Local Residents A-L Submissions to the London Borough of Southwark Council Electoral Review

Local Residents A-L submissions to the London Borough of Southwark Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents A-L

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

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Joanne Merry

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 3:

Comment text:

I think that the Half Moon and Dulwich Village Wards are quite similar in character. It would be appropriate for these wards to be combined and have two Councillors. The current proposal is for there to be two separate one Councillor wards. If an enlarged ward had two Councillors then it would give cover to residents if a Councillor was sick or on holiday and also the opportunity to approach the other Councillor in the event of a disagreement

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7844 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Sue Badman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing on the proposals for new ward boundaries in Southwark, specifically in the area now covered by Village Ward where I live and where the proposal is that the main portion of the ward should be divided into two single-member wards, - Half Moon Ward and Dulwich Village Ward - a proposal that I would urge you to reconsider. I also have a comment about the proposed Dulwich Hill ward. I accept the shift in the balance of the population of the borough northwards means that the current situation is not sustainable, and I believe that returning to an area very similar to the old Ruskin Ward - i.e. with the portions of East Dulwich around Glengarry Road and Melbourne Road detached - represented by a total of two councillors is a good way of meeting this need while maintaining cohesive wards with a common character. However I am puzzled by the suggestion that the remaining area should be divided between two single-member wards, the only part of the borough to be treated in this way. I do not see that there are any compelling reasons to split an area that has for some time formed a single electoral division. There is a similarity of demographic factors and community feel in the area; both the area north of the railway line and those south of it are characterised by a preponderance of owner-occupied housing and a generally leafy appearance. A large part of both the Half Moon and Village wards are subject to the Dulwich Estate scheme of management and the Estate remains a major freeholder in the area. There are, I believe, major drawbacks to a single-member ward in terms of representation and administration that would only be exacerbated by Dulwich and Herne Hill being the only part of the borough so represented. It removes the choice for residents of which councillor to approach in case of issues arising in which they need to approach their elected representative. Even the best of councillors will sometimes be absent on non-council business or holiday or fall sick, and there would be a major disadvantage in the event of a death or resignation, especially in the last six months before a regular election, when I understand that casual council vacancies must by electoral law be left unfilled. Furthermore, were the sole councillor of the area to be put on the planning committee or similar, which is quasi-judicial in nature, he or she would be effectively debarred from representing local interests in the event of a contentious planning application. We would also face another democratic deficit arising from single member wards, particularly in the case of contentious applications, by not having two members in a single ward able to request a call- in. There will also be times when a councillor resides next door to a potentially contentious planning application. For the planning meeting he/she cannot act as a ward councillor to represent any other concerned residents so would need to rely on another ward councillor to do so if that were requested by residents. This couldn't happen in a single councillor ward. To sum up, I believe there is no compelling argument to single out the Dulwich and Herne Hill area for this approach, and good reasons enough to say it would be a serious mistake. I urge you to reconsider. Finally I would like to point out that the proposed ward Dulwich Hill is misnamed. That area has never been known as Dulwich Hill. There was a Dulwich Hill but this was near Sunray Avenue, towards Denmark Hill (near the current Village/South Camberwell ward boundary). Underhill Ward would be a better name for the area designated as Dulwich Hill Ward, but those who live there should perhaps be consulted. Dulwich Hill is of course also a suburb of Sydney, NSW, Australia and this is what searches on Google and social media would throw up.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7947 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7947 13/04/2016 Ward, Lucy

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: Tuesday, 05 April, 2016 10:39 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Southwark local government boundary review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Bruce bell Sent: 04 April 2016 10:28 To: Subject: Southwark local government boundary review

My recommendation is that Half Moon and Dulwich Village merge into one two councillor ward. The numbers work, there is more adequate representation for residents, and less governance and paperwork for the council.

