Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains local resident submissions A-K.

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

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Leigh Astur

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that as and Twyford share the same challenges and the benefits of sharing the same ward cannot be understated. Listed below is not an exhaustive list to demonstrate this · Speed and volume of traffic – both villages having the busy B3335/4 running through them and the associated problems with HGV Lorries. o Shared aims to provide safe cycle routes and pavement along with road · Aircraft noise · Rights of Way network between the Parishes · Poor public transport, none after 7pm · Shared services o Doctors surgery including a Patients Participation Group o Church services § The Benefice is , Colden Common, and Twyford o Shared charities which the beneficiaries are both villages § Twyford and District Nursing trust an example o Youth and Community groups which service both parishes o Police neighbourhood team restructure aligns with a Twyford and Colden Common Ward o Sporting groups and associations which service both parishes Historically Twyford and Colden Common were one Parish. Despite today being two legal parishes, a very strong joint community identity remains. We believe that Twyford and Colden Common as one ward with two Ward Councillors is the most effective and efficient way of local democracy and best reflects the 3 main considerations as laid down in legislation. Please allow Colden Common and Twyford to remain as one ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4982 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Patricia Badham

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Re Colden Common & Twyford remaining in the same ward. I feel quite strongly that Colden Common and Twyford should remain in the same ward as they share many same aims and problems and have many joint organisations eg/ the churches , doctors , speed watch , youth organisations, as well as the historical links. We have no links or common aims with Olivers Battery and as they are quite definately city wards!!!!! Pat Badham

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4972 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Badham

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wish to express my support for the view of Colden Common Parish Council, that Colden Common and Twyford should remain as one ward, with 2 council representatives, rather than a new ward including etc regards Stephen Badham

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4971 17/03/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Jemma Barter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Twyford has no natural affinity with the Meon Valley and shares few of the problems that residents in these areas face. It makes no sense to create this new ward of Twyford and Upper Meon Valley as it will not have any sort of community identity nor will it provide effective or convenient local government. Twyford and Colden Common have many features in common: They share the same road with its traffic problems, particularly the amount of heavy traffic that passes through both villages They are both on the flight path for and the consequent noise pollution that this causes They share local services - police, surgery, Shawford station They share the same bus route - which is woefully inadequate for those without cars who rely on public transport They are both on the Itchen Navigation (and not the River Meon) Residents regularly make use of the facilities in both villages This means issues and problems can be reviewed jointly and solutions implemented that will improve both areas. No single councillor will be able to provide effective coverage of such a large and disparate area as proposed. Rather than improving electoral equality, residents will be denied proper representation as their issues will only be able to be dealt with properly by the councillor/s living in their part of the ward. Should all councillors elected come from the same part of the ward, then residents in the other part would effectively be disenfranchised. There can be no logical justification for changing the current boundaries. If they are changed, the councillors for Twyford and Colden Common will still have to liaise on local issues which will only result in increased costs and more inefficiencies.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5077 26/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Biddle

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the representations of the Colden Common Parish Council, and to their reasons would add the fact that the River Itchen and its watermeadows, and the Railway Line, for a natural and effective boundary between Colden Common (and Twyford) on the one side and Compton & Shawford on the other side. wyford has no convergence of interest with Upper Meon Valley, and every reason to wish to work in conjunction with Colden Common, with which it is closely linked.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4985 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: david Blackburn

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Colden common has nothing in common with Olivers Battery or Hursley. It is ridiculous of a bureaucrat to lump us together. I do share services with Twyford, the neighbouring village, such as shared services such as church, doctor’s surgery, youth and community groups. The two villages also share problems such as traffic, air flights. We are also linked by the Itchen, and therefore share much countryside. Please do not divorce us.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4796 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Lindsay Brown

