Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Elizabeth Agyepong

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am aware that the ward boundaries in Croydon need to change in order to be equipped for current issues and the challenges of the future, taking into account community facilities, major roads, rail and tram infrastructure, green spaces, town and district centres, residents associations and community groups. I am also aware that issues such as the rapid change taking place through the major regeneration and developments in Croydon that would result in approximately 7,000 new homes being built by 2022, the increasing and transient population, the increase in devolved powers to the Council, the changing role of the Council, the decision to devolve more powers to local ward councillors in consultation with local communities through a new area forum model which builds on the success of community ward budgets, the awareness that the severe financial pressures and increased demand for services would lead to an increase in councillor workloads over the next six years, the need to maintain current electoral registration rates and address areas and groups where electoral registration has traditionally been low has resulted in this second stage submission of the Council’s warding proposals in response to the LGBCE consultation. As a resident of Grasmere Road, in the Purley ward, I am concerned about the warding proposal that has just been submitted as I do not identify with many of the proposals. After analyzing the proposals, I was grateful to see that almost the whole of Purley had been included in the proposed two wards and those parts of Kenley which were/are undeniably Purley, are now unified with Purley. The proposal has also taken on board residents views and has shown some respect for Purley and Woodcote residents association’ territory by reuniting Purley with Woodcote. The town centre will also have a well-defined and logical voice. Despite these positives, the proposal leaves Purley town centre on the edge of the ward instead of making it the heart of the ward. Also, a big part of Purley is now located in Kenley ward and the Sanderstead ward is expanded to encroach more on Purley. This is unacceptable as people who see themselves and have always viewed themselves as residents of Purley do not affiliate or indeed define themselves as Kenley residents. I am sure this will be the case for those Sanderstead residents who will now be forced to see themselves as Purley residents. This is because although these neighbourhoods seem to have similar characteristics in that they are suburban and some fall within the green belt, they are very disparate. Also, the residents in each ward/neighbourhood made a conscious decision to move to that particular ward and so we associate ourselves with that ward and we know and love that ward, despite its idiosyncrasies. To be forced into a new ward that you cannot identify with or associate with is abominable, irrespective of the justification. This must not be allowed. As a concerned Purley and Croydon Council resident, I believe a ward should be created for the residents of Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown as they do not seem to belong anywhere. My sister lives in Florence Road, CR2 and she, like her neighbours, tell everyone that they live in Purley Oaks (or Sanderstead, at a push). However, the current proposal puts her road in South Croydon albeit it was previously Purley! I know for sure that she never says she lives in South Croydon and she is fuming at the current proposal! And can anyone blame her? After all, her house is less than three minutes walk from Purley Oaks train station (this station is now included in South Croydon ward despite the residents in the area seeing it as Purley) and five minutes from Sanderstead train station. Her house is over 15 minutes to South Croydon train station and she can never walk there, unlike the other two stations. I believe having a Riddlesdown and Purley Oaks ward rather than the proposed Sanderstead and Riddlesdown ward will match Croydon council’s place making strategy. It is terrible that the proposal splits the area into three wards and maintains the current irrationality of the current wards. Also, it does not respect the place of Purley. A Riddlesdown and Purley Oaks ward will not only show respect to the turf of Riddlesdown residents association, marry all of Riddlesdown as a Purley oriented ward and give it a cohesive voice in its own right on the council but it will also marry the areas of eastern Purley within Purley Oaks. In relation to the proposed Council’s made up wards, having a Coombe ward is illogical as nobody identifies with Coombe as a place. The ward does not only not have a district centre or heart but it includes Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate which should be in Addiscombe and the area to the west of Lloyd Park which is definitely in South Croydon. In terms of the council's place making strategy, this does not exist With regards Croham Hurst, only a few roads around Croham Hurst identify with that as a location but the rest do not. The hilly geography means the rest of the ward has no relationship with Croham Hurst. Related to that, the ward is named after a feature on the opposite side of the valley and the very edge of the ward! It takes in a huge part of the area that clearly associates with Sanderstead including Sanderstead Hill, Sanderstead Road, Sanderstead Plantation and Sanderstead Station. In terms of the council's place making strategy, this does not exist

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded CROYDON – Local Government Boundary Review

Submission by Graham Bass re PURLEY

I write as a long-time resident of Purley – childhood on the Coulsdon/Purley boundary, the last 50 years in Purley proper, bringing up four children, & recently standing down after 20 years as one of its councillors. I continue to be actively involved with many of its organisations including its Residents’ Association, the PWRA

I support a future local ward structure based on the “Place” of Purley, as identified in the current Croydon Local Plan – for the following reasons:

1. Purley is a recognisable Community of residents who are proud to call themselves 'Purleyites', who have 'Purley' addresses, live in roads identified as Purley in the Electoral Register, have a thriving Town Centre & community facilities, such as Hospital, Fire Station, Leisure Centre/Pool.

2. This is precisely why it was designated as one of Croydon’s 16 Places.

3. It spans an area that includes Woodcote/ West Purley, the Town Centre, the Brighton Road from the point at which it leaves Coulsdon at Stoats Nest Road up to South Croydon past Purley Oaks. Eastwards it embraces Riddlesdown. For clear evidence, look to Google, to estate agents’ adverts, &c. & observe common usage

4. This is despite the fact that for well over a decade, as a result of earlier boundary reviews, large chunks of Purley, reaching right up to the very centre of town, have administratively been deemed to be parts of Kenley & Coulsdon. This was resented at the time & has never been accepted by residents. Those who have thus been cut off feel to an extent disenfranchised, to have lost a significant degree of contact & influence over local affairs that matter to them. This has also from time to time got in the way of developing a coherent & consistent voice, of articulating clear views on planning matters &c.- & will become more of an issue in the event of any further devolution of local powers/budgets

5. It has an active & influential residents association, the Purley & Woodcote Residents Association (PWRA)

6. It corresponds to the several Purley Parishes, Christchurch, St Mark's (overlaps Surrey), St Swithin's, St James's, St Barnabas (overlaps Kenley).

7. It has excellent transport links binding together its whole area

8. Clearly this 'Greater Purley', as we often call it, would on a fair shares basis need more than three councillors - presumably five. So it will need to comprise two wards – let us say ‘Purley West’ & ‘Purley East’. (not that names are that important – there’s scope to include familiar old names such as Woodcote & Riddlesdown as ingredients within Purley). The two wards would inevitably co-operate as a sort of super-Branch. Purley West, the larger ward, should include the Town Centre, Woodcote & both sides of Brighton Road to the south. East Purley should embrace Riddlesdown, Brighton Road to the north & Purley Oaks

I am very much opposed to the proposal being put forward by Croydon Council, because

1. It doesn’t observe the community’s natural boundaries. It excludes pretty much the whole of south-east Purley, it continues to have Kenley reaching right up into the town centre. It also ignores the historical fact that Riddlesdown is part of Purley. Residents of these areas consider themselves Purleyites. Purley town centre is where they shop, where they swim, where they look to for urgent health care, &c. It’s their community centre. . 2. It splits the community. After so many years of fragmentation, a rare opportunity would be missed to put Purley properly back together again, with potentially unfortunate ramifications for future parliamentary boundary reviews

3. It leaves out a sizeable part of the area covered by the PWRA. . 4. It claims to align itself with the ”Place”, whereas in fact by a wide margin it doesn’t

Graham Bass 31 Nov 2016 Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Bevington

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Please put Coulsdon back into Surrey!!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Margaret Bird

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am very supportive of aligning wards to actual places which electorate can relate to. With the desire to have wards represented by areas/places , Old Coulsdon , currently known as Coulsdon East ward is a Place between Coulsdon Town ( currently Coulsdon West) and Kenley with the natural boundaries of A23 between Coulsdon West and Coulsdon Manor Golf Course and Coulsdon Commons between Kenley. Residents are very protective of their area. It is currently the largest by area but not by electorate so would be appropriate to reduce to a 2 member ward to enable aligning of other areas but could accommodate some areas currently within Coulsdon West.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Fenella Cardwell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation N

Comment text:

I am asking you to kindly re-consider the proposals regarding the boundary changes proposed by Labour's Council in Croydon. I believe the proposals create a bigger Ward in the north by population than in the south and in so doing creates an electoral imbalance. I live in Shirley North and I think it is not sensible to divide Shirley North in such a way where the border between Addiscombe and Shirley. It would be better to integrate Shirley Park into a Shirley- based ward which should include Shirley Park Road and Oasis Academy Shirley as they are inShirley and not in Addiscombe. If the proposals by Labour go through schools such Edenham, Oasis Academy Shirley and Monks Orchard Primary School would no longer be in Shirley North and divide the community. I am also concerned about much of Shirley Hills being lost to Addington and why this is being proposed. I am very concerned about the proposals by the Labour Council in Croydon. I have been a resident of Croydon for most of my life. I hope my concerns will be taken seriously and re-considered.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded [email protected] Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Commission,

I wish to make a number of comments and suggestions for the review of ward boundaries in the London Borough of Croydon. When the previous review was conducted in 1999, I made a detailed submission with a full set of proposed ward boundaries, but on this occasion it will be more limited. I will concentrate on suggestions about where suitable ward boundaries should be, where they should remain, and (in some cases) where they should not be or where existing boundaries should be removed.

Since 2002, Croydon has had almost entirely 3-member wards (with the exception of New Addington & Fieldway). This has resulted in some areas where the electoral quota for 3-member wards took precedence over community identity, and communities have not matched up with ward boundaries. Under the previous set of ward boundaries (1978 to 2002) there was a mixture of 2-member and 3-member wards, and there was more flexibility in being able to match different sized wards with local communities.

I believe that it would be appropriate and desirable to return to a mixture of 2-member and 3-member wards. I do not, however, believe that it would be appropriate for there to be any 1-member wards (as there are now in some London boroughs where recent reviews have taken place). There are no areas in Croydon where the community identity would be exceptional enough to justify having an isolated single-member ward. Alternately, I would support a scheme of having single-member wards for the whole borough, but only if there were no 2- or 3-member wards. In other words, single-member wards should be either universal or non-existent, but not anywhere in between.

I have not considered the electorates of the existing wards and polling districts in as much detail as I did in 1999, but in more general terms, the facts are approximately as follows:

1. The northern areas of Croydon deserve to have about 1 or 2 more councillors than at present; 2. The southern areas deserve to have 1 or 2 councillors fewer than at present; 3. There is likely to be growth in electorate particularly in the town centre area of Fairfield & Broad Green; 4. The eastern wards are where there is the worst disconnection between existing ward boundaries and local communities.

To assist the Commission, I wish to suggest some ideas in the form of maps. These maps include several suggestions which should not be taken as a whole, but as a list of possibilities which the Commission might consider and from which it might select suitable options. I am aware that the LGBCE has more detailed statistics than I do on the electorates of each area, so my aim is to provide local knowledge about local ties and communities.

As a caveat, I should say that my knowledge of Croydon Central is more detailed than that of the southern and northern areas. My lack of suggestions for some areas (particularly the southern wards) should not be taken as an undiluted endorsement of the status quo.

Map 1: Places where it would be suitable to have ward boundaries where they do not exist currently:

A suitable way to increase the number of councillors in the northern part of Croydon might be to return to a version of the 1978-2002 boundaries, by re-creating two 2-member wards (in place of the current 3-member words) in the area of Upper Norwood. The northern half used to be Upper Norwood and the southern half of Upper Norwood used to be Beulah ward. Alternately, or even additionally, a suitable adjustment would be to recreate the former two 2-member wards of Woodside and Rylands, which were the south- western and north-eastern parts of what is now Woodside.

