Councillor submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors.

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.

completing the task rather than the thoughtful, considered manner which should prevail. This "easy way out" approach does not affect Brinsley alone. The proposals for Eastwood and Brinsley Division, Nuthall and North Broxtowe Divisions, and Kimberley and Giltbrook seem to be based upon the same mathematical approach, linking communities who have little, if any, compatibilty of needs and community cohesion. i would request that other alternatives are considered which accommodate the compatibility of communities as a priority. Brinsley Parish Council would, I am certain, be willing to be a partner in those considerations.

The eventually finalised proposals will affect communities for many years to come. I implore you to make every attemp to make those affects as positive as possible, rather than tying communioties with vastly contracting problems and living styles together in the name of statistics and average voter numbers.

Best Regards

Colin Barson Brinsley Parish Councillor

2 Kingsley, Paul

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 08:57 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: review

Categories: Notts, Submission

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Brown, Mick Sent: 09 February 2015 12:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: review

Sirs, I would like to place on record my dismay at the proposals mooted regarding changes to the seat known as Beauvale‐ ( with Brinsley) . I understand that these proposals suggest the removal of this seat altogether, and share it out between Eastwood and Kimberley. Greasley and Brinsley are Rural Communities, equally with their own Rural Identities. The Towns of Kimberley and Eastwood, being Urban, have completely differing identities and we would not enjoy the coalescence suggested. Therefore I would hope that serious consideration be given to preserving the Identity of Greasley, which appears to be losing that Identity‐ref Borough Review recently. Local electors have no wish to be part of either Urban Town and are asking if this is part of a plan to expunge Greasley ‐ Parish, Borough and County seats altogether.

Than you Yours Truly M.Brown Broxtowe Borough Council and Greasley Parish Council

DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the IT Service Desk at Broxtowe Borough Council on [email protected] or telephone 0115 917 3194. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under current legislation, the contents may be monitored and will be retained. The contents of the email may have to be disclosed in response to a request. This disclaimer confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

1 As Ward Councillor for the Greasley Ward I write in response to the Nottinghamshire County Council proposals for new divisional boundaries. We are a part of the Parish of Greasley and serve rural / semi rural communities. Under the current boundaries we are in the Beauvale Division. Surely any re drawing of boundaries should be more than number crunching but should reflect the needs and wishes of communities. The current proposals for a Kimberley and Giltbrook Division just does not make sense. There is little or no affinity between the settlements of Giltbrook and Newthorpe with Kimberley and indeed there is an area of Green belt land preventing total coalescence between the two areas. The remainder of our ward would go into the proposed Nuthall and North Broxtowe . We strongly oppose the name of this Division as the term North Broxtowe refers to an area encompassing the whole of the North of the . As with the Newthorpe and Giltbrook areas this is currently part of the Beauvale Division. The name Beauvale comes from both the brook which runs through this area and the Carthusian Priory of Beauvale. If we have to accept the recommendation we strongly oppose the new name and suggest an alternative of Beauvale and Nuthall. This exercise appears to be a numerical breakdown linking communities who have little if any affinity between each other. However as Borough Councillors we would also request that you look at the following alternatives:

Eastwood division including:ESM 1 ; ESM 2;ESM 3; EHT1;EHT2 and GRE2. These areas are co terminus and streets such as Braemar Avenue are actually closer to Eastwood than Greasley as there is no direct link to this area without going through Eastwood.

Beauvale and Brinsley Division: EHA1;EHA2; GRE5; GRE1; GRE4;GRE3;WNW1 and BRY1

Nuthall and Kimberley division: KIM1; KIM2; KIM3;KIM4;KIM5;KIM6;NES4;NES2 .

Not only do these act as co terminus, they link similar communities and make a more logical division. Kingsley, Paul

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 08:59 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Nottinghamshire County Council Divisional Review

Categories: Notts, Submission

From: John Handley Sent: 08 February 2015 20:44 To: Reviews@ Subject: Nottinghamshire County Council Divisional Review

Dear sir I would like to express my concerns about the proposals that Nottinghamshire are considering for the reorganising of the divisional boundaries. I need to be up front and honest that I am the county councillor for the Beauvale ward which is the division that is being split into three and joined with areas. I would like to say that local councillors come and go at elections but the actual changes to the divisions will be here for some time. These changes will have a great effect on the areas for a long time to come and it is important we get it right this time.

