Reigate and Banstead District

Home , Meadvale, Merstham, Reigate, Sidlow, Tattenham Corner, Woodmansterne

7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree that Tattenham Way should be in the Nork area. The name of the road suggests in itself that it should be part of Tattenhams. The shops at Tattenham Corner are the most convenient for the residents of Tattenham Way. If we move into the Nork area, hopefully our postcode will change too, to bring us in line with the surrounding roads.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13444 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: resident of subrosa drive

Comment text:

I would like Subrosa Drive to be part of Merstham as this, along with my neighbours, is where I consider myself to be and local concerns are connected with Merstham and not Redhill.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13470 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The new proposal does not reflect community interests and identities such as village events and groups. It doesn’t include areas where local people go for shops and leisure facilities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13473 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Please save Woodmansterne. Woodmansterne is a lovely little village & it needs to be left that way. It is a lovely little community, with the school, church, pub & village shops. Stop meddling & leave things be. The council need to act on proper issues

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13475 1/1

7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13479 2/2 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I disagree with the proposal to split the Woodmansterne ward resulting in the removal of the Woodmansterne Village name from the electoral wards. Woodmansterne is a very old village, mentioned in the Doomsday Book and has its own sports teams and village traditions (e.g. cricket, football, lacrosse & hockey teams and The Village May Queen celebrations). It will be wrong and unfair to erase Woodmansterne from the electoral system and there does not appear to be any clear advantage in doing so.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13481 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Woodmansterne village for 8 years, . I moved here as it was a community that cared. we attend St. Peter’s church, the divide in the middle of Chipstead Way would mean we are not part of the St. Peter’s church area or the school. We attend the schools summer fetes and village may queen that we are so proud of. This would be taken away from my end of Chipstead way and the community feeling would be lost. Chipstead way is the backbone of Woodmansterne and dividing the road would create a split community. If a boundary is to be in place I think the end of Chipstead way and rectory lane is more appropriate and would not leave a community without an identity.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13490 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As part of the local group, building a community in Meadvale, the new boundaries cut off the the west end of Meadvale from the centre of Meadvale (Old oak pub and swing common), Suggest that the western end is extended further towards Reigate School and include Arbutus Road, Arbutus Close and Willow Road as a minimum. Also the boundary appears to go straight down Arbutus Road dividing one side from the other side whilst in other places it uses backgardens to divide wards which is more sensible.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13492 1/1

7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Woodmansterne for about 40 years, . The village has always been very close to my heart and I am proud of the roots that I have grown up in. I find this proposal to eradicate our village name ludicrous and think this is bureaucracy god mad. The boundaries have been in place for 1000 of years and I fail to see why the need to even up the amount of voters is more important than us losing our identity. As voters do we not have the right to choose were we live and we all chose to live in Woodmansterne. To find communities such as ours are rare these days, we pride ourselves on being a village, we all look out for each other and help each other when needed. To lose our identity just so some politician can have a few more votes does seem the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13493 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Comment text:

I am writing this e-mail to say I think it is despicable to change the Boundary regarding Woodmansterne village. I have lived in Woodmansterne for 35years plus and do not understand why they want to change the bounderies. Please could they explain the reason behind these changes, are they residents of Woodmansterne?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13497 1/1 Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I don't agree with the boundary changes and have no wish to lose the village identity of Meadvale. We have a strong community here, with our community events, scout and guide groups, and successful nurseries, and I think that identity should be promoted not removed. I would prefer to see a sign showing the village name when people enter so everyone knows they are in Meadvale. Cutting the village of Meadvale in half is unhelpful and unnecessary, particularly when the divide runs down the middle of a road (east/west Arbutus Road). If the boundaries must change then the village should be encompassed whole, and either grouped with Woodhatch & South Park, which in my view makes more sense since the majority of secondary school children in Meadvale will attend Reigate School (and Meadvale is closer to Reigate town centre than Redhill in any case), or with Earlswood Common - but in either case, the village name and identity of Meadvale should be preserved. I also don't believe that cutting Reigate itself in half is helpful either, and calling one proposed ward St Mary's and Redhill common when it doesn't even cover St Mary's Church seem bizarre.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have sent an email already which focused on the stupidity of the suggested boundary but I now wish to add a bit more. The boundary has for some reason cut houses from Meadvale in Redhill Surrey, not the whole road, not a side, not the end but just 6 houses. These houses from Meadvale in Redhill surrey are to for some reason to be joined up with a neighbouring village in a neighbouring town (Woodhatch in Reigate) Am I to understand that if I have a problem that effects me in my village (and town) that I should expect a councillor for a neighbouring town that has no other interest in my village to deal with my concerns. One politician deals with 99.9% of our village needs and another politician deals with the 0.01 %, does this make sense to you (Or anyone else) Am I still able to vote on things related to my village / town or am I only allowed to vote on a village / town I don't live or have an interest in?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Sorry if this question seems ridiculous but it looks as if the Meadvale boundary of Copse road RH1 6NW excludes 6 of the houses within that road the boundary doesn't cut the road off half way or more intelligently at the end of the road, it cuts out a chunk so all the houses on one side of the road are in Meadvale and the other is too bar these 6 houses. Are we to get a new postcode to put us in the Reigate area or are we going to keep our Redhill postcode but be in a different ward to our neighbours. I'm sure that this is just a case of someone not thinking or doing their job properly but it's frustrating to see that the people in charge of a simple job can't get it right

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I vote to remain the same and keep the original boundary

