Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains local resident submissions with surnames H.

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

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:36 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: /Westbury (Bristol) Boundary Change

From: Tony Hall Sent: 14 February 2015 15:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Henleaze/Westbury (Bristol) Boundary Change

Hi there,

I am writing this e mail to voice my opposition to the proposed split of the Westbury on Trym Ward into two halves, which would mean that even the historic centre of Westbury would cease to be in the ward.

Rather, I would support the proposition of a “Partnership Ward with Henleaze”, combining the two present wards into one and sharing three councillors between them.

KR’s

Tony Hall

1 Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Emma Hambert

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

i think this is ridiculous to put it mildly. Westbury on Trym village which is the historical and geographical centre of Westbury on trym, is going to be Heleaze ward, as my 5 year old son would say, Have you gone mad!!! Please, please just be sensible and logical about this. I live on Comb Paddock, my son goes to Westbury on Trym , C of E Academy and It is by far nearer and easier to WALK to the centre of Westbury on Trym village than !!! Please keep it as it is.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4763 12/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Christopher Hamlett

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Comment text:

I wish to support the idea of Westbury-on-Trym entering a Partnership Ward with Henleaze. The roots of such an ancient community as Westbury should not be dismissed so lightly: there is neither conventional reason nor historical authenticity in the current proposal. Please reconsider.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4864 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Ben Hamley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear LGBCE, PLease don't take Westbury on Trym out of Westbury on Trym. To still have a westbury ward that won't include the village is both bizarre and confusing. I hope you find a way of keeping Westbury on Trym in Westbury. Regards Ben Hamley

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4805 13/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alison & Ian Harding

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident for over 30 years

Comment text:

What are you doing!!? As I understand this you are planning to divide Westbury-on-Trym so that a significant part wiil be termed Henleaze!!!! Westbury is a thriving village within the city with an active community and to put the church/church hall/war memorial and surrounding area into another district is ridiculous - whoever thought this up obviously has no knowledge of the area, its history or the feelings of its residents...PLEASE think again.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4369 05/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Geoffrey and Audrey Harman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We wish to comment on the proposals for the Westbury on Trym and Henleaze wards. We object strongly at the proposal to include the Westbury village centre in the Henleaze ward. Whilst the need to have approximately equal numbers in each ward is important we believe in this case insufficient account has been taken of your second criterium of reflecting community interests and identity. Westbury Village has a long history of being the centre of the local area going back to its independent existence before it was absorbed into Bristol City. It is a commercial, and social centre reflected in its shops and other businesses, churches, pubs, village hall and primary school. It should be at the centre of a ward and not on the periphery and called "Henleaze"! We support the Westbury on Trym Society suggestion of a three councillor ward combining Westbury and Henleaze, but other proposals that recognized the centrality of Westbury Village would be acceptable.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4783 12/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Jacqui Harrison

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are residents of , with our property backing on to Henleaze Lake. We are not happy with the proposed change to the boundaries to include this area in Southmead ward. We consider ourselves part of the community of Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym, shopping and using the facilities in these areas. We do not think we would be adequately represented if placed within the Southmead Ward, as our issues of importance and concern would differ from the Southmead community. We consider a better proposal would be to include the Lake Road area in the proposed Henleaze ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4821 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Harrison