Bruce Bell

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

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Bruce Bell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the suggestion that there should be two single councillor wards (Half Moon and Dulwich Village) to replace the current three councillor ward. It gives residents no choice of councillor to work with; leaves an area completely unrepresented if an individual councillor is away or unwell, and puts considerable work load pressure and requirement to attend meetings on individual councillors. My recommendation is that Half Moon and Dulwich Village merge into one two councillor ward. The numbers work, there is more adequate representation for residents, and less governance and paperwork for the council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7929 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: R van Berckel

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I cannot understand the need for this change to a system that has worked so well for years. If one Councillor is on holiday or unwell, we have two others to help and shoulder the load. I live at one end of Burbage Road and work at the other. The Burbage Road Residents Association works for all and we share so much together, including three excellent Councillors. Why the need to change. Surely there are more pressing matters. Our Councillors have been very effective for the whole area and work for the whole community. May I suggest that the Half Moon and Dulwich Village wards join together as Village Ward. Let's keep the community together and not split it up.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7893 31/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Edmund Bird

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the proposal to replace our current Village Ward where we are served by three councillors and replace it with two single councillor wards (Half Moon and Dulwich Village). The current ward structure is much more democratic and gives us a stronger voice within the Council - we are in the extreme south west of the borough and already feel very marginalised and neglected as resources are concentrated in the middle and north of Southwark. A single councillor ward would be wholly impractical, undemocratic and poorly serve our community in Dulwich. If that single councillor was for example away on holiday or unwell, our neighbourhood would be completely unrepresented. Our choice to approach a range of more than one councillor would be taken away and it would not be fair on that one council member to attend all the necessary borough council and local meetings - the workload would be far too great. I support the alternative recommendation of having a single Dulwich Village Ward (with the boundary adjustments you put forward pertaining to the area in the vicinity of North Dulwich station and Townley Road) served by two councillors. This would give us a much fairer and more workable representation for our neighbourhood.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7846 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: STUART BOWDEN

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7942 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: STUART BOWDEN

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7942 13/04/2016 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: Tuesday, 22 March, 2016 8:44 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Ward boundaries in Southwark

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Categories: In progress

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: BRADBURY DAVID Sent: 21 March 2016 23:20 To: reviews Subject: Ward boundaries in Southwark

Dear sirs,

I am writing on the proposals for new ward boundaries in Southwark, specifically in the area now covered by Village Ward where the proposal is that the main portion of the ward should be divided into two single‐member wards, a proposal that I would urge you to reconsider.

I should start by saying that I served as one of the councillors for the area, first in 1990‐94 and 1998‐2002 when it was Ruskin Ward, and then again for the somewhat revised boundaries of the new Village Ward 2002‐06. I also contested the same seat in the elections of 1994, 2010 and 2014, so my connection with, and experience of, the area and its people goes back a long way.

I should also add that I accept fully that the shift in the balance of the population of the borough northwards means that the current situation is not sustainable, and I believe that returning to an area very similar to the old Ruskin Ward ‐ i.e. with the portions of East Dulwich around Glengarry Road and Melbourne Road detached ‐ represented by a total of two councillors is a good way of meeting this need while maintaining cohesive wards with a common character. However I am puzzled by the suggestion that the remaining area should be divided between two single‐ member wards, the only part of the borough to be treated in this way.

I do not see that there are any compelling reasons to split an area that has time out of mind formed a single electoral division. There is, I believe, a similarity of demographic factors and community feel in the area; both the area north of the railway line and those south of it are characterised by a preponderance of owner‐occupied housing and an absence of large council estates, and a generally leafy appearance. The similarity of the Half Moon to the area to its south, rather than to the fringes of Camberwell to its north, was recognised a good few years ago when the planning inspector rejected a proposal by the then London Mayor to allow the northern part of Village Ward to be zoned at a higher residential density than the rest of the area. I accept that some people in the western part of the suggested Half Moon Ward would consider themselves to live in Herne Hill, but however the ward boundaries of Southwark are drawn, Herne Hill will always be divided by the fact that the larger part of it falls into Lambeth. To counterbalance this, many people in the eastern part of that ward would consider themselves in North Dulwich rather than Herne Hill, and would feel their community as being centred on the Village. I think I am right in saying that parts at least of the Half Moon area are subject to the Dulwich Estate scheme of management, and the Estate remains a major freeholder in that area as it is in the proposed Dulwich Village Ward.