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Small concern, I live in Reigate in Reigate Central Ward but my new ward is St Marys and Redhill Common. I would want the Ward name to reflect the town I live in not the town next door and I am sure many other residents would too. This ward is fine but it needs a name that clearly reflects Reigate for the many Reigate residents that live in it. I'd suggest "Reigate St Marys and Redhill Common". The school is called Reigate St Marys as the church is also often referred so this would seem appropriate,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I understand that the main reason for the boundary changes is to rationalise the wards by basing the criteria on the number of voting residents and to reduce the number of ward councillors. Woodmansterne is a village community of long standing with traditional values that we are most anxious to preserve. Dividing the village by a numbers game fails to acknowledge that these numbers also represent people who wish to retain the village of Woodnmansterne and its community spirit. I respectfully ask that the decision to divide Woodmansterne be withdrawn. Contact with our councillors should be preserved for the whole of the village, we have problems and planning issues that affect the village as a whole and it would be wrong to confuse these issues.by dividing Woodmansterne into two separate wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are commenting on the proposed boundary changes that would remove the Woodmansterne name from the map. While we understand the need to reorganise the boundaries in order to even up the number of votes it seems vary drastic to remove Woodmansterne as a place. It has been a village for many years its even mentioned in the doomsday book. Its a very clear and close community. Splitting it in 2 by placing the boundary in the middle of Chipstead way seems odd enough without loosing the name altogether. we are sure you can think of something more appropriate than having a boundary right across a major road through the village. will Woodmansterne village still exist as a village? or is this only a political change. Woodmansterne has a school and a Baptist church called after the village of Woodmansterne. please think again and move the boundary going across Chipstead Way to the top of the village so the whole village is in the same ward of Chipstead and Kingswood or drop it down to Outward Lane so it is all in Banstead. In this time of major change then keeping a community together is very important. Change may be necessary but change that impacts on a community is not going to benefit anyone. please reconsider kind regards

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Whilst it is encouraging that the revised ward boundary for the proposed ward of Earlswood Common now incorporates most of Meadvale, the name for the ward does not respresent the area. The ward is made up of Meadvale, St John's and Earlswood. Each of the areas are distinct in their location and character and should be recognised as such. The St Mary's and Meadvale area are next door to each other, why can't these two wards be combined?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The local residents committee are suggesting that the boundary change will result in "losing the Woodmansterne name", surely this would be on the ballot form only?(please advise) In any event, on a personal note, any change that results in a lessening of the stranglehold the the Conservatives have around here the better - the only stain on this otherwise lovely area is being under the Tory jackboot

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposed boundary changes which split Woodmansterne village into two wards for the following reasons: The changes do not reflect community interests, such as village events and groups. The proposed boundaries are not based on strong identifiable boundaries.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Woodmansterne village is mentioned in the doomsday book it would be unforgivable for historical reasons to lose the name.It is our countries history that glues our nation together.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the proposal to change the Ward Boundaries for Woodmansterne Village. The Village is a community which has been in place for many many years and by making this change, it will take away the Woodmansterne Village name. I am part of the Woodmansterne Village May Queen committee and we hold an annual fete for the community each year. to take away the Villages' identity would mean our community events would be affected. I do not see the benefit of loosing a village which was mentioned in the Doomsday book to enable a different approach to the number of voters in each ward. We will loose our Residents Asscociation who operate for the good of our community and have brought many benefits to our village over the years to protect our identity and our local areas through reviewing and responding to over development planning, campaigning for better road surfaces and organising clean up events to ensure we have a lovely place to live. I would never support the loss of the Woodmansterne Village.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the proposal to change the ward boundaries of the village of Woodmansterne, I am appalled at that this is even being contemplated by the Boundary Commission. How can you review this to propose a change to remove a village name/identity for what is a close knit community. Our residents Association will close as they won't have an community to represent, taking away our local voice with local government which has in the past brought benefits to where I live by reviewing over development plans and getting these rejected, improving our road and being the voice of residents. We have an identifiable boundary which I can see no benefit to change. The rationale to create an even number of voters across the boundaries does not warrant destroying a village and its community spirit.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Woodmansterne for over 13 years. Before that it was my childhood home and I attended Woodmansterne Primary School. The village has a unique identity, situated on the borders of Sutton and Croydon and still able to retain its semi-rural, village feel. There is a strong community spirit with numerous clubs, village shops and a pub. There is a balance of private and social housing and the population is becoming more diverse, all strengths of the area and make Woodmansterne very socially cohesive. Whoever conceived the idea to divide Woodmansterne up into two separate wards has no understanding of community, history and identity. The name Woodmansterne is mentioned in the Doomsday book and I feel that it would be totally unacceptable to divide it up as the proposal suggests. We are well resepresented by our local councillors and their previous recommendations to keep Woodmansterne under the Chiptead, Kingswood and Woodmansterne ward would make far more sense and preserve the wonderful village of Woodmansterne. The current boundary proposals make no sense. Why divide a thriving, cohesive community and separate the residents from their sense of belonging and identity that living there brings? Please return to the original proposal that retains Woodmansterne as a village under a distinct ward that recognises its existence, alongside two other more prosperous wards. Some people call Woodmansterne 'The last village before London'. I call it home and implore you to make the right choice and do not destroy a community for the sake of electoral gain.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Proposed changes to Reigate and Banstead Ward boundaries

When looking at the proposed changes to the Reigate and Banstead ward boundaries. The plan to cut Woodmansterne in half and do away with the name is something I feel very strongly about.

