Local resident’s submissions to the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from local residents.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Pr9hvq
A ) Tr)
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: Karon Alderman Sent: 18 August 2016 11:37 To: reviews
Dear Boundary Commission I believe that the Benton Lodge Estate, where I live, is very much part of the Dene community and should stay part of Dene Ward. Please reverse the decision on the Dene adn Manor Park ward boundariues decision and choose Newcastle Council’s Option 1 for area C as this is more in line with our communities and services. Thank you, Karon Alderman
1
‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE
From: Sent: 19 August 2016 13:07 To: reviews
Good Morning,
I have attached an extract from your document concerning the above issue which is a little confusing - apologies if you are already aware of this..
As I reside in North Walbottle I have always thought that we have little in common with the existing Newburn ward and fully support the creation of a new Chapel ward and North Walbottle's inclusion within it. However, on reading the document, there is an apparent contradiction (which I assume is a simple slip of the pen/keyboard) - I have highlighted the error in yellow, and which should read simply Walbottle and not North Walbottle?
Thank you.
Philip Archbold
Western districts Ward name Number of Cllrs Variance 2021 Description Detail Callerton & Throckley 3 -1% This ward is bounded by ...... We note that the Council proposed that a site designated for housing at North Walbottle be included in this ward. We consider that site to be more appropriately included in Chapel ward, along with existing housing at North Walbottle. This provides the opportunity to include Walbottle village in Callerton & Throckley ward......
Lemington 3 -9% This ward comprises the area bounded by the A69 to the north, the A1 to the east and River Tyne to the south. The ward includes Blucher village to the west. We received one submission specifically relating to this ward arguing that it should not include Walbottle village. Our
1 draft recommendation that land at North Walbottle Road be included in Chapel ward enables North Walbottle to be included in Callerton & Throckley ward.
2
Newcastle upon Tyne District
Personal Details:
Name: Tim Boyers
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
It seems strange that properties on Richardson Road and Castle Leazes fall into Arthurs Hill when to the immediate north and west they are in East Fenham. They should be brought into the same as all of Spital Tongues in East Fenham. People in Spital Tongues do not identify with Fenham or Arthurs Hill as it is far more connected to the University and RVI area of the city centre. It should form a separate area called the University Quarter.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded 6/29/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
New castle upon Tyne District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: Ross Donnelly E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Feature Annotations
33:: CCommunityommunity centrecentre andand playingplaying ffieldsields
22:: EEntrancentrance toto ourour estateestate
44:: EEntrancentrance toto ChapelChapel PaPa rkrk
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
M ap Features:
Annotation 2: Entrance to our estate
Annotation 3: Community centre and playing fields
Annotation 4: Entrance to Chapel Park
Comment text:
We strongly identify with the Chapel Park area, . We also feel connected to the playing fields and community centre literally across the road from us. These new boundaries would separate us from these important aspects of our neighbourhood. Finally, there are thousands of houses earmarked to be built in the surrounding fields over the next few years. It therefore feels the wrong time to be redrawing boundaries which will soon need reviewing again.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8534 1/1
Newcastle upon Tyne District
Personal Details:
Name: Joseph Eldridge
E-mail:
Organisation Name: Aural X-Otika
Comment text:
I like the new prposals (those in Red) My ideal changes would be too complicated to implement as they do not follow logical community boundaries! I feel the new boundaries reflect the changing nature of Newcastle.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Pr9hvq
A ) txs5s r tx1txs r 5hyxhyxr3 Tr) (6t! % !)$# U) rvr Tiwrp) 8P H QG6DIU rQ hys I@IrphyrUr
AyyVAyht) Ayy AyhtTh) Ayhttrq
Boundary Commission Complaint
Newcastle Upon Tyne
Benton Lodge Estate
We understand that the latest proposal to exclude this small estate from its only neighbour in Newcastle which has been its home for all my life Dene Ward. We are otherwise bounded by North Tyneside Council on our north and east - This would make us almost a satellite to proposed Manor Park Ward with whom we have no connection. I was born in Dene View (within Dene Ward proposals) and moved to Benton Lodge in 1985. Ever since this estate has always been important to the Dene Ward councillors who have been sympathetic to our many issues and we do not wish to be forced to be abandoned by them now there is a serious traffic problem of "rat running" though several of this estates' 20 mph roads since North Tyneside remove the roundabout at Four Lane Ends (Jointly owned junction of A191 A186) and replaced it with traffic signals causing much longer queues of traffic on each leg except theirs.
We are pleading with you to swap this estate with the Jesmond Park West area and return us to our home.
