Local Resident's Submissions to the Tonbridge & Malling Council Electoral Review

Local resident’s submissions to the Tonbridge & Malling Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 19 submissions from local councillors.

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.

TONBRIDGE & MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL

Cllr Mrs JILL ANDERSON Borough Councillor for Hadlow, Mereworth and West Peckham Ward

17 June 2012

Review Officer Tonbridge & Malling Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir

Hadlow, Mereworth and West Peckham Ward

Having studied both your and the Borough Council’s recommendations, I must strongly OBJECT to both proposals.

Firstly, I believe your study as a whole is flawed.

My residents have complained to me that they are being treated as mere numbers, not as people with problems and difficulties for me to try to ameliorate.

In refusing to countenance a larger Council, in spite of inward migration from other areas to new developments in all parts of the Borough, you are upsetting the balance in all the rural areas. Under the recommendations, Tonbridge town has undergone very few changes to the status quo but the villages have been carved up in extraordinary ways, changing traditional associations and dividing up Parishes.

This is contrary to your basic premises as set out in Page 5, Para 11 of your draft recommendations.

Your proposal for Mereworth village is contrary to Para 12, ‘strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review’. I will address this point later.

My own Ward, above, will be abolished under both your and the Borough Council’s recommendations.

Hadlow is a large village with some 38% of social housing as well as a wide variety of privately-owned properties. The centre has a range of shops including Post Office, Pharmacy, Butcher, General Store, Greengrocer and Baker. There is a Doctor’s practice, a NHS Dentist, Library and a first class restaurant, together with Garden Centre and Farm Shop. Hadlow Agricultural College, one of the country’s foremost Agricultural Colleges, is in the village and as well as permanent residents I represent very many students on residential courses. /2… Hadlow village centre serves not only its own residents but villages whose facilities no longer exist, including Mereworth and West Peckham, each of which has only a public house and the future of the premises in Mereworth is uncertain – the property may go for development in the near future.

In the previous Boundary Review, some 8 years ago, it was agreed that no Ward would include more than one major centre and the arrangements now in place have proved very satisfactory.

The current proposal that Hadlow should be linked with East Peckham, itself a major centre, therefore flies in the face of that previous very sensible criterion.

I understand that East Peckham also serves other villages which have lost their facilities, including many which are outside Tonbridge & Malling Borough.

Hadlow residents have no connection whatever with East Peckham and generally only travel through it when accessing the A228 to Tunbridge Wells.

Residents in Mereworth were appalled to see your proposal that they should be linked with Wateringbury. They tell me that the only thing they know about the village is that they pass through it en route to Maidstone via the A26. And the suggestion that parts of the A20 at Addington should form part of their Ward was greeted with incredulity. This is clearly in breach of your criterion at Para 12.

Equally, they have no connection at all with Offham nor the other Central parishes, as proposed by the Borough Council. Their connection for day-to-day business is with Hadlow and they therefore wish to continue with the present electoral arrangements with which they are familiar and feel comfortable.

West Peckham residents also come to Hadlow for their day-to-day needs and wish to maintain the status quo.

The Borough Council’s proposal would produce an oval-shaped Ward of eight disparate Parishes split by the A20 and would be impossible to represent satisfactorily.

Further, I am extremely concerned that, being on the south-western periphery of the Borough Council’s proposal, the service received by Mereworth and West Peckham residents will inevitably be much diminished, particularly if the sitting Member continues to represent the Ward from her base in Trottiscliffe (which some residents thought was in another Borough). Travelling along country roads on winter evenings is difficult and Parish Council meetings, for example, tend to be lengthy.

I understand that the number of residents in the present Hadlow, Mereworth and West Peckham Ward is within 6% of the ideal, which is acceptable. That shortage could probably be solved by returning to the Ward the hamlet of Golden Green, part of the Parish of Hadlow. I represented those residents until the last Boundary review, when it was moved to East Peckham to facilitate a two member Ward.

If East Peckham needs to be joined with another village, I suggest it should be Wateringbury, to which it is attached via the River Medway and the A26, both villages forming part of the eastern boundary of the Borough.