Woodmansterne is a vibrant and cohesive community and your changes would dilute any pride in belonging to a village community with the village green, shops, village school, Church, village hall, scout hut and public house being incorporated into Banstead while the rest of the village would be part of Chipstead. I have noticed that all the new ward names contain elements of their old names except Chipstead and Kingswood Would this mean an eventual loss of the Woodmansterne name and a change to our parish, house bandings / council tax, school catchment area and eventually a change of post code to CR to align with Chipstead.

History states that Woodmansterne village belonged to the Anglo‐ Saxon hundreds of Wallington which served for strategic meetings of elders and manor owners in the various kingdoms, including in the two centuries before the Norman Conquest. The village is mentioned in the Doomsday book and has seen many changes over the years, there have been many developments in the village with the building of the sunshine estate in the 1930s and the new housing on the old waterworks site. There are also plans to build a nursing home on the corner of Chipstead way.

When looking at the proposals could I offer another suggestion to splitting Woodmansterne. If you wish to reduce the number of wards could you not extend the Banstead ward down to Waterhouse lane using the A 217 as a boundary thus cutting off the top of the proposed new Tadworth and Walton ward and extending the lower portion of the Tadworth and Walton ward across to the A 217. Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree with the proposal to divide the traditional and established community of Kingswood, Surrey into two separate Reigate & Banstead wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Kingswood should not be split in half.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

. Changing the boundary of Kingswood from its current status would not make any sense. The village, shops pub etc are 'Kingswood' and belong to the Kingswood community, to create a fracture line would destroy the community as we know it. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I oppose to the splitting of Kingswood. We are only a small community and what you have done is separated the village in two. This will have a detrimental effect on the residence by being in two wards. Being in one ward means we are served by one set of councillors who understand our issues. Dividing our tiny village adds no benefit to the community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I disagree with the change moving Wray Lane into a separate ward from Reigate when Wray Lane is clearly Reigate an the rest of the newly proposed ward of Coles Meads is Redhill. Using the A242 is the logical boundary and should be retained rather than suddenly changing to garden fence lines to separate wards! The Reigate Hill ward was logical and separated Reigate from Redhill, where as now it is proposed to move a small strip or Reigate properties into a 99% Redhill district.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Excellent idea - fewer councillors and more evenly balanced by population. Well done.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am broadly in favour but with a couple of misgivings. Preston is a distinct neighbourhood from Tattenham Corner and merging Tattenhams and Preston may make it rather more difficult for each neighbourhood to have its own distinct voice on the Council. However, I recognise the trend towards the bigger wards and accept that there is some logic to merging the two wards. The boundary between the new Tattenham Corner & Preston and Nork is illogical. The northern boundary should surely run straight along Yew Tree Bottom Road. I also wonder about the north east corner and whether Claremount Gardens and also Great Burgh should be in Tattenham Corner & Preston. Hopefully you will get some feedback from those residents but to my mind the natural boundary of Nork runs along Reigate Road, A240. Regards

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Arbutus Close and have found the boundary lines totally suitable and I would not like them changed!! The village feel is one that takes years to encourage among residents and MEADVALE has always been the main focus. Why change it to Earlswood Common which has no resonance with me whatsoever. It is not a matter of I don’t like change but if it’s not broke WHY change it. The MEADVALE fair is today and residents will attend to back up the MEADVALE village community feel.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Don't split Kingswood village. Suggest drawing boundary along A217 as shown on attachment. Moves lower Kingswood into same as walton on the hill (logically as Walton and lower kingswood 'share M25 and moved Kingswood village into Kingswood and Chipstead. There is NO significant change in the number of households in my revised suggestion.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposal splits the established community of Kingswood in two, with most of the population in Chipstead & Kingswood, and a sizeable minority plus Kingswood village shops, pub and railway station in Tadworth & Walton. This is unrealistic and defies the reality of the Kingswood community, where many issues are common to the whole of Kingswood. The western part of Kingswood has no community connection with Tadworth & Walton. The A217 is a clear line of division between Kingswood and Tadworth. The proposal to divide Kingswood is based purely on arithmetical convenience and completely disregards community reality. It is unacceptable to the point of being absurd.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Kingswood, and am broadly happy with the proposals for my area, EXCEPT that the proposed new boundary splits the village into two. The shops, restaurants, pub and station are in one proposed ward, and the majority of residents using these services (including myself and my family) would be in another. These facilities are important to me, and the "Community Identity" would be destroyed, with respect to transport (the nearest public transport would be in another ward), community groups (the Residents Association and many others), Facilities (I do not use the facilities in Chipstead - they are much further and not so useful), Interests (there are many local clubs and associations for Kingswood) and Identifiable Boundaries (the proposed northwest boundary is hard to identify - I think it runs mainly across fields). A much better solution would be to have the western boundary run along the A217, so that the area shown as Burgh Heath on your map is included in Chipstead and Kingswood. The number of people residing in that area is very small, it is mostly farm land, so my proposal would not make much difference on the Electoral Equality criterion. This is the problem that people on the east side of the A217 would be in a different ward from those on the west side, but that is true to a much greater extent further north