A. and B. The north-eastern parts of Norbury could be transferred to Upper Norwood in order to facilitate the transformation of Upper Norwood into two 2-member wards. C. The boundary between Upper Norwood and South Norwood used to be Church Road, and there was considerable upset in 1999 when the ward boundary was shifted northwards in order to achieve electoral equality. Upper Norwood could be extended back to Church Road for the same abovementioned reason. D. The railway line is a suitable boundary and might facilitate dividing Woodside into two 2-member wards. E. The north-west edges of AS2 and AS1 are distinct communities, somewhat separate from the rest of Ashburton ward, and would also be suitable to be included in an expanded Woodside ward (i.e. a recreated 2-member Rylands ward). F. The north-east part of Ashburton ward is actually part of Shirley community. The current Shirley ward is only the central part of Shirley community. If the community of Shirley matched the ward boundaries, it would have 4 or 5 councillors and would thus be divided into a Shirley North ward and a Shirley South ward (with the boundary between the two along Addiscombe Rd, Shirley Rd and Wickham Rd). From 1978 to 2002 these 2-member wards were called “Monks Orchard” and “Spring Park” but I would prefer “Shirley North” and “Shirley South”. This might mean reducing Ashburton to its former smaller size as a 2-member ward. G. The Shirley Avenue area was included in Heathfield ward in the 1999 review, for reasons of electoral numbers. It would be better to have the border along the Wickham road and thus that area in Shirley North. H. The shopping area is an integral part of the town centre on both sides of North End. The Centrale shopping centre (on the west side of North End) and the shops (along the north side of Crown Hill / Church Street) are just as much part of the town centre as is the Whitgift shopping centre (on the east side of North End. It is simply not logical for the ward boundary to go along North End and Church Street. That small triangular area was included in Broad Green ward in the 1999 review for purely numerical reasons. The ward boundary should be returned to the railway line which currently bisects BG5. J. Wickham Road would be a suitable boundary between any version of Shirley North and Shirley South wards, as it was from 1978 to 2002. K. If it is necessary to split the current Fairfield ward, or to allow for future substantial growth in the electorate, then the railway line would be a suitable place to make the division. L. The existing Heathfield ward is not a community at all; it is a collection of left-over bits which were left after all the other wards had been constructed. It would be completely appropriate to abolish Heathfield ward completely, and to allocate its contents to other surrounding wards. HE1 and HE2 should become part of Shirley South. M. In order to deal with the large electorate of the town centre, it might be suitable to create a 2-member Waddon North ward, which would include WA1 and WA2, as well as BG7 and possibly FA3 and FA4. I have stood as a candidate in local elections in Fairfield ward and Waddon ward, and my experience from that is that there is a continuity between the northen parts of Waddon, and the western parts of Fairfield, in terms of community, demography and similar types of housing. N. Most of CR2 (and the northern small bit of CR1) were in Fairfield ward from 1978 to 2002. It might be suitable to return the Fairfield/Croham ward boundary to Croham Road instead of Coombe Road. If the town centre is cut off by the railway, it may become appropriate to create a 2-member ward for the eastern half of what is now Fairfield ward, and the northern part of what is now Croham ward. A suitable name would be “Park Hill”. P. SB1 used to be in Heathfield ward. If it is necessary to adjust the boundaries of Selsdon & Ballards ward, it could be moved back. Q. There is a continuity between the Forestdale and Monks Hill area of Heathfield ward and the community in Selsdon. If the electoral numbers require it, there could be a “Selsdon & Forestdale” ward or a “Selsdon & Monks Hill” ward. I am aware that some of these ideas are mutually exclusive (they would not all work together as a whole) so should be taken as a buffet menu, not as a single dish. If Heathfield ward is to abolished, Addington village would have to go somewhere; it would be better for it to be included in Shirley South, and it should not be included in Fieldway. Do not get misled by the similarity of the names “Addington Village” and “New Addington”; they are as different from each other as North Korea and South Korea are.

Map 2: Places where it would be suitable to get rid of ward boundaries where they currently exist:

My comments in this section do not need to be as detailed as in part 1, because there would be a lot of duplication.

A. There is a continuity of community between Upper Norwood ward and the northern part of South Norwood ward. B. There is a continuity of the South Norwood community going into Woodside ward. The ward boundary could be shifted northwards (to the railway) or southwards if needed. C. The current ward boundary splits the northern half of Shirley community between Ashburton and Shirley wards. D. and E. The current ward boundary splits the southern half of Shirley community between Shirley and Heathfield wards. F. The current ward boundary splits the town centre shopping area between Fairfield and Broad Green wards. G. There is a continuity between Selsdon and Forestdale. H. In the 1999 review, Selsdon, Sanderstead and Kenley wards were each expanded northwards, and each changed from a 2-member ward to a 3-member ward. The northern boundaries of Sanderstead ward would be suitable for further expansion into areas which are part of the Sanderstead community, if Sanderstead need to be expanded to become two 2-member wards. J. Similarly, the current ward boundary between Kenley and Purley wards is somewhat arbitrary.

To put it another way, the current boundaries between Coulsdon East, Kenley, Sanderstead and Seldsdon are natural and in alignment with hills and valleys. Any changes in their boundaries would ideally be in the northwest direction (expanding or contracting accordingly).

Map 3: Places where the existing ward boundaries are particularly suitable and should be kept:

A. The railway line between Thornton Heath and Bensham Manor. B. The railway line between Addiscombe / Woodside and Fairfield / Selhurst / South Norwood. The geographical disconnect is particularly significant at the eastern edge of Selhurst ward. C. and D. Addiscombe Road, between Addiscombe ward and Fairfield ward. Both wards look towards the town centre for connections, shopping, commuting etc., but not to each other. E. New Addington and Fieldway wards are geographically completely separate from the rest of Croydon. They are surrounded by valleys and hills, and there is only one road going in and out. Fairfield and New Addington must be kept as two 2-member wards. (This is the most important fact

of the whole Croydon review.)

Map 4: The previous boundaries (1978 to 2002) and places where they would be particularly suitable to be restored: Postscript: How Heathfield ward should be abolished: HE1 and HE2 should be part of a “Shirley South” ward. HE3 (including Addington Village) is too small for a ward of its own, and can’t be included in Fieldway ward, so it should ideally be in Shirley South as well. The ward could be called “Shirley Hills” rather than “Shirley South”. HE4, HE5, HE6 and HE7 should form the basis of a “Forestdale” ward on its own or could be combined with Selsdon to be a “Selsdon & Forestdale” ward. HE4 (Monks Hill) has its own distinct character, and could be separate from HE5, HE6 and HE7. If it is necessary, Selsdon could be split into two 2-member wards (or one with 2 and one with 3) on a northwest / southeast basis, with the northern bit combined with HE4 and SB1, and the southern bit combined with HE5, HE6 and HE7.

Here endeth my submission for the first stage of the consultation.

John Cartwright (Croydon)

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Alessia Cesana

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of Waddon ward I have some concerns about the council's proposed new boundaries for the area. The proposal makes no sense both from a geographical point of view and with an eye to the local community. The first thing I've noticed when moving to Croydon is that people always refer to where they live by their specific area, so there is a strong sense of local identity. The council doesn't seem to take this into account, since their proposal ignores a number of impermeable potential boundaries in the landscape. This appears very clear from the inclusion of the Old Town both sides of Roman Way, which is a two-lanes, high speed road that takes about 10 minutes to cross by foot. It clearly marks a separation between the more urban town centre and the more residential suburb that is Waddon. The council's proposal seems to take very arbitrary views of what are or aren't boundaries on the ground, and it infringes on the centre significantly beyond what is reasonable. Having a clear divide with recognisable landmarks gives a definite sense of where I live and who my neighbours are, and the council proposal includes the New South Quarter but excludes Wandle Park and Cornwall and Theobald roads next to it, turning them into oddly situated parts of Broad Green. The area as it is in the current boundaries gives a clear divide in the north of the ward, with the industrial area immediately next to it. It is my opinion that it is possible to redraw the boundaries for Waddon to meet the requirements of the commission matching the place as it's been historically, by keeping the current ward in mind when looking at what needs to change, not as an abstraction made of lines on a map but as a real place where people live, with community-focused institutions (for example the Roman Catholic deanery of Croydon has four parishes for the postcodes CR0, one being the parish of St Dominic's in Waddon, while the Old Town on the centre's side of Roman Way is under the one of Our Lady of Reparation in West Croydon, but the council would bring them together in the same ward) and recognisable landmarks.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Mario Creatura

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Na

Comment text:

I’m writing in my capacity as a resident of Croydon Town Centre, where I have lived for the past four years. I am also a Councillor for the current ward of Coulsdon West, for which I have submitted a separate response to this consultation. If we take the Council’s bi-partisan approved ‘Places of Croydon’ as a starting point for identifying warding patterns, then the Town Centre (or Croydon Opportunity Area as it’s called in the Places) has a large overlapping outer edge. Given the size of the potential development over the next few years, it’s right that this should be sized to give a three-member ward. The North End road and London Road forms a natural boundary to the west and the railway line from East Croydon forms a logical eastern one. If we assume that South Croydon’s widely advertised Restaurant Quarter should sit within ‘South Croydon’ (indeed it’s on ‘South End’ the road) then that would clearly define the southern boundary of the ‘Town Centre’ ward. Lower Addiscombe Road makes a sensible northern boundary and would almost certainly give the future population projects within the area to keep the ward a three-member one. The Council’s proposal ignores Roman Way as an obvious dividing natural barrier – it’s a huge 3-lane highway that can only be crossed by pedestrians at a few defined crossing-points. This severely restricts east-west movement and thus the potential for the community of Old Town to be truly seen as one. Whilst it may have been in the fifties, it certainly isn’t now. The decision by the Council to include eastern Old Town (where I live) in their ‘Waddon’ ward restricts the Town Centre ward to being just a two- member ward. Given the GLA population projections estimate that this should be approaching 150% population increase over the next few decades, this doesn’t seem logical to me and decidedly short-term in its thinking. As an Old Town resident, with the Roman Way boundary to my back, I see a much more logical affinity to the Town Centre to my front than to ‘Waddon’ to my practically impermeable rear.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Rachel Cummings

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived on the Monk's Hill estate for 20 years now and raised 2 children here. Having seen the council's warding plan I thought I had to make a couple of comments about how Monk's Hill connects to the local area around it. We have a bus that runs around the estate and goes up to Selsdon high street and down towards Addington Village. I attend a church in Selsdon and shop there regularly at Sainsburys. My children both went to Selsdon Primary School and now they are at secondary use the interchange at Addington Village. So it was quite a surprise to see Monk's Hill being linked to Forestdale and not to Selsdon. I very much think that we have more links to Selsdon or Addington Village than to Forestdale. We also have a footpath and the trail through the woods that connect the estate to Ballards or conker alley that runs down to the tram stop at Gravel Hill. Please can we be placed in a ward with the close places we visit regularly.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Davis

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: None

Comment text:

We live in Coulsdon West Ward and have been resident in the South Croydon area since 1984. We have read the Croydon Council proposals for new wards, and feel they are over stating the local government electorate increase by 2022. The U.K. Leaving the EU and very high property prices and rents in the north of the borough will reduce the population increase to no more than 2%. Also the Council's own report says the north of the borough population will be increasingly transient so many eligible to vote will be unlikely to do so. It is important to respect local communities and their organisations in warding proposals . In the proposals for Purley it is vital that the town centre remains at its heart which in terms of transport and geography it is. We cannot see why a large part of Purley in the Council's proposals is put into Kenley Ward and Sanderstead Ward expanded into Purley. A Purley and Woodcote Ward would re unite Purley and Woodcote. A Ward based on Coulsdon Town would give the ward a heart and centre. Whereas Old Coulsdon is a distinct local area and should be a ward in itself.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Sarah Davis

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I grew up in Croydon and have a been a resident of Old Town in Fairfield ward for two years. I have read about the council proposals for my ward and am very worried about creating a tiny ward that splits our historic Old Town area just at a time when large number of people are moving into new blocks, and the progress made since the riots at Reeve's Corner is so fragile. It will be a huge change from previous elections and will make it difficult to get help from councillors and residents associations for the issues we have in Old Town and Surrey Street. I think that a larger ward that corresponds with Croydon's actual geography would help to build community and assimilate people rather than giving them a tiny ward on their own. I also understand that with population projections, we could need to change boundaries again in 2020, why not just do so now and create a ward that actual matches the town centre and retains Old Town as a meaningful area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Fredeic Demay

