Local Residents C submissions to the Birmingham City Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames beginning with C.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: PHILIP CALCUTT E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Dear Review Officer, I am writing support the proposed two-Councillor Moseley Ward and to thank you for taking account of all the representations from people who live in Moseley. It positively demonstrates that the views of local people can be used ti improve decisions. We support the Moseley Society’s proposed minor amendments to the new two councillor Moseley Ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8408 1/1
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: stephen carter E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I live at please keep as Acocks Green please don't change to Tyseley
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8454 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: stephen carter E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Ninfield RD Acocks Green B277TS please keep as Acocks Green please don't change to Tyseley
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8453 1/1 8r Hh x
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %Er! % %)"# U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )@yrpviqh vr
-----Original Message----- From: Jane Cassidy Sent: 05 June 2016 10:57 To: reviews
Dear Sir / Madam
I live at I understand that the proposed boundary changes may mean that my property would become part of the Quinton ward. This would have a significant impact on my property value and I would therefore strongly request that it remains in the harborne ward and is not changed.
Kind regards
J V Cassidy
29 8r Hh x
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &Er! %()!" U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )Ch i r7qh
From: Rajinder Kaur Chahal Sent: 06 June 2016 20:10 To: reviews
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Dear Sirs,
Please note that we strongly oppose that the the B17 area should be re‐labelled as Quinton.
As residents of Lordswood Road HARBORNE, we feel it should it should remain that way.
Why should we accept a reduction in house price as you individuals have nothing better to do than alter geographical boundaries of a well respected area for no valid reason? Please explain.
To re‐iterate the point Lorswood Road should remain in Harborne.
Regards
Chahal Residence
7 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: David Chalmers E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
The proposed boundaries are now much better, though with a few small problems in some areas will no doubt be mentioned by others. The main problem now is one which existed in the previous proposal, and absolutely needs to be addressed; that is, the reduction in number of councillors. The fact that Birmingham, with a population of well over a million, will have only two more councillors than Leeds, despite the latter having only three-quarters of the population of the former, is bizarre. If the commission considers that the number of electors per councillor in Leeds 'provides for effective and convenient local government', then how can it also be the case in Birmingham, where the number is far greater?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8004 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Hilary Charlton E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I live in Ninfield Road and strongly object to the proposed change in boundaries. I have only found out about this proposal this evening. Why the change ? What are the advantages to rate payers, if any ? Scrap this now, let common sense prevail .
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8461 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: john Charlton E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: leave us alone
Comment text:
We quite like being in Acocks green. I'm not sure tyseley and hay mills has the same ring to it and have you thought how this will affect the LGBT people in the area.Why is this only appearing now 3 days before the biggest decision this country will make since 1975.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8467 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Imdad Chaudhry E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Feature Annotations
11:: KKeeleel DDrive,rive, BBurkeurke AAveve;; aandnd GGreenreen RRoadoad iinn MoMo seley.seley.
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 1: Keel Drive, Burke Ave; and Green Road in Moseley.
Comment text:
By taking the boundary along Green Road, a community is being divided. The residents of Keel Drive, Burke Avenue and Green Road are a cohesive community within Moseley. The local boundary aim is to keep communities and services together and this is going against this and against local government guidelines. Our direct link is not with Sparkhill, but with Moseley. Please do not move us into Sparkhill, but leave us in Moseley!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8478 1/1 8r Hh x
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %Er! % %)"! U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )
-----Original Message----- From: jay chauhan Sent: 05 June 2016 14:13 To: reviews
Sent from my iPhone Sir/ Ma'am I wish my property to be in Harborne Ward. I live at I "do not" wish to be in the Quinton Ward. Mr J Chauhan Thank you
36
8r Hh x
A ) Shw8uhuh1 hwvpuhuh 5 hupx3 Tr) $Er! %!!) & U) rvr
AyyVAyht) Ayy AyhtTh) Ayhttrq
Sir/ Ma'am
I wish my property to be in Harborne Ward. I live at I "do not" wish to be in the Quinton Ward.
