Local Resident Submissions to the Lincolnshire County Council Electoral Review

Local resident submissions to the Lincolnshire County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents

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

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Jeanette Amaral

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Hundleby, Spilsby, which currently sits on the edge of the Horncastle & Tetford ward. Our village is connected to and is an extenson of Spilsby, we use Spilsby doctors and services, shops, churches and other local services. We have little to do with Horncastle and Teford.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5236 15/05/2015 Porter, Johanna

From: Heidi Beech < > Sent: 21 May 2015 14:43 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lincolnshire

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Sirs

I am writing to you to give my opinion on the electoral review of Lincolnshire with respect to the reduction of County Councillors from 77 to 71.

While I appreciate that our County Councillors carry out an important job I think in this economic climate, that if by reducing the number of Councillors from 77 to 71 the Council can save around £100,000, the I would be in favour of this.

Kind regards

Heidi Wilson

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

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Bennett

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: The roads either side of Halmer Gate have houses of a similar character and should be in the same division. It would also be sensible to have St Mary and St Nicolas Parish Church and the nearby Parsonage in the same division.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: The roads either side of Halmer Gate have houses of a similar character and should be in the same division. It would also be sensible to have St Mary and St Nicolas Parish Church and the nearby Parsonage in the same division.

Comment text:

However Spalding is divided under the new arrangements I would like the comments above to be taken into consideration

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5680 16/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Charles

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As councillors keep awarding themselves above national inflation rates increases in allowances I thoroughly approve of a reduction in their numbers, especially at a time when local government services are being reduced.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5217 15/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Carleen dickinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think the Skegness South boundary should go down more into Croft area to pick up its fair share of residents within that district. The Wainfleet and Burgh boundary could go across into Spilsby District and match up to district council Friskney ward by taking on Midville, New Leake and Eastville and any additional to make up the fair share of responsibility for residents per district. I note one district has 11000 residents (Skellingthorpe) within its responsibility which in contrast to Skegness South is extremely unfair. I have worked out that with the reduction of councillors it means either an average 800 more residents per councillor however the boundaries are allocated but much fairer to give each councillor a fair division, where able, to ensure no councillor has twice the responsibility of any other.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5707 21/07/2015 Porter, Johanna

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 11 August 2015 08:47 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Well being of residents basic report

From: Sent: 10 August 2015 22:11 To: reviews Subject: RE: Well being of residents basic report

Part of the report is for the current electoral review of Lincolnshire the rest is for an over view of Lincolnshire and recent history and population trends that will affect the wards. The report is for all MPs and government departments. 65% of Sleaford is over 65 years old, average age of death Public health report by Lincolnshire County Council 2013 http://www.research-lincs.org.uk/UI/Documents/public-health-annual-report-2013.pdf

Life expectancy in Lincolnshire for the period 2006-2008:

. Male life expectancy had increased to 78.0 years (above the national average of 77.9 years)

. Female life expectancy had increased to 81.7 years (below the national average of 82.0 years)

Therefore these houses would become available.

As 65% of Sleaford is over the age of 65, how many houses would become available and when? 82 – 65 = 17 years. 78 – 65 = 13 years. What will happen to the surplice if there is no jobs or public transport in/to Sleaford.

The decision is yours. Thanks Ken Fernandes

From: Mayers, Mishka [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of reviews Sent: 10 August 2015 11:14 To: 'Admin5' Subject: RE: Well being of residents basic report

Dear Ken,

Thank you for your email,

Has this been sent to us with regards to the current electoral review of Lincolnshire?

Kind regards,

1 Mishka Mayers Review Assistant Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

Tel: 0330 500 1251 Email: [email protected]

It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you. How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views

From: Admin5 Sent: 09 August 2015 15:21 To:

Subject: Well being of residents basic report

Please read the wellbeing of residents basic report – version 9.pdf

If possible please distribute this e-mail. I have sent the PDF to all North Kesteven District Councillors and Sleaford Town Council councillors/ police, navigation, heritage, water directors so far.

LCC & MP will also be sent a copy. Hopefully I will get feed back and new subject to include.

My Introduction

Determining the wellbeing in a community is fundamental to assess how well that community is prospering.

I was motivated to investigate into this topic as I realised the potentials of Sleaford. “Community wellbeing arises from a wide variety of factors. By the amalgamation of social, economic, environmental, cultural, and political conditions acknowledged by individuals and their communities as essential for them to flourish and fulfil their potential”. -Public health researchers Wiseman and Brasher.

We are fortunate to have numerous heritage assets such as the River Slea which is 18 miles long and a tributary of the River Witham. Upgrading of its water ways for leisure, tourism, goods transport and housing will help to generate a wealth of tourism and rise in economic growth.

Road infrastructure to increase travel efficiency, therefore enhancing the viability of listed building in the area. With the added effect of cutting pollution and CO2 emissions.

Using modern technology to build efficient houses, to cater for all residents and family unit needs is the way forward.

Installing renewable technology to generate our own energy, using natural resources, such as free heat from the sun for all heating requirements of the buildings, and free light to generate electricity, and the use of bio-digesters to recycle waste and turn it into usable products will help to save pounds and create a cleaner environment to live in.

Sleaford has many rare and ancient trees which provide a wealth of benefit to our ecosystem and with no price tag. Some of these trees date back to the 1883 and beyond.

Fostering community well-being involves a community driven process, whereby local stakeholders play a pivotal role in decision making processes. When properly managed, project spending and employment can yield positive outcomes for community well-being.

This report explains with illustrations how to attain a flourishing society to live in which is beneficial to people of all ages.

Page INDEX of attached PDF

4 The reason I started this project

Council Tax Default – You should know this

Wellbeing of residents Customer demography

10 Housing Types (which could be used)

11 Flood map of Sleaford Lincolnshire

Flood map of Sleaford and Sea level rises

Geology of Sleaford area

Maps on the web from the year 1888

16 Why Trees

21 SuDS Geo-Tech materials and uses

Re-enforces Turf cheaper inter-town/village path

Waste management recycling

Bio-gas, Helical Scoop wind generators

29 Building Energy Cost Savings

Types of Solar heat panels

Solar heat vacuum tubes with heat pipes

Waste Management Single-Streaming Recycling

Light/Sun tubes; Sun tunnels, Glass

37 Basic Community creating tool

Outdoor Exercise Machines

Considering every ward as a village Green space separation.

41 Traffic Calming Measures - Speed Table

48 River Slea, canal

Gabions blocks, Concrete blanket Gabion plants

River management, pollution control

55 SLEAFORD alternative upgrade with plans.

Rest of report is in PDF

Ken

Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet. Avast logo This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.

www.avast.com

Right-click here to download pictures. To This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the

In ternet. Avast logo www.avast.com

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

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Phil and Judi Gaskell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are happy with the County Council boundaries as they are. We know that this is not within the scope of this review but we would like to call for the County Council to be the single unitary authority and the scrapping of the ELDC, saving an estimated £30 million plus per annum.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5224 15/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Phil and Judi Gaskell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

is there any way that ELDC could be removed altogether and more power given to Town/Parish Councils, as there was before 1974. ELDC are not helpful as a layer of so called local democracy and have scant regard for the seaside towns treating Skegness especially, as a cash cow to bolster ELDC's accounts.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5681 21/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Joanne Green

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I urge you to suspend this review pending the outcome of Lincolnshire county council's forthcoming discussions on the future of LCC as a two tier authority. As a resident in South Kesteven I have grave concerns about LCC becoming a unitary authority. If the two tier structure remains in place then 71 councillors may be a sensible option but what is the point of going through this consultation process now when LCC is beginning the debate on massive restructuring for the whole of Lincolnshire at full council on Friday 15th May?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5235 15/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: James Hardaker

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Extension of Skegness South

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Extension of Skegness South

Comment text:

Skegness South Division does not currently encompass Gibraltar Point Nature Reserve. Gibraltar Point is commonly known as a Skegness amenity and attraction, and as such it would make sense for the Member for Skegness South to have responsibility for the area in which it sits. In particular, this would ensure continuity as far as Gibraltar Road is concerned - the throroughfare between the town and the nature reserve - which presently crosses the boundary and therefore is the responsibility of two separate councillors. Gibraltar Road is not densely populated and so extending Skegness South need not detrimentally affect the number of residents represented. It could also if necessary be counterbalanced by slightly redefining the boundary between Skegness South and Skegness North.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5229 15/05/2015 Porter, Johanna

From: reviews Sent: 15 May 2015 08:48 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Boundary Review – Lincolnshire County Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Myles Larrington Sent: 14 May 2015 14:47 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Review – Lincolnshire County Council

Dear Sirs

I agree that the overall number of councillors on Lincolnshire County Council should be reduced with the aim of maximising electoral equality. I th ink that the 71 figure shoul d be an aspiration rath er than ballpark, if a lower number would achieve greater parity between the Electoral Divisions.

Ideally, I would prefer a more significant reduction to say, 60 councillors across the entire county.

I would like to see the Boston Elec toral Divisions reduced to a t least 5 from 7. At the m oment, there is significant electoral inequality between the divisions. For example, Boston North West Division (also known as Fenside) was estimated at being -24 in variance from the average in your last report (2003). I assume the variance has likely increased. By comparison, the Coastal Division was estimated to be at only -6 variance.

For this rev iew, I think it would be bette r if electoral equality was prioritis ed instead of merely forming divisions by putting together wards that have traditionally co-existed.

Yours sincerely

Myles Larrington

1 Porter, Johanna

From: reviews Sent: 18 May 2015 15:52 To: Bowden, Tim; Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Waste of Public funds

From: Malcolm McBeath [ ] Sent: 18 May 2015 15:38 To: reviews Cc: Mike Wylie Subject: Waste of Public funds

For Jolyon Jackson

Dear Mr Jackson,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LINCOLNSHIRE - INEFFICIENCY

I have today, 18th May, received a copy of the letters announcing your Electoral Review of Lincolnshire and am writing to record what a singularly bad impression they have created.

You start the consultation by announcing you have decided what the answer is and are looking for evidence to support your conclusion or very good reasons why you should change your mind. This will not do! A competent authority would seek the evidence first then draw conclusions. Is this then only an exercise in PR? The true purpose of consulting is to determine the facts from those at the coal face who actually know how it all works. London is not the coal face although there is every indication that it thinks it is. (BUT, on the other hand, the hewers of coal tend not to be able to see the bigger picture so oversight and guidance are necessary. You can't win, it seems.)

Perhaps you do not say why you have chosen the number of councilors it is thought appropriate to have lest your reasons get refuted. Better to let us expend our energies on our own prophylactic ( and thus disposable) arguments than risk us focussing on and demolishing yours(?)

Moreover, the letters have been posted and not emailed (in 2015 by an organ of a government deeply committed to the digital age!) - this failure to exploit the technology available is grossly wasteful and inefficient - the more so since your letter is dated 12 May and states that the consultation "starts today". This crude clumsiness hardly inspires confidence in your ability to communicate does it. (I have requested an email of the appropriate letter.)

Furthermore, both letters carry a standard footer highlighting your new address although, in fact, each letter already contains the new address!

As I say, hardly an impressive start! Let's hope it gets better.

Yours sincerely,

Lincolnshire

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

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ian Round

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Feature Annotations

4: 'Isolation Strip' of Stainton-le-vale Parish 5: Approximate 'Hinterland' of Binbrook & surrounding Area, in my opinion.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 4: 'Isolation Strip' of Stainton-le-vale Parish

Annotation 5: Approximate 'Hinterland' of Binbrook & surrounding Area, in my opinion.

Comment text:

Residents of Brookenby Parish, those of Kingsmead Park (Swinhope Parish) and Thorganby regularly access services & facillities provided in the Village of Binbrook. Therefore I feel very strongly that Binbrook Parish should be designated within the Market Rasen Wolds area (or it's replacement) to reflect this. Alternatively, Brookenby, Swinhope & Thorganby could be put within Louth Wolds Division (or it's replacement), thereby acknowledging it's symbiosis with Binbrook. There is currently an anomoly regarding Parish boundaries in this area, in that there is a small strip of land (see map above) that is Stainton-le-vale Parish, that acts as a 'moat' to the neighbouring parishes of Binbrook & Brookenby. This needs to be addressed at some point, but I suspect this is not the boundary review for that particular issue?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5317 02/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ian Round

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Feature Annotations

4: 'Isolation Strip' of Stainton-le-vale Parish

5: Approximate 'Hinterland' of Binbrook & surrounding Area, in my opinion.

Map Features:

Annotation 4: 'Isolation Strip' of Stainton-le-vale Parish

Annotation 5: Approximate 'Hinterland' of Binbrook & surrounding Area, in my opinion.