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

Dear LGB Commission, I would like to contest the new boundary proposal put forward by the current Croydon Council Administration. To assist with my feedback, I have partitioned it per wards and key point which I hope will help. Coulsdon Town Their proposal appears to be Chaldon Way and other roads with Coulsdon town centre when in fact they belong, like neighbouring streets within Old Coulsdon where it is set at present. Old Coulsdon The Council Administration’s proposal seems to have omitted huge parts of Hartley which are part of Kenley. This wouldn’t respect Croydon’s natural places along its complete western boundary. We should maintain the current border with Kenley, where Coulsdon East could get bigger or be reduced to 2 councillors Purley & Woodcote Their proposal is relocating a colossal portion of Purley in Kenley ward, extends Sanderstead ward well within Purley, leaving Purley town centre right on the edge of the ward instead positioning at the heart of it. It also doesn’t align with the local residents associations boundaries. Purley and its Town Centre should be the place contained within the two Purley wards, giving its Town Centre a rational position, respecting Resident Associations zones and unifies Purley with Woodcote, and making parts of Kenley which are really Purley, reunited with Purley. Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks It would divide the area into three wards, strengthening the currently odd alignment of the current wards and would not respect the positioning of Purley. It should provide Riddlesdown as a Purley-like oriented ward, giving it a cohesive voice in its own right on the council, while respecting the Residents Associations boundaries. Sanderstead It strongly deviates by going even further into Purley, splitting the ward at the main roundabout are partitioning large areas and relocating them in other wards. It also doesn’t align with current Residents Association’s boundaries. Ideally it should reunite previously separated parts of upper Croham, Selsdon&Ballards, as well as containing Sanderstead Rail Station which isn’t the case at present. Selsdon South & Forestdale It separates Forestdale and Selsdon, but links Ballards with the Bird estate, for which which it has nothing in common. It also splits Monks Hill from its district centre, which doesn’t make any sense at all. It should instead, drop part of SB2 where residents identify themselves as being part of Sanderstead and link the Bird estate with Forestdale. These areas are of similar construction period with significant commonality with a transport link going through (433 bus route). Forestdale should reunite with the district centre of Selsdon as most of Forestdale residents identify themselves living in Selsdon. Ballards & Addington Village Their proposal continues to produce a ward made out of several chunks which have little in common and extensively separated to each other, similarly to Heathfield. Furthermore it separates Monks Hill and Forestdale from their respective district centres, putting Forestdale in Addington which most residents would argue they are not. There are no evident links between Monk's Hill and Forestdale, where people live on the estates and travel out to the local shops or go to work. There isn’t connection between the two and the bus route (359 bus) links Monk's Hill, Selsdon and Addington, but does not go to Forestdale. It would be a better fit for Addington and Addington Village to be linked to the Selsdon district centre and Ballards, due to its western approach/connection to Selsdon. Also, most of Monk’s Hill children would attend Selsdon Primary School and it links through Bramley Bank and the footparth to Croham Valley Road to Ballards. New Addington North and South New Addington is a distinct community in itself and cannot be concatenated with other bits of other wards. The current boundary seems illogical in part with the Boots Estate being in Fieldway and Kestrel Way in New Addington. Shirley South The Council proposal surrenders most of Shirley Hills to Addington; instead it should consider joining the Shirley areas in creating a single ward totalling 5 members. This would create a single community and be in line with both Resident associations (SPRA & Spring Park) and keep all the shrub lands within the same ward. Shirley North It is a very clearly defined ward and well- marked boundaries with 2 main roads, the borough boundary and a railway line. Integration of Shirley Park back into a Shirley-based ward would be very sensible, up to the Trinity roundabout. It should retain long Lane instead of placing into Addiscombe. These estates are on Long Lane east of Oasis Shirley Park and have no genuine connection with Addiscombe. If anything they look to Elmers End or even Beckenham/Bromley for shopping but have nothing in common with Addiscombe. Long Lane connection with Shirley is much less questionable than their connection with Addiscombe. The Glade, part of Shirley, comes out in the middle of these estates and are cut off from Addiscombe by Oasis Shirley Park as well as various green spaces, and from Woodside by a well-defined railway line. Shirley North should include Shirley Road, Shirley Park Road and Oasis Academy Shirley Park because these are all in Shirley and not in Addiscombe. It includes the Schools that the children from Shirley North as well as the Long Lane estate attend, including Edenham, Oasis Shirley Park and Monk's Orchard Primary. Addiscombe East The Council proposal seems to have omitted the Whitgift Estate, putting it instead in a made up area called coombe. There isn’t such a place called ‘Coombe’. It also links the borough’s eastern border with another one just a few minutes’ walk from East Croydon Station. This is very much Central Croydon. Instead it should respect the already defined places of Addiscombe, but not Long Lane which is part of Shirley. It should take in the Whitgift Estate which is in the place of Addiscombe, borders Addiscombe Road and where resident would identify themselves as part of Addiscombe. It should also include the part of Addiscombe which isn’t defined to be as walking distance from East Croydon Station. It should also respect the existing places marking the boundary between Woodside and Addiscombe. Addiscombe West & Park Hill The Council proposal does not respect the border with Woodside and excludes Park Hill by putting it in a made up ward called Coombe. South Croydon The Council proposal splits South Croydon between five wards (3 large and 2 small wards) and appears to integrate a large part of what is Central Croydon. It includes Purley Oaks Station which sees itself as being part of Purley. Waddon The Council proposal the Old Town both sides of the hard divide of Roman Way, ignoring a number of impermeable potential boundaries. It oddly excludes Wandle Park, Cornwall and Theobald Roads which are an integral part of Waddon. Instead it should follow the current ward boundaries in the exception of some of the roads around Whitgift School. It should include Wandle Park and the new South Quarter to give it a rational northern boundary with the industrial zone. Croydon Town Centre Council proposal gives a miniscule two member ward and overlooks a substantial portion clearly identified as town centre on the map; it also cuts Old Town in two and not even along hard boundaries. This is the most vibrant area of the borough, yet with the widest vague boundaries. It would greatly benefit making it a larger three member ward, joining East and West Croydon Stations and the whole of the tram loop. This ward should coincide and include the areas identified as Key places as the town centre in the maps. Croydon North The Council proposal appears to split Norbury and several places and Thornton Heath is poorly aligned. Thornton Heath North somehow strays into Norbury, while South Norwood strays into Upper Norwood and Woodside into Addiscombe. It should instead respect the areas of South Norwood and Woodside with a coherent boundary, as well as Crystal Palace, Upper Norwood and Norbury. It should align with current Residents Associations and hard boundaries like the railway lines. Council proposed new wards Coombe I don’t know anyone that identifies such a thing as Coombe place. It comprises of Park Hill and Whitgift Estate which should be within Addiscombe and the area west of Lloyd Park which should clearly be South Croydon. This made up ward has no district centre or core point, and it does not exist in the Council's place strategy. Croham Hurst There are only a few roads around Croham Hurst as a location but the rest doesn’t align. The hilly geography means the rest of the ward has no relationship with Croham Hurst and instead it takes a vast amount of the area which is strongly identified with Sanderstead, including Sanderstead Hill, Sanderstead Road, Sanderstead Plantation and Sanderstead Rail Station. This also doesn’t exist in the council's place strategy. Thank you for your considerations with the above comments. Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded putting integral parts of Sanderstead into this ward, including Sanderstead Hill, Sanderstead Road, Sanderstand Plantation and Sanderstead station.

In respect of Sanderstead station, I have always thought it odd that Sanderstead station is in Croham. This is illogical, and Sanderstead Station must be located within Sanderstead ward. This would also ensure that the active Sanderstead Residents Association‘s definition of the village boundaries is properly respected.

Riddlesdown is a small area, which has its own distinct character from both Purley and Sanderstead. The majority of local residents would, however affiliate themselves more closely with Purley and it is easier for them to access shops and other services in Purley as opposed to Sanderstead.

The Council’s proposed ‘Sanderstead and Riddlesdown’ ward therefore makes little sense, and would only add to the current confusion which local residents currently face.

I would, however be inclined to support a two‐member ‘Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown’ ward, which would unite all of Riddlesdown, and ensure that it remains a Purley‐oriented ward. This could include the eastern part of Purley ward, including parts of Purley Downs Road.

Under the Council’s proposal, Purley ward would see its character completely changed, with bits of Sanderstead in Purley and bits of Purley in Kenley. This would create confusion an disquiet amongst residents as to whom their councillors are. The proposal also differs from the areas which the Purley and Woodcote Residents Association represent.

Many Coulsdon West residents have CR8 postcodes and think of themselves as living in Purley as opposed to Coulsdon (a town which has its own unique identity and character). I would therefore welcome the bringing in of many of these areas into Purley. This includes roads such as Woodcote Valley Road, Copse Hill and Smithambotton Lane. This would also ensure that the turf of the Purley and Woodcote Residents Association is suitably respected, and ensure that Purley community landmarks, including the Purley Fire Station form part of Purley ward.

Similarly, there are areas that are currently in Kenley ward, which should really be in Purley. They write Purley on their post, have CR8 postcodes and identify closely with Purley and the amenities that the town offers. This includes roads like Beaumont Road, Higher Drive and Reedham Drive.

In summary, Purley ward, with the town centre at its heart, with Woodcote and parts of the current Kenley ward united with it, would make it more identifiable and reflective of its character.

I disapprove of the Council’s proposal to include Purley Oaks station in South Croydon ward. I live a few minutes walk from this station and I, along with my neighbours would say that the station is located in Purley as opposed to South Croydon. I would favour a South Croydon ward including South Croydon station. Whilst I welcome that the Council’s proposal includes this, I worry that their current plan splits the area of South Croydon between five wards.

I very much hope that my comments are taken on‐board and I look forward to hearing further details about the Commission’s proposals in due course.

Yours faithfully,

Samir Dwesar

2 Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Donald Ekekhomen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am a bit worried as to the essence of this exercise . What the proposal does it to split communities that have always identified with itself and worked together successfully. The proposed boundary creation has a large number f defective approaches to it. It considers the inclusion of a lot of places and sections within the purely territory as south Croydon. One would think that is the reason they were called purely in the first instance. Purely oaks station immediately comes to mind as the council proposal wants it be grouped with the south Croydon area. It is in purely hence the name purely oaks station. There is also the issue that the wards are so dysfunctional and dissimilar in size. It just creates two minute wards and three large sized wards that opens up the dysfunctional size and irrationality of the creation which defeats the initial purpose of the boundary recreation.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Graeme Fillmore

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: none

Comment text:

I have been a resident of Shirley for 18 years and in Addiscombe for 9 years before that. The proposed changes to Shirley and Addiscombe do not make sense. Shirley should be divided logically into north and south, divided roughly by the Wickham Road A232 being a logical border between the new areas. Please see attached map to explain. Shirley South would be geographically larger as it includes a lot of green space around the current Shirley Park golf course. This alternative proposal clearly defines Shirley with very defined boundaries and integrates Shirley Park back into a Shirley-based ward. This shape looks more logical and includes the respected territories of the local residents associations (MORA and SPRA). The area to the north-east of The Glade around Long Lane is more logically placed in Shirley than Addiscombe as it is closer to Elmers End or Norwood. The proposed Shirley North ward includes Shirley Road, Shirley Park Road and Oasis Academy Shirley Park - these are all logically in Shirley and not in Addiscombe The Shirley schools it within the ward, i.e: Edenham, Oasis Shirley Park, Monk's Orchard Primary. The changes should respects the natural and logical border between places of Addiscombe and Shirley as they appear on the map in the way that I have proposed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Lara Fish

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

Dear Boundary Commission Apologies if this isn't very well written but I only became aware that there was a review of the local boundaries very recently. I knew about the national review but this has come as a bit of a surprise! Anyway, I thought I would pass on my opinions and you can do with them as you wish. I have lived in New Addington for a number of years now and work on the railways so I know a reasonable amount about our local area. 1. In New Addington we have had 2 councillor wards for quite a few years now and they work fine and I'm aware that the rest of Croydon has had 3 member ward and that they seem to work equally well but I would be against any 1 member wards. I think it is always good for residents to have a choice of councillor and more than one set of eyes and opinions on any given area. 2. I've never understood why Wolsey Crescent is in Fieldway! 3. New Addington is a community in itself and whilst a part of Croydon has it's own particular needs and issues and as such I would hope that, as now, it has dedicated representation. 4. On Croydon generally I think it's important that we have wards that connect with where people think they live. I live in New Addington and my ward is called New Addington. I have friends who live in Selsdon (Forestdale) but are in a ward called Heathfield, they've never understood that! Please can we have wards that represent how real people think, like New Addington, Selsdon, Shirley, Sanderstead, Purley, Addiscombe, Woodside, etc. No more silly made up places please! Thank you! Lara