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I agree with colden common parish council that colden common and twyford should remain as one constituency.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4977 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Fiona Bryan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that your proposal to split Twyford and Colden Common Ward does not achieve to meet these aims, and that our proposal of reducing the existing Twyford and Colden Common ward to a 2 Councillor ward does meet your three aims entirely. We cannot stress enough that Colden Common and Twyford share the same challenges and the benefits of sharing the same ward cannot be understated. Listed below is not an exhaustive list to demonstrate this · Speed and volume of traffic – both villages having the busy B3335/4 running through them and the associated problems with HGV Lorries. o Shared aims to provide safe cycle routes and pavement along with road · Aircraft noise · Rights of Way network between the Parishes · Poor public transport, none after 7pm · Shared services o Doctors surgery including a Patients Participation Group o Church services § The Benefice is Morestead, Colden Common, Owslebury and Twyford o Shared charities which the beneficiaries are both villages § Twyford and District Nursing trust an example o Youth and Community groups which service both parishes o Police neighbourhood team restructure aligns with a Twyford and Colden Common Ward o Sporting groups and associations which service both parishes Historically Twyford and Colden Common were one Parish. Despite today being two legal parishes, a very strong joint community identity remains. We believe that Twyford and Colden Common as one ward with two Ward Councillors is the most effective and efficient way of local democracy and best reflects the 3 main considerations as laid down in legislation. Please allow Colden Common and Twyford to remain as one ward

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4987 17/03/2015

From: John Cloyne Sent: 01 April 2015 20:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: WINCHESTER WARD BOUNDARIES REVIEW

Please find attached my objection. I should be grateful if you would confirm receipt.

John Cloyne

1

(2) T hese a re tr aditional communities w ith well de veloped s ocial networks and, a lthough separated by St Giles Hill which has few residents, have longstanding social links and kinship patterns. Th ey experience si milar iss ues in respect of th e provision of local g overnment services an d their co uncillors have many years expe rience in dealing with them . Solutions often apply to each area.

(3) The proposals will divide this area of common social and economic interest and link them with communities of a signi ficantly different so cial and eco nomic chara cter t hat have very different interests and concerns. Their likely electoral streng th in the new wards will s wamp the interests of these traditional communities, whose interests will then be ignored, as happens in oth er parts of the district. For ex ample, in relation to Hi ghcliffe, it is hard to see what commonality of i nterest exi sts between a l argely low-income estate wit h pockets of deprivation and a community that includes a national cathedral, public school and some of the most expensive housing in Winchester.

(4) The areas within the current St John & All Saints ward have always had some connection but have grown together even more as a community over the years, not least with the active encouragement of committed councillors and community organisations and the development of shared facilities. Just a few examples that spring to mind are:

 The Winnall Rock School, initiated by a local councillor, which was set up initially to provide facilities for children and young people from both Winnall and Highcliffe.

 The King Alfred Youth Club situated on the industrial estate at Winnall and which I understand principally serves young people from both Winnall and Highcliffe.

 The o pen space on th e c rest of St Gi les’ Hill which is als o a community facility shared b y all parts of the current war d. The St Giles Hill Resi dents Asso ciation produced a neighbourhood plan for ‘the hill’ and I understand keeps a watching brief on adjacent areas on each side of the hill, i.e. straddling the boundaries of the Winnall, St Johns and Highcliffe areas. I understand they are also encouraging the involvement of residents from these adjacent areas in Association-initiated environmental schemes.

 The Health Authority’s recognition of the linkage between Winnall and Highcliffe by creating designated walking routes between the two areas.

(5) The way residents living adjacent to the river came together at the ti me of recent severe flooding and have been involved as a co mmunity in planning future preventative measures is also important in understanding the geographical boundary formed by the river.

(6) T o break up t his s uccess story j ust t o play ‘an electoral n umbers g ame’ wou ld be a retrograde step.

