Local resident submissions to the Borough of electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from residents in Croydon.

The submissions from have been collated into one document. They have been sorted alphabetically, by surname. (T-Z)

Starkie, Emily

From: Sent: 25 April 2017 17:03 To: reviews Subject: Boundary change consultation in Croydon

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs,

I wish to respond to the consultation regarding the proposed boundary changes in Croydon. I am a long‐standing resident, having lived in Park Hill for many years, and am a member of a number of local organisations.

I am very concerned that it is proposed to amalgamate Park Hill with an area very different in character and needs, namely the estates on the north side of Road. Park Hill has little in common with the parts of Croydon to its north. I and my family seldom have need to use the shopping facilities on Lower Addiscombe Road, findings that our needs are met well enough closer at hand and in the town centre. Nor are we drawn in that direction in terms of cultural or entertainment pursuits. And we in Park Hill have our own church and schools. As a consequence the identities of the two areas are really quite distinct.

I believe a better alternative would be to keep Addiscombe Road as the northern boundary and to enlarge the Park Hill ward in an easterly direction, taking in the Whitgift Estate and Upper Shirley Road and Shirley Avenue. A similar amalgamation of the two areas just north of Addiscombe Road would clearly make much more sense.

Many thanks,

Romney Tansley

Sent from my Nexus 9

1 Starkie, Emily

From: Alexis Taylor Sent: 03 May 2017 11:20 To: reviews Subject: Proposed boundary changes to Addiscombe, Croydon.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sirs

Re: Proposed boundary changes to Addiscombe, Croydon.

I wish to object to the Commission’s draft recommendations for my area, as the boundaries proposed fail to reflect the local interests and identities of Addiscombe. I believe a better alternative exists, which more closely reflects local identities while meeting the Commission’s requirements for electoral equality, and effective and convenient local government.

The boundaries proposed for the two Addiscombe wards extend well beyond the Addiscombe neighbourhood. Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate aren’t in Addiscombe and never have been, they do not identify with our area and properties sold in those areas aren’t advertised as being part of Addiscombe. The community boundary, as with the electoral boundary, has always ended at Addiscombe Road.

We have entirely independent facilities for shopping, educating children and practicing religions, consequently the interests and identities of our two separate areas do not overlap. Bundling the two areas together ignores their very different housing types and consequently the differing needs we have for representation on the council. The voice on the council of both areas will be diminished by the draft proposals.

I believe our community would be better represented by having the electoral boundaries overlap with community boundaries. This could be accommodated through one two‐member ward and one three‐member ward, with the southern boundary remaining at its historic location of Addiscombe Road and taking in the Tollgate Estate to the north, the entrance to which is located on the Addiscombe‐side of the signs advertising that drivers are entering Addiscombe.

This would recognise that all the major road, tram and bus routes run through the area, preserve Park as a historic part of the community and avoid splitting up the ASPRA residents’ association.

A new two‐member ward could then be formed of Park Hill, the Whitgift Estate and the other low density housing around the parks, ensuring the common interests of that community are represented on the council.

I would appreciate my objections being considered during the process of reviewing the boundaries and I would appreciate being further consulted if any other proposals are made.

Yours faithfully

Alexis Taylor

1

Starkie, Emily

From: J Thomas Sent: 15 April 2017 10:44 To: reviews Subject: bc

“I have lived in Vale for 27 years and I believe the split that has been proposed by the Boundary commission for the Selsdon Area is the right one. The main reasons I agree with the suggested split for Selsdon Vale and Forestdale is that the two areas share the same bus route, the 433, and community centre – the Forestdale Forum. The two areas were built within the same period and there is no specific dividing line apart from a rumble strip of bricks on the roads that joins the two estates. Most people have no idea why this strip of bricks is even there. The guide hut that girls from both Forestdale and Selsdon Vale use is also on the joint border right where the rumble strip is situated. For residents of Selsdon Vale, the roads off Old Farleigh Road and on Forestdale their natural district centre is Selsdon. There are a few shops on the edge of Forestdale and whilst well used they are not sufficient to be the main shopping area for these places and are an addition rather than a replacement. I would also comment that Monks Hill, which has a postcode (CR2 8QU) the same as Selsdon, has always been viewed as part of Selsdon so including that in the Selsdon and Addington Village ward is very sensible as the residents there recognise Selsdon as their district centre. The age of the buildings is also similar to those of the northern side of Selsdon eg, Foxearth Road etc. I hope the proposed boundaries remain as the LGBCE has suggested. “