I understand the desire to reduce the number of Councillors. However, you are applying to villages criteria suitable for cities such as Sheffield and Manchester.

Rural communities are of totally different character and with quite different needs and problems. And I repeat that the number of residents in older villages has not diminished as a result of the huge developments on Kings Hill and Holborough and I do not expect any change as a result of the proposals for Leybourne Grange, Peter’s Village and Preston Hall.

Many of my residents wished to write to express their views but felt intimidated by the reports produced by the Council and the Commission. They have asked me to write on their behalf to express their indignation at being treated as numbers rather than people and as pawns in the Boundary game.

I hope you will be able to accommodate their wishes.

Yours faithfully

(Cllr) Jill Anderson Hadlow, Mereworth and West Peckham Ward.

Page 1 of 2

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Re views@ Sent: 14 June 2012 15:06 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

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

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1199 Time of Submission: Jun 14th 2012 at 2:06pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Ow en Baldock

Area your Tonbridge & Malling submission refers to: Organisation you other (please specify in your submission) belong to: Your feedback: I am writing in my capacity as an Elected Member of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council. I completely support the Formal Response from T&MBC to your draft recommendation which conforms to the 3 stated objectives of Equality of electorate, Maintains Local and Historic Community Links and ensures Effective and Convenient Local Government. I cannot support your draft proposal as it does not reflect the reality of the imminent development at Peters Village and Preston Hall which will, if your recommendations are implemented, cause serious electoral imbalance, and thus require more upheaval and cost in the future when this imbalance will need to be revisited. If the T&MBC submission is accepted this imbalance will not occur and will achieve the LGBCE aims of Equality, Communities and Effective Governance.

18/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

File upload:

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

18/06/2012

TONBRIDGE & MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL

MATTHEW BALFOUR Borough Councillor for Downs Ward

Email: [email protected]

14 June 2012

The Review Officer (Tonbridge & Malling) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Sent by email to [email protected]

Dear Sirs,

Electoral Review of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council I am writing as one of the two borough members for Downs Ward and a resident of Offham. I was born and brought up in Birling and that my family have lived in the area for very many years.

I am deeply concerned that the contents of your draft recommendations seem to be based on incorrect information and to disregard the statutory criteria of reflecting natural communities. The authors of your draft recommendation do not seem to have taken into account the stated objectives of maintaining local and historic community links and ensuring effective and convenient local government. Indeed, I worry that the authors of your draft recommendation have even visited the borough.

I would make the following comments :

1. The borough council has provided you with confirmation of the imminent developments at Peters Village and Preston Hall. Over many years the borough has successfully delivered developments from allocated sites within their proposed timescales and, based on the information provided to you, it is clear that the Peters Village or Preston Hall developments will progress as planned. Your draft recommendations have disregarded The Review Officer (Tonbridge & Malling) Page 2 14 June 2012 Local Government Boundary Commission for England

these two development proposals for no good reasons and in the face of the real evidence provided.

2. To divide parishes into “parish wards” for the sake of juggling the population numbers between proposed borough wards is divisive, unnecessary and wrong. The result, as well as muddling parishioners views of where they live and who their representatives are, would require borough councillors from both parts of a divided parish to attend parish council meetings and community events. This would greatly increase the amount of time the borough councillors would be required to spend across a greater area thus diluting their ability to properly represent their constituents. Such erroneous divisions would also have the effect of muddling constituents as to who their representative might be.

3. In the cases of Ryarsh and Addington Parishes your draft recommendations would have the perverse result of actually requiring the sometime attendance of three borough councillors at parish council meetings and other community events.

4. The parish of Ryarsh has ancient boundaries and community coherence that are well understood, valued and enjoyed by its residents and the Parish should not be divided into parish wards and between borough wards. The fact that the M20 has been built through the Parish does not divide the community as the A20 had not in the past. Indeed the communication links over the M20 are the same as existed before the motorway was built. To divide Ryarsh into different parish wards would be divisive and wrong for the reasons already set out in paragraph 2 above.

