Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Cambridgeshire County Council Electoral Review

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

This PDF document contains submissions from Parish and Town Councils.

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.

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 January 2015 11:46 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE Barton PC

From: Patrick De Backer [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 January 2015 11:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE Barton PC

BARTON PARISH COUNCIL Margaret Penston Chair

Patrick De Backer Parish Clerk [email protected]

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CAMBRIDGESHIRE

The Parish Council has debated the proposed changes. It prefers to keep the status quo for the Hardwick division - at the moment that division serves its constituents well and particularly forms an integral part and serves the needs of the Quarter to Six Quadrant villages and the cooperative work that has gone on among them.

Kind regards Patrick De Backer

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 13 January 2015 16:43 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Hi Alex,

Please see submission below for Cambridgeshire.

Helen

From: Buckden Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 January 2015 15:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

The Parish Council has considered what it would like to see in the review and that can be simply summed up as:

Buckden, Diddington and Southoe should be within the same division.

The Parish of Diddington is administered by the Buckden Parish Council. Buckden School hosts pupils from both Diddington and Southoe. Residents of Diddington use the Doctors surgery at Buckden. The 3 Parishes are linked by the bus route between Huntingdon and St Neots and they all are on the A1 and have a common interest in the future of that road.

Regards

John Chase Clerk to Buckden Parish Council Buckden Village Hall Burberry Road Buckden PE19 5UY

Email: [email protected]

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 November 2014 12:24 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: electoral review of cambridgeshire

From: Joanna Melton/Ivan Cooper [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 13 November 2014 11:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: electoral review of cambridgeshire

Dear Sir

With reference to the electoral review of Cambridgeshire, Chatteris Town Council wishes to make the following points:

‘The map which shows the scenario version for FDC for 63 members appears to show the Chatteris ward (Slade Lode) which is currently in the Forty Foot Division moving back into Chatteris so that all four wards in Chatteris are represented by one County Councillor. If this is the case the Town Council would welcome the move as it restores the status quo.

Before the last electoral review the town was represented by one County Councillor and this worked well as electors were aware who their County Councillor was, irrespective of where they lived in the town. Residents of the town share the same interests and identities since Chatteris is a relatively small town.

With the present arrangement, whereby one councillor represents three quarters of the town and another councillor the other quarter, there is some confusion among electors. In addition the councillor representing Slade Lode electors finds himself representing a largely rural community with the exception of part of Chatteris. This does not provide for effective or convenient local government.

For these reasons the Town Council calls upon the Local Government Boundary Commission to establish an electoral arrangement whereby the four wards of Chatteris (Slade Lode, Wenneye, The Mills and Birch) are represented by one County Councillor.’

Yours sincerely Mrs Joanna Melton Town Clerk

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 15 January 2015 14:41 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Hi Alex,

Please see submission below for Cambridgeshire.

Helen

-----Original Message----- From: Tracey Coulson Sent: 15 January 2015 14:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

The City of Ely Council has given due consideration to the proposals in the Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire.

As part of the current East Cambridgeshire District area the Council has concerns over the geographical area of the latter. East Cambridgeshire District Council covers an elongated area with the two distinct and un-coordinated areas. This causes possible distortion and the views and interests of local communities are often not met.

The Commission is requested to give this matter consideration.

Tracey Coulson Clerk to the City of Ely Council

--- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 November 2014 11:59 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Eletorial Review of Cambridgeshire

From: Doddington Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 November 2014 09:48 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Eletorial Review of Cambridgeshire

To the Review Officer (Cambridgeshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Dear Sir

Doddington Parish Council is one of the rural parishes within the Fenland District Council area of Cambridgeshire.

The Parish Council, at their meeting last Monday, reviewed the current division boundaries and the changes proposed. They noted that the villages of Doddington, Wimblington and Manea will continue to have one County Councillor and although there will be some minor movement between the existing Forty Foot division and the new FDC 8 division they raised no concerns over these.

The Doddington Parish Council therefore fully supports the proposed change as it applies to Doddington.

Yours faithfully

Roger Wilkin Clerk to Doddington Parish Council

Tel:

1 Hinds, Alex

From: [email protected] Sent: 07 December 2014 14:40 To: Reviews@ Cc: Hinds, Alex; Subject: Electoral Review - Comments by Earith Parish Council

Dear Alex, Further to the Parish Council meeting held on 4th December 2014 the Council discussed the Electoral Review changes and wanted the following comments to be raised. Earith Parish Council do not want to be merged with any other village as we feel that we have several unique qualities that the surrounding villages do not have to contend with. Earith is the most Easterly village within the ward and as such its boundaries are dictated via the surrounding river networks which bring flooding and road closure issues to the village of Earith. The High Street is an A road - The A1123 and this is used as a throughfare when any problems arise from the A14 The whole of the High Street area is within a conservation area and we also have many listed buildings. Many of the houses along the High Street do not have any foundations and as such have special planning needs to be considered. Earith is also part of the Ouse Washes area of outstanding natural beauty and as such this needs to be maintained The Earith Bulwarks also bring with them special considerations that the surrounding villages do not have. The Earith Parish Council all agreed that Earith should remain as it is and should not be merged with any other village. Do you require any further information from the Parish at this time? Is there any official paperwork that needs to be completed? Many Thanks and Best Regards Mandy Pink Earith Parish Clerk [email protected]

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

Cambridgeshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Harry Webster

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Fen Drayton Parish Council

Comment text:

LGBCE Review – The Parish of Fen Drayton wishes to remain in its current Division of Papworth and Swavesey on the basis that it would like to retain the current representatives from the County and District Council. Responses from the Parish Councillors have concluded, unanimously, that it would be more advantageous to remain in the current division. We see no obvious advantage in being in a different division either to the West or East. The members of the Fen Drayton Parish Council have looked carefully at the LGBCE Review documentation provided and have also taken into account proposals from the Parish Councils of Over and Swavesey. It should be noted that Fen Drayton has not participated in the compilation of these latter documents that propose Swavesey and Fen Drayton move from the current Papworth and Swavesey Division to a new Division. Fen Drayton Parish Council would like to point out that this is not a joint proposal. However, it would not wish to influence in any way Swavesey’s position in this matter but it also sees no advantage in moving with Swavesey to another Division. A further complication is that the District Council Division in which Fen Drayton currently resides does not contain Swavesey but does provide councillors with which the Parish of Fen Drayton has a good relationship and which it is loath to lose. In short, Fen Drayton would like to keep the status quo in both County and District Council Divisions. It is of great worry that moving Divisions in the County might precipitate a similar move in the District Council and we hope this will be avoided. The primary concern is that of losing some or all of the present complement of councillors from the County and District Council who have been very supportive and obviously are well acquainted with the Parish. We agree that rationalisation of the County representation is beneficial from a financial viewpoint but we feel that any proposal for us to move division for purely numerical convenience should not be a cause to disrupt the worthwhile collaborative relationship we have built up with our representatives. Harry Webster Chairman, on behalf of Fen Drayton Parish Council 18th January 2015

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4447 19/01/2015 Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 January 2015 13:19 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Hi Alex,

Please see submission below for Cambridgeshire.

Helen

From: Girton Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 26 January 2015 12:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Dear Sir or Madam, Please find below Girton Parish Council's response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England's Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire.

The letter from the Local Government Boundary Commission to the Cambridge County Council dated 28th October states that in drawing up a pattern of electoral divisions, the

Commission must balance its three statutory criteria, namely:

(i) To deliver electoral equality where each county councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the county.

(ii) That the patterns of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

(iii) That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

(a) The proposals being considered appear to concentrate on item (i) and ignore the requirements of (ii) and (iii).

(b) The case to reduce the number of members from 69 to 63 has not been convincingly made. The cost savings will be small and the increased workload per member will increase significantly. The late Councillor Reynolds was extremely hard working but even so he was not able to attend all Parish Meetings. If the member has four Parishes, instead of the current three, to liaise with, this would increase the work load by 33% and lead to poorer representation, in direct conflict with statement (iii) above.

1 Cambridge with which we have no shared interests or identities as required by statement (ii).

(d) Whilst Girton has little in common with Bar Hill, the Parish Council are content to remain in the Bar Hill Ward, although the addition of Madingley would make little sense. Girton does, however. have much more in common with our neighbouring Parishes of

Oakington and Histon/Impington. Amongst other issues, Girton shares the same problems with the proposed development of

Northstowe and the A14. There is a direct bus service to Oakington and the majority of children from Girton attend Impington Village

College.

(e) Girton Parish Council is strongly opposed to changes being made to parish boundaries. In a thoroughly researched Village Plan the issue of boundary changes was raised – almost 3/5 of respondents were opposed to transferring part of the parish area to other parishes.

Yours sincerely,

Girton Parish Clerk

2 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 December 2014 14:55 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire - Graveley Parish Council

From: Papworth Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 December 2014 17:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire - Graveley Parish Council

Graveley Parish Council would like to voice its’ views regarding the above, following its meeting held on the 27th November 2014. It is the view of the council that it would prefer its’ boundary stays under the South Cambs District Council’s umbrella having built up a rapport with the councillors there.

Kind regards

Tess Rogers Parish Clerk

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5577 / Virus Database: 4253/8746 - Release Date: 12/16/14

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 December 2014 15:32 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire.

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 08 December 2014 15:23 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire.

I am writing on behalf of Great Paxton Parish Council regarding the proposed Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire.

At present we are part of the Buckden, Gransden, Offords, and Loves Farm division but understand the proposal is that Buckden, Southoe and the Offords should move into the Brampton and Kimbolton division, and that Great Paxton should remain with Loves Farm, which is adjoining St. Neots Railway Station and comprises 1,250 dwellings with a further 1,200 dwellings proposed shortly.

Great Paxton do not not wish to remain within the Loves Farm division, as we are a rural community (approx 400 dwellings) and would be decimated by a larger population which would result in mis-representation to the detriment of the village. I understand the preference would be to remain within the Buckden, Gransden, Offords when they move into the Brampton and Kimbolton division.

I trust that the views of the Parish Council will be taken into consideration before finalisation of the review takes place.

Sheila Childerley

Clerk Great Paxton Parish Council

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.3495 / Virus Database: 4235/8701 - Release Date: 12/08/14

1 Hinds, Alex

From: diane Sent: 17 January 2015 16:08 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: Cambridge Electoral Review

Dear Mr Hinds, I am emailing on behalf of Great Gransden Parish Council concerning the electoral review and the proposed boundary changes that will effect Great Gransden, particularly as the proposal is to include the village with Loves Farm, St Neots, an urban development. The review must take into account the differing needs of rural and urban communities. Rural areas have different issues and by grouping villages with urban developments can lead to the urban communities taking precedence over the smaller rural villages. In deed The Boundary Commission guidance sets out that ward patterns should reflect community interests and identities. By grouping Great Gransden with Loves Farm, this will not reflect community interests. Loves Farm is a large population and should more logically be grouped with another urban area such as St Neots. In the circumstances, Great Gransden should continue to be grouped with rural communities with similar issues as is presently eth case. Regards Diane Taylor Clerk to Great Gransden Parish Council

1 Ian Kydd Clerk to the Council [email protected]

Great Shelford Parish Council

Review Officer (Cambridgeshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 13 January 2015 76-86 Tunmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

The Great Shelford Parish Council would be grateful if you would take into account its views as set out below when formulating your recommendations for a new pattern of Electoral Divisions for Cambridgeshire.

The Parish Council is strongly of the view that any new electoral arrangement for Great Shelford should continue to include Little Shelford and Stapleford within the same Electoral Division. The reasons for this include common interests and identities of the three communities as evidenced by the following:-

Identity:  self evident in respect of the common use of names , eg Shelford and Stapleford Youth Initiative, Shelford and Stapleford Strikers, Shelford and Stapleford Men’s Fellowship, Shelfords and Stapleford Scouts and Guides; and the frequent use (not least on highway signs) of the term “The Shelfords”. Geography:  all are within a radius of less than two miles sharing Parish boundaries; Great Shelford and Stapleford are ribbon developments; Great and Little Shelford are either side of the same river crossing; all are dependent on the same through routes (road, rail, footpaths) and public and private transport links that use these routes;  many residents in each Parish choose to use facilities (where these exist) in the neighbouring Parish since these are often nearer and more convenient.