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The residents of Woodmansterne village are not happy with the prospect of the village being split through the middle. My family lives in Hempshaw Avenue which is very much within the boundaries of the village. also socialise often with our friends in the Woodman pub and the area around the village green. This proposed divide will ultimately split us from our local community (leading to us, I'm assuming, having to vote outside of the village). While this relates to ward names and not necessarily the village, we are concerned that this divide will weaken the fabric of our strong village community. We don't feel any affinity with Chipstead or Kingswood in any way.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that the proposed name for the Merstham ward doesn't reflect the proposed geographical area. The area's of Hooley to the north and Merstham to the south are geographically separate, physically divided by the M25 motorway. Somebody who lives in Hooley or Netherne on the Hill wouldn't say they live in Merstham. They would be far more likely to say Coulsdon which lies to the north. Netherne on the Hill has historically been considered as part of Hooley since its previous use as a hospital/Victorian asylum. I would therefore propose that this ward be named Hooley & Merstham (or vice-versa). Whilst there may be more people living in the south of the proposed ward, I feel that it is important that the north retains its distinct local identity.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I welcome anything that helps ensure a 'level playing field' for representation. So the map is an interesting reflection of the relative density of population in the borough. The Merstham ward looks spot on and looks pretty close to the old parish, which did indeed stretch north towards Netherne. . I do feel the name of "Coles Meads and Wray Common" misses a trick. While those round Wray Common happily identify with that landmark, the northern bit is the ancient borough of Gatton and I would suggest it would be more appropriate - and less of a mouthful - to call it "Gatton and Wray Common". I suspect you'll have a problem mixing RH2 and RH1 folk in "St Mary's and Redhill Common", not helped by "St Mary's" sounding more upmarket than "Redhill Common". Why not St "Mary's and St John's" to put them more on an equal footing?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Hempshaw Avenue Woodmansterne and Woodmansterne has been my home for over 20 years. My church is St Peters Woodmansterne, my children attended Woodmansterne school, cubs scouts brownies guides etc, I shop in my local village shops, my main shop is carried out at Banstead High Street, I eat drink and socialise at The Woodman public house, and restaurants in Banstead High Street. This is my home village and I feel very strongly that I do not want my road to be split from MY VILLAGE. WOODMANSTERNE is a beautiful friendly village where we all socialise together and look after our environment together. I want Woodmansterne to remain a united village, not split in two for numbers in voting purposes with different councillors - leave our village alone!!! If we end up being split from Woodmansterne my family number of votes will not have to be added to the new ward numbers as we shall not be voting in future! Feel very strongly about this issue and am disgusted that our village is under threat - leave Woodmansterne alone and stop wasting our hard earned money on a numbers game!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposal to split Woodmansterne Village. I have lived here for 40 years and love its sense of community that is linked with its identity. We have so many village amenities and clubs that all identify closely with the village and I wish to remain a resident of Woodmansterne. I would wish to see the WHOLE of the village included in the Chipstead and Kingswood ward as I believe Woodmansterne has more in common with those smaller communities than Banstead. We are already on the outer boundaries of Surrey CC and Reigate and Banstead BC we need to remain intact to provide a strong united front to deal with issues concerning our village.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We think these proposals are good and should be implemented, because we believe that evening out representation will make each area more democratic, rather than some areas having disproportionately more influence (where there are fewer people per councillor. There are two voters in our household and we both have this opinion.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I notice that Kingswood village shops, post office, village hall, pub and part of the railway station will now fall under Tadworth and Walton in this draft proposal but that the rest of the village will be part of Kingwood and Chipstead. People in Kingswood vote at the Kingswood village Hall which would now fall outside Kingswood. The controversial Legal and General site will also be in the ward of Tadworth even though it affects the residents of Kingwood and Burgh Heath. The A217 is a natural border between Kingswood and Tadworth. Having the focal point of Kingswood - shops, pub, station in the Tadworth ward rather than the Kingswood ward seems a mistake. I would suggest that the boundary for Kingswood is extended to include all of Waterhouse Lane (from A217) all of Alcocks lane and the new builds off, Copthill Lane and roads off and the Legal and General Estate. That would mean that everyone who currently resides in Kingswood Village would come under the jurisdiction of Kingswood and Chipstead.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to express my regret at the proposal to divide the are into 2 wards. I've been a resident for over 2 years now and have enjoyed being part of the Woodmansterne community. I moved from a town environment to be part of the local village area which Woodmansterne currently is, many resident enjoy the same vibe and benefit from the area steeped in history. By splitting it up you would be destroyed a part of history and dividing a local community, where it would be best to invest time and resources in developing more amenities.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This looks alright to me. I hope we will continue to receive full personal details of those putting themselves forward for the 45 appointments at future elections.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the name "Earlswood Common" for the proposed change to my ward as it completely fails to recognise the two ancient villages of Meadvale and St Johns,i would propose a name change to Meadvale,St Johns and South Earlswood or similar,after all there are very few people living on Earlswood common

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would just like to give my opinion on the Earlswood Common title. My proposal is for it to be called Earlswood and Petridge Common thus showing the lower half to feel included. Regards