5. It might be appropriate to change the parish boundary between the parishes of Ryarsh and Leybourne in the future when the Leybourne Chase development has been completed so that all the new housing within Leybourne Chase is within Leybourne Parish. However, it is not appropriate to divide Ryarsh Parish in any way at this stage.

6. The parish of Addington has ancient boundaries and community coherence that are well understood, valued and enjoyed by its residents and should not be divided into parish wards and between borough wards. To divide the area erroneously described as Wrotham Heath away from the rest of Addington Parish in a different parish ward would be divisive and wrong for the reasons already set out in paragraph 2 above.

7. The groupings of parishes set out in your draft recommendations are wrong and ill conceived. The parishes within the current Downs Ward, nor the parishes of Mereworth The Review Officer (Tonbridge & Malling) Page 3 14 June 2012 Local Government Boundary Commission for England

and West Peckham have no relationship to nor bear any resemblance with the parish of Wateringbury. It would be an anathema to join them within a borough ward.

8. The rural parishes of Birling, Ryarsh, Trottiscliffe, Addington, Offham, Mereworth and West Peckham share characteristics that make their sharing borough councillors effective and efficient. These communities share the same needs and desires, are similar in nature and are wholly different to Wateringbury.

9. To create a single parish ward of Downs would require a councillor to attend parish council meetings and events in four parishes, creating an unmanageable work load for a single councillor. The sharing of even a many parish ward by two councillors allows for greater flexibility and the concentration of attention to a particular parish as needed.

I would strongly urge you to recognise that your proposed draft recommendations are wrong and would do untold damage to many communities within Tonbridge & Malling Borough.

I would ask you to understand the proposals put forward by Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council, which reflect local knowledge, understanding and the wishes of the communities involved, and agree to them as the best warding arrangement that is possible given and reflecting the three stated objectives of ensuring equality of electorate, maintaining local and historic community links and ensuring effective and convenient local government.

Yours faithfully,

Matthew Balfour

Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: rog er Hazel Sent: 20 June 2012 13:47 To: Re views@ Cc: Subject: Boundary Commision for England . TMBC Response, Burham Eccles & Wouldham Dear Sir / Madam.

As an elected Borough Councillor for the Ward of Burham Eccles & Wouldham in the borough of Tonbridge & Malling ,I fully support the submission regarding boundary changes.

I have lived in this ward for 40years and represented this ward for last 9 years.I do-not support the submission that you wish to be accepted as I feel that you are totally wrong to discount the soon to be coming on stream development of Peter,s Village we are currently a two member ward and have a very full work load looking after the existing residents. I do not consider that with addition of Peter,s Village we would serve our residents to the best of our abilities.

Eccles has always had a much closer connection to Aylesford ,in deed many many years ago it was the men folk of Eccles that they marched to Aylesford demanding that they were allowed a voice on Aylesford Parish Council to which they were and still do have members from Eccles sitting on Aylesford Paish Council. The current Chairman of APC is a resident of Eccles.

I therefore fully agree with and support the recommendation of TMBC submission.

Regards R Dalton.

R Dalton TMBC Member for Burham Eccles & Eccles.

22/06/2012 TONBRIDGE & MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL

Cllr Dave Davis 132 Rochester Road Borough Councillor for Burham, Eccles Burham and Wouldham Ward Rochester Kent ME1 3SH

21 June 2012

The Review Officer (Tonbridge & Malling) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir,

TONBRIDGE AND MALLING BOROUGH COUNCIL REVIEW OF WARDING ARRANGEMENTS

References:

A. Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council Submission on Warding Arrangements dated Feb 2012

B. Your Draft Recommendations on the New Electoral Arrangements for Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council dated Apr 2012

C. Tonbridge and Malling Borough Councils Response to Warding Arrangements Consultation dated May 2012.

I am one of the two borough councillors for Burham, Eccles and Wouldham Ward (BEW) of Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council (TMBC) and have been since October 2004 when I was elected. I have lived in Burham for 15 years and know my ward well. I have followed the discussion on warding arrangements in detail because it has great significance to my ward and my residents.

