Councillor Submissions to the Hertfordshire Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Councillor submissions to the Hertfordshire Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from councillors. 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. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Alison Scarth E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: We agree with the revised boundary changes as shown on the map for Rickmansworth East & Oxhey Park Councillors Alison and Andrew Scarth Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4137 24/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Andrew Scarth E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: We agree with the new boundary changes for Rickmansworth East & Oxhey Park as shown in the above map Councillors Andrew and Alison Scarth Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4138 24/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Matthew Bedford E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I am district councillor for Abbots Langley & Bedmond ward on Three Rivers district council. I support the Commission's draft recommendations as they relate to Three Rivers district. In particular, despite the difficult geography of the district, the commission has recognised the natural communities within Three Rivers. Retaining the communities of Abbots Langley, Croxley Green and South Oxhey each in a single division is especially welcome. The creation of two Rickmansworth divisions also recognises that Rickmansworth, as the largest settlement in the district, is now too big to be contained within a single division. It also makes sense for the Rickmansworth divisions to include those parts of the built-up area of Rickmansworth that lie within Chorleywood parish (east of M25). I strongly support the proposed creation of the new Three Rivers Rural division. The more rural part of my own ward would be included in this division and would welcome inclusion in a division combining all the more rural areas of the district. I know that residents in Bedmond are especially pleased that the commission proposes to re-create a separate parish ward for Bedmond. I would suggest that the proposed parish ward of 'Chorleywood North East' be renamed 'Chorleywood Loudwater' as the area covered matches exactly with the separate community of Loudwater within Chorleywood parish. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4101 21/10/2014 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 15:08 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council - Consultation response Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Dudley Edmunds Sent: 03 November 2014 14:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council - Consultation response Dear Sirs, Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response I endorse the proposal that Croxley Green is retained as one ward for the county council elections, with a small addition, so that it keeps its local identity and it will be effective and convenient for local government. Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support the environment, sport and leisure and the Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of many local initiatives, including the joint community plan which is being written. The community is a cohesive unit for local government and therefore should have representation at county level to reflect local issues. I urge the review to keep Croxley Green together. Yours sincerely Cllr Dudley Edmunds This message and any attachments with this message, are confidential and may be subject to legal or other professional privilege. Any confidentiality or privilege is not waived or lost just because this e-mail has been sent to you by mistake. If you have received this transmission in error, please delete and 1 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 16:14 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Hertfordshire County Division Proposed Changes - Tring Division Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Nick Hollinghurst Sent: 03 November 2014 16:07 To: Reviews@ Subject: Hertfordshire County Division Proposed Changes - Tring Division The Review Officer (Hertfordshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Dear Sirs I am responding to the consultation on the Tring Division of Hertfordshire. I am the County Councillor for this division and have been for the last 10 years. My submission is that the division should remain unchanged. Currently the Tring Division comprises four complete district council wards. The division is only marginally over‐sized. I suggest that the extent to which both the present numbers and the estimated size in 2020 exceed target levels, could be tolerated. Although the transfer the two polling districts of Aldbury parish to the Bridgwater division would address the current imbalance, I suggest that this would result in only a marginal improvement in electoral equality, but at the cost of significant and unnecessary disruption and breaking up of community links. The geography and topography of the area mean both Aldbury and Wiggington naturally look towards Tring. This especially true of Aldbury, which is located within an arc of hills open to the west and has the steep sides of the Chiltern Escarpment and the large, heavily forested area of Ashridge at its back. The two parishes share a single‐member district council ward. The social, commercial, ecclesiastical, road, footpath and transport links within the division go back millennia and naturally centre on Tring as the local market town. Next year we will be celebrating the 700th anniversary of the granting of the market charter. Tring sits at a natural focus of a unified and coherent community spread over twenty square miles which is moulded by the lie of the land and which unquestionably includes Aldbury. The important transport hub of 1 Tring Station lies just within Aldbury parish and the proposal will separate Tring from its most important communication asset. Both Aldbury and Wiggington share Tring’s HP23 postcode, which is not shared by any part of the Bridgwater division. In fact Aldbury has little connection with the Bridgewater Division, from which it is separated by steep hills and Ashridge forest. There is only one a single minor road link between Aldbury and any part of the Bridgwater division. Moreover the two divisions are entirely different in character. Tring Division is a historic network of villages into which Aldbury fits well whereas Bridgewater is of necessity a very large and highly dispersed area. It is almost completely rural in character, with only three settlements of any size, Markyate, on the Bedfordshire border, Flamstead and Potten End, which can be seen as an extension of Berkhamsted. To cast Aldbury adrift in this scattered hinterland will do little to add any cohesion to the Bridgewater Division but will do great harm to the integrity of the Tring Division. The detachment of Aldbury seems to me to be neither practical nor desirable and I firmly believe the marginal improvement in numbers is outweighed by the social and geographic disadvanges for the people of Aldbury. They very likely to continue instinctively with their present patterns of communication ‐ even to the extent of continuing to take their problems and requests for representation to whomever will be the county councillor for Tring! Hoping you will agree with me, Nicholas Hollinghurst Hertfordsire County Councillor for Tring and the Villages. 2 I am writing to advise the Commission of my objection to the draft recommendations in respect of the South Oxhey and Eastbury Division. In the district council review last year, the commission did not consider it desirable for any of South Oxhey to be attached to anywhere other than another area within the Watford Rural Parish. However, just one year later you have concluded that the South Oxhey Division should be pared with the Eastbury area, which is outside the parish boundary and has little, if anything in common with South Oxhey. Some years ago the parish boundary was realigned in order to recognise this but this seems to have been conveniently forgotten. The two communities are entirely different and that is why Eastbury is in the same ward as Moor Park with which is shares many similarities not least the London Underground station. I find it difficult to understand your logic in tacking on a number of substantial detached properties surrounded by large gardens, in gated communities and private roads with a compact former Greater London Council estate! I refer to Paragraph 116 of your draft recommendations, in which you state that “adding electors from the east of South Oxhey, thus crossing the railway line would not reflect community identities” having made just such an arrangement during the Three Rivers District Review only months ago! If it was right then, why is it so wrong now? I would strongly argue that the Commissions draft recommendation has selected the worst of the lesser