Parish and Town councils submissions to the District 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.

Keal, Simon

From: Waller, Matthew Sent: 24 July 2013 14:56 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: ELDC review

From: Kathy Roberts [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 July 2013 14:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELDC review

Coningsby Council would like to submit comments on the joining together of & ward with Mareham Ward, it is felt this is much to big an area and it would be better to split Mareham ward and join the lower portion Tumby downwards with ward and the upper section with Halton Halgate Ward.

To join Frithville with is not an good idea as the ward is already spread over a massive area and cover would be diminished.

Kathy

Mrs K Roberts Coningsby Town Council Town Office, Coningsby LN4 4SG

Telephone/Fax 01526 343523 Office open to public 9am - 3pm Monday & Friday 9am -12noon Wednesday

1 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Joann Greer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Croft Parish Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Croft Parish Council do not agree with the proposal to change the Croft Ward by amalgamating it into the larger Wainfleet and Ward. Making these changes does not effect the number of district councillors however what it does do is take our East Lindsey District Councillor away to cover a different area. How can this benefit the people of Croft? All the local knowledge of community issues and project development in the ward of Croft will just disappear. The ward of Croft including Croft, and the Firsby group are a rural mix with urban settlements and has the right balance. People who live there are confident the current ward of Croft works. The smaller villages included in the proposed Wainfleet and Firsby Ward would not be able to receive the attention they need from a district councillor as they will be dealing with issues for a much larger geographical area with the ward of Croft becoming a minority. It appears to be a change for the sake of changing.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2031 09/07/2013

-----Original Message----- From: Philippa Lidstone-Scott Sent: 27 July 2013 09:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations

To: Simon Keal, Review Officer

From: Parish Council.

Dear Mr Keal

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF EAST LINDSEY

Grainthorpe Parish Council discussed the review as it would affect the Parish.

To be part of a larger constituency served by two District Councillors can only lead to confusion. Would we be deciding which councillor to discuss a problem with on our understanding of their views? Would we be in the position where our councillors negated each other's vote by taking the opposite position? This unacceptable position could be avoided by dividing the Electoral Division in two. To end with equal sized populations may be impossible short of cutting a village in half, but it was felt that uneven sizes and a know and understood represtantative are preferable to the confusion caused by having two individual representatives.

Yours sincerely,

Philippa Lidstone-Scott Clerk Grainthorpe Parish Council 01472 388109

Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 July 2013 14:27 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Parish Council response to Boundary Commission draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council

From: Susan Archibald Sent: 17 July 2013 14:24 To: Reviews@ Cc:

Subject: Hagworthingham Parish Council response to Boundary Commission draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council

At its meeting held on Monday 24 June 2013, Hagworthingham Parish Council resolved that the following comment on the Boundary Commission draft recommendations for East Lindsey District Council be submitted in respect of the consultation:

Hagworthingham Parish Council support the proposals in the draft recommendation

Sue Archibald Clerk to Hagworthingham Parish Council

1 8/1/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Larner

E-mail: townclerk@.gov.uk

Postcode: PE25 1DA

Organisation Name: Skegness Town Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Skegness Town Council strongly disagree with the proposal to merge the Scarbrough and Seacroft Wards. The proposal is based on flawed evidence and assumptions that gives a false impression of the representational needs of the area. Should they proceed, it will lead to the Councillors for this ward having to represent significantly more residents than in other areas. The problem arises because of the very transient nature of those that live in the existing Scarbrough Ward. These may often not register to vote, but are still resident and often require and need the support of a local representative. Moving to a single combined ward with 3 District representatives would place an unreasonable burden on those representatives and this would be greater than in other areas within the town and elsewhere in the district. The preference therefore is to keep the existing ward structure and number of representatives. Should the Commission insist on moving forward with the single ward, then the naming needs to be reconsidered. Simply combining the existing ward names into a lengthy name is inappropriate and confusing. Suggestions such as Lumley or Richmond have come forward, but perhaps seeking the view of the public would be preferable.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2130 1/1

From: Admin [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 August 2013 11:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of East Lindsey - Response of Louth Town Council

Dear Sir,

Please find below the response of Louth Town Council to the Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations:

Louth Town Council – Comments on new voting arrangements as proposed by the Electoral Commission.

1. The aim of the re-organisation of Wards is electoral fairness but it is the opinion of Louth Town Council that the proposals will have the opposite effect. Louth is divided into seven wards which at present functions well with one district councillor per ward. Residents understand this with little or no problem, not least as this has worked efficiently and effectively for many years and they are familiar and comfortable with the set up. But for four wards to suddenly become two member wards while three remain as they were will cause confusion.