5. The political implications

(1) I beli eve the prop osals subm itted b y others, h owever cl everly d isguised, have g iven priority to breaking up the current St John and All Saints ward for political advantage. I urge you to be alert to this as the proposed scheme will be seen by many as a ‘gerrymander’. . (2) On e of t he ar guments put forward in o ne of these proposals that the w orkload of councillors needs to be equalised is spurious. Whilst there are many social problems in parts of St John and A ll Saints ward, these are not unique to that ward and are easily manageable by three City C ouncillors and one County Councillor. It is interesting t hat the proponents of

2 this argument did not apply it to other needy communities such as t he large areas of old and new Stanmore in St Luke ward !

(3) The existing St John & All S aints ward is an are a of traditional Labo ur Par ty representation an d the p roposals will divide the Lab our Party vote and likel y end Labour representation o n the C ouncil. I urge th e Co mmission t o take a ccount o f the soci al implications of such an ou tcome, where thousands of Labou r voters in the District will then be without a voice on the Council.

6. Alternatives for achieving a balanced number of electors

(1) If additional electors are needed to achieve the required total, these could be added to the existing St John & All Saints ward from one or both of the following sources:

 Properties on the east side of the river currently in another ward.

 Properties broadly adjacent to the river in the city centre such as in The Brooks area, which have a traditional affinity with the St Johns area.

(2) As well as the river and water meadows, the hillside stretch ing from St C atherine’s Hill eastward to Telegraph Hill together with the boundary formed by the A272/A31 roads, forms another geographical b arrier and both Highcliffe and the par ish of are sit uated within ‘the bowl’ lying within these features. If necessary, the addition of Chilcomb parish, with its facilities su ch as the Winchester municipal cemet ery, residential caravan site, new hotel, Winchester Science Centre & Planetarium and the important community facility of the butterfly nature reserve could be considered as additio ns to th e current boundary of St John and All Saints ward. T he residential caravan site situated on the Alresford Road is divorced from the ge ography of Chilcomb pa rish where polling ta kes place and would benefit f rom linkage with the current St John and All Saints ward.

7. Conclusion

Splitting the current ward and adding large chunks of Winchester which have no phy sical or community connection would be inappropriate. I urge you to consider a ward boundary which builds on the curre nt b oundaries of St John & All Sain ts war d and thereby r ecognises the geographical features and maintains the community interests. I hope you will look carefully at these factual arguments and come up with a revised scheme that better reflects these features.