Ref A above recommends the passing of Eccles village to a new 3 member ward formed from North Aylesford, Walderslade Bluebell Hill and Eccles. Leaving Burham & Wouldham as a 2 person ward with the prospect of 1000 houses being constructed between those two villages. At Annex 1 to Ref C is Trenport’s letter to TMBC setting out their proposed timings for construction of Peter’s Village. I have considerable respect for Trenport in general and in particular Mr Chris Hall the director who signed that letter. Over many years of dealing with him I have found that if he says something will not happen it does not happen and if he says it is going to happen it does. He is a ruthlessly honest and clear person. Short of major impediments beyond his control I am convinced that the building programme he sets out will happen.

I and my ward colleague Councillor Roger Dalton have served Eccles well over the years we have represented them and been involved in a number of significant campaigns to maintain and improve the life of the residents of Eccles. It would be correct to say that I have a strong emotional attachment to that village and its residents and I know many of them as colleagues and friends. I would personally like BEW to remain with the prospect of a large number of houses being built in the near future in Peters Village. This would require BEW to be a 3 member ward. However your requirement of electoral fairness over a period of time cannot be met with that solution and with regret I totally discount it.

Given my belief of near certainty that Peters Village will be substantially complete by 2018, I believe the best solution to meet your criteria on which this warding review is based is the original TMBC draft set out at Ref A but as modified in Ref C. I fear that if we adopt the proposals you set out in Ref B we will have to rework this warding exercise much sooner than we should.

At Paragraph 65 of Ref B you state that “We visited this area as part of our tour of the borough. We noted that the character of Burham and Eccles communities was similar and that they shared good communications links”. I agree that there are some similarities such as:

. The size of the villages

. That both are villages built in the 19th Century to accommodate a local industrial work force

. That the housing stock is not dissimilar

. That they share the same roads and bus services

However in my experience there is a much closer alignment between Eccles and Aylesford than to Burham because:

. Eccles is part of Aylesford Parish Council whereas Burham and Wouldham are separate parishes. This was tested a few years back when a survey was conducted I believe by you to see if there was a strong appetite for a change to Eccles having its own parish council. There was no strong feeling in Eccles for an independent parish.

. Eccles is in the Aylesford Church of England Parish and which is considered to be a “high church”. Burham and Wouldham together form a separate Church of England parish and is considered to be a “low church”.

. Burham’s workmen worked the chalk pits in and around the village. Eccles workers worked the brick works between Eccles and Aylesford sharing the work with people from Aylesford resulting in a closer bond there.

. Aylesford is better served with youth and adult sports and social groups to which Eccles residents turn to rather than to Burham. . The overflow from St Mark’s Eccles Primary School tends to go to Aylesford Schools rather than to schools in Burham and Wouldham.

. As an example of local allegiances, we have an Eccles resident who produces a charity photographic calendar each year. It is called the “Three Village Calendar” and clearly the 3 villages in his mind are Aylesford, Eccles and Burham not Burham Eccles and Wouldham.

For the reasons set out above, I believe that Eccles is more closely aligned to Aylesford than to Burham and that the TMBC warding proposal at Ref A & C more accurately reflect the wishes and natural inclinations of the residents of Eccles and again for this reason I support the TMBC overall proposals as being in the best interests of the residents I represent.

CONCLUSION

Stripping away my emotional connections to Eccles, I strongly support the TMBC proposals set out in Ref A & C and believe they are in the very best interests of the residents in my ward. My support for this solution is based on my strong belief that Peters Village will progress at the rate Trenport state and my belief that it in the best interests of Eccles to be in a ward that is aligned more closely to Aylesford Parish Council.

Yours sincerely

D Davis

Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: C hris Gunn Sent: 20 June 2012 11:47 To: Re views@ Subject: Electoral Review : Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for England support for the TMBC proposals. For the attention of The Review Officer (Tonbridge & Malling)

Please accept this email as confirmation that I have read through the TMBC Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for England ( labelled as being version 2.0) and as a member of Burham Parish Council, I can confirm that I fully support the recommendations in the TMBC Response.

Should you require any further information or clarification please don’t hesitate to contact me.

