LGBCE consider my request.

We, as a rural village are more aware than most, that we should have perhaps written to you before now, however, naively as this must seem, we never in our wildest dreams, considered that there would be a possibility of splitting up our rural community, especially in a ward where the whole rural community has worked marvelously well together for a such a long time.

My own opinion on the Boundary Commissions main objective of achieving true Electoral Equality, is one to be admired and I for one, fully support this initiative and the LGBCE in this endeavor.

Simply, from what I understand – Doncaster has the same number of electorate but is to have a reduced number of Councilors to represent its electorate, therefore warding arrangements need to be reviewed in order that each Councilor represents, as far as possible, roughly the same number of

electorate within each Ward. Clearly this is likely to have some impact on councilor workload if they are to represent an increased number of electorate per kappa. From a laypersons perspective, I realise that it is likely to be more complicated than I have intimated, as the reality of it is more likely to depend on - the weight & involvement in projects, a variety and combination of responsibilities and duties carried out by each Councilor at any one time, which is constantly a moving target. That said, I will further assume, that at this time, some wards will need more support from their Councilors compared to others and again this will change and move over time. Having multiple members per ward should surely not only help spread the workload more evenly but also deliver fair & effective representation. So taking these points into consideration, my conclusion is based on “what looks like hard work today could be easier tomorrow and what looks easier today could be hard work tomorrow”. If you would indulge me one more observation, some of the urban wards are more likely to have a higher workload but have densely populated electorate within a short vicinity and this in turn could be deemed easier to represent than say a rural ward, where the workload may appear less but the electorate is much more spread out and this could be deemed harder to represent. The reality is more likely that they probably, balance each other out.

You will forgive me, I hope, my observations, as I am trying to understand why the LGBCE would even consider separating so many “bits” of the different existing communities from each other in its draft proposals. My belief is that Electoral Equality is paramount but not to the exclusivity of destroying any cohesive communities to achieve this objective. In fact, I believe that all Natural communities should be retained within the same Wards because they all share common purpose, common issues, common needs and a shared identity. This in turn would surely make it far easier to deliver fair representation and provide for effective convenient local governance.

I cannot see how this can be achieved in the current proposed format, if the critical need to ensure that the voice of each and every one of the electorate is heard by those individuals tasked with representing their needs and requirements are conflicted. The current proposal by the LGBCE suggests that the electorate of Marr (100) and the combined rural village electorate of 1,200 V’s a proposed urban Ward electorate of 11,400, that this will be

delivered. The reality is one where our ability to influence the decisions made on our behalf by such representatives will be negligible, effectively removing our ability to contribute to the democratic process and the future development and success of our village and the wider rural community or indeed to DMBC. Already limited resources will inevitably be directed and deployed towards meeting the needs of the majority whose demands are prioritized simply due to the weight of electorate influence. In turn this will create conflicting demands of a large urban population V’s a smaller rural population within the same ward. Thus we may have achieved Electoral Equality on the number of electorate alone, but this would in fact mean that we would have no vote or voice at all and I believe that this is completely unacceptable, undemocratic and would in fact deliver Electoral Inequality for the Marr electorate, which I believe contravenes and fails to deliver on the LGBCE’s prime objective. After all the outcome is clear for what we, the Doncaster people expect, not just fair representation but also an improvement on the way we are governed and what we expect from our representatives (as per the Members Briefing) “….and provide effective community leadership and representation”. I fundamentally do not believe that your draft proposals can deliver this to me or any of the electorate within the north western rural villages by moving us into the newly created Adwick- le -Street Ward.

The benefits of remaining one cohesive rural community are by far outweighed than splitting us up. The same can be said of all natural and cohesive communities. The Marr Parish proposal will allow each community to strongly work together by focusing on their own individual community issues, which will be a direct reflection of its constituents/electorate issues and in turn each community will contribute much more to DMBC and as a result Doncaster will be stronger for it, as it will be better placed with the creation of a robust platform to support Doncaster in its quest for positive and lasting change.

I would like to state that I whole heartily agreed with and support the alternate proposal submitted by The Marr Parish Meeting and with the full detailed proposal submitted by The Joint Rural Parishes Submission. As I believe that our alternative proposal provides warding arrangements that support my views (as stated in this letter) and will allow for good electoral equality, provide for effective, convenient and fair local government and representation, while reflecting community identities & links and keeping strong and cohesive communities together.

All of which meets with the LGBCE’s own criteria and its statutory criteria as stated in (the Members Briefing) “….coherent wards with good internal transport links”

I recognise that the Boundary Commission has been challenged with a difficult and complicated task but is committed to taking a balanced and impartial view. In doing so, I believe that the LGBCE can only conclude that our proposal (as mentioned above) is a fair proposal and will agree with our recommendations.

Thank you for taking the time to read my letter, I very much look forward to your reply and to a favorable and positive outcome.

Yours Sincerely Rhonda Job

,

r r

Porter, Johanna

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 August 2014 13:17 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Edenthorpe Ward Boundary Changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: A JOHNSON Sent: 01 August 2014 12:44 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Edenthorpe Ward Boundary Changes

Dear Sirs,

I write to advise of my opposition to the proposal to divide Edenthorpe into two separate member wards.

I feel that this measure will split the community of Edenthorpe which has always been a very closeknit village.

Yours sincerely

Annette Johnson

1

Porter, Johanna

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 July 2014 13:16 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Boundary Changes Invovling Wadworth

From: Robert Jones Sent: 18 July 2014 19:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Changes Invovling Wadworth

My wife and I live at

We have lived at this address for twenty years.

We are writing in support of the Wadworth Parish Council's position that to group Wadworth in a ward with Edlington is incoherent.

We have only ever passed through Edlington. We have never gone there for any specific purpose. We feel no connection to what is a quite distant place on the far side of the M18. We think it likely that most Wadworth residents share these views.

We appreciate that Wadworth children are zoned to go to Edlington School. That is why we found the extra resources needed to send our two children to Wakefield. Our daughter then chose to go to Hayfield for her A‐level years. We imagine that most Wadworth‐based school‐graduates from Edlington have little to do with the place thereafter.

The orientation of Wadworth (Loversall too)is south, towards Tickhill and . This is implicit in the character of the places. Its hard to imagine a Wadworth resident wishing to retire to Edlington.

Any counsillor representing Edlington, Wadworth and Loversall would find themselves with two quite different roles. Is there perhaps a hint of gerrymandering in the air?

This proposal strikes us a ill‐considered and we hope it does not proceed.

Yours sincerely,

Dr and Mrs Bob Jones.

1