Yours faithfully,

J M CLOYNE j

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

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Andy Coates

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing to object to the draft boundary changes to Winchester City wards. The proposed change puts Twyford on the Western edge of a huge area that extends to Cheriton in the North and to the East. Twyford has no historical or community links with these areas and no common road links. They will have very different priorities to Twyford. The proposal is to have 3 councillors for this ward and it is quite possible that none of the 3 will be Twyford focussed. It is well known that big electoral areas and multiple representatives lead to communities feeling abandoned and forgotten. Far better to have smaller wards for each councillor so that communities know where they are and who looks after them. I cannot see that this change to the wards will save any money. Probably quite the opposite as far more travelling will be involved for the councillors. In this area it is the which is the important link that hold the communities together. The valley and the roads run North and South, and so Twyford, Colden Common, Shawford, Compton and Otterbourne have common interests and priorities. They share a medical centre, dentist and pharmacy. They share too a lot of historical links.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5014 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: James Coleman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing to object strongly to the recommendations of the LGBCE regarding ward boundaries within Winchester District, specifically the proposed ward of and . I accept the decision to create fifteen wards of approximately equal size, each represented by three councillors. However, the proposed ward boundaries run counter to the Commission's own principles, and to the interests of residents of Shedfield and Shirrell Heath. (1) The nature of Whiteley could not be more different to Shedfield and Shirrell Heath. The former comprises almost exclusively recent residential estates, while the latter settlements date back principally to the nineteenth century, and retain the historical buildings, open fields, mature trees, hedgerows and distant views of rural . Shedfield is a highly stable community; Whiteley is the opposite. (2) The scale of the two areas is disproportionate. Whiteley is already huge and may shortly be boosted by 3500 new homes; Shedfield and Shirrell Heath are small settlements, whose interests would be swamped by the much larger Whiteley. (3) The population of Whiteley is largely made up of recent incomers, while many of the current family names in Shedfield and Shirrell Heath can be traced back in the parish for a century or more: the interests of such a stable population cannot be properly represented when the majority in the new ward would not have the same local roots and networks. (4) The proposals would break up the historical parish of Shedfield. There is a genuine sense of community and shared interests within Shedfield Parish, as demonstrated in the political and planning domain by the Parish Plan and Village Design Statement shortly to be submitted to Winchester, following an in- depth involvement of the residents. The Parish Magazine remains the primary source of information for the majority of residents, even for those who have no connection with or interest in any of the local churches. Although there are differences between the three villages which make up Shedfield Parish, the parish boundaries genuinely reflect a rural community, with several active community groups. I know of no existing links whatever between Shedfield Parish and Whiteley. It would be senseless to destroy a coherent social and political entity for the sake of mere number-crunching. (5) The existence of Shedfield Parish Council reflects this community: it would be nonsensical for a small Parish Council to have to deal with two different new Wards. (6) There are no direct transport links between Shedfield Parish and Whiteley. On the rare occasions when I have gone there, I have had to take the M27 motorway first eastbound and then westbound: there is no sense of physical connectivity between Whiteley and Shedfield. (7) For doctors, dentists, local shopping, hairdressing and similar requirements, residents of Shedfield and Shirrell Heath go to either Wickham or Bishops Waltham (as the survey for the Village Design Statement confirmed). For all these reasons, I suggest that Shedfield Parish should be retained as a single entity and incorporated with adjacent villages with similar profiles, rather than the much bigger and utterly different settlement of Whiteley. I am certain that it will be possible to do so while respecting the need to create new wards of similar sizes.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5164 16/04/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Philip Coxhead

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The stated objectives of this process include: - Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each Councillor represents - Community identify - Provide effective and convenient local government As a resident of Colden Common, in my view the proposed changes do not meet some of these objectives, because: - Colden Common and Twyford already have a shared and common identity and community, as a result of our close proximity and shared services including Doctors and Dentists and commercial local businesses frequented by both our villages. - As a result, the proposed splitting of the wards will inevitably "dilute" the impact of concerns raised about issues which affect both Colden Common and Twyford. These could include the areas described above as well as common road and safety issues as well as policing and health. I agree completely with the representation made by Colden Common Parish Council and can identify with all of the points they have raised. As a resident of Colden Common for nearly 30 years, I am very concerned and saddened by this proposal, which I believe will damage our community with Twyford and which will also result in a system which will not best represent my family as residents nor our community effectively. I believe that Twyford and Colden Common as one ward with two Councillors is the most effective and efficient way of delivering local democracy in a way which is consistent with the objectives.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5181 16/04/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Sonia Critcher

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Having lived in Colden Common for 26 years I have always felt connected to Twyford. Geographically we are close, the two villages are served by the same doctors and bus routes and Colden Common was originally in the parish of Twyford. Otterbourne is on the other side of the river. With no connections other than the twisty Kiln Lane it might as well be on the other side of the planet. When you look at the boundaries on the map it just doesn't make any sense to draw a loop around Colden Common to fit it in to the new ward. Is this a numbers game? Looking to build a lot more houses in Colden Common? Why does the new Twyford Ward cross over the motorway?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4975 17/03/2015

FAO The Review Officer (Winchester)

Dear Sir/Madam

Proposals for changes to the St. Bartholomew's Ward boundaries are inappropriate and do not reflect two of the three main considerations which the LBC takes into account namely, 'to reflect community identity and to provide for effective and convenient local government'.