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: ANTHONY HARRIS

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Croydon all my 78 years and have seen a steady decline in the involvement of local people in local issues. I have been a Community Worker for 58 of those years and a Councillor for Waddon Ward, in which I have lived since 1976, from 2006-2014. Since the introduction of the Cabinet system the voice of people have been ignored with Cabinet Members making decisions without genuine consultations and without even telling people until after the decision is made. Local Residents Associations have folded up as they have lost their importance as they are ignored. Local Forums and Consultations no longer take place as people see them as 'being told what has happened and what will happen' with no meaningful discussion being taken into account. I believe the number of Councillors should be cut as every other front line service has been cut. The cost of the 70 Councillors cannot be justified when the employees that do the work have been reduced considerably due to new technowlogy and working practices. The same IT services have been incorporated into the Councillors proceedures and the use of smart phones has considerably reduced time spent on casework. With the number of Directors and Departments reduced there is no need for so many Cabinet Members and their Deputies. Despite no longer being a Councillor I still have residents coming to me saying they are getting no answers to their phone calls and no phoning back. When a Councillor a Senior Council Officer said to me just before the 2014 Election 'you can tell when an election is coming up Councillors you have hardly ever heard of suddenly become active with case work enquiries'. As Deputy Mayor I was able to watch from the dias Councillors reading newspapers and other things, then there was the well publicised case of two senior Councillors watching a football match on a tablet whilst the Council was debating the Councils Draft Budget. Regarding my Waddon Ward. I don't think there is much to change as there are natural boundaries around it. To the west you have the Sutton Boundary, to the north it could be extended to take in the New South Quarter(all on it's own on Purley Way) Wandle Park and Cornwall, Theobald, Cuthbert and Westfield Roads(the A236 and the industrial estates forming the natural boundary). To the east you have the A236 dual carriageway forming the natural boundary with the Southbridge Road continuation of it and the Brighton Road. To the South you have the natural boundary of the Purley Way Playing Fields and the Allotments. Wherever possible Communities that have their own identity should be retained in an effort to encourage people to get together to do things for themselves. This is made difficult if it is divided between different Councillors of different persuasions which of course have their own different agendas. With turnout for elections remaining low every effort should be made to make it as easy and convenient for voters to vote. This includes modern IT systems but it should not be forgotten that we have a growing elderly population many of which are not into IT, don't trust postal voting and like to visit the Polling Station. As a Presiding Officer for 25 years, before getting involved in the politics, I had many elderly that asked for explanations as to who the candidates were and what they represented. Some have sight impairment and needed a little help.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Colin Hart

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

With regard to the redrawing of the ward boundaries in Croydon, I would like to comment specifically upon the proposals relating to "Shirley South" within which my wife and I live. Generally speaking I think it would be sensible for all wards to conform as far as possible to the 2011 Places of Croydon document and with this in mind I believe it would be wrong to cede much of Shirley Hills to Addington. In the circumstances, perhaps I could ask the Boundary Commission to consider this aspect most carefully.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Simon Hoar

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

The Croydon local government boundaries review should be based principally upon the 16 areas of the London Borough of Croydon that the Council established in 2011. This document is a very sensible plan for the borough that had cross party support and was developed in conjunction with Councillors from both principle political parties represented amongst the elected members. There were a number of workshops held and the ones that I attended all included Labour Councillors, including the current Deputy Leader of the Council who played a very active and constructive part in developing the 16 places strategy. My focus is upon the areas I am most familiar with through having lived in the borough my whole life and through my eight years of experience as a Waddon Councillor. I will also address failings of the Council submission that does not respect historical areas of the borough and fails to consider the existing 16 areas plan already established by the same Council policies and which creates a number of new areas that are either so small they could not possibly form a Council ward or are just fictitious as recognised areas of the borough amongst the residents. I am particularly concerned that a large part of the Council’s submission is contrary to the Commissions second and third statutory criteria i.e. they fail to respect community identity or the creation of coherent wards respected by firm boundaries. Waddon – My knowledge of this area and the opinions of the residents on where they live stem from eight years as a Waddon Councillor. The Council’s submission for the Waddon area is partially sensible but fails to address all that it could. Waddon area has a very hard northern boundary to the north of New South Quarter (a recent development on the old Gas Works site) and Wandle Park due to the industrial and retail land beyond. The local papers already refer to these areas as being Waddon and to include them in Waddon ward rather than the current Broad Green ward is a sensible development. The small area of Cromwell, Theobalds, Cuthbert and Westfield Roads should also be in Waddon as they too are cut off from the rest of Broad Green’s residential roads by the industrial area along Factory Lane. This forms a natural northern boundary to Waddon ward and should be respected, so it is a little strange that the Council’s submission fails to recognise this obvious boundary. To the east of the ward the eight lane highway of Old Town/ Roman Way cut the Waddon side very definitely away from central Croydon. This is a massive barrier that gets in the way of taking a ward across it. For the Council to suggest a ward crossing such a large natural obstruction smacks more of political expediency than rational communities. Residents to the east of the highway are central Croydon residents and close to the Croydon Minster. To the west of the highway is far more residential and blends towards the roads surrounding the A23. Old Town/ Roman Way forms a hard boundary that no practical ward could cross and still be coherent. Further to the south Waddon and Fairfield are currently separated by Southbridge Road and that is a busy barrier road to use between the two and could be retained as a familiar boundary long established between Waddon and the town centre. To further breach that boundary to the east risks further taking central Croydon residents into an area unfamiliar to them. South Croydon - The residents along Pampisford Road and into Haling Park Road consider themselves to be more South Croydon or Purley not Waddon ward, particularly the further south one travels along Pampisford Road and should be incorporated as such along a convenient line that allows for ward sizing to work within tolerances. South of the Kendra Hall Road junction where Harris Purley is located particularly considered themselves to be more Purley than anything else and their focus is towards Purley centre than to South Croydon. South Croydon as a whole takes in a large area to either side of the river valley that forms the Brighton Road but predominantly to the east (to the west the Haling Park estate was developed in Waddon with a few roads (above) considering themselves more South Croydon. To the east, residents as far as Croham Valley Road and Croham Hurst would consider themselves to be in South Croydon. This is a historically recognised area of Croydon that form the first developments between Croydon and Purley and pre-dated the push up the hill towards Selsdon that Costains started in the 1920s. Facilities such as South Croydon Sports Club sit within this area as does South Croydon station. The Council’s submission excludes areas that consider themselves South Croydon and creates fictional wards of Coombe and Croham Hurst. Croham Hurst is an area of woodland with an Iron Age hill fort but zero residents in the area would consider themselves as living there. Those residents live in South Croydon as an area so the Council proposal fails to respect place, fails to respect the 16 areas of Croydon document and creates an illogical boundary alongside roads rather than using the main arterial roads as natural boundaries. The proposed Coombe ward is also odd as there is a road with the name but nothing else, no area, no district centre and no residents who would consider that they live in Coombe. This proposal takes in areas that are really either the town centre or South Croydon. Proposing the Coombe ward is an attempt to create and amalgam of unrelated areas as a means to fit in other wards more related to the political expediency mentioned above with Waddon. Purley – The Council proposal is an improvement on the current wards that see Coulsdon West run all the way up to Purley town centre. Where they fail is in recognising that the size of Purley should justify two dedicated wards rather than spreading bits of Purley into four wards and breaking up the natural area that considers itself to be in Purley whilst letting the edges of the Purley area be swallowed by the surrounding wards that make up the majority. The Council proposal ignores taking Purley Oaks and the Riddlesdown area that has a Purley post code into a Purley based ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Maggie Jackson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I attach my letter of representation regarding Warding Pattern for the Shirley area of the London Borough of Croydon

Uploaded Documents:

Download

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Gisela James

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

By way of background: I have lived in five different houses in Purley and Kenley wards for the last 25 years. My submission takes as its starting point the Places of Croydon which are clearly identified in the Borough’s planning documentation, most recently in the Local Plan review for which consultation only ended on 17 October 2016. The Places as defined in the Local Plan are accepted without demur by both political parties, so it makes absolute sense to base the mapping of ward boundaries on the boundaries of these defined Places. I’d like the place of Purley to be represented in its entirety by two wards as on the attached map “Purley Ward map v1”: Purley & Woodcote (West Purley), and Purley Oaks & Riddlesdown (East Purley). More detail is provided below: Purley & Woodcote (West Purley) The name Purley & Woodcote is the former name of this area before the last re-organisation; it also features in the name of the Purley & Woodcote Residents’ Association (PWRA - of which I am a committee member); this has a long and honourable association with the place of Purley. There are several advantages to having a single three member ward covering the west of Purley: • Unlike the current ward distribution, virtually the whole of the place of Purley would be contained within the two Purley wards • The Purley District Centre, which is also the funding base for the newly formed Purley Business Improvement District, would have a single coherent voice and councillor representation, unlike the current setup, in which Coulsdon West & Kenley intrude almost into the town centre • The attached warding design fully respects PWRA territory and properly reunites Purley with Woodcote; at present part of the area known as Woodcote resides in Coulsdon West Ward, even though its postal address is still Purley. • There is currently a large area of what residents & Royal Mail consider to be Purley (mainly Higher Drive and its offshoots and both sides of the Brighton Road South of Tesco) which reside in Coulsdon West & Kenley Wards. This proposal would re-unite nearly all of these residents with Purley, so that the Place of Purley overlaps very well with the proposed ward(s) of Purley. By contrast, I note that the Council’s submission has the following disadvantages: • Even more of what the Local Plan, residents and Royal Mail all consider to be Purley is moved into Kenley ward, contrary to the wishes of the local residents • Parts of what residents consider to be Purley are already in Sanderstead Ward such as Purley Beeches and the surrounding streets; the Council’s submission aggravates this situation and does not respect the fundamental importance of the Place of Purley. • Bizarrely, this proposal leaves Purley town centre and the Purley BID area right on the edge of the ward instead of at its heart where it should be. • This proposal completely ignores the current boundaries of the PWRA and neighbouring RAs such as KENDRA and the very active Riddlesdown Residents’ Association (RRA). Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks (the Eastern area of the Place of Purley) This is proposed as a smaller two-seat ward so that in aggregate the two Purley wards have five seats, very closely reflecting the optimum size. The advantages of this proposed ward are as follows: • When considered in conjunction with the proposed Purley & Woodcote ward above, the two wards almost perfectly overlap with the Local Plan Place of Purley and with Royal Mail’s definition of Purley. • This proposal unites the whole area known as Riddlesdown with the eastern part of Purley, giving it a strong voice on the council • This proposal roughly incorporates the current area of the RRA, and the ward name also incorporates the familiar name of the area. • This proposal also unites under the Purley Oaks banner some areas of eastern Purley which are currently within Croham ward. By contrast, I note that the Council’s submission has the following disadvantages: • The Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks area would be split across three wards, giving it absolutely no sense of cohesion; indeed it would merely perpetuate the illogicality of the current warding pattern, with the area being split across Purley, Sanderstead & Croham wards. • The proposal does not respect the all-important boundaries of the Place of Purley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Mark Johnson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

I am a Former Chairman of Addiscombe, Woodside and Ashburton Neighbourhood Partnership and was involved in many community groups in the area including the Addiscombe Carnival and South Norwood Arts festival. My extensive knowledge of the area informs my comments on those three wards. I was also a resident of Woodside Ward (Portland Road). Addiscombe: The council proposals don't include the Whitgift estate or other parts of Addiscombe which are currently in Fairfield Ward. It also includes parts of South Norwood. All of the place of Addiscombe as defined by the council (Minus Long lane which is not Addiscombe in my opinion) can quite easily be put in two Addiscombe wards in you don't include parts of the current Woodside ward. Woodside/ South Norwood: I'm happy with the current boundaries. It makes no sense for a large chunk of this that is in the South Norwood area to be grouped with Addiscombe. This is a completly seperate community linked to South Norwood. This could be included in the ward name. Ashburton: The current ward is evenly split between the Shirley and Addiscombe places. The clear boundary is the Shirley Road. Everthing east of this including Long Lane identifies more with Shirley than Addiscombe and Vice Versa West of this road. It makes sense for this area to include parts of Shirley ward as far south as Wickham Road. I'm a current resident of Waddon ward and previous resident of Croham (Newark Rd) which informs my comments on those two wards. Croham: Most of Croham ward see's itself as South Croydon, no one identifies with Croham. There is a small part around Sanderstead Station that should be in that ward and not in Croham. Croham Hurst and Coombe (Council Proposals for wards) make no sense at all and include Croham and merges with area's that are clearly Sanderstead, It also includes parts of Addiscombe which makes no sense either. Remaning Croham ward South Croydon makes a lot of sense. Waddon: The southern area of Waddon which includes Pampisford Road belongs with Purley. If Waddon is shifted a little further to the North West this would allow us to keep the current Waddon ward which is a clear area. The council proposes merging Waddon with parts of the town centre on the other side of Roman Road which is rather silly as those area's are cut off from each other. Wandle Park is clearly a part of Waddon along with the new development next to the tramstop.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded CROYDON BOROUGH – WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW

Keeping the Riddlesdown area within one ward

Toby Keynes, 4th December 2016

I’m writing to urge that the Riddlesdown area in which I live is recognised and kept within a single ward, preferably covering the whole of Riddlesdown Residents’ Association (RRA) area and also the neighbouring village of Sanderstead.