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The creation of a " and Harbourside" ward would be divisive because 1 Hotwells has for several lifetimes been closely associated with Clifton and Clifton Wood. Hotwells has no association with the developments across the Floating Harbour. 2 These developments (on Spike Island) associate much more closely with Southville and Bedminster and the proposals would leave them 'out on a limb'. 3 The proposals would result in a great deal of travel time for the local Councillor because there is no road crossing of the Floating Harbour between Cumberland Basin and Prince Street Bridge.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4600 04/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Jacqueline Harvey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Your recent draft proposal to change the boundary of ward which includes taking areas of the traditional village of Bishopsworth to replace with the new coming areas of Headley park and Lakeside (which has always been addressed Hartcliffe) is deeply distressing and offensive. Yes to you it may be just a name change for voting purposes but you are ripping out the soul of Bishopsworth. My family have lived on Highridge common Bishopsworth for over 600 years possibly more but the records don’t go back further and the Domesday Book of 1086 does not mention commoners by name. It was always Bishopsworth and under the manor of Bishopsworth. Lakeside and Headly park built in my mothers and my lifetime were never part of Bishopsworth or Bishopsworth ward even when we moved from the County of Somerset into the City of Bristol. Headly Park was never part of Bishopsworth. They do not send their children to school in Bishopsworth. People from Headly Park and Lakeside areas do not generally access the local facilities in Bishopsworth such as the shops and open spaces because they have their own local facilities. We do it’s are locality and has been for century’s. The areas that you propose taking out of Bishopsworth include the historical, traditional and modern (by modern I mean from the 18thcentury onwards) areas of Bishopsworth. You are tearing apart are community with this proposed change. Bishopsworth ward needs to include the village and the traditional and modern area of Bishopsworth and not the area of Headley Park. I do understand that you need to balance the numbers within the wards. But please do not remove me from Bishopsworth. Highridge Common where as I explained my family have lived for generations was given to BISHOPSWORTH. Highridge common is BISHOPSWORTH. Your boundary review does not make sense. Headily Park houses were built in the 50s and 60s and Lakeside Hartcliffe converted this century form Imperial Park cigarette factory HARTCLIFFE not Bishopsworth. If you have to change things get rid of the name Bishopsworth ward and call it Headly Park Bedminster Down ward because that is what it is. I am deeply concerned that this is more to do with property owners from Headley Park and recently converted Lakeside wanting to disassociate from Hartcliffe because it is a socially deprived area which may affect their property prices. Shame on them. My family an old Bishopsworth Village family are Bishopsworth and not Hartcliffe. We are not concerned that these socially deprived areas may have an effect on our property price. Because we have lived in Bishopsworth for generations past and hopefully generations to come. Headley Park is not Bishopsworth whilst Highridge Rd is Bishopsworth, Highridge Common is Bishopsworth, Highridge Green is Bishopsworth, Queens Rd is Bishopsworth, King Georges Rd is Bishopsworth and Chapel Lane is Bishopsworth. This was Bishopsworth Village when it was in Somerset County and when post war boundary changes in the last century bought Bishopsworth village it into the City and County of Bristol. These Bishopsworth areas should remain in any ward known as Bishopsworth ward. Headly Park and and Lakeside are not and never will be known here locally as belonging to Bishopsworth. Headly Park is Headley Park, Bristol and Lakeside is Hartcliffe, Bristol. Make sense to keep them within the ward they are currently in rather than cut up the traditional, historical and modern areas of Bishopsworth. You have been greatly misinformed. You cannot call a ward Bishopsworth Ward if it does not contain areas of the historical, traditional and local modern area of Bishopsworth. You could always rename it has THIS IS THE WARD NOW KNOWN AS “THIS IS NOT BISHOPSWORTH WARD” BECAUSE IT DOES NOT INCLUDE MANY AREAS OF WHAT IS BISHOPSWORTH. I cannot work you the map above but If you need to make Bishopsworth ward

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4464 23/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

bigger by population I would suggest not cutting the proposed area within Bishopsworth but add areas from Hartcliffe ward which are nearer to the community of Bishopsworth. This does not include Headly Park as in my opinion there is no strong community link between Bishopsworth and Headly Park. If you need to make Bishopsworth ward population smaller then I suggest moving parts of the area of Withywood into Hartcliffe ward or parts of Bedminster Down into the Bedminster ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4464 23/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rachael Harvey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: You have split and isolated the historical and modern village of Bishopsworth. To make the ward larger to include the number of voters you need you can just go back to the orginal unique village boundary.

2: Your map is to difficult to mark. Just look at the various ordinance survey maps from the early twentieth century onwards to see the village and community boundaryContains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: You have split and isolated the historical and modern village of Bishopsworth. To make the ward larger to include the number of voters you need you can just go back to the orginal unique village boundary.

Annotation 2: Your map is to difficult to mark. Just look at the various ordinance survey maps from the early twentieth century onwards to see the village and community boundary

Comment text:

change the boundary of Bishopsworth ward rips the heart and soul out of the historical, tradition and modern areas of Bishopsworth and my community and identity of Bishopsworth. How you made this decision is not clear. I cannot see how you sensibly came to the following proposal. Take out the far western area of Bishopsworth zone D where my family have resided for centuries even before they were named in the 1841 Census of Bishopsworth. Place this old and traditional part of Bishopsworth with its historical and valuable community asset of Highridge common/green Bishopsworth (the only natural historical grass and wild flower meadow in the whole of the city of Bristol – check out Bristol city website) which extends down Highridge Road through what was the village of Bishopsworth and put this valuable open space of Bishopsworth into the area of Hartcliffe Ward. Hartcliffe area was developed and built in the mid twentieth century. Then to upset and confuse further, add the area of Headley park which was also extended and developed mid twentieth century into Bishopsworth where it does not belong historically and traditionally. Headley Park is an autonomous region that is served by its own community and facilities. I have some concern as I perceive a conflict of interest from the Bishopsworth councillors who recommended putting Headley Park into the ward of Bishopsworth. There is no ancient or historical link between Bishopsworth and Headley Park. Headley Park was developed with the expansion of housing well into the middle of the twentieth century. By removing the area around Highridge Common Bishopsworth and the roads running off of Highridge Road, Bishopsworth you are removing families that have lived in Bishopsworth for generations. Your proposed plans are annexing and isolating voters from Bishopsworth by removing them from having a democratic voice in the community they live in have lived in for decades and strongly identify with. From the correspondence you posted on your website the two councillors who represent the ward of Bishopsworth have in my opinion not been transparent or clear in their communications recommending Headley Park join the ward of Bishopsworth. In my opinion there is a conflict of interest from the one councillor who grew up in Headley Park and I am informed resides in Headley Park and appears to be representing the residents of Headley Park and not the voters of Bishopsworth ward who he was elected to represent. The other councillor wrote of an ancient link between Headley Park and Bishopsworth. This in my opinion is misleading Headley Park was built in my mother’s lifetime who is still alive and certainly not ancient or even antique. It is possible these councillors were not aware of the cost to actual residents and voters of Bishopsworth who live in Bishopsworth when they wrote their letters but who now you are proposing to annex and isolate from their community and from having a democratic voice in their community and facilities which they need to access in order to go about their daily life. My understanding of your remit is to provide for effective and convenient local government by balancing the numbers of voters to councillors within each ward fairly. Your remit is also to do this through reflecting community identity. You also have the provision to change ward names My suggestions to meet your remit are as follows. The first is to keep Bishopsworth ward as it is and add the areas of Bishopsworth which are not presently included. I have tried to indicate this on the map but the map is proving too tricky for me. This area would accurately reflect the community and boundary of the original historical and traditional village of Bishopsworth and include the modern area of Bishopsworth and the current areas of Bishopsworth which are exempt such as the roads around Bishopsworth swimming pool through to the roads around Queens’s road. Headley Park and Lakeshore Hartcliffe are not included as there is no link for these areas to Bishopsworth. Lakeshore development was remodelled from the old cigarette factory Harcliffe and was always been part of Hartcliffe. Headley Park is its own automonous region. I cannot see any evidence on your website of community cohesion between Headley Park and Bishopsworth. The valuable assets that Highridge common (or green as it is known to newcomers) should not be separated from the community which it has served from generations. The west of the ward around the areas of Highridge common (in zone d) whose removal you are proposing has historical and ancient routes and should remain in the ward of Bishopsworth. The facilities in Bishopsworth are our local facilities where I walk to the doctors and paper shop, where I bank and buy flowers from Jane at the flower shop. I cannot see how Hartcliffe ward can represent the interests of voters in this area as they are removed geographically as well as by communities. An areas name is very important to identity, and community adhesion. The second suggestion is to rename the Bishopsworth ward. The proposed boundary changes to Bishopsworth ward would accurately reflect the

