Submission of District Council

1. Introduction

1.1 Mansfield District Council is currently represented by 46 members who represent 19 wards. Each ward is represented by either two or three members. These arrangements came into effect at the May 2003 District Council elections following a Periodic Electoral Review of the district in 1999 under the Local Government Act 1992. The Council holds full Council elections every four years.

1.2 Since October 2002 the Executive arrangements operated by the authority have comprised a directly elected Mayor and Cabinet. The directly elected Mayor is elected every four years with the term of office running concurrent with that of the members of the authority.

1.3 The implementation of Section 8 of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled Authorities which hold whole council elections to request the Electoral Commission to direct the Boundary Committee to undertake an electoral review with a view to providing for single member wards.

1.4 In July 2008 the Council considered a report from the directly elected Mayor to request the Electoral Commission to undertake an Electoral Review of the district with a view to establishing single member wards. This request was subsequently supported by the Council at a meeting held on 29 July 2008.

1.5 The Council received notification from the Boundary Committee for England on 22 June 2009 that it had been directed by the Electoral Commission to undertake an electoral review of the district. The review was formally commenced on 4 August 2009 and dealt with the consultation on the appropriate council size for the authority.

1.6 Following this consultation period the Council was notified on 20 October 2009 that the Boundary Committee for England was minded to recommend 36 elected members in addition to the directly elected Mayor. This recommendation formed the basis for the next stage of the review which commenced in October 2009 relating to warding patterns for the district.

2. Methodology

2.1 The district is currently divided into five County electoral divisions namely:

Warsop Mansfield North and South Mansfield West Mansfield East Mansfield

2.2 These five areas also form the basis for the Council’s community engagement mechanisms with local residents, partners and businesses which is conducted through four area assemblies and a pilot area partnership in the Mansfield North and Mansfield Woodhouse. These areas are co-terminus with the County electoral divisions.

2.3 These five areas were used as a basis for allocating the thirty six members across the district with the result that the members were allocated as follows:

Warsop – four members Mansfield North and Mansfield Woodhouse – eight members South Mansfield – nine members East Mansfield – eight members West Mansfield – seven members

2.4 The Council considered that using these five areas as the foundations for the review not only provided the mechanism for allocating the thirty six members across the district but also provided for convenient and effective local government as it was consistent with existing arrangements and therefore would be understood by the electorate. These areas are also the focus of the Council’s community engagement and partnership arrangements.

2.5 The starting point for determining the district’s electoral forecast up to 2013 has been to use the housing trajectory in the Council’s Housing Monitoring report. This suggests that 2,400 units could be built within the next five years. The District’s overall housing supply (existing permissions) is 3290. It is anticipated by the Council’s Planning Policy section that 73% of the supply could be built during that period. By working through the Housing monitoring report ward by ward and multiplying the number of units remaining in each ward by 0.73. For example in Berry Hill there are 355 properties remaining multiplied by 0.73 to give 259 new units. This equates to an increase in the electorate of 3,014 across the district when this process is repeated for all wards.

2.6 The result of the process referred to in 2.5 above has given a forecast electorate of 85, 675 as at 2013. This figure has been forwarded to the Boundary Committee for England.

2.7 This equates to an electorate of 2, 380 for each member and this figure has formed the basis for devising the ward arrangements.

3. Warsop

3.1 Under current arrangements this area is represented by the Meden and Birklands wards which both return three members. Both these wards are located in the north of the district and are contained entirely within the district’s only parish of Warsop.

3.2 The submission contains proposals to establish four single member wards for the area covered by Market Warsop and the settlements of , , Church Warsop, Spion Kop, and the surrounding rural areas.

3.3 This area is largely rural in nature and in order to provide effective and convenient local government, the submission provides for the rural element of the parish to be divided between the proposed four wards. This is to ensure that no ward in the parish is geographically too large to prevent a single member representing the electorate effectively.

3.4 A substantial housing regeneration project is currently underway in the area which will result in the demolition of existing properties and the creation of replacement properties in the district. The proposals have allocated the redevelopment into a single ward to prevent it from straddling two wards and maintain the community within one ward.

3.5 The proposals for Warsop were circulated to the Warsop Parish Council but no comments have been received by the Authority.