The original John Laing estate is currently wholly within Sanderstead ward; some of the RRA beyond the original estate is now in Purley ward.

RIDDLESDOWN: THE ORIGINAL JOHN LAING ESTATE Most of the area was originally Riddlesdown Farm, which was bought and developed as the Laings Purley Estate (later renamed as the Purley and Sanderstead Estates), by builders John Laing. Although it was built by John Laing over an extended period, from 1934 through to the 1950s, the estate has a vigorous local community and sense of identity, a semi-rural village character dominated by open downland, fields and woodland, and a strong unity of style, for the following reasons:  Although many houses and one of the parades have been extended, every original building has survived (except for a handful that were bombed during the 2nd World War and rebuilt in the original style). You can walk in any part of the estate and see the company’s strong “house style” (taking in a small number of common designs) in every building.  The buildings are all on a fairly modest scale, but all the residential houses have substantial front gardens as well as generous back gardens, creating an open, leafy feel to every road.  More than half of the original estate remains Green Belt open land, woodland and fields, and even Mitchley Avenue, the only through road, is dominated by open countryside, because the Town & Country Planning Act 1947 interrupted the estate’s development.  Most of the estate’s borders also face open land or woodland (the Purley Downs Golf Course, the Corporation of London’s Riddlesdown Common, Croydon Council land and Whitgift Foundation land), all of it publicly accessible except for the golf course.  The railway station, Riddlesdown, opened in 1927, undoubtedly led John Laing to acquire the adjoining farmland for development and serves the whole of the estate and area.  The estate has two modest parades of shops, not far apart, providing the village essentials including Riddlesdown Post Office and general store, Riddlesdown Pharmacy, a cafe and another general store. One parade is on Mitchley Avenue; the other is by the railway station.  The estate has one doctor’s surgery, the Mitchley Avenue Surgery.  The estate has one church, St Edmunds, and attached church hall, built by John Laing on a site given to the community by the company and with the foundation stone laid by Mr Laing.  It has its own school, Riddlesdown High School, although this has now grown to serve a much wider community (as Riddlesdown Collegiate).  The Riddlesdown Residents’ Association has represented the area and brought residents together since its foundation in 1937, and remains a highly active community association.  The whole of the estate is contained within the RRA area, the parish of Sanderstead, and the existing ward of Sanderstead.

The estate is bordered by houses on Mitchley Avenue, Coombe Wood Hill, Lower Barn Road, Rectory Park, Borrowdale Drive, Borrowdale Close, Mitchley Hill (plus enclaves Tandridge Gardens, Holmwood Avenue and Priory Gardens), Dunmail Drive (undeveloped), Honister Heights, Eskdale Gardens and Ingleborough Drive.

I cannot find any precise original plans of the estate online, but I have mapped out a rough outline (1), based on the house styles and on original promotional material, on the accompanying map.

RIDDLESDOWN STATION AND THE RIDDLESDOWN RESIDENTS’ ASSOCIATION (RRA) AREA Riddlesdown station and its neighbouring parade of shops is right on the northernmost tip of the estate, and therefore serves and helps to bring the area north of the estate into the wider community. The railway runs through a tunnel under Riddlesdown, and therefore does not create a significant barrier.

The Riddlesdown Residents’ Association (RRA) also extends to beyond the estate, mainly to the north and west around Riddlesdown station, taking in the top of Downs Court Road, Riddlesdown Road (to Riddlesdown Avenue), the southern section of Purley Bury Avenue and Brancaster Lane, Coombe Wood Hill, Copthorne Rise, Westfield Avenue and Hyde Road.

RRA’s boundaries can be seen at http://www.riddlesdownresidents.org.uk/therraarea.html, and are also shown (approximately) as line 7 on the accompanying map.

RRA is highly active; it maintains the four village noticeboards, and the “Riddlesdown” village sign at Mitchley Avenue/Buttermere Gardens, produces a twice-yearly magazine and holds annual community events, as well as maintaining relationships with our councillors, Croydon council, the police, TFL and transport operators and other outside bodies. It is also largely concerned with protecting the area’s green space and semi-rural character.

Clearly, it would be best for the whole of the RRA community to be kept within one ward.

RIDDLESDOWN AND SANDERSTEAD Riddlesdown is also a natural fit with the much larger village of Sanderstead, for the following reasons:  the only through road, Mitchley Avenue, splits into two roads (Rectory Park and Mitchley Hill), both of which lead directly to Sanderstead;  Sanderstead is the next village on the only bus service through Riddlesdown, the 412;  Sanderstead has much more extensive shopping facilities than Riddlesdown, including Waitrose, does not have significant traffic congestion and borders the eastern end of the estate, making a natural and accessible alternative shopping destination;  Riddlesdown falls within the parish of Sanderstead (and the existing ward);  in contrast, the village of Kenley is on the other side of Riddlesdown Common and therefore has no direct road or bus connection to Riddlesdown;  Purley town centre is completely different in character and challenges, being largely urban and (like Kenley) valley-based and prone to flooding; Purley is also much further away (via Downs Court Road) and takes far longer to get to during most commuting and working hours because of frequently heavy congestion on and leading to the A22 Godstone Road.

SOURCES Much of the historical information here is taken from the Journal of the Bourne Society, Local History Records, volume 64 (August 2010), pages 10 to 16 ( http://bournesoc.org.uk/ ). Toby Keynes

Starkie, Emily

From: reviews Sent: 04 October 2016 09:21 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Ward boundaries and constituency boundaries in South Croydon

Importance: High

From: Jill Kilsby [ ] Sent: 03 October 2016 23:39 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Ward boundaries and constituency boundaries in South Croydon Importance: High

Dear Sir or Madam,

I wrote to you a few months ago as I wanted to request a change to the local ward boundaries. I was informed that there would be something appearing on your website but I have never been able to find it. I am therefore writing this letter to you instead.

I live in Sanderstead – an area of Sanderstead often referred to as Lower Sanderstead. When we first lived here in the 70s, we were part of one of the Sanderstead wards. At a previous boundary change however we were placed in Purley. This meant that our small area was put in another area which had no connection with Sanderstead. Since then I do not consider myself to have been properly represented by local councillors.

To give one example. I was one of a number of people who campaigned to keep Sanderstead Library open when it was under threat of closure. I wrote to each of the councillors who were supposed to represent me about the matter. None of them replied, even to acknowledge my letters/e mails. Nor, unlike councillors from other Sanderstead wards, did any of them attend the meeting that was held to try to save the library.

I have even had one of the councillors of a ward in Sanderstead trying to get the Purley councillors to respond to me, again without any success.

I belong to the Sanderstead Residents’ Association. At the AGM councillors from other wards connected with Sanderstead attend the meeting. The councillors who are supposed to represent me do not. I have no one to ask any questions of should I wish to do so.

If we are sent information about local matters, it is about Purley. I receive nothing about Sanderstead and sometimes have found out too late about an issue I would like to have taken further.

The exception in getting a response is from the local MP for Croydon South. Both the present and previous one have always responded promptly to any e mails or letters I have sent. You can therefore imagine my horror when I discovered that It was proposed that our little group living in Sanderstead were to be bundled into Purley as part of Croydon Central and away from Croydon South which will contain most of Sanderstead except us. Movement of the boundary from the Sanderstead to East Grinstead railway line to the East Croydon Purley Railway line would mean that we could be rejoined to the bulk of Sanderstead again. It is this line, which goes through our nearest station, Purley Oaks, which marks the traditional Sanderstead boundary.

1 I have always felt it was important to use one’s vote and have voted in every local and national election since I have had the right to vote up until now. However, in the last local elections I did not feel able to vote for those who had not replied to me. I fear it looks as if I shall not be voting either in a national election in future if the proposed changes go through. I would like to be in a local and national area where matters concerning Sanderstead are able to be raised and dealt with. A small number of people which we are in Lower Sanderstead will count for nothing if we are incorporated in a non Sanderstead area which has other priorities and interests.

I hope therefore that you will give serious consideration to modifying the boundary back to as it was in the 70s for both local and national elections.

Yours faithfully,

Jill Kilsby

2

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Christopher King

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a Purley resident I consider myself part of the Purley community that includes all the CR8 post codes shown as Purley in the electoral register. Some of these overlap areas maked as Kenley, Coulsdon West and Sanderstead. All these areas have main roads in to Purley town centre, which is used by the immediate population. This population therefore have a common interest in the development and facilities of Purley town centre and should be kept together to enable their local representatives to deal with their interests. Some of the common interests of the area include the Purley and Woodcote Residents Association, the Purley Pages local directory and the Purley Churches group. The Purley churches undertake numerous social activities in concert, including a rotating night shelter over winter, the Purley Food Hub (food bank) and delivery of christmas boxes to the needy who are identified by Croydon Social Services. There are also sundry concerts and lectures arranged by the Purley Churches as well as coordination of religious events. For these reasons, the CR8 post codes represent Purley's natural boundaries. As incorporating all these codes into one electoral district would probably make it too large, I would suggest splitting it to give Purley proper that would include the town centre and Purley North. At present, Purley's boundaries are extremely unsatisfactory since areas of Coulsdon west and Kenley intrude into the CR8 post code areas into the town centre itself. This needs to be rectified.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Deirdre Lea

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

I have lived in Russell Hill, Purley for 45 years (and in neighbouring Sanderstead for 6 years before that) and am horrified at Croydon Council's (their Labour majority's) plans to redefine the wards. The Croydon Local Plan (for which consultation only ended as recently as 17 October 2016) talks about the Places of Croydon, and Purley is one such. However, the Council's boundary proposals ignore much of this: - The proposal does not respect the all-important boundaries of the Place of Purley. - Even more of what the Local Plan, residents and Royal Mail all consider to be Purley is moved into Kenley ward, contrary to the wishes of the local residents. - Parts of what residents consider to be Purley are already in Sanderstead Ward such as Purley Beeches and the surrounding streets; the Council’s submission aggravates this situation and does not respect the fundamental importance of the Place of Purley. - Bizarrely, this proposal leaves Purley town centre and the Purley BID area right on the edge of the ward instead of at its heart where it should be. - This proposal completely ignores the current boundaries of the longstanding Purley and Woodcote Residents Association and neighbouring RAs such as KENDRA and the very active Riddlesdown Residents’ Association (RRA). - The Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks area would be split across three wards, giving it absolutely no sense of cohesion; indeed it would merely perpetuate the illogicality of the current warding pattern, with the area being split across Purley, Sanderstead & Croham wards. A much better proposal is to have the place of Purley represented in its entirety by two wards as on the attached map “Purley Ward map v1”: Purley & Woodcote (West Purley), and Purley Oaks & Riddlesdown (East Purley). Purley & Woodcote (West Purley) – the Western area of the Place of Purley The name Purley & Woodcote is the former name of this area before the last re-organisation; it also features in the name of the Purley & Woodcote Residents’ Association (PWRA) as mentioned above; this has a long and honourable association with the Place of Purley. There are several advantages to having a single three member ward covering the west of Purley: - Unlike the current ward distribution, virtually the whole of the Place of Purley would be contained within the two Purley wards - The Purley District Centre, which is also the funding base for the newly formed Purley Business Improvement District, would have a single coherent voice and councillor representation, unlike the current setup, in which Coulsdon West & Kenley intrude almost into the town centre - The attached warding design fully respects PWRA territory and properly reunites Purley with Woodcote; at present part of the area known as Woodcote resides in Coulsdon West Ward, even though its postal address is still Purley. - There is currently a large area of what residents & Royal Mail consider to be Purley (mainly Higher Drive and its offshoots and both sides of the Brighton Road South of Tesco) which reside in Coulsdon West & Kenley Wards. - This proposal would re-unite nearly all of these residents with Purley, so that the Place of Purley overlaps very well with the proposed ward(s) of Purley. Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks (East Purley) - the Eastern area of the Place of Purley This is proposed as a smaller two-seat ward so that in aggregate the two Purley wards have five seats, very closely reflecting the optimum size. The advantages of this proposed ward are as follows: - When considered in conjunction with the proposed Purley & Woodcote ward above, the two wards almost perfectly overlap with the Local Plan Place of Purley and with Royal Mail’s definition of Purley. - This proposal unites the whole area known as Riddlesdown with the eastern part of Purley, giving it a strong voice on the Council. - This proposal roughly incorporates the current area of the RRA, and the ward name also incorporates the familiar name of the area. - This proposal also unites under the Purley Oaks banner some areas of eastern Purley which are currently within Croham ward. NB. I have not attempted to modify the above map. Please see the attached file showing the proposed ward boundaries.