The current proposals do not take into account the varying needs of the areas under consideration. Brinsley is a village in my division which is very proud of its rural village status and it is being linked with the urban district of Eastwood with whom they have no links. They are about to develop their neighbourhood plan and it would make more sense if they were linked with Greasley which is a similar rural area with similar needs and there are number of well established links. These links are covered in the current arrangements of the Beauvale division and I am sure with some minor adjustments to the electorate the variance that there is could be addressed. I trust that this will be a review that takes into account the needs of the residents and not just a numerial exercise.

Yours sincerely John Handley Nottinghamshire county Councillor Beauvale Division.

1 Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Nottinghamshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Stan Heptinstall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: County Councillor on Nottinghamshire CC

Comment text:

Dear Commissioners I am one of the two existing county councillors for Bramcote and Stapleford. If it were possible, I would really prefer the area to be split into two with say Bramcote and Stapleford SE borough wards serving as one division and the rest of Stapleford as a separate county division. This is how it used to be years ago before a previous review. The reason is that a smaller area/population is manageable by a single councillor but a larger area/population is less easy to manage. This suggestion is based on my own long (since 1997) experience of working with both systems. Many thanks for considering this. Stan Heptinstall

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4165 30/10/2014 Kingsley, Paul

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 February 2015 08:51 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Nottinghamshire

Categories: Notts, Submission

From: Philip Owen Sent: 12 February 2015 17:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review for Nottinghamshire

Proposals for New County Divisions for Nottinghamshire

I appreciate that the closing dates for comments was Monday 9th February but I wanted to wait until the County Council had approved their suggestions which didn’t take place until Wednesday 11th, so that I was able to comment on them. I am currently the County Councillor for the existing Division of Nuthall and I am confining my comments to the Broxtowe area and in particular the way in which it affects my current division. I fully support the proposals put forward by the County Council for the Broaxtowe area and in particular support the suggestions as it affects my current division. I am pleased that the proposed name includes the large settlement of Nuthall and the rest of the name of Broxtowe North is appropriate. It is a sensible approach to remove the current Borough Council ward NES3 as this is out on a limb with no direct road connection to the rest of the division and this would sit more appropriately in Broxtowe Central. It is highly sensible to include the Borough Council wards of GRE1 and GRE5. These two Borough Council wards fit in nicely with the rest of the division. There is considerable community interest in terms of highway connections between the whole of that part of the new division along the B600. Issues arising with the highway infrastructure apply to the whole length of this part of the division, currently I only deal with a part of the infrastructure despite it having a mjor impact on the rest of my current division. The same is true of public transport. This road is the public transport corridor for much of my current division and to include GRE1 and GRE5 means that the councillor is able to adopt a holistic approach to public transport matters. The communities outside of the Nuthall geographical area look to Nuthall for recreational facilities and many use the education provision in Nuthall. I believe that representations will be made to include the Parish of Brinsley in this new division. I would not support that suggestion as Brinsley has much more association with Eastwood (having formed part of the Eastwood Division prior to an earlier redrawing of boundaries). Brinsley looks to shops in Eastwood and although children go to the local Brinsley Primary School they attend secondary education at the school in Eastwood and not any other part of the proposed division. Some children may well attend Kimberley School and some Selston. However, should the commissioners be minded to include Brinsley, which is not my preferred option I would suggest that the Borough Council ward EHA2 is changed to the new Eastwood division as it is would prevent the splitting off from the EHA1 part of the ward.

Philip Owen

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

Nottinghamshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Peck

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Notts. County Council

Comment text:

Dear Sir/Madam Very briefly: I am in favour of the number of Councillors remaining at 67. In respect of the Rufford Division, If a reduction in the number of electors has to be made, then the only way I can see it being made, taking into account geography and keeping community identities together as far as possible, would be to remove the southern part of Bilsthorpe (known as the old village or Old Bilsthorpe, which has Kirklington Road running through it and includes such streets as Wycarr Road). The ex pit village of Bilsthorpe (the village containing Road and Mickledale Lane would remain in Rufford Division, along with , , and Rufford parishes). Regards Cllr. John Peck

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4636 06/02/2015 Kingsley, Paul

From: Ken Rigby Sent: 11 February 2015 10:30 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: Nottinghamshire County Council Boundary Review Submission

Categories: Notts, Submission

Dear Mr Kingsley,

Whilst I am not objecting to the proposal to reduce the number of Councillors in the Broxtowe district by one and to increase the district by one, I wish to object to the new division which will be called Stapleford & Broxtowe Central.

From personal experience, single Councillor wards are more effective than multi‐Councillor wards as it allows the single Councillor a better opportunity to understand and represent the needs of his constituency. Therefore may I respectfully request that the said proposal is converted into two divisions and I firmly believe that if Broxtowe Borough Council’s core strategy figures are taken into consideration two divisions could be successfully achieved.

One possible suggestion might be a division consisting of ACT1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 plus NES3 plus SO1, 2 and 3 plus 999 properties to be included in the core strategy. The remaining areas would combine toe mak the other electoral division.

I apologies for the late submission but I was only made aware of the cut‐off date by council officers yesterday.

Best wishes,

Councillor Ken Rigby Kimberley & Trowell Nottinghamshire County Councillor

The following message has been applied automatically, to promote news and information from Nottinghamshire County Council about events and services:

Your tree needs you! Vote ’s Major Oak for European Tree of the Year 2015 www.treeoftheyear.org

Emails and any attachments from Nottinghamshire County Council are confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to the email, and then delete it without making copies or using it in any other way. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 1998 and the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the contents may have to be disclosed in response to a request.

Although any attachments to the message will have been checked for viruses before transmission, you are urged to carry out your own virus check before opening attachments, since the County Council accepts no responsibility for loss or damage caused by software viruses.

Nottinghamshire County Council Legal Disclaimer.

1

Dear Sir/Madam

As Ward Councillor for the Greasley Ward I write in response to the Nottinghamshire County Council proposals for new divisional boundaries. We are a part of the Parish of Greasley and serve rural / semi‐rural communities. Under the current boundaries we are in the Beauvale Division. Surely any re drawing of boundaries should be more than number crunching but should reflect the needs and wishes of communities. The current proposals for a Kimberley/Giltbrook Division just does not make sense. There is little or no affinity between the settlements of Giltbrook and Newthorpe with Kimberley and indeed there is an area of Green belt land preventing total coalescence between the two areas. The remainder of our ward would go into the proposed Nuthall and North Broxtowe . We strongly oppose the name of this Division as the term North Broxtowe refers to an area encompassing the whole of the North of the Borough of Broxtowe. As with the Newthorpe and Giltbrook areas this is currently part of the Beauvale Division. The name Beauvale comes from both the brook which runs through this area and the Carthusian Priory of Beauvale. If we have to accept the recommendation we strongly oppose thew ne name and suggest an alternative of Beauvale and Nuthall. This exercise appears to be a numerical breakdown linking communities who have little if any affinity between each other. However as Borough Councillors we would also request that you look at the following alternatives:

Eastwood division including:ESM 1 ; ESM 2;ESM 3; EHT1;EHT2 and GRE2. These areas are co terminus and streets such as Braemar Avenue are actually closer to Eastwood than Greasley as there is no direct link to this area without going through Eastwood.

Beauvale and Brinsley Division: EHA1;EHA2; GRE5; GRE1; GRE4;GRE3;WNW1 and BRY1

Nuthall and Kimberley division: KIM1; KIM2; KIM3;KIM4;KIM5;KIM6;NES4;NES2 .

Not only do these act as co terminus, they link similar communities and make a more logical division.

Yours truly,

Cllr Stuart Rowland (Broxtowe Borough Council)

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Nottinghamshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John Wilkinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Nottinghamshire County Council

Comment text:

Dear Sirs, As elected members for the Division of Nottinghamshire County Council, we are writing to express our support for the proposed submission of the Council for the re- structured electoral map of our county. Whilst we are in support of the county-wide submission as a whole we would like to stress our specific support for the proposal as it is to affect the division we represent. In proposing to retain the existing three-member division for Hucknall we strongly feel that the proposal best reflects electoral equality, community identity and the most effective way of providing efficient, comprehensive representation for the electors of our town. It is accepted that a three-member division is an exception rather than the rule but notwithstanding this, for Hucknall such a structured, in place since the local elections of 2005, has worked and worked well. The element of multi-member wards is not new to Hucknall. Whilst the county division, as stated above, has been been in place since 2005, the district ward system for Hucknall within Ashfield has been on a multi-member basis since the inception of Ashfield itself in 1973 with no use of single-member wards. That this multi-member system has produced elected members from Labour. Conservative, Liberal, Resident and Independent groupings speaks volumes for both the robustness and effectiveness of the system and the sophistication of the Hucknall electorate. Even over the much shorter time span of multi- member representation at County level, the system has provided for councillors from the Labour, Conservative and UKIP parties. In terms of electoral equality of representation, the figures in the proposed submission for 2020 of 26806 electors means that a three-member division would represent a variance of just -6% which given the planned development over the coming years embeds a solid fairness within the electoral map for Hucknall. Given that the lectoral number meet the requirement of the review as set out when the process of consultation began, the importance of community identity becomes ever important. Hucknall has always been, and remains a strongly tightly-knit community.The closure of Hucknall's staple industrial existence - the mining industry - failed to diminish, let alone destroy, this community ethos. For this town it is the Hucknall Heritage Society, the Hucknall Tourism and Regeneration Group, the We Love Hucknall economic development grouip, the Hucknall Area Committee, Hucknall Churches Together, the Hucknall in Need charity that represents the social, political and economic spirit of the town, not some artificially imposed sectoral representation that fails to mirror the real lives of Hucknall folk, how they see themselves and how they live their lives. A homogenity of electoral representation to match this communal homogenity is a perfect match. That this approach works well in practice is exemplifed by the manner in which we 3 existing councillors operate as representatives. Operating in a multi-member system, we can provide a comprehensive and efficient public service, irrespective of the specific postcode of our electorate and not subject to the vagaries of individual illness or disability. In Hucknall, under this system, all electors are guaranteed representation at all times. Indeed, as one of our councillors is about to give birth, the fact that we are a multi-member ward allows that representation to continued unhindered. It can be argued, in this circumstance, that the imposition of a single- member system would not only be less effective for the electorate but specifically discriminatory to women wishing to have children and serve their communities. Furthermore, as it works for individual constituents, so it works for community groups. Within Hucknall, under the present multi-member system, there is not a community group throughout the town that is not able, should it so wish, to have a county councillor in attendance at meetings. This continuity and

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4650 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

extent of representation is a vital conduit betwixt community group and council that can only be of benefit to the town as a whole. Equally with funding- under the existing system the three Hucknall members deliberately pool their divisional funding to ensure the most effective, productive and equitable use of limited funding that, again, benefits the whole of Hucknall. Thus, in conclusion, we strongly feel that, based on evidence and experience, the proposed retention of a three-member ward for the Hucknall division contained within the submission of the County Council , is one that best reflects electoral equity, effective representation and community identity for the entire Hucknall community and we urge the Commission to incorporate this within their draft recommendations. Councillor Alice Grice Councillor John Wilkinson Councillor John Wilmott

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4650 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Nottinghamshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Pamela Skelding

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Nottinghamshire County Council

Comment text:

As County Councillor for East South Division, I believe that the boundaries of that division and East Retford Norh work very well, they include all of the urban developments and effectively contain the Market town of East Retford. I would like to see the boundaries remain as they are, this will also give scope for proposed new developments. Councillor Pamela Skelding

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4678 09/02/2015