Kind Regards

Chris Gunn Tech IOSH

______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______

22/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: A nn Kemp Sent: 15 June 2012 09:12 To: Re views@ Subject: Tonbridge & Malling Warding Proposals As one of the members representing the existing Downs Ward, I wish to express my dismay at your proposals to split both Addington and Ryarsh Parishes. This will lead to the break up of established communitees and make the process of local government unecessarily complicated. In addition the proposal for a four parish single member ward will lead to an extrememly burdonsome workload for that member with the amount of extra meetings to be covered. Although the tonbridge and Malling proposal for a seven parish 2 member ward will also lead to many meetings, the fact that these can be shared will be a far better option. yours faithfully Ann Kemp

18/06/2012 Page 1 of 2

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

Sent: 12 June 2012 12:48 To: Du nkeyson, Nicholas Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Re d

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 June 2012 16:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

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

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions- form Submission ID: 1188 Time of Submission: Jun 11th 2012 at 3:12pm

Form Answers

Name: Richard Long

Area your submission Tonbridge & Malling refers to: Organisation you other (please specify in your submission) belong to: Your feedback: I am County Councillor for Malling Rural East, the County division which includes most of the villages in my representation.

I am not in favour of the proposal to group Mereworth, Offham,

12/06/2012 Page 2 of 2

Wateringbury, West Peckham and Wrotham Heath together in a large two member ward. The villages named have little in common. The proposal fails, in my opinion, to satisfy the criteria of local connection.

Mereworth and West Peckham residents trend to use facilities in Hadlow and naturally gravitate to that larger village with its shops, GP surgery etc. Wateringbury residents look more towards Maidstone and East Malling. Offham and Borough Green are completely separated from the others they are proposed to be grouped with: you would have to drive past or through Kings Hill and West Malling to get to them from Mereworth or Hadlow.

The present ward arrangements suit the area better than the proposed new ones. File upload: This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

12/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Sent: 15 June 2012 13:01 To: Re views@

Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW: TONBRIDGE & MALLING

I ma an elected Member of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council and have participated with interest in the review of our Ward Boundaries.

I note that the statutory criteria which carry equal weight are:

To deliver electoral equality for voters (with minimal variance)

To provide boundaries that reflect natural communities

To promote effective and convenient local government

I have to say that I do NOT agree with your draft recommendations as a number of your points do not chime with the statutory criteria and in some cases your recommendations strike me as being divisive to some well established communities.

Your proposal ignores imminent development of Peters Village and Preston Hall which will, should your recommendations be implemented, cause serious electoral imbalance which will need to be further reviewed with additional unnecessary costs when this imbalance is revisited.

I am also concerned at the splitting of the parishes of Addington and Ryarsh which would, if implemented, confuse residents, disturb parish councils and will require "double handling" by Ward Members. Similarly, the "lumping" of Wateringbury with the proposed restructured Downs Ward is unnecessary and Wateringbury should be left as a single Member Ward. Wateringbury has no common thread with the rest of this proposed Ward.

I fully support in its entirety the formal response from Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council to your draft recommendations. If you accept T&MBC submission, imbalances will not occur and your stated criteria of Equality, Communities and Effective Governance will be achieved.

Cllr Sue Murray Ward Member for Borough Green & Long Mill T&MBC

18/06/2012 Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Mark Rhodes Sent: 14 June 2012 19:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review: Tonbridge & Malling, Kent.

Attachments: Fw: Electoral Review: Tonbridge & Malling

Dear Sir,

I am an elected member of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council, I am one of two councillors who represent Hildenborough ward. I write to support the formal response from Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council to your draft recommendation, which conforms to the 3 stated objectives of Equality of Electorate, Maintains Local and Historic Community Links and ensures Effective and Convenient Local Government. I am totally unable to support your draft proposals as they ignore Peters Village and Preston Hall, should your recommendations be implemented then serious electoral imbalance will occur. The Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council submission I beleive is the correct way forward and completely supports the stated 3 objectives.

Cllr Mark Rhodes Hildenborough Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is committed to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. Please save energy and resources by not printing this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.

************************************************************************ * This e-mail may contain information which is sensitive, confidential, or protectively marked up to RESTRICTED level and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any part of it, please inform the sender immediately on receipt and do not copy it or disclose the contents to any other person. All e-mail traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation. ************************************************************************ *

1 Cllr John Balcombe Cllr Dave Smith

19.06.12

Review Officer Tonbridge & Malling Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir

Electoral Review – Proposals for Aylesford

We, as elected Members of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) have participated in a number of informal discussions and attended various formal meetings before agreeing the submission made by TMBC to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE).

We are currently a two Member Ward and between us have 15 years experience of working in the Aylesford Ward. With the well documented Peters Village development plans (circa 1,000 properties) in Wouldham (part of a neighbouring Ward) it was clear changes would need to be made to ensure electoral equality of voters. As a neighbouring Ward it was very likely any change would impact on our Ward.

The TMBC submission did propose changes to our Ward by removing Aylesford Village and adding to Eccles and making it into a three Member Ward. We were in full agreement with this submission and envisaged that the third Member would primarily serve the electorate in Aylesford Village and Eccles.

It is inconceivable that after many hours of our time and significant work by TMBC officers that the LGBCE has submitted its draft recommendations which totally disregard the impact of splitting Aylesford parish and removal of Robson Drive and Trewin Close.

We understand and confirm our unreserved support of TMBC response to your recommendations, we share that view and respectfully request that the LGBCE reconsiders its draft recommendations.

Yours faithfully

Cllr Dave Smith Cllr John Balcombe

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Maria Heslop Sent: 24 June 2012 16:53 To: Reviews@ Cc: Sarah Spence Subject: Electoral Review of Tonbridge & Malling

Dear Sirs,

Sarah Spence and I, as Borough Councillors for the Vauxhall ward at Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council wish to take the opportunity to express our support for the submission of Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council (TMBC) in response to the current consultation on the draft proposed warding arrangements for this Borough.

In respect of the proposed boundary arrangements for the proposed Vauxhall Ward, we do support the proposal by both the Commission and the Borough Council that the ward boundaries remain unchanged.

We do also support the Borough Council's proposals for a council size of 54 members, noting that the electorate within the Borough is increasing.

Yours faithfully,

Maria Heslop Borough Councillor Vauxhall ward Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is committed to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. Please save energy and resources by not printing this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.

Page 1 of 3

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Re views@ Sent: 16 June 2012 19:36 To: Re views@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received - Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

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

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: 1203 Time of Submission: Jun 16th 2012 at 6:35pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Liz Simpson

Area your Tonbridge & Malling submission refers to: Organisation you political group/organisation belong to: Your feedback: I am Leader of the Opposition on Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council and have been involved in the Borough Ward Boundary review since the initial meeting with the Commissioners some months ago.

At that meeting much was made by the Commission of the importance of our submission meeting the laid down criteria if it were to be acceptable to the Commission. We were reminded of the need to ensure that Parish boundaries were not breached and the communities of interest were important. It was also suggested that it was always helpful if a consensus view could be reached between the political parties on the Council.

Tonbridge and Malling cooperated fully with the Commission

18/06/2012 Page 2 of 3

and took on board their very helpful comments as we moved through the process of initially determining how many Councillors were required to represent the residents to the phase we are now in - that of determining the ward boundaries.

Councillors have worked together in a very cooperative and positive way, taking heed of the advice we were given by the Commission and seeking consensus along the way. It is, therefore a great disappointment to find that in many areas our views have been ignored. Of great concern also is the way that the criteria given to us as absolutes have also on occasion been ignored.

At a recent meeting of the Electoral Review Working Group attended by a wide range of Councillors we went carefully through the Commissions proposals and formulated a response that reflected our sincerely held belief that our proposals A) conformed to the criteria set down at the start of the process B) met the tests of electoral variance; sometimes more closely than the Commission's own C) would be more acceptable to residents D) continued to have cross party support E) was soundly based on reliable evidence relating to future development (particularly on the South Bank)

I attended that meeting and the extraordinary meeting of the Council that followed, where I, unusually, seconded the proposal made by the Leader of the Council that we ask the Commission to take heed of our responses to its proposals. The vote was carried unanimously.

I believe that there have been some personnel changes at the Commission during the process and this may have made it a more challenging task in terms of gaining a full understanding of the geography (both physical and human) in the time allowed. I am sure that the Commission does feel that it is important to get the details of this right and I would urge them to think again and accept our proposals.

(on a local note I cannot support the proposal to move some of the properties in the village of Larkfield into the village of East Malling. I appreciate that this is tidy in that the ward boundary would run down the A20 but these properties form the historic centre of Larkfield, residents have no need to go to East Malling for shops or services and it seems bizarre to attach them to a different community.)

Liz Simpson Leader Lib Dems Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council File upload: , File (application/octet-stream),

18/06/2012 Page 1 of 1

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Russ Taylor [[email protected]] Sent: 18 May 2012 16:35 To: Reviews@ Cc: Mike Waller; Richard Beesley Subject: Electoral Review - Tonbridge & Malling Attachments: Larkfield North marked up.jpg Sirs

My colleague and I are both Borough Councillors for Larkfield North Ward and wish to comment on your proposals in relation to the Larkfield North Ward.

We propose that the M20 is retained as the boundary between Larkfield North and Larkfield South. We also propose that the industrial estate that you have proposed to be in Larkfield South should instead be in Larkfield North.

We calculate that the impact on resident numbers as your Annex B is as follows:-

Larkfield North 3672 1836 +8% 3679 +0.5% Larkfield South 3545 1773 +5% 3603 -0.5%

The benefits of the change are:-

 Larkfield North will be unchanged from an electorate perspective from the current arrangements  The Larkfield North/ South boundary is clearer  Both wards are closer to the mean than proposed  Planning applications for the industrial estate to the East of New Hythe Lane will be automatically reported to the Borough Councillors for Larkfield North where the majority of residents who may be affected by environmental effects live. As things are currently we as Borough Councillors for Larkfield North are not automatically informed of planning applications for this estate.  Changes to vehicular access levels due to planning changes will be automatically reported to the Borough Councillors for Larkfield North. Access to this industrial estate is via Leybourne Way, Lunsford Lane and New Hythe Lane all of which are in Larkfield North. The access road to Ditton Ward, Station Road is a private road owned by SCA Newsprint and is controlled access for employees of that company in light vehicles only  It is also more democratic - see comments below

I attach a marked up diagram showing the proposed Larkfield North boundary in Green. The Private Road to the Eastern edge of the ward is marked in Red along with two foot access only routes into the industrial estate.

We believe that these changes will make the democratic representation of people in Larkfield North more effective by ensuring that we are properly informed when industrial estate changes that are of concern to our local residents are being planned. In the last year since we were first elected my colleague and I have seen a number of Planning Application responses from Ditton Parish Council marked 'no comment' when residents in Larkfield North had concerns.

Yours sincerely

Mike Parry-Waller and Russ Taylor Borough Councillors for Larkfield North Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council 01732 848924 & 01732 842330

24/05/2012

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

>>> Brian Luker 23/06/2012 13:01 >>> hello i am writing with regard leybourne / west malling ward @ tmbc, including the chase development to continue a three member ward mkes a lot of sense to myself, to explain i have lived in the area for most of my life so have extensive local knowledge. what happens in west malling has a knock on effect in leybourne as we are located next to the M20 at j4 which is the crossover for the A228 as well. i feel for the sake of joined up thinking the continuation of the three ward membership makes a lot off sense kindest regards brian

member leyboune/ west malling for past 13 yrs

Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council is committed to tackling the causes and effects of climate change. Please save energy and resources by not printing this e-mail unless absolutely necessary.

*************************************************************************

This e-mail may contain information which is sensitive, confidential, or protectively marked up to RESTRICTED level and should be handled accordingly. If you are not the intended recipient of this e-mail or any part of it, please inform the sender immediately on receipt and do not copy it or disclose the contents to any other person. All e-mail traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

*************************************************************************