Parish and Town Council submissions to the Braintree District Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 20 submissions.
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.
Keal, Simon
From: Black Notley
Good Evening The Parish Council have no further comments to make at this time. Previous comments still stand.
Helen Waterfield Clerk to Black Notley Parish Council
The Clerk works part-time hours if your enquiry is urgent please telephone
1
Keal, Simon
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 19 September 2013 12:48 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Braintree District
From: cressing.parish.council Sent: 19 September 2013 12:15 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Braintree District
Dear Sir or Madam
Re: Cressing Parish Council representations to the Electoral Review of Braintree District
Discussion of the consultation on new ward boundaries in Braintree District Council took place at a public meeting of the Cressing Parish Council on 18 September 2013. A resolution was passed to write to The Local Government Boundary Commission to confirm that Cressing Parish Council would favour being in an electoral ward with Terling & Fairstead, White Notley & Faulkbourne and Black Notley as opposed to Silver End for the following reasons:
The parishes of Terling & Fairstead, White Notley & Faulkbourne and Black Notley are much more similar in size and structure to that of Cressing Parish Council as opposed to the parish of Silver End which is much larger in size and completely different in structure In addition, the local interests of Silver End and Cressing do not coincide with Cressing having a more rural and agricultural background than Silverend which has a more recent industrial heritage and strong links with Witham The local people in Cressing are more likely to use the community services in Terling & Fairstead, White Notley & Faulkbourne and Black Notley than the services in Silver End. The socio demographic areas of Silver End and Cressing are not akin.
Yours sincerely
Mrs Anna Tame Clerk to Cressing Parish Council
1
Keal, Simon
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 September 2013 14:50 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE BRAINTREE DISTRICT
From: The Parish Clerk Sent: 16 September 2013 14:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE BRAINTREE DISTRICT
Dear Sirs
I have been asked to respond to your letter of 16 July 2013 on behalf of both Great Bardfield and Finchingfield Parish Councils.
1. Members accept the need to reduce the total number of District Councillors as outlined in your correspondence but hope that the reduction by 10 will not reduce representation offered to residents.
2. Regarding Ward boundaries, my Councils are most anxious to remain part of the Three Fields 'Cluster' along with neighbouring Wethersfield. We are similar in regard to population, experience similar problems and needs in respect of our relationship with both District and County Councillors. We have undertaken partnership working including the purchase of a Speed Indicator Device to be shared by the villages. We are also linked by one of the few buses that serve the area.
Regards
Kate Fox Parish Clerk Great Bardfield and Finchingfield Parish Councils
1
Keal, Simon
From: Rayne PC
Dear Simon Rayne Parish Council would wish to respond to the consultation as follows:-
Note the proposed reduction of 60 Council members to 50. Our main concern is the potential effect this reduction may have on the ward boundaries for Rayne. Rayne is a rural community with a population of over 3000, it is also a centre for surrounding smaller villages and residents in the surrounding rural area. While close to Braintree town, it is important for the village to retain the existing ward boundary to enable us to continue to have representation whose main focus will be the village of Rayne.
Yours sincerely, Sarah Cocks Clerk to Rayne Parish Council rpc@rayne-essex.gov.uk Community Information Point/Office hours: Monday 12.30 - 3.00pm & Thursday 9.30am - 12.00 noon
1 Rivenhall Parish Council SERVING THE COMMUNITIES OF RIVENHALL AND RIVENHALL END IN THE BRAINTREE DISTRICT IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX CLERK TO THE PARISH COUNCIL Mr Keith P. Taylor
Email: [email protected] Website: www.rivenhallparishcouncil.net
4th. September 2013
Our Ref: F1/E5
The Review Officer (Braintree) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden Hose Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
Dear Sir/Madam,
Electoral Review of Braintree District Council.
The representation of Rivenhall Parish Council relative to the above is as detailed below.
Rivenhall Parish Council supports retaining a 60 seat District Council, and we note that at the council size consultation stage, the overwhelming view of parish councils was to retain 60. The reasoning behind moving to a 50 seat council appears to be almost entirely based on the view of the current administration of BDC, taking little or no account of the representation of rural parishes.
It is relatively easier to redraw boundaries within the main urban area of Braintree, Witham and Halstead, but much more difficult in the rural areas, requiring whole, or worse, parts of parishes to be moved between wards. Using the electorate figures spread sheet from the LGBCE website, we note the following:
At the target date of 2019, with a 60 seat council there are only 7 wards out of 30 with more than 10% variance levels (4 below –10% and 3 above +10%).
At 2012 there were also just 7 wards with greater than 10% variance levels, 6 of which are the same wards as at 2019.
The Bradwell, Silver End and Rivenhall ward has a very good level of compliance with district average at a 60 seat scenario; being +2% at 2012 and just –1% at 2019.
A key issue in this review is maintaining community ties, which is especially important in rural areas. It is thus essential to consider the changes with various council size scenarios for neighbouring rural wards.
We note that at 2019, with a 60 seat council, only one rural ward in the south of the district has a greater than 10% variance, which is Black Notley and Terling. So having a 60 seat council would maintain the rural community ties for almost all of the southern half of Braintree District. Any changes within Braintree, Witham and Halstead would be managed within their boundaries. Only Black Notley and Terling would require adjustment with implications for perhaps one neighbouring parish. However, with a 50 seat council, 23 wards out of 30 move to greater than 10% variance and a further 4 are at 10%. Only 3 wards are at less than 10% variance and these are all urban. Bradwell, Silver End and Rivenhall would move from good compliance to –17% variance.
This will cause an unacceptable and unnecessary upheaval, requiring the redrawing of all the rural ward boundaries in most of the district and all of the rural wards in the south of the district. The long established practice in most of the rural wards in the south of the district, where there are sizable villages, is to have 2 district councillors, which is important for representation to the parishes such that the district councillors are usually able to cover parish and community meetings in more than one location at the same time.
It would be wholly unacceptable for the long established link between Rivenhall and Silver End to be broken, which is a possible implication of a 50 seat council. The 2 parishes share the same road links, bus services and C of E Churches. There are strong community ties with people from each village using the facilities in the neighbouring village, including the well used village halls. Many important issues involve both villages, including public footpaths and major planning issues, such as the waste and minerals proposals in and around Rivenhall Airfield. The ward has already been enlarged in 2003 to take in Bradwell, which was a change that has now been largely successfully accommodated. Further enlargement, which the 50 seat council would imply, would create a very large ward geographically, and lead to further stretching of the representation for parishes.
All of the rural parishes in the south of the district work hard for their communities and enjoy strong links with their district councillors. There is no justification for tearing up these arrangements. There is certainly no financial incentive to do so. The only justification appears to be the position of the administration at Braintree District Council.
If, despite these facts, a reduction in council size is to be introduced, then there must at least be a compromise. At 56 seats, for example, in the south of the district only the contiguous Black Notley and Terling and Hatfield Peverel wards would need amending; all other rural wards would be within the 10% tolerance.
As stated at the head of this letter, these are the representations of Rivenhall Parish Council, agreed at the meeting held on 3rd September 2013. I would appreciate your acknowledgement of their receipt in due course.
Yours truly,
Keith Taylor. (Clerk to the Council). optimum average. This would give scope for the commission to add a small neighbouring parish to create a significantly rural ward represented by a single district councillor.
Sible Hedingham Parish Council suggests that the size and complexity of requirements of the community in Sible Hedingham would demand a single dedicated district councillor. Although the total electorate within the parish would exceed the average electorate per councillor, having a single member representing a single community would outweigh this. The Parish Council would not wish to see the parish divided up. An alternative solution to achieve the optimum electorate per councillor would be a two member Hedingham ward including the parishes of Sible Hedingham and Castle Hedingham. The two communities have close ties and share many amenities. This alternative approach is less likely to help achieve the reduction in overall councillors without a significant change to arrangements for the remaining parishes within the existing ward.
In conclusion Sible Hedingham Parish Council supports the reduction in the number of councillors within the district to 50. To help achieve this reduction Sible Hedingham Parish Council believes that the three councillors currently representing the ward of Hedingham and Maplestead should be reduced to two. This would be best achieved with a single member for Sible Hedingham and a member representing the remaining parishes within the ward. An individual Sible Hedingham ward would clearly have a strong boundary and community identity.
Will you please take these views into consideration? Thank you.
Yours sincerely,
Adrian Corder-Birch Clerk to the Council
Keal, Simon
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 September 2013 08:26 To: Keal, Simon Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Braintree District
From: David Williams Sent: 23 September 2013 18:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Braintree District
Our parish council considered this review at a recent meeting. I have been asked to write and support the proposal that the Three Colnes Ward remains unchanged with Two District Councillors.
Regards
David Williams Clerk White Colne Parish Council
1