Parish and Town councils submissions to the Hambleton Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 13 submissions from parish and town councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
Page 1 of 1
Pascoe, Mark
From: Nigel Knapton [[email protected]] Sent: 12 December 2012 11:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: Hambleton DC - Electoral Review Hi
Alne Parish Council do not wish to see their ward (Tollerton) left as a single member ward, a three member ward will mean that those members will be elected by the majority of electors in Easingwold.
Many thanks
Nigel Knapton
Clerk to Alne Parish Council
4 Central Buildings, Easingwold, York YO61 3AB T: 07779 994712 E: [email protected]
This email, and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended for the addressee(s) only. The content may also contain legal, professional or other privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and then delete the email and any attachments. You should not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance on this transmission. Please ensure you have adequate virus protection before you open or detach any documents from this transmission. Alne Parish Council does not accept any liability for viruses. An email reply to this address may be subject to monitoring for operational reasons or lawful business practices.
Please consider the environment before printing
13/12/2012 Derek Partington [email protected]
Appleton Wiske Parish Council
Parish councillor
04/12/2012 11:45
Appleton Wiske Parish Council has no objections to the proposed new ward currently referred to as Cowtons Ward. However, we feel that the name is inappropriate as not all of the Cowtons are within the ward. The central villages are Great Smeaton and Appleton Wiske and we feel that a more appropriate designation would be Smeaton and Appleton Ward. Page 1 of 1
Pascoe, Mark
From: Town Clerk - Richard Howard [[email protected]] Sent: 11 December 2012 13:33 To: Reviews@ Cc: Amanda Coates Subject: Fw: Electoral Review of Hambleton Dear Mr Pascoe
I refer to your letter of the 13th November and confirm the Town Council’s view is that the reduction on Councillor numbers is excessive as indicated in my previous communication (shown below). The underlying premise for the reduction is unclear and can only lead to a dilution of input from District Councillors. The ‘connection’ between this parish and its district council representative will be further diluted by the proposal to promote a 3 councillor ward, whereby, it appears, the link between a single district councillor and the parish will disappear. Should the reduction in District Councillors be confirmed, it would make far greater sense to the Bedale Town Council, if it had a DC dedicated to its parish rather than any 1 of 3. Town councillors at last nights town council meeting referred to having ‘visible accountability’ from its DC, which it has now, and it would be considered to be a retrograde for it to be otherwise.
Richard Howard Town Clerk Bdedale Town Council
13/12/2012 David Frith
Borrowby parish Council
Parish councillor
30/12/2012 10:25
I would like you to consider including the name 'Hillside' in the title of Bagby and Thorntons' Ward.
Page 1 of 1
Pascoe, Mark
From: Guy Chothia Sent: 04 December 2012 10:34 To: Reviews@ Cc: Judy Wright; Bill Wood Subject: ELECTORIAL REVIEW - SOUTH HAMBLETON Review Officer
On your November 2012 Draft Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements for Hambleton District Council leaflet the two South Hambleton wards both list Beningbrough as being included within the ward.
Although the spelling for the Parish in the Easingwold Ward is spelt incorrectly (Beninbrough) I am unaware of any such parish of that name. Also Beningbrough is not located to the East of Easingwold so would not fit geographically with the Huby Ward.
Confirmation that Beningbrough is in the Easingwold Ward and not in the Huby Ward would be appreciated.
Crayke Parish Council would also like to know why Crayke, east of Easingwold has been included in Easingwold Ward rather than the Huby Ward that contains all the other east of Easingwold Parishes, many of which Crayke has close ties to and provide the easiest access to post office and village shops.
Regards
Guy Chothia Clerk to Crayke Parish Council
This email is confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual(s) to whom it is addressed. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author. If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this mail is strictly prohibited.
No virus is believed to be resident in this message, but it is your responsibility to satisfy yourself that your systems will not be harmed by any of its contents.
05/12/2012 Gregory, Eleanor
From: Parish Clerk
To: Review Officer (Hambleton)
I refer to Phil Morton’s letter dated 13 Nov 12, setting out the proposals on the above matter. Below is a summary of the views of the East & West Rounton Parish Council.
The Parish Council is supportive of the initiative to make the HDC operations more cost effective and efficient, and understands why boundary changes are required. However, we do have significant concerns that the proposed “Cowtons ward” apparently has no underlying logic to it. The residents of the Rountons have few historical or current links with the Cowtons area (if any links at all, in fact). The Rountons has links with East Harlsey and Ingleby Arncliffe, so it could be argued that there would be a logic to putting it into the Osmotherley & Swainby ward. However, by far the closest day‐to‐day links are with Hutton Rudby and Stokesley. The most obvious ward tto pu it in would be whichever Stokesley ward contains Hutton Rudby.