Mr and Mrs Gordon Forster
1
Newcastle upon Tyne District
Personal Details:
Name: Gerard Hunwick
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
3: Nuns Moor Park
1: Bike Garden
4: 2: Nunsmoor Centre
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Annotation 1: Bike Garden
Annotation 2: Nunsmoor Centre
Annotation 3: Nuns Moor Park
Annotation 4:
Comment text:
I question the wisdom of dissociating Nuns Moor Park, The Bike Garden and the Nunsmoor Centre from their close relationship with the Arthur's Hill community and putting them into a new East Fenham super-ward. This will leave Arthur's Hill residents with no park to continue to call their own. The people of Arthur's Hill (mostly in a voluntary capacity) have been the central contributors to the development of these centres as places where people can enjoy an outdoor environment and also the central users of these facilities. Initiatives such as Greening Wingrove, The Time Exchange, Churches Acting Together, Sustrans, the Nunsmoor Trust and others have worked tirelessly with local people over the past five years to make these spaces relevant and this is reflected in the increasing use of these spaces by Arthur's Hill residents and their willingness to get involved in things like street clean-ups, planting and maintenance of green spaces. Historically too, Arthur's Hill has been closely associated with Nuns Moor and for 126 years allotments provided a place where locals could grow their own produce - valuable in the absence of gardens in houses where most just have concreted yards. Whilst it is recognised that just because these assets may be transferred into the boundaries of a different ward it would not mean they would be out of bounds to Arthur's Hill residents, what it will do is detach Arthur's Hill residents from ward level involvement in park decision- making. With recent research showing the public health advantages of green spaces, it would seem like folly to deprive a new Arthur's Hill ward from its only significant green space. In addition, the proposed Arthur's Hill ward (most of which is currently in the Wingrove ward) will see the area lose its association with the former General Hospital site (which is increasingly growing in economic importance due to university and science city funding) as well the historic Spital Tongues community and the Town Moor. These losses will impoverish those living in the Arthur's Hill area in terms of community facilities, especially if combined with the City Council desire to see Arthur's Hill be linked with more deprived areas that currently sit in Westgate ward. In my opinion, Westgate ward will as a result, in effect be absolved of most of its current responsibility to look at the needs of those living in poorer communities. The new Arthur's Hill ward will undoubtedly rank higher on the deprivation indices than the current Wingrove ward in which most of the proposed ward currently sits. I am aware that some argue this is a good thing as it will make it easier to attract funding, but changing political boundaries to achieve this seems to fly in the face of the intent of the LGBCE exercise, which is to ensure communities are fairly and equally represented. Making a poor area poorer through loss of facilities that help enrich that community and help bring people together and through asking that area to be adjoined to other poorer communities (so increasing competition for funding among those communities) doesn't seem the best way of meeting the challenges that face us in this area of Newcastle. Instead of trying to achieve these changes by changing boundaries, would it not be best for wards to retain their assets and work from a position of strength going forward, rather than being stripped of most of the things that have helped this area retain a sense of community.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Newcastle upon Tyne District
Personal Details:
Name: Stephen Kempka
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
My representation refers to the new name of my ward "East Fenham". I would prefer the retention of of the current name Wingrove, the cureent name holds value both historically and culturally, many hold affinity to the name. The main spine road in the significantly larger built up part of the ward is Wingrove Road and there is the long Wingrove Avenue running parallel to it. It would be a shame to lose the Wingrove reference in the ward name.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
6/29/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
New castle upon Tyne District
P ersonal Details:
Nam e: CHRISTINE LYNN E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:
Comment text:
I live in Walkergate,our street was actually moved from Walkergate Ward to Byker Ward during the last changes by the Local Government Boundary Commission,am I now correct after reading the Evening Chronicle Live article that the proposal is to revert our street back to Walkergate Ward ,which would delight the residents in this area.I am all in favour of the changes if this is correct and back the move 100%
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8533 1/1
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
From: gwyneth mayo Sent: 20 August 2016 11:26 To: reviews
As residents of Dene Ward we would like to register our objections to Benton Park Road being moved arbitrarily out of Dene Ward with which we identify closely and into Manor Park Ward - to which we are not geographically connected and to which we feel no affiliation. We feel that we are an integral part of the Dene Community and should remain part of Dene Ward. We understand that an alternative proposal has been submitted by our local councillors whereby Jesmond Park West should remain with the High Heaton estate and Cochrane Park to form Manor Park Ward.. We also understand that the thinking behind your recommendation is to keep our connection with Jesmond - but we have absolutely no connection with the residents of Jesmond but we are extremely closely connected to the residents and community of Dene Ward. So, we are asking you to take notice of our feelings so that we do not feel excluded from our local community.
1 PROPOSED CHANGE OF WARD BOUNDARIES: DENE WARD - as affecting North Heaton - Jesmond Park East / Jesmond Park West, Southlands etc area
We wish to object to the proposed change of ward boundaries, where we have lived for over 30 years.
We object on the following grounds, as per criteria cited in the report proposal.
This current proposal ignores the geographical, socio economic community boundaries and appears to appease the political concept of ‘resident numbers per councillor’.
