sign in sign up
<<
Home , A16 road (England), Grantham, Holdingham

Councillor submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Mark Allan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Lincolnshire County Council

Comment text:

Dear LGBCE, As the County Councillor for the Division, I have the following comments to make on the proposed boundary changes that affect the Division that I represent a LCC and Sleaford Town: 1. The splitting of the cohesive urban Sleaford Ward into two arbitrary new Wards to provide appropriate nos of electors – presumably primarily for the new LCC and Division - is entirely counter to the “A good pattern of divisions” criteria that LGBCE indicate that they are aiming to achieve. A split of the form proposed does not satisfy any of the community identity ones and, indeed, appears counter to all of them. 2. The creation of a new single Sleaford and Quarrington and Mareham Ward and its allocation to the new Sleaford Rural LCC Division is again contrary to the Community Identity criteria but more importantly creates dire local democracy issues at a Town Council election level. The consequences of what is proposed with a single Sleaford and Quarrington Ward – rather than the current Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham Wards – with the proposed 8 Town Councillors means that each TCllr will represent an electorate of around 5,500 and at elections, if considering standing as an independent, will find the cost and campaigning implications too great to go forward. The only candidates that could consider campaigning in a single Ward of this size will be those with a Political Party backing. This new Ward must be split into two - Sleaford Quarrington and Sleaford Mareham, as it is now and for the same good reasons that it is split into two now. 4/5 TCllrs should be allocated to Sleaford Quarrington and 3TCllrs to Sleaford Mareham. This will not affect the proposed LCC Divisional arrangements for Sleaford Rural but will address what will otherwise create a significant local democracy issue. 3. It seems entirely obtuse that only 2 TCllrs (a loss of one) are proposed in Sleaford Westholme (electorate 1,845) whilst 2 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Holdingham (electorate 1,000), 3 TCllrs remain in ( a similar electorate at 1,873) whilst 8 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham (electorate 5,374) (but see the comment in para 2 above ). Either Sleaford Westholme is being hard done by or Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham is being too favoured. It is clear that Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Moor Should be joined for Town Council elcections, as they will be for a District Council election, returning 3 TCllrs. The T Cllr arrangements should be based on the current boundaries and clearly can be so irrespective of the changes being proposed for the LCC divisions: Sleaford Quarrington – 4 Sleaford Mareham - 3 Sleaford Westolme – 3 Sleaford Castle – 2 Sleaford Navigation -3 Sleaford Holdingham and Moor – 3 4. The proposed boundary changes should deal with a long standing issue in Sleaford. A significant part of the town’s population on the eastern side of the town and a part of urban Sleaford are only some 4/500m from the town centre and clearly use all of the town’s facilities yet are placed in the Kirby- la - Thorpe area with some half mile of rural space between this part of urban Sleaford and Kirby- la -Thorpe village. This part of Sleaford is closer to the Town centre and its amenities than most other areas of the town and t is completely wrong that they are attached to a rural parish. Yours sincerely, Cllr Mark Allan County Councillor for the Sleaford Division

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7430 09/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka

From: mark allan Sent: 07 February 2016 15:47 To: reviews Subject: FW: Lincolnshire boundary review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank SW1P 4QP

06.02.2016

Dear Sirs,

Re: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LINCOLNSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL; DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

1. The splitting of the cohesive urban Sleaford Holdingham Ward into two arbitrary new Wards to provide appropriate nos of electors – presumably primarily for the new LCC Ruskington and Cranwell Division ‐ is entirely counter to the “A good pattern of divisions” criteria that LGBCE indicate that they are aiming to achieve. A split of the form proposed does not satisfy any of the community identity ones and, indeed, appears counter to all of them. 2. The creation of a new single Sleaford and Quarrington and Mareham Ward and its allocation to the new Sleaford Rural LCC Division is again contrary to the Community Identity criteria but more importantly creates dire local democracy issues at a Town Council election level. The consequences of what is proposed with a single Sleaford and Quarrington Ward – rather than the current Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham Wards – with the proposed 8 Town Councillors means that each TCllr will represent an electorate of around 5,500 and at elections, if considering standing as an independent, will find the cost and campaigning implications too great to go forward. The only candidates that could consider campaigning in a single Ward of this size will be those with a Political Party backing.

This new Ward must be split into two ‐Sleaford Quarrington and Sleaford Mareham, as it is now and for the same good reasons that it is split into two now. 4/5 TCllrs should be allocated to Sleaford Quarrington and 3TCllrs to Sleaford Mareham. This will not affect the proposed LCC Divisional arrangements for Sleaford Rural but will address what will otherwise create a significant local democracy issue.

3. It seems entirely obtuse that only 2 TCllrs (a loss of one) are proposed in Sleaford Westholme (electorate 1,845) whilst 2 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Holdingham (electorate 1,000), 3 TCllrs remain in Sleaford

1 Navigation (a similar electorate at 1,873) whilst 8 TCllrs are proposed for Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham (electorate 5,374) (but see the comment in para 2 above). Either Sleaford Westholme is being hard done by or Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Quarrington and Mareham is being too favoured.

It is clear that Sleaford Holdingham and Sleaford Moor Should be joined for Town Council elcections, as they will be for a District Council election, returning 3 TCllrs.

