Local Resident Submissions to the Canterbury City Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local resident submissions to the Canterbury City Council electoral review This PDF document contains 22 submissions. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2 Canterbury District Personal Details: Name: Cathy E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Map Features: Comment text: Canterbury City Councillors in general do not represent the interests of voters. I strongly support the decision to reduce their numbers. I would welcome further reductions. In my opinion Canterbury City would be better served by a small accountable service with the remit of maintaining public land, keeping streets and roads litter and graffiti free and maintaining law and order. City Councillors are paid a lot of money and do none of these things. Decisions regarding future planning decisions and selling land should be put at county level and kept in the public domain; city councillors seem to have no long-term vision. Tax payers' money should not be wasted in allowing the City Council to pay expensive lawyers to fight residents' legitimate claim to preserve recreational land in densely populated city locations as such while neglecting basic maintenance of the city so harming legitimate business interests. https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2692 04/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2 https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2692 04/12/2013 Ward, Lucy From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 November 2013 09:07 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: request not to publish my surname Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Cathy Sent: 26 November 2013 20:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: request not to publish my surname To Whom It May Concern, My comment is that there are too many city councillors who fail to use tax payer money to maintain the city adequately. I do not feel qualified to talk about boundary changes, except that I think KCC and CCC seem to duplicate each other with CCC contributing very little if anything positive. Canterbury is a small place with a large number of city councillors many who know me or are neighbours. For an easier life I would prefer my surname to be omitted. Kind regards, Cathy 1 Ward, Lucy From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 December 2013 09:13 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Jeremy Baker Sent: 01 December 2013 20:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review - Canterbury City Council Dear Sirs, I have learned only very recently about your current consultation and am concerned that a very small proportion of the local population is aware of and involved in it. You should be aware that it coincides with a consultation by Kent County Council, which is running between almost exactly the same dates, regarding a recent failed Traffic Trial in Canterbury which adversely affected thousands of people. Petitions signed by over 4,000 people and over 3,000 people respectively have resulted from this failed Trial, and you should understand that this issue is seen as of far greater immediate significance to most of those who live in Canterbury and the surrounding areas. I have found a little time to view your consultation website and submit the following comments:- 1. I do not know where the City Council got the "Electorate 2019" figures from, as no explanations and calculations are given. Your process is therefore rendered opaque and untransparent. You should be informed of the basis of these figures, and that basis should be exposed to public scrutiny. For example:- (i) the City Council has recently launched a highly controversial draft Local Plan, which allocates greenfield land for thousands of new houses over the next few years. Some 4,000 of these new houses are in inappropriate locations on Grade 1 Agricultural Land (contrary to Government Policy), and these may be deleted by the Local Plan Inspector in due course. This would result in either a reduction in the number of new houses in the District as a whole, and/or a relocation of some houses to other areas, some being in different settlements. Therefore, I do not see how you can set new Ward boundaries until the Local Plan process has progressed and the location and scale of new housebuilding is determined. (ii) In my own parish of Harbledown & Rough Common, there is a recently-granted planning permission for 19 dwellings (ref. CA/13/00031/FUL) which clearly has not been taken into account in the figures, because the number of electors has only been increased by 21 for the whole of Harbledown and Upper Harbledown villages put together (including all other sites). Please would you seek clarity from the City Council about how the figures have been calculated, and ensure that the public is consulted about them. 1 2. As a matter of principle, I would ask you to seek to ensure that the University of Kent Campus is separately represented from the surrounding villages (Blean, Rough Common, Tyler Hill) if at all possible. I believe that the concerns, interests, and voting patterns of students are quite different from those of residents, and I believe it suits both groups best if they can be separately represented. This is an increasingly important issue as the University builds more and more onsite accommodation, thus weighing ever more heavily in the electoral stakes against any village(s) with which it is Warded. I note that RBF2 and RBF3 are more than able to support a Councillor in their own right, and I would ask you to consider boundaries around the University carefully with a view to creating a University Ward. If it is necessary to have two Wards which are primarily University Wards, then the most appropriate part of the surrounding residential area to be included within such a Ward would be likely to be part of CSS1 (or possibly part of CSS3), as these areas contain very large numbers of University students "living out". 3. I would ask also that the Parish of Harbledown & Rough Common will continue to be the basis of a Ward, possibly with an immediately-adjoining area such as the London Road Estate (CWE3), if this is necessary to reach the appropriate numbers of electors once these have been verified (see above as to this). Please would you add me to your mailing list and keep me informed of any future stages of this Review. Thank you. Yours faithfully, 2 Ward, Lucy From: Egan, Helen Sent: 29 November 2013 09:19 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Changes to the Electoral Boundaries in the Canterbury District Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Morning Lucy, You have received the attached submission for Canterbury. Regards, Helen From: Tim Bentley Sent: 28 November 2013 22:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Changes to the Electoral Boundaries in the Canterbury District Dear Sirs I had hoped that your consultation might have included a suggestion as to how the reduction from 50 to 38 councillors could have been achieved but unfortunately all that was provided was raw data from which to draw conclusions. I have therefore taken as a given that the reduction in numbers will come about and have tried to suggest a couple of ways of coping with this. My starting point is that the Canterbury District comprises two distinct social groups, namely students at the universities here and people who reside in the neighbourhood for family reasons. While it is possible to identify those who live on campus in the Blean Forest area, this does not seem to be easily possible with those students who live off campus throughout the district. Canterbury district houses a lot of very welcome university students! Under current legislation, I suspect that dwelling location is the only currently acceptable determinant of an electoral boundary, but it would be interesting to consider the possibility of establishing a virtual electoral boundary for university students. Their needs and aspirations differ from those who simply live,work and look after families in the area, yet they must find it extremely difficult to have their voices heard within the current boundary structure, since their needs would inevitably be drowned out by the family groups for whom the boundary structure was created. Further the likelihood of the student population voting is low simply because their focus is, or should be, on obtaining the best possible degree, with little time available to become involved in local affairs. A virtual university ward or wards might possibly start to address this issue, but I have no idea whether this is allowed within existing legislation. I suspect that other districts in the country have the same problem of coping with the differing requirements of what is sometimes referred to as "town and gown" and my proposal might well be relevant in those areas too, even if it does require a change in legislation. 1 As I suspect this is an idea that is unlikely to be pursued at this moment, the most logical approach to at least recognise that the issue exists and to create a separate ward for the University of Kent where its two polling districts would create a ward of 4,844 people in 2019. That reduces the size of the current Blean Forest Ward to 1,793, but this could be expanded by the addition of Rough Common.