Mr R Chauhan
Thank you
1
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Vinod Chohan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Re: Ward Boundary Proposals of -Sarehole Residents of Green Rd, Gracewell Rd, Keel Drive, Burke Avenue The proposals to split half of Green Road and Gracewell Road to be in Moseley Ward; and other half of Green Road, Burke Avenue and Keel Drive to be in Sparkhill Ward.Our Community will be divided inot two. This will lead to split representation at council level and an end to unified council services. Already on the margins of several wards, our access to council wil be further weakend. The Half of GreenRd that will be in Moseley has benefited from theSarehole Residents in achievig what all households in our area said when the survey was carried out earlier this year to be part of Moseley.The proposal to split a community of 42 houses into different wards, around, which is virtually a country lane is not acceptable. The two sides of Green Rd, Burke Avenue and Keel Drive hold community events at times of national celebrations. We all have historical and cultural links to Moseley Village,and similar links to Moseley Bog and Joy's Wood in our neighbourhood. Our connection here are to the schools in Moseley which is St Bernard's Roman Catholic School and Moseley Church of England School; and not to Sparkhill. Those assigned to Sparkhill do not have direct access to Sparkhill; their access is to Moseley.t recreation etc. You can ask families and friends in Moseley Village, itself, for example, if you like, to support our case. Please as we are sure that you are aware that our historical and geographic link has been with Moseley On Saturday, 18 June 2016, 19:01, Kanta Chohan wrote: The proposals to split half of Green Road and Gracewell Road to be in Moseley Ward; and other half of Green Road, Burke Avenue and Keel Drive to be in Sparkhill Ward.Our Community will be divided inot two. This will lead to split representation at council level and an end to unified council services. Already on the margins of several wards, our access to council wil be further weakend. The Half of GreenRd that will be in Moseley has benefited from theSarehole Residents in achievig what all households in our area said when the survey was carried out earlier this year to be part of Moseley.The proposal to split a community of 42 houses into different wards, around, which is virtually a country lane is not acceptable. The two sides of Green Rd, Burke Avenue and Keel Drive hold community events at times of national celebrations. We all have historical and cultural links to Moseley Village,and similar links to Moseley Bog and Joy's Wood in our neighbourhood. Our connection here are to the schools in Moseley which is St Bernard's Roman Catholic School and Moseley Church of England School; and not to Sparkhill. Those assigned to Sparkhill do not have direct access to Sparkhill; their access is to Moseley.t recreation etc. You can ask families and friends in Moseley Village, itself, for example, if you like, to support our case. Please as we are sure that you are aware that our historical and geographic link has been with Moseley. On behalf of Mr Chohan and Family of
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8363 1/1
6 ! 9/ # $% & 5 ' ' + ,
-----Original Message----- From: Urmila Chokshi [mailto: Sent: 12 June 2016 14:39 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam I am just informed by a friend who lives in this area that you are reviewing the boundaries of my residence. You are located in London. I am in Birmingham. I became refugee from Uganda. I and my late husband (both Doctors) worked very hard to buy our first home in 1978. Address We paid premium price for this property as it is in Harborne ward. We want to be in Harborne Ward only. You can understand the reason. We want to be in Harborne and not in Quinton. If we wanted to be in Quinton we would have bought our home in Quinton. The reviewer should Inform individual residents in the area, consult them prior to making decisions which affect their interest, particularly property prices, local council tax and other allied services provided by local council. I am pretty sure you can understand the meaning of NIMBY if it affects you. Decisions should be taken by local people and not imposed by who is not a resident in the area. Thus I strongly oppose the idea of the boundary change which will be disadvantageous and contrarily to our well being in this community. All the properties in this area should stay in Harborne only -NOT IN QUINTON WARD.
Dr. Urmila Chokshi.
47 8r Hh x
A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) &Er! %()!# U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )Q rqpuhtrCh i rRvXh q7qh vr
-----Original Message----- From: Therapon Chrisostomou Sent: 06 June 2016 19:51 To: reviews
To whom it may concern,
It has recently come to my attention that the Election Boundaries Commission has proposed changes to the Harborne / Quinton boundaries. I live at 31 Grosvenor road, Harborne, B17 9AL.
I can see that under the proposed new wards my property would fall into the Quinton Ward. I am entirely opposed to this. I have lived in Harborne for 8 years. I have enjoyed seeing the high street flourish, been a member of both the Queen Alexandra College and Harborne Gyms, used the Harborne walkway every day for 2 years to get to work at City Hospital, enjoyed spending time with my friends in their properties on Grosvenor road, War lane, Regent road, and Station road. I see myself as a Harbornite and have voted in local elections given my interest in the area. I have no wish to live in the Quinton Ward and would have no interest in voting in their elections as I have no idea about the area.
I purchased this property 2 years ago and now have a real concern that my investment will suffer as a result of a decision which has been taken out of my hands and against my will. I plan to live at this address for many years to come and purchased the property with a view to schooling my children in the area. I am now forced to contend with the fact that I may have trouble getting my children into the original schools I had in mind.
It seems unreasonable to include Grosvenor road and the surrounding area within the Quinton ward when Queens Park, Court Oak House, and Baskerville House are further from Harborne centre and are valued areas of interest within Harborne.
I would be very dissatisfied with any changes to the current Ward boundaries.
Kind Regards,
Dr Chrisostomou
6
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Aftab Chugtai E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I am pleased to hear that the boundary commission has taken into consideration the submissions by local people and organisations in relation to the Alum Rock ward. Alum Rock Road is a unifying force bringing together people from both sides of the road and is the central location which unites the entire community, from both a business prospective and a social one. Thank you for taking our points into consideration. Please ensure that this remains the same in the final decision.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8494 1/1
! ? $ %& ' ) * /%&50,<(1$
From: deborah clancy Sent: 17 June 2016 14:38 To: reviews
To: The Boundary Commission From: Resident, Mrs. C. Re: Northfield Ward Proposals Date: 17th June 2016 ______
Dear Boundary Commission
I have objections to the present proposals for the Northfield Ward.
St. Laurence Schools and the Parish should remain linked via political boundaries due to their history, children, parents and religious links. It should be non‐negotiable. We rely on political governance as well as professional support and political governance under one umbrella will encourage stability and when future political decisions are made will be consistent. I object to your proposal.