Moreover there are, I believe, major drawbacks to a single‐member ward in terms of representation and administration that would only be exacerbated by Dulwich and Herne Hill being the only part of the borough so

1 represented. It removes the choice for residents of which councillor to approach in case of issues arising in which they need to approach their elected representative; and it exposes them to poor representation in the event that the sole representative of the area is not of the highest calibre (and I should add that in my time I served with some excellent councillors and others, of all parties, who were not quite so excellent, to put it mildly). Even the best of councillors will sometimes be absent on non‐council business or holiday or fall sick, and there would be a major disadvantage in the event of a death or resignation, especially in the last six months before a regular election, when my understanding is that casual council vacancies must by electoral law be left unfilled. Furthermore, were the sole councillor of the area to be put on the planning committee or similar, which is quasi‐judicial in nature, he or she would be effectively debarred from representing local interests in the event of a contentious planning application. At present the gap can be filled by one's ward colleagues who are not thus restricted, but a single‐member ward would deprive one of that benefit. Nor can one expect that the council's standing orders would or should be modified, even were that possible, to take account of the special needs of just two out of 63 councillors. I might add on a personal note that in my time as councillor I was greatly assisted by the advice and discussion on local issues of my colleagues Cllrs Toby Eckersley and Stephen Charge, and even, dare I say it, was sometimes kept up to the mark constantly by the desire not to be outshone by my colleague from a different party, Cllr Michelle Pearce. All that would be lost by moving away from multi‐member wards throughout the borough.

To sum up, I believe there is no compelling argument to single out the Dulwich and Herne Hill area for this approach, and good reasons enough to say it would be a serious mistake. I urge you to reconsider.

Yours faithfully,

David Bradbury

Honorary alderman, London Borough of Southwark

2 Ward, Lucy

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: Tuesday, 05 April, 2016 10:40 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Southwark ward boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Eileen Conn [ Sent: 04 April 2016 09:55 To: reviews Subject: Southwark ward boundaries

TO The Review Officer (Southwark) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP

I am a local resident in in The Lane ward and have lived here for over 40 years. I am very active in local neighbourhood affairs as a citizen and local resident, and co‐ordinate Peckham Vision, the local community consortium working in Peckham town centre, amongst other local roles. The locations of the ward boundaries are very significant in my local work as they affect who and how we have to relate to in the Council, and also the police safer neighbourhood teams and ward panels.

From that perspective, these are my comments on the proposed ward boundary changes.

* I support the change of name to Rye Lane ward. This will remove much confusion about which Lane is being referred to.

* I support the creation of the new Goose Green ward which will enable a coherent approach to an important local area hitherto divided and on the edge of 4 wards and 3 Community Councils. But it might make more sense to include also the streets Everthorpe Rd and Oxenford St and those linked parts of Oglander Rd and Copleston Rd. This is because they are very close to the Grove Vale shopping area and transport systems and feel, from where I live a few streets away, more aligned to Grove Vale than Rye Lane. The boundary would be easy to locate for this purpose along the backs of a small stretch of Oglander Rd, along Oxenford Road and to Copleston Rd to make a coherent boundary in that small area.

* I note that an area very close to Nutbrook Street is being removed from the new Rye Lane ward to the new Goose Green ward ie Gowlett Rd and a part of Amott Rd. This will remove the Amott Rd polling station from our ward, a polling station we have used for the whole of the 42 years I have lived here.

* I welcome the return of Oglander Rd and adjacent streets to the Rye Lane ward. It didn't make good sense for them to be in a Camberwell ward, and makes much more sense for the Rye Lane ward to go up to the railway lines.