2. Political differences could then mean the more popular and more approachable councillor gets all the work in a two member ward, leading to uneven representation.

3. Canvassing a two member size ward would be ‘doubly’ expensive for candidates and would definitely favour the main political parties, who finance their candidates. This would also have the effect of putting less well off possible councillors putting their names forward for election which would be contrary to fostering local democracy.

4. There is no intention of altering the present town council system of three members per Ward and this will cause further confusion for residents who will be asked to elect two district council members in four of these wards.

5. There is no intention to change the County Council boundaries as part of this consultation which will further complicate matters. Presently Louth South has well over 2000 more voters than Louth North and this inequality is not addressed at all. This further complicates voting arrangements and inequalities within Louth.

6. In conclusion the proposals do not go any way to reflect communities within the town and actually work against effective and convenient local government.

On a Ward basis the proposals fail again to reflect community identities within the town.

1. The loss of the name St James’s Ward is of great regret. The parish church of St James provides the town with its identity and the Electoral Commission’s plans to eradicate the name is felt to be an insult to the town!

2. The plan to put South Street, Edward Street, Westgate and Upgate into an enlarged Priory Ward fails to recognise the distinctive local character of the town. It would also leave Road without a road link to its ward, which would seem to be highly irregular and contrary to the stated aims of this exercise. As is well appreciated locally Upgate is an effective boundary, to the west has a totally different character to the east contrary - to the EC’s suggestion.

3. St Mary’s Ward could have its numbers enhanced by ensuring all of Kenwick Road, Kenwick Pastures, Kenwick Close, Southlands Avenue and the south side of Road and by adding the north side of Westgate. This move reflects the distinctive character of this ward. This move would make far more sense than what is presently proposed.

4. St James’s Ward would be enhanced by adding the north side of St Mary’s Lane – this area has very little in common with the general character of North Holme Ward.

5. Priory Ward should keep the Robinson Lane development within its boundaries as it is served by a single road network coming from Little Lane and Mount Pleasant, which are both in Priory Ward. There is no direct road link to the St Michael’s Ward, which again is contrary to what the EC is trying to achieve. Watts Lane is already an easily understood boundary between these two Wards.

In conclusion Louth Town Council wishes to stress that it is felt very strongly that the proposals put forward for change in the town will actually result in less effective and convenient local government, which fails to reflect community identities.

Kind regards.

Lynda Phillips

Mrs. Lynda Phillips Secretary to the Town Clerk and Mayor

Louth Town Council The Sessions House Eastgate Louth Lincolnshire LN11 9AJ

Tel: 01507 355895

Office Open Hours: 10am to 1pm Monday to Friday

NORTH THORESBY PARISH COUNCIL

Wayside, Bunkers Hill Close, , , DN36 5PF Telephone (01472 811710)

Email:

To: The Review Officer (East Lindsey)

Local Government Boundary Commission Review We ask you to take note, and account of, Parish Councils comments on your Draft Recommendations for boundary changes within East Lindsey District. East Lindsey’s Draft Core Strategy of October 2012 showed the communities of North Thoresby, Holton-le-Clay, , North Cotes, Grainthorpe, and Tetney as part of the Grimsby Catchment Cluster (Sub Regional Centre – Grimsby). From local knowledge and belief none of these villages, other than possibly Holton-le-Clay, has any great affinity with Grimsby. Indeed Holton-le-Clay adjoins the boundary of and it requires little imagination to see that a future Boundary Commission Review could well recommend that Holton- le-Clay be taken out of East Lindsey and absorbed into the Grimsby/ conurbation of North East Lincs consequently taking North Thoresby with it should the current recommendations be adopted.

As stated in Section2, 11 of the Draft Recommendations the Commission must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act, 2009 with the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular the desirability of fixing boundaries so as NOT to break any local ties. Placing North Thoresby, and in Holton-le-Clay ward will do precisely the opposite. It will lose identity and interests of those local communities and break local ties!

On the 28th May, 2013 the Grimsby Telegraph ran an article regarding concerns that Holton-le-Clay would be engulfed by “urban sprawl” following East Lindsey District council’s Strategic Land Availability Assessment showing potential for 869 new homes to be developed in the ‘village’. One resident who has lived in Holton-le-Clay for 32 years is quoted as saying “…….. When you drive through villages like North Thoresby ……. they have managed to retain that wonderful village character” It is precisely that village character, the affinity with the Fen villages and the lack of urban sprawl that North Thoresby Parish Council vehemently consider must be protected and retained. Consequently North Thoresby Parish Council most strenuously object to your draft recommendation.