Uploaded Documents:

Download Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Derek Lea

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

I have lived in Russell Hill, Purley for 45 years (and in neighbouring Sanderstead for 6 years before that) and am horrified at Croydon Council's (their Labour majority's) plans to redefine the wards. The Croydon Local Plan (for which consultation only ended as recently as 17 October 2016) talks about the Places of Croydon, and Purley is one such. However, the Council's boundary proposals ignore much of this: 1. The proposal does not respect the all-important boundaries of the Place of Purley. 2. Even more of what the Local Plan, residents and Royal Mail all consider to be Purley is moved into Kenley ward, contrary to the wishes of the local residents. 3. Parts of what residents consider to be Purley are already in Sanderstead Ward such as Purley Beeches and the surrounding streets; the Council’s submission aggravates this situation and does not respect the fundamental importance of the Place of Purley. 4. Bizarrely, this proposal leaves Purley town centre and the Purley BID area right on the edge of the ward instead of at its heart where it should be. 5. This proposal completely ignores the current boundaries of the longstanding Purley and Woodcote Residents Association and neighbouring RAs such as KENDRA and the very active Riddlesdown Residents’ Association (RRA). 6. The Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks area would be split across three wards, giving it absolutely no sense of cohesion; indeed it would merely perpetuate the illogicality of the current warding pattern, with the area being split across Purley, Sanderstead & Croham wards. A much better proposal is to have the Place of Purley represented in its entirety by two wards as on the attached map “Purley Ward map v1”: Purley & Woodcote (West Purley), and Purley Oaks & Riddlesdown (East Purley). Purley & Woodcote (West Purley) – the Western area of the Place of Purley The name Purley & Woodcote is the former name of this area before the last re-organisation; it also features in the name of the Purley & Woodcote Residents’ Association (PWRA) as mentioned above; this has a long and honourable association with the Place of Purley. There are several advantages to having a single three member ward covering the west of Purley: 1. Unlike the current ward distribution, virtually the whole of the Place of Purley would be contained within the two Purley wards 2. The Purley District Centre, which is also the funding base for the newly formed Purley Business Improvement District, would have a single coherent voice and councillor representation, unlike the current setup, in which Coulsdon West & Kenley intrude almost into the town centre 3. The attached warding design fully respects PWRA territory and properly reunites Purley with Woodcote; at present part of the area known as Woodcote resides in Coulsdon West Ward, even though its postal address is still Purley. 4. There is currently a large area of what residents & Royal Mail consider to be Purley (mainly Higher Drive and its offshoots and both sides of the Brighton Road South of Tesco) which reside in Coulsdon West & Kenley Wards. This proposal would re-unite nearly all of these residents with Purley, so that the Place of Purley overlaps very well with the proposed ward(s) of Purley. Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks (East Purley) - the Eastern area of the Place of Purley This is proposed as a smaller two-seat ward so that in aggregate the two Purley wards have five seats, very closely reflecting the optimum size. The advantages of this proposed ward are as follows: 1. When considered in conjunction with the proposed Purley & Woodcote ward above, the two wards almost perfectly overlap with the Local Plan Place of Purley and with Royal Mail’s definition of Purley. 2. This proposal unites the whole area known as Riddlesdown with the eastern part of Purley, giving it a strong voice on the Council. 3. This proposal roughly incorporates the current area of the RRA, and the ward name also incorporates the familiar name of the area. 4. This proposal also unites under the Purley Oaks banner some areas of eastern Purley which are currently within Croham ward. Attached is a pdf map of the proposed wards and their boundaries. (Note that I have not attempted to manipulate the map above.) Regards Dr D A Lea - concerned Croydon resident

Uploaded Documents:

Download Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Joseph Lee

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

Having looking over the proposed wards which are being considered, I would like to offer my thoughts on this matter. I live in Park Hill Court, Addiscombe Rd which would fall under the proposed ‘Addiscombe West’ ward. While there is some things I agree with in regard to the new proposals, there are also some things I also don't agree with. I can understand why Fairfield ward should be broken up. However, I think given my proximity to the East Croydon Train station(I am one tram stop away or i could walk it in five minutes) that where I live has more a natural fit to the town centre ward rather than Addiscombe. In my professional capacity as an Croydon based estate agent, its well known by residents and new people coming into Croydon that the area ‘Addiscombe’ starts from Canning Rd to the north of Addiscombe rd and goes east all the way to Shirley Rd. To the North of Chepstow Rise is what is well known as Park Hill. Again further reason why I feel where I am should be considered more Town Centre ward than anything else, where I live doesn't fall doesn't into neither of the aforementioned areas of Addiscombe or Park Hill. As someone who regularly uses East Croydon train station as well as someone who often frequents the new ‘Boxpark’ entertainment complex I now feel I live in the town centre more than I ever have before. In relation to the town Centre ward, I would also like to give my opinion, as most of my work as an estate agent is in and around the proposed ward, I feel I have an fair insight into this matter. I feel any proposal put forward for the town centre ward MUST include both East and West Croydon train station, considering that commuters come far and wide into the town centre each morning to catch their connection to central London, I think this aspect of the proposal is a no brainer. I also believe given the vast amount of homes that are being built in and around the Town centre ward and will continue to for years to come - the population size of this proposed ward needs to be heavily considered. My concern that the town centre ward will become too densely populated for the size of the proposed ward. I also feel given the present and future housing stock make up of high rise blocks in the considered ward, this ward will have no sense of community and very little love- thy-neighbour spirit about it as I typically find in these developments.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Maureen Levy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This is my amended submission Proposed Ward Boundaries London Borough of Croydon. I am the Secretary of East Coulsdon Residents Association. As such I am heavily involved in issues which affect the area, which includes the Coulsdon Town Centre which is currently in the Coulsdon West Ward and is the town centre for the whole of Coulsdon whether in East, West, Old Coulsdon or Hartley. We are situated on the periphery of the Borough and issues affecting the Town Centre affect us all. I have seen the initial proposal map and would suggest that it would be more sensible to combine Coulsdon East and Coulsdon West Wards into, perhaps Coulsdon Town Ward, preferably retaining 6 Councillors. The four Residents Associations within the Coulsdon ward are Coulsdon East, Coulsdon West, Old Coulsdon and Hartley and District and we have and do co-operate together over many of the issues which affect the whole of Coulsdon and, as such, are a community. I understand that the Boundary Commission do not wish to split communities and local social cohesion. We question your population predictions for the area due to the many housing developments which have and are to take place within the area bringing a larger population. We understand that allowances have been made for Croydon Town Centre which is under populated at the moment because the residential numbers in that area are still growing until all the office conversions and new development have been completed. Similarly you should make the same allowances for Coulsdon which, due to the very many developments means that the population of Coulsdon area will increase substantially. Hence the Coulsdon East and West Wards which are currently in place should remain intact as the increase in population is likely to reflect your criteria but remove the northern part of Coulsdon West which is really Purley. To achieve the keeping of Coulsdon as a natural intrinsic community and keep these natural social areas together, it would be sensible to remove the northern area currently in Coulsdon West Ward which are truly Purley. We in the south of the Borough believe that the LGBC should recognise Purley as a community and also recognise that Coulsdon could be more effectively represented if the current 'Coulsdon West' is reduced in size close to Purley Town Centre (where many residents consider themselves to live in Purley anyway). This would be accomplished most easily and sensibly from the point at which it leaves Coulsdon at Stoats Nest Road to Woodcote to Woodcote Valley Road to be included in a new Purley Ward. The boundary would turn left at the junction of Woodcote Grove Road and roads south of this would remain in Coulsdon. I have tried to make drawing on your map but without success Some developments within Coulsdon are still in the planning stage and others have not yet reached the planning department. Croydon has created a company called BrickbyBrick which is to develop at least six sites owned by Croydon in the Coulsdon Area mostly for housing. These are in addition to those which have already received planning permission, including Cane Hill with 678 homes (predicted population increase of around 2000 which in itself would equate to ½ a Councillor on your figures) and several others, many of which are large flatted developments and some individual housing. We are also alarmed for the whole of Croydon for potential political demographics of the current proposed changes which would result in Croydon being under a permanent Labour control. The prospect of Croydon becoming a one party administration control is undemocratic as such control is a dictatorship and without a credible opposition Croydon residents will be denied a voice.

Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 10/24/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Kate Liffen E­mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The area to the east of Grange Road (to its junction with Wharncliffe Road) and to the north east of Wharncliffe Road to its junction with Ross Road (containing Spurgeons College and surrounding roads south west of Beulah Hill) is currently in Thornton Heath ward. I would suggest that Grange Road/Wharncliffe Road make a more appropriate boundary and that the area shold fall under Upper Norwood or South Norwood wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed­representation/8862 1/1 Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: sylvia macdonald

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Comment text:

I strongly object to the boundary changes for Croydon proposed by Croydon's Labour-run Council. No boundary changes should be designed purely to keep one party in power and that is exactly what seems to be proposed in Croydon by the Council; it is gerrymandering of the worst kind and would ignore the will of the people. The proposed boundary changes eliminate balance and do not link to the total percentage votes in the borough, alienating tens of thousands of residents. I currently live in Ashburton ward, and the Council's submission makes little sense to how me or my neighbours identify with our community. It omits the Whitgift Estate from the place, putting it instead in a made up area they calll 'Coombe'. I have lived in the area for many years and no-one I know says they live Coombe! I think the Boundary Commission should strongly consider taking the Whitgift Estate and including it in the same ward as my road, indeed it's across the road from my house and is defined by friends there as being in Addiscombe! The Addiscombe Road goes between our locations, so 'Addiscombe' or 'Addiscombe East' would be a strong name for the ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Starkie, Emily

From: reviews Sent: 29 November 2016 08:55 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: 2411: CROYDON COUNCIL - NEW WARD BOUNDARIES - LOCAL ELECTIONS Attachments: 2016_LGBCE_PJM_CROYDON - WARD + POLLING DISTRICT DATA - Croydon_ElectorateForecastData_Aug2016-160927.xls

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1252

From: PJM HP57 160415 [mailto: ] Sent: 29 November 2016 08:48 To: reviews Cc:

Subject: 2411: CROYDON COUNCIL ‐ NEW WARD BOUNDARIES ‐ LOCAL ELECTIONS

Dear LGBC

CROYDON COUNCIL - NEW WARD BOUNDARIES - LOCAL ELECTIONS

I hereby submit my views in response to your invitation to "Have your say on new council ward boundaries for Croydon".

The appended file offers my ways to adjust ward boundaries in Croydon so all fall within the guidelines.

The one problem is FAIRFIELD, where the degree of expected change makes this very difficult.

Please acknowledge receipt of this email.