* I think the removal from the new Rye Lane ward of Lyndhurst Way and the Academy school needs to be rethought. It cuts the Peckham High St south shops into two wards. So the town centre at that place is then cut into three wards, because the boundary between The Lane and Peckham wards already cuts the High St in two. The boundary between the new Rye Lane ward and the new St Giles ward can easily go between the backs of the houses and shops and the school to get all the High St shops into the Rye Lane ward. But the school is the 'Academy at Peckham' and it should be in a Peckham ward and not a Camberwell ward. The boundary could easily go along Lyndhurst Way

1 including the school as well as all the shops in the Rye Lane ward. This adjustment could balance the loss of the streets close to Grove Vale that I have suggested should go into the Goose Green ward.

* Adjusting the east boundary to Gordon Road makes sense, so that a small chunk of Nunhead goes back to Nunhead.

* I suggest renaming what is currently and proposed to be called Peckham ward. This name causes a lot of confusion as many outsiders to the area including council officers, journalists, researchers and others think that that ward equals the whole of Peckham. As a result they constantly use the Peckham ward statistics to describe the whole of Peckham, ignoring The Lane and other wards that cover part of Peckham ie Livesey, Nunhead, and Peckham Rye. The 'Peckham' ward is in fact in the north of Peckham and could appropriately be called Peckham North. That would be a much more accurate description and alert outsiders to the need to work out which other wards are part of Peckham's statistics. Other possible names after long streets in the ward might be Sumner Road, Peckham Hill, Commercial Way, but I prefer Peckham North as the most accurate and obvious what it refers to. If it was thought that was not appropriate as it was continuing to assign only one ward to Peckham, Rye Lane could be renamed Peckham South. But it is highly inaccurate and misleading to call the area north of Peckham High Street simply the Peckham ward.

Eileen Conn MA (Oxon) FRSA MBE Co‐ordinator, Peckham Vision http://www.peckhamvision.org frequently updated news: http://www.facebook.com/PeckhamVision http://twitter.com/PeckhamVision

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

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: David Coughtrie

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This is not a good idea. The problems with a one Councillor are obvious: workload, availability, compatibility, etc. Much better to leave the system as it is or have one ward incorporating the areas with two Councillors minimum. David Coughtrie 57 Half Moon Lane London SE24 9JX

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7941 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Robin Crookshank Hilton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

There is a strong community feeling in East Dulwich that we would prefer to keep the name East Dulwich ward than change to Goose Green ward, as Goose Green isn't considered an integral asset to our neighbourhood. The two busy main roads, East Dulwich Rd (A2214) and Grove Vale, create obstacles in accessing Goose Green from the south and therefore it would be more in keeping with community movements to keep the ward boundary along the main roads and retain the name East Dulwich ward, as it better represents the community. It would also support community unity better if the proposed Crystal Palace Road southern ward boundary was moved further south to Friern Rd so that community facilities in Christ Church on Barry Road remain integral, along with the southern bit of the Lordship shopping parade in that section. Also, the proposed name Dulwich Hill Ward is confusing, as the hill in this location was historically known as Friern Farm Hill... Dulwich Hill was the location now known as Herne Hill (where Casino Mansion was located), see Lyson's map 1792, which is now the boundary of Southwark and Lambeth boroughs. Bear in mind that Lordship Lane was named as the original boundary between Dulwich Manor and Friern Manor, which is where these references come from. So, if the proposed southern ward boundary is tweaked to run along Friern Road, then that ward could be called Friern Hill Ward as a more appropriate historical reference... But some residents have proposed that it be designated as East Dulwich Hill Ward to retain the connection with East Dulwich. Apologies for being difficult, but the historical influences are extremely integral to the East Dulwich community mindset! Becuase of poor public transportation and geographical distances, the south of borough tends to be quite isolated from the rest of Southwark, which is why the community down here tends to stick together. So, hopefully tweaks can be made to the proposals to reflect this strong community unity while still containing the correct voter numbers. BTW, thank you for moving the boundary division away from Melbourne Grove, as the Townley Rd boundary works well... Ironically, Townley Rd was the boundary for the 1914 version of this ward when it was known as Alleyn Ward (with Goose Green located in St John's ward, named after the local church on the green), after the Shakespearean actor, Edward Alleyn, who rescued Dulwich Manor and built Dulwich College. Many roads in this area are named after Shakespearean actors, such as Burbage and Henslowe.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7944 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Jeffrey Doorn

