Local resident submissions to the District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 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 Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: lee adams

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

i believe my road will be in Broomhill and Botanicals , yet this name does not relate to our area at all, we do not identify with either names/communities, we are in crookesmoor and relate more to or being similar areas in demography , g history etc etc In addition though probably too ,late i would support less elected members per ward and overall, i have some understanding of work load of elected members and also their cost, whilst wishing not to compromise democracy i think fewer better paid members would improve things few people know their elected member at present or ever contact them , they need to be more visible as does their work, fewer higher profile people would assist . Work load and how they work needs to be well analysed so that members can do a better democratic job

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4375 05/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Batchelor

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wish to propose changing the name of Crookes Ward to & Crookes, This would better reflect that the ward is made up of 2 distinct communities. There are, for example, separate Community Forums.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4251 17/11/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Alan Deadman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: The Festival and Fringe

Comment text:

The area between Queens Rd, Bramall Lane, Hill Street and the Inner Ring Ring Road is a crucial part of Sharrow and , for the reasons explained in the uploaded document and cutting it off in this way and assigning it to a Park and , a ward across a dual carriageway and a railway line, with a completely different demographic and set of priorities would break up one of the most distinctive wards in the country/

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4383 08/01/2015 I am writing to protest against your proposal to split up the neighbourhood we know as Sharrow and assign the Highfield area and the streets from Highfield towards the Inner Ring Road to the Park and Arbourthorne Ward.

I have worked in the Sharrow neighbourhood for over 30 years, first as an adult education lecturer and subsequently as chair of the Sharrow Community Forum and chair of the group of volunteers who organise the Sharrow Festival, a free annual multi-cultural festival which attracts 6000 people every year.

Sharrow is known throughout the country as a vibrant neighbourhood, made up of many BME cultures (84 languages spoken at the last count), a significant proportion of students and a large creative community drawn there by the affordability of property and the cultural diversity. A key element in this is the large number of older industrial buildings, originally associated with the metal trades of Sheffield, all of which lie within the area you propose to separate off. In these buildings are musicians studios, record labels, artists workshops, small film companies and other creative enterprises, working alongside the remnants of smallscale manfacturing. One building alone (Stag Works) has housed a number of famous Sheffield bands including Deff Leppard, The Arctic Monkeys and Reverend and The Makers.

It was on the strength of the creative activities and the industrial heritage that the John Street Triangle Conservation Area was designated around 15 years ago.

This back street creativity fuels the pubs along the London Rd, the musical instrument shop and the large number of IT shops also on .

The Sharrow Festival, which includes a two week Fringe Festival and the Sharrow Lantern Carnival are the outward expressions of this creativity: events where the innovation and artistry hatched in the old industrial 'works' are performed and displayed for the benefit of the whole community.

Sharrow is a genuine community, somewhere where many of the most exciting ideas of social inclusion and interaction are demonstrated. The three councillors who represent this area play an active role in the life of Sharrow, whether it be help with funding applications to rescue some of the industrial buildings (Portland Works in particular) or getting their hands dirty recycling rubbish at the Sharrow Festival.

It makes no sense except from a remote bureaucratic perspective to cut out the creative heart of Sharrow and assign it to councillors responsible for a distant ward (across a railway line and a dual carriageway) which has a totally different demographic and set of priorities, based around a mostly white working class community with a high rate of occupancy in social housing.

I urge you to go think again.

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Gordon Ferguson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

8: Students are best represented with the University in Broomhill and Botanicals

2: Encliffe Park is essentailly an urban park, and so may be better represented in the more urban ward of Broomhill and Botaniclas than in Fulwood or .

6: Psalter Lane has more affinity with Nether Edge than with Broomhill and Botanticals

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

Map Features:

Annotation 2: Encliffe Park is essentailly an urban park, and

Annotation 6: Psalter Lane has more affinity with Nether Edge

Annotation 8: Students are best represented with the University

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4116 24/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen George

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Democracy is not just about numbers: it is also about a sense of community. Lower Bradway is historically an integral part of the neighbourhood of Bradway. It would only involve moving a small number of people to redraw the boundary so that the remainder of Bradway Road, Elwood Road, Fox Lane, Edmund Avenue and Edmund Close are included in Dore & Ward along with the rest of Bradway, as proposed to the Boundary Commission by Sheffield City Council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4305 17/12/2014 Sheffield City Council 2013-2016 Ward Review Response to LGBR Draft Ward Boundaries J.G.Harston

December 2014 All details may be made publically available

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Recommended changes to LGBC recommended boundaries 2.1 Boundary between Walkley and Broomhill at Roebuck Road 2.2 Boundary between Crookes and Fulwood at Carsick Hill top 2.3 Boundary between Fulwood and Ecclesall at High Storrs 2.4 Boundary between Dore & Totley and Ecclesall at 2.5 Boundary between Dore & Totley and Ecclesall at Hall 2.6 Boundary between Ecclesall and Nether Edge at Brincliffe Edge 2.7 Boundary between Arbourthorne and Valley at Green 2.8 Boundary between Richmond and Woodhouse 2.9 Boundary between and Southey Green 3. Ward names 4. Issues raised by other respondants 5. Ward summary 6. About the author 7. Maps of recommended changes

1. Introduction 1.1 The Boundary Commission have published their draft new ward boundary for the Sheffield City Council. I have participated in Sheffield City Council’s consultations on their initial submission to the Commission, and well as their response to the Commission’s draft recommendations.

1.2 I believe that overall the Commission’s draft wards will work well, and in my repsonse I will recommend some minor changes to small parts of boundaries where I believe it would better reflect the local geopgraphy, local communities and better balance electorate numbers. I have submitted most of these comments to the City Council as part of their consultation. Attached to this submission are maps of those wards where I recommend changes.

2.1 Boundary between Walkley and Broomhill at Roebuck Road 2.11 The proposed boundary runs along the centre of Roebuck Road, and then behind the houses on one side of Sydney Road. This proposed boundary has some inconstancies between centre-road and behind-road running, as well as cutting off this “Roebuck Triangle” area from Barber Road. Ideally, the whole of Sydney Road, Burns