The T Cllr arrangements should be based on the current boundaries and clearly can be so irrespective of the changes being proposed for the LCC divisions:

Sleaford Quarrington – 4 Sleaford Mareham ‐ 3 Sleaford Westolme – 3 Sleaford Castle – 2 Sleaford Navigation ‐3 Sleaford Holdingham and Moor – 3

4. The proposed boundary changes should deal with a long standing issue in Sleaford.

A significant part of the town’s population on the eastern side of the town and clearly a part of urban Sleaford is only some 400 to 500m from the town centre. The residents of this area clearly use all of the town’s facilities yet are placed in the Kirby‐ la ‐Thorpe Parish area with some half mile of rural space between this part of urban Sleaford and Kirby‐ la ‐Thorpe village. This part of Sleaford is closer to the Town centre and its amenities than most other areas of the town – other parts of Sleaford in the own boundary area are 4 to 5 kilometres away from the town. It is completely wrong and against all the criteria being used or the review that this part of Sleaford is not a part of the town and is attached to a rural parish. The Town Council boundary needs extending to the east to include this urban part of Sleaford that has now existed for 20+ years and which is clearly a part of the Town and which would more clearly satisfy the Community Identity criteria set out by LGBCE that sits behind the boundary review.

Yours Sincerely

Mark Allan

County Councillor Mark Allan Lincolnshire County Council, Sleaford Division

2

Consultation re Boundary changes for Lincolnshire County Council Response re Boston divisions by Cllr Alison Austin

I would have preferred that the number of councillors representing the had remained at 7, because of the sizeable “hidden” electorate within the Borough who have not engaged with the electoral system and failed to register. This is in the main due to the large number of migrants from Eastern European countries now resident in Boston, many of whom do not speak English well but in particular live in rented accommodation and move frequently. As a Borough Councillor I am well aware of the number of properties within my ward at which there are no registered electors, but most of which contain at least two adults from EU countries. I recognise that this is a matter for Boston Borough Council to resolve but these “hidden” residents and their families require the time of a councillor and put great demand on council services, just as much as those who are registered. I accept that in the light of the overall reduction in the number of Councillors at the County Council, the number must reduce to 6.

I am happy with the actual boundaries of the 6 (six) proposed divisions but wish to object strongly to their naming by the Boundary commission. My argument is set out below:

Overall there appears to have been arbitrary selection of communities within the divisions to form their names. This does recognise that residents of the other within that division will have difficulty in identifying with the new one. Consequently more generic, all‐ encompassing but quite explicit names should be used.

In detail:

1. LGBCE Proposed name: Butterwick and Wrangle My proposed name: Boston Coastal

The parishes constituting this division are Wrangle, , Leverton, Benington, Butterwick, and the village centre and more rural parts of . Neither Butterwick nor Wrangle are the principal settlements within this division. All these parishes are of a coastal nature and radiate around the Wash north east of Boston along the A52. Moreover the churches in these parishes all form a group known as the Coastal Cluster. To retain the name “Coastal” is quite explicit and familiar.

2. LGBCE Proposed name: Boston North My proposed name: Boston North

I am in complete agreement with this name. There is no confusion over this.

3. LGBCE Proposed name: Boston South My proposed name: Boston West

This area is clearly the western part of Boston. The LGBCE description of “the area to the South of the North Forty Foot and to the north of the South Forty Foot waterways” would not help most residents or even officials identify the area. The North Forty Foot is a relatively unknown waterway that would not mean anything to those not involved with local drainage. Talking about “north of the South Forty Foot” is totally confusing. This division leads from the town centre along West Street and then continues out of the town along the A52 Sleaford Road, leading to the West. (Sleaford is essentially to the west of Boston; clearly not the south). Moreover the main part of this area in the Boston West ward of the Borough Council and it contains the large Boston West School. It is therefore quite logical to call this division Boston West.

4. LGBCE proposed name: My proposed name: Boston East

Skirbeck is an historic parish within Boston. This Division does not include all of Skirbeck – part of “Skirbeck Quarter” lies to the south of the tidal River Haven. Moreover there is a considerable part of this division which is outside Skirbeck and in the Parish of St Botolph’s (“Boston Stump”). It cannot be right to prioritise Skirbeck over the main church. In addition it contains parts of Fishtoft parish, the docks and all the eastern area of Boston. Complimenting Boston North and Boston West, it is appropriate to name this Boston East.

5. LGBCE proposed name: and the Marshes My proposed name: Boston South

The proposed name by LGBCE fails to appreciate the actual nature of this area. “Marsh” in the local context refers to the salt marsh which borders the Wash. It is area which is flooded at high tide and there are no dwellings on it. The division starts with St Thomas’ Ward, which is that part of Boston town immediately south of the waterways the tidal River haven and the South Forty Foot. Also included are the parishes of Wyberton and Frampton and half of the village of Kirton. Wyberton is not the main village and is essentially part of Boston that many residents do not identify with. The main village is Kirton but this parish has had to be divided by these boundary changes. The only thing that links all the different communities in this division is the fact that they are all along the main , leading south out of Boston. Most of this division is already known as Boston South and to retain that name is quite self‐explanatory and unambiguous. Moreover it completes the four compass points.

6. LGBCE proposed name: and My proposed name: Boston Rural

Again there has been an arbitrary selection of communities in the LGBCE name. Holland Fen is a large, poorly defined area with a very sparse population and would not mean much to the majority of people. The main service centres are Swineshead along with the half of Kirton. This whole division comprises of about ten rural parishes stretching from at one extreme and round to at the other. The majority of the area already forms the Boston Rural division. Rather than pick out any individual parish names, this should remain as Boston Rural. Mayers, Mishka

From: Alison Austin Sent: 06 February 2016 08:40 To: reviews Subject: Proposed changes to boundaries for Lincolnshire County Council Attachments: Consultation re Boundary changes for Lincolnshire County Council.docx

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir

Although I would have preferred that the number of councillors representing the Borough of Boston had remained at 7, because of the sizeable “hidden” electorate within the Borough mainly due to the large number of migrants from Eastern European countries now resident in Boston. I recognise that this is a matter for Boston Borough Council to resolve and accept that in the light of the overall reduction in the number of Councillors, the number must reduce to 6. I have no issue with the actual boundaries for the divisions but object to your choice of names.

In common with Boston Borough Council I recommend that the names be Boston Coastal and Boston Rural together with Boston North, Boston South, Boston East and Boston West. It is important that people can identify with the different areas and that their locations are quite unambiguous.

With one exception, this retains the existing names, but omitting the current Fishtoft division and with agreed boundary changes. My full rationale is set out in an attachment but concentrates by the seemingly arbitrary selection of villages and other areas to create names that do not reflect the local population distribution and disregard historical and geographical associations.

I hope that you will take the time to read my attached, albeit rather lengthy, detailed explanation.

I am a resident of Wyberton.

With regards Alison Austin

(Councillor for St Thomas’ Ward on Boston Borough Council and for Boston South Division at Lincolnshire County Council)

1

Mayers, Mishka

From: Cllr Ian Carrington Sent: 31 January 2016 14:57 To: reviews Subject: Lincolnshire County Council Proposals for New Electoral Arrangements

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I object to the Boundary Commission proposals for Lincolnshire County Council on the following counts:

1. The proposed divisions have no linkage to existing ward or constituency boundaries and would make a confused and over complex overall pattern of representation.

2. The proposals ignore geography, settlement pattern and lines of communication which in my part of the County run primarily north ‐ south and instead impose a largely east ‐ west division pattern. Existing functioning groups of settlements are also ignored despite geography and shared services having built long standing working relationships. In my ward , and Heighington parishes share schools, medical, and community facilities with Branston parish. These four have worked closely together for over 20 years in a Cluster Group but would be split under the proposals which appear to take no account of actual circumstances on the ground.

3. The new Washingborough division would divide the large village of Heighington and its civil and ecclesiastical parishes into two contrary to the Commission’s own guidelines on reflecting local identity, boundaries and community links. One half of Heighington would be put in a sprawling rural division ( & Coleby) with which it has no real community, economic or administrative ties at the local level.

4. The proposed Washingborough division would join the villages of Washingborough, Canwick and part of Heighington with , a suburban parish separated by a mile of open countryside and a very busy road. Bracebridge Heath has no administrative or community links with the other communities and is in a different parliamentary constituency.

5. The emerging Central Lincolnshire Local Plan has just completed public consultation and goes before the Inspector in spring. It envisages major housing and economic development including a number of Sustainable Urban Extensions. In my ward 3500 new homes are envisaged on Canwick Heath in the first plan period (up to 6000 eventually). If enacted, the Commission proposal will very rapidly become out of date.

6. I strongly believe that the grouping of Washingborough, Heighington and Canwick with Branston (which has long worked successfully on the ground) would be a much better new division.

7. The Commission’s explanatory leaflet on the proposals states that in addition to delivering electoral equality any changes must reflect local community interests and identities and promote effective and convenient local government. It goes on to make clear that a ‘good pattern’ of divisions would reflect community interests and links, be based on strong and easily identifiable boundaries and help deliver good local government. I have no objection to the principle of reducing county divisions to 70, but by any objective analysis I believe the Commission’s draft recommendations for the North part of Lincolnshire fail to meet its own criteria. I stronglye urg that they are revised to reflect the pattern of geography and communities found in real life.

1 IAN CARRINGTON

Ward Member, Washingborough, Heighington & Canwick

North Kesteven District Council

------

NORTH KESTEVEN DISTRICT COUNCIL DISCLAIMER

The information contained in this e-mail along with any attachments may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended for the named individual(s) or entity who is/are the only authorised recipient(s). This e-mail should not be reproduced, disseminated, disclosed , modified or distributed unless expressly authorised by the sender.

If this message has reached you in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without review.

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only and may contain sensitive or protectively marked material up to RESTRICTED and should be handled accordingly. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All GCSX traffic may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation

------

2 Mayers, Mishka

From: Cllr Frances Cartwright Sent: 21 January 2016 16:50 To: reviews Subject: Lincolnshire County Council proposed ward changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I have very grave concerns about adding Thurlby to the Rural ward. Thurlby has always had very strong links to its neighbour Bourne and most Thurlby residents would agree with me on that fact. When the planning application came in for the new petrol station to the south of the town most people assumed that it was in Bourne itself when in fact it is in the parish of Thurlby. Residents of Thurlby use the Bourne schools ,library and other infrastructure and the bus service between the village and the town is very well used. Frances Cartwright Resident of Aslackby

The information contained in this e-mail along with any attachments may be confidential, legally privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. It is intended for the named individual(s) or entity who is/are the only authorised recipient(s). If this message has reached you in error please notify the sender immediately and delete it without review. Email is not secure and may contain viruses. We make every effort to ensure email is sent without viruses, but cannot guarantee this and recommends recipients take appropriate precautions. We may monitor email traffic data and content in accordance with our policies and English law.

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Sent: 13 February 2016 19:07 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Re Boundary Recommendations affecting

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir/Madam, I strongly object to linking Burgh Le Marsh boundaries with and extracting our close association with Wainfleet and Croft.

Historically Burgh Le Marsh, Croft and Wainfleet have a geographical and corporate personality totally different to that of Skegness.

To carry out such surgery would decimate the strong ties and associations that the three above-mentioned villages still today enjoy. I implore you to look again more deeply into such activities before such rash action is taken. Sincerely Councillor Fenton Burgh Le Marsh

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Foyster

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: SHDC

Comment text:

Since the proposals will have little practical effect other than to even out the numbers of voters in each division, I am satisfied that they are fair and reasonable. I support the Commission's proposals. District and Parish councillor. .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7018 28/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Angela Harrison

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: District Councillor for SHDC

Comment text:

Looking at the proposed boundary for the ward in which I live, I am deeply concerned that and are being roped in with an of Spalding. Crowland is a small , whereas Deeping St Nicholas is a rural village; both have nothing in common and less heads of population than this 'relatively small' chunk of Spalding town. This would mean that getting a locally elected Member would become almost impossible, and the views of the local people would be lost to someone elected from an urbanised town. At present, Crowland and Deeping St Nicholas are combined as a single Ward within the District Council, and it would be good if they could be aligned within the County Council too, but it would make a lot more sense to include Shepeau Stowe, Drove or within the ward boundary, as these are rural towns and villages which have a similar makeup to Crowland and Deeping St Nicholas. The services and needs of the rural areas are quite different to those of the urban town, therefore, in my opinion, this proposed ward boundary does not work and needs to be revisited. Thank you.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7193 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Grenville Jackson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My comments refer to the area around Sleaford. The north of the town becomes part of the Ruskington division of which it has no connection. If this division has to exist as a unit then the area of North Sleaford and the village of would be better named Sleaford North. Sleaford being the prime settlement would be more acceptable. The parish wards in the south of Sleaford, as proposed would be a barrier to democracy. An independent candidate would find it impossible to canvas such a large area. It favours parties as they can produce one leaflet introducing all their candidates and share the canvassing. It would be very easy to draw boundaries dividing the proposed Quarrington and Mareham wards into 5 areas 1/ Mareham which could have the same boundary as at present 2/ Quarrington North which would be the area north of Road. 3/ Quarrington South which would be the area south of Grantham Road. 4/ Greylees . This is the compact area of the former Rauceby hospital site. This area needs its own Sleaford councillor as it has no services and needs a voice in local government. Sleaford has so many proposed housing areas that revisions will be necessary within the 5 year review period. It would be much more sensible to plan for the growth now rather than in 5 years time.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7311 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Kathryn Kelly

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Please can The area designated as Holland Fen and Sutterton remain as Boston Rural, a title that better reflects the description of the area. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6868 1/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ross Little

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: North Kesteven District Council

Comment text:

In relation to the proposed New Electoral Arrangements for Lincolnshire County Council Boundary Review: As a Town and District Councillor I would like to support recommendations made by Town Council in respect to their views on the Hykeham area. My preference would be for the Hykeham area including North Hykeham Town Council and Parish Council to be in two County Council Divisions if they were focussed on Hykeham only, but additionally I can understand the rational for having 3 Councillor Divisions each with a partial responsibility for Hykeham as it means that the Hykeham area has greater representation at the County Council. Only one of the new wards contained "Hykeham" within its name and I feel that as the main Town in the area the name ‘Hykeham’ should be in each Ward or Division title. If not the names may weaken the town's identity, especially with the nearness of the outskirts of Lincoln . I agree with the Town Council and South Hykeham Parish boundaries with one exception. I agree that exception is that the existing North Hykeham Mill Ward is too large and should be sub-divided while I object to the new name of ‘Jaguar’ Ward. Jaguar has no historical link and does not satisfy local residents wishes for something of relevance to the area. A better name would be North Hykeham Post-Mill as it has historical relevance to the area. On the plans 'Jaguar' Ward also seems to be very, very small? In conclusion I believe that all Ward and Divisions that cover an area of Hykeham should have the word 'Hykeham' in the title of the Ward or Division. This is so that they can be seen to be identifiable to the community and that all should be reviewed to reflect the constituent communities and the community identities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7523 09/02/2016 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 December 2015 08:58 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Hykeham

From: Sent: 20 December 2015 12:29 To: reviews Cc: Town Clerk

Subject: North Hykeham

Dear Sirs,

As the County Councillor for Hykeham Forum, who, incidentally, will not be seeking re election, I am nevertheless amazed at the proposals of the Boundary Commission effectively to split town of North Hykeham into three, which is contrary to the proposals from the Lincolnshire County Council, in which I made a contribution.

I do not in any way dispute the need to increase the electorate in my current Division; but what has been proposed takes no account of the status of North Hykeham as a town in its own right, with a population of around 14,000 and increasing, and a very proactive Town Council of 18 members, which is currently drawing up its own Neighbourhood Plan in conjunction with the emerging Central Lincolnshire Local Plan. Having served on the Town Council from 1987 to 2011 I fully support its desired direction of travel, which your proposals will do nothing to enhance. To link part of the town electorally with Waddington would seem frankly bizarre to many residents of both parishes.

I am also surprised that the Commission has unexpectedly decided to make recommendations to redraw the ward boundaries within North Hykeham. It was pretty obvious that the Mill Ward would eventually require splitting as this was the main area for housing growth. But why have you recommended reducing the Forum Ward by one member and using that member to create a new Ward which you call Jaguar? Currently, with the exception of Mill Ward, in addition to returning three members each to the Town Council, the remaining four Wards (Memorial, Forum, Moor and Witham) currently return one member each to the North Kesteven District Council. How would your proposed new system work, as it is not intended to increase the town's current representation on NKDC from its present six District Councillors?

I do hope that, both for County, District and Town common sense will prevail and that historic associations and aspirations will be taken into account and not just numerical requirements.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr John Marriott County Councillor for Hykeham Forum Division

1

Harrowby Estate, one of the largest council estates in Lincolnshire, named historically after Lord Harrowby who allowed the land to be used as a training camp in WW1. Both Belton Camp and Harrowby Camp have equally significant WW1 links. > > These are just some of the names disputed. None of the names currently proposed can be applied to the whole area of the division in Grantham. > > It would be much more appropriate to stick to generic geographical titles as is the case in Stamford (i.e. Stamford West/Stamford East) which clearly provide the town name and general area covered by the Division. > > For example > > BELTON PARK - GRANTHAM NORTHEAST > SPITTLEGATE - GRANTHAM SOUTHEAST > - GRANTHAM SOUTHWEST > GREENHILL - GRANTHAM WEST > > OR > > IF THE COMMISSION INSIST ON STICKING TO THE EXISTING NAMES THEY SHOULD BE PREFIXED WITH GRANTHAM e.g. Grantham Spittalgate; Grantham Barrowby etc. > > > I will leave Cllr Dilks to comment on the Market Deepings changes which I believe are contentious for some. > > STAMFORD > The proposals provided are acceptable to us given the requirement to split the town into two divisions. > > > BOURNE - These comments will include comments regarding Bourne which we are currently waiting feedback from local members for. > > > GRANTHAM > > There are two main problems with the proposals: Firstly the decision on where to allocate the town centre, and secondly, the decision to put Barrowby village in the same ward as Earlesfield.

> > Grantham Town Centre. The town centre is too small to be a division in its own right, so it has to be put in with one of the other divisions. However, the decision to put the town centre in with Greenhill is mistaken. When you leave the town centre to go Greenhill, you have to leave by the ASDA roundabout and go under the railway bridge. This is a very clear visual barrier. When you go under that bridge it feels as though you are, very definitely, leaving the town centre and going to the outer part of the town. (It has been compared to leaving the town through a medieval gate.) It would make a lot more sense for the town centre to be in a division where it is not simply added on, but flows into the surrounding area. The most obvious division would be Grantham South East, which the current proposals have going round two sides of the town centre. Wharf Road is not a boundary, as both sides have shops, and in fact more are on the south side.

>

2 > Barrowby village is not part of Grantham town, and is a separate parish. The previous boundaries had Barrowby in the same division as Earlesfield, despite the fact that there are no historic links between the two. Many of us had assumed that this anomaly would be corrected in this review. Although you can get from Earlesfield to Barrowby by moving along Dysart Road, there is no historical link, as the bridge was only built in 2000. They are different sides of the A1, which is a big geographical and psychological boundary, exacerbated by the fact that Barrowby village is quite a way back from Millenium Bridge, and you have to travel across a large green area before you arrive at Barrowby. If Barrowby must be included in with a Grantham division, it would far more sense to include Barrowby village with the part of Grantham centred along Barrowby Road. If you travel along Barrowby Road away from Grantham, you actually pass into Barrowby village as you pass Gloucester Road, before you get to the A1, even though it not obvious at the time. After that, although Barrowby is still the other side of the A1, it is much closer on Barrowby Road than it is on Dysart Road. If Barrowby is is with Earlesfield, this creates an anomaly, as the easternmost part of Barrowby parish, east of the A1 is then cut off from the rest of the division that is east of the A1. If Barrowby parish is included with Barrowby Road (the clue is in the name) this problem does not arise.

There is also a smaller problem that can be corrected. The draft proposals separate the top of Spitalgate Level from the side of the hill, including the Cheveley Park mobile homes estate in with Barrowby. This is nowhere near the rest of the division. On Gorse Lane itself, the housing is in two, distinct, clusters, with the A1 forming a natural barrier between the two. It would make more sense to use this as the barrier, with the east end of Gorse Lane and Cheveley Park going in with Grantham South East, and the west of Gorse Lane, Wyvillle Road etc staying in the South West.

To enable these proposed changes of moving the town centre from West to South East, Barrowby and surrounding villages from South West to West, and Cheveley Park and eastern Gorse Lane from South West to South East it will be necessary to move the rest of the boundary between South East and South West eastwards in the area around Springfield Road.

John & Charmaine Morgan

3

Mayers, Mishka

From: Porter, Gary Cllr Sent: 06 February 2016 15:50 To: reviews Subject: Complaint

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Hi, I've made comments objecting to the proposed changes to the Lincolnshire CC divisions in the area covered by South Holland DC. But I have been unable to get them uploaded to consultation document. Can you please make sure that my objections are added in. The proposals make absolutely no sense.

Kind regards,

Lord Porter of Spalding.

Sent from my iPad

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: CllrC Pain Sent: 08 February 2016 11:43 To: reviews Cc: CllrC Pain Subject: FW: Boundary Review - 1 of 2 - Cllr Pain Attachments: East Lindsey alternative 1b.pdf

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Cllr Chris Pain,

A/O Boundary Commission,

Dear Sir,

Please find attached a revised submission for the County Council Wainfleet Ward in the ELDC area. Although the residents of Burgh feel that they are more closely connected to the town of Wainfleet and have close links with that town than the seaside coastal town of Skegness. This argument has been put forward by Burgh Town Council. I will concentrate this proposal on keeping the main area of Wainfleet and Croft together. Residents are baffled why their town which is linked across Rd and Croft Lane and share all of the same services, are being split apart. They are even more baffled why Spilsby , , and Stickney are now included in their area. Please note these are 20 mins, 23mins & 23 mins away by car on some of the worst of lincolnshire roads. I have information leading me to believe that there has been political motives behind the LCC Administration Submission for this ward. Please note that my family had the public house at Kealcotes and I have lived in Stickney, so I am very familiar with the area. My wife was born in Wainfleet and her factory is in Croft, with the latest proposals it would be in Skegness. I would urge another visit with the opportunity to meet local residents and the parish councils to discuss this whole issue.

------

Submission for the County Council Wainfleet Ward in the ELDC area. Please note that the voting wards of Skegness North and South should be in the region of 7,500 each but unfortunately these figures are not on the figures provided by LCC officers. This proposition merges Stickford back in with Keal Coates , as they both use the post office at and are a two minute drive apart on the main A16 road and a six minute bike ride.. They are inter connected with many at Stickford using the Coach House Public house or fishing on John Rowntrees Lakes or shooting on the Rowntree Farm or horse riding or taking guitar lessons at Keal Coates, whilst people from Keal Coates use the garage and coal merchants at Stickford. Seacroft and some isolated houses in Wainfleet which lie near the coast is merged into Skegness South. This area is accessed to the East of Skegness. In fact one has to drive past several polling stations and through to Skegness to reach the Croft polling booth.

Croft has been reinstated back into Wainfleet where it is very well connected and belongs. Wainfleet / Croft are intermingled and share all of the same facilities including police, fire station, school, football pitch, fish and chip shop,

1 doctors, library, hairdressers, co-op, petrol station, paper shop, chemist, children's clubs, brewery, beauty salon, halls, clubs, societies, jobs, social life, W2 etc, As the housing is intermingled across Spilsby Rd and Croft Lane, there is no distance between the majority of these properties. This has caused alterations to Skegness North and South, but these are in line with the proscribed electoral numbers. The reason these are kept low is because of the planning for 145 houses that have been passed by ELDC since the previous round of submissions on the edge of Skegness and the proposal which is being considered at ELDC for housing adjacent to the new roundabout that will be built on the A52 by LCC in April. There is the desire for a link road that will link the A52 to the A158 forming an outer Skegness relief road. This will rely on creating affordable / market housing in between these roads.

Regards, Councillor Chris Pain

Cllr Chris Pain Group Leader

------Note: We are a Microsoft Office site. Our base version is 2010. Please make sure that files you send can be read in this format. Any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication of this e-mail is strictly prohibited save unless expressly authorised by the sender. The information contained in this message is intended for the named recipients only. It may contain privileged and confidential information and if you are not the addressee or the person responsible for delivering this to the addressee, you may not copy, distribute or take action in reliance on it. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender(s) immediately by telephone. Please also destroy and delete as soon as possible the message from your computer. ********************************************************************************* *********************************************************************************

2 Mayers, Mishka

From: CllrN Pepper Sent: 06 February 2016 12:47 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Commission Recommendations - Lincolnshire / Crowland division

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Boundary Commission

I am the current Lincolnshire County Councillor for the Crowland and Whaplode division, aged 59 and both lived and worked in the South Holland part of Lincolnshire all of my life, Being elected to this position in May 2013, I consider myself a very active Councillor, I know the area extremely well particularly with me being a past member of Lincolnshire Fire & Rescue Service for 38 years, getting to know the area and travel logistics were all part of my duties. I have also served on local Parish and District Councils. I travel further to the County Council Offices in Lincoln than any other County Councillor with a round trip of 108 miles and I make my observations to you with no Political bias whatsoever.

Reduction in the number of Councillors I consider the Boundary Commission's recommendations to reduce the number of Councillors from 77 to 70 is correct and well thought out, meaning each County Councillor will have an electorate of around 8,000 and they will have a slightly larger workload than at present but still manageable for the vast majority of County Councillors.

Naming of the above Division Should the Commission's proposed recommendations go‐ahead for this division, the Spalding portion would need some recognition of its identity and would better if renamed to 'Crowland and South West Spalding', however please see my further comments below.

History of the area It is noted that the area recommended by the Commission for Crowland would in short include Crowland, Deeping St Nicholas and a wedge shaped portion of Spalding (nearly the size of Crowland). It is understood the Commission do not take past History into consideration which is fully understandable, however it is important to note that Crowland and Spalding were at war with each other in 1643 and very, very sadly to this day and putting it mildly the 2 communities are not particularly friendly with each other and there certainly isn’t any community links which is one of the criteria the Commission aim to deliver.

My Observations The Commission have based their recommendations on a well out of date map, in Aug 2010 a new section of road was opened South/South East of Crowland which then became the A16, the Commission shows on its map in green the main A16 running through the middle of the proposed Crowland division which has clearly not been the case since August 2010. It is hoped that the Commission didn’t place too much emphasis on the wrongly positioned road as this might have had a bearing on the thought process.

It's my understanding that major residential developments are planned in the short and long term in the Spalding portion of the proposed division, I'll not go into detail but trust the Commission has took this into consideration with their predicted electorate 5 years in advance.

Because there is to be no reduction of County Councillors in the South Holland area, do the present divisions need to be radically changed at all?, clearly at present there are anomalies with the number of electorate per Councillor but to overcome this only slight amendments to the divisional boundaries would be required to reflect this. This would have avoided the present public consternation of uncertainty and concerns of the Parish Councils. 1

Parish Councils / Publics Observations Being an active County Councillor, I attend the 2 Parish Councils in the area I represent, namely Crowland Parish Council and Whaplode Parish Council, among the many concerns each Parish Council has, I note just a very few of many pertinent concerns from the area:‐ Crowland Parish Council If someone is elected from Spalding, that person won't be interested in Crowland and won't attend our Parish Council meetings. Whaplode Parish Council This Parish Council consists in short the Villages of Saracens Head, Whaplode & . The Commission's recommendation is that Saracens Head will be in the Division, Whaplode will be in the Holbeach Division, Whaplode Drove will be in the Holbeach Rural Division. This means the possible attendance of 3 County Councillors at this small Parish Council meeting. Deeping St Nicholas Having carried out a random door to door survey, this section of the public do not like the idea of Deeping St Nicholas being in the same area as Crowland, particularly as there are no public transport links and only one crossing over the , and the road network being very narrow unclassified roads. Section of Spalding Having carried out a random door to door survey this section of the public due to past History are adamant that they will not vote for someone from the Crowland area and are opposed to any links with Crowland whatsoever, having an understanding of the area I can reluctantly see where they are coming from.

Community Links and Cohesion With Crowland being at the extreme South of the County it has community links with , Cambridgeshire and the villages in‐between, particularly so where employment is concerned, but of course this is a different County, however it follows suit that Crowland's community links in the South Holland area are with the villages along the Southern Lincolnshire County boundary i.e Shepeau Stow, Whaplode Drove, , , , , Holbeach St. John, Cowbit etc., the majority of these sharing numerous facilities with Crowland which are far too numerous to mention in detail and importantly having real community interests and identities and evidence of community links to which the Commission is looking for. These facilities include Car sharing schemes (which helps to bind the communities together), GP Practice, Emergency Services, Shops, Pharmacy, Library Services etc.

The above links have evolved over a long period of time.

Because of a natural barrier ‐ the wide River Welland and its associated flood plain and banks there always has and still remains a separation between the areas the Commission is proposing with Crowland – namely Deeping St Nicholas and a section of Spalding, not made any easier by the single bridge crossing and the very narrow unclassified road from Crowland to Deeping St. Nicholas this would make any future Public Transport links highly unlikely and because of this, unfortunately there will always be difficulties in forging any strong links with these communities.

Conclusion I personally know of no one who considers it right for Crowland and part of Spalding to be in the same division. It would be like pulling limbs apart not to have Shepeau Stow, Whaplode Drove, Holbeach Drove etc, in the same division as Crowland and it is sincerely hoped that the Commission takes this and all of my comments into full consideration, therefore I strongly urge you to reconsider.

Should you require any further information regarding this area, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Yours faithfully

2

Mayers, Mishka

From: Porter, Gary Cllr Sent: 06 February 2016 16:20 To: reviews Subject: Lincolnshire County Council review (South Holland divisions)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I wish to object to the proposed changes for the Division boundaries in the area covered by SHDC. There has been no account taken of where different communities start and end and the whole exercise seems to have been driven by the misconception that it is important for each Councillor to represent appx the same amount of people. Surely the main thrust should be to encourage more people to engage in the electoral process and for this to happen people will have to feel that there is some point in voting. These proposals will do the complete reverse of this. If you had reduced the number of seats by two or three then there may have been some point to making different communities share a Councillor, but these proposals don't. I strongly advise you to leave the divisions as they are or else risk further damage to the reputation of your organisation. You are already held in low regard in South Holland on the back of the pointless changes you made to SHDC boundaries and the SH&tD parliamentary boundary when you last reviewed these.