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4508 29/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

community of Bedminster Down thus Bedminster Down Ward reflects the area and community that is represented in your proposal. You have removed Bishopsworth residents, the heart and soul of the community; you are dividing, partitioning and annexing areas of the old village of Bishopsworth and modern Bishopsworth. The name change will accurately reflect the various changes over the years where the majority of Bishopsworth is not in the Bishopsworth ward. Being from a family that have lived and farmed around Bishopsworth and Highridge common Bishopsworth for generation I find it upsetting and disrespectful that because we are to the west of the ward (with behind us)we will be dropped, partitioned and annexed from our community. We cannot have a voice in the village of Bishopsworth which my ancestors helped to build and whose community they established and nurtured for generations. We cannot have a voice in our modern community and the Bishopsworth which we actively support and engage with. For my area of Bishopsworth to be added to Hartcliffe ward is complete isolation from having a democratic voice and vote in the running of our area and community where I live and engage with on a daily basis. Hartcliffe was built in my lifetime and we have no connection with this area. Hartcliffe is geographically a distinct area not associated with the area of Bishopsworth around Highridge road and Highridge common/Green where I reside. This unique and important part of Bishopsworth village, life and community geographically borders North Somerset and Highridge, Bishopsworth and not Hartcliffe.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4508 29/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Laurie Harvey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are totally against the proposal to change the boundary and transfer our road to the Hartcliffe Ward. You are dividing the natural community. We live in Bishopsworth through choice, not Hartcliffe. Our local councillors are extremely good and helpful and we do not want to lose them. We believe this proposal is non-sensical and urge you to think again on this.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4745 11/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Darrell Hawkes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I'm not clever enough to amend the boundaries. I would like to say that I strongly support the idea of a partnership ward with Henleaze, and sharing 3 councillors between us.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4619 05/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Hayes

E-mail:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

In any changes to the ward boundaries it is ESSENTIAL that the historically important Westbury -on-Trym village centre and church remains in a ward called Westbury-on-Trym. That should be obvious to the least-intelligent planner David Hayes Born 84 years ago in Bristol and a resident of Westbury-on-Trym for 45 ye3ars

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4522 30/01/2015

From: To: Subject: FW: Electoral review of Bristol: Draft recommendations Date: 16 December 2014 08:47:13

From: Susan Hazell Sent: 12 December 2014 08:20 To: Fuller, Heather Subject: RE: Electoral review of Bristol: Draft recommendations

Thank you Heather. This is really informative and I'm personally very pleased with the / boundary change since it would appear to resolve the isolated community aspect that we are experiencing. Kind regards. Sue Hazell

From: To: Date: Tue, 9 Dec 2014 14:48:00 +0000 Subject: Electoral review of Bristol: Draft recommendations