1. Community Identity:
Identifiable boundaries: This area is geographically divided from West Jesmond and South Gosforth by the extensive uninhabited woodland area of Jesmond Dene and 2 major roads: Benton Park Road and Haddricks Mill Road. Residents’ children attend local primary / secondary schools in Heaton. Residents shop locally or travel west into the City Centre, via the Coast Road, They do not naturally travel north to South Gosforth or north-west to High West Jesmond. This proposed ward lacks convenient north/south public transport links. The affected areas of Jesmond Park East and West, Southlands etc relate more strongly to the surrounding comparable communities of High Heaton’s and Cochrane Park Estates, with which there are east/west transport links.
Community Groups: The current North Heaton Ward consists of sound, cohesive residential areas, which are predominantly owner occupied by families. These are long established stable communities which do not relate to MOH student groups or short stay tenants who (may) predominate in High West Jesmond or South Gosforth. Recent small influxes of students/ tenants have proved disruptive and divisive.
Amenities: The community uses and values its local facilities of High Heaton Library, post offices and shops on Newton Road and Chillingham Road. Residents do not go to South Gosforth or High West Jesmond for these facilities.
2. Effective local Government and Electoral equality:
North Heaton Ward has been very well represented by local Liberal Democrats councillors and in the distant past by Conservative Councillors, who have lived in the area / community and understood its ethos. They respond to and represent all their residents, regardless of political persuasion, because they understand the community.
The recent election of a Labour councillor, who does not live here, has not proved very effective, because he does not relate to these residents or sympathise with their needs.
We do not want to lose our longstanding, dependable, local, very effective representatives in exchange for ‘career politicians’.
If change has to be introduced - it would be more logical to refigure the alternative proposals which retain this area together with those communities north of the Coast Road: High Heaton and Cochrane Park Estates.
The residents themselves do not support this proposal and do not wish to be realigned in an arbitrary ‘Dene’ ward. It is an artificial concept combining 3 totally different areas left over from other wards – apparently for the sake of ‘making up the numbers’.
Professor Terry Dowling,
Mrs Geraldine Morris-Dowling
Camilla Morris-Dowling
‐‐ Jonathan Ashby Review Assistant LGBCE
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Pamela Pearson Sent: 22 August 2016 23:18 To: reviews
I totally do not think the boundaries should be split. It doesn't make sense. We re a few miles away from Newbiggin Hall. It would be absolutely ridiculous what your trying to do to split Kingston into two
Sent from my iPad
1
Newcastle upon Tyne District
Personal Details:
Name: violet Rook
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: KPNF member
Comment text:
Kingston Park is a cohesive community which these draft proposal seek to split in two. Electoral Wards should reflect their communities and provide unity, cohesiveness and promote good citizenship. The proposals seek to align areas which do not share any geographic concerns and promote this in regard to electoral balance. This balance is questionable in consideration of present economic conditions and the affects on development in all areas of the city .The proposals form a boundary down the middle of Brunton Lane which if one looks on a map is far from satisfactory. This road is the main road through the estate and would divide one area of Kingston Park from the other. Also the A696 road, the Woolsington Bypass divides Kingston Park from Newbiggin Hall Estate. The proposals would be very unstable in their application to residents and anyone viewing the areas concerned. In our petition on chang.org "Don't Split Kingston Park in Two" 154 people objected to the plan which you acknowledged in an email. Kingston Park was built in the 1970's and as a strong community spirit encouraging its residents and businesses to the benefit of all. The proof of this is illustrated in the widespread acknowledgement of Kingston Park as an area of business investment and a shopping area containing the largest Tesco in the North East of England. It is seen as a central hub by many who consider it as a integral area not just a housing estate. This is why it attracts business and is as a major sporting venue nearby. We also have many ethnic groups who live in different parts of Kingston Park and whose extended families will be also split by these proposals. Housing in Kingston Park is owner occupied and private rental and some social housing; people become worried about the future when proposals are made which disturb the foundations of their community in which they have been involved whether it as been since perhaps the 1970's or if they have just setup home. The need for balance in regard to electoral numbers is necessary it is clear that balance is also needed in regard to deciding how this can be achieved. Change should provide positive results which encourage citizens. Having the ability to comment is vital to democracy, and to hope that comment will be given respect.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Mishka Mayers Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1251
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: David whinham Sent: 22 August 2016 15:24 To: reviews
Mr David Whinham
Richard Buck, Review Manager
Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP
22/08/16
Dear David Owen, Review Officer
Description:Newcastle upon Tyne wards: South Jesmond
I write in connection with the above Proposed ward application. I have examined the plans. I wish to object strongly to the change of ward from South Jesmond to Monument. Significance of the street and residents of Victoria Square have always been part of the community of South Jesmond not Monument. I volunteer and others residents on Victoria Square spend our spare time in many South Jesmond ward activities and projects helping the South Jesmond area. We would do not want to be in Monument ward.
Yours faithfully,
Mr David Whinham
1