As I outlined and substantiated in my previous submission to you in November 2014, St Bartholomew's Ward has a great and long-lived sense of community and identity, reflected and reinforced by the primary school catchment area for St.Bede School. It has a strong proximity in physical terms not only to the historic city centre, but also with neighbouring wards, specifically St.Michael's and St. Paul's Wards. The secondary school, Westgate, for which St.Bede is the primary 'feeder' school is in St.Paul's Ward. I also suggested that the boundaries for St.Bartholomew's Ward could be extended into these adjacent wards as parts of them fit better with St.Bartholomew's Ward, specifically the area East of the railway line currently in St Paul's Ward and the area South of the High St., currently in St.Michael's Ward.

The natural boundary to the east of St.Bartholomew's Ward, the River Itchen, is an obvious one, as there are no river crossing points along the length of the eastern ward boundary, until the historic city centre is reached at Durngate (leading to Winnall) and Bridge St (leading to St.Giles Hill). Furthermore the areas beyond the River Itchen, Winnall and Highcliffe have no links in terms of schools and community identity with St. Bartholomew's Ward. They are quite separate from it.

The links between Winnall and Highcliffe have been recently highlighted in the brief given by Winchester City Council in 2014 to consultants preparing a "Specification for Winnall Planning Framework" which I quote from point 1.2. "Winnall is adjacent to ... Highcliffe. It is essential to bear in mind the proximity and inter-relationships between these two neighbourhoods ... when considering the future of Winnall and to work with the principles of 'fuzzy boundaries' where appropriate ..." So, the close relationship between Winnall and Highcliffe is acknowledged by the Council. Splitting these areas, currently in St.John and All Saints ward, into two separate town wards (St.Bartholomews & St. Michaels) which have very little in common with either Winnall or Highcliffe, is also inappropriate, despite the fact that it seems to have been the Council which suggested that St.John's Ward should be split in this way - mainly as I understand it for party political reasons, rather than having due regard for the electorate who live there.

My other relevant comment in my previous submission was that Barton Farm (once developed with residents in place) should definitely complete the 'circle' of Town Wards, and not be represented by a Parish Council. It is likely to have stronger links to the city centre in the South, than East/West, for work, sports and social activities. Its southern boundary is adjacent to St.Bartholomew's ward.

As previously noted, both the Andover Road/Worthy Road/ Worthy Lane, provide more of a conduit between the north and south of the Ward than a barrier between the East and West of the ward. They 1 provide access routes for residents in the north of Winchester to the long term car park and the railway station for commuters, access for residents and workers to reach the Discovery Centre (Library), restaurants, pubs, private gyms etc/keep fit centres. on Jewry St., the cluster of banks, heritage sites, museums, the law courts, Hampshire County Council and other offices located at the this end of the historic city centre.

Therefore it would be more logical to include Barton Farm in St.Bartholomew's Ward, a 'town ward' than for it to be represented by Parish Council, which as was noted in the February 2015 minutes in Barton Town Forum 10 under 'Representation Issues' which would give rise to an "interesting issue for political governance and facility management of the new development".

In order to satisfy the other main consideration the LBC has to take into account, namely 'to improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents', I suggest that instead of the current recommendations to achieve this, that St.Bartholomew's Ward retains its name, is enlarged to take in parts of St.Paul's and St.Michael's wards and Barton Farm and is not forced into 'marriage' with Winnall.

Should there still be a measure of inequality of numbers, so be it. Improving the 'electoral quality' also means reflecting community identity and to provide for effective and convenient local government, which the current LBC proposals will effectively destroy - for both the Councillors and residents in the current St.Bartholomew's Ward and for the residents of Winnall and Highcliffe, currently in St.John's and All Saints ward, as well as for the future residents at Barton Farm.