Jill Thomas

1 Starkie, Emily

From: Sally Thorpe Sent: 08 May 2017 23:10 To: reviews Subject: Objection to proposed Croydon's boundary changes

Dear Sir/Madam

I wish to object to several proposed boundaries within the Commission’s draft recommendations for Croydon and to suggest improvements. These would meet the aims of electoral equality, reflect the identities and interests of local communities, and help provide effective and convenient local government.

I have lived in Croydon for over 26 years, now in Addiscombe and previously Shirley and am a trustee for a local community and youth centre.

Addiscombe/ Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate The boundaries proposed for the Addiscombe seats do not take into account the different needs and characteristics of these areas, between the lower density housing surrounding the parks and higher density housing in Addiscombe and Shirley. Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate are not located within Addiscombe and every past review has recognised Addiscombe Road Addiscombe’s definitive southern boundary since at least 1922.

Addiscombe would be better represented by recognising Addiscombe Road as the community’s southern limit and reincorporating the Tollgate Estate to create one two-member ward and one three-member ward. Then a new ward could be formed to the south of similar housing types around the parks. this new ward could take in Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate, which identify strongly with one another, and the isolated, lower density housing around Shirley Avenue. To make up numbers the area could then include similarly low density properties along Upper Shirley Road, the South Park Hill area delineated by the main railway line and the old Selsdon railway line, or the area west of there to Conduit Lane between Coombe Road and Croham Road, which was incorporated in the past.

These proposals would enable the Commission’s argument around ‘Places’ and Croydon’s clear natural boundaries to be applied consistently across the borough and meet the Commission’s three goals.

Yours faithfully

Sally Thorpe

1

Dear Sirs

I wish to object to the Commission’s draft recommendations for my area, as the boundaries proposed fail to reflect the local interests and identities of Addiscombe. I believe a better alternative exists, which more closely reflects local identities while meeting the Commission’s requirements for electoral equality, and effective and convenient local government.

The boundaries proposed for the two Addiscombe wards extend well beyond the Addiscombe neighbourhood. Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate aren’t in Addiscombe and never have been, they do not identify with our area and properties sold in those areas aren’t advertised as being part of Addiscombe. The community boundary, as with the electoral boundary, has always ended at Addiscombe Road.

We have entirely independent facilities for shopping, educating children and practicing religions, consequently the interests and identities of our two separate areas do not overlap. Bundling the two areas together ignores their very different housing types and consequently the differing needs we have for representation on the council. The voice on the council of both areas will be diminished by the draft proposals.

I believe our community would be better represented by having the electoral boundaries overlap with community boundaries. This could be accommodated through one two-member ward and one three-member ward, with the southern boundary remaining at its historic location of Addiscombe Road and taking in the Tollgate Estate to the north, the entrance to which is located on the Addiscombe-side of the signs advertising that drivers are entering Addiscombe.

This would recognise that all the major road, tram and bus routes run through the area, preserve as a historic part of the community and avoid splitting up the ASPRA residents’ association.

A new two-member ward could then be formed of Park Hill, the Whitgift Estate and the other low density housing around the parks, ensuring the common interests of that community are represented on the council.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Tighe

Starkie, Emily

From: David Turton Sent: 16 April 2017 20:57 To: reviews Subject: Consultation

For the consultation on the new ward boundary, south croydon or , we would prefer Oakfield Court to be in South Croydon.

D Turton

David Turton

1

Starkie, Emily

From: Angela vanegas Sent: 08 May 2017 15:47 To: reviews Subject: Croydon Ward Boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Review Officer

I live in the area that would be designated West Addiscombe under the current proposals and object to this on the following grounds ‐ the area north of Addiscombe Road and west of Canning Road has little in common with the area immediately to the south. In short, they are much richer and more suburban than us. I doubt whether they suffer from our problems, including a very transitional population (due to the large number of rented properties), massive redevelopment on our eastern boundary by a developer that makes hollow promises to do things for the community, terrible traffic issues and an almost complete lack of public open space (except for a small triangle of land with some mature plane trees that the aforesaid developer plans to do away with). ‐ we have much more in common with our neighbours immediately to the north of Lower Addiscombe Road. A secondary school is shortly to be built here that will educate many of our young people ‐ our area should not be called West Addiscombe. Addiscombe is much further to the east of our area, centred round a shopping area stretching from Bingham Road to Black Horse Road. ‐ our area should be called East Croydon, after the major railway station that lies within it.

Best wishes Elizabeth A Vanegas

Sent from my iPhone

1

Starkie, Emily

From: valerie wilshaw Sent: 23 April 2017 14:08 To: reviews

Boundary Consultation

I am in favour of a new South Croydon Ward. I have lived in for 55 years and the area has improved tremendously with its new shops, restaurants, landscaping, pavements and trees etc is now well known and attracts many more people.

Val Wilshaw (Mrs)

1 Boundary Review in Croydon

Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown Ward

Although the new ward looks odd on a map, it makes very good sense on the ground. Where I live in Mount Park Avenue at the western end of the ward, I can see a building of Riddlesdown Collegiate School, which has now been included, at the eastern end of the ward. The new ward takes in the valley of the Brighton Road and then goes up the hill to Riddlesdown.

It is appropriate to include Broomhall Road and Glossop Road off Road as there are no other properties until you get to Sussex Road because of the allotments and the business centre. The portion of Downs Court Road which goes onto Riddlesdown is now included because otherwise it is an isolated part of Purley Ward.

It is not easy to draw a boundary between Purley and Purley Oaks & Riddlesdown Wards but the proposal seems to provide the best course as it is imperative to have Purley town centre in one Ward.

There are two railway stations and two churches in the new ward but few shops. The residents will use either Purley or Croydon for their shopping. Most of the properties are either detached or semi detached properties built between 1920 and 1940.

There is no correlation between Purley Oaks and Riddlesdown. They are two separate communities with a very active residents association in Riddlesdown.

I support these proposals which are a sensible solution to the new wards in Greater Purley.

Starkie, Emily

From: David Wood Sent: 07 May 2017 23:12 To: reviews Subject: Local Government Review - London Borough of Croydon

The Review Officer (Croydon) Local Government Boundary Commission for 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you as a resident of, and local councillor for, ward in Croydon. To this end, I am hugely concerned that your proposals to amend existing ward boundaries in Croydon will not meet the Commission's stated goals of reflecting the identities and interests of local communities, nor to promote more effective and convenient local government.

Selhurst I am a resident of Selhurst. I commute frequently from Selhurst train station. My family and I attend Selhurst Evangelical Church regularly and my son supports Crystal Palace football club, based at . I have often attended public meetings and events in Selhurst Railway Club in Dagnall Park. Under your proposals, all of these locally ‐ and in some cases nationally ‐ recognised venues which feature Selhurst prominently in their names, will be placed in , as will the well‐known Selhurst Train Care Depot. This is clearly not logical, and does not reflect the perceptions of much of the immediate Selhurst community, which does not consider itself to be a part of an already‐sprawling South Norwood.

It is important that the Commission should be aware that having a Selhurst ward that does not include these important local institutions will run the very great risk of serving to increase residents disconnection from the place they live, and I cannot believe that this is the Commission's intention. Leaving the boundaries as they currently are, with a strong recognisable boundary of Park Road/Tennison Road would deal with this particular issue and better reflect residents' sense of place.

Historically, Selhurst Ward ‐ and its predecessor Whitehorse Manor ‐ have always incorporated those Northern parts of the ward which are currently being earmarked for placement in South Norwood. This has made logistical sense in that there are no major physical barriers ‐ major roads, railway lines etc ‐ that naturally divide communities in Selhurst. The railway is serviced by bridges and underpasses that enable easy egress for all parts of the community at all points ‐ so residents of Charnwood Road or Newhaven Road, for example, simply pass under the railway to access the specialist local shops on Whitehorse Road easily, and residents of Dagnall Park ‐ a road which will be split between two wards under your proposals, which again would not be logical ‐ have unfettered access to the local Selhurst Children's Centre or Crescent Primary School by simply walking under the bridge. To therefore suggest that the railway bridge is a natural boundary does not bear close scrutiny and should be re‐considered to better reflect the reality of residents' lives, which these proposals do not at present.

