Parish and Town Council submissions to the Nottinghamshire County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions all parish and town councils.

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

Anderton Parish Council Mrs Maureen Price (parish clerk)

19th August 2015

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

Re: Consultation on potential new electoral division arrangements for Lancashire

Dear Sir,

I write in response to the public consultation on the above topic and to convey the view of Anderton Parish Council.

Anderton is one of the parishes at the south east extremity of the Lancashire boundary. Our adjacent parishes within Lancashire are Adlington, Heath Charnock and Rivington. Of these Adlington is the most populous and is considered to be the local ‘service centre’. Many of the local facilities and amenities used by these four parishes are contained within the township of Adlington; examples being community centres, recreation grounds, bank, library, railway station and employment zone.

In addition members of the four councils regularly work together on common community activities, the most significant probably being the annual remembrance service, but also including environmental and commemorative projects. The four parishes also share common infrastructure to some degree, with public highways and Rights of Way crossing two or more parish boundaries. There is also a common neighbourhood policing team. In these respects problems and issues arising that fall under County responsibility may have effect across all these areas.

We therefore consider that, in the best interest of our local community and for most effective local governance, it would be highly desirable if the four parishes of Adlington, Anderton, Heath Charnock and Rivington were contained within a common electoral boundary division of Lancashire and represented by the same County Councillor.

Yours faithfully,

Cllr. Ian Horsfield Chair - Anderton Parish Council

Subject: boundaries

From Bowland Forest higher division parish council

This parish council strongly wish for the ward of Longridge with Bowland to remain as it is now. We would also very much like the Bowland parishes to remain together.

Thank you Rachel Carr clerk

1

Dear Sir/Madam

Farington Parish Council has considered the consultation on the electoral review of Lancashire County Council. We feel that the number of County Councillors should remain the same at 84 Members and we are also quite happy with the current arrangements in the South Ribble area that affect our Parish Council.

Kind regards

Sue

-- Mrs Sue Whittam Clerk to Farington Parish Council

Subject: Foulridge Parish Council

Dear Mr Morrison,

At the Parish council meeting on the 3rd August 2015 it was agreed by the Council that no action should be taken to change the electoral boundaries. Foulridge Parish Council is satisfied with the existing boundaries and can identify no necessity for change.

Regards.

Yours sincerely,

Jane Killeen Clerk.

1

Subject: Electoral review of Lancashire

Dear heather,

Freckleton Parish Council would like the boundaries of the two wards in Freckleton to remain the same and would like the number of Parish Councillors to remain at 6 for each ward.

K M Armistead, Clerk to Freckleton Parish Council,

28th August 2015

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF LANCASHIRE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I write with reference to the current Boundary Commission review of the future electoral division boundaries for Lancashire County Council.

You are asking local people and organisations for their views as to the best pattern of electoral boundary divisions for the county. The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the views of Gressingham Parish Council.

(The villages of Gressingham and Eskrigge lie within the Upper Lune Valley ward).

In a previous Boundary Commission review, the option to join our the Upper Lune valley ward with the adjoining Kellet ward was considered. This option was not adopted, but we fear that such a move may be proposed again during this review. We strongly oppose such a change to our existing ward boundary, for the following reasons:

∙ We have always been classed as the Lune Valley and cannot see any benefits from moving to join the Kellet ward.

∙ Geographically, Hornby is our nearest major centre of local population and amenities, and it is where Gressingham villagers mainly go to access local facilities such as shops and leisure activities.

∙ Our current Ward Councillor lives in a nearby village and has more affiliation and local knowledge with Gressingham/Eskrigge, and this may not be true of a member in the Kellet Ward, however competent and well meaning.

∙ The majority of young people in Gressingham and Eskrigge do not go to the Kellet schools, but attend schools in Hornby and other villages in the Upper Lune Valley.

∙ There is a strong link between the churches of Gressingham and Hornby ‐ indeed, they are part of the same benefice.

∙ There is no connection with the Kellet wards from an historical, cultural or community perspective. (The villages within Kellet ward are more aligned to Halton, Carnforth and the outer reaches of Lancaster).

∙ Gressingham and Eskrigge are essentially rural communities with a strong agricultural farming heritage, which is more closely aligned with similar communities in Hornby, Wennington, Melling and other areas of the Upper Lune Valley.

∙ Hornby village has many amenities which are regularly and frequently used by the Gressingham community. These include; shops, post office, swimming pool, primary & secondary schools, Village Institute (a major centre for local social & cultural events), doctor (GP surgery), C‐of‐E church, Catholic church and a Residential Care home.

∙ Hornby is a very active community, which has many Organisations which Gressingham villagers regularly use and are actively involved. Organisations include (in no particular order): Operatic group, Drama group, children's drama group, Village Trust (which organises various social events), Church religious worship (both C‐of‐E and Catholic), church Sunday school, church choir, bell ringing, flower club, keep‐fit groups, public gym, snooker club, scout group, primary & secondary schools, art group, Jazz group, whist & dominoes group, karate group, Probus, senior citizens dancing group, children's dancing group, Zumba, art group, Mothers' Union, Help‐Line for local villagers, swimming club.

In drawing up a pattern of electoral divisions, the Commission states that it must balance three criteria, including, 'That the pattern of electoral boundary divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities'. We submit that the present boundary satisfies our needs in this respect, for the (many) reasons given above.

In conclusion, the previous Boundary Commission review concluded that Gressingham should stay as we are, within the Upper Lune Valley ward. We strongly support this view.

I trust that you will take these comments into account on behalf of the Gressingham Parish Council and Electorate when the Boundary Commission makes it's final decision.

Yours faithfully

Neil Read Chairman, Gressingham Parish Council

To: The Review Officer (Lancashire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP.

Email: [email protected] Dear Sir/Madam

Grimsargh Parish Council have considered the consultation on the Electoral Review of Lancashire and they would like the number of elected Members for Lancashire County Council to remain the same. They are also happy with the current boundary arrangements as Grimsargh is a rural village and is linked with other similar rural parishes which form part of the Preston Rural Division at Lancashire County Council.

I hope that you can take this comments into account when considering the boundary review.

Kind regards

Mrs Sue Whittam Clerk to Grimsargh Parish Council

Sent: 18 July 2015 13:12 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lancashire ‐ view of Inskip‐with‐Sowerby Parish Council

Inskip‐with‐Sowerby is a rural parish within Wyre Borough in the County of Lancashire. It is located about 6 miles from Kirkham and about 8 miles from Poulton‐Le‐Fylde, Garstang, and Preston. As a result it tends to find itself on the margins of Districts, Wards, and Electoral Divisions and tends to oscillate between Parliamentary Constituencies when there is a Parliamentary Boundary Review. The Parish Council would be concerned if the Parish were allocated to a LCC Electoral Division oriented towards Preston. Whilst some in the community might regard Preston as an urban centre to which they are drawn, but most would portray Inskip as being part of a rural Wyre and Fylde region with its own distinct character. Given a free choice, the Parish Council would recommend remaining within an Electoral Division oriented towards Wyre, though an orientation towards Fylde would not be disagreeable

Kind regards,

Inskip-with-Sowerby Parish Clerk

own Division, South, is geographically widespread, as well as being above the average number of electors for the county. This excess in elector numbers seems likely to grow significantly in , Aughton and South, whereas West Lancashire East is set to grow more slowly from a low (-6%) comparative starting point.

This Parish, being rural or semi-rural and having historic links with (part of Derby ward), Lathom and Newburgh wards could conceivably be moved into West Lancashire East, giving a more balanced distribution of electors. It has been only relatively few years since most of the Parish was taken out of Derby ward and a small part was taken out of Newburgh Ward, so such a change would not be controversial.

No change would also be non-controversial but any move into the already over-loaded and wholly urban Divisions would be highly contentious.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Elizabeth-Anne Broad Clerk to Lathom South Parish Council

From: LittleEcclestonwithLarbreck ParishCouncil Sent: 26 July 2015 19:46 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Lancashire

Further to your consultation, Little Eccleston with Larbreck Parish Council wishes to remain in Fylde and is happy with the current arrangements. Regards Victoria Elvy Clerk to the Council

Dear Ms Fuller & Mr Morrison

Thank you for your e‐mail dated 23 June.

The Parish Council is unanimously of the opinion that the Myerscough and Bilsborrow should remain within the Garstang Division of Lancashire County Council.

Yours sincerely

Clerk of Myerscough and Bilsborrow Parish Council including the Barton, Bilsborrow & Myerscough War Memorial Registered Charity Number: 252831

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Melanie Harben

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Nateby Parish Council

Comment text:

Nateby Parish Council comment that Calder Vale should remain in its existing division and that Forton should be tagged on to Galgate (Lancaster Rural East).

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5653 07/07/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: Vivien Taylor

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Representing Preesall Town Council

Comment text:

This is the representation of Preesall Town Council: In your deliberations please do not seperate Preesall North and Preesall South as this would mean splitting parishes and polling districts. Preesall North and Preesall South maintain easily identifiable boundaries that reflect community interests, and identities, and most importantly, community cohesion. Preesall Town Council recommends that Preesall North and Preesall South be part of Wyre Rural West Division that includes the following electoral polling districts: - WYA (Preesall North Electorate at 2021 = 3312), WYB (Preesall South1506), WXA (Pilling 1707), WXB (Winmarleigh 313), WZB (Forton 993), WUA (Cabus 1431) WVE (Upper Rawcliffe with Tarnacre 542), WVA (Great Eccleston 1198) and WVB (Inskip with Sowerby 697). Total Electorate 11699

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5973 01/09/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name: joanne carr

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Wheelton Parish Council

Comment text:

Wheelton Parish Council would like to keep the parish unity and have only one polling district.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5871 17/08/2015

Subject: Electoral review of Lancashire

Dear Sir / Madam,

At a meeting of Whitworth Town Council on Thursday 23 July 2015, the abovementioned review was considered. At the meeting, my Council resolved to request that the boundary remains the same, and that the name ‘Whitworth’ is retained in the area title.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Town Clerk, Whitworth Town Council (Standard working hours: Monday to Friday, 9am ‐ 2.30pm)

Whitworth Town Council

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lancashire County

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Parish Council

Comment text:

Wrightington Parish Council would like to leave any observations and decisions on this Review to the Professional Officers at West Lancashire Borough Council and Lancashire County Council. Mrs C A Cross Clerk to Wrightington Parish Council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5763 29/07/2015