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: None

Comment text:

I strongly object to the propoI strongly sal to split the current three-councillor Village ward into two single-councillor wards. The result would be to limit the voice for people in this area. We generally have a balance of representatives to turn to for advice and help; with only one, no doubt overworked, councillor, there would be less access and less chance of having one's questions or problems dealt with quickly and efficiently. There is the additional concern that the one councillor would often not be available, owing to holidays, illness, meetings and other obligations. Moreover, it is bad enough Herne Hill is split between Southwark and Lambeth; to cut off a smaller section as "Half Moon" reduces cohesiveness still further, while setting these few streets adrift from both Herne Hill and Dulwich in addition to the neighbouring south Camberwell area. Please reconsider

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7925 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Ian Draper

E-mail: i

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I fully support the proposals for two, one member wards for Dulwich Village Ward and Half Moon Ward for the following reasons:- 1.The railway line separating these two proposed wards is a clear easily identifiable geographical boundary. 2. There are two separate communities either side of this boundary. 3. To the north of the boundary in an area usually regarded as part of Herne Hill residents relate mainly to the local neighbourhood centres along Half Moon Lane and near Herne Hill station. 4. To the south of the boundary residents relate to the local centres in Dulwich Village and Lordship Lane. 5. The two communities tend to use different facilities. For example the residents in Dulwich Village use the Dulwich Library in Lordship Lane, whilst residents in the proposed Half Moon Ward use a nearby library in the Borough of Lambeth. 6 Given that there are two separate clearly identifiable communities with different priories and problems it would be very much preferable that each community is represented by their own local Councillor.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7800 23/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Toby Eckersley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I write as a former councillor who from 1977 to 1986 and from 1990 to 2014 represented Ruskin ward and its successor Village ward in Dulwich - a three-member ward throughout this period. Multiple-member wards enable continuity of representation when individual councillors are on holiday or otherwise unavailable, for example on account of sickness or hospital attendance, or attendance at party conferences. Also, coverage of ward "surgeries" is more effectively organised in multiple-member wards. Therefore, in the interests of good service to constituents, I would strongly advise against single-member wards. More generally, the sharing of ward experience and duties with ward colleagues, has in my experience a beneficial effect on the service provided, and on the morale of individual councillors. In summary, single-member wards are contrary to the public interest.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7805 07/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Ellis

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I very strongly object at the prospect of having only one councillor for my ward. The proposal to have two single councillor wards next door to each other seems ill thought through. Why not merge the proposed two single councillor wards into one and keep at least two councillors? If we only had one councillor to go to what would happen in the event of long term sickness or any other reason that kept the only councillor away from the ward. We would effectively be without any cover. Please reconsider this far reaching proposal.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7919 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Nigel Franks

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7848 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Penelope Franks

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7847 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: A Godfree

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7938 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: William Hamilton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the suggestion that there should be two single councillor wards ( half moon and Dulwich village) to replace the current 3 Councillor ward. It gives residents no choice of councillor to work with; leaves an area completely unrepresentative if an individual councillor is a way or unwell, and puts considerable workload pressure and requirement to attend meetings on individual councillors. My recommendation is that half moon and Dulwich Village merge into one two- Councillor ward. The numbers work, there is more adequate representation for residents, and less governance and paperwork for the council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7952 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Liz Harwood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I notice that it is proposed o have 2 single councillor wards(Dulwich Village and Half Moon) instead of the present 3 councillor ward of Village. I would like to object to this proposal for the following reasons:- 1. This would reduce this area's representation from 3 councillors to 2 2.if a ward has only 1 councillor and they are ill, away or lazy the ward would be unrepresented 3. It is important that the councillors can work as a team to represent the area 4 One Councillor wards put an additional workload on councillors and mean they have to attend all meetings to ensure the ward us represented. I would prefer the proposed wards of Half Moon and Dulwich Village be merged