In respect of providing more effective local government, the Commission should be aware that these proposals threaten to have the opposite effect in Selhurst. Selhurst is a ward with high levels of social deprivation, and is one of the most deprived in London. There is a large degree of social housing, unemployment and households reliant on benefits. As is not uncommon, many households in these extremely challenging situations are housed on estates. In Selhurst these are particularly in the Whitehorse estates towards the southern end of the ward, around Strathmore, Cromwell, Johnson, Devonshire, Berney Roads, and also the Windmill Grove area. 1

Under the proposals, these areas will remain in Selhurst. The high levels of deprivation invariably mean that there is a large amount of casework generated by the complex nature of many of the issues residents have. Therefore, reducing the number of councillors would inevitably increase the burden on the two elected councillors, and this can only be to the detriment of Selhurst residents. This is a further argument for the retention of existing boundaries, under a three‐councillor structure, which enable all residents to be more effectively represented and would ensure a strong social mix across the whole ward.

Addiscombe West and Park Hill

I first moved to Croydon in 1985, when I moved to Stanhope Road in the Park Hill area, and it is an area I know well. Therefore, I was astounded to hear of your proposals to create a new ward of and Park Hill, two areas that have virtually no connection to each other. Certainly when I lived there, which I did for 17 years, I never had reason to travel to Addiscombe as a matter of course, which is an area which similarly has its own distinct identity. Indeed, to do so would have meant crossing several very busy roads from where I lived ‐ indeed, that remains the case to this day. To proceed on this basis would suggest an inconsistency of approach by the Commission which has emphasised connectivity between areas as a basis for proposals. Addiscombe, to my mind, has far more of a connection with the areas north and east of and proposals for its boundaries would be well served to reflect this.

Park Hill has a very strong identity, reflected in local institutions such as Park Hill Park, St Matthew's Church, the Park Hill Residents Association, Archbishop Tenison's School, Park Hill Primary School, the Whitgift Estate and to a certain degree, There is a logic to looking at the representation areas for Park Hill/Whitgift Estate, which are a more natural fit. Residents send their children to these or other nearby schools, do their shopping in the Town Centre and commute to work via East Croydon, mostly using the Fairfield Path or local buses, which do not pass through Addiscombe. So on what basis the Commission has brought these two distinct areas together is not clear and will certainly not be easily explainable to residents, I suspect.

Thank you for your attention to these matters, I will look forward to hearing of your final proposals.

Yours faithfully

David Wood

2

Addiscombe Ward Boundaries: Local Government Boundary Commission for England submission

I understand the areas concerned as I have lived in Addiscombe since 2000 and , next to East Croydon Station from 1993 to 2000. We have 2 young children who both attend

I feel strongly that the current proposals do not represent the local neighbourhoods in several places and that the Commission’s goals can be better met, in keeping with the arguments they have already set out with regard to communities and natural boundaries, through various changes.

Addiscombe Road needs to be seen as the defining boundary for the community and the different types of housing to the North and South entail different issues and merit different representation. Waddon is oversized and parts of the ward identified as being in the ‘Place’ of South Croydon should be moved into South Croydon. Retaining two three-member wards in West Thornton and Bensham Manor will benefit residents through amounting to the most minimal change to their existing arrangements.

In addition:-

• the main transport routes through Addiscombe (i.e. buses, trams, road links) run across the area north of Addiscombe Road and not North-to-South into Park Hill and the Whitgift Estate • the Tollgate Estate and Stroud Green have closer ties to Addiscombe than Shirley and would be better served by remaining part of an Addiscombe ward • Upper Shirley Road and Shirley Avenue’s isolation mean these areas don’t form a clear part of Shirley. • Addiscombe residents use different facilities to those to the South • the draft proposal removes Ashburton Park entirely from Addiscombe and splits the area covered by ASPRA • green low density areas around the parks face common issues and consequently are better represented by having their own voice on the council • properties South of Addiscombe Road are never advertised as Addiscombe

Arif Zaman and Alison Whyman,

01 May 2017