9 December 2014 Dear Ms Hazell, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BRISTOL: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Bristol City Council. Today is the start of a ten week public consultation on the Commission's draft recommendations on new ward boundaries across Bristol City Council. The consultation closes on 16 February 2015. View the draft recommendations You can view the Commission's draft recommendations at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/3535 where you can find interactive maps, a report and guidance on how to have your say. The Commission has not finalised its conclusions and now invites representations on the draft recommendations. A summary outlining the Commission's draft recommendations, a copy of the letter to the City Director of Bristol City Council, an interactive map of the Commission's recommendations for Bristol, electorate figures and guidance on how to propose new wards is available on the consultation area at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/3535. Further information about the review and the Commission’s work is also published on our website at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/south-west/bristol/bristol . Have your say We encourage everyone who has a view on the draft recommendations to contact us whether you support them or whether you wish to propose alternative arrangements. Before finalising the recommendations, the Commission will consider every representation received during consultation whether it is submitted by an individual, a local group or an organisation. We will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements: To deliver electoral equality where each city councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the city council. That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. It is important that you take account of the criteria if you are suggesting an alternative pattern of wards. You can find additional guidance and information about previous electoral reviews on our website to help you or your organisation make a submission. Get in touch The Commission welcomes comments on the recommendations report by 16 February 2015. Representations should be made: Through our interactive consultation portal where you can explore the maps of the recommendations, draw your own boundaries and supply comments at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/3535.

By email to: [email protected].

Or in writing to: Review Officer (Bristol) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

The Commission aims to publish every response it receives during phases of consultation. If you do not want all or any part of your response or name to be made public, you must state this clearly in the response. Any such request should explain why confidentiality is necessary. All responses may be subject to publication or disclosure as required by law (in particular under the Freedom of Information Act 2000). This is the last opportunity to influence the Commission's recommendations before they are finalised. We therefore encourage local people to get in touch with us and have their say. If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Mark Pascoe Review Officer

020 7664 8531

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: John Heenan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: None

Comment text:

Separating Westbury village from the ward of Westbury on Trym will be hugely unpopular. The postal address for virtually all of Henleaze ward is 'Westbury on Trym', and it is suggested that all residents there would be content to be in a ward named Westbury on Trym. The desired objective can be achieved by redrawing the ward boundaries as proposed, while at the same time either:- a) renaming Westbury on Trym and Henleaze wards as Westbury on Trym West and East, or b) combining the two wards into a larger ward, to be named Westbvury on Trym

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4461 21/01/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Michael Heming Sent: 28 January 2015 14:54 To: Reviews@ Subject: Westbury-on-Trym. Henleaze

To Review officer (Bristol)

Sir

Please rethink your proposed boundaries, to take W o T out of its own named Ward and put it in Henleaze is purely bureaucratic nonsense. Both Wards have a main thoroughfare running through them and both have there own history, the W o T history is particularly important to the City of Bristol, the Ward with the village of Westbury on Trym cannot suddenly become part of Henleaze Ward they are entirely different.

Having been brought up on the Parrys lane side of Falcondale Road I spent my formative years in and around Westbury village, Canford Park, following the Trym through the village crossing and re crossing Falcondale Rd. Nothing has changed in this respect and my children still do the same on a daily basis. It is my firm belief that Westbury on Trym with Falcondale rd running through it should remain as its own Ward and certainly not be made part of something it's not. Likewise Henleaze has its own identity and should remain so.

Very concerned Yours

Michael Heming

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: James Hendry

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I can't understand why we in Redfield are included in the Easton ward, we are closer geographically to St George. The current councillors pay no attention to requests/complaints from residents in Redfield. Please change the boundary to include us in St George.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4313 16/12/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Delroy Hibbert

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Stokes Croft is a local road and not a geographical area, using this term incorrectly is already causing confusion and is unnecessary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4509 30/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Emily Hicks

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am referring to the changes to the westbury/southmead boundaries. I feel this changes does not reflect local interests; reference reasons for recommendations "the pattern of division should as far as possible reflect the interests and identities of local communities" which is always highlighted at boundaries but would be of particular concern here given the difference between henleaze/westbury and southmead. The current arrangements are more reflective of local needs. I also feel that this is unnecessary change and public money could be better spent. The consultation documents were not easy to locate online and I do not feel like I have all of the information as to the specific reasons why this boundary needs to be changed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4891 17/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

With regards to extending the ward boundary to include Lynton Road/marksbury etc We feel no connection to Filwood ward. We are separated by Novers Hill which forms a natural boundary. Our Church is based on Windmill Hill - many of us are familiar with our local vicar and local community Group (Marksbury Road Community Association. We use the Malago Greenway regularly but the majority of this is now in /windmill Hill Ward. Very few of us use The Health Park as the majority of services are for residents only. Filwood councillors will have to large patch to consult with us and the Fillward Polling station will be too far away. Therefore less people will vote as they have an extremely steep hill to climb. The Windmill Hill ward should be extended to include Novers Hill Common and a major part of the Norther Slopes tp make that are larger and not less like the proposed plans. It would also mean that some of use would not be able to use some local organisations, like Windmill hill Arts trail as you need to be resident in Willmill Hill. Filwood doesnt have an arts trail - though even if it did we would feel no connection with it because of the natural Boundary of Novers Common. We would rarely use any services in the Filwood ward because of the distance we would need to travel. We all go to Bedminster to shop, use Windmill Hill Farm which would them move into Southville ward.... think of the cost if they needed to change there name?? When those who started it are from the Windmill Hill ward!!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4307 16/12/2014 Pascoe, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 04 February 2015 11:57 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Changes, Bristol BS13

Hi Mark,

Please see submission below for Bristol.

Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Philip Hill Sent: 04 February 2015 11:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary Changes, Bristol BS13

I write re proposed change to BISHOPSWORTH WARD. It is proposed that the road in which I live, , becomes HARTCLIFFE WARD. This proposal takes no account of local community identity or the history of Bishopsworth which was once a Somerset village until it was incorporated into Bristol in the 1950s. The village appears in the Domesday Book as Biscopewrde. There was a settlement here in Saxon times.

It was only during the 1950s that Hartcliffe was recognised as a suburb when a large housing estate was built. Bishopsworth has a very distinct identity amongst its residents. Highridge Road itself borders an old area of common land, Highridge Common. The area contains a number of properties dating back at least 150 years, some over 200 years old.

The area has a semi‐rural character that is very different to the character of the large Hartcliffe estate that contains both high‐rise & low‐rise flats. The areas do not even lie adjacent to each other being separated by the locality known as Withywood. The heart of the Hartcliffe ward lies several miles to the east of Highridge Common, beyond Withywood. Residents of this area have never believed they live in Hartcliffe & it is doubtful any Hartcliffe residents believe they live in Bishopsworth.

The Commission may have a need to equalise the size of electoral wards but the proposal is, in my opinion, a far too simplistic attempt that destroys local identity. It appears that Hartcliffe "District A", known locally as Headley Park, is being swapped with Bishopsworth "District D". More appropriate changes could surely be made that would retain the identity of this area. Highridge Road & Common are so much part of "old" Bishopsworth that to move them to a ward with which there is no connection, that residents cannot identify with, seems completely misguided. I would ask that you reconsider this matter.

Philip Hill

Sent from my iPad

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Hilyer-Jones

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

To move the boundary so the ancient and historic village of Westbury on Trym is no longer in the ward of Westbury on Trym seems ludicrous. This is a wonderful community with people who are proud of its identity so why upset them? I understand and support the move to reduce the number of councillors but this could be achieved by simply amalgamating the two wards into one called Westbury on Trym and Henleaze.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4597 04/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Aline Hinton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I should like to support strongly the Westbury-on-Trym Society proposal for the LGBC boundaries. The LGBC's present proposal is a violation of people's sense of place.The historic centre which would be subsumed into Henleaze is one of the oldest in the whole area. I have lived in Westbury for 26 years and long ago learned how people feel themselves to belong to it as a village having an identity quite separate from Bristol City's, certainly quite separate from Henleaze's and have come to feel the same myself. In council representation Westbury people need to be able to put their interests forward as at least equals with Henleaze residents which they would not have the weight of numbers to do under the existing proposal.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4809 13/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Lucy Hoare

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on and have til now voted in the Southville ward. My daughter is soon to go to school in Southville (Ashton Gate), and we are active within the community in Southville. Given that the School is named Ashton Gate, it makes sense that the Ashton Gate area (including Ashton Road) should be included in the same ward as the school which bears it's name, rather than another ward entirely. I propose that the Southville ward extends to Winterstoke road as per the existing ward boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4351 05/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Margaret Hoare

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My comments relate to the proposals for Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze. I recognise that the size of the electorate in the geographical area may no longer warrant 4 councillors given the recent and projected scale of growth elsewhere in the city. However as a long term resident of north west Bristol , both within, and now just beyond the Westbury-on-Trym ward boundary, it seems most inappropriate to include the heart of the historic village of Westbury within a ward called Henleaze. As for many in this part of the city Westbury-on-Trym remains the focus for a wide range of activity and to divorce its heart from its name in the civic language of Bristol City Council seems perverse. Westbury-on-Trym as a settlement predates Bristol itself, and whilst the subsequent suburban expansion of Bristol in the 20th century engulfed Westbury, the identity of the 'village', as it is known locally, and particularly its historic heart remains very strong. It includes the ancient Westbury-on-Trym Parish church, originally a Saxon foundation and soon to celebrate its 1300th anniversary as an important local institution, several other Westbury churches, the Westbury-on-Trym village hall and the war memorial which has become increasingly a focus for local remembrance in this part of the city and the eponymous primary Academy. It is also of course an historic local commercial centre of considerable importance beyond its immediate boundaries, including shops, banks, supermarkets and independent businesses, and is the centre of many local community activities. Falcondale Road is no barrier to the very regular coming and going of people for whom Westbury-on-Trym is their local centre for many purposes. Henleaze is a much more recent suburban development, with its own, albeit less historic, identity. It does seem most insensitive to local identity and communities to include the ancient Westbury-on-Trym village centre in a ward that does not acknowledge it by name, and instead uses the name of a more recent suburb, whilst leaving its name to a smaller area of its largely more recent hinterland with no natural centre. Better solutions might be: - to incorporate the whole area in one 3 member ward called Westbury-on- Trym, reflecting that this is the main district centre, as well as the historic heart of the area. If this is politically difficult, why not call it Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze? - to retain the historic heart of the village with the rest of the Westbury-on-Trym ward as a 2 member ward leaving Henleaze as a 1-member ward. The extent of this would depend on whether this would include a sufficiently sized electorate and might require some reconsideration of the boundary with the new Henleaze ward and the boundaries of both wards with their neighbours.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4374 05/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Helena Hobbs