Peter Morgan

PJM, 0843, Tue 29-11-16

1 Starkie, Emily

From: reviews Sent: 28 September 2016 16:46 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Croydon electoral review

From: Adam O'Neill [ ] Sent: 27 September 2016 18:00 To: reviews Subject: Croydon electoral review

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please can you ensure that in the forthcoming review of ward boundaries in Croydon the grossly anomalous inclusion of the new housing estate at New South Quarter around Connersville Way and Whitestone Way in Broad Green ward is addressed. The estate was built after the current ward boundaries came into effect and should be included in a Waddon ward with its neighbouring residential properties. At present it is completely isolated at the far southern end of Broad Green ward, separated from any other electors in that ward by the vast swathe of retail parks and industrial sites along Purley Way. The current situation means local people have a very long walk to reach the nearest polling station within Broad Green ward.

Please can you also ensure that the whole of Croydon town centre is included in one ward, the current ward boundary between Broad Green ward and Croham ward places the area around Tamworth Road in Broad Green ward and excludes it from the rest of Croydon town centre which is in Croham ward. A more suitable boundary between wards in that area would be along the railway line between Roman Way and London Road.

The current Norbury ward is a strange shape and cuts across the grain of communication routes. It contains two very separate areas north and south of the Brighton Main Line between Norbury and Thornton Heath. It would make sense to split the ward and reallocate the area south of the railway line to a ward based around London Road and to reallocate the area north of the railway line to ward based around Upper Norwood.

The LGBCE should also introduce greater use of two member wards where the identities of local communities cannot be accurately reflected by the size of three member wards.

Regards

Adam O'Neill

1 Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Pearson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

I am a regular consumer in the current Selsdon and Ballards Ward but also work an office, for my company, regularly in Selsdon. It seems to me that Selsdon is a large geographical area but is made up of a number of areas, Selsdon as a main shopping area, Monks Hill, Forestdale, Selsdon Conservation area to name but four. Surely it makes sense, both geographically and in terms of the Boundary Commission preferred criteria to create the boundary of proposed Wards along the main Street? This would clearly define the separation of two proposed Wards, as Selsdon as an area is definitely too large for one Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Tim Pollard

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Sanderstead councillors

Comment text:

I am a resident in Sanderstead and have been since 1993. Prior to that I lived in Waddon ward and Addiscombe. In 2002 I was elected as a ward councillor for Sanderstead and have remained so even since. The road I live in is a few hundred yards south of Addington Road and thus is in the part of the current ward which both the council submission and the Conservative Party one propose to keep in Sanderstead ward. Sanderstead is well defined as a place – arguably more so than many other parts of the borough. It is normally thought to border South Croydon and Purley Oaks down just beyond Sanderstead Station and to run up Sanderstead Road, which become Sanderstead Hill, crosses Addington Road and continues down Limpsfield Road to the borough boundary. In the west, Sanderstead ward has incorporated the Riddlesdown area in recent years, although the part of Riddlesdown south and west of Mitchley Avenue is arguably more closely affiliated to Purley than Sanderstead. Mitchley Avenue runs along the valley between Sanderstead Hill and Riddlesdown and does form a natural boundary. To the east, Sanderstead Plantation is normally accepted as the easternmost part of Sanderstead along the Addington Road, with the closes to the east of it feeling more part of Selsdon than Sanderstead. The area of current polling district SB2 (Selsdon & Ballards ward) has always considered itself to be Sanderstead, particularly the roads to the west of Upper Selsdon Road. However Upper Selsdon Road itself and the church on it, St John’s Selsdon, affiliate with Selsdon. Sanderstead Residents Association (SRA) consider their patch to be more or less that of the old parish of Sanderstead – that is to say the territory described above and down to the area around Purley Oaks and Sanderstead Stations. They do not consider Riddlesdown to be part of their patch and it has its own residents’ association (Riddlesdown Residents’ Association). Croydon Conservatives’ proposal for ward boundaries covers that patch, with the exception of ceding a small area around Purley Oaks Station to form part of a neighbouring 2 member Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown ward. This leaves the area covered by SRA as a correctly sized 3 member ward. The council, by contrast, has significantly reduced the size of Sanderstead ward to 2 members and separated the northern section of the place of Sanderstead off into a Croham Hurst ward. This will not be satisfactory to Sanderstead residents. The proposed Croham Hurst ward is named after a feature which is of some significance in the north-western tip of the proposed ward but has no resonance in the part of the ward which considers itself to be Sanderstead. Nobody who lives on (say) Church Way would say they live in Croham Hurst – they would say they live in Sanderstead. The proposed Croham Hurst ward includes Sanderstead Road, Sanderstead Hill, Sanderstead Library, Sanderstead United Reformed Church, Sanderstead Plantation, Sanderstead Station and a host of other features which are strongly associated with Sanderstead. Given that it is perfectly possible to make a Sanderstead ward which does properly respect the place and local tradition, it seems un-necessary to split the place in such an arbitrary way. What is proposed for Sanderstead is consistent with what has been proposed by the council up and down the borough. The council has invested many years and numerous stages of consultation in defining its ‘places’ for the purposes of building a solid foundation for its Local Development Framework. It therefore seems extremely strange that the council appears to have made no effort to base its wards on the accepted places and has crossed the place borders with the vast majority of its proposed wards. I believe this is a major missed opportunity, and would urge LGBCE to use ward boundaries which are much less contradictory to the place edges. Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: James Price

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think that Westfield Road should be part of the Waddon Ward; there is a hard boundary at the ghastly Factory Lane, and we are very far from the main high street bits of Broad Green. I feel that Wandle Park should also be included as part of Waddon, and that you should make very sure that the political party that stands to benefit (those in red) are not going to benefit from their attempts to gerrymander the wards!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Starkie, Emily

From: reviews Sent: 28 November 2016 09:13 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Attn: The Review Officer (Croydon)

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1252

From: Cheryl Purle Sent: 28 November 2016 08:58 To: reviews Subject: Attn: The Review Officer (Croydon)

Dear sir/ madam,

I am a resident of Forestdale in Croydon. I grew up on Monks Hill in Croydon. I consider my District to be Selsdon as I have always used local services such as the library and doctors and do all of my shopping in Selsdon.

Kind regards

Cheryl Purle

1

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Scott Roche

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My Family have lived in Croydon for over 130 years, we are very proud residents of Croydon, but we are also proud that we live in one of the few London boroughs that realistically swaps hands every few election cycles, all depending on the satisfaction levels received from the electorate. Since 1990 control of Croydon council has swapped between the Conservative Party, and the Labour Party three times. This is a healthy cycle which ensures that the council is always held accountable to the voters, with the ultimate power retained to the electorate to remove councillors, and replace them with a new and refreshed administration as and when required. It also ensures that a council does not become stagnant and impossible to remove from office, such as what residents experience in the Sutton Council. Such a dominating administration, and as a result of this a weak and ineffective opposition is bad for the people of Croydon, and this worries me greatly! The proposed Labour-run Council's boundary review as advertised in the Croydon Advertiser, would ensure that the Labour Party are impossible to remove from office, no matter what they have done to damage the borough or upset the voters. This will lead to the council becoming complacent and effectively unaccountable to the voters. Residents will quickly realise that it is impossible to remove a labour administration from office in Croydon, which as a result thousands of voters will become disenfranchised at the strike of a pen if Croydon Labours Boundary review proposal was adopted. There is a strong democratic moral case for balancing the wards, unfortunately Labours proposal seems hell-bent on destroying that idea. This would be undemocratic, and is an obvious case of gerrymandering from the Croydon Labour party. I have studied the full proposal that the Croydon Labour council has released to the public, there are many areas that concern me, but I will focus on my area, as that is where my family have lived for generations. Crystal Palace as an area that is split and controlled by four different councils, and it does become very confusing for residents when it comes to local elections, and understanding the dynamics of the area politically. Currently Crystal Palace is controlled by 3 labour councils and 1 conservative, all of which have very different methods and priorities in the policies chosen for its residents. The same can be said if you have councillors standing for a particular area, when in fact they only have part control or influence in said area. How can the residents relate to councillors who claim to represent Thornton Heath for example, when in fact their boundary expands in to several different areas in the borough. The Labour Council’s proposed boundary change would make Thornton Heath one of the most complex wards in Croydon in that regard. Sections of the “Thornton Heath” ward would be in Norbury, Crystal Palace & Upper Norwood, Broad Green & Selhurst, all of which have very separate identities and characteristics, and proudly so. The proposed boundary change completely ignores town boundaries, and doesn’t take into consideration “hard boundaries” such as railway lines, town borders etc. I struggle to see the benefit of expanding a big section of the proposed “Thornton Heath” ward into Norbury. Croydon is a very community based borough, with the majority of residents taking great pride in their local area. Residents associations, community projects have become a bigger part of the community as a whole. Living in Crystal Palace, and growing up in Croydon all of my life, I have witnessed it on a daily basis. It is therefore vitally important that the boundaries reflect this with the councillors that are elected to represent that community. Thornton Heath and Norbury and very different areas, so it concerns me that Thornton Heath would be incorporated into Norbury on such a big scale. Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Catherine Saunders