Common Resources:  these include retail outlets most of which (but not all) are located in Great Shelford and which serve all three communities;  medical services, in particular the Shelford Medical Centre;

1  each village has sports facilities serving all three communities with clubs drawing members from all three villages;

 schooling – the largest school in the area is the Great and Little Shelford Church of England Primary School (faith based); there is also Stapleford Community School; both schools attract pupils from all three villages; the majority of secondary pupils attend Sawston Village College;  churches in all three village draw members from each community;  transport - the only railway station in the area is Shelford (in Great Shelford) easily accessible to Great Shelford, Little Shelford and Stapleford, and which provides services to Cambridge and London; bus service 31 goes though all three communities; the 7 bus goes through Great Shelford and Stapleford;  social groups, clubs etc – these attract residents from all three communities and include Shelfords and Stapleford Scouts and Guides, the Shelford and Stapleford Youth Initiative, the Shelfords Women’s Institute;  Library – Great Shelford Library serves all three communities.

At present Great Shelford is part of the two-Member Sawston Division that covers the seven villages of (in alphabetical order) Great Shelford, Harston, Hauxton, Little Shelford, Newton, Sawston and Stapleford and has just over 13,000 electors.

Our understanding is that the Review is likely to reduce the number of Council Members which would result in Great Shelford being represented by one Member and the size of the Division being reduced to closer to 8,000 electors.

A Division comprising Great Shelford, Little Shelford and Stapleford would represent between 5,500 and 6,000 electors. We believe that a Division of that size would result in effective and convenient local government. However, should this be regarded as too small in terms of numbers of electors, we believe it would be sensible to also include Harston, Hauxton and Newton.

We have no objection to being in the same Division (as at present) as Sawston with whom we share many resources. If this were thought desirable, we would expect the factors highlighted above to require the inclusion of Little Shelford and Stapleford within the same Division.

Ian Kydd Clerk to the Council

3 Hinds, Alex

From: Niall O'Byrne Sent: 16 January 2015 13:31 To: Reviews@ Cc: rob. thomas; NATANIA GOLDRICH; Vince Blocke; Janet Lockwood; Orgee Tony Cllr; Kenney Gail Cllr Subject: Electoral Review Cambridge: Harston Parish Council

Harston Parish Council recommends that Harston should be in a division containing the below villages and for the reasons stated:

 Hauxton: because of its close proximity, we are in the same Police ward and because we share a District Councillor.  The Shelfords: because of their proximity for shopping, bank, library and dentist.  Newton: because of its proximity and because it is a linked parish to Harston.

Best Regards, Niall O'Byrne, Vice Chair Harston Parish Council.

Hatley Parish Council Clerk to the Council: Kim Wilde, Email: [email protected]

Review Officer (Cambridgeshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

18th January 2015

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you on behalf of Hatley Parish Council in response to the current public consultation on the Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Background The Parish of Hatley is comprised of two small rural hamlets, Hatley St. George & East Hatley, which are located in the arable farmland of South Cambridgeshire. The parish has a population of approximately 175 residents across a total of 75 dwellings, most being classed as commuter workers, although many do also work from home. With the exception of the larger neighbouring village of Gamlingay (2 miles north west of Hatley St. George), this arable area offers very few amenities and services to the residents of Hatley. Gamlingay has become a natural extension to the parish of Hatley in terms of transport links, churches, public services, facilities and community organisations.

Hatley Parish Council’s Response to the Consultation Hatley Parish Council does not wish to provide any recommendations for electoral boundaries across the whole county. However, the Parish Council requests that the forthcoming electoral division avoids splitting Hatley’s local ties with the neighbouring village of Gamlingay. There is a strong link between Gamlingay and the Hatleys which the Parish Council believes should be maintained for the benefit of the local community. It is understood that the Commission will try to match the new boundaries with existing District Ward boundaries. However, should this not be the case, Hatley Parish Council would like the following evidence to be taken into account so that the shared community interests of the residents may be preserved.

Public Facilities and Services The only public service in Hatley is the Post Office which additionally offers some basic fresh produce for local residents on given days of the week. The neighbouring village of Gamlingay offers a wide range of public services and facilities that are otherwise unavailable for many miles around. These include a food store, petrol station, library, bakery, motor engineers, hairdresser, estate agent, newsagent, chemist, schools, and a

medical practice. The medical practice includes a General Practice, District Nurse and Health Visitor Services, Clinics and an Emergency Service.

Gamlingay also offers the residents of Hatley a fitness gym, sports clubs and sport facilities, plus a wide range of community events throughout the year via the Gamlingay Eco-Hub Community Centre. These facilities and services are available to the residents of Hatley, who can easily access them via a short drive, a public bus service or the Car Share scheme, as detailed further on.

Churches The Benefice of Gamlingay includes St. Mary The Virgin Parish Church (Gamlingay), The Church of St. Mary (Everton) and The Parish Church of Hatley St. George. The Gamlingay Parochial Church Council oversees the services, maintenance and events for this group of churches, which formally ties the parishioners of Hatley to community in Gamlingay. The Holy Communion service takes place in Hatley St. George on two Sundays a month, however all other Holy Communion and Morning Prayer services are offered in the Gamlingay Church, thereby encouraging both a bond and shared interests between the two parishes.

Transport The parish of Hatley has one main road that runs through it connecting with Gamlingay to the North West and Croydon to the South East. The only public transport service is the C2 bus Service that operates on Thursdays, taking residents of Hatley into Gamlingay, where they can connect to other bus services, or can continue on the C2 to St Neots. There is also a Demand Responsive service which links 20 local rural locations, including the Hatleys and Gamlingay.

Additionally the Gamlingay and Hatley Car Scheme has been in operation for over 20 years, organising transport by volunteer drivers for anyone where public transport is unsuitable or unavailable. This is a useful resource to residents with medical appointments on days that the C2 public bus service is not operating, and when the Demand Responsive may be restricted in availability due to demand by other users across the 20 villages that it services. The scheme provides transportation for a wide range of purposes, not just medical appointments.

Communications The wide range of services and community groups that are located in Gamlingay are promoted to the residents of Hatley each month via the community news publication ‘The Gazette’. This publication officially calls itself ‘The Newspaper for Gamlingay, East Hatley & Hatley St. George’ confirming the sense of community that exists between the large village of Gamlingay and the smaller hamlets of Hatley. It includes ‘What’s On’ community events, local trade and service advertisements, village information, church notices and articles by various community organisations. There is a new publication called The Post, which goes to print for the first time next month, which has also chosen to include news for and distribution within the Hatleys.

This mutual community identity is further emphasised when visiting the websites of either the Hatleys (www.hatley.info) or Gamlingay www.Gamlingay.org, both of which refer users to the other site for news and information. Neither website makes reference

to any other local village websites, illustrating the bond that exists between Gamlingay and the Hatleys.

Community Groups & Organisations There is a vast range of groups and organisations based in Gamlingay that are made available to the residents of Hatley and that are actively promoted to the residents of Hatley. Examples include GamArch an archaeology group that sought test pits in the Hatleys last summer, Forward Gamlingay which provides Youth Services, various sports clubs, fitness classes, children’s groups such as Brownies & Scouts, and much more.

The Gamlingay Community Turbine is a local project, ‘by the community for the community’, that was installed just outside of the village to generate energy that could offset the village’s carbon foot print. A portion of the profit raised from the energy sales, is used to fund local charities and ‘green’ projects ‘in the Parish of Gamlingay’. It is therefore significant to note that funds were recently given to Hatley St. George Church for the purchase and installation of a composting toilet, providing further evidence that the Hatleys are considered to be part of a wider community alongside Gamlingay.

Summary We hope that the points outlined above help to demonstrate that there is a shared local opinion of a wider community that comprises both Gamlingay village and the hamlets in Hatley Parish, and that this identity reaches across a wide range of services and community groups. It is vital to the small rural hamlets in Hatley that these essential links to the larger neighbouring village of Gamlingay are not severed.

Yours sincerely,

Kim Wilde Clerk and RFO to Hatley Parish Council

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 19 January 2015 11:43 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review Cambridge: Harston Parish Council

From: John Hammond, Clerk to Hauxton Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 January 2015 19:45 To: Reviews@ Cc: Jane Ward; Janet Lockwood; Tony Orgee; Gail Kenney; Niall O'Byrne; Ian Kydd; David Martin Subject: Fwd: Electoral Review Cambridge: Harston Parish Council

Dear Sirs

We at Hauxton Parish Council have considered this Electoral Review and we would like to endorse the suggestion by Harston (below) that Hauxton should be in a division containing Harston, Little Shelford, Great Shelford and Newton for the same reasons given by Harston Parish Council. We have also discussed this with Great Shelford and I believe they also wish to have the same combination.

Regards

John Hammond Clerk to Hauxton Parish Council

Harston Parish Council recommends that Harston should be in a division containing the below villages and for the reasons stated:

Best Regards, Niall O'Byrne, Vice Chair Harston Parish Council.

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 November 2014 11:11 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Cambridgeshire County review

From: Jane Bowd [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 24 November 2014 10:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Cambridgeshire County review

Dear Sir, Having reviewed the documents I am directed by Council to forward the following comment. The current alignment is successful and works therefore it is considered that any change is not necessary. Kind regards, Jane Jane Bowd Parish Clerk Holywell-cum-Needingworth Parish Council

If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. We do not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this E-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free.

This e-mail is not intended nor should it be taken to create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail or attachment are solely those of the sender, and do not necessarily represent those of Holywell-cum-Needingworth Parish Council unless otherwise specifically stated. If verification is required, please request a hard copy version. We are not bound by or liable for any opinion, contract or offer to contract expressed in any e-mail.

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

Cambridgeshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Lois Dale

E-mail: [email protected]

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Houghton and Wyton Parish Council

Comment text:

Houghton & Wyton Parish Council is content with the current situation, but reserves the right to review its decision in the light of future developments under discussion within the area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4400 12/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cambridgeshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Jefferies

E-mail:

Organisation Name: Little Gransden Parish Council

Comment text:

This submission is on behalf of Little Gransden Parish Council. Little Gransden Parish Council wishes that the parish remains within the Gamlingay ward and that the Gamlingay ward should be combined with the Bassingbourn ward to the south. We fell that we have more in common with the rural villages o the SW of the county rather than the commuter villages closer to Cambridge and our needs would be matched more closely to those rural villages. John Jefferies Chair of Lt Gransden Parish Council c/o 3 Primrose Hill Lt Gransden Sandy, Beds

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4445 19/01/2015 LITTLE SHELFORD PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Clerk

Mrs Penny Tanna Review Officer (Cambridgeshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Tunmill Street London EC1M 5LG

th 16 January 2015 July 2013

Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

The Little Shelford Parish Council would like to put forward its views as set out below when formulating your recommendations for a new pattern of Electoral Divisions for Cambridgeshire.

The Parish Council feels strongly that the villages of Little Shelford, Great Shelford and Stapleford should remain within the same Electoral Division.

Geographically the villages are located close together. All are within a radius of less than two miles sharing Parish boundaries; Great and Little Shelford are either side of the same river crossing; Little Shelford also has footpath links to Stapleford. All use the same through routes - A1301 for Sawston & Cambridge and the Whittlesford road through Little Shelford towards the M11. The 31 bus service goes though all three communities.

The main reasons for keeping the villages in the same Electoral Division are the many shared common interests, facilities and organisations throughout the communities as evidenced by the following:-

Community facilities

Schools: Great and Little Shelford Church of England Primary School is on the boundary between the 2 villages. Many families from Little Shelford walk to school along Bridge Street over the river to the school. There is also Stapleford Community School; both schools are well attended by pupils from all three villages; the majority of secondary pupils attend Sawston Village College;

Medical services: the Shelford Medical Centre and the Shelford Dental practice serve all the villages as the nearest alternative clinic would be Sawston or Harston.

Great Shelford library serves all three communities.

Organisations – there is a strong trend for organisations and sports teams to include members from all villages, partly because of the proximity, and partly because it ensures high levels of participation of all the communities.

Examples include: The Shelford Twinning Association which, to quote from its website, ‘exists to foster friendship and understanding and to promote cultural links between the people of Great and Little Shelford in Cambridgeshire and Verneuil-en-Halatte’

Shelford and Stapleford Youth Initiative again to quote from their website ‘provide youth clubs, activities and support for the young people in Great Shelford, Little Shelford and Stapleford.’

Other organisations include Shelford and Stapleford Strikers with teams of boys from all communities, Shelford and Stapleford Men’s Fellowship, Shelfords and Stapleford Scouts and Guides; the Shelfords Women’s Institute and many more.

Amenities are based mainly in the larger village of Great Shelford which forms a central hub of commerce serving Stapleford & Little Shelford. A wide variety of shops including supermarkets, a butcher, a bakers, cafe and chemist cover most everyday needs and consequently draw customers from all 3 villages on a regular basis.

The Gt Shelford Post Office is well used by all three villages and many businesses within the area.

All the villages have sports facilities serving all three communities with clubs drawing members from all three villages. Similarly all have Village Halls have events and classes well attended by the wider communities.

These many common links and the shared schooling has resulted in strong bonds between the villages and a sense of a wider community outside the individual villages.

At present Little Shelford is part of the two-Member Sawston Division that covers the seven villages of (in alphabetical order) Great Shelford, Harston, Hauxton, Little Shelford, Newton, Sawston and Stapleford and has just over 13,000 electors.

Our understanding is that the Review is likely to reduce the number of Council Members which would result in Little Shelford being represented by one Member and the size of the Division being reduced to closer to 8,000 electors.

Yours sincerely

Penny Tanna Parish Clerk [email protected] Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 14 January 2015 15:20 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Cambridgeshire Electoral Review

From: Bobbie Coe [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 January 2015 15:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Cambridgeshire Electoral Review

Email: [email protected]

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Cambridgeshire Electoral Review Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2015 12:20:29 +0000

Dear Sir or Madam,

As Clerk, I have been asked to send you the following message.

Longstowe Parish Council feels very strongly that this Parish should remain within the Gamlingay electoral division boundary and therefore requests that the Local Government Boundary Commission takes this view into account in their electoral review of Cambridgeshire County Council.

Please confirm that this e-mail has been received by the correct department.

Yours faithfully,

Bobbie Coe

Clerk, Longstowe Parish Council

Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 January 2015 08:53 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

From: Terry Jordan Sent: 11 January 2015 12:21 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Neither Manea Parish Council nor Elm Parish Council (which are 2 of the 16 Parish/Town Councils within the District of Fenland) have any comments to make in relation to this review.

Regards.

Terry Jordan Clerk to Manea and Elm Parish Councils

1 LGBCE Boundaries Review – Cambridgeshire CC

Over Parish Council

Proposed re-grouping of the Willingham Division to comprise Willingham, Over, Swavesey and Fen Drayton

1 Introduction Following attendance at the LGBCE Briefing in Cambourne on 24th November, our Vice Chairman, Cllr Geoff Twiss, looked more closely into his concerns that the development of Northstowe would seriously distort the current structure of the Willingham Division in the years ahead. In particular it seemed inevitable that Longstanton’s future interests would become so closely aligned to its new ‘siamese twin’ that it should probably be grouped into a Division that included Northstowe rather than Over and Willingham.

2 Development of the proposal Research of the documents, supplied by Cambridgeshire County Council and posted on the LGBCE consultation website, showed that a grouping of the four adjacent Parishes – Fen Drayton, Swavesey, Over and Willingham – occupying the narrow corridor between the soon-to-be- expanded A14 and the Great Ouse might constitute a more logical Division. Furthermore both Swavesey and Fen Drayton had objected to the 2004 Review decision to group them with a collection of Parishes to the south of the A14 – villages with which they had, and still have, little affinity. Over Parish Council thought that the concept was worthy of further study and floated the idea to the other three Parishes. Co-ordination proved difficult in the short consultation period that included the Christmas break, and with different Parishes meeting at different times within the month. Swavesey PC was keen to ‘buy into’ the proposal and formally agreed to take the matter forward. Willingham PC consulted its councillors informally but found little interest in any change. Fen Drayton PC proved hardest to contact but has shown some interest in recent days. A format was agreed whereby Cllr Twiss would develop and set out the core numerical analysis and the consenting Parishes would provide their own front page(s) that would explain the merits of the proposal from their own particular viewpoints.

3 Why Over sees the proposal as beneficial There are three roads leading out of Over – one goes to Swavesey and thence to Fen Drayton or the A14, one goes to Willingham and the third leads directly to the A14 at Bar Hill. To head north, one must pass through Willingham. The villages share concerns about ‘rat-running’ that occurs whenever the A14 becomes congested and the local roads provide the only viable (if unsuitable) east-west alternative. All four Parishes have areas of low ground that are prone to flooding, a problem that threatens to get worse as more land in the area is developed for housing. The pump that allows the Swavesey Drain to discharge into the Great Ouse when the river levels are high is now being upgraded to accommodate the development of Northstowe. The Drain’s water is comprised largely of treated sewage from the Uttons Drove STW, with such discharges increasing rapidly in recent years due to large housing developments at Cambourne and smaller developments wherever one looks. LGBCE Boundaries Review – Cambridgeshire CC

Swavesey, Over and Willingham are linked by the Citi 5 bus service that goes into Cambridge and there is also a flourishing community car service (“OWLS”) to assist parishioners who live away from the bus route or need to travel to places it doesn’t serve. The surgeries in Swavesey, Over and Willingham care for residents in all four Parishes, with some considerable overlap in their catchments. Over residents will use the Post Offices in Swavesey and Willingham at times when the mobile Post Office van is not present in the village. The Over Day Centre offers a well-used service to elderly residents of neighbouring villages, using specially adapted transport to ensure that they can travel to and from the Centre safely. The Over Community Centre also draws customers from many local villages, offering sporting, social and conference facilities. Over’s children travel to Swavesey Village College for their secondary education – over a period of many years this has reinforced the emotional and social ties between these two villages. Both Parishes border the Swavesey Drain, so they also share a common concern about flooding.

4 Over’s particular concern about CCC’s plans for Northstowe The District Council is keen to set up a Parish Council in Northstowe as soon as possible, but envisages that Longstanton Parish Council will administer it in the very early years. It has made this point many times at Northstowe Parish Forum meetings and elsewhere. However the County Council documents show that it envisages splitting up Northstowe’s electorate (until 2020 at least), with one half being added to Oakington/Westwick’s electoral roll and the other half being divided equally between Longstanton, Willingham and Over. Not only is this fragmentation of the new Northstowe community entirely counter-productive to the development of any sense of common identity, but we believe that the addition of a significant proportion of its electors to a village some miles distant is entirely without merit or justification. In spite of their involvement in many discussions at both officer and Member level, it seems that the two councils (SCDC and CCC) have completely different ideas on how Northstowe should be governed. Over Parish Council believes that the expansion of its own electoral roll by around 20% through the addition of new residents of a distant proto-town is ill-judged, entirely prejudicial to the best interest of both groups and it urges the Boundaries Commission to reject this ill-conceived proposition.

5 Conclusion Over Parish Council fully supports the numerical analysis that follows and believes that Longstanton will be increasingly consumed with local concerns about the new town springing up on its doorstep. That concern is already evident in meetings discussing Northstowe, and any existing empathy with Willingham and Over will diminish even further in years to come. On the other hand, the four Parishes discussed in this proposal have clear community links and many shared concerns. A new grouping of Over, Willingham, Swavesey and Fen Drayton Parishes would make social, administrative and arithmetical sense, and we strongly commend it.

Contact: Linda Poulter ([email protected]) Research: Cllr Geoff Twiss LGBCE Boundaries Review – Cambridgeshire CC

Re‐shaping the Willingham Division

1 Summary

This document proposes an alteration to the Willingham Division that involves replacing Longstanton with Swavesey and Fen Drayton. The case draws on data published on the Boundaries Commission’s website that was supplied by Cambridgeshire County Council. It shows that the new grouping would yield an almost ‘perfect’ division, and one that would also reflect strong community links (as will be argued separately by the parishes involved.

2 Background

Longstanton is going to become increasingly obsessed with the development of the new town of Northstowe on its borders, and it is inevitable (and entirely understandable) that Northstowe‐related issues will dominate its thoughts and actions as the town develops.

“Forecasting Methodology” shows (Pages 10‐11) that Northstowe’s predicted new housing stock has been divided equally between the Cottenham/Histon/Impington and Willingham divisions, giving 782 dwellings to each division. This conflicts with the District Council’s well documented intention to establish a new parish of Northstowe from 2016.

The “electoral figures (XLS)” spreadsheet gives the 2014 and 2020 electorates for each parish, but makes no separate mention of Northstowe. However the figures for Oakington and Westwick show that the electors from the 782 Northstowe dwellings that were allocated to Cottenham/Histon/Impington division have all been added to its electoral roll – and its population increases from 1204 to 2820 (+1616) without any new housing being identified in the Local Plan. However the other 782 houses that were allocated to Willingham division have been treated very differently, with the three constituent parishes being given ~540 electors each. The rationale (if any) for giving new residents of Northstowe full voting rights in Willingham and Over is unclear, and in any case the different treatment of the two halves of its housing stock has not been justified. This fragmentation of the Northstowe community seems likely to be entirely counter‐productive.

The table below summarises the projected electorates for the five parishes involved in this proposal: 2014 2020 Change ‘Pipeline’ properties Willingham 3,167 3,900 +733 +69 } Over 2,323 2 860 +537 0 } (+782 Northstowe) Longstanton 2,361 2 910 +549 +46 } Swavesey 1,923 1 920 ‐3 0 Fen Drayton 690 690 0 0

The 2020 figures for the first three parishes (comprising the current Willingham division) are clearly inflated by the addition of Northstowe electors, so any proposal for re‐grouping the parishes must work with the (estimated) true figures.

The table below shows the average number of electors per county councillor (63): 2014 2020 Cambridgeshire County electorate 478,860 521,340 So Electors per County Councillor 7,601 8,275 And, just using SCDC area figures 7,365 8,470

Cont… LGBCE Boundaries Review – Cambridgeshire CC

The 2020 figures reflect the growing SCDC electorate due to Northstowe, a trend that is set to continue throughout the following decade – and a growth that would accelerate if recent Government proposals come to fruition.

The table below shows the variances for the current and proposed division (removing the Northstowe electors from Willingham and Over for the re‐grouped division): 2014 Variance 2020 Variance Willingham, Over, Longstanton (as now) 7,851 +3% 9,670 +17% Just using SCDC figures +7% +14% Willingham, Over, Swavesey, Fen Drayton 8,103 +7% 8,310 0 Just using SCDC figures +10% ‐2% It is clear that the current Willingham Division will be far from ideal going forward, and that a new grouping of Willingham, Over, Swavesey and Fen Drayton would yield an almost ‘perfect’ Division.

3 Implications

To complete the picture it would only be fair to consider the fate of Longstanton if it were to be removed from the Willingham division. Logically it should probably be grouped with Northstowe and with Oakington and Westwick on Northstowe’s other flank. Initially this would be a very small division, though this shortage of electors could perhaps be addressed by adding in Rampton. However it is likely that the county councillor’s casework would be far higher than usual due to Northstowe’s rapid growth and its inevitable impact on the existing communities alongside. 2014 Variance 2020 Variance

Northstowe, Longstanton, Oakington, Rampton 3,945 ‐48% 7,266 ‐13% Just using SCDC figures ‐46% ‐14%

Although these figures seem to be quite low, there is every indication that Northstowe will grow more rapidly than recent projections have suggested, so the apparent shortfall may well be resolved by 2020.

The impact on the current Papworth & Swavesey division is harder to assess, but the proposed housing development on the soon‐to‐be‐vacated Papworth Hospital site would go a long way to address any shortfall. The neighbouring divisions south of the A14 are due to be regrouped anyway, so a little more juggling should be able to distribute the electorates more equitably. That is a process that we have neither the information nor the expertise to carry out within the timescale allowed.

4 Conclusion

This proposed re‐shaping of the Willingham division would correct the predicted excess variance and would produce a near‐perfect division by 2020.

But this proposal is born out of far wider considerations of community cohesion that are best expounded by the parishes themselves. (This document concentrates solely on the numerical aspects of the proposal.)

Geoff Twiss, 16.12.2014 Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 20 January 2015 15:19 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Division arrangements

Hi Alex,

Please see submissions below for Cambridgeshire.

Helen

From: Gary Cook Sent: 20 January 2015 14:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: Division arrangements

Dear Sirs

Ramsey Town Council would like the Commission to bear in mind that the whole of the existing parish, which includes outlying areas such as Ramsey Forty Foot, Ramsey Heights, Ramsey St. Mary’s and Ramsey Mereside should remain within the same electoral division.

Yours faithfully

G M Cook Town Clerk

Note

This email message including any attachments is intended for the addressee only. It may contain privileged or confidential information, which is prohibited from disclosure or unauthorised use. Reproduction, dissemination, modification, distribution or publication of this message may be illegal. Please notify the author immediately by email or telephone if you are not the intended recipient and delete this message immediately in its entirety. This email message has been checked for the presence of known viruses and malicious code at the point of transmission.

1 Consultation on the Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire County Council – response of Sawston Parish Council.

In formulating a recommendation to the Boundaries Commission on the electoral review of Cambridgeshire, Sawston Parish Council would request that the following issues are taken into account.

Sawston acts as a rural centre providing shopping, medical facilities and secondary education for a number of surrounding villages. Although the catchment areas of Sawston Village College and Sawston Medical Practice exceed considerably the size of a realistic County ward, the closest connections are with Babraham, with which Sawston ecclesiastical parish is linked and Pampisford, which lies within the catchment area of the Bellbird Primary School in Sawston. A small number of Sawston parents have opted to choose the William Westley Primary School at Whittlesford or Babraham C of E Primary School (VC).

Physical connections with these villages are also good with recently constructed or upgraded cycleways running from Sawston to both Babraham and Whittlesford and bus service between Sawston, Pampisford and Duxford. The nearest rail station to Sawston is at Whittlesford Parkway which is accessible from Sawston and Pampisford by a dedicated cycleway/pedestrian route.

Sawston is physically separated from Stapleford by the Cambridge green belt and has closer links with villages to the South, Ickleton, Hinxton and Duxford which are more likely to look to Sawston as centre than Stapleford. Stapleford has more natural links with Great Shelford as a rural centre to which it is physically linked, than Sawston to which it is not.

For these reasons, a County Ward comprising the parishes of Sawston (6480), Babraham (200), Pampisford (270), Hinxton (260) and Ickleton (520) Total 7730 (2020 projected figures) would appear to be one logical solution if the Council’s preference is for single member wards. This is 2.3% larger than the average of 7556 electors per member based on 2020 figures for a 63 member council. We do realise, however, that the review has to find a solution acceptable for all. Although a link with parishes to the South would be more logical in the view of Sawston Parish Council. The County proposal which respects the closest links (with Babraham and Pampisford) would also be acceptable.

We also wish to attract the County Council’s attention to an error in the spreadsheet listing the number of parish councillors for Sawston. The number of seats on Sawston Parish Council is 19, not 14. SOUTHOE AND MIDLOE PARISH COUNCIL

The Review Officer (Cambridgeshire) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Officer,

RE: Electoral Review of Cambridgshire

Southoe and Midloe Parish Council have reviewed the consultation and have no comments to make to the overall change in elected member numbers. They do feel though it is paramount that there needs to be a consistency between the District and County Council wards.

The Parish Council, however, are concerned regarding the proposed warding going forwards. The Parish Council feel it is important to raise that as a village and community Southoe have no connection to the Kimbolten and Brampton ward or the parishes in any way. The Parish Council support remaining within the ward area they are currently in which is with Diddington and Buckden, this is for several reasons listed below:  The A1 is the only access out of Southoe, this is a matter that the local parishes understand, such as Diddington and Bukden. The parishes work already closely together on improving the A1 for the benefit of the residents, and there is an A1 Safety Group with those neighbouring parishes.  The area of Buckden is geographically closer to Southoe then Kimbolton or Buckden.  The local services that residents of Southoe use are those that are in the current ward, such as the library, shops, doctors, school and the church groupings.  The residents of Southoe feel a greater affinity to this current area.

As the parish of Southoe and Midloe is a very small parish in terms of electorate, the inclusion of Southoe in the Buckden ward area would not impact on the overall electorate numbers for the elected Councillor. The Parish Council do hope their comments will be taken on board as there is a great concern that if the proposals are taken forward in the presented format this will have a detrimental impact on Southoe, as a small village being heard.

Yours sincerely E. Barnicoat Lizzie Barnicoat Clerk to Southoe and Midloe Parish Council Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 December 2014 14:54 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

From: Rebecca Whitehouse [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 18 December 2014 11:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Good Morning

I have been asked to send in the follwing response on behalf of Stapleford Parish Council.

The village of Stapleford has significant links with the villages of Great Shelford and Little Shelford through schools, the doctors surgery, bus routes, the train station, the Stapleford and Shelford Youth Initiative and the Stapleford and Shelford Strikers football teams and many more and that therefore that the villages should remain in the same ward.

Best wishes Beckie

-- Beckie Whitehouse Clerk and Responsible Financial Officer Stapleford Parish council

UK e-mail - [email protected] tel -

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 30 January 2015 16:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review consultation - Cambridgeshire

Hi Alex,

Please see submission below for Cambridgeshire.

Helen

From: Alison Melnyczuk Sent: 30 January 2015 11:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review consultation - Cambridgeshire

Dear Sir or Madam,

Having considered the documentation provided and having attended the review briefing on 14 November, St Ives Town Council would make the following observations:‐ 1. The St Ives ward (with Needingworth) is within the acceptable number of electors per ward based on 2 St Ives Councillors. As Needingworth has strong links with St Ives, there does not appear to be any reason to change. 2. Reducing the St Ives Councillors from 2 to 1, would result in a ward with the number of electors far outside the average for the County so would not be acceptable.

Kind regards

Alison Melnyczuk BA (Hons) FILCM Town Clerk St Ives Town Council Town Hall Market Hill The Old Riverport St Ives Cambridgeshire PE27 5AL

The information in this message should be regarded as confidential and it is intended for the addressee only unless otherwise stated. If you have received this message in error please delete it and notify the sender. Any views expressed in this message are personal and not necessarily those of St Ives Town Council, unless otherwise stated.

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 December 2014 08:57 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

From: Carole Pollock [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 12 December 2014 17:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

The Stukeleys Parish Council have considered the Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire Consultation and resolved to respond in that the Parish Council wish our current ward to remain as it is currently, in order to continue to serve our parishioners effectively.

Kind Regards

Carole Pollock Parish Clerk/RFO The Stukeleys Parish Council

1 Hinds, Alex

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 December 2014 12:35 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

From: Sutton Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 December 2014 11:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Good Morning,

Following on from our Full Parish council Meeting for Sutton Parish Council, please take note of the following comments we would like to make.

It was noted and discussed that the New boundaries proposed in the Electoral review is to include Ely North in our boundaries.

Concerns were raised by councillors present that we identify more with other rural villages and we should have these included in the boundary instead of Ely North. This means that the demographic is more comparable and in keeping the rural villages.

This was the feedback of the full council and if you would like any further information on the comments raised, please let me know.

Kind regards,

Melissa Wolland Assistant Clerk to Sutton Parish Council

Office Hours Monday – Thursday 10am ‐12 noon for Reception and information centre

Parish Council of Waresley-cum-Tetworth Huntingdonshire

Chairman: Mrs Eleanor Jack

Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

My parish councillors are very concerned at the boundary changes proposed for our division by Cambridgeshire County Council. Our parish of Waresley-cum-Tetworth is currently one of the 12 parishes comprising the division of Buckden, Gransden and the Offords, large in area and generally rural. However the rural nature of this division is threatened by the inclusion of an increasing urban population as St Neots expands to the east. The County Council’s proposal is to create a new division, HDC_5, which excludes Buckden and other parishes to the North but includes the large existing development of Love’s Farm and the planned development St Neots Eastern Expansion . This proposal would radically change the rural nature of this area and would mean that the needs of our community would be completely swamped by the much larger urban population of the new development.

In our view the St Neots Eastern Expansion should clearly be part of St Neots, the town to which it obviously belongs. Buckden, Gransden and the Offords should be retained as a division, but without the new development east of St Neots. In this way like communities are grouped with like.

We are a rural parish, with a small population, infrequent public transport and few local amenities. Residents have to travel, sometimes considerable distances, for work, schools, doctors’ surgeries, chemists and shopping. Our priorities are quite different from the essentially urban population of the St Neots Eastern Expansion, with its easy rail links, frequent buses and easy access to shops.

The Commission’s requirement is “that the pattern of divisions should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities”. If this is to be achieved, the rural nature of this division must be preserved.

We are very much opposed to any solution which lumps us in with an urban area like the St Neots Eastern Expansion and we feel strongly that our division should consist entirely of rural parishes with similar priorities to our own. .

Eleanor Jack Chairman, Waresley-cum-Tetworth Parish Council Hinds, Alex

From: Lee Ginger Sent: 16 January 2015 13:39 To: Reviews@ Cc: Gabrielle Van Poortvliet Subject: Electoral review of Cambridgeshire

To whom it may concern

I write as the Chair of Whaddon Parish Council and, having discussed with the Council at our meeting on 12th January the potential for a change to the electoral boundaries in Cambridgeshire, we agreed that:

 Whaddon should remain part of the county electoral division that contains Bassingbourn cum Kneesworth because we share many common issues that affect both villages, not least of which are Bassingbourn Barracks and the main A1198 road, which largely forms the west/east boundary between the two villages.  We also have a common interest in the water courses in the area as they drain mainly from Bassingbourn and run through Whaddon.  Our secondary age children attend Bassingbourn Village College and our two churches share the same vicar, both of which strengthen our community links.  It is difficult to see which other local areas would share so many issues with Whaddon. Our current County Councillor (and his predecessor) and our District Councillors have all worked tirelessly on behalf of both communities and have a thorough grasp of all the issues.  We are concerned at the proposal to reduce the number of county councillors from 69 to 63, which could increase the individual work load of councillors. This is particularly unfortunate at a time when the Cambridgeshire population is growing at the fastest rate of any English County area.

Yours sincerely

Lee Ginger, Chair Whaddon Parish Council

No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2015.0.5645 / Virus Database: 4260/8939 - Release Date: 01/16/15

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Cambridgeshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Jack White

E-mail: [email protected]

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Wicken Parish Council

Comment text:

These comments are from Wicken Parish Council. At this stage the Council would like to emphasize to the Commission the very strong links that the parish of Wicken has to the adjacent town of Soham. These links go back many centuries and continue today. Our children's schools are all in Soham, our medical practice is in Soham and we share a C of E vicar who is also Soham based. There are no longer any shops or post office in Wicken and once again Soham provides these facilities. The links are too numerous to mention and range from the Brass Band to the Brownies. On the other hand, there are few if any links with the other adjacent divisions of Burwell and Haddenham, indeed for centuries Wicken was cut off from Stretham by the River Cam, a road link and bridge having only been established after the first World War. In previous reviews there have been proposals to link Wicken with the Haddenham division which provoked a great deal of protest. We would therefore like to emphasize our strong links with Soham at this early stage and the importance of keeping the village in the same division as the town. Jack White Parish Clerk Wicken Parish council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4263 24/11/2014 WITCHAM PARISH COUNCIL

CLERK: Mrs S J Bell CiLCA

Email:[email protected]

Review Officer (Cambridgeshire)

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Layden House

76-86 Turnmill Street

London

EC1M 5LG 13 November 2014

Dear Sirs

Electoral Review of Cambridgeshire

Thank you for the information regarding consultation process in respect of the above electoral review which I placed on the agenda of our Council meeting this week.

I am writing to advise that Witcham Parish Council had no comments to make on the proposals.

Yours faithfully

Susan J Bell

CLERK/RFO

CHAIRMAN