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am a resident of Hotwells in Clifton ward in Bristol. I have lived in the area for over 30 years. The proposal to create a Ward will divide the historic neighbourhood of Hotwells between the new wards of Clifton West and Hotwells & Harbourside as well as dividing Cliftonwood from Hotwells. The community of Cliftonwood and Hotwells, is clearly recognised as a single entity by residents and defined by the parish boundary. The new boundary proposals will divide this established community rather than reflect community identity and will divide the area defined by the parish of Holy Trinity and Hotwells school traditional catchment area. Voters in Hotwells & Cliftonwood are currently represented by two Councillors. The proposed Hotwells & Harbourside ward will have only one. The rights of this community to lobby for changes through the City Council will be diluted with only one Councillor rather than two working on their behalf. This represents a reduction in electoral equality relative to other 2 or 3 Councillor wards, not an improvement. We have greatly valued the support and commitment of our councillors in the past and they have worked hard to promote cohesiveness within the community that they serve, assisted by the links formed by the residents in both areas. The proposed changes will also impact on the existing Neighbourhood Partnership structure. This has established itself as an improved system for making local government more responsive and accountable. The proposed changes represent a threat to effective local government in our area that will undermine the work that Council officers and community representatives have undertaken together in improving the delivery of local services. We have a great and cohesive community here. Please don't mess with it!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4556 02/02/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Liz Holdsworth Sent: 12 February 2015 12:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: New council ward boundaries Bristol

To whom it may concern, I have received a letter through my door re proposed ward boundary changes in my area, how is this likely to affect me in anyway,how can the area in which you live change? Sounds ridiculous to me!!!

Regards

Liz Holdsworth

Sent from my iPad

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 29 January 2015 16:58 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary changes

From: jane hole-jones Sent: 29 January 2015 16:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes

Although I live on the present boundary,(but in the parish of Westbury on Trym)- the areas of Henleaze & WOT are very different & many people have worked hard to preserve theses differences-I cannot understand the reasoning for the divide. However I certainly support the proposed alternative of the Three member ward comprising WOT & Henleaze & wish this noted,Jane Hole-Jones,

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Marcus Hollick

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposed changes to the ward boundary of Westbury on Trym, Bristol. This is one of the oldest recognised parts of the City of Bristol with a heritage that can be traced back to the 8th Century, and its centre still very much retains a 'village within the City' feel. It's what makes Westbury the popular place it is. To propose that the heart of Westbury should be subsumed within the much younger ward of Henleaze shows a crass level of ignorance and complete disregard for the history and identity of the village, not to mention its residents and voters who live here.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4658 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David holliday

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I cannot believe what I am seeing. Lake Road is now Southmead?!?!?! Has anyone walked these boundaries? I cannot for one second believe the person who thought of this boundary knows this area very well?? There is no way that Henleaze Lake and the surrounding roads up to Doncaster Road should be classed as Southmead. You will kill the house prices there and CLEARLY these houses are NOT part of Southmead. Are you MAD?!?! You can expect some serious opposition to this one. What a joke. Why on earth are you doing this?? Just use some fairer ratio calculations if you feel the need to be fairer for voting, don't cripple the people who moved there over the last few years who have large mortgages. The recession was bad enough but then you hit the owners of those properties with another investment slam? Really? Utter madness and complete thoughtlessness. Don't move that boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4477 27/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Holliday

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on Lake Road. My neighbours are all professionals and own their owns so I am confused as to why this area has been labelled the 'deprived' area of Westbury on Trym. Myself and my family are quite offended by this comment made by Charlotte Leslie especially as we paid quite a lot of money for the privilege of living here. The house we live in was not cheap, the houses in Southmead not so far away are much cheaper. If I wanted to live in Southmead, i would have moved there. It never crossed my mind that the council would move the boundaries to make it so our new house falls well within Southmead boundaries. I'm frankly astonished this can be allowed. I work for many estate agents in the local area and all, without exception have commented that the value of the house we live in will be affected by the movement of boundaries proposed. Therefore I implore you not to let this happen, it simply isn't fair. Why is Lake Road, which is based on Henleaze lake not in Henleaze? Please reconsider these plans and make any movement of boundaries truly reflect the areas we live in, It should never happen just because it is convenient for a voting process. Take a walk and talk to the people involved and you will see these proposals are a bad idea, plainly wrong.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4798 13/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Kizzy Holliday

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on Lake Road and associate myself with Henleaze/Westbury-on-Trym. The proposal to put the whole of the area around Henleaze swimming lake into the Southmead ward doesn't make any sense to me! My current councillor (for the W-O-T ward) has commented saying that she believes that the proposed area to be added to the Southmead ward is 'deprived' and so will benefit from greater government grants etc. I certainly don't count my family as deprived and I don't believe that any of my neighbours would see themselves that way either. Most of the people living in my road and the surrounding ones are professional people, retired people, young families and business owners. It feels to me that in this area the boundary for the beginning of Southmead is Doncaster Road. Please consider adding Henleaze lake and its surrounding roads the the Henleaze ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4478 27/01/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 08:56 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary Changes

From: Denise Sent: 09 February 2015 14:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Changes

I would like to ask that you leave our boundaries alone. These areas of Bristol have a history which means something to us and gives us a sense of belonging. We have more and more officialdom entering our lives and taking away our power and identity – and for what?