Victoria Common is being split between two political wards. I have a vested interest in parks so professionally believe one common should remain within one political ward. By keeping under one umbrella will ease future decisions and vision on what the common should provide to its residents within the locality. I object to your proposal.
The Royal Orthapaedic Hospital is renowned worldwide as being associated with Northfield, however I know of people in Wynds Point who feel confused with one side of Hole Lane being Bournville and their side Northfield. Perhaps Wynds Point could stay in Bournville. The commission should allow staff who live in the surrounding roads and work near the ROH and the ROH itself to stay within the main hub of Northfield. I object to your proposal.
So much work and links are working very well and is not visible to the Boundary Commission, without the need to put your proposals in place. It seems very unfair to make people/residents argue their case, such as me, when you yourselves as an organisation have set no real reasons for the proposals. That is not debate and that is not democracy.
Yours sincerely
44
Resident DC
45
; !"? $ %& ' /%&9 1*' *
From: joseph clancy [mailto Sent: 17 June 2016 14:05 To: reviews
Mr. J. Clancy
Dear Boundary Commission
Re: Proposals to Northfield Ward
I wish to submit my strong objections to yourselves the Boundary Commission as to why your proposals do not have the best interests of local residents and its community links.
I have been a longstanding resident of Northfield and I am mortified at the proposals to separate St. Laurence Schools from St. Laurence Church. Geographically they are close, historically the community links have been in place, and politically for future security they should remain together. To separate their umbilical cord severs their community strength. To support this argument a commission must look at why it was first founded. Parishes, schools, people, ultimately "community" go hand in hand, and the political forces that are meant to support and nourish those parishes, schools and people, " the community" are officialdom that must and should add weight to decisions that affect them all, independantly and simultaneously. With devolution from Local Authorities now travelling evermore to the heart of the people that matter, our political counterparts must have consistency.
As a resident who has friends and co‐workers who live in and around Heath Road South and slightly beyond I am also at a loss as to why some of these roads are being swept into a separate ward. Whilst the houses will remain standing, again the community links I know of with people in Heath Road South, Dinmore Avenue and surrounding roads will be confused. So much interaction politically and holistically goes on in and around the Royal Orthapaedic Hospital in connection with the Northfield Ward.
Wards matter not only to residents eligible to vote, but to those young persons coming through the ranks of education and politics and what politics actually stand for.
35 I therefore request you reconsider your proposals to keep St. Laurence Schools and Parish together and the community of roads such as Dinmore Avenue, Innage Road, Heath Road South etc that link the children and parents with the schools and so importantly the Parish.
Regards
JC
36
) ( ( %** /0 ! " " $&$ )( ,
From: Rob Clancy Sent: 17 June 2016 13:42 To: reviews
As a resident of Northfield, and a regular user of Victoria Common, I cannot understand the present proposals to keep only part of Victoria Common in the Northfield ward, and part in a Bournville and Cotteridge ward. My understanding is that local politics is changing and Local Authorities will rely on more devolution, which will mean wards will become even more essential in their interaction and their community links. Victoria Common should not be separated and neither should St. Lawrence schools from the church upon which the schools were founded. Whilst the ward Boundary lines are invisible to most residents on a daily basis, it will be the potential future politics that will ultimately affect the residents themselves. I would urge the Boundary Commission to re-assess their present proposals, and keep both Victoria Common united and St. Lawrence schools united with their church.
Robert J Clancy,
Northfield resident.
12 5/23/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Ann Clarke E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I am extremely pleased with the new/revised proposals submitted by the Boundary Commission for the new Acocks Green Ward. I fully support the draft proposals, especially as my part of Acocks Green has now been moved back into the Acocks Green Ward by taking the northern boundary back to the Grand Union Canal. I also support the retention of the name South Yardley instead of the previously proposed Yardley East.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8099 1/1 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Peter Clarke E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: N/A
Feature Annotations
11:: CCotteridgeotteridge notnot StirchleyStirchley
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 1: Cotteridge not Stirchley
Comment text:
I am pleased to say that all of the concerns that I raised in the first consultation, with regards to the (now) Sutton Vesey ward, have been addressed, and I am happy with the revised proposals. However, I am disappointed that the area around Cotteridge School, and the shops on Pershore Road adjoining Cotteridge High Street are still not in the Cotteridge ward. The school is Victorian, and one of the oldest features of the area. The shops here account for a good proportion of the retail core of Cotteridge village. I suggest aligning the boundary to the canal rather than the subterranean railway.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8006 1/1 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Roger Clarke E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Feature Annotations
11:: TThehe aarearea rrepresentedepresented byby thisthis ttriangleriangle iiss inin Cotteridge,Cotteridge, nnotot StirchleyStirchley
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 1: The area represented by this triangle is in Cotteridge, not Stirchley
Comment text:
Since my original objections have been ignored, it seems fairly clear that the LGBC is more interested in numbers than in communities. Councillors are surely elected to represent the various, and clearly identifiable, local communities that make up Birmingham. Council wards should therefore retain and reflect this community structure; the size of each ward is of secondary importance. I live in Dell Road, which is in Cotteridge; I do not live in Stirchley and yet this is where the LGBC proposals have placed me. I have nothing against Stirchley but geography dictates that I don't live there. The boundary between Stirchley and Cotteridge has always been the Birmingham & Worcester Canal but the LGBC proposals use the railway lines as boundaries, even though they do not form any sort of community division. The proposals would mean that my neighbours and I would be forced to vote for someone who would have no interest in our particular community's interests since s/he would be representing another community entirely. And if I'm not happy with the actions of the councillor who has been elected to represent my community, then I will have no opportunity to express my displeasure at the ballot box. This is not simply unfair, it is undemocratic. In addition, Cotteridge Junior and Infant School, which forms an important part of the Cotteridge community, is also destined to end up in Stirchley Ward. Clearly preposterous!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8013 1/1
E*%& F 6& G ! ; $ @ %& , 5, * & * ) 7 5)&)#?$,
Response to further draft recommendations for Birmingham - re
Dear Sirs,
It has come to my notice only today that Birches Close has been omitted from the draft recommendations for Moseley Ward and instead has been added to Kings Heath Ward. I have lived in Birches Close for the last 26 years, and in Moseley, Birmingham 13 for over 40 years.
I feel very much a part of the Moseley community, am a member of the Moseley Society, have been involved with Moseley in Bloom, attended services at St Mary’s Parish Church in Moseley and feel that Birches Close is very much a part of Moseley. Children in Birches Close attend Moseley C of E Primary School. If Birches Close were to be excluded from Moseley Ward it would feel as though a limb has been cut off. The postcode B13 signifies “Moseley” and I cannot imagine how it would feel to be excluded from Moseley Ward. Although it is a small cul de sac, my neighbours and I have always felt a very strong link with Moseley and its close and vibrant community.
Therefore I appeal to you to please reconsider the draft recommendation so that Birches Close is included in Moseley Ward.
Yours faithfully,
Sheila Clarke
125
! ?" $ %& ' ) 7 * * & 75+
From: caroline Sent: 17 June 2016 18:07 To: reviews
For attention of the Election Boundary Commission
Re: Ward Changes for Harborne and Quinton, Birmingham
I strongly support the draft proposal to include the area between Lordswood Road, Court Oak Road and Balden Road within Harborne Ward. I have lived within this boundary almost all of my life and I have always regarded myself as being part of Harborne rather than Quinton. I have used all the local amenities and services in Harborne.
In addition, this move will restore the area to Harborne, as detailed by the Beeches Lane Neighbourhood Forum and the Still Waters Community, and it will align with postcodes.
Caroline Cobbing
51 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Peter Cole E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
It would seem strange to have cotteridge junior school classed as being in stirchley simply because someone decided that a railway line should be used to change boundaries. The removal of a section of cotteridge based on an infrastructure map is a big move away from the notion of community which is founded on generations of local people and cultural identity.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8343 1/1
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Joanne Collett E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I live on Reddings Lane in Tyseley, Birmingham. The lower half of Reddings Lane, where it meets Warwick Road, will become part of Sparkbrook Ward under the new proposals. I feel that this area should be part of Tyseley and Hay Mills. The area is a stone's throw from Tyseley Railway Station and Tyseley Locomotive Works, I can 'see' these locations from my property. Sparkbrook centre however is a bus ride away. Local residents identify with Tyseley and not with Sparkbrook.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8374 1/1
* +)),! & - */ 0 + ) ( )$ % +
From: Andrea Collins Sent: 07 June 2016 22:03 To: reviews
The Review Officer (Birmingham) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1 4QP
7/6/2016
Sir or Madam
Consultation on further recommendations for Birmingham City Council
I would like to comment on the proposed Harborne and Quinton wards.
My neighbourhood is currently assigned to Quinton ward. It is my strong view we would be most appropriately assigned to Harborne ward instead. My neighbourhood is much more closely associated with Harborne than Quinton for the following reasons:
1. My neighbourhood was part of Harborne village prior to Harborne being annexed into Birmingham in 1891. It remained an integral part of Harborne ward right up until 2004, when it was moved into the Quinton ward.
2. Residents and local organisations have retained their association with Harborne, for example, they still use Harborne in their postal address.
3. The neighbourhood is adjacent to Harborne Golf Club, my house actually looks over the golf club and is a short walk from Harborne High Street which is the closest location for shopping facilities and other similar amenities.
4. West Boulevard is a major four- lane highway that physically separates the neighbourhood from Quinton. This major barrier prevents natural movement and stops the area associating with Quinton.
27 5. Welsh House Farm Road, is the access point for Minton Road, Doulton Close and Chelsea Close and connected to Wentworth Way by a path. Residents on these roads associate with the "Harborne Rise" area and note that the Boundary review has already listened to the residents of Wentworth Way, returning it to the Harborne ward.
6. Tennal Road takes it's name from the historic Tennal hall which was a major landmark in Harborne. However, one side of Tennal Road is in the proposed Harborne ward and the other side is in the proposed Quinton ward. The Quinton side includes the cul de sacs of Savoy Close, Copperbeech Close and Rosehead Drive; these are only accessible from Tennal Road and face toward Harborne. This arrangement seems illogical and it would be much better if the whole neighbourhood were in Harborne.
In summary, the proposal I am making will result in better, more appropriate representation for my neighbourhood and I urge you to give it serious consideration. Welsh House Farm Road should be considered along with the other roads mentioned above to be returned to the Harborne ward.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours faithfully Andrea Collins
28 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Debra Collins E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I am a resident of Ninfield Road and have been for over 40 years. I have heard that the boundary is changing and this will be classed hay mills tyseley. This is something I feel so strongly that I wouldn't want to happen as the value of my property that I have worked so hard to increase would devalue rapidly and my car insurance would increase a lot!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8447 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Naomi Collins E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
As a resident of Ninfield Road in Acocks Green we do not want to be classed as Hay Mills and Tyseley! Our property prices will go down significantly and car insurance would increase!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8441 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Paul Collins E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Please do not change the boundary of Ninfield Road b27 7tr. Property prices car insurance lots of problems will occur because of the change.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8451 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Gareth Compton E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Feature Annotations
55:: TThishis iiss tthehe nnorthernorthern bborderorder ooff tthehe PPaar rishish ooff SStt BBarnabasarnabas 66:: TThehe RRinging sshopping113:h3o:p pPPeien rryrgr ycentrec eCommonCnotmremCChurch, whoun hichhrich , tthehe EErdingtonrdington parishparish sserves,erves, allall ofof PeP e rryrry CommonCommbborder.oonr der. TThehe ccommissionommission hashas 111:1: KKingstandingingstandiincludinginncgluding CourtCourt Farm.Farmpprotected.rotect44:e:d BBerwttheherew bbordero oodoordd eFFarmra roofmf SSuttonRRoad,uottaodn, builtbuilt onon CColdfieldol22:doone:f niEErdingtoneerl doof infiitt g ttheiishtsoe n onlyooold nCoatClldoy a ErdingtonErightrtri gdofohifn tArmsA grtomns FarmsFarms tthathat EErdingtonraanddnidn g33:aalwt:low nPPi aysa iCommunityCt ttsytsos m partpFFarm,amarrutm nofo,i ftEEstate ythets hhashteaa tsErdingtonEe rEErdington,drindgintognto n, W a ard.rd. tthehe ssameame aalwbbenefitlwe na ayseyfsit bbeenaasesenSuttonS upartpt atortn ofof ErdingtonE rdington 116:6: SStocklandtockland GreenGreen 99:: TThishiCColdfieldsosshadedldhfaideledd hashaareaarse abeenbeweo ouldnu givegldivensureensure EErdingtonrdingto n W a ardrd iincludesncl udWes a ard allardll 11: : EErdingtonrding to n CommunityCo mmunit y andand shouldshould 88:: TThishis ssectionectbbeieotthe nhttheheoof ehhistoricf EErdingtonittheshrtdeoirnRRailwicga tippartsolwanr a aytWys ardaandarndd area.athetrheea . ooffersffers a aareaffirmrirema oofbbarrierfa rtthehriee rpproposed bbetwroeptwose eeneedn conservationconservation tthehe ccommunitiesommunzzoneoitniees weithere hichhitihcehr locallsidesoicdael residentsresidents ooff tthehe rrailwailw a ay.yhhave.a vttooe tthebbeenheee nW fightingfe estigsth ting for.for. iiss aann oolderlder ccommunityommunity mostlymostly mmadeade uupp ooff VVictorianictorian housinghousing tthathat bbuiltuilt uupp aaroundround SladeSlade RRoad.oad. TToo thethe EastEast77: isi:s NNortonmostlymoortsotlny sshoppinghopping centrecentre w hichhich 112:2: CasCasst 11920s-40s.920s-40ssserves.erves BBirchesirches GreenGreen andand PyP y pepe HHayesayes communitiescommunities 114:4: GGravellyravelly HHillill StationStation 115:5: PPyy pepe HayesHayes W ardard
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 1: Erdington Community and should be the Erdington Ward area.
Annotation 2: Erdington Coat of Arms
Annotation 3: Pitts Farm, Estate Erdington, always been part of Erdington Ward
Annotation 4: Berwood Farm Road, built on one of the old Erdington Farms and always part of the Erdington Ward.
Annotation 5: This is the northern border of the Parish of St Barnabas Church, the Erdington parish border. The commission has protected the border of Sutton Coldfield it is only right that Erdington Community has the same benefit as Sutton Coldfield has been give
Annotation 6: The Ring shopping centre which serves, all of Perry Common including Court Farm.
Annotation 7: Norton shopping centre which serves Birches Green and Pype Hayes communities
Annotation 8: This section of the Railway offers a firm barrier between the communities either side of the railway. to the West is an older community mostly made up of Victorian housing that built up around Slade Road. To the https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8335 1/2 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal East is mostly 1920s-40s.
Annotation 9: This shaded area would ensure Erdington Ward includes all the historic parts and the area of the proposed conservation zone which local residents have been fighting for.
Annotation Oscott Community 10:
Annotation Kingstanding 11:
Annotation Castle Vale 12:
Annotation Perry Common 13:
Annotation Gravelly Hill Station 14:
Annotation Pype Hayes Ward 15:
Annotation Stockland Green 16:
Comment text:
Although not currently living in the Erdington area, I work/support various community leaders and sometimes with local community groups across the area, from 2006 to current day. The local community is very proud of it's history and have a clear idea of what the Erdington Community is and what an Erdington Ward should look like. The commission went to a large effort to rearrange the Moseley area and I hope they will show Erdington the same level of respect. It is concerning to read in the local papers residents writing in concerned that the view the commission has given off by only partly fixing Erdington is that it will only listen to "posh areas". I very much appreciate the commission having already made some improvements to the Erdington Ward and would ask them to just finish the job in this round of consultation and so make the changes to ensure the only remaining Coat of Arms for Erdington can be retained in the Erdington Ward along with the rest of the historic core of the community. Erdington's community is a proud community and it deserves to have a Council Ward that they will identify with as the Kerslake report highlighted was vital for communities to feel part of the decision making process. Thank you
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8335 2/2
; ! ; $ %& ' 9 **
From: John Cooper Sent: 17 June 2016 11:20 To: reviews
Good afternoon
I am writing in support of the request for proper representation for Sutton Coldfield on Birmingham City Council.
Ever since the boundary changes of 1974 we have struggled to get a fair deal when compared to other areas of the city.
I understand that our elected councillors have argued for 11 seats on the council based upon the population of Sutton Coldfield, currently it is proposed that we have only 10.
This means that some city wards will have only 60% of the numbers we have.
We need proper representation to ensure we get our fair share of the cake available. Recently there has been a Parish Council established but rather than being funded by our existing rate payments, we as residents are required to pay £150 pa for the privilege.
It seems to me that we in Sutton Coldfield are regarded as a cash cow, funding other areas of the city whilst our own services suffer. We used to get regular street cleaning, storm drains cleaned and park maintenance all of which have been reduced.
I realise that these are tough times and do not expect more than our fair share of the cake available.
Recently granted planning to build 6000 houses on greenfield land will only exacerbate the situation but even without that our head count equates to 11 councillors.
I attach two pictures of simply remedied problems which I am told cannot be funded, the first is of the park entrance and the second an area in the centre of town.
I also object to the lazy movement of the boundary between Banners Gate and Four Oaks to the railway line through the park, it doesn’t make any sense and was better where is was first proposed to be, along Chester Road.
We need proper fair control of our services.
Regards
28
John Cooper
29 30 32
* +)),! - */ 0 :1: 9 7 17:;<:0 9 $<7 <=23 >7 3:7"7 7:9 :=" <9=
From: Nick Corbett [ Sent: 08 June 2016 20:47 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BIRMINGHAM: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the proposed further draft recommendations for the electoral review of Birmingham City Council.
I object to the amended proposals because they divide Sutton Park into several different wards, where as historically, for reasons of local identity, land ownership, and coherence of governance, almost the entirety of Sutton Park was in Four Oaks Ward.
I respectfully request that you redraw the boundary of Four Oaks Ward to encompass the whole of Sutton Park.
Sutton Coldfield is an ancient Royal Town with a strong identity and sense of community, and as such the historic administrative boundaries currently defined by the Parliamentary Constituency should be maintained, and Sutton Park, a heritage asset of the highest significance, consisting of well over 2000 acres of woodland, heath, and wetland, part Scheduled Ancient Monument, a National Nature Reserve, and a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSI), historically falls almost entirely within Four Oaks Ward.
Sutton Park rightly serves the wider Sutton Coldfield community but there are heritage justifications for it to remain as a single entity within Four Oaks Ward.
Four Oaks Hall, built circa 1680 by Lord Ffolliot, was built within 60 acres of Sutton Park, and as such there is a strong historic associative relationship between Sutton Park and Four Oaks Ward.
Subsequent owners of Four Oaks Hall, including the Luttrell and Hartopp families, reinforced this historic associative relationship, with further land swaps between Four Oaks Hall Park and Sutton Park.
Four Oaks Hall was demolished shortly after the Royal Show of 1898 was held within its grounds, (the event was attended by the Prince of Wales ‐ later Edward VII). The Grade II Listed Carhampton House now stands upon the site of Four Oaks Hall (it incorporated materials, including entrance gates, from the historic mansion).
Following the demolition of Four Oaks Hall, the Four Oaks Park Estate was built as a residential community by the Marquis of Clanrikarde. This very distinctive residential area containing several important Listed Arts and Crafts houses maintains a unique relationship with Sutton Park, not least because many of the large houses, in what is now a designated Conservation Area, have private gates into Sutton Park from their gardens.
6 The other residential areas around the circumference of Sutton Park, including the new Wards which you now propose to divide Sutton Park between, are all segregated from the Park by busy main roads.
The site of Four Oaks Hall, the Four Oaks Park Estate, and most of Sutton Park, are all currently within Four Oaks Ward, and this inclusion with the same ward reinforces the historical significance and interconnectivity of these heritage assets.
I respectfully request that you redraw the boundary of Four Oaks Ward to encompass the whole of Sutton Park.
Yours sincerely
Nick Corbett BA (Hons) BPl MA MRTPI
7
) ( ( %** 0 ! " & ,( 1!#
From: Andrew Coulson Sent: 22 June 2016 11:49 To: reviews
Here are my comments on the revised proposals for Birmingham District. These comments relate to the existing Northfield Ward, where we live now, and to the proposed new Bournville and Cotteridge Ward.
There is much that is commendable in the new proposals. Herbert Austin Way is a far better boundary than having a boundary running down the middle of the main shopping street (Bristol Road South). West Heath has a clear identify, and it is good for this to be recognised, not just in one new ward but in two. The railway line has few crossing points and is a natural boundary. It is good that the developments on the former Austin Rover sites are in a single ward clearly identified with Longbridge.
There are however some minor concerns, or places where the boundaries could be improved. These are as follows:
1. Norman Road has always been an unsatisfactory boundary. At present one side of the road is in Northfield Ward and the other in Bournville Ward. This frequently causes confusion for residents. It would be logical to move the East side of Norman Road, and Barron Close, into Northfield Ward. Overbury Road and the whole Overbury estate would stay in Bournville and Cotteridge. The small part of Bunbury Road between Norman Road and Overbury Road would also move.
2. Hole Lane is a logical boundary that was brought in properly in the last reorganisation. The road is sunk for most of its length and difficult to cross. It is not possible to access Heath Road South directly from Hole Lane. It would be much better to move the whole of the area West of Hole Lane into Northfield Ward. Or if that is not possible then to move the area South of Valley Parkway - i.e. to make the brook the ward boundary. But that is far from ideal since Maryland Drive, St Joseph's Avenue and St Laurence Road are part of Northfield, with little or nothing to do with Bournville or Cotteridge.
3. Middlemore Road is clearly in the wrong ward. It relates strongly to the cluster of shops around the Co- op store on the corner of West Heath Road and Abbeyfield Road, other nearby shops and businesses, and especially to Northfield station. It will be very alien for it to be part of Kings Norton. That is much less true of Wychall Lane, Farlow and Pensford Roads, which are a long way from the station and where the main access is Wychall Road.
4. It seems extremely illogical for the boundary to go through the middle of West Heath Hospital. Despite its name, this is more part of Kings Norton than of Northfield or West Heath and it would be best to have the whole hospital site in Kings Norton ward.
5. Why the little blip on the roundabout at the Redhill Road, Redditch Road (Man in the Moon pub) roundabout? The boundary should go across the roundabout.
5 6. There is an odd blip in the boudary between the two West Heath wards off Clunbury Road. It would be better for the boundary to follow Turves Green Brook, or Titterstone Road, or at least to keep everything connected with the blocks of flats and associated bungalows in West Heath South ward. A case could be made for having all 3 "poet" blocks in West Heath South ward - i.e. Tennyson, Shakespeare and Wordsworth blocks. It would create a dog-leg in the boundary, but mean that one elected councillor could take responsibility for matters connected with the management of the three blocks as a whole.
I hope it is not too late to add these comments to the consultation.
With best regards
Dr Andrew Coulson, Honorary Alderman
6
! ?"# $ %& ' ) (*7 ,*<
From: jenny court Sent: 17 June 2016 20:11 To: reviews
Review Officer (Birmingham)
Dear Sir
As residents of Edgbaston Birmingham, in October 2015, we voted in the Birmingham City Council referendum against the extension of the Balsall Heath border to include parts of B5.
We have lived in the same house in B5 for 44years and have always considered ourselves as Edgbaston residents, the border being the river Rea. We shop in Edgbaston, use public transport, visit dentists and doctors in Edgbaston. We have both been members of a residents association in Edgbaston.
We appreciate the opportunity to again voice our opinion against being merged into Balsall Heath and also to state how unfair the referendum held on October 8th 2015 was. The population of those likely to vote against this merger was a much smaller one than that of the larger area of Balsall Heath.
Yours sincerely
Michael and Jennifer Court
Sent from my Windows Phone
53 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Caroline Courtney E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Absolutely delighted to see the meaningless name Brandwood has disappeared and we are back in King's Heath (complete with apostrophe - thank you) and that Moseley is now back in Moseley. Could you also make sure polling stations are no longer located in schools? 2 closures this term for elections is ridiculous when there are scout huts, empty shop units, community halls, churches etc that could be used instead. Birmingham is the worst place I have ever lived in for closing schools for this!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8041 1/1 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: CHRISTOPHER Cox E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Feature Annotations
11:: SShouldhould bebe includedincluded inin BalsallBalsall HHeatheath W a ardrd
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 1: Should be included in Balsall Heath Ward
Comment text:
1 - The Balsall Hetah Ward boundary cuts through the centre of Balsall Heath and dividing the local centre in half. The ward is located too far west and should 'at least' include the area shown that lies to the west of the rail line. If necessary this area could be substituted for the loss of areas around Pershore Road that arent' part of the same area. Serious consideration should be given to following the neighborhood plan are boundaries for a larger ward. See http://www.birmingham.gov.uk/balsallheathndp 2- Great to see that the Moseley Ward now includes the centre of Moseley and key destinations. Must keep!
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8018 1/1
! ?"8 $ %& ' * 5(*7' *A) 7 B
From: Sue Craddock Sent: 18 June 2016 15:48 To: reviews
BOUNDARY REVIEW
Having lived in Welwyndale Road since 1972 and having always been part of Erdington Ward, we hereby inform you that we wish to remain in that Ward where there are strong community connections, links and history and do not wish to be part of Pype Hayes Ward.
Susan and John Craddock
74
/ ! # $% & : + , '+ ' ,
From: Val Crocker Sent: 13 June 2016 19:36 To: reviews
Dear Mr. Cooper,
Thank you for your letter of 10 May concerning the electoral review of Birmingham.
The new draft proposals for Swanshurst Lane, Moseley, Birmingham (i.e. even number side - to be in a new Moseley ward, and odd number side to be in Billesley ward) are very acceptable to me, and certainly seem to be very logical.
Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,
M V Crocker (Ms)
16 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Ian Crockford E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Thank you for taking into consideration the views of Hall Green residents. I am pleased that "Hall Green" has kept it's name. So important. The suggested new wards do follow the lines of local communties and as such are an improvement. While I personally feel that two members wards are what we need. Overall as a resident of Hall Green I am pleased. Thank you again.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7994 1/1
B5 Edgbaston Residents Group As you are aware on the 8th October 2015 Birmingham City Council held a referendum on moving our B5 Edgbaston boundary to merge with Balsall Health. Many B5 residents voted against the boundary move, but we did not secure enough votes to stop the merger. The boundary Commission has given the B5 residents another changes to voice they opinion to remain as B5 Edgbaston.
ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS TO IDENTITY YOU WITH THE B5 COMMUNITY.
Do you use public transport in the B5 area or Balsall Health? B5 area
Yes bus 45, 47, 61, 63, five ways train station and New Street station
Do you belong to any community groups i.e residents association or other groups that represent your area B5 or Balsall Health? YES
B5 Edgbaston Residents Group
Where do you shop in Edgbaston/ City centre or Balsall Health?
Five ways Edgbaston & City Centre
Is your GP/ medical services and leisure facilities in the Edgbaston area or Balsall Health?
GP Lee Bank B15, Dentis & medical services Edgbaston B5
What interest in the B5 area that bind the community together or separate it from Balsall Health?
B5 Edgbaston Residents Group, leisure time at Park Centre Park with other residents
DEADLINE 20th JUNE 2016 ACT NOW
You can send it in the post to
Have your say: Review Officer (Birmingham) LGBCE, 14th floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP or Email it to: [email protected]
The full report and interactive maps are available to view at www.lgbce.org.uk
If you need any more information please contact
Thank you, for your time.
! " $ %& ' (& ) * 7
From: David Cross Sent: 20 June 2016 10:48 To: reviews
Sir/Madam,
I am very pleased that the Election Boundary Commission are reviewing the current ward boundary arrangements. Currently our property on Wood Lane, Harborne B17 sits in Quinton Ward. This is a problem to us as we use none of the services in Quinton and therefore have no access to councillor so who we feel would have influence over the services we use such as cschools and the like. We therefore firmly support the proposed change to put our house back into Harborne Ward where it previousLy and rightly belongs.
Faithfully,
Dave Cross.
Get Outlook for iOS
123
! "#$ % &"# $ '(# #)*
$+ ) $ ) ))
Hi,
I would like to congratulate the LGBCE on having listened to what I'm sure was a torrent of comments regarding the initial proposal for the area of the new Moseley ward.
The revised proposal is a massive improvement, and reflects pretty accurately the proper sphere of influence for Moseley within the city. This representation is just to make a plea that you stick with this revised proposal for Moseley ward, and do not chip away at it again in drawing up your final decisions.
In passing, I'd also like to compliment LGBCE on the ease with which it has been possible to view the proposals and make comments on them.
Thanks,
Bob Crosskey
1
6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Nathan Cumberbatch E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I have lived in the Edgbaston B5 area all my life and proud of it. I did not have a opportunity to vote in the October referendum and I would have certainly voted against the merge of boundaries. Balsall Health's a bad reputation which has continued for the last forty years, merging the boundaries together will only inherit that reputation in a large area. It would be more beneficial for all if Balsall Health were to become part of the B5 area. this would enrich the reputation of Balsall Health area. judging from the map, The Balsall Heath area is a considerable size as it stands, it seems completely counter productive to merge the areas resulting in funding being spread thinner over a larger area My Vote is Against The Merge Of Boundaries Nathan Cumberbatch
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8473 1/1 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Birm ingham District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Kevin Cummins E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
WHY CHANGE ? what is the purpose and what benefits come out the changes. This has not been explained as far as I am aware.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7986 1/1
! ?" $ %& ' +
From: Pauline Cunning [mailto: Sent: 18 June 2016 08:38 To: reviews
To whom it may concern, I will like to vote against Harborne becoming known as Quinton ward, this will effect the house prices and if I wanted to live in the Quinton area I would have bought a property there. Yours sincerely Pauline Cunning
66