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7849 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Felicity Henderson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7850 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Adrian Hill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Stradella and Springfield Residents' Association

Comment text:

I object to the proposal that there should be two single councillor wards (Half Moon and Dulwich Village) to replace the current three councillor Village ward. It gives residents no choice of councillor to work with; leaves an area completely unrepresented if an individual councillor is away or unwell, and puts considerable work load pressure and requirement to attend meetings on individual councillors. My recommendation is that Half Moon and Dulwich Village merge into a two councillor ward. The numbers work, there is more adequate representation for residents, and less governance and paperwork for the council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7946 13/04/2016 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: Tuesday, 15 March, 2016 4:24 PM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Commission changes in 2018 in Southwark

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Peter Holbourne Sent: 15 March 2016 16:13 To: reviews Subject: Proposed Boundary Commission changes in 2018 in Southwark

Dear Review Team

I live in Village Ward in Southwark and currently we have three local councillors. The Boundary Commission I understand is proposing that we can only elect one. Apparently it is proposed that there will be a new ward " Half Moon" that can also only elect one.

I strongly object that there should be two single councillor wards adjacent. This can easily be accommodated by merging Half Moon and Village into one ward with two councillors. This will also give us residents better representation if one councillor is away for whatever reason.

Yours Sincerely

Peter Holbourne

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

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Judy Holman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the suggestion that there should be two single councillor wards (dulwich village and half moon lane) to replace the current three councillor ward It gives residents no choice of councillor to work with and leaves an area completely unrepresented if a councillor is away or unwell and puts considerable work load pressures on one individual councillor My recommendation is that Half Moon and Dulwich Village merge into one two councillor ward. The numbers work there is more adequate representation for residents and less governance and paperwork for the council

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7943 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Amaryllis Hoy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Don't understand the reason for the change. I line in the newly proposed Half moon ward and understand that we will have 1 councillor to 3 for Dulwich village. This is not an improvement for us, so no thank you.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7788 15/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Islam

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not support the recommended changes to the Village Ward. The proposed changes means less Council representation for these wards - going from three to two Councillors for the residents. I also don't understand the splitting of village into two given that the main council services used by residents in half moon ward - schooling, parks and health - are overwhelmingly in the village ward. If it's a case of just reducing council representation, why not be transparent about that rather than introducing arbitrary boundaries?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7803 29/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Howard Jennings

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing to question the proposal to create two single councillor wards (Half Moon and Dulwich Village) to replace the current three councillor ward. It means residents have no councillor if an individual is away or unwell. I would have thought it much more practical to have one ward with two councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7851 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Laurie Johnston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the division of Village Ward leaving my new ward with just one councillor. This leaves the councillor with a great deal of work and without any support, and residents without a choice of who to work with, or not represented if the councillor is ill etc. We currently have a good system of local representation and accountability and this change weakens and undermines both. How can reducing my representation from three people to one be considered an improvement? At the very least, merge the two proposed wards so we have one ward with two councillors. Or, even better, don't change a system that is working.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7894 31/03/2016 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: Thursday, 31 March, 2016 3:02 PM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Southwark review

Heather Fuller Review Assistant LGBCE 0330 500 1252

From: ] Sent: 31 March 2016 14:52 To: reviews Subject: Southwark review

Dear Sir or Madam,

I largely welcome the commission's proposed ward boundaries for Southwark. You have produced a map which reflects communities and provides excellent electoral equality. Come 2021, no Southwark resident can claim to be under-represented by this ward map.

I have a few comments, which are confined to ward names.