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5317 02/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: E. Thurgood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I see no reason for the County Council to continue to exist as a second tier authority. It has minimal relevance to most of the areas it purports to serve and economically and commercially residents interests would be far better served by making the area councils unitary authorities. Previous reviews in other counties have successfully disposed of this wasteful and distant duplication of services and costs implicit in maintaining a 2 tier system and it is time that a self -perpetuating oligarchy of this kind was consigned to oblivion and replaced by an electoral system rooted far more closely to localities and local interests. The Lincoln,particularly, has developed greatly over the last few years -now with 2 universities its demographic must have changed considerably. It's interests cannot possibly be adequately represented within the context of a sprawling predominantly rural county. The system does not need tinkering with but radically changing. 77 or even 71 Councillors will remain virtually detached from the electorate ,further perpetuating the public's disenchantment with the electoral system.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5335 08/06/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Daniel Turner

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Louth Town Council

Feature Annotations

1: LOUTH NORTH WOLDS AND MARSH

2: LOUTH SOUTH WOLDS AND MARSH

3: ALFORD AND MABLETHORPE

Map Features:

Annotation 1: LOUTH NORTH WOLDS AND MARSH

Annotation 2: LOUTH SOUTH WOLDS AND MARSH

Annotation 3: ALFORD AND MABLETHORPE

Comment text:

Reducing County Councillors could be made easier by expanding their area's. The areas I have covered might be vast geographically in this instance but the population could be evened out if the same idea was applied across the county. I think in this instance Louth and the Louth area is much the same whether you live in the town or in the rural area. Louth is still the town you commute to for shopping work or leisure across the area I have identified. To have one councillor in each of these areas would be good as it would give the councillor a sound understanding of both urban, coastal and rural issues. As for no 3: ALFORD AND SUTTON - Again its appears to work closely together and is similar in that Alford commutes to the coast at Mablethorpe and Sutton and visa versa. Both for leisure and work. The 1 councillor selected for this potential ward again would have a understand of urban, coastal and partly rural life as this ward as a whole, like the Louth Wards encompass all this. You could perhaps look at a similar idea with the Boston area. Like Louth and the coast, I reduced the current 6 wards down to 3. It appears that Boston has 7 wards. I am sure this could be reduced in the same way but it must include a urban and rural element at least. If it can get coastal elements that would be a great success too but I understand that is not always possible.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5477 01/07/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: James von der Voelsungen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think Folkingham Rural is not a representative name for the ward in its present boundaries - what about "Upper Glens"?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5239 15/05/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Anne Walsh

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

2: Add Potterhanworth and Nocton to Metheringham ward (reduced slightly as below)

1: Add Navenby to Bassingham ward and Branston to Waddington ward

3: Add Billinghay to Sleaford Rural

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Add Navenby to Bassingham ward and Branston to Waddington ward

Annotation 2: Add Potterhanworth and Nocton to Metheringham ward (reduced slightly as below)

Annotation 3: Add Billinghay to Sleaford Rural

Comment text:

Suggestion is to eliminate the Branston and Navenby ward based on the commuter villages spreading from Potterhanworth to Metheringham being placed together. Billinghay more as a rural Sleaford village and Navenby being a similar village with similar needs with Leadenham and Bassingham.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5397 18/06/2015 Porter, Johanna

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 July 2015 08:53 To: Porter, Johanna Subject: FW: Boundry Commission review 2015, LINCOLNSHIRE, South Holland District Deeping St Nicholas Parish, Spalding Elloe.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Stephen Williams [ ] Sent: 06 July 2015 18:50 To: reviews Cc: n Subject: Boundry Commission review 2015, LINCOLNSHIRE, South Holland District Deeping St Nicholas Parish, Spalding Elloe.

Dear Sirs, In 2006 The Boundry Commission integrated the Parish of Deeping St Nicholas with Crowland & Whaplode making it a three member seat. Since this date the Population of Deeping St Nicholas have been unable to have an elected representative, being outnumbered by the residents of Crowland. The residents of Deeping St Nicholas are thereby marginalised and I request that the decision should be reviewed and Deeping St Nicholas should be a single member Ward.

With regard to County Council Boundries, If it is your intention to change Spalding Elloe Boundries then there should be a County representative for Deeping St Nicholas that has some commonality with the District boundries.

FYG: The only contact between Deeping St Nicholas and Crowland is a single bridge over the river Welland. S.F. Williams

Right-click here to download pictures. To This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automatic download of this picture from the

In ternet. Avast logo www.avast.com