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear LGB Commission, I would like to contest the new boundary proposal put forward by the current Croydon Council Administration. To assist with my feedback, I have partitioned it per wards and key point which I hope will help. Coulsdon Town Their proposal appears to be Chaldon Way and other roads with Coulsdon town centre when in fact they belong, like neighbouring streets within Old Coulsdon where it is set at present. Old Coulsdon The Council Administration’s proposal seems to have omitted huge parts of Hartley which are part of Kenley. This wouldn’t respect Croydon’s natural places along its complete western boundary. We should maintain the current border with Kenley, where Coulsdon East could get bigger or be reduced to 2 councillors Purley & Woodcote Their proposal is relocating a colossal portion of Purley in Kenley ward, extends Sanderstead ward well within Purley, leaving Purley town centre right on the edge of the ward instead positioning at the heart of it. It also doesn’t align with the local residents associations boundaries. Purley and its Town Centre should be the place contained within the two Purley wards, giving its Town Centre a rational position, respecting Resident Associations zones and unifies Purley with Woodcote, and making parts of Kenley which are really Purley, reunited with Purley. Riddlesdown & Purley Oaks It would divide the area into three wards, strengthening the currently odd alignment of the current wards and would not respect the positioning of Purley. It should provide Riddlesdown as a Purley-like oriented ward, giving it a cohesive voice in its own right on the council, while respecting the Residents Associations boundaries. Sanderstead It strongly deviates by going even further into Purley, splitting the ward at the main roundabout are partitioning large areas and relocating them in other wards. It also doesn’t align with current Residents Association’s boundaries. Ideally it should reunite previously separated parts of upper Croham, Selsdon&Ballards, as well as containing Sanderstead Rail Station which isn’t the case at present. Selsdon South & Forestdale It separates Forestdale and Selsdon, but links Ballards with the Bird estate, for which which it has nothing in common. It also splits Monks Hill from its district centre, which doesn’t make any sense at all. It should instead, drop part of SB2 where residents identify themselves as being part of Sanderstead and link the Bird estate with Forestdale. These areas are of similar construction period with significant commonality with a transport link going through (433 bus route). Forestdale should reunite with the district centre of Selsdon as most of Forestdale residents identify themselves living in Selsdon. Ballards & Addington Village Their proposal continues to produce a ward made out of several chunks which have little in common and extensively separated to each other, similarly to Heathfield. Furthermore it separates Monks Hill and Forestdale from their respective district centres, putting Forestdale in Addington which most residents would argue they are not. There are no evident links between Monk's Hill and Forestdale, where people live on the estates and travel out to the local shops or go to work. There isn’t connection between the two and the bus route (359 bus) links Monk's Hill, Selsdon and Addington, but does not go to Forestdale. It would be a better fit for Addington and Addington Village to be linked to the Selsdon district centre and Ballards, due to its western approach/connection to Selsdon. Also, most of Monk’s Hill children would attend Selsdon Primary School and it links through Bramley Bank and the footparth to Croham Valley Road to Ballards. New Addington North and South New Addington is a distinct community in itself and cannot be concatenated with other bits of other wards. The current boundary seems illogical in part with the Boots Estate being in Fieldway and Kestrel Way in New Addington. Shirley South The Council proposal surrenders most of Shirley Hills to Addington; instead it should consider joining the Shirley areas in creating a single ward totalling 5 members. This would create a single community and be in line with both Resident associations (SPRA & Spring Park) and keep all the shrub lands within the same ward. Shirley North It is a very clearly defined ward and well- marked boundaries with 2 main roads, the borough boundary and a railway line. Integration of Shirley Park back into a Shirley-based ward would be very sensible, up to the Trinity roundabout. It should retain long Lane instead of placing into Addiscombe. These estates are on Long Lane east of Oasis Shirley Park and have no genuine connection with Addiscombe. If anything they look to Elmers End or even Beckenham/Bromley for shopping but have nothing in common with Addiscombe. Long Lane connection with Shirley is much less questionable than their connection with Addiscombe. The Glade, part of Shirley, comes out in the middle of these estates and are cut off from Addiscombe by Oasis Shirley Park as well as various green spaces, and from Woodside by a well-defined railway line. Shirley North should include Shirley Road, Shirley Park Road and Oasis Academy Shirley Park because these are all in Shirley and not in Addiscombe. It includes the Schools that the children from Shirley North as well as the Long Lane estate attend, including Edenham, Oasis Shirley Park and Monk's Orchard Primary. Addiscombe East The Council proposal seems to have omitted the Whitgift Estate, putting it instead in a made up area called coombe. There isn’t such a place called ‘Coombe’. It also links the borough’s eastern border with another one just a few minutes’ walk from East Croydon Station. This is very much Central Croydon. Instead it should respect the already defined places of Addiscombe, but not Long Lane which is part of Shirley. It should take in the Whitgift Estate which is in the place of Addiscombe, borders Addiscombe Road and where resident would identify themselves as part of Addiscombe. It should also include the part of Addiscombe which isn’t defined to be as walking distance from East Croydon Station. It should also respect the existing places marking the boundary between Woodside and Addiscombe. Addiscombe West & Park Hill The Council proposal does not respect the border with Woodside and excludes Park Hill by putting it in a made up ward called Coombe. South Croydon The Council proposal splits South Croydon between five wards (3 large and 2 small wards) and appears to integrate a large part of what is Central Croydon. It includes Purley Oaks Station which sees itself as being part of Purley. Waddon The Council proposal the Old Town both sides of the hard divide of Roman Way, ignoring a number of impermeable potential boundaries. It oddly excludes Wandle Park, Cornwall and Theobald Roads which are an integral part of Waddon. Instead it should follow the current ward boundaries in the exception of some of the roads around Whitgift School. It should include Wandle Park and the new South Quarter to give it a rational northern boundary with the industrial zone. Croydon Town Centre Council proposal gives a miniscule two member ward and overlooks a substantial portion clearly identified as town centre on the map; it also cuts Old Town in two and not even along hard boundaries. This is the most vibrant area of the borough, yet with the widest vague boundaries. It would greatly benefit making it a larger three member ward, joining East and West Croydon Stations and the whole of the tram loop. This ward should coincide and include the areas identified as Key places as the town centre in the maps. Croydon North The Council proposal appears to split Norbury and several places and Thornton Heath is poorly aligned. Thornton Heath North somehow strays into Norbury, while South Norwood strays into Upper Norwood and Woodside into Addiscombe. It should instead respect the areas of South Norwood and Woodside with a coherent boundary, as well as Crystal Palace, Upper Norwood and Norbury. It should align with current Residents Associations and hard boundaries like the railway lines. Council proposed new wards Coombe I don’t know anyone that identifies such a thing as Coombe place. It comprises of Park Hill and Whitgift Estate which should be within Addiscombe and the area west of Lloyd Park which should clearly be South Croydon. This made up ward has no district centre or core point, and it does not exist in the Council's place strategy. Croham Hurst There are only a few roads around Croham Hurst as a location but the rest doesn’t align. The hilly geography means the rest of the ward has no relationship with Croham Hurst and instead it takes a vast amount of the area which is strongly identified with Sanderstead, including Sanderstead Hill, Sanderstead Road, Sanderstead Plantation and Sanderstead Rail Station. This also doesn’t exist in the council's place strategy. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

10/31/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Robert Sleeman

E­mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

In general acceptable. Fairfield Ward should be split into two wards with 2 councillors each or be given a 4th councillor. As it stands it will be a very mixed ward with stress between low density and very high density housing/business.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed­representation/8896 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: reviews Sent: 05 December 2016 09:15 To: Starkie, Emily Subject: FW: Submission, Croydon council ward boundary consultation

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1252

From: Luke Springthorpe [ ] Sent: 04 December 2016 21:46 To: reviews Subject: Submission, Croydon council ward boundary consultation

To whom it may concern,

I wish to make a submission to the Croydon boundary review, in particular relating to the Waddon ward.

I believe the ward has a natural northern boundary which is contained more by the industrial and retail complex of Purley Way (Ie, to the north of Commerce Way/Drury Crescent). At present, the ward boundary places an undue emphasis on the significance on the River Wandle as a hard boundary (despite its very small size that is more comparable to a drainage ditch).

This means that the development I live in, the New South Quarter on Whitestone Way, is included in the Broad Green Ward. This is despite the fact we are a considerable distance from any residential areas that are a part of the ward, and have very little affinity with the key community areas that form a part of Broad Green. By car, we are almost a mile away from the residential areas that from the main cluster of the Broad Green electorate. Many of the facilities and community centres used by myself and fellow residents are a part of Waddon rather than the community high street areas of Broad Green that are a considerable distance away to the north of Euston Road and towards the A236.

For the same reason, I believe there is a strong case for the inclusion of Cornwall & Theobald Road in the Waddon ward as they are also closer to the facilities in Waddon and a separated by a hard barrier to Broad Green by the presence of Factory Lane & the industrial units that form the area to their immediate north.

Meanwhile, the ward is clearly contained to its east by the presence of the A236/Roman Way. This is a big physical barrier in that it is both a very busy carriageway that is virtually impossible to cross on foot due to the volumes of traffic, but also for the reason that beyond it is what many would consider to be the start of central Croydon and the end of residential areas of Waddon.

The central location of what is to the east of the A236 beyond Waddon is acknowledged in the ‘Croydon Opportunity Area’ in the Croydon Vision 2020 plan, which sets out the key commercial areas in the central Croydon. I would be concerned if a new Waddon ward included large chunks of this (Ie what is to the east beyond Cranmer Road & Fawcett Road) as it seems inevitable to me that the concerns of community groups and residents in Waddon would become secondary to the Councillors representing the community when compared to the attention they would inevitably have to give to the town centre issues.

I believe the town centre issues should be contained within a ward that covers an area that consumes the bulk of the town centre, rather than partly being bolted on to a largely residential ward like Waddon. Given the significant amount of regeneration going on in the town centre with a £3.5 bn regeneration project, it seems inevitable to me that three part time councillors covering both part of the Old Town which would include a large part of what is considered to be Central Croydon would soon find themselves overrun with work relating to the town centre regeneration and unable to devote sufficient time to the community of Waddon.

Yours sincerely,

Luke Springthorpe Mobile

1

Dear Sir / Madam / Commission

I have been a resident of Croydon for over three years, initially near to Waddon train station and now near Sanderstead and Purley Oaks stations. My submission is therefore based on my experience in both of these local areas.

Waddon

The area around Waddon is changing with new developments nearby and the expected future developments around ‘fiveways junction’ and reconfiguring the roads around Waddon train station. The Waddon area is fortunate as there exist a number of sensible and clear visual locations for the ward boundaries – to the West the ward borders on Sutton, to the south there is large green space, and just slightly further North there is a residential-free industrial zone. I would therefore suggest that these create clearly defined opportunities for clear-cut borders to the north, west and south. The border to the east can then be drawn to take account of the population/voter number required, but the main arterial roads and connecting junctions at the edge of Waddon – A235 and A236 – would be obvious candidates for initial consideration if they provided the right number of electors/residents. My suggestion would therefore keep the ward largely as-is, with the addition of an area in the north, and also respects the Croydon council plan for places.

Sanderstead

On moving to Sanderstead, it first struck me as very odd that Sanderstead station did not fall within the ward boundary, despite obvious boundaries existing in the form of the railway line and large green spaces/fields.

My suggested boundary therefore has the north-west corner boundary including up to the railway line on the west, and bordered by the allotments at the very north-west, before curving round for other natural or place boundaries. At the west, the existing boundary around the Purley downs golf course should be respected, ensuring that Purley is kept separate from Sanderstead. To the south, there is an existing boundary with a neighbouring local authority, and to the east more green space and fields which create a clear distinction between neighbouring areas. Sanderstead has an active residents association and I hope that they will have made a submission confirming their area and providing further details of where residents live who consider themselves part of Sanderstead.

Croydon is fortunate to have a number of different and clearly separated locations, which are recognised in the council’s places document. My view is that as much as possible, these existing ‘community hubs’ should be respected and, where possible, ‘hard boundaries’ such as main road routes, railway lines, green spaces etc. make preferred ward boundaries as it allows for communities to have clearly defined edges and limits. A sense of belonging to a clearly defined and recognisable area is key, as this then allows residents to feel a sense of ownership and thus properly hold elected representatives to account. Failure to respect the recognised places of Croydon will only lead to resident confusion, and the inability of elected councillors to properly represent and advocate for their residents.

Yours faithfully

Alasdair Stewart

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Gareth Streeter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have looked at the proposals for new wards on the council website. I live on in Addiscombe so I would be in the new ‘Addiscombe West’ ward. There are some about it and some things I don’t. · It makes sense that my ward is no longer linked with parts of Shirley. I think my neighbours think they live in ADDISCOMBE so it was strange when we were part of a ward that took in the Glade and Woodmere Avenue (lovely roads, though they are) · However I still think the boundaries are not quite right. Most people I know would say that Addiscombe ends when the Lower Addiscombe Road ends. It is called the Lower ADDISCOMBE Road after all. After the natural boundary of Spring Bridge/Spring Lane that road becomes Long Lane. This is not Addiscombe. That road and the roads off it should be in a different ward. People who live there wouldn’t come to Addiscombe to shop. They would go up to the Wickham Road which is in Shirley. · I am surprised that the house on the other side of Addiscombe Road are not in the Addiscombe West ward. After all it is called the ADDISCOMBE Road. I think people who live where I live would pop up to see friends who live on roads off it – I mean roads like Upfield Road. AND THEY WOULD CALL THESE FRIENDS NEIGHBOURS. It’s the same community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Matthew Taylor

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My house at is currently located in the Coulsdon West and Woodcote ward despite being a brief m the centre of Purley and indeed nearer to it than many properties in the Purley ward. I am therefore be in favour of a boundary change which relocates it in Purley ward. This change would be consistent with establishing a Purley ward which corresponds to Purley the place as identified as a place within the borough. Looking at Purley more widely. I think it is important that Purley the place should be matched as near as possible to the ward or wards being proposed for Purley. I have seen proposals which do not really achieve this as they place significant areas of what is really Purley into the Kenley and Sanderstead wards leaving Purley town centre on the eastern edge of the ward instead of at the centre. A better approach would adjust Sanderstead and Kenley wards so as to reflect their own places leaving Purley Town Centre with a coherent voice. Those parts of Kenley in particular which are really Purley would be reunited with Purley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Philippa Toogood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am concerned that Croydon Council are proposing to reduce the size of the Coulsdon East ward, move Farthing Downs to Coulsdon West ward, and reduce the number of councillors from 3 to 2. Coulsdon East and Kenley wards together make up most of the ancient parish of Coulsdon, which has a history going back more than 1,300 years. The wards have natural boundaries in the form of the Brighton Road to the west and Godstone Road to the east, and include some of the highest quality green space in London such as the City Commons and Happy Valley. It would make more sense to reduce the size of Coulsdon West, and keep Farthing Downs in Coulsdon East and Kenley along with the other City Commons.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 10/24/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Valerie Tree E­mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Move the area from Edenham School to the bromley boudary into Bromley Kent. Maybe then ,all the rubbish, along the paths and grass verges will get cleaned away. The Pub and shop are paticularly disgusting.( both sides of the road.)

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed­representation/8863 1/1

Croydon London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Ann Willard

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly OBJECT to the change in boundaries regarding Forestdale. I have lived on Forestdale for 46 years and regard Selsdon as my address NOT New Addington, as suggested in the new boundaries changes!! Forestdale is right next to Selsdon and I have always regarded this as part of my address when explaining to people where I live. New Addington is further away and I do not see how it should be linked to Forestdale in any way! Please keep Forestdale with Selsdon or is this a back door approach to try and build blocks of flats on Forestdale and the GREENBELT!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded