Local resident submissions to the Cherwell District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.

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.

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: bill burles

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would rather south newington was part of west oxford not cherwell. Quite frankly i dont see why we need a district council at all.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4343 18/12/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Doherty

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Member of the public

Comment text:

When I moved to Bicester 20 plus years Caversfield stood way out from Bicester. I moved to Caversfield over 15 years ago. I loved the fact there was no pub, no shop and that it was rural and unspoilt. But over the years we have been subjected to more and more planning applications all around us. All of them would have swallowed Caversfield up. It is bad enough the post office will not allow Caversfield to be included in our addresses. Now by just becoming North Bicester our identity will be totally lost and it is only a matter of time before Caversfield is lost to development and our village with it. If you do have to rename at least include Caversfield in the name so we are not forgotten, Please let us keep our identity. Thank you Jan Doherty

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4711 10/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: John Haywood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I can see the point in all wards having 3 Councillors and therefore the rural wards being made larger but think the idea of enlarging and thus reducing the number of wards in banbury itself is a big mistake. It is particularly regrettable that one of the oldest wards, representing a distinct geographical and historic area such as Neithrop will lose any separate identity. If it must be enlarged in order to fit your model why not Banbury Neithrop and Castle rather than Banbury Cross and Castle?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4613 04/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: Joan Himpson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I understand the new boundaries but as a resident of Caversfield am perturbed that the name does not reflect our separate entity as a village. Could the word 'Caversfield' not be included in the name? Joan Himpson

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4610 04/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: IVOR HOWSE

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: HOUSE HOLDER

Comment text:

there should be no more than two councillors in any boundary and they should be non political like parish councillors then you would get the best people for the job

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4415 13/01/2015 Ward, Lucy

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 12 February 2015 08:58 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Caversfield North Bicester Boundary Merger

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

Hi Lucy,

Please see submission for Cherwell.

Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: JUDITH KLEINMAN Sent: 11 February 2015 16:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Caversfield North Bicester Boundary Merger

Dear Sir/Madam,

In principle I am not against boundary changes HOWEVER I do think that Caversfield should be named as it is not part of Bicester and that should be made clear.

I think it should be called Caversfield and North Bicester Ward.

Thank you for your time. yours sincerely, judy kleinman

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

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: Daniel Messer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Feature Annotations

1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward?

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward?

Annotation 2: Large Rural Wards Issues.

Annotation 3: Large Rural Ward Issues

Annotation 4: Ward re-name suggestion

Annotation 5: Ward re-name suggestion

Annotation 6: Ward re-name Suggestion

Comment text:

Re: Draft recommendations on the new electoral (Ward) arrangements for Cherwell District Council I wish to offer some suggestions in relation to the above consultation. Number of Councillors: I see the proposal is to reduce the council to an authority with 48 councillors, based in arrangements of 16 x three member Wards. I presume the plan is to implement an arrangement of ‘election by thirds’ at the Local Elections each year. Given that there are some large wards now being proposed, perhaps consideration to having 24 x two councillor Wards would allow greater community association, with half the councillors standing for re- elected each year. I can appreciate this may not be supported by the political group in control of the council! Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: (see Annotation 1) I have an issue with the area in Banbury around Longelandes Way and smaller 1970s estate cul-de-sac roads such as Woodfield, Portway, Windrush that come off it. This area of town is proposed to be included within the new ‘Banbury Cross and Castle Ward’. I would suggest that this area would be more suited to be included within either the proposed ‘Banbury Hardwick’ or the proposed ‘Banbury Ruscote’ Wards. This is because the style of housing, use of facilities and general community association of the area match these areas of town more that they do with more central areas of Banbury that are included within the rest of the proposed ‘Banbury Cross and Castle’ Ward’.Large Rural Wards Issues. (see Annotations 2 and 3) I appreciate the difficulties in finding suitable electoral equality in terms of conformity of voting numbers per councillors, plus the aim of reducing the number of total councillors. I however have especially got concern over the arrangement proposed of the ‘Launton & Otmoor’ and ‘ Fringford & Heyfords’ proposed rural Wards. I would suggest that perhaps these are on the limits of what could be deemed as being ‘too large to be effective’? I would suggest that it would be difficult to facilitate community interests and identities across such large areas of the district. Also there could be issue over how councillors would be able to spread themselves effectively across the settlements in these Wards, especially if there were a mix of elected councillors from different political parties. Of the two Ward boundary proposals, the ‘Launton and Otmoor’ Ward would concern me most. Would the people of Launton, situated up to the east of Bicester, have the same interests, community association and issues as people in somewhere to the west of the proposed Ward boundary, like Shipton-on-Cherwell, which is just outside Kidlington in a central belt of the Cherwell district? In light of the above, although still large geographical coverages, I would like to suggest more appropriate arrangements of the areas would perhaps be: ‘Heyfords’ with ‘Otmoor’ and ‘Fringford’ with ‘Launton’ ?Pairing Heyfords and Otmoor* would have a central Oxfordshire feel, with the included area situated mainly to the west of M40 and also to the east of the A4260 (which is the main road North/South from Banbury to Oxford). The A34 also runs through this area with various junctions and access roads into surrounding parishes. I would suggest that geographic association of these areas have more in common especially the association with using facilities within Kidlington and Oxford. Pairing Fringford and Launton** to the North East and South East of Bicester, would create and arrangement to the East of M40 and be closely associated to Bicester facilities , plus have good interlinking local transport provided by the A4421 and A41. (*Suggested Parishes: Ardley, Bletchingdon, Charlton-on-Otmoor, Chesterton, Fencott and Murcott, Hampton Gay and Poyle, Horton-cum-Studley, Islip, Kirtlington, Lower Heyford, Merton, Middleton Stoney, Noke, Oddington, Shipton-on-Cherwell and Thrupp, Upper Heyford, Wendlebury, Weston on the Green.) (**Suggested Parishes: - Arncott, Blackthorn, Bucknell, Cottisford, Finmere, Fringford, Godington, Hardwick and Tusmore, Hethe, Launton, Mixbury, Newton Purcell and Shelswell, Piddlington, Stratton Audley, Stoke Lyne.) Names of Wards: (see Annotations 4, 5 and 6) I have the following comments on the names for some of the proposed

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4853 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

wards: Proposed Name: ‘Deddington’ – In light of other proposed Ward names (e.g. ‘Adderbury, Bloxham and Bodicote’ and ‘Cropredy, Sibfords and Wroxton’) perhaps the ‘Deddington’ Ward name should be re-named to become: ‘Deddington, Hook Norton and The Astons’ ?Proposed Name: ‘Bicester North’ – Would suggest that perhaps this should be called ‘Bicester North and Caversfield’ , to indicate that the parish/settlement of Caversfield is part of the Ward. Proposed Name: ‘Bicester South’ – Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester South and Ambrosden , again to indicate that the parish/settlement of Ambrosden is part of Ward.----I hope the above suggestions and comments are of use and will be taken into account when making future recommendations and the ultimate decisions. Regards Mr D T Messer Broughton Road Banbury

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4853 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Cherwell District

Personal Details:

Name: Daniel Messer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Feature Annotations

6: Ward re-name Suggestion

3: Large Rural Ward Issues

4: Ward re-name suggestion

5: Ward re-name suggestion

2: Large Rural Wards Issues.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward?

Annotation 2: Large Rural Wards Issues.

Annotation 3: Large Rural Ward Issues

Annotation 4: Ward re-name suggestion

Annotation 5: Ward re-name suggestion

Annotation 6: Ward re-name Suggestion

Comment text:

Re: Draft recommendations on the new electoral (Ward) arrangements for Cherwell District Council I wish to offer some suggestions in relation to the above consultation. Number of Councillors: I see the proposal is to reduce the council to an authority with 48 councillors, based in arrangements of 16 x three member Wards. I presume the plan is to implement an arrangement of ‘election by thirds’ at the Local Elections each year. Given that there are some large wards now being proposed, perhaps consideration to having 24 x two councillor Wards would allow greater community association, with half the councillors standing for re- elected each year. I can appreciate this may not be supported by the political group in control of the council! Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: (see Annotation 1) I have an issue with the area in Banbury around Longelandes Way and smaller 1970s estate cul-de-sac roads such as Woodfield, Portway, Windrush that come off it. This area of town is proposed to be included within the new ‘Banbury Cross and Castle Ward’. I would suggest that this area would be more suited to be included within either the proposed ‘Banbury Hardwick’ or the proposed ‘Banbury Ruscote’ Wards. This is because the style of housing, use of facilities and general community association of the area match these areas of town more that they do with more central areas of Banbury that are included within the rest of the proposed ‘Banbury Cross and Castle’ Ward’.Large Rural Wards Issues. (see Annotations 2 and 3) I appreciate the difficulties in finding suitable electoral equality in terms of conformity of voting numbers per councillors, plus the aim of reducing the number of total councillors. I however have especially got concern over the arrangement proposed of the ‘Launton & Otmoor’ and ‘ Fringford & Heyfords’ proposed rural Wards. I would suggest that perhaps these are on the limits of what could be deemed as being ‘too large to be effective’? I would suggest that it would be difficult to facilitate community interests and identities across such large areas of the district. Also there could be issue over how councillors would be able to spread themselves effectively across the settlements in these Wards, especially if there were a mix of elected councillors from different political parties. Of the two Ward boundary proposals, the ‘Launton and Otmoor’ Ward would concern me most. Would the people of Launton, situated up to the east of Bicester, have the same interests, community association and issues as people in somewhere to the west of the proposed Ward boundary, like Shipton-on-Cherwell, which is just outside Kidlington in a central belt of the Cherwell district? In light of the above, although still large geographical coverages, I would like to suggest more appropriate arrangements of the areas would perhaps be: ‘Heyfords’ with ‘Otmoor’ and ‘Fringford’ with ‘Launton’ ?Pairing Heyfords and Otmoor* would have a central Oxfordshire feel, with the included area situated mainly to the west of M40 and also to the east of the A4260 (which is the main road North/South from Banbury to Oxford). The A34 also runs through this area with various junctions and access roads into surrounding parishes. I would suggest that geographic association of these areas have more in common especially the association with using facilities within Kidlington and Oxford. Pairing Fringford and Launton** to the North East and South East of Bicester, would create and arrangement to the East of M40 and be closely associated to Bicester facilities , plus have good interlinking local transport provided by the A4421 and A41. (*Suggested Parishes: Ardley, Bletchingdon, Charlton-on-Otmoor, Chesterton, Fencott and Murcott, Hampton Gay and Poyle, Horton-cum-Studley, Islip, Kirtlington, Lower Heyford, Merton, Middleton Stoney, Noke, Oddington, Shipton-on-Cherwell and Thrupp, Upper Heyford, Wendlebury, Weston on the Green.) (**Suggested Parishes: - Arncott, Blackthorn, Bucknell, Cottisford, Finmere, Fringford, Godington, Hardwick and Tusmore, Hethe, Launton, Mixbury, Newton Purcell and Shelswell, Piddlington, Stratton Audley, Stoke Lyne.) Names of Wards: (see Annotations 4, 5 and 6) I have the following comments on the names for some of the proposed

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4853 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

wards: Proposed Name: ‘Deddington’ – In light of other proposed Ward names (e.g. ‘Adderbury, Bloxham and Bodicote’ and ‘Cropredy, Sibfords and Wroxton’) perhaps the ‘Deddington’ Ward name should be re-named to become: ‘Deddington, Hook Norton and The Astons’ ?Proposed Name: ‘Bicester North’ – Would suggest that perhaps this should be called ‘Bicester North and Caversfield’ , to indicate that the parish/settlement of Caversfield is part of the Ward. Proposed Name: ‘Bicester South’ – Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester South and Ambrosden , again to indicate that the parish/settlement of Ambrosden is part of Ward.----I hope the above suggestions and comments are of use and will be taken into account when making future recommendations and the ultimate decisions. Regards Mr D T Messer Broughton Road Banbury

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4853 16/02/2015 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 14:18 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: District Council Boundary Changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

From: JOHN NEVILL [mailto: Sent: 10 February 2015 13:15 To: Reviews@ Cc: c Subject: District Council Boundary Changes

I understand there is a proposal to merge Caversfield with North Bicester to create a new District Council Ward. Whilst I have no objection in principle, I strongly believe that Caversfield should not lose its identity within the title. My reason for this is that it was a close run thing at the South Lodge development appeal last year when the appellant's counsel made a strong, albeit unfounded, case that Caversfield was part of Bicester. We understand that the developer may well submit a revised development proposal and we should not give them any opportunity to make such a claim. Caversfield & N Bicester (or vice versa) would be fine.

Best Regards

John Nevill

1 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 10:02 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Merging of wards in Bicester

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

From: Sent: 10 February 2015 09:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Merging of wards in Bicester

Good morning

I understand that it is the intention of the LGBC to merge North Bicester ward with Caversfield. Whilst I have no objection to this, I would ask that the new ward be known as “Caversfield and North Bicester” thus retaining some form of separate identity for Caversfield.

As residents, we have fought to keep Caversfield a separate entity from Bicester for some time. It has its own character and rural feel and we object to it being swallowed up by the sprawling mass that is rapidly becoming Bicester New Town.

Gaynor Thorpe Caversfield Resident

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet. This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

www.avast.com

1