If the boundaries are changed I know a number of us in this area, who have always voted, will choose not to vote this time.

Denise Hopley,

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Regarding the proposals to merge Westbury on Trym's ancient village with Henleaze to form a new ward, thus splitting the village in two. We would like to protest in the strongest terms at the perceived loss of our ancient heritage. How can the village of Westbury on Trym be fragmented and split to form a Henleaze ward? It doesn't make sense. The Westbury on Trym Society held a meeting recently, with representatives from the churches, schools, clubs and other local organisations at which the overwhelming majority voted to keep our village together and preserve its rightful name by supporting the idea of a 'Partnership Ward with Henleaze' combining the two present wards into one and sharing 3 Councillors between us. We, too, support this proposal and hope that the village community of Westbury on Trym will not lose our identity in this 'shake up'.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4529 02/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Clive and Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Annotation 2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Annotation 3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

Annotation 4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

Annotation 5:

Annotation 6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

Comment text:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in taking Westbury on Trym Village and Westbury Parish Church OUT OF Westbury on Trym. We are an ancient village and we operate as a community with Westbury on Trym village at its CENTRE. It follows that we should retain our ward of Westbury on Trym. Henleaze is a suburb of Bristol City which has no ancient history, like Westbury does, and we have no desire to be 'lumped in' with Henleaze - it makes NO SENSE at all to implement the current proposal. We have, therefore, indicated above our alternative suggestions, which keep approximately the same balance of dwellings in each ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4384 07/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Clive and Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Annotation 2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Annotation 3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

Annotation 4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

Annotation 5:

Annotation 6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

Comment text:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in taking Westbury on Trym Village and Westbury Parish Church OUT OF Westbury on Trym. We are an ancient village and we operate as a community with Westbury on Trym village at its CENTRE. It follows that we should retain our ward of Westbury on Trym. Henleaze is a suburb of Bristol City which has no ancient history, like Westbury does, and we have no desire to be 'lumped in' with Henleaze - it makes NO SENSE at all to implement the current proposal. We have, therefore, indicated above our alternative suggestions, which keep approximately the same balance of dwellings in each ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4384 07/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Clive and Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Annotation 2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Annotation 3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

Annotation 4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

Annotation 5:

Annotation 6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

Comment text:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in taking Westbury on Trym Village and Westbury Parish Church OUT OF Westbury on Trym. We are an ancient village and we operate as a community with Westbury on Trym village at its CENTRE. It follows that we should retain our ward of Westbury on Trym. Henleaze is a suburb of Bristol City which has no ancient history, like Westbury does, and we have no desire to be 'lumped in' with Henleaze - it makes NO SENSE at all to implement the current proposal. We have, therefore, indicated above our alternative suggestions, which keep approximately the same balance of dwellings in each ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4384 07/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Clive and Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

3: Mo La 2: Move Home Gro between Henleaz Southmead Road

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Annotation 2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Annotation 3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

Annotation 4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

Annotation 5:

Annotation 6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

Comment text:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in taking Westbury on Trym Village and Westbury Parish Church OUT OF Westbury on Trym. We are an ancient village and we operate as a community with Westbury on Trym village at its CENTRE. It follows that we should retain our ward of Westbury on Trym. Henleaze is a suburb of Bristol City which has no ancient history, like Westbury does, and we have no desire to be 'lumped in' with Henleaze - it makes NO SENSE at all to implement the current proposal. We have, therefore, indicated above our alternative suggestions, which keep approximately the same balance of dwellings in each ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4384 07/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Clive and Lyn Horscroft

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

5:

6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Westbury Village in Westbury

Annotation 2: Move Home Ground and area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road into Henleaze

Annotation 3: Move area between Henleaze Lake and Southmead Road

Annotation 4: Put area between Falcondale and Northover into Henbury

Annotation 5:

Annotation 6: Chakeshill Drive and all to East into Southmead assuming future development of Pen Park Area

Comment text:

There seems to be no rhyme or reason in taking Westbury on Trym Village and Westbury Parish Church OUT OF Westbury on Trym. We are an ancient village and we operate as a community with Westbury on Trym village at its CENTRE. It follows that we should retain our ward of Westbury on Trym. Henleaze is a suburb of Bristol City which has no ancient history, like Westbury does, and we have no desire to be 'lumped in' with Henleaze - it makes NO SENSE at all to implement the current proposal. We have, therefore, indicated above our alternative suggestions, which keep approximately the same balance of dwellings in each ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4384 07/01/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alex Hosking

