Local resident’s submissions to the South Lakeland District Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from local residents
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
5/31/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Anthony Blaney E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Name: Fairfield house
Comment text:
Objection - Absolutely rediculous to take a chunk out of Windermere and make it part of Ambleside 10 miles away. Neighbours a few yards away and in the same street will have different representatives. How can two representatives make a clear case for one community? It makes no sense from a representation point of view.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8114 1/1 7/18/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Annabel Carter E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
The proposal to move part of Windermere into Ambleside and Grasmere is ludicrous. Windermere is a town and all of it should be managed as one entity. The people of Windermere regards themselves as residents of Windermere not Ambleside or Grasmere. These are two entirely separate communities. The interests of the residents of part of Windermere cannot possibly be the same as those of Ambleside and Grasmere. It is like splitting a local community. It cannot possibly assist in the management of local government to have two parts of that area positioned so far apart.There is a natural break between north Windermere and Ambleside which should be the boundary not some arbitrarily drawn line which takes no account of the identity of the residents.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8594 1/1
' !' 11 2 . !"# $ %&)& ' (/$&
-----Original Message----- From: Jim Carter Sent: 18 July 2016 20:29 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
I write to express my extreme concern about the current proposals.
The suggested revised boundary is entirely arbitrary and takes no account of the natural social, economic and geographical differentiation between the communities.
There is limited integration between the well defined and identifiable settlements of Ambleside and the Windermere/Bowness. I and my friends would walk, cycle and drive to Windermere and Bowness but seldom Ambleside, for the purposes of shopping, dinning, financial services and leisure.
A far better boundary would be drawn between Millerground Bridge and Windermere School.
My submission is in relation to
Jim Carter Eric Wright Group Ltd
This email has been sent from my iPad
3 7/15/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: sarah clayton E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Please do NOT change the boundary of Windermere, if you wish to reduce the number of councellors simply make Bowness one ward and Windermere one ward. I do NOT wish to see Windermere split and half of it become Ambleside/Grasmere. Leave the boundary as it is.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8588 1/1 7/18/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Pat CLIFFORD E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
In view of the fact that we are constantly being told of the need to save money I cannot understand how an additional 50 councillors or thereabouts makes any sense. Also as Arnside is in the process of working towards an AONB Management Area Agreement which would include Beetham but not Milnthorpe it seems as though no consideration has been given to existing partnership arrangements. Milnthorpe would not sit comfortably in this. I also do not think that the idea of having an election every year is a good one, people will become fed up with constant electioneering, especially since each year the balance of the council could be changed and the policies followed as a result could become disjointed. There is also the risk of loosing valuable experience on the councils, and this could lead to loss of functions simply because things fall through the net with constant change. I have not drawn my preferred option as it would be to leave things exactly as they are. I feel that the number of councillors per ward is a very arbitrary way to re-draw boundaries and takes no account of local geography or historical affiliations. I do not feel under represented at present, and I doubt if the current proposals would enhance that in any way
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8591 1/1 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Ruth Crossley E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I do not think that the proposed ward which includes where I live a correct grouping. Many people from here (LA8 8PY) go to Milnthorpe for medical services, chemist regular shopping etc. Also the area around the Kent Estuary is rural unlike the stonecross area of Kendal which is completely different. The local Churches are forming a group around the Kent Estuary including, Levens, Heversham, Milnthorpe, Beetham Storth and Arnside. The ward would be more respresentative of similar areas if linked in this way
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8579 1/1 8/8/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Kenneth Davidson E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I think that the proposal is ridiculous. It is as though you are trying to obliterate half the town of Windermere an put it into Ambleside. You will fail to get residents of the town of Windermere to consider themselves as residents of Ambleside or Grasmere. The proposal should be scrapped and thought out properly. It appears as though I will be a resident of Ambleside and my neighbour a resident of Windermere who live in the same town. Under your proposal will Windermere Railway Station be renamed Ambleside and Grasmere Railway Station? Please think again.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8578 1/1 7/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
Personal Details:
Name: Diane Fisher
Email: [email protected]
Postcode: LA23 2HG
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The proposal to move Windermere Applethwaite out of the Windermere District Ward for SLDC is ludicrous and the purpose of this message is to object to the proposed change. One so called objective of the Boundary Commission scheme, apart from balancing numbers, is to reflect local character and community. This idea would not achieve this.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8596 1/1
! " # $% & ' ( ()% % * % + ,(%
From: Stewart Fuller Sent: 10 July 2016 17:48 To: reviews
Dear Commission I attach my comments on this review Stewart Fuller
1 Local Government Boundary Commission Proposed changes to wards in South Lakeland District Council Comments of Mr S A Fuller - 9 July 2016
I write to express my strong objection to the proposal to separate part of Windermere ward and transfer it to the ward of Ambleside and Grasmere.
It seems apparent that the first of the three factors set out as to be taken into account - each Councillor to represent roughly the same number of electors as elsewhere in the Authority - has been the overriding consideration in the review with little if any regard to the second factor that ward patterns should reflect community interest and that boundaries should be identifiable.
The division of Windermere would be clearly detrimental to the community interests of residents of Windermere, and the boundary which literally just cuts through part of the town is artificial and certainly not readily identifiable. It surely cannot be sensible for Windermere railway station and the sign welcoming people to Windermere to be in Ambleside and Grasmere.
Windermere is too far away from Ambleside and Grasmere to share any strong community interest. It may well be that residents in either place shop in the other, and the only railway station in the locality is at Windermere, but there it ends. Both Windermere and Ambleside & Grasmere have their own flourishing local community groups and it must be very unlikely that there is much if any crossover. Distance alone militates against that. The residents of that part of Windermere proposed to be split off are hardly likely to discontinue following their community interests in Windermere and travel instead to Grasmere or Ambleside. Their interests and any concerns they may have about local government will remain in Windermere. A vote for councillors representing Ambleside and Grasmere would therefore be completely inappropriate.
While the ideal objective might be to see that each elector is able to vote at each election, the terms of the review make it plain that should not be the only criteria on which ward boundaries are set, and acknowledges that some of the factors to be considered in the review can be contradictory. The review also states that geographically separate areas are not acceptable.
All these points argue very strongly in favour of leaving the boundary where it now is at Troutbeck Bridge, which geographically is a very much more logical place for it to be. If that offends the equality of electors per councillor or the ability for each elector to have a vote every year, then so be it. There is no absolute requirement for these factors to be present when other considerations carry greater weight. The present pattern of representation has not caused any problems. When an election candidate is unopposed this means some electors have no vote anyway.
I submit that the proposal should be revisited. It is a very good example of the one size fits all syndrome when clearly as in this case that principle does not work. The proposed split of the town of Windermere and thus its community is illogical and completely lacking in common sense. The proposal should not be pursued.
7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Elizabeth Haworth E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
The breakup of Troutbeck Bridge and part of Windermere Town is not conducive to community which is your second priority and merely makes where I live an outlier unlikely to be of any assistance to this area. I wish my area to remain part of Windermere and remain well represented.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8575 1/1
! " #$% & '( )#* % +
From: Peter Jewell Sent: 18 May 2016 12:48 To: reviews
FTAO, Mark Cooper, Review Officer.
There has been a long standing contention regarding ownership and revenue from Lake Windermere. Which was given in perpetuity to the Windermere Town (actually Applethwaite) early in the 20C. Windermere UDC seemingly gave this away, to my mind quite illegally at the same time as a number of dodgy planning applications were passed by new SLDC. The people of Windermere have been wholesale ripped‐off by SLDC. This issue of ownership will be raised again in the future, as I intend to raise it. My concern is that these boundary changes will further complicate the issue of the ownership of the bed of Windermere.
Your sincerely and with kind regards,
Dr Peter Jewell (Councillor for Windermere Town Council).
1 5/31/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Jonathan Kaye E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Cedar Manor Hotel
Comment text:
I thin the Windermere Boundary should be extended to the Juntion of A592 and A591 at least perhaps even down to the Royal Mail office at Troutbeck Bridge. How you can miss out the northern end of Windermere is very strange.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8115 1/1 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: David Kozlowski E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
Windermere in Ambleside & Grasmere ? Under the draft recommendations for new ward boundaries across South Lakeland, Windermere town centre will be in the Ambleside and Grasmere ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8582 1/1
!"#$# % &' ( () ) '
-----Original Message----- From: Carol Lomas Sent: 06 August 2016 12:34 To: reviews
I am a resident of the Applethwaite area of Windermere that would become part of the Ambleside and Grasmere district. I have only just become aware of this proposed change and am, I believe, too late to sign petitions etc. The change, although I understand it is on numbers of voters in an area, would mean that some of Windermere’s key facilities would fall under Ambleside and Grasmere’s control. I understand these would include our main supermarket, the railway station, the Post Office and our Lakeland store.
It does seem bizarre that many decisions regarding our town would come under the control of another area and it may also affect the standing of the town.
I would, therefore, like to make an objection to the proposal on behalf of myself and the other members of our household.
Yours,
Carol Lomas Martin Lomas (husband) Joan Lomas (mother-in-law)
1
!" "# # $ %&" $ '
From: Jeff Morgan Sent: 16 June 2016 11:30 To: reviews
As a resident of Windermere for the past 30 years. I have read the "Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for South Lakeland District Council” and also the "Guidance on community governance reviews”
I have concluded that your proposals for Windermere are both illogical and do not meet the criteria laid out in the Guidance and the stated aims of the Draft Report. The fact that your proposed boundary line runs through the middle of Lake Road and divides Crescent Road in two ( so removing the local Post Office and Sports Ground from the Windermere area ) is ludicrous particularly when you consider that the railway station, library, and Queens Park remain in Windermere.
To divide the local community in this way goes directly against your statutory criteria of reflecting the community identity and providing for effective local government.
Quoting directly from your Guidance on community governance reviews namely Page 11 section 23, ultimately the recommendations made in a community governance review ought to bring about improved community engagement, better local democracy and result in a more effective and convenient delivery of local services. Further on Page 15 section 40, strong inclusive community and voluntary sector sense of civic values, responsibility and pride sense of place and with a positive feeling for people and local distinctiveness reflective of identities and interests of the community in that area effective and convenient Other pertinent points are included on page 16. The key point being the impact of community governance arrangements on community cohesion.
In examining the map showing the proposed division of Windermere it is clear that the dividing line is much influenced by the population density. As such it appears to me that too much emphasis has been placed on the fist of the main considerations you have identified in your document much to the detriment of the other 2 main considerations namely reflect the community identity provide for effective local government.
1 Having read the Conservative Group submission and indeed signed the petition sponsored by Mr Berry it is clear to me that this strikes a better balance against the 3 main criteria and is far more in keeping with the Guidance on community governance reviews.
I respectfully but strongly suggest that the proposals for Windermere are revisited. Yours Sincerely Jeff Morgan
2
! "!" "#$ % "
From: John Nettleton Sent: 02 June 2016 12:09 To: reviews
I am very surprised to see that the area at the NE corner , where I live at LA23 1BB, is part of the Ambleside/Grasmere ward. The portion below Rayrigg Road includes the Windermere council care home ( Applethwaite Green), the Windermere Housing Trust sheltered housing( Nine Oaks), the Windermere Heathwaite sportsground, Windermere St Mary's parish church and the Windermere Health Centre. All of these should be in Windermere ward.
John Nettleton
1
8/8/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: christopher Rushton E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Lakes Architect Limited
Comment text:
The boundary re organisation does not help Windermere and Bowness to continue to be united with the upper half of the village now not part of the local community. I disagree to the boundary change and wish to see Windermere and Bowness remain as one unity, not split.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8577 1/1
6/2/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
church – Orrest Head historic view point Millerground (lakeshore) Rayrigg Meadow and fields (lakeshore) – McClures Ltd (Windermere) – Nat West (Windermere) As well as several notable hotels and other businesses who associate themselves with Windermere and not with “Ambleside and Grasmere”. This suggestion is cutting the town in two and will significantly contribute to destroying the community spirit and identity of the local population if implemented. This proposed change does not reflect the interests and identities of the local community in any way and in fact could seriously damage it in the future. 3: Criteria 3: That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. Windermere and Bowness currently has four District and 20 Local Councillors. Turnout at elections is low and the Town Council has for the last few years found it difficult to get enough people to stand for Council office. If the identity of the town ward if fragmented as suggested it will become even more difficult to get local individuals to come forward. Residents of Windermere wish to stand for Windermere Town wards and not for election to “Ambleside and Grasmere”. These communities do not mix and each knows little of the other. Residents of Ambleside and Grasmere know little of the problems and needs of the Windermere and Bowness community and Town. I therefore think this suggested change could seriously discourage residents from standing for office in the future, with dire consequences for local democracy. Cutting in half the commercial centre of Windermere town and allocating half to a different ward will substantially destroy its cohesion and identity. This proposed change destroys the identity of Windermere Town and will seriously hinder future attempts to provide effective and convenient local government. ======I have to strongly object to the proposed revision to the boundary in the north for Windermere Town. I believe it effectively cuts the town in two and destroys is geographical meaning, its generational identity and its long heritage built up over the last few hundred years. Windermere and Bowness are separate towns with separate identities and neither is associated in the minds of the local population in any way with Ambleside and Grasmere. There are many reasons why, if any boundary change is needed, Windermere Town and its identity as an electoral ward should be preserved intact and not be made part of Ambleside and Grasmere ward. If anything there is the very grave danger that it will push even more residents of Windermere to become disinterested with our local government system. They do not and will not associate with Ambleside and Grasmere and will not vote in the local elections, thereby endangering the very roots of our local democracy. Bearing in mind the 3 criteria the Commission must consider when following up electoral arrangements, could you please give consideration to the following points: Criteria 1: To deliver electoral quality where each district represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the district. Destroying the identity of Windermere as an electoral district could seriously affect future voting turnout. Residents will not feel associated with an Ambleside and Grasmere ward. For this reason alone this should NOT be done as currently suggested. If the boundary does need changing for the Windermere Ward to reduce the numbers then I would either suggest the boundaries are placed through North: Old hall roadCrosses farmCauseway farm South: B5284 B5285 – Lake OR: Windermere Town and Bowness Town are separated as wards: There is already a distinct identity difference which is recognised by residents and traders. An alternative would be to create them as separate Wards and have three District councillors in each. If numbers must be changed then it has to be done in a different way to ensure future electoral balance without increasing potential voter apathy, which I believe this proposed change will do. Criteria 2: That the pattern of division should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. This ward revision destroys the interests and identity of the local Windermere community and must not be allowed to take place as community association is one of the strongest electoral motivators. Windermere Town’s heritage and identity will be lost forever. This change would put the following identity icons of Windermere into the Ambleside Ward… Windermere Lakes School – Windermere Town Post Office – The Sorting office – Lakeland Ltd Windermere Station St. Mary’s Parish (Windermere) church – Millerground (lakeshore) Rayrigg Meadow and fields (lakeshore) – McClures Ltd(Windermere) – Nat West (Windermere) As well as several notable hotels and other businesses who associate themselves with Windermere and NOT Ambleside and Grasmere. This suggestion is cutting the town in two and will significantly contribute to destroying the community spirit and identity of the local population if implemented. This proposed change does not reflect the interests and identities of the local community in any way and in fact could seriously damage it in the future. 3: Criteria 3: That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. Windermere and Bowness currently has four District and 20 Local Councillors. Turnout at elections is low and the Town Council has for the last few years found it difficult to get enough people to stand for Council office. If the identity of the town ward if fragmented as suggested it will become even more difficult to get local individuals to come forward. Residents of Windermere wish to stand for Windermere Town wards and not for election to “Ambleside and Grasmere”. These communities do not mix and each knows little of the other. Equally, residents of Ambleside and Grasmere will know little of the problems and needs of the Windermere and Bowness community and Town. I therefore think this suggested change could seriously discourage residents from standing for office in the future, with dire consequences for local democracy. This proposed change destroys the identity of Windermere Town and will seriously hinder future attempts to provide effective and convenient local government. ======I trust the above comments reflect the strength of feeling that I and many of my friends have about this proposed change and trust they will be considered in coming to a final conclusion. Thank you
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informedrepresentation/8160 2/2 7/13/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
South Lakeland District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Maria Whitehead E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Hawkshead Relish Co Ltd
Comment text:
I note that the proposed boundary plan would take Hawkshead to link with Coniston and Broughton, when in fact all relations and community activities in Hawkshead are far more closely linked with Ambleside, Grasmere and Windermere. Granted the school in Coniston has links with Hawkshead, but the new Medical practice which has recently been formed is now known as the Central Lakes Medical Practice and as the Central Lakes this covers Grasmere, Ambleside and Hawkshead which I strongly feel would be a better match for Hawkshead & Sawrey
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8584 1/1
Ashby, Jonathan
From: Geoff2 Sent: 10 June 2016 08:43 To: reviews Subject: South Lakeland Review
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
The proposals to include important parts of Windermere including the oldest part formerly Applethwaite are about the most brainless thinking emanating from a government agency I have ever seen and that really is something. The proposals have no sense, consideration of local conditions, or grounding other than a manipulation of maps by population numbers. These proposals should be scrapped immediately and the instigator of the proposals should be sacked as totally unfit for the job. Geoffrey Yates
Sent from my iPad
1