3.6 The submission in respect of the Warsop electoral division provides for the following four single member wards with the electoral forecasts as shown below:

Name Forecast Electorate Variance from average of 2, 380 Netherfield 2,426 1.97% Warsop Carrs 2,547 7.05% Meden 2,448 2.89% Market Warsop 2,485 4.45%

4. Mansfield North and Mansfield Woodhouse

4.1 Mansfield Woodhouse lies to the immediate north of Mansfield and is primarily a residential area. Although now absorbed into the Mansfield urban area, the settlement has retained a special character of its own and now functions as a district centre. There is also a strong residential presence at the eastern end of the centre, whilst the western end has a largely industrial/commercial character.

4.2 Under current arrangements this area covers the Leeming, Priory, Robin Hood and Sherwood wards which return three, two, three and two members respectively. The submission provides for the creation of eight single member wards for the division.

4.3 The draft proposals that were considered by Select Commission 3(Corporate) on 23 November 2009 contained a proposal that would place Blake Street, Sherwood Street and Yorke Street in Sherwood ward. This proposal was not accepted as it would separate these streets from the neighbouring community in Yeoman Hill Ward. As an alternative it was proposed by the Commission and supported by the Executive Mayor that these streets be transferred to Sherwood ward on the grounds at this would maintain the community within this area. Transferring these electors was also supported by the Priory Ward tenants and Residents Association.

4.4 The consultation comments received from members of the Sherwood North Tenants and Residents Association were supportive of the proposals for the area. A summary of these consultation comments can be found at Appendix B

4.5 The submission in respect of the Mansfield North and Mansfield Woodhouse electoral division provides for the following eight single member wards with the electoral forecasts as shown below:

Name Forecast Electorate Variance from average of 2, 380 Manor 2,520 5.88% Hornby 2,195 -7.85% Peafields 2,455 3.19% Yeoman Hill 2,405 1.09% Woodlands 2,309 -2.94% Sherwood 2,209 -7.18% Woodhouse 2,379 -0.04% Park Hall 2,524 6.05%

5. South Mansfield

5.1 This electoral area covers the current Berry Hill, Eakring, Portland and Ravensdale wards which return three, three, two and two members respectively.

5.2 The area has seen considerable residential development since the last electoral review which has resulted in the Berry Hill ward in particular being under represented by 28%.

5.3 Since the periodic electoral review conducted in 1999 substantial residential development in the former Berry Hill quarry has been undertaken and further development still has to be undertaken to complete the scheme. The submission has sought to contain within a single ward this development on the grounds that it provides easily identifiable ward boundaries.

5.4 The area will also experience further residential development which has also been taken into account when calculating the electoral forecast.

5.5 During the public consultation event a representation was received from a member of the public that the proposal to include the Linnet Drive area in the Carr Bank ward poorly reflected and represented the community in this area. The representation suggested that the community would be better represented by transferring the area to the Racecourse ward. This representation was accepted by both Select Commission 3 and the Executive Mayor in considering representations received prior to recommending a scheme of proposed wards.

5.6 Following the consultation period comments were received from district Councillor C. Smith relating to proposals for the Carr Bank Ward. The comments related to apartments on Bath Lane, properties fronting Sandy Lane, properties on Albany Close and Drive and the area behind the Ravensdale shops on Sanders Avenue and Houghton Road.

5.7 As a result of these representations the Executive Mayor amended the draft proposals to transfer 28 electors on Bath Lane and 58 electors on Sandy Lane to better reflect the community identity whilst still providing convenient and effective local government.

5.8 The representation received from Councillor C.Smith in respect of Albany Close and Drive and the area behind the Ravensdale shops on Sanders Avenue and Houghton Road was not accepted. It was considered that the Albany Drive area was a community in its own right and to transfer it would not be in keeping with the principles of convenient local government by adhering to the electoral division boundaries. The representation for the area behind the Ravensdale shops was also not accepted as the community had not been split and the suggested amendment was not in keeping with the criteria adopted by the Council regarding electoral equality and would adversely affect the divisional boundaries.

5.9 The submission in respect of the South Mansfield electoral division provides for nine single member wards with the electoral forecasts as shown :

Name Forecast electorate Variance from average of 2,380 Carr Bank 2,214 -6.97% Portland 2,319 -2.64% Newgate 2,330 -2.10% Racecourse 2,379 -0.04% Oakham 2,204 -7.39% Eakring 2,257 -5.16% Berry Hill 2,251 -5.42% Sandhurst 2,249 -5.50% Kings Walk 2,214 -6.97%

6. East Mansfield

6.1 This electoral area covers the current Forest Town East, Forest Town West, Oak Tree and wards they are located in the eastern part of the district. These wards currently return two, three, three and two members respectively.