Goose Green

This ward forms the core of the East Dulwich area and will be recognised as such by residents. East Dulwich has strong name recognition (being synonymous with the SE22 postcode) and very few residents of this ward would claim to live anywhere other than East Dulwich. Many amenities in the area incorporate East Dulwich in their name, eg the East Dulwich Tavern at the top of Lordship Lane, and the East Dulwich Picturehouse cinema. The only argument against naming the ward East Dulwich is that it does not encompass the entire area of the same name. However, the same could be said of many wards across London and it is the case that a clear majority of East Dulwich is in this ward.

Goose Green itself is merely a small and fairly non-notable green space at the far north of the ward with which residents at the southern end (and indeed most of the ward) will have little affinity. If you wish to avoid the name East Dulwich I would suggest renaming the ward Lordship Lane, as this road runs through the centre of the ward, is the main amenity centre for the area and would be recognised by all residents as a common point of community identity. In this context it's important to understand that 'Lordship Lane' refers to an amenity centre and not just a main road. Residents would identify it as such and people from further afield will talk of visiting 'Lordship Lane' as a centre for eating, drinking and shopping.

Goose Green ward should be renamed East Dulwich or Lordship Lane.

Dulwich Hill

While there is a hill in this proposed ward, it is not known locally or officially as 'Dulwich Hill' and I can find no historic references to the area being so named. There is a nature reserve at the top of the hill named Dawson's Hill, which is adjacent to a prominent housing estate named Dawson's Heights. The Commission 1 may therefore prefer to use the name Dawson's Hill which does at least refer to existing local landmark. Perhaps if the commission changes its view on the naming of Goose Green as East Dulwich (see above) it might also consider 'East Dulwich Hill' which would at least be a more accurate rendering of the area's identity.

Dulwich Hill ward should be renamed Dawson's Hill or East Dulwich Hill.

Half Moon

This area covers the eastern part of the Herne Hill area (the western part lying in the London Borough of Lambeth), which is synonymous with the SE24 postcode. Almost all residents of this ward would identify with Herne Hill as their area and use the amenities around the eponymous railway station. It seems somewhat perverse, therefore, not to name the ward after Herne Hill simply because part of the area lies outside the borough. Half Moon is merely the name of a road and pub and has no community resonance.

I would question whether it is in the Commission's remit to decline to name a ward after an area just because that area happens not to be fully encompassed within the borough boundary - in Lambeth the remainder of the area is named Herne Hill in any event, and there are other examples in which an area crosses a borough boundary where the Commission has given the same name to a ward on either side (e.g. the Kilburn wards in LB Brent/LB Camden). Regardless, this review is solely concerned with Southwark and so the Commission's focus should be on identified areas within the Southwark boundary rather than on areas that happen to lie outside of it. In that context, this area is clearly Herne Hill.

If nonetheless you wish to reflect the fact that the ward does not cover the entirety of Herne Hill I would recommend the name Herne Hill East.

Half Moon ward should be renamed Herne Hill or Herne Hill East.

Bridges

I am sure the Commission can do better than this boring name.There is a strong case to name the ward 'London Bridge' as the area is often referred to in this way, not just after the eponymous bridge but after the railway station which dominates the ward (as do its accompanying railway lines). For example, Bermondsey Street is an important amenity area running through the centre of the ward; users of this will often describe themselves as visiting and meeting in the "London Bridge area". Tower Bridge, while obviously a notable landmark, has less claim to represent the area in this way.

Bridges ward should be renamed London Bridge.

Champion Hill

I disagree with your assertion that the name South Camberwell "could be confusing as there is no North Camberwell ward". While I recognise that the Commission has no bias to the status quo, it should be observed that this is exactly the situation which pertains in the existing LB Southwark wards and I am not aware of its causing widespread confusion. While the Champion Hill stadium is a notable landmark, it should be noted that there are nascent plans to demolish and rebuild the stadium on adjacent land, and it is far from clear that any new stadium will retain the name Champion Hill (see: http://championhillstadium.org.uk/ and also http://www.southwarknews.co.uk/news/exclusive-dulwich- hamlets-proposed-new-stadium-revealed/ ). The ward name thus risks obsolescence in the coming years. In my view this ward is effectively the southern part of Camberwell and should be named as such. If the Commission declines to consider this reversion it might prefer to name the ward "Green Dale" after the sizeable public open space close to the stadium, which forms a significant footprint in the ward and is well known by local residents.