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think that all residents living at the top end of Lonesome Lane from Lonesome Farm to Lodge Lane should be within the Meath Green and Sidlow Ward and not in Langshott and Salfords. The properties of Kinnersley Manor, Kinnersley Cottage, New Rivernook Farm, Spinners Well, and Kinnersley Farm should also be in the Meath Green and Sidlow Ward. The number of Residents that would affect the numbers is below 50 and it would make more sense to be included into the Meath Green and Sidlow Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Furze Hill and I think it is fundamentally wrong that the Kingswood boundary is being moved and that the Station and Village will no longer being under the Kingswood ward but will fall under Tadworth and Walton. This is a nonsense and I am totally opposed to it.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The information you supplied in the section "A good pattern of wards should:" states should reflect community interests however the proposed Tadworth and Walton Ward includes Mogador, Lower Kingswood etc which is separate from the rest of the ward. Including the Preston area and Burgh Heath would be preferable as residents in Tadworth and Walton shop in the Asda supermarket and local shops and use the Leisure Centre at Merland Rise. Our Councillors have extensive local knowledge of this area and its specific needs. I understand that Lower Kingswood would prefer not to be incorporated into the Tadworth and Walton wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Somewhat surprised at the decision to split Kingswood into two using the railway line as a boundary. Surely the A 217 is a more logical boundary to keep Kingswood as oneninclusive village rather than splitting it into two separate and irrational sectors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that the current proposals divides and loses the strong current identity of Woodmansterne Village. The local community hold strong village events and local groups. We all know the village boundaries and share local facilities and shops. At present the name Woodmansterne will disappear completely.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on Fengates Road - currently in Reigate Central (which has never made any sense because we are heavily impacted by decisions made for Redhill because of our proximity and hardly impacted at all by decisions made for Reigate). Whilst I think the new boundaries are an improvement I am concerned that we are still heavily skewed towards Reigate in the new St Mary's and Redhill Common area. That means that councillors don't really care what happens in our area and focus on Reigate (which is largely irrelevant to us). Conversely every decision made about Redhill Town has a significant impact on our environment and quality of life and yet we have no say and no influence - whilst changes made in Reigate have a negligible impact on us. I would like my councillor to be able to influence and inform what happens in the Redhill Town area because the knock on effect from there (commuting, shopping, parking etc.) is so huge.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Living in Somerset Road, MEADVALE, we strongly object, as do all our neighbours to being renamed Earlswood Common. This village has a strong community and is well- known as Meadvale locally. Earlswood Common is nowhere near here!

Uploaded Documents:

Download

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I feel that the boundary between Banstead Village and Chipstead and Kingswood would be better if it were to run along Chipstead Valley Road / Outwood Lane and and then up Holly Lane. This would mean that the interests of the people of Woodmansterne are looked after by one set of councillors, rather than half and half. Also the boundary would not cut acroos roads halway along their length. e.g. Chipstead Way.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in the newly proposed Chipstead & Kingswood area in fact I am on the boundary line with Banstead Village. I have lived here for over 25 years, some will argue I live in Woodmansterne but my postcode is Banstead. I want to congratulate you for developing new boundaries that will ensure my single vote carries equal weight with anyone else in the area and this is a fact that cannot be overlooked by those claiming special consideration for a name. There are many areas similar to WOODMANSTERNE that have been around for hundreds of years and your new proposals will not wipe out this name, it will still be here and those on the residents association will still be able to represent us. However they have not been very inclusive in this debate before objecting to the proposals by saying the local community are upset by them. They did not canvass my views other than to post me a pamphlet saying I needed to write with my objections. Sure I do not attend their meetings, I did once but only a handful of people bothered attending and I have better things to do. If I have an issue I write to my Councillors not the association. Your proposals will not destroy the local community, it will not stop the local theatre group, the Scouts or the Guides, they will not have to change names. Our May Day parade will continue as will all the other events that take place in the local area each year. I regularly attend events in Banstead and Chipstead, does this make me disloyal to Woodmansterne, of course it doesn't. An easy remedy would be to include the Woodmansterne name in the other wards to make Banstead Village & Woodmansterne North Ward and Chipstead, Kingswood and South Woodmansterne Ward but I don't suppose this will be acceptable to some people. I appreciate the current councillors will attend events specifically organised by the residents association and other local groups and some argue this will all end if these proposals go through unchanged but I don't see it like this. Instead of one councillor attending we should expect to see at least two, one from each of the areas covering Woodmansterne. Good working relationships can be made with the right effort and it's in the councillors interest to be seen supporting such events. Changing boundary lines will upset people, they don't like change especially when their name is not used but this does not mean the proposals are wrong. For me the one overriding issue is the value of my single vote, does it carry the same weight as all other people in the given area, does a councillor have to work for my vote, at the moment I do not feel this is the case. Unless someone can come up with a brilliant plan that can return the name Woodmansterne, without displacing other people out of Banstead or Chipstead, and maintaining the proposed 15 wards with 45 councillors I ask that you stick with your proposed plan in full and without any changes. We have far too many councillors representing small numbers of people and this gravy train has to stop for the good of the local communities even if initially they don't like it. To make it clear I am in full agreement with your boundary proposals for the Reigate and Banstead electoral arrangements for the local authority.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am astonished that Chipstead parish church (St. Margarets) is not going to be included in Chipstead & Kingswood. This ignores our rich history. You could include the church with a very small change to the boundaries that need not involve any residences.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed ward shown as Earlswood Common - The commission aim to reflect community identity. To that end we propose that this ward be renamed Meadvale and Earlswood.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree that Woodmansterne Village should be divided so that part is in the Banstead Village Ward and the other part in Chipstead and Kingswood Ward. I would suggest that the Parish Boundary of All Saints Church Banstead should be the boundary of the ward which goes as far as Kenneth Road. I think it is important to keep the community of Woodmansterne Village together with the church, St. Peter's and the Woodmansterne Primary School, village hall, playing fields and village green. I would suggest that the boundary should be at the Lakers Rise junction in Chipstead Way. The name Woodmansterne should also be preserved for historical reasons. I can confirm the strength of the community feeling in Woodmansterne.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