Kind regards,

Lord Porter of Spalding Sent from my iPad

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Diana Rodgers

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: District Council

Comment text:

Dear Sirs I refer to the draft recommendations for new electoral arrangements in Lincolnshire County Council, dated December 2015. I do hope that the Commission stands by its promise to keep an open mind during the consultation period, and that it will give appropriate weighting to 'community identity', and 'effective and convenient local government'; because these factors seemed to have been ignored with regard to the proposals for the Parish and village of Welton. I used to be one of two District Councillors for Welton Ward; but the Commission changed the electoral arrangements in West Lindsey in 2012, and amalgamated Ward and Welton Ward, so I am now one of three District Councillors who represent the combined ward of Dunholme and Welton. Despite the name, Dunholme has effectively lost its representative, because all three elected representatives live in Welton. That said, the current electoral review tells me that I live in Ryland. I certainly live opposite Ryland Manor; but the of Ryland has no defined boundary, and falls within the Parish Bounds of Welton. The review tells me that Welton has nine parish councillors, when there are thirteen, and suggests that Welton should have five elected representative, and that Ryland should have four. With no defined boundaries within the parish, this proposal is impractical; but why, in the name of 'community identity', is it deemed necessary to introduce an artificial east/west divide? But if that is bad, the effect of the proposed Divisional Boundaries on Welton are much, much worse. I accept the premise that and do not share common community ties; but, as far as the County Council is concerned, they share a common purpose, and they are officially designated as 'fringe villages' in the 'Lincoln '. Setting that aside, how can the lack of common ties between the smaller settlements of Saxilby and Nettleham justify the abolition of Welton Rural Division, and a new boundary which cuts the larger settlement of Welton in two? This imposes a north/south county divide on top of the east west parish divide; so what does this do for 'effective and convenient local government'? The Welton electorate already has to decide which of its three representatives should be approached on a District Council matter, and if the Commission's proposals go ahead they will have to decide whether they approach one of the four Ryland or one of the five Welton representatives for Parish Council matters. Then, of course, there is the Commission's County Council proposals. The Welton electorate will have to know which side of the street they are on before they can approach an elected representative in the County Council, and neither of them will have a Welton label. They will either be Nettleham or Ancholme Cliff. In the District of West Lindsey, Welton is the largest settlement outside Gainsborough, and yet the Commission seeks to eradicate its name from the County seats. But what of the practical elements of local administration in Welton? The Parish Offices will be in one Division, whilst its public open spaces will be in another. William Farr and St Mary's Church will be in one Division, whilst St Mary's School will be in another. Welton Village Hall will be in one Division, whilst (across the road) Welton Sports and Social Club will be in another. I do not need to rehearse all the anomalies to demonstrate how literally divisive the Commission's proposals are for the Parish and Village of Welton; so I turn to the Commission's primary concerns for 'electoral equality'. If the Commission is minded to create a Nettleham Division at the expense of Welton Rural Division it might look to the variance figures for 2021. Nettleham is predicted to be plus 7% whilst Ancholme Cliff is predicted to be minus 4%. It would seem that shifting the whole of Welton Parish into Ancholme Cliff would redress this imbalance, and the name of Welton Cliff would be equally

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6888 1/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

valid, and as a centre of population (as well as a geographical feature) it would be entirely appropriate. Yours Sincerely Di Rodgers Cllr Mrs D M Rodgers West Lindsey District Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6888 1/21/2016

Porter, Johanna

From: Sent: 15 December 2015 16:57 To: reviews Subject: Lincolnshire county council restructure.

My name is Tony Vickers and I am a parish councillor for ; I believe the county will be better served by reducing the number of county councillors substantially and passing the funding to the district councils as they are closer to the needs of the public and are more efficient in their activities. Reducing the number of councillors would save money which could be used to alleviate some of the cuts experienced recently. The few county councillors remaining could then act as an advisory body rather like the house of Lords, but not with such large numbers. My suggestion would be that two county councillors required per district council area. This way, their experience could be utilised by the district. Thank you for reading my mail. Kind regards Tony Vickers.

Sent from Samsung Mobile

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: WHITE Sent: 08 February 2016 16:28 To: reviews Subject: Nettleham

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Nettleham near Lincoln in Lincolnshire

West Lindsey District Councillor for Nettleham Ward

Nettleham Parish Council

I agree with the separation of Nettleham and Saxilby.

We have no natural connections. We are both growing in number due to future development.

However, and Grange de Lincs should be included in the Nettleham Ward.

They are both the Nettleham side of the A15 and five minutes from Nettleham.

They have no connection with Saxilby

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ray Wootten

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Councillor LCC

Comment text:

Manthoroe & Ancaster ward name does not represent the area old or new. I request that consideration be given for the name to be Grantham North and District Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6463 04/01/2016