Councillor submissions to the 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 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 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 & Bedmond ward on 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, and 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 - 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 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 of two evils and that is that the South Oxhey Division should have sufficient electors added to it from the Three Rivers District Council ward of Carpenders Park and that these should include:

Attenborough Close Compton Place Delta Gain Gibbs Couch Harrow Way Little Oxhey Lane Oulton Way Romilly Drive St Georges Drive

If the commission feels that the proposed 700 does not achieve the desired electoral equality, sufficient additional voters could be added

Cllr Joan King South Oxhey Division. Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 October 2014 09:53 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Review of Hertfordshire CC

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: Janice Marshall Sent: 21 October 2014 19:09 To: Reviews@ Subject: Review of Hertfordshire CC

Thank you for your draft recommendations and, as a member of Dacorum Borough Councillor, would like to make a recommendation in respect of para 53, 54 and 55.

Regarding the divisions of Hemel Hempstead North West and Hemel Hempstead Town, I recommend that you transfer polling district AGBA to Hemel Hempstead Town – this would bring the number of electors in both Hemel Hempstead North West and in Hemel Hempstead Town nearer to the average. It is worth nothing that AGBA is a ward in the Dacorum Borough ward of Boxmoor. All of the other wards in Boxmoor (AGA, AGB )and AGC lie in Hemel Hempstead Town division and, as it is preferable to have the County Divisions coterminous with Borough wards, this is further justification of transferring AGBA to Hemel Hempstead Town.

Regarding the division of Hemel Hempstead North East, I suggest that Piccotts End (polling district APBA) is transferred to Hemel Hempstead North East, again to bring the number of electors to nearer the average.

I do hope these proposals will find favour and I look forward to learning of your decision in due course.

Regards,

Janice Marshall Councillor for Boxmoor Dacorum Borough Council 21/10/14

1

The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and is intended for the addressee only unless explicitly stated. If you have received this message in error it must be deleted and the sender notified. The views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of Dacorum Borough Council unless explicitly stated. Please be aware that emails sent to or received from Dacorum Borough Council may be intercepted and read by the council. Interception will only occur to ensure compliance with council policies or procedures or regulatory obligations, to prevent or deter crime, or for the purposes of essential maintenance or support of the email system.

Please consider the environment - do you really need to print this email?

2 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:02 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Stevenage Local Government Boundary Proposals Attachments: Stevenage Liberal Democrats Proposal_jpg

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Andy McGuinness Sent: 02 November 2014 16:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Stevenage Local Government Boundary Proposals Importance: High

Dear Local Government Boundary Commission,

My name is Cllr Andrew McGuinness and I represent Manor Ward which forms part of Chells Division in Stevenage. I understand that you are currently consulting on proposals to change the County Council boundaries in Stevenage which will have a direct impact on my constituents. Having seen these plans, I would like you to note my strong objections to your proposals as these plans will break up our community boundaries in Chells Division which makes absolutely no workable sense on the ground in Stevenage.

Many of my constituents do not understand the difference between Borough and County Councils and so having straight forward boundaries which relate to each other and that do not divide communities like Chells Division in Stevenage is crucial. Stevenage is made up of distinct community areas which are accommodated in the current County boundaries ensuring a high level of co-terminosity between the Borough and County boundaries. This link has long been established in Stevenage and is something that my constituents welcome.

Your current proposals destroy these natural linkages, it destroys the co-terminosity in Stevenage and that is why I’m supportive of the submission by Stevenage Liberal Democrats as a distinct alternative to the Commission’s proposals. Their submission meets the Commission’s requirements for all divisions to have an electorate within 10% of the county average electorate and keeps workable and familiar boundaries relating to both the Borough and County Council ward areas. I have attached a map of their proposals and I very much hope that you will support them.

These proposals were put together by people that live and work in Stevenage. We know our area and believe that these plans should be acceptable to the Commission.

I would be most appreciated if you could please give serious consideration to this submission which offers a more effective and workable solution than the current proposals by the Commission.

I would like to thank you in advance for your assistance on this matter.

With kind regards

1

Andy McGuinness Councillor for Manor Ward Liberal Democrat Group | Stevenage Borough Council | Twitter | www.stevenage.gov.uk

2 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 October 2014 08:51 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Proposals for Three Rivers

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Debbie Morris Sent: 23 October 2014 15:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Commission Proposals for Three Rivers

Dear Sirs

I am one of the Three Rivers district councillors for the Moor Park and Eastbury ward. I strongly object to your proposal to include the “Eastbury community” in a new South Oxhey division (para116 of your report). I am mindful that your objective is not only for electoral equality between divisions but that new divisions “reflect the interests and identities of local communities” ( Max Caller CBE, Chair of the Commission). I am not taking issue with you that your proposal achieves your first objective of electoral equality but contend that joining Eastbury with South Oxhey fails to recognise that each community has its own distinct interests and identities with little commonality between them.

I understand that in the case of objections, you have invited suggestions for improvements. I suggest that either South Oxhey is split and parts joined with Carpenders Park or Oxhey Hall as happened when the Three Rivers district ward boundaries were re‐fashioned in October 2013 or Carpenders Park is joined with South Oxhey.

The reasons for my objection and recommendations are set out below.

1. You have identified an “Eastbury community” but are proposing to split it using the Metropolitan railway line where it crosses Batchworth Lane as a boundary. Do you not realise that Eastbury includes those areas west of the railway line? The residents living there are an integral part of the active and effective Eastbury Residents’ Association. Although they share a polling district with Moor Park, they are outside the Moor Park private estate with the benefits and responsibilities that the latter provides. 2. Eastbury and Moor Park are part of Northwood. Northwood itself is divided into two administrative districts: London Borough of Hillingdon and Three Rivers. To divide the Moor Park and Eastbury ward further will dilute the identity of the community and exacerbate the existing difficulties of effective administration of the area. 3. Eastbury and Moor Park are unparished; South Oxhey, Oxhey Hall and Carpenders Park are all parished and are part of Watford Rural Parish Council. 4. There is one primary school in Eastbury and the overwhelming majority of children who attend it are from the Moor Park and Eastbury ward. Similarly, children in South Oxhey and Carpenders Park share the same primary schools as each other. 5. The “clear road links” between Eastbury and South Oxhey principally consist of The Woods, a road with a handful of houses on it. The communities are not contiguous. 6. Moreover, Oxhey Woods comprises many acres of woodland that provides a natural boundary between the more densely populated areas of Eastbury (around Batchworth Lane and the roads feeding into it) and the start of South Oxhey where The Woods becomes Prestwick Road.

1 7. Conversely, South Oxhey and Carpenders Park have an underpass link between them because they share the Carpenders Park railway station. This therefore has access points from both South Oxhey and Carpenders Park. Far from the railway being a divide between those communities, it brings them together. 8. Moor Park and Eastbury residents tend to use the Metropolitan line from either Moor Park or Northwood tube stations. 9. Almost the entire Moor Park and Eastbury ward share a postal address of HA6, Northwood; Carpenders Park and South Oxhey have a Watford postal address. 10. Moor Park and Eastbury residents generally go to the Northwood or Moor Park shops or restaurants for their everyday needs. Carpenders Park and South Oxhey residents have their own local shops and takeaways. 11. There is a library in Northwood used by Moor Park and Eastbury residents and one in South Oxhey used by their residents and those of neighbouring Carpenders Park.

In conclusion, I can find no justification whatsoever on the grounds of common interests and identities of communities to support your proposal to join Eastbury with South Oxhey and urge you to abandon this proposal when you come to making your final recommendations.

Regards.

______Cllre Debbi Morris

2 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 November 2014 08:19 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Hertfordshire County Division Proposed Changes - Tring Division

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Sent: 03 November 2014 16:51 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 write as the Dacorum Borough Councillor for the District ward of Aldbury and Wigginton in response to the County Boundaries Consultation, to oppose the proposal to move Aldbury Parish from the Tring to Bridgewater County Division.

The local geography is the main reason for Aldbury to look towards Tring, rather than Bridgewater and Berkhamsted. Aldbury lies in the low ground encircled to its rear by the Chiltern escarpment and the large Ashridge Forest, which sits on the high ground.

Because of this geographical setting, my two villages share transport links with Tring. Important circular bus routes cover Tring, Wigginton and Aldbury. Tring Station lies inside one of the Aldbury polling wards, and so these buses connect Tring with the centre of Aldbury village. In addition, a cycle track links Tring to the Station, whilst many others drive there, though the station is so well used that the car park is frequently full – just one of the outcomes causing problems for my local residents.

Much of my casework revolves around the impact of Tring Station on the local hamlet, situated as you will be aware it is, a mile from the centre of Tring. County leads on transport matters and both myself and Tring residents would find it awkward to liaise with a Bridgewater County Councillor for problems concerning the station, rather than the County Councillor they presently contact for any problem they may have with other services, eg schools or highways.

I have no evidence, but I imagine that the vast majority of Bridgewater constituents use Berkhamsted station.

1 There is also interchange between parish congregations of the village and Tring. There are close links between Aldbury Primary and Tring Secondary schools. Aldbury pupils usually move on to Tring School.

Whilst Aldbury is a thriving village, a glance through a recent “Aldbury Outlook”, the village magazine – 28 pages of A4 – showed only three references to Berkhamsted, and none to Bridgewater – I’m not even sure that anyone knows where it is! One, an advert for a national estate agent, one for a local company that hires out marquees, and an article on a new brewery opened up in Berkhamsted. All other articles and adverts are village based or refer to Tring.

I trust longstanding connections between Tring and Aldbury will not be broken for the sake of evening up small numbers of voters today. As I understand it, DBC Core Strategy does not anticipate extensive growth of either Tring or Berkhamsted, certainly before 2031, so there is unlikely to be any greater inbalance in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Rosemarie Hollinghurst Dacorum Borough Councillor for Aldbury and Wigginton.

2

ROBIN PARKER Stevenage Borough Council: Borough Councillor for Manor Ward Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group Hertfordshire County Council: County Councillor for Chells Division

The Review Officer LGBCE Layden House 76-86 Tummill Street London EC1M 5LG Email [email protected] [email protected] 1.11.2014.

HERTFORDSHIRE REVIEW: STEVENAGE: RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

Dear Sir

I hereby respond to your consultation on draft proposals to change the boundaries of Hertfordshire County Council divisions. I am concerned particularly with Stevenage and specifically Chells Division.

I was first elected as a borough councillor for part of the current Chells Division in 1982 and was in addition first elected as the county councillor for the current Chells Division in 2005. I have lived continuously in this area of Stevenage since 1961.

1. I object very strongly to the proposals, which will break up a number of natural communities in Stevenage between different county divisions, and in particular I object to splitting the current Chells Division and putting the south east part of it into Shephall, whilst adding unrelated northern parts of Martins Wood and St. Nicholas at the north of the proposed Chells Division. 2. My experience in over 30 years as an elected local councillor in Stevenage is that the vast majority of people do not know, or understand, the differences between the two councils operating in Stevenage. Keeping as much co-terminosity as possible between the borough wards and the county divisions does help the understanding of this difference. 3. Indeed, the south east part of the present Chells Division, which you propose to put into Shephall is the original part of Chells neighbourhood, dating from when the first part of Chells neighbourhood was first built as part of the new town, in 1959, so it makes no sense to transfer out that part. 4. It is worth stressing that the whole concept of Stevenage, when it was planned as a new town, was that it should have neighbourhoods, mostly built around historical villages/hamlets or landmarks. For example, Chells, Shephall, Broadwater. Any sensible scheme of divisions should retain these (as does the current scheme in operation) as much as possible. 5. The current scheme of 6 county divisions, co-terminus as much as possible, with 13 borough council wards, works well, and it would be a great pity to break up that pattern, as your proposals suggest. I believe that most Stevenage residents would opt to retain the familiar divisions, as much as possible, even at the minor cost of some greater deviation in population numbers between the divisions, than would ideally be the case. 6. Has the Commission taken any account of future population growth forecasts when considering the future equality of population of the proposed divisions? 7. The Commission’s draft proposals break up these natural and historic communities and links between the inhabitants. 8. I support the submission by Stevenage Liberal Democrats. This is not because of my party affiliation, but because I have researched some of the points of concern myself and have come to very similar conclusions. As evidence for this assertion, you will see that my submission here differs a little in emphasis from that of the Liberal Democrats. 9. Please bear in mind that the submission by Stevenage Liberal Democrats was discussed, researched and developed by local individuals who live here and, in many cases, have done so for decades and who understand Stevenage. (It is clear that the authors of the draft recommendations may not understand Stevenage; as evidence for this, the draft recommendations make reference to Stevenage at one point in the text [paragraph 107] as a ‘city’!) 10. The submission by the Liberal Democrats achieves the requirement of the Commission for all divisions to have an electorate differing by no more than 10% from the mean for the county. It also largely retains the natural communities in our town. I urge you to give it careful and serious consideration before you destroy the current situation (which has stood the test of time) entirely.

Please acknowledge receipt of this response to your consultation.

Yours faithfully

Cllr. Robin Parker C.C.

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:00 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary changes Hertfordshire County Council, Stevenage Attachments: Stevenage Liberal Democrats Proposal (1)_jpg

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: graham snell Sent: 02 November 2014 21:42 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary changes Hertfordshire County Council, Stevenage

Dear Local Government Boundary Commission

My name is Councillor Graham Snell I have the pleasure of serving on Stevenage Borough Council, for Manor ward. I understand that you are at present consulting on changes to boundaries to Herts County Council divisions. I wish to make some comments in support of leaving the boundaries as at present and object to the proposed changes.

As a resident of Stevenage for more than 25 years I have found that Stevenage residents have a strong attachment to our Local Neighbourhoods . I live in St Nicholas and do not want to be linked with another area. This is not only my thought but also that of my neighbours and my own family. We have the ideal situation at present two Borough Council Wards now make up a County Division, this is simple and is understood by most of the voters. It would cause confusion and is , in my opinion, unnecessary.

As a Stevenage Borough Councillor I don't believe that the changes proposed to the boundaries which it seems to me is trying to make all the areas the same but the truth is that all areas are not the same even though on a map just by getting the numbers similar does not make sense.

In the Manor ward which I represent we have over many years been very successful in getting people participate in Elections, we always get the highest vote in Stevenage and the highest percentage turnout. By moving the boundaries and nibbling away at current areas I don't believe that it would benefit the Local electors or the wider aim of getting more people to participate in the Election process.

Please take seriously my comments and I hope keep the Local Neighbourhoods which is very important to the people of Stevenage. 1

I have attached a sensible proposal which in most cases answer the Commission's requirements.

Thank you for in for letting me give you my thoughts.

Councillor Graham Snell

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

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Sara Bedford

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Councillor

Comment text:

As the current County Councillor for Abbots Langley, I welcome the vast majority of the draft recommendations. In the Abbots Langley area, I welcome the fact that the Abbots Langley area remains split only into two, rather than three. Adding the more rural parts of the area to the make a new 'Three Rivers Rural' division makes sense, as does retaining the whole of the current Leavesden ward within the new Abbots Langley division. The old parts of Leavesden, namely the former hospital and aerodrome areas (the DAH & DAJ polling districts) should not be split. They share a history, a name and a joint affinity with the communities of Abbots Langley and Watford. I would also like to state that the name of the division should remain unchanged as Abbots Langley. The vast majority of the homes have an Abbots Langley address and see themselves as living in Abbots Langley. In the proposed division around 75% live in Abbots Langley (PD DAC, DAD, DAE, DAG and almost all DAH), 15% in Leavesden (DAJ including the homes currently being built) and 10% in Garston (DAI and a very small part of DAH). Most of the residents of the Garston and Leavesden areas live in the area of Watford Borough Council and so to use either or both of those locations in a Three Rivers division would cause confusion. I also feel very strongly that the communities of Croxley Green and South Oxhey should each be retained as entire communities each in a single division, and not split between two divisions each. Both are communities are distinct and discrete, with well-defined boundaries. within which all the residents identify strongly with that community and no other. Most residents of both Croxley and South Oxhey use primary schools, churches, stations and community facilities within their own communities, rather than travelling outside.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4184 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Martin Brooks

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: none

Comment text:

I fully support the Commissions proposals for Three Rivers. As a Leavesden councillor in the Abbots Langley area - support for keeping core of Abbots Langley in one division (including Abbots Langley West parish ward) I recognise that the population means the parish cannot be in a single division and on that basis, support for the more rural parts of the parish (Bedmond/Hunton Bridge etc) to be linked with rural areas elsewhere in Three Rivers; Leavesden should be retained in one county division and not split as some have suggested. I believe the correct and more applicable name of the new county division should be Abbots Langeley and Leavesden.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4222 04/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Getkahn

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Three Rivers District Council

Comment text:

I support the Three Rivers proposal, specifically the Croxley element. The area is unique and I think any increased separation would be an error and would not be supported by residents.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4173 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Raj Khiroya

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Mill End - support retaining links with Maple Cross and Rickmansworth

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4193 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Joy Mann

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the recommendation for Three Rivers. We need to keep a community identity which is working very well here. Here the residents have things that they do in common such as using the shops in the local area, dentists and doctors who we all get to know. We join the local organisations and they use the same village halls which house local community groups. Here we do have community and this needs to be protected against any divisions which would divide facilities between wards. Please keep our boundaries as they are at present. Joy Mann Councillor Three Rivers District Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4189 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Reena Ranger

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Member of the Public

Comment text:

As a resident of Moor Park and Eastbury and also an elected district Councillor, I would like to voice my strong objection over the proposed boundary changes. I fully understand the inequalities in electoral numbers and that this is what you hope to balance, but your method in my opinion is not suitable. Your proposal seeks to split a community which shares numerous amenities, schools, nurseries, places of worship, library, transport facilities and shopping area for starters. They both are in the same postal code and also are united with a residents association. Splitting Eastbury in the way you propose, would further confuse the members in their capacity as residents of Northwood. Northwood is already served by two MP’s, two district councils and this would add more confusion to the mix. To propose to unite HA6 postcode residents with WD residents would further exacerbate matters. This is all before mentioning that, Eastbury is an unparished ward and currently is on consultation to join the 4 Wards proposal with Moor Park and Oxhey Hall and Carpenders Park are all parished and are part of Watford Rural Parish Council. This entire mix is already onerous on the electorate without adding more boundary lines between them Your intentions may be well founded and perhaps needed but not at the expense of splitting up a community (whether that be Eastbury or Moor Park in Eastbury) which has practical, historical and communal links. Kind Regards Reena Ranger

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4198 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ann Shaw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support these proposals because they keep local communities together which I regard as very important. Ann Shaw

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4177 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Susan Stibbs

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: TRDC

Comment text:

I support the draft proposals made by TRDC because they keep existing communities together as far as possible & reflect their links with their neighbours, particularly important in Croxley Green that it should stay as one county division. Residents of Maple Cross have a natural link with Mill End and Rickmansworth as do residents of Sarratt with Chorleywood. It seems logical that South Oxhey should remain a single division and that the core of Abbots Langley should stay together. TRDC proposals confirm existing connections between communities & this is in everybody`s interest.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4178 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Kate Turner

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: none

Comment text:

I fully support the Boundary Commission proposals for Three Rivers. In the Abbots Langley area I support for keeping core of Abbots Langley in one division (including Abbots Langley West parish ward). I recognise that the population means the parish cannot be in a single division and on that basis, support for the more rural parts of the parish (Bedmond/Hunton Bridge etc) to be linked with rural areas elsewhere in Three Rivers. The new Abbots Division covers the Abbots Langley part of the current Abbots Langley and Bedmond ward and Leavesden ward in total. It is essential that Leavesden with its new housing development its kept in one county division served by its current three councillors at Three Rivers level. It should not be separated as suggested and liked to remote areas the other side of the M25. I would also suggest that the new division be named Abbots Langley and Leavesden to reflect that.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4221 04/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Wall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do support the draft document but believe it is really important to keep Croxley Green as a whole community. I support retention of Croxley Green within the county review structure. Aliosn Wall

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4179 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: chris whately-smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the proposals for Three Rivers as they keep the communities together, for example croxley green and south oxhey. however while Abbots Langley is split I understand the reasons why the parish boundary cannot numerically be in one division, I can see the logic of the rural areas of hunton bridge bedmond etc being linked with other Three Rivers rural areas.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4188 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Giles-Medhurst

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation County Councillor for Central Watford and Oxhey , Leader of the Liberal Name: Democrat Group

Comment text:

I write in general support of the Commissions proposals for Three rivers and Watford areas as this is where I live. THREE RIVERS Croxley - I think its essential that all of Croxley and its two wards are retained in one division to preserve its identity Maple Cross - support retaining link with Mill End & Rickmansworth; Mill End - support retaining links with Maple Cross and Rickmansworth; I support for creating two divisions based on Rickmansworth, reflecting the large population of the Rickmansworth community and its importance as the largest town in Three Rivers; also support for including areas in Chorleywood parish that are part of the built- up area and community of Rickmansworth; South Oxhey - support retaining the whole of the South Oxhey community in a single division- this shoukd not be split; Oxhey Hal* - support retaining existing links with both Carpenders Park and Moor Park, it should not and cannot be liniked to South Oxhey Abbots Langley area - Whilst accepting the current division is too large I do support for keeping core of Abbots Langley in one division (including Abbots Langley West parish ward); I recognise that the population means the parish cannot be in a single division and on that basis, support for the more rural parts of the parish (Bedmond/Hunton Bridge etc) to be linked with rural areas elsewhere in Three Rivers; The new smaller division covers all of the Leavesden ward and that is right, and thus this ward should not be split and the village of Abbots Langley. Given this is now a smaller area I would propose that the Division would be more appropriately named Abbots Langley and Leavesden to reflect its District council names and the areas its covers in terms of these two wards. Chorleywood* - support for link with Sarratt and rural parts of Three Rivers;- indeed this is already the case with the current division covers the area of Hunton Bridge so adding the rest of the new Gade Valley ward is a logical step as is the suggested name. I support for the urban areas of the parish east of M25 to be linked with Rickmansworth. WATFORD I support all the proposals here especially the name changes of three divisions to more accurately reflect the actual areas of the Town. However I am aware that the Boundary Commission is to shortly consider rewarding of the Borough wards die to several of them being more 10% above or below the average for the Borough area. This is likely that will mean the by 2017 the borough wards will not be co- terminus wither the county divisions. It is currently the case that Central Ward is too large and the next Tudor Ward too small in terms of electorate. There are 4729 electors in Tudor and 6506 in Central as on the 21/10/2014. Whilst not pre-empting the Boundary Commission proposals for the Borough Ward is its clear that Central will have to lose voters and Tudor will have to gain them. I would propose that there is an opportunity to move one polling district currently in Central to Tudor namely HA without any notable effect of the county division numbers- indeed it actually makes them more equal. Watford - Draft recommendations (no change): 2020 electorate varied from county average Meriden-Tudor 10924-7% Central-Oxhey 12274 +4% HA = 695 electors if moved from Central -Oxhey to Meriden -Tudor you would get: 2020 electorate vared from county average Meriden-Tudor 11619 -1% Central Watford and Oxhey 11579-2% In addition since these figures were provided new planning permissions have been granted for further residential development in Central Watford totalling over 200 more units and this continues to be a growth area for residential development. The move of HA to Tudor will not affect any voters having to change polling stations as HA Central electors already share the same polling station as Tudor FC and means that they all can be combined in the one

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4180 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

polling station. It also males the ward boundary much clearer as being the main line North South railway line as the boundary. In effect it is re merges the two communities into one polling area and one ward. I strongly urge the Commission to accept this proposal, especially as it is must likely to be a recommendation of any ward boundary changes. It will also make the Borough and residents electoral arrangements and be clearer that thee is one county councillor covering the area to the north of the mainline railway line.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4180 03/11/2014