East of A217 from M25 to Burgh Heath should be called Chipstead and Kingswood. West of A217 from M25 and Burgh Heath should be named Tadworth and Walton. Overall area and votes would balance out and would make the A217 a natural divide and would make very little difference other than to those people who have lived in Kingswood all their lives.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

About time this draft proposal was carried out pity it’s proposing a cut of only six. Local government is way to top heavy.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Looks very sensible. I vote yes! An alternative to the Coles Meads & Wray Common ward name might be Gatton Park & Wray Common but happy either way. Good suggestion and plan. Thank you

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

For heaven sake design a web site that does what it is meant to do. Trying to put in place a another boundary line is a nightmare.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text: continue the new boundary of Reigate to include Sandhills Road. It would appear illogical to pass the boundary through Priory Park and include Sandhills Road into the St, Mary's and Redhill Common Ward. Sandhills Road is a natural and obvious inclusion for the Reigate Ward, it has no connection to the Redhill area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Totally ridiculous idea, going to cause nothing but problems. I moved to woodmansterne , to live in woodmansterne

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The divide is unnecessary to break up and destroy a small village I will be moved to a chipstead and kingswood area but I shop dentist doctors and school will all be part of the banstead village ward. Then there’s the future problems of catchment area problem and issues which no doubt will come up I moved here to be part of a small village and loved the village environment!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I dislike the proposed loss of ward of Meadvale and St John's. The loss of the name would reduce the prominence of Meadvale Village, which has a long and important history in the area. The proposed boundary change would split the village, with part in Earlswood Common and part in Woodhatch & South Park. This would be detrimental to the village. The proposed changes would place Meadvale in the ward of Earlswood Common, which is a very different area from Meadvale, separated by the A23 and the Common. The part of Meadvale that would be included in Earlswood Common would be better included in either Woodhatch & South Park or St Mary's & Redhill Common. However, my preference would be for Meadvale and St John's boundary to not be changed at all, thereby enabling councillors to focus on items if importance to this locality.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded development) out of Langshott and into Earlswood – thus reducing likely future inequities. 3. A significant challenge is to redraw the boundaries for Merstham, which at 8,442 electors is 600 over the average, and with the inclusion of Netherne to the north is now an area with growth potential. This is only possible by either adjusting northern wards – which causes a disconnect to the west - or by including South Merstham in another ward. Merstham is ‘a town of 2 halves’, so this is not the major problem it might first appear to be. I therefore suggest moving Area 3 into Coles Mead. 4. To rebalance Coles Mead and Redhill Common requires the less satisfactory change suggested by Area 6.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Please don't split up Woodmansterne. The village may be small but all the more reason to keep it together. Splitting a small village such as this could have disastrous consequences for the village in terms of breaking unity and causing problems with division.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I don't think that the naming of 'St Mary's and Redhill Common' reflects the identity of many who live within it. Looking at the proposed boundaries, I suspect that most who live west of Redhill Common (perhaps particularly those who are currently in Reigate Central ward) see themselves as living in Reigate, not Redhill. I also note that St Mary's church is in the proposed Reigate ward, not St Mary's and Redhill Common (assuming this is what the 'St Mary's' part of the name refers to) so having the focus of the identity for the ward located outside the ward seems odd. I'd appreciate it if some additional consideration could be made to the naming of the ward to make it more relevant to those who live within it. Perhaps Reigate East and Redhill Common?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Woodmansterne was mentioned in the Domesday book and has existed for a 1000 years . Under your proposal the name will disappear and that is unacceptable. Under your proposals Woodmansterne Village will be split in two giving it a total of 6 Councillors instead of the present three. At present the local Councillors do a good job. Can the same be said if you double the number, I think not. There will be a conflict of interests between the two sets of Councillors as different wards will have different sets of priorities. As a single ward Woodmansterne suffers enough being on the edge of the borough let alone splitting it between two wards. I accept that change is necessary but I think this proposal is ill thought out.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I protest strongly at losing the name of Meadvale there is absolutely no good reason for omitting the name of Meadvale

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Good! It needs doing. Let's get on with it now.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It seems illogical and unnecessary to have three Councillors representing such small wards such as Nork and Tattenham Corner and Preston; these two wards could be quite easily combined into one ward or alternatively Nork absorbed into Banstead Village and Tattenham Corner & Preston be combined with Tadworth and Walton. Equally I believe St Mary's and Redhill Common could perfectly well be absorbed into either Redhill Town or into Coles Meads and Wray Common. The most important element must be to ensure that the Borough has 'Effective and convenient local government' but I believe that in the past 'Community identity' has been prioritised over 'Electoral equality' in pursuit of that objective? Some of the above-mentioned wards are far too small to be individually represented and are ripe to be absorbed into adjacent wards in what must be the pre- eminent pursuit of delivering 'Effective local government'. The need for Electoral equality is important but in certain ward boundaries in the past have relied too heavily on historical precedent and community Identity, rather than rather than in the delivery of effective local government. Therefore, there is now an opportunity to simplify and rename certain wards to ensure a better understanding by local communities of the ward boundaries. Combining certain wards may of course lead to a degree of imbalance in terms of Councillor representation of a similar number of voters in adjoining wards but perhaps would ensure that they take on rather more work on behalf of their constituents that some do under the present configuration. There is also an element in certain wards in the Borough where individual residents only volunteer themselves to be become elected Councillors for purely parochial reasons or for their own self-enhancement within their communities, rather than in the genuine pursuit of effective local government, this is intolerable and undemocratic.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Without the population of each proposed ward, making any kind of meaningful comment is impossible

