Local Residents submissions to the Erewash Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 20 submissions from Local Residents.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: darlene anne lathall
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
do not think it will make much difference to Sandiacre as far as I understand it.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/2980 17/04/2014 Proposed Ward Boundary Changes in Erewash Sydney A.Leleux,
Overall the proposed changes, and the names for the wards, seem sensible.
However, I object most strongly to Stanton-by-Dale being included with Kirk Hallam, returning three members. Stanton-by-Dale should remain combined with Draycott and Risley, as at present. Maybe this would justify returning three members instead of the present two, and Kirk Hallam being reduced to two members, maybe both should return two members.
I object because the proposed ward does not meet any of the criteria listed for Community Identity on the last page of the consultation document.
Transport links: There is no direct bus from Stanton-by-Dale to Kirk Hallam. Travel by bus involves going at least to the outskirts of Ilkeston and then changing buses.
Community Group: Stanton-by-Dale has its own parish council, and Dale Abbey Parish Council covers part of Kirk Hallam. No community group covers both areas. Since 1994 the rector of the ecclesiastical parish of Stanton-by-Dale with Dale Abbey has also been rector of Risley. He is working hard to bring the two parishes together. Continuing to be part of the same ward as Risley would facilitate this link, whereas there is no similar link with Kirk Hallam. If Stanton – Risley – Draycott is still too small, it would be reasonable to add Dale Abbey which is part of the same ecclesiastical parish as Stanton-by-Dale,
Facilities: Local people in Stanton-by-Dale go to Ilkeston or Sandiacre for their facilities, not Kirk Hallam, except perhaps for last minute emergency purchases. The ecclesiastical parishes of Stanton- by-Dale with Dale Abbey and Kirk Hallam are entirely separate and have little contact. While I cannot say whether any Stanton residents attend Kirk Hallam Church, only two people (out of over one hundred) come to Stanton Church from Kirk Hallam.
Interests: In former times most residents in both communities worked, or had worked, in Stanton Ironworks, so had shared experiences. With the virtual closure of Stanton Works this has ceased. Casual observation suggests that many residents in Stanton have office employment in Derby, Nottingham or places served by the M1. I can make no comment about residents in Kirk Hallam. In addition, I suspect that the residents of Stanton-by-Dale have more in common with those of Risley and Breaston than with those of Kirk Hallam.
Identifiable Boundaries: There are open fields between Kirk Hallam and Stanton-by-Dale, so there is no difficulty in deciding a boundary. There are also fields between Kirk Hallam and Dale Abbey.
Types of Community: Stanton-by-Dale is a compact village, a Conservation Area, having very few houses built since World War II. Kirk Hallam has a handful of old buildings near the church, but is otherwise a large post-war estate.
The candid statement on page 2 of the leaflet (in the section headed Rural North) which reads ‘with one small amendment in Kirk Hallam to adopt the Labour group’s proposed Kirk Hallam & Stanton ward’ is inherently suspect. As I have shown above, there are no criteria which obviously link Stanton-by-Dale with Kirk Hallam, apart from geographical proximity. I therefore conclude that this suggestion was made for possible electoral advantage rather than arising naturally from any logical combination based on similar communities. The suggestion should therefore have been ignored.
The figures below were provided by Erewash Borough Council (EBC), and have been used in the calculations which follow.
According to EBC, the planned average population per ward member is 1893.
Dale Abbey (village ward) 252 Dale Abbey (Kirk Hallam wards) 590+254=844 Draycott & Church Wilne 2328 Kirk Hallam (parliamentary total) 4741 Kirk Hallam (excluding those in DA) 4741-844=3897 Risley 594 Stanton-by-Dale 376 West Hallam 3889
Draft Proposals Area Population Councillors based on planned average Draycott & Risley 2328+594=2922 1.54 2 proposed Kirk Hallam & Stanton 4741+376=5117 2.70 3 proposed West Hallam & Dale Abbey 3889+252=4141 2.19 so why propose 3?
My Suggestions Draycott, Risley & Stanton 2922+376=3298 1.74 Kirk Hallam 4741 2.50 West Hallam & Dale Abbey 4141 2.19 unchanged
If Dale Abbey village was included with Stanton Draycott, Risley, Stanton, DA 3298+252=3550 1.87 West Hallam 3889 2.05
If Dale Abbey village was included with Kirk Hallam Kirk Hallam & Dale Abbey 4741+252=4993 2.63
Putting Stanton with Draycott & Risley makes a better approximation to the average than the Draft proposals, and including Dale Abbey makes it better still, although it would be a long awkward journey for a councillor from Draycott to reach Dale Abbey). Taking Dale Abbey out of West Hallam improves its average. Putting Dale Abbey with Kirk Hallam (logical as Dale Abbey Parish Council covers parts of Kirk Hallam) makes the Kirk Hallam average 2.63, which is close to the draft proposal. Without Dale Abbey, Kirk Hallam at 2.50 would barely justify the proposed three councillors.
I repeat, there are no natural links between Stanton-by-Dale and Kirk Hallam, and I object most strongly to the proposed inclusion of Stanton-by-Dale in Kirk Hallam for EBC elections.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Richard Lindley
Organisation Name:
Map Features:
Comment text: In a time of such economic problems surely there are better ways to spend tax payers money such as repairing roads, more police, dredging canals and rivers, the list goes on and on. Although I understand boundaries need to change as the town grows so each councillor represents and equal number of voters to maintain a fair democracy, possibly you should really be looking at if the councillors we have actually represent the people in their area because they don't, not even close. Yes I know they are elected but it’s not them that are being voted for but the party they represent so surely it would be better to abolish all the little areas and just have one area represented by a councillor for each party, it would massively reduce costs and speed up decisions and if you really do want to know what we think why not invest some of the savings in a monthly online voting system so we the people actually get to decide what you spend OUR money on in your capacity of civil SERVANTS (yes we are educated and are aware that you are employed to serve us not the other way round). I'm sure my comments will be deleted and treated with derision but as you asked for my opinion I thought I would do as you requested and give you it as a law abiding tax paying citizen, and yes I am proud to be English sorry if that makes me a racist it your eyes but tough.
https://consultation lgbce org uk//node/print/informed-representation/2915[18/02/2014 15:47:21] Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Hilary Moore
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
We are resident in the present Ilkeston North constituency. Only a small part of the existing Cotmanhay ward is in the new area, and yet the proposals suggest that the new ward should be renamed Cotmanhay. I object strongly to this name change, and would prefer the existing name of Ilkeston North to be retained.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3119 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Richard Adrian Moore
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I have lived on The Copse for over 30 years which is right on the northern boundary of the Erewash constituency. (When we first moved here we were classed as Shipley.) I see no reason to change the ward name from Ilkeston North to Cotmanhay. In fact keeping the new boundaries as you have given,the only thing you need change is their names. Your Cotmanhay can retain the name Ilkeston North which most of it is already.Your Awsworth Road ward could be called Ilkeston Central (Awsworth isnt even in Ilkeston)and call the Larkland ward Ilkeston South.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3126 17/04/2014
Dunkeyson, Nicholas
Helen
From: Clare Neill Sent: 25 February 2014 15:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: Erewash Borough Boundary Review
Hi I would like to oppose the boundary review on two grounds.
The first is that it does not reduce the number of councillors by enough.
Secondly, I believe the boundaries of the wards should be co‐terminous with the boundaries of Derbyshire County Council.
There are nine county divisions nwithi Erewash and I would suggest that each of them has three borough councillors ‐ making 27 borough councillors in total.
Yours
Clare
1
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Brian Parker
Organisation Name: None
Map Features:
Comment text: Good proposals, nicely tweaks the exisiting boundries so won't cause great distrress
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2905[18/02/2014 15:34:23] Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Andrew Parkes
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am currently in the Springfield Park area and have always felt a part of a tight knit community, and think that it would be detrimental to the residents of this area to change the boundary isolating us from the rest of our community, with decisions involving our part of the parish being made by someone represting different values. We need to keep our community identity and continue to be represented by the 4 ward councillors who know what our needs are.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3195 17/04/2014 Dunkeyson, Nicholas
-----Original Message----- From: Jacqueline Parmar Sent: 19 April 2014 20:17 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed new council wards
Dear Sir
I am a resident of Heanor Road, Ilkeston, and I consider the Ilkeston North ward proposal to be unacceptable.
The ward under the new proposals will to be too large. We are already underrepresented by the current councillor whom we have NEVER heard from or seen in 18 years of living here. My neighbours will attested to this statement also.
As you are not doubt aware, the demographics of North Ilkeston and Cotmanhay Farm areas is quite different and therefore have different needs. I think both areas would be better served if they were kept separate leaving councillors to do their jobs professionally.
I appreciate that my mail may be perceived a little snobbish but perception is reality and I am concerned about house prices, insurance costs and overall perceptions. Sorry if this comes across as the concerns of a NIMBY but i sincerely hope that you will make a decision based on objectivity and the overall needs of ALL your residents and not just a simple political decision for short term gain.
As an active voter I hope you take time to listen to my concerns. Thank you.
Yours faithfully
Mrs Jackie Parmar
1 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Joan Price
Organisation Name:
Map Features:
Comment text: I think it right that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters.
https://consultation lgbce org uk//node/print/informed-representation/2924[18/02/2014 15:52:29] Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: simon ratcliffe
Organisation Name:
Map Features:
Comment text: will the council be able to function the same with fewer Councillors. the savings with less Councillors be put in the budget to help the area.
https://consultation lgbce org uk//node/print/informed-representation/2921[18/02/2014 15:51:26] Dunkeyson, Nicholas
From: Gill Riley Sent: 13 February 2014 15:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: Erewash Ward changes
Hello, I have looked at the proposed changes to the Erewash wards, and it seems to me to be generally sensible. As the person who Chairs the Ilkeston Neighbourhood Watch, it is clear to me that Shipley View has a different demographic than Cotmanhay, so their division would more accurately reflect their natural choices. I also think, however, that Mapperley village, to the south of Shipley View, should be incorporated into West Hallam, as this village is out on a limb, miles from the rest of Amber Valley. The nearest Police are in Ilkeston, the residents shop in West Hallam and go to the Doctors’ surgeries there, yet they are not in West Hallam – I think this is an anomaly. Regards Gill Riley
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: alan roper
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
cant help thinking, these proposed boundaries, are biased towards labour.....just saying.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3167 17/04/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Andrew Simpson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Having studied the proposed consultation I believe that it is in the interests of the residents that the parish boundaries remain unchanged
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3285 24/04/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: glynne.smith smith
Organisation Name:
Map Features:
Comment text: I am all for reduction of the number of councillors in order to move with the times to reduce costs therefore the proposed changes are a start to a more streamlined local government
https://consultation lgbce org uk//node/print/informed-representation/2911[18/02/2014 15:41:39] Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Tom Smith
Organisation Name:
Map Features:
Comment text: I would support the proposed reduction in Councillor numbers and proposed ward map
https://consultation lgbce org uk//node/print/informed-representation/2916[18/02/2014 15:48:35] Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
Erewash District
Personal Details:
Name: Gordon Thompsell
Organisation Name:
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: As a resident of Oakland Avenue I welcome the proposal to restore this, Sycamore and Cedar avenues to the Wilsthorpe Ward of which it is more naturally a part than greater Long Eaton. The canal defines a community as well as geographical boundary and residents identify more strongly with Sawley and Wilsthorpe than Long Eaton Central.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2914 27/02/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2914 27/02/2014