Yours faithfully

Imogen Zoe Dawson

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

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: John Dickson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a Twyford Resident I strongly believe that Twyford and Colden Common as one ward with two Ward Councillors is the most effective and efficient way of local democracy and best reflects the 3 main considerations as laid down in legislation. Please allow Colden Common and Twyford to remain as one ward. Clearly the proposals have not grasp of our community and I am stunned that proposals suggest we are potentially severed from communities within our Parish that we can walk to in minutes yet partnered with distant neighbours over forty minute drive away.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4988 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Paul and Wendy Draper

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

Regrettably the map was completely unstable so I could not draw my suggested revised boundaries upon it. However, in essence we consider it wrong to propose that Oliver's Battery (OB), currently with (BF), is included within the Colden Common (CC) and Otterbourne (O) Wards. OB is very much intertwined with Badger Farm and the . It is not a rural area and has no common features with CC and O. There is no pressing reason to change the current ward boundaries; it smacks of change for changes' sake and produces a worse ward situation for the occupants of the area and the councillors. We consider it would be more appropriate to do one of the following: 1. Leave the boundaries as they are for OB and BF. 2. Add the village of Pitt and the South Winchester Golf Club site. 3. If a larger ward is required add OB and BF to St Luke's ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5102 16/04/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Charles Goodall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why is there a need to change the boundaries Shirrell Heath is a rural area , Being moved in with Whitley a town with high population should not be allowed. This is just another way to waste our taxes there are more important things that the money could be spent on. I object to this proposed change

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5166 16/04/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Howard and Jenny Gray

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As residents of Colden Common we do not agree with the proposed new boundaries. We feel strongly that Colden Common and Twyford should remain together, as they have done for generations. We share so much, particularly the Main Road B3354 and its issues of volume of traffic. The same public transport runs through both villages. The River Itchen runs through both parishes and is an important asset. The South Downs National Park has a presence in both villages. We also share GP Practice with surgeries in both Colden Common and Twyford. It does not seem sensible to us to separate the two villages and put us with Otterbourne, where there are fewer similarities to be represented by whoever the Councillors of the future may be.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4979 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Carole Hastings

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It is my belief that our location should stay within the St Michael's ward as we relate more naturally to St Cross than the areas with the St Paul's ward. We personally use sports facilities and services within St Cross and have existing relationships with the councillors in the St Michael's ward that we would not wish to lose.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5091 16/04/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Anne Hazzard

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am objecting to the proposed changes to the electoral wards. I believe that Colden Common and Twyford should remain together under one ward. Colden Common and Twyford have a historic record of close shared services, which includes the doctors surgery, church services, youth and community groups, the patient participation group and many sport organisations. We have no connection or links to Otterbourne, Hursley or Badgers Farm and our needs and concerns would not be the same as these areas. Our community needs would be best served by a Councillor who could keep to the close workings and connections that are already established between Colden Common and Twyford. The existing ward has worked extremely well over many years and should not be changed as it could be detrimental to both villages.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4986 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Christine Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I firmly believe that Twyford should remain in a ward with Colden Common and not be linked a ward with Upper Meon Valley. Twyford, Morestead, Owslebury and Colden Common are very close physical proximity and are in the same Church Parish, sharing the same Vicar. These villages have many social links. Public transport that goes to Colden Common from Winchester passes through Twyford on the same main road. We also have close links with Otterbourne due to our linked road networks. We share the same bus routes. We share the same traffic issues. The Twyford WI group consists of Twyford, Otterbourne, Shawford, Compton, Ford in Chandlers Ford, Bishopstoke and Colden Common. Historically there has always been a close connection between Colden Common and Twyford. For several years we had the same Parish Clerk. Children from Twyford go to Cub and Scout groups at Colden Common and Otterbourne. We have had links with Youth Clubs in Colden Common. We have got to know Colden Common Parish Councillors and have a shared network of support for events. Twyford has had no previous links with Corehampton, , Exton, Brockwood, , Cheriton, . We do not have any close links with these villages. We have good communication between the villages to Twyford Colden Common and Otterbourne. Twyford villager make use of the Colden Common Community bus. Colden Common and Otterbourne are both just a short walking distance from Twyford. We are linked by the River Itchen and the Itchen Navigation. We have footpaths that interlink With Colden Common and Otterbourne. I am not sure that a City Councillor would be able to represent Twyford and the Meon Valley as their needs and locations are different. I do not think that this is a sensible change for all these reasons.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5025 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Graham Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Twyford Community Project