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I disagree with where the proposed Northern boundary is for the Chipstead & Kingswood Ward. The proposal cuts the village of Kingswood in half and does not meet the second requirement of the boundary changes. I would propose that the line come down Reads Rest Lane, then south onto the foot path / track that meets up with Copt Hill Lane and then through onto the A217. An alternative to this would be to take the boundary down Reads Rest lane / Canons Lane onto the A217.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I find it hard to udnerstand the rationale for joining the Tattenham and Preston wards together given the differing demographics of each ward. I would sugest that it makes more sense to retain Preston as a separate ward and consider moving Tattenham into Nork

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I fully understand the reasons why the boundaries have to be changed. Strongly object to the proposed title of the ward I would live in 'Coles Meads & Wray Common'. It does not identify with any part of my address and means nothing to anybody it could be part of any local authority anywhere in the country, there must be a recognition that we live in Redhill.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

In terms of Community there is much more of a connection between the Langshott Acres community and Horley Town draft proposed area than there is with Salfords. Also the physical distance between Langshott Acres and Salfords with the disconnect of the farmland between means a disparate set of needs will exist. It would be wrong to continue with this proposal in my view.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Boundary Commission, Thank you for allowing me to comment. I see some anomalies in the names proposed for the wards. One: Coles Meads and Wray Common does not describe this proposed ward very well. There is a road called Colesmead Road and there are roads called South Mead and North Mead coming off it. There is also a road called Lower Mead coming off South Mead. However, these roads are not dominant in the area. There are many other roads so it seems odd to name the ward after these roads. Similarly, it seems odd to name a ward after a common because by definition no one lives on the common. This area is part of Redhill so I suggest that the name of the equivalent, existing ward, Redhill West, is retained. Two: Redhill Town seems an odd name for a ward which covers a great deal more than the town centre but does not cover anything like the whole of the town. It also seems anomalous that there is not a corresponding "opposite" e.g. Redhill Country or similar. I suggest that in all the circumstances, the name of the equivalent existing ward, Redhill East, is retained. Three: St Mary's and Redhill Common is also unhelpful. As before, no-one lives on a common. In addition, it is not clear why you are picking a church name for this area but not for any other and, indeed, why you are picking this particular church. A more meaningful name would be Redhill South. Four: There seem to be some other inconsistencies in naming methodology. Why are some wards referred to by area name (e.g. Merstham) but others are described as village (e.g. Banstead Village) or town (e.g Horley Town)? Ihave commented about the use of the word "common" in names above. This is particularly odd when Banstead is far from being a village. i suggest that three wards in question are (re) named Banstead, Horley and Earlswood (and not Banstead Village, Horley Town and Earlswood Common). Yours sincerely,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Happy with the boundaries as the wards have to be balanced. However, I feel the 'Banstead Village' ward name should be retitled 'Banstead and Woodmansterne' to reflect Woodmansterne as a village exists, evidenced by the welcome to sign as you approach the village.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We are very strongly against dividing the Kingswood community as proposed by the draft plans. The community in Kingswood is a long established community and are linked by the Village club which sits in the middle of the community and is also part of the focus point for the community with local convenience stores, restaurants and the Kingswood Arms. The whole Kingswood community should remain in a ward and be served by the same counsellors as opposed to being split into two.Doing so will impose very profound damage to this community and in our view would cause residents to consider leaving the area as they would lose a sense of belonging to the community here which has a very active residents association and local focus groups. As such we would be grateful if the Commission would amend its proposals to move the part of Kingswood which has been drafted into the Tadworth and Walton ward back into the Chipstead and Kingswood ward where it truly belongs - this should include the area on the left hand side of the station all the way up to Waterhouse lane as it meets the A217, ensuring this covers Alcocks Lane, Copt Hill Lane, Furze Hill and surrounding areas.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I agree with the proposals outlined.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Owen, David

From: Sent: 18 July 2018 13:03 To: reviews Subject: electoral arrangements

The draft recommendations are fully supported by us. .

1 Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It appears that Sandhills Road has been grouped into St Mary’s and Redhill Common. With a boundary at the park. Would have thought the more logical divide wound have been cockshot hill. Sandhills Road has more in common with the Park and the residents of Park Gate East than of Redhill. If there is a logical explanation for this divide I’d be happy to hear it. Regards

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Perhaps absorb New North Road area into Reigate band as development planned for Reigate garden centre area...

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Banstead Wood Development, Elizabeth Drive, Banstead SM7 2FA/B/D/E/F. There are 109 flats in this development which were converted from the the old Queen Elizabeth Hospital in 2006/7. In the new boundary recommendations we appear to be included in the Chipstead & Kingswood Ward but as we are situated in Banstead and our address is Banstead, we feel we should be part of Banstead village, not Chipstead or Kingswood. Please reconsider the boundary so we can be included within Banstead Village Ward. Thank you.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Meadvale since 1969 and have seen many changes to this beautiful area. I was very upset to find that Meadvale was to be no more! as it has been around for many hundreds of years unlike Woodhatch ans Southpark which are relatively new. would it not be possible to incorporate the name of Meadvale with Earlswood Common,in that way the name would not be forgotten.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on Star Lane and myself and my neighbours feel very strongly that the village of Hooley belongs in the area of Reigate and Banstead, not Merstham, with which we feel little or no affinity.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The draft proposal seems fair but has any consideration been given to the population increase in the future from new building due to the new area plans?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Hello, I’ve just had the proposal come through via post and I’m bitterly disappointed. My family is based in Meadvale (Redhill), Meadvale is a small unique village separate to the rest of Earlswood and Woodhatch. By calling us Earlswood Common you take that away from the community. I’ve yet to meet one person who is happy with these potential changes and I don’t understand why you want to change. It seems and utterly stupid decision and waste of time and money.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Do not split kingswood in half! Redraw the boundary line proposed by the Kingswood residents Association KRA