6.2 Select Commission 3 when originally considering draft proposals for the area on 23 November 2009 did not recommend any amendments. No amendments were recommended by the Executive Mayor when publishing the draft scheme for consultation.

6.3 Comments received during the public consultation period in relation to Maun Valley and Holly wards were supportive of the proposals. The proposed boundaries incorporated important landmarks of the area and kept together existing communities.

6.4 The proposal to separate the Oak Tree housing estate from the remainder of the current Oak Tree ward was supported from the consultation process and by Select Commission 3 which included an Oak Tree Ward member together with the Executive Mayor. The new Oak Tree ward not only contains the housing estate of this name but also shopping, leisure and community facilities of the same name.

6.5 Considerable development will occur on Sandilands Way North and South. The proposals seek to ensure that these developments fall wholly within a ward to prevent the developments straddling ward boundaries. These developments were taken into account when forecasting the district’s 2013 electorate.

6.6 The submission in respect of East Mansfield provides for the eight single member wards with the electoral forecasts as shown below:

Name Forecast electorate Variance from average of 2,380 Ransom Wood 2,211 -7.10% Lindhurst 2,253 -5.33% Ling Forest 2,235 -6.09% Oak Tree 2,156 -9.41% Kingsway 2,343 -1.55% Maun Valley 2,537 6.59% Holly 2,531 6.34% Newlands 2,595 9.03%

6. West Mansfield

7.1 This electoral division is currently covered by the Broomhill, Cumberlands, Grange Farm, Ladybrook and Hill wards.

7.2 The draft scheme for this area provided for single member wards for this area although under these arrangements Pleasley Hill would have been significantly overrepresented. However, it was felt to be justified because of the nature of the ward. The proposals to establish two single member wards was supported by the Bull Farm Tenants and Residents Association as it kept together the majority of the community.

7.3 At a meeting of Select Commission 3 held on 23 November 2009 the members preferred solution for this area was a two member ward. It was considered that a single member for the whole of the Bull Farm community would be too demanding for that member as it is a deprived community but by combining with Pleasley Hill better equality of representation would be achieved across the whole area. The Commission therefore recommended a two member ward for this area.

7.4 At the time of the executive decision the Executive Mayor received representations from Councillor McCrossan and Councillor E.Smith that the draft proposal did not reflect the established communities in the area especially Fairholme Drive and Westfield Drive. As such the Mayor recommended creating a two member ward for the Bull Farm Pleasley Hill and Abbott areas which it was believed would alleviate the concerns regarding splitting communities. It was thought that the issues regarding community identity were sufficient to justify departing from the presumption of single member wards in this instance.

7.5 At the Council meeting held on 5 January 2010 an amendment was proposed by Councillor McCrossan and seconded by Councillor E.Smith that two single member wards for the Pleasley Hill, Bull Farm and Abbott communities with revised boundaries be established. This amendment was supported by Full Council including the Executive Mayor and was adopted as part of the Council’s submission.

7.6 Whilst it is acknowledged that the proposed Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm ward has a substantial variance against the member to electorate average at 19.95%, this ward contains the distinct communities of Pleasley Hill, Radmanthwaite and Bull Farm. However, a current housing redevelopment scheme in Pleasley Hill will result in the demolition of a number of properties which will reduce this variance. A fundamental aim of the review has been to re-engage with and maintain local communities. It was not possible to provide a single member warding arrangement that met the average elector to member ratio without dividing and splitting these well known and established communities.

7.7 Further development in the Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm ward is expected after the current clearance programme following 2013 which may result in a request for a further electoral review with the aim of delivering single member wards for both areas.

7.8 The submission in respect of East Mansfield provides for the seven single member wards with the electoral forecasts as shown below:

Name Forecast electorate Variance from average of 2,380 Bull Farm and 2,854 19.95% Pleasley Hill Abbott 2,322 -2.43% Ladybrook 2,534 6.47% Grange Farm 2,532 6.38% Brick Kiln 2,589 8.78% Penniment 2,365 -0.63% Broomhill 2,299 -3.40%

8. Consultation

8.1 The Executive Mayor on 25 November 2009 took an executive decision to publish a scheme of proposed ward boundaries for public consultation comprising thirty six single member wards. A public consultation period ran from 30 November to 11 December 2009.

8.2 Prior to the Executive Mayor taking the decision to publish the scheme, the Council’s Select Commission 3 (Corporate Issues) considered the proposals and their comments informed the decision made by the Executive Mayor. This Commission also considered the comments received from the members of the public generated from the various consultation methods prior to the Executive Mayor taking a further executive decision on recommendations for the proposed wards.

8.3 The draft scheme published by the Executive Mayor was consulted upon by the following means:-

(a) Presentation, questions and display to the Council’s Citizens’ Panel Annual Meeting on 26 November 2009 attended by approximately 80 members of the Panel. The Panel is made up of residents from the district that is regularly consulted on matters relating to the Council and its services. It is as representative of the district as possible in terms of age, gender and ethnicity. The Panel is refreshed by one third each year to minimise bias from those who have become less representative and the edited electoral roll is used to contact potential new panel members.

(b) Presentation, questions and display to the Council’s South Mansfield Area Assembly on 10 December 2009. (c) Display with maps in the Civic Centre with a suggestion box for the duration of the consultation period. (d) Feature on the Council’s website with specific questions relating to names of the proposed wards and whether the proposals respected communities. (e) Information to Warsop Parish Council. (f) Through the district’s Tenants and Residents Associations. (g) A Mansfield town centre event and display held on 11 December 2009. (h) Details of the proposed scheme and how members of the public could contribute to the process were included in the Mayor’s weekly column in the local newspaper, The Chad. (i) Through an email to staff of the Authority requesting their comments.

8.4 A summary of the consultation comments received together with the proposed action are included at Appendix B

8.5 The Executive Mayor also received written comments from Mansfield District Councillors McCrossan, C.Smith and E.Smith which were received after the closure of the formal consultation period.

8.6 All the consultation comments were considered by the Executive Mayor on 22 December 2009 in recommending a scheme of wards for Council approval.

9. Consideration and approval of the submission

9.1 Council met on 5 January 2009 to consider the Executive Mayor’s recommendations in respect of warding arrangements. In proposing the recommendations the Executive Mayor stated that the proposals would allow members to become community champions which would enable them to be singularly accountable to the ward as the Executive Mayor was to the district as a whole.

9.2 At the meeting an amendment was proposed by Councillor McCrossan and seconded by Councillor E.Smith that two single member wards for the Pleasley Hill and Bull Farm areas be established. Council was advised that the amendment addressed the issue of communities more effectively than a one two member ward. This amendment was accepted by the Executive Mayor. On a vote being taken this amendment was supported by Council and was adopted as part of the Council’s submission.

9.3 The substantive motion as amended was approved unanimously by Council to become the Council’s submission. Summary of Proposed Wards Appendix A

Ward Number Name Number of Variance against forecast the average of Electors 2.380 1. Netherfield 2,426 1.97% 2. Warsop Carrs 2,547 7.05% 3. Meden 2,448 2.89% 4. Market Warsop 2,485 4.45% 5. Manor 2,520 5.88% 6. Hornby 2,195 -7.85% 7. Peafields 2,455 3.19% 8. Yeoman Hill 2,405 1.09% 9. Woodlands 2,309 -2.94% 10. Sherwood 2,209 -7.18% 11. Woodhouse 2,379 -0.04% 12. Park Hall 2,524 6.05% 13. Ransom Wood 2,211 -7.10% 14. Lindhurst 2,253 -5.33% 15. Ling Forest 2,235 -6.09% 16. Oak Tree 2,156 -9.41% 17. Kingsway 2,343 -1.55% 18. Maun Valley 2,537 6.59% 19. Holly 2,531 6.34% 20. Newlands 2,595 9.03% 21. Carr Bank 2,214 -6.97% 22. Portland 2,319 -2.64% 23. Newgate 2,330 -2.10% 24. Racecourse 2,379 -0.04% 25. Oakham 2,204 -7.39% 26. Eakring 2,257 -5.16% 27. Berry Hill 2,251 -5.42% 28. Sandhurst 2,249 -5.50% 29. Kings Walk 2,214 -6.97% 30. Bull Farm and Pleasley Hill 2,854 19.95% 31. Abbott 2,322 -2.43% 32. Ladybrook 2,534 6.47% 33. Grange Farm 2,532 6.38% 34. Brick Kiln 2,589 8.78% 35. Penniment 2,365 -0.63% 36. Broomhill 2,299 -3.40% Total 85,675

Appendix B

Summary of consultation responses to the Electoral Review proposals

Name and Response Comment Address Alan Rowe – via Ward 33 – looks fine and in No amendments the Citizens’ Panel favour made as a result of the comment Member of the 1 member per ward is fine in Voters will also have Citizens’ Panel theory. What happens when that the support of the a member fails to attend directly elected meetings? What action is there in Mayor and the place to strip the offender of their resources available office? to them. An absent member is not upholding the interest of the community. Members are funded by the public and should be accountable at all times. Member of the In Mansfield South ward No comment given Citizens’ Panel boundaries do not appear to as to what were the reflect “natural communities”. natural communities. No similar comment from attendance at the South Area Assembly. Member of the No.15 – Oak Tree – seems more No amendments Citizens’ Panel sensible as other new areas made as a result of proposed reflect more local the comment community needs I would think. Member of the Boundary of Ward 8 maybe Option 1 – If all Citizens’ Panel better if it includes both sides of Priory Road was in Priory Road, but would need to ward 11 this would see what those residents transfer 18 electors preferred. Would they rather from ward 8. move the boundary the other side? Option 2 – if all Priory Road was in ward 8 this would transfer 19 electors from ward 11.

No amendment made as a result of the comment Member of the Ward 33 – serviced at present by There are no Citizens’ Panel two good councillors, one who is restrictions on also a County Councillor. councillors being members of both the How would one councillor work if district and county he/she was also a county councils Appendix B

councillor with the extra work load? Member of the One member for one ward would Voters will also have Citizens’ Panel be difficult regarding problems if the support of the you needed to see a member on directly elected a set day and they were not in Mayor and the your area. By the time they could resources available get round to you the problem to them. could have increased. Carolyn Hallam Ward 22 – (home ward) – do not really like the boundary. If it was changed to the police area it could be called Town Centre. At the moment I am in Ravensdale Ward, which I do not feel a part of but in the town centre policing area.I think it should be more central – covering all inside the ring road as the police area is.

Don't think it will change. I don't feel part of the current ward (Ravensdale) and feel my community is really just my small area, although I do feel that the town centre is part of 'my area', which is not covered under the new boundary.

Ward 16 – totally agree with this Ward 16 - No - much better than before as it amendments made covers just the Oak Tree MNT as a result of the area with regards to housing, comment which has a definite boundary of Jubilee Way, rather than including Ling Forest, Eakring Road as now.

Not sure it will make a change to the people living in the new area that were already in Oak Tree before as there already is a recognised community there, but will probably help the areas that were in Oak Tree before who are now in new areas, as I don't think they felt a part of Oak Tree.

Resident via the I live on the Linnet Drive Estate Transferring the webpage and fall into the Ravensdale Linnet Drive area Appendix B

Ward. As this ward is dominated into ward 24 would by the Ravensdale estate the move 163 electors. elected members don't represent myself or my closest neighbours.

Poorly.

It would make more sense for the Linnet Drive Estate to fall in the Eakring Ward as the breakdown of households is similar to that on my estate. Thomas Shead via Ward 6 – Hornby Ward because Ward 6 webpage the Hornby Plantation, the small recommended to be park off Marples Avenue is pretty named Hornby well central in the area. Ward.

Ward 7 – Peafields Ward – Ward 7 because the boundary is the recommended to be Peafield Lane and Peafield named Peafield Estate is part of the ward. Ward.

Fairly happy - cannot see it will No amendments make a great deal of difference. made as a result of the comments. Reasonably well, the majority of the area is owner occupied – Peafield Estate is the only area that is not entirely similar. The area is set a part from Mansfield Woodhouse by the A60. Resident via the I do not have any named Suggestions for the webpage suggestions for Wards but I think name of wards has the names should identify with been sought from the local community or members of the neighbourhoods that they serve. public in order to People don't identify with engage with the local Portland or Cumberlands. Name communities and the ward after a local landmark or ensure local the neighbourhood that people ownership of the identify with. proposed ward within the area. Good idea, provides a better focus.

If they are done correctly and named correctly they will identify more closely with the communities they are supposed to represent. Appendix B

K. Britland via 19 – Rushpools Field Ward Ward 19 webpage recommended to be Not much difference from the named Rushpools existing wards Farm Ward.

Fairly good, having one No amendments councillor representing for the made as a result of area, probably a fairer way of the the comment. elected member for this area.

Councillor Barton Agree where Ward Boundaries No amendments finish at the River Meden, but I made as a result of disagree that one Councillor can the comment. cover one ward.

I understand the principles behind one member wards but in Forest Town West, which is one of the fastest growing areas in the District, the workload would be far too much for one Councillor to maintain.

However, I do agree with the one member wards and feel that the officers concerned have done a good job of defining the boundaries. Priory Ward Blake, Sherwood and Yorke Recommended that Tenants and Streets should all be kept in the Blake Street, Residents Group same ward not split because our Sherwood Street and T/R group have worked tirelessly Yorke Street be kept over the last few years knitting together in the 8 together a broken community Ward. and wish to continue and not be split into other areas by persons not living here. Peter Clark via Fully support one member one No amendments webpage ward proposals. made as a result of the comment. Think they are in line with current areas - albeit areas like Ladybrook will have more, but smaller wards. Resident via the My suggestion for Ward 19 would Recommended that webpage be Holly Ward, since two of its Ward 19 be called most distinctive places are Holly the Holly Ward. Primary School and Holly Road. Everyone in the area knows the No amendments School, and Holly Road is large made as a result of Appendix B

and runs right through the the comment. proposed ward.

I would be happy with the proposed boundaries. They seem to incorporate the important landmarks of my surrounding area and keep the existing communities together.

The area within the proposed boundaries brings together estates that are already associated with one another and groups of people that are mixed with each other, and the new ward will reflect this. Comment via Meet Communities no longer exist with No amendments Your Local the demise of traditional made as a result of Councillor industries in the area, which were the comment on the centre of communities. proposed ward Groups. boundaries.

Areas come together when there Aim of single is a local to solve and then member wards is to disperse. re-engage with the electorate and Ward proposals seem logical. communities.

Comment via Meet Ward 30 – Pleasley Hill – Recommend that Your Local supports splitting Bull Farm from Pleasley Hill and Bull Councillor Pleasley Hill. Farm areas be served either by a Supports single member wards. two member ward or retain as two single member wards with high electorate in balance justified on the grounds of identifying communities. Comment via Meet Supports in principle the No amendments Your Local boundary of ward 5. Ward will made as a result of Councillor have similar issues to parts of the comment on ward 6. proposed ward boundaries. Appendix B

Comment via Meet Single member wards will not Voters will also have Your Local work. the support of the Councillor directly elected Mayor and the resources available to them. Bull Farm Tenants Name – Bull Farm Ward Recommend Bull and Residents Farm Ward as name Association It is keeping most of the of the ward. community together in Bull Farm No amendments Only time will tell if the made as a result of boundaries work. the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Debdale Ward sounds better Recommended Tenants and than Sherwood Ward. Debdale name for Residents ward 10. Association Did not really see the old ones. member No amendments Not sure made as a result of the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Sherwood/Debdale ward Recommended Tenants and Debdale and Residents Proposed ward boundaries are Sherwood names for Association good. wards 9 and 10. member Local communities – we can be No amendments part of Woodhouse and get made as a result of better support. the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Keep it Sherwood. Sherwood Tenants and recommended for Residents One councillor will be enough to ward 9. Association cover this ward and the member boundaries are well planned. No amendments made as a result of We have good boundaries and the comment on we can have community proposed ward involvement on the Sherwood Pit boundaries. Forest Commission site for country walks in the summer. Sherwood North Keep it Sherwood ward. It is the Sherwood Tenants and history of Sherwood colliery. recommended for Residents ward 9. Association Ward boundaries – there is not member much difference. No amendments Appendix B

We have a good community and made as a result of I hope that we do not lose that. the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Rather liked Sherwood. If there is Debdale Tenants and a change Debdale would be recommended for Residents good. ward 10. Association member I think that they have been No amendments worked out well. made as a result of the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Debdale ward. Debdale Tenants and recommended for Residents By reducing the number of ward 10. Association homes it is hoped that it does not member reduce or lose our police support. No amendments made as a result of the comment on proposed ward boundaries. Sherwood North Sherwood Woodhouse. No amendments Tenants and made as a result of Residents I think that the boundaries are the comment on Association equal to other boundaries and proposed ward member are workable for both councillors boundaries. and the community.

It will bring more of the communities together and give more of one community a better place to live. Nigel Moxon via Barn Forest (an amalgamation of No amendments the Council’s Big Barn Lane/Little Barn Lane made as a result of website and the old Forest Hospital) - the comment on Ward 26. proposed ward boundaries. Great idea. Only having one councillor for an area, but making Proposed that Ward that ward much smaller allows 26 be named one person to become more Eakring. accountable and also allows people to know who exactly represents them directly, rather than the current system of picking the first person that springs to mind!

I think they will have very little Appendix B

effect, other than where we go to vote every couple of years. Cllr C.Smith I am concerned that Rainers Field on Ravensdale is being incorporated into (what was) Portland Ward which also encompasses which is miles away. I know it is difficult drawing lines on maps, but the emphasis on numbers without considering existing communities will, I fear, lead to some strange alignments.