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

2: Combe Dingle 2:

3: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 2: Combe Dingle

Annotation 2:

Annotation 3:

Comment text:

Avonmouth, and Lawrence Weston are separated from the rest of Bristol by Green Belt, Combe Dingle is more in the Sea Mills area. Also why is Westbury-on-Trym in the Henleaze Ward? I don't think the Downs should be In Clifton one of the Clifton Wards. Also it should be the Harbour that is used as a boundry and not the new cut, the Harbour is the boundary between North and South Bristol.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4333 16/12/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Hoskins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Clifton Ward - the proposal to detach part of Hotwells creates an entirely false community and the southern boundary of Clifton should be restored as the Harbourside water line to reflect the Clifton and Hotwells community

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4677 09/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rebecca HUCKETT

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to see Westbury in partnership with henleaze, combining the two present wards into one and sharing councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4599 04/02/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:37 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: BOUNDARY WARDS

From: Mike and Gay Huggins Sent: 14 February 2015 12:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: BOUNDARY WARDS

Dear Sirs

I wish to submit my views as to the proposed Boundary changes for .

I am happy with the proposals, but would emphasise that it is very important we keep TWO members of Council to cover our Ward. This is a very active community and we do need to have a Councillor available at all times to be able to communicate with.

I am very aware the proposed Boundary changes for Westbury‐on‐Trym are totally unacceptable, but I am happy to leave any decision to those who live in that area.

I trust you will accept my comments.

Yours faithfully

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Hughes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to oppose the proposal for Westbury-on-Trym village to be removed from the Westbury-on-Trym ward and put into the Henleaze Ward. I am concerned that Westbury-on- Trym will lose its identity, which has been established over many centuries and is currently supported by a number of organisation including the Westbury-on-Trym Society and the Westbury-on-Trym Business Association, as well as the local Parish Church. Instead I would like to support the proposal that the Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym wards be joined into one ward served by three local councillors. Yours faithfully Tony Hughes

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4672 09/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Ron Humphrey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Member of St George Neighbourhood Partnership, Easton & Lawrence Hill Name: Neighbourhood Partnership, And Church Road Action Group

Comment text:

Lyppiatt Road is divided down the middle. One side being St George, and the other Easton. Because of this, the Easton Councillor does not seem interested in any problems raised by local people ignoring many requests to engage in problems raised. However, the St George Councillor is only to happy to help. I have met with him on numerous occasions. I therefore request that the whole of Lyppiatt Road is moved into St George by moving the Boundary Line to the rear gardens of the odd number houses. This would also make dealing with Traffic Problems, of which there are many, easier for the Residents. Thank You. Mr & Mrs Humphrey.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4428 14/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Ron Humphrey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Easton/Lawrence Hill Neighbourhood Partnership

Comment text:

I live in Lyppiatt Road in Redfield. The odd numbers are in the Easton Ward, and even ones in St George. I therefore have to belong to both Easton, Lawrence Hill Neighbourhood Partnership, and St George Neighbourhood Partnership to get anything done with regard to the upkeep of the road and pavements and other traffic problems. At the moment, after several years of talking to, and suggesting a way to deal major problems, a feasibility study is being carried out by Traffic & Transport. The lives of people in our road, including the local pub which has the boundary running through the middle of it, would be made so much easier if this archaic situation was resolved. It could, at least be routed down the rear of the houses to place the road in one or the other of the wards. Yours Hopefully, Ron Humphrey .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4346 18/12/2014

26 January 2015

Boundaries Commission,

Dear Sirs,

I have become aware of proposals to change the boundaries of wards in our area.

If I understand the latest proposal correctly, Westbury on Trym is to be divided into two, with a significant part of the original village being absorbed into Henleaze ward.

I’d like to register my dismay at a proposal to effectively “destroy” the historical entity of Westbury on Trym village. I have lived in the area in the 1960s and more recently since 1980. I have always considered Westbury on Trym to be an entity in itself and am disappointed that the historical aspect appears to be ignored.

I fully understand the need to rationalise wards to reflect properly the balance of councillors and population. I also would actively encourage any proposal to reduce the number of Councillors and (I would hope) reduce local government costs.

May I suggest that it would be worth considering other options, including the merging of Henleaze and Westbury on Trym wards into one new combined ward with three Councillors in total?

I do hope that a suitable alternative solution can be found.

Yours faithfully

C J Humphreys

(sent by email for posting whilst I am away from home)

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Fergus Hunter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are totally opposed to this proposal

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4624 05/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Jill Hunter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am very against the proposal of splitting Hotwells from Clifton and Cliftonwood

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4625 05/02/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:36 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Westbury on Trym. Proposed Ward Boundary changes.

From: Sent: 14 February 2015 17:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Westbury on Trym. Proposed Ward Boundary changes.

I am shocked to see that you are proposing to split Westbury on Trym into 2 and that the actual village will be absorbed by Henleaze! Westbury on Trym has a history going back 1000 years. It is a unique vibrant village. Please, see sense and review your suggestion. M. Husbands,

1