The benefits of being combined with Holton-le-Clay cannot be ascertained, nor have they been indicated in either the review’s aims nor in the Draft Recommendations other than to balance ward population numbers and the rather tenuous statement that “……..The value of your vote varies depending ………. where one lives”.

North Thoresby should be allowed to remain with Fulstow and , taking in Convenham to give an electorate of 1831 and giving that synergy amongst those Fen villages that share similar characteristics and histories. North Thoresby having a sub post office, doctors’ surgery, hardware store and other facilities is much used by the afore mentioned villages.

An altogether more radical, but far more practical solution, would be to allow North East Lincs to absorb Holton-le-Clay thus immediately reducing the number of Councillors by two and allowing the villages and communities of the Fen to retain their character.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs Sandra Bunyan Parish Clerk Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 09 July 2013 15:11 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations

From: Jean Brown Sent: 09 July 2013 14:55 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations

On behalf of Parish Council I submit the following questions/comments to the above document.

The Council supports the reduction in Councillors.

However, it is noted that Saltfleetby is to be combined with as a two- member ward, combining the eastern part of the existing Marshchapel ward with the existing North Somercotes ward & the northern part of the existing ward.

The Council seeks reassurance regarding this. In urban areas it is much easier to keep in touch with constituents, but in rural areas such as this & with this spread, it is very hard and to have two people representing an area of this size is viewed as potentially problematical.

Saltfleetby Parish Council ask for clarification on how the Commission see this area will be worked & how it proposes that the two members will operate in order to be effective?

I look forward to receiving your response.

Thank you.

Jean Brown Parish Clerk

1

From: elaine Sent: 06 August 2013 16:28 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations for Sibsey Parish

Reference the Boundary Commission Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations

We the Sibsey Parish Council are not satisfied with the Draft Recommendation for Sibsey Parish and we would like to put forward our suggestions regarding the proposed ward of Sibsey and Stickney which will encompass 7 parishes and be served by 2 District Councillors.

The Sibsey Parish Council is concerned about the size of the new ward as this is a rural area and consider that the community would be better served if this area was divided in to 2 wards separating Sibsey and Stickney as they are the villages identified as the most likely to have growth in the future.

Geographically it is proposed that Sibsey with Frithville and Westville become one area. They border with the Boston Borough longitudinal boundary and are served by the police from Boston. Historically they are linked and the nearest services for Frithville and Westville including the shop and Church are at Sibsey. The current District Councillor resides in Sibsey and historically the village has been served by a member that lives in the ward. A map is attached showing the area containing Sibsey outlined in green.

The 2 proposed wards would both contain urban areas that are proportionally equal in size and population. Population figures for the area are 2049 residents which is within 10% of the required figure based on the July 2013 electoral roll data.

It is considered that the community would not be best served by having 2 councillors in such a large rural area and it is against the idea of localism. The same goals can be achieved with 2 wards and it will be more efficient resulting in a saving of Councillor time and expense.

Councillors feel that the statistics available in the draft recommendations should have been made clearer to make it easier to make comparisons and to comment.

Your Sincerely

Elaine Spikings Sibsey Parish Clerk

Keal, Simon

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 July 2013 13:56 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Stickney Parish Council

From: Edwina L Arnold [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 July 2013 13:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Stickney Parish Council

FOR THE ATTENTION OF SIMON KEAL

Dear Mr Keal

RE: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: Draft Recommendations

I write on behalf of Stickney Parish Council to advise you that there are no objections to the suggestions regarding Stickney in the draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for East Lindsey District Council.

I hope this is in order with you.

Yours sincerely

E L Arnold (Mrs) Clerk to Stickney Parish Council

1

Keal, Simon

From: Waller, Matthew Sent: 06 June 2013 15:05 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: draft recommendations

From: Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 06 June 2013 14:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of East Lindsey: draft recommendations

Dear Mr Keal,

The above recommendations were brought to the attention of Well Parish Meeting at their AGM of 28th May 2013, by District Councillor Ms Angie Smith. After reviewing a map of the changes and discussing the likely impact on Well, no objections were forthcoming. However, there was general relief that the Parish would still be in a rural Ward. The Poster announcing the start of the Consultation will be posted on the village noticeboard so that individuals may make their own comments if they are so minded.

Yours sincerely,

Clerk to Well Parish Meeting

1