Champion Hill ward should be renamed South Camberwell or Green Dale. 2

Bankside & Borough

This is a good name but should be reversed to 'Borough & Bankside' which is how the area is more commonly known. For example, this is the name of the Business Improvement District covering much of this area and there used also to be a Borough and Bankside community council. Bankside & Borough should be renamed Borough & Bankside.

Yours faithfully

Simon Keal

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

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Robin KEY

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7845 23/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Jessie Kolvin

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7898 13/04/2016 Ward, Lucy

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: Tuesday, 05 April, 2016 10:45 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: SOUTHWARK - proposed new ward boundaries for Dulwich Village and Herne Hill

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Frances Lamb [m Sent: 03 April 2016 18:09 To: reviews Subject: SOUTHWARK ‐ proposed new ward boundaries for Dulwich Village and Herne Hill

Dear Review Officer, I live in I would like to comment on your proposal to create 2 single‐member wards called Half Moon and Dulwich Village. In my view this is NOT the way to go, for the following reasons:

1. There’s no sense in a ward with only 1 Councillor. What happens when he or she is ill, or needs to go away, e.g. for work or holiday – would there have to be a locum arrangement? Surely this is the very opposite of ‘effective and convenient local government’ (one of your 4 criteria for a good pattern of wards)?

2. Dulwich Village and Herne Hill are, to a large extent, one community. Although each has its own local amenity Society, a glance through their respective magazines shows the overlap. In reality they share their heritage, transport links, shops and restaurants, as well as services such as GPs and libraries. Furthermore, the tentacles of the Dulwich Estate spread all the way to Denmark Hill, the borough boundary ( ). Perhaps you thought the two areas are distinct? In fact no, they are not.

3. To have Herne Hill (or ‘Half Moon’) as a tiny sliver of a ward, right on the edge of the borough, is unlikely to mean more effective government in terms of cross‐borough liaison. The cross‐borough aspect has been bad enough with Herne Hill in a bigger ward. What will it be like if we become a ‘tiddler’?

Please reconsider the proposal for two single‐member wards. Put them together instead, and make one 2‐member ward. Our local government representation to date, covering part SE24/part SE21, has worked well enough, it seems to me.

Yours sincerely, Frances Lamb (Mrs)

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

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Lamb

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I currently live in Village Ward. I'm not happy at being put into a ward with a single councillor as will happen if Herne Hill Ward is created. Why not combione the proposed Herne Hill and Village wards to create a single ward with more than one councillor?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7811 16/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: David Lane

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7936 13/04/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Jeremy Leach

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would just like to comment on the proposed names of the wards in the Walworth area of Southwark. I understand one idea that has been mooted is to have an overall name of Walworth followed by the name of the individual ward (eg Walworth - Elephant). This may be of some value given that the ideas of North and South Walworth may have little meaning to residents (espeically as North Walworth largely replaces East Walworth!). If this idea is adopted then I feel that for the currrent ward of Newington, then the name Walworth - Newington would be more appropriate than Walworth - Kennington. Newington is the old parish name for the area and has many historic references including the current ward name. Kennington is far more restricted in its scope to the area round the Kennington tube station (and in the northern/north -western most part of the ward). For the many estates and neighbourhoods further south and along the Walworth Road, Kennington has far less relevance. Similarly, residents in the current Faraday ward have expressed an interest in retaining the Faraday title eg Walworth-Faraday owing to its historical links to a famous local individual. This feel more representative of the character of the area than South Walworth. I hope that you can take these throughts into account. Many thanks.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7838 17/03/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Southwark London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Eleanor Lyons

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the suggestion that there should be two single councillor wards (Half Moon and Dulwich Village) to replace the current three councillor ward, it leaves the area completely unrepresented.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7854 23/03/2016