<<

Local resident’s submissions to the District Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 35 submissions from local residents A - L.

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.

Ralph Adams

Member of the public

30/12/2012 16:48

"I am a resident of Kennington and would like to put my view on the new ward structure.

I believe that if 3 councillors are justified for the new Kennington ward, that 1 be for the western area - to North , and 2 for Kennington & combined rather than treat as one super large ward which has nothing as a common bond. Local government should be by local people representing their own locality.

1. I do not have knowledge of exact numbers of electors in each area but understand that Kennington is larger than Radley. I do not know Sunningwell, , and part of but would estimate they are about half Kennington & Radley 2. Kennington & Radley share many facilities - one bus route (route 35), one medical practice plus geographically are bounded by the Thames and . There is no direct communication to the other 4 localities which have one bus through the whole of that area (route 44). and Bayworth have similar property types to South Hinksey and not either Kennington or Radley. 3. A councillor living in Kennington or Radley would be far easier to contact about any problem, and due to physical characteristics in many cases would already be aware in advance. Anyone living in the other 4 locations would have no normal contact with Kennington or Radley

Yours

Ralph Adams" Rafe Aldridge

Member of the public

13/12/2012 18:59

" and are very closely linked both geographically and by the college. Separating them in this way seems absurd.

Faringdon is some 5 miles away with no pedestrian-specific access - it is therefore not local to Watchfield in the way Shrivenham is, and it would be wrong to associate Watchfield with not Shriveham. It would end up just alienating Watchfield.

Local policies affecting Watchfield would also then be based on Faringdon which would not be representative at all." Helen Amura

Member of the public

22/11/2012 21:04 It makes more sense to include North Drive in the Hendreds Ward. Colin Arnold

Member of the public

03/01/2013 19:05

I feel that the propoded Suton Courtnet ward is geographicaly far to large, and that all of the villiages within its boundry should be reflected by it name. SUTTON COURTNEY is not the centre of the universe!! The name must be all or none. Further the idea of having two councilours has been in my opinion proved to be a total farce with the election of a husband and wife team who do not even respond to e-mail and claim that each thought that the other had done it!!Please take into account the recomendations of the VOWHDC. They are after all the local body with their finger on the pulse of the people that they represent and also know how the area interacts.

Steve Baines

Member of the public

30/12/2012 14:49

"I have seen the proposals for a three-member Kennington ward and am writing to express my concerns as a resident that the proposed area includes villages that have no real affinity to Kennington.

Kennington and Radley would work well as a two-member constituency, however, I believe that including North and South Hinksey and Sunningwell is not in the interests of residents of all these areas.

I am not privy to the proposed ward population figures but would suggest that Sunningwell should be added to Wooton ward (as is currently the case). North Hinksey should stay with Botley (as per the existing parish boundary) with included in . South Hinksey could remain with Kennington, or be added to Wooton or North Hinksey as appropriate."

30/12/2012 15:01

The division of Milton parish along the A34 seems perverse leaving Milton Heights isolated. It would be better to leave the parish undivided as part of the proposed ward.

30/12/2012 15:21

Subdividing Schrivenham and Watchfield seems a really odd decision. It also results in some very strange shaped wards. The existing Scrivenham ward should be retained, as should Craven ward. The current Farringdon and the Coxwells ward could incorporate and Littleworth parishes.

30/12/2012 15:30

The proposed and Steventon and the Hanneys wards are a really odd shape. I would merge these two proposed wards into a two-member ward. Additionally, I would split Fyfield and parish along the A420, with the north part remaining in Thames ward and the south part becoming part of the new Kinston Bagpuize and Steventon ward.

Andrew Bax

Member of the public

04/01/2013 18:30

If Drayton and Sutton Courtenay have to be combined into a single ward the name 'Sutton Courtenay Ward' is the worst of many possible alternatives and would have the effect of alienating the electorate among Drayton's 2000 residents. The most obvious name is 'Drayton & Sutton Courtenay'.

Andrew Bax Susan Bax

Member of the public

04/01/2013 18:33

I live in Drayton and don't want to vote in a ward called Sutton Courtenay. Would the residents of Sutton Courtenay like to vote in a ward called 'Drayton'? This is a crazy idea.

Susan Bax Andrew Beacroft

Member of the public

06/01/2013 21:48

"Why with a Drayton population of 2270 should we play 2nd fiddle to Sutton Courtenay?

Sutton Courtenay population 2413 or only 143 more.

GIVE DRAYTON THEIR RIGHTS! NOW NOW NOW" Simon Brackenridge

Member of the public

31/12/2012 08:14

I agree entirely with the Kennington Parish Council's view that the proposed change to combine Kennington, Radley, Sunningwell, and North and South Hinksey into a single ward makes no sense whatsoever. While boundary changes need to consider the total population of the ward, if they do so at the expense of respecting established connections then they are a complete nonsense. Kennington may well be geographically close to Both Hinkseys, but there is no direct road link! Why not simply get the ruler out and draw straight lines across the map to divide it up into entirely arbitrary wards? Naomi Broomfield

Member of the public

07/01/2013 09:02 i feel the proposal for the sutton courtenay ward is it is too big and encompasses too many varied villiages of size and need. 2 councillors would have to focus on key issues which can only mean limited/less representation for the individual villages. Sharing a role will lead to difficulties as it will be unclear whose sole responsibility any given task or responsibility is, leading to confusion and ultimately less focused work. I understand the wards need to increase from the current provision but it would be clearer for the communities and the councillor if it was clear whose responsibility any particular issue was so that it could be effectively represented at council level One councillor = one ward is the only way the local communities will be able to have any confidence of getting their voice heard. There are many variations to achieve this but i understand the option which would allow number of voters ratio to be proportionate would be for Drayton and Milton to be combined, however my objection is to the large area and 2 councillors, i would only have confidence in any councillor representing Drayton and my views if they had sole responsibility and therefore the other village/s which would best fit the given criteria and geographical sense would be better than the proposal. Metheringham, Jessica

From: Sent: 31 December 2012 14:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary reviews of Shrivenham/Watchfield

As a resident in nearby Bourton village, I write to disagree that Shrivenham and Watchfield should be split into different areas. They are interlinked villages which share the Joint Services and Staff College and so much of what happens in the area affects both communities equally. Bourton should stay in the same area as both Shrivenham and Watchfield and should be represented by the same Councillors.

Maggie Brown

1 Kenton Bush

Member of the public

04/01/2013 23:57

"It is simply wrong to merge Watchfield and Faringdon wards. There is no real connection between the interests of the electors in the ward as some are urban and some rural. The clear risk is Faringdon issues will dominate the agenda for all three ward Councillors.

The reality is Faringdon is run by a backward town council that have repeatedly blocked development of their town to the point where they now have had to accept a new Tesco store is part of modern life. People in the villages around have taken the opportunities available to them and Faringdon is an island of backwardness. Villages around Faringdon don’t see Faringdon as any sort of hub. The villages operate independently and residents usually have more ties with than Farringdon for their services. This is why the VWHDC suggestion of a Watchfield ward encompassing the surrounding villages made far more sense. They have much more in common between them than they do with Faringdon

Further I believe a three member ward should be avoided if at all possible. It makes the ward very large and the Councillors are simply not going to have any contact with their constituents which can't be good for democracy. Obviously this may suit the larger political parties but a large ward will significantly reduce the likelihood of independent candidates in the ward and increase the already high feeling locally that VWHDC ignores Watchfield as it is on edge. It is common to be told we are part of Swindon/ by VWHDC own staff!

The existing system with Watchfield and Shrivenham combined works quite well. There is a strong link between the two sets of residents. It seems madness to want to break it. There is large common employer, Defence Academy, a common GP, linked church groups, linked social clubs etc

Please don’t replace it with a travesty of a ward with Faringdon. The VWHDC is already openly criticised locally and this action may be a step too far leaving local residents who feel their views are ignored with no option but for open rebellion! It is also worth noting all the proposed new housing locally. How will all these new houses impact on the boundaries and the objectives of equalising the number of electors per councillor? The Watchfield and Faringdon ward is already +7% under represented. With the new housing this will become even greater. 120 houses have been recently approved for Watchfield and more likely. On your own figures you propose Hendred -17%, -13%. It seems futile to implement new boundaries when even before they are implemented there are massive inequalities in representation which will become worse with proposed house building.

Personally I don’t think any variance greater than 9% should be allowed for ward boundaries when new ones are implemented. It is simply undemocratic and some electors in specific streets/areas should be moved to even up the numbers if nothing else comes up with better numbers. "

Peter Clare

Member of the public

03/01/2013 17:52

It is patently unsatisfactory to have 2 Councillors representing one Ward. This does not necessarily satisfactorily reflect the political views of the electorate (as shown by the current dichotomy between Drayton's County Councillors (2 x Conservative) and District Councillor (1 x Lib Dem)). A better representative arrangement would be to separate Sutton Courtenay from Drayton and to add Milton village to either one of these as numbers of the electorate dictate. John Clements

Member of the public

09/12/2012 21:59

"I am not making an alternative proposal as I do not have the relevant information nor the time to make such, but I do want to oppose very strongly the proposal to detach part of North Hinksey and allocate it to Kennington. This seems to cut across the idea that wards should represent coherent communities, a necessity for a fully functioning democracy. I live in the part proposed to be detached but have no identity of interest with Kennington. Like all my neighbours, we make full use of the facilities in Botley and are very interested in the Vale's plans for this area. Councillor Hallett has already made a very clear argument based on the identity of interest across the area concerned and I will not repeat that but would like to say that her arguments do reflect what happens in daily life in this area. We do view Botley as a real community within the civil and church parishes' boundaries. If we were in Kennington, how could we influence developments on our doorstep and which may have serious consequences for our services and environment? There is no certainty that any one of the new three councillors will live in or have any direct interest in North Hinksey.

It has never made sense for a large part of Botley to be in Cumnor parish and ward and the proposal to hive off the south-west corner of Botley will only make matters worse. Surely this is an opportunity to change boundaries to reflect the reality on the ground, not just an arithmetic exercise with a pen on a map. I realise the justification for the exercise but there must be other ways in which your objectives could be met."

Metheringham, Jessica

From: Sheila Cowley Sent: 02 January 2013 12:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: Vale of White Horse - North Hinksey parish

2nd January 2013

Dear Sirs

I have read the proposals for the changes to ward boundaries in the Vale and am concerned about the proposed splitting of the North Hinksey parish.

I have also read the submission by Cllr Debby Hallett on this issue and agree with her arguments for keeping the North Hinksey Parish together as one unit within a 2 member ward.

As a long time resident of and hence North Hinksey parish I know that there is a good sense of community here with people from both sides of the A34 and the entire North Hinksey parish interacting and using the amenities outlined by Debby Hallett. Our whole area centres naturally on the Botley facilities and those of North Hinksey village.

All the evidence of community identity and cohesion supports keeping the parish together and I urge you to consider the more rational approach of adding the parish to several others to make a 2 member ward.

Yours sincerely

Sheila Cowley

1 Metheringham, Jessica

From: Dave Cusden Sent: 06 January 2013 09:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: ward changes

As a resident of Radley, I would like to give my support to our present parish council that the Radley and Kennington ward should remain a 2 councilor ward and not be linked to North and South Hinksey. I cannot see how increasing the size and populus of the ward and serving it with less councilors would be to the advantage of the residents when more and more services are being cut back by town and county councils. This is when we need our parish councilors to stand up for us and a larger workload is not going to help them. Dave Cusden

1 Antony Edgcombe

None

Member of the public

22/12/2012 16:13

There are few links between the north and south of the new proposed Fitzharries Ward and absolutely no connection with the other side of Bath Street to people living on south Abingdon and our interests would be better served in accordance with our historical links with the Caldecott Ward and staying there. I also think that the name Fitzharries is pretty naff and irrelevant to people living to the south of the Road and a better choice of name might be Larkmead Ward or Albert Ward. How many representatives are proposed to serve this vast and disjointed area? If the proposals were to be adopted the interests and identities would not be represented effectively by any of the Councillor(s). Metheringham, Jessica

From: Reviews@ Sent: 07 January 2013 18:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

R

m m

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183)

Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions-form Submission ID: 1664 Time of Submission: Jan 7th 2013 at 6:17pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Neil Fawcett Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Vale of White Horse refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I am writing to oppose your draft proposals for Abingdon because I do not think they reflect local communities in Abingdon well.

The clearest natural boundary in Abingdon is the River Ock which separates South Abingdon from the rest of the town. People who live in South Abingdon refer to it as such and have a strong community identity. There are only two routes by road from South to North, Drayton Road (where the gap between Tithe Farm and Ock Street is quite large) and the 'iron bridge' at St. Helen's Wharf, where the gap is much smaller.

Ideally South Abingdon would be in a separate ward or wards from the rest of the town, but the requirement for electoral equality does not make this possible.

Your draft proposals combine parts of South Abingdon with parts of North

1

Alastair Fear

Member of the public

20/12/2012 20:06

Looking at the proposed Caldecott Ward this includes an area that statistically has more deprivation than any other area in the Vale of White Horse and so I strongly disagree with it having more people per councillor (11% above the average) than other areas so would like the boundary moved to the River Ock - a more natural division. Part of that area above the Ock could be absorbed by Central where it more naturally fits. It is also confusing that Fitzharris school is not in Fitzharris Ward. And that the old village of Northcourt and NorthCourt Road is outside Northcourt Ward when it is the reason for that name. Perhaps these ward names need to be more generic. Oenone Grant-Duprez

Member of the public

07/01/2013 09:36

I want my village to be represented by a single councillor as at present. I don't want to be part of or subsidiary to Sutton Courtenay. The name of the ward should reflect the village it represents.

Metheringham, Jessica

From: Debby Hallett Sent: 07 January 2013 17:26 To: Reviews@ Cc: Dudley Hoddinott; Janet Godden; Judy Roberts; Bob Johnston; JOHN WOODFORD; Richard Webber; Tony De Vere Subject: Northeast Area of the Vale re-warding (Hinkseys and Sunningwell etc)

I'm writing to submit my comments regarding the proposed re-warding of the north east area of the Vale of White Horse. I live in North Hinksey parish. I am also a Vale district councillor for Wytham and North Hinksey.

I'm disappointed at the Commission's proposal for our area.The proposed boundaries are different to anything thus far mooted. They're proposing something other than:

1. what the North Hinksey Parish Council recommended 2. what the Vale council actually recommended 3. what I and my Vale colleagues recommended as an alternative to the Vale's proposal

The BC's proposals differ from what anyone asked for, and without rationale or explanation as to why. I don't understand it.

The paper I submitted last summer was backed by research and consultation with people who live here. My comments there still stand, and I don't need to re-state them here. (You can see it on your website.) But I have a few new things to mention.

There were three principles underlying the new boundaries (as declared in the commission's materials):

1. the need to secure equality of representation; 2. the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and 3. the need to secure effective and convenient local government

Taken point by point:

1. Equality of representation. This seems to be the overriding concern of the commission, based on the lack of consideration of the other two principles. I agree this is important, but I also think the other two principles should carry at least equal weight.

2. Identities and interests of local communities. You have had representation on this from various community leaders, the North Hinksey Parish Council, and the Vale council itself. For example, Dean Court meshes will with North Hinksey parish, and that wasn't considered. People in North Hinksey look to for services. Most people don't know where Radley is. Advice and wishes of the community seem to have been roundly ignored.

 There is no such place as Botley, which is the name you have chosen for one of the wards. (There is a small part of the parish called Old Botley, which has a handful of residents.) The residents in North Hinksey and Wytham parishes find this nomenclature confusing.  The section of North Hinksey parish you propose to split off and combine with far-distant Kennington and Radley has two halves to it, east and west of the A34. There are no roads directly linking these two halves; you cannot travel in a car from one half to the other without leaving either the ward or the parish. It seems a wrong place to divide a parish.

1  You propose naming the split-off part of North Hinksey, 'South Hinksey'. The parish to the south is South Hinksey, so this is both horribly confusing and demonstrates a lack of familiarity with local communities here.  Major development is planned in North Hinksey parish for the Harcourt Hill and Lime Road areas, and local people have concerns about the impact on local services and infrastructure. Your proposal splits this area off into a ward with distant Radley. No one here goes to Radley or Kennington for anything, and it's hard to see why this seems like a good idea. How would members from Radley represent the interests of those living in North Hinksey parish?

3. Effective and convenient local government. Single member wards are preferable to two-member wards. Three member wards should be a last resort and for extenuating circumstances (and I can't think of any circumstances where it would be a good idea in a rural area). Multiple member wards are not preferred for 3 reasons:

1. When members don't cooperate, there is too much work for each member in casework, attending parish meetings and communicating outward to residents. We have examples of that now, where local members are from different political parties and do not cooperate or indeed, even work against each other. Making a three-member ward running from the heart of North Hinksey parish all the way to Radley would be a massive mistake. Are there 6 or more parish council meetings to attend each month and an electorate of over 7000? How will each member keep up with all the planning applications in their ward and give enough attention to the people who expect it? 2. Residents are confused about who is their local councillor. 3. In wards that cover a large geographic area, some or all of the members may live a long distance away and not be familiar with local issues.

I think we should strive to have single-member wards. I understand Radley and Kennington are happy for their parishes to be combined into a two-member ward, which should be their privilege.

For the rest of our area, I'd prefer to see two single member wards, but I don't have enough accurate voting data to work out a fair boundary for Wytham, North Hinksey, South Hinksey and Sunningwell. My original proposal was for all of this to be a two-member ward, but I can see the merit in two single-member wards. I am not against the warding of North Hinksey parish, but the proposed boundary is hard to support.

Please re-visit what has been said by the people who live in the north east area of the Vale. To make a decision that no one has suggested and no one wants certainly raises serious concerns about the political impartiality of this re-warding.

Regards.

Debby Hallett,

2 Comments on the Boundary Commission proposals for the new warding within Abingdon – submitted by Jeanette Halliday.

I would request that the following points be considered during the Commission’s review of the new warding arrangements in Abingdon within the Vale of White Horse District Council area.

1. I strongly support the general principal that, wherever possible, wards should give roughly equal representation and should be based on community interests. 2. To comment on specific proposals for Abingdon : a) I am very concerned at the proposal to create five two- member District Council wards within Abingdon – this seems to totally ignore the local communities that exist within the Town and to be based on an attempt to achieve electoral equality. b) The proposed warding arrangements for Abingdon Town Council were not easy to follow in the report but appear to be mostly based on the district wards, with the exception of Fitzharris ward which is divided into a north and a south part, and Central ward which is divided into a Central town ward and a Dunmore town ward. Each of the resulting seven town wards is allocated 3 council seats. If this analysis is correct, then it appears that the 5,537 Caldecott residents are represented by three town councilors (ie 1,845 each), but the 5,096 Fitzharris residents are represented by 6 town councilors (3 from Fitzharris South and 3 from Fitzharris North) ie an overall average of 849 each. I am concerned at this apparent inequality in representation. c) I am also concerned that the proposals seem to ignore existing communities within the town. As someone who has been associated with the Spring Road area of the town for over thirty years, may I comment : The Spring Road / Albert Park area is a well-established community which is concerned with preserving its history and environment. We have nothing in common with the residents of Tithe Farm (who have their own resident’s association and are part of the group writing the South Abingdon Resident’s plan http://www.sarp.org.uk/working-groups/environment/ and whose interests are much more focused on flooding and the traffic on the Drayton road). I would urge you to consider changing your proposals to recognise these distinct communities. 3. For all the above reasons, but in particular that of preserving and enhancing existing local communities within Abingdon, I would urge you to adopt a single district ward solution – each district ward could then elect two town councillors. I note that a scheme was submitted to you in the earlier round of consultation – ie the one described at http://www.lgbce.org.uk/__documents/lgbce/submissions/vale-of- white-horse/info-gath/lib-dem-group-leader-vofwh-fig-2012-08-31- _redacted-1.pdf and would suggest that this would address the issues I have raised.

Mrs Jeanette Halliday

Metheringham, Jessica

From: Reviews@ Sent: 06 January 2013 18:34 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

R

m m

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183)

Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions-form Submission ID: 1650 Time of Submission: Jan 6th 2013 at 6:33pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Martin Hockey Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Vale of White Horse refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: The proposals for the subdivision of North Hinksey parish (North-East area) are very strange. They would have the effect of grouping the Harcourt Hill and North Hinksey Village areas with Kennington, Radley, South Hinksey and Sunningwell, villages with which the suburban areas of North Hinksey have little in common - they are not even connected by road in both directions except via the Botley area of North Hinksey. On Harcourt Hill we use the local shops and facilities in Botley close by. We have more in common with Cumnor (which also uses facilities in Botley and with which we share common access from Oxford) than Kennington (whose facilities we do not use and which is reached from Oxford by Abingdon Road rather than Botley Road).

You have produced no evidence in support of your contention that "It is not possible to include the whole of North Hinksey in a single district ward". Why not? A multi-member ward with Cumnor would be far better than a multi-

1

Metheringham, Jessica

From: Reviews@ Sent: 07 January 2013 13:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

R

m m

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183)

Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions-form Submission ID: 1661 Time of Submission: Jan 7th 2013 at 1:01pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Susan Hockey Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Vale of White Horse refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: The proposals for the subdivision of North Hinksey parish (North-East area) do not make sense. Residents of Harcourt Hill and North Hinksey Village naturally look to Botley for services such as shopping, library, buses, medical and dental facilities. They have virtually nothing in common with Radley, Kennington and Sunningwell. It would make far more sense to link Harcourt Hill (where I live) and North Hinksey with Cumnor which is much closer and whose residents use the same services and facilities.

I do not understand your statement "It is not possible to include the whole of North Hinksey in a single district ward". Surely this statement should be backed up by some clear reasons. A multi-member ward with Cumnor would be far better than a multi-member ward with Kennington. It would serve the community better, and, I think, lead to less confusion on the part of Councillors, Council staff and residents.

1

June Karslake

Member of the public

05/01/2013 19:39

The proposal to divide Watchfield from Shrivenham is a bad one. The two villages are contiguous and share interests. Many people are probably unaware of where the boundary runs. Shopping facilities, doctors and church administration are almost wholly in Shrivenham. The Joint Services Command and Staff College and its married quarters straddle the parish boundary. Grouping Watchfield with Shrivenham would certainly better reflect the interests and identities of local communities and mean that this area could be more effectively represented by our councillors. Carol Kramer

Member of the public

10/12/2012 09:47

Debbie Hallets proposals are sensible and should be taken on board Knag, Daniel

From: Reviews@ Sent: 11 December 2012 16:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

Right-click here t pictures. To help privacy, Outlook auto matic downlo picture from the - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183)

Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions-form Submission ID: 1599 Time of Submission: Dec 11th 2012 at 4:24pm IP Address: ::ffff:85.211.122.47

Form Answers

Name: Mrs J Laver Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Vale of White Horse refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: I think it is totally wrong to split the parish of North Hinksey (Botley) into two. It is one community with thriving schools, clubs, shops and a strong feeling of identity. I am barely aware where Sunningwell is, but I do know where Kennington is - a long way down towards Radley and Abingdon. Too far for me to cycle there, and I cycle quite a bit. I feel no connection whatsoever with these places, and having to share a District Councillor would feel very odd and illogical. In some of the North Hinksey areas proposed for splitting off there would be close neighbours in different wards - an unacceptable situation to most residents. File upload:

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

1 David Lee

Member of the public

07/01/2013 10:16

I live in Drayton & serve as one of the editors for the village news sheet & I object to Drayton being incorporated with Sutton Courtenay Ward. I think that Drayton should be served by one councillor & that Drayton's ward should be clearly identified by including Drayton in the title. This would clarify the situation for residents & give them a single point of contact with their councillor.

Halcyon Leonard

member of public

Member of the public

29/12/2012 11:31

The Kennington Ward as proposed is too large, appearing to lump together areas not particularly linked. I would suggest that Kennington and Radley are connected in many ways and 2 councillors could serve this area. The Ring Road, the Thames and the Oxford Road all make this a contained area. If the larger area proposed was to be covered by 3 councillors it is hard to see how responsibilities could be sensibly allocated. James Leonard

Member of the public

01/01/2013 17:16

"I have been a resident of Kennington for 8 years and a strong supporter of village activities. I can see no virtue in the proposed boundary changes.

1. North Hinksey has no links with Kennington and Radley 2. South Hinksey is inside the ring road and has almost no links with Kennington. It is more or less inaccessible from Kennington. 3. Kennington is linked to Radley by a common boundary, by road, by bus, and the Anglican Church parish. The library is shared. These create natural links and common interests. 4. Although Sunningwell is in the Anglican Church parish, it seems to share little else in common.

I conclude that Kennington and Radley, possibly together with Sunningwell, may have common representation but North and South Hinksey should not be included.

IMPORTANT ADDITIONAL COMMENT

Can you explain why the Boundary Commission uses an unusual term ""redact"" when edit or remove would be perfectly satisfactory. This is an excellent example of the use of obscure terms, the use of which is unnecessary and potentially confusing to the general public. Is your website vetted for plain English? " John Lines

Member of the public

17/12/2012 07:49

Particularly at a local level, this should be more than an issue of numbers. The whole point of our electoral system is that the councillors should represent a community. The residents of North Hinksey shop in Botley, use the library and other facilities there, are concerned about the planning applications within the current area. While I have friends in Kennington I do not shop there and do not think of it as part of the immediate locality. If North Hinksey becomes a small area, artifically attached to a ward which overall has a different character it will be difficult for a councillor to effectively represent the view of its inhabitants as they are more likely to be involved in the - potentially very different concerns (such as rural bus services) of a different community. Mark Long

Member of the public

05/12/2012 19:21

Watchfield and Shrivenham are strategically aligned and together benefit in being represented as is the current status quo. Both Watchfield and Shrivenhams representation will be weakened by the proposal to put Watchfield in with Faringdon. The needs of Watchfield village through geographical location are by their nature usually alighned to those of Shrivenham, Faringdons needs/requirements are more aligned to a small town. Looking at the proposal I can see no benfits at all being included with Faringdon, only negatives I'm afraid.