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

A community should not be divided. The proposed boundary change for Kingswood is totally unacceptable, it would lead to confusion, potential duplication and inefficiency.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Your proposals for Woodmansterne mean that the name would be deleted from your boundary names completely. Woodmansterne is a village which was named in the Domesday book in 1086 ( (Wodemerstorne ) as researched and thoroughly explained by the Banstead History Research group " Woodmansterne" book first published in 1931. Further you intend to cut up the village and place it into two different boundaries. I have lived here for over 30 years and continue to find this village cohesive, a genuine community with a heart around the green, local shops , pub, village hall, school, annual events and Church. Woodmansterne has a distinct village feel despite being on the edge of Croydon and Banstead , where people look out for their neighbours tending to live here for quite along time as they enjoy the community feeling. In current times when society is becoming more fractured and fragmented it is good to value a village that aims to retain these things. One way to value this is to keep the village together for boundary purposes and have the name representing the village within the boundary name. Therefore I propose that the current boundaries remain and that the name of Woodmansterne is retained too.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Owen, David

From: Sent: 19 July 2018 14:41 To: reviews Subject: Proposed boundary changes for Kingswood

From

To Review Officer (Reigate and Banstead), Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 14th floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4QP

Having examined the proposed changes for Kingswood put forward by the Boundary Commission, we wish to record our strong objection to the current proposal which would divide the Kingswood community into two wards. There exists in the village a very strong and long standing community spirit, yet the present proposals would place the majority of the community in a separate ward from the hub of the village including the shops, restaurants, pub, village hall and the rest of the village.

Most households including ourselves are members of the Kingswood Residents Association which works closely with our current Councillors (Rod Ashford, Ros Mill and Simon Parnall) to address planning, environmental and many other local issues across the entire Kingswood community.

The Kingswood Village Community Association manages the Village Hall, which is used for a wide range of events throughout the year by the whole community including ourselves. These include - - the Kingswood drama group KADDS - the Kingswood Thirteen Society (illustrated talks) - the Carol Anne Dance Academy - the Laird Ballet School - the Kingswood Village WI - village film nights - fitness, yoga, tai chi and pilates - and is the Polling Staion for the village

The KVCA also produces "The Village Voice", a quarterly magazine with a circulation of around 1,500 which is distributed to all properties in Kingswood. The KVCA finds it very helpful dealing with one set of Councillors for Kingswood on the many issues related to the Hall and the community.

In addition, the Kingswood Arms, No 12 Restaurant, Waterhouse Cafe and Khyber Tandoori put on community-linked events, host village groups and link with events at the Hall. In short Kingswood is a very cohesive community.

In 30 years of living at our address in Kingswood, we have not once had contact with the Tadworth and Walton-on-the Hill communities, to which the proposal now seeks to attach our part of Kingswood. The busy A217 dual carriageway is a very clear boundary between the Kingswood and Tadworth communities.

We understand the indivisibility of identifiable communities is a core tenet to be followed by the Boundary Commission in the course of completing its task. This being so, the present proposal is totally unacceptable and would lead to confusion, potential duplication and inefficiency.

Yours faithfully,

1 Owen, David

From: Sent: 19 July 2018 14:57 To: reviews Subject: Kingwood Boundary Proposals

The proposed Boundary for Kingswood seems flawed, dividing the town into two! We have lived in Kingwood for 30 years and it should not be split like this. Hoping the proposals can be reconsidered.

Regards,

Kingswood Surrey.

1 Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The smal central area labelled St Mary's & Redhill Common does not look correct. It seems to be a section left by the defining of the 5 other wards it adjoins. The key area is Meadvale which is now split across several wards. This is a coherent village area which used to have an actual shop and a post office. The lower section of Meadvale which is split into the Earlswood Common ward should be brought into St Mary's & Redhill Common.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

STRONGLY DISAGREE. KINGSWOOD SHOULD NOT BE SPLIT AS PROPOSED!

Uploaded Documents:

Download Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have just one comment. I live in South Park & Woodhatch which is apparently to change and become Woodhatch & South Park. I suggest this is not logical and the easily 'spoken' title for the ward is as now, South Park & Woodhatch. It sounds better, flows more easily when spoken, and is alphabetical in sequence. In fact alphabetical sequencing can be seen in most other wards, such as Langshott & Salfords, Coled Meade and Wray Common. I am a member of the local Conservative Association and the local branch which I help and support is known officially as 'South Park & Woodhatch'. In the Borough elections we are known as 'South Park & Woodhatch' - http://reigate.uk/borough- elections-south-park-and-woodhatch/ This is all very confusing and I trust the existing name 'South Park & Woodhatch' will be retained.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My comment is to do with the name of the proposed ward for our area 'Coles Meads and Wray Common'. 'Coles Meads' seems to have been taken from the Ordnance Survey map, but it isn't a name in current local use except, in the singular, for one street (Colesmead Road). Gatton, however, which is also on the map, is a name in current use - Gatton Park is well used for recreation, Gatton Park Road is a busy through road, and Gatton Point is the location of a road junction, bus stop and petrol station. So I would suggest that the ward would be better named 'Gatton and Wray Common'.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded