• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

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.

Load more

  31

Copy Link