But we do understand why the Boundary Commission may have made this proposal. Anybody not knowing the area would look at a map, see the A19, and interpret it as a barrier separating east from west and might thene decid to put the Rountons into Cowtons. However, anybody who actually knows the area, and its history, would remember that the Rountons community campaigned long and hard to have a bridge built over the A19 to reconnect the parish to Hutton Rudby (after the right turn off the A19 was closed). The campaign was successful, and the government and NYCC spent almost £1m building the A19 bridge back in 2008. This had the express intention of resurrecting the links to Hutton Rudby and Stokesley. It would be ironic for the County Council to have spent £1m building the link eastwards only for the District Council to then conclude that that links west to Cowton are stronger than the links east. This would not be “joined‐up government”. There has never been any campaign to improve the communication links west towards the Cowtons, and there never will be.
We hope that you will reconsider this proposal.
Regards, David Occleston Parish Clerk East & West Rountons Parish Council ps ‐ as a small point, if you do decide to run with the current proposal, then we would certainly be unhappy with the name of “Cowtons” ward as it might imply a weighting in importance to the western parishes. A more physically central name (maybe “Appleton”?) would seem more balanced.
1 Gregory, Eleanor
From: Andrew Sutcliffe Sent: 17 December 2012 15:37 To: Reviews@ Cc: Pascoe, Mark Subject: Hambleton draft recommendations
Dear Mr Pascoe
On behalf of Kildale Estate and Kildale Parish Meeting, I would like to confirm our approval of the proposal of a 2 member Great Ayton ward which will comprise, amongst others, Kildale parish.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Sutcliffe
Andrew Sutcliffe
The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended only for the named addressee. If you are not the named addressee, please notify us immediately and delete the message. Please do not copy the message or disclose it to any person. Thank you for your co-operation.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail
1
Mr Mark Pascoe Review Officer (Hambleton) Local Government Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG 18 December 2012
Dear Sir,
I recognise that you are really only seeking comment in principle to the proposed boundary changes for this area and in principle I believe the change to be logical from a structural standpoint. However for the parishioners of Overton the devil will be in the detail.
Overton is a tiny rural village/hamlet of some 18 residences situated at the Southern tip of the Hambleton Council area. We are on a single deeply potholed single track road (part of National Cycling route 65), which is subjected to constant flooding at the Eastern end due to poor drainage. We suffer from constant fly-tipping at both ends of our parish and petty crime and drug taking at the infamous Ferry Corner. What will be the attitude of the enlarged Shipton Ward to absorbing and properly addressing these problems?
Other questions are: How will we be represented? Will the green belt be protected? What will happen to our precept - possibly a large rise for no additional services.
I hope that in your next steps this level of detail will be properly discussed.
Yours Sincerely,
Peter Hodgson
Chairman of the Overton Parish Meeting
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Ann Pyle
Rudby Parish Council is concerned about the proposal to put Rudby, Hutton Rudby, Skutterkskelfe and Middleton in with a market town and its problems. We are a rural parish and we do not feel it is representative of us. We cannot support a proposal that will jeopardise our individuality.
Ann Pyle Clerk to the Council.
1
From: Stokesley Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 December 2012 10:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Electoral review of Hambleton
We would prefer to see Stokesley as part of a 2 member ward, the suggested 3 member ward is a very large ward and the communities of Hutton Rudby and Stokesley are very different. Hutton Rudby deserves to be a ward of its own and not put in with Stokesley.
One of the main objections to the separation of the two communities in your report appeared to be the poor road network between Seamer and Hutton Rudby. This is not really true as Tame Bridge, part of the Seamer Parish, is situated some distance from Seamer and borders the main road between Stokesley and Hutton Rudby. This boundary is shared with the parish of Skutterskelfe, part of the Rudby Parish Council. Tame Bridge Farm is the last house in Skutterskelfe Parish.
Stokesley is a distinct community and Kirkby and Great Broughton do look towards Stokesley for their shopping much more than Hutton Rudby and its surrounding villages.
The 3 member wards proposed are generally too large an area with very diverse communities which are very hard to represent especially on issues such as planning.
It would be very difficult for District Councillors to attend all these Parish Council meetings as many of them do meet monthly.
Jackie Wheeler Clerk Stokesley Parish Council