Comment text:

As Twyford shares so many of the same issues, especially relating to transport, with Colden Common, it seems ludicrus to change the boundary so that they end up in diffeent wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5042 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: David Hillier

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I find it unbelievable that WCC can even begin to suggest a joining of Shedfield and Whiteley. Shedfield is a small village settlement with no shops or post office. It suffers from severe restrictive planning conditions which means it will remain a small village settlement. There is little or no industry or commerce with no chance of this being changed. Whitley on the other hand is a hub of commerce, industry and housing expansion. The size of the proposed ward clearly indicates that any WCC decisions on future activity will be centred on Whiteley parameters and they will ignore the wishes or opinions of Shedfield residents. It would be far better to link Shedfield with other parishes which have similar village structures. Shedfield will be swamped by the needs and requirements of Whiteley. I strongly oppose the suggested change in ward structures.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5152 16/04/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Patrick Hunter

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why are the proposed new wards splitting Colden Common and Twyford?! I can't think of two more closely related areas and I feel strongly that they should remain as one ward. We have a main road running right through both areas, the local surgery covers both Twyford and Colden Common, and the police boundaries place both areas together. I think it's very bizarre to split them up when we can work with them in the future to improve both areas (e.g. joint cycle routes).

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4989 17/03/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Winchester District

Personal Details:

Name: Ian King

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5004 17/03/2015 I have just studied the map that accompanies this consultation and wonder just how much research and effort has really been expended in coming up with this?

One can see how somebody has come up with this proposal given a map a pen and presumably population figures for each ward/area. No doubt each proposed area will be very balanced as regards the numbers of residents represented by each councillor. However I wonder if they even live/work in the area or understand the local issues (or identity) of the areas they wish to disrupt?

I want to focus on Colden Common but before that I wish to also make broader comments.

Expanding the Twyford parish all the way out across Owslebury towards Bramdean and Corehampton is unbelievable – this is a massive distance which is almost cut into two pieces by the Bishops Waltham Ward.

To expand Colden Common further North West towards Hursley and up to Olivers Battery makes no sense and their issues are so far removed from ours. I would suspect Olivers residents would be better served with Badger Farm etc.

Back to Colden Common (CC), I cannot believe that the existing boundaries which are logical and work well are even being considered for change in the first place. To separate Colden Common from Twyford is totally illogical. We share so many issues and form a natural area bounded by several major road routes which gives us so many shared issues. In this respect I can see the advantage of perhaps expanding Twyford and CC to take in perhaps Otterbourne and Compton but no further in that direction.

My Parish Council has already listed the areas main challenges which I fully endorse which include:

1) Speed and volume of traffic – both villages having the busy B3335/4 running through them and the associated problems with HGV Lorries.

Shared aims to provide safe cycle routes and pavement along with road improvements.

2) Aircraft noise.

3) Poor public transport, none after 7pm.

4) Shared services.

Doctors surgery including a Patients Participation Group.

Church services - The Benefice is Morestead, Colden Common, Owslebury and Twyford.

Shared charities which the beneficiaries are both villages - Twyford and District Nursing trust is an example.

Youth and Community groups which service both parishes.

Police neighbourhood team restructure aligns with a Twyford and Colden Common Ward.

Sporting groups and associations which service both parishes. To this I wish to add the current campaigns to further rural broadband – again Colden Common and Twyford share the physical telephone exchange that facilitates this!!!

I will try and draw some rings on your map now if I can to show my suggestions!

Regards

Ian King

06/03/2015

g p

Hi

I have just tried to access the "consultation" site - found it so blurred, indistinct and confusing as to be virtually useless.

However, let me just say that any scheme that does not put and Headbourne Worthy together would not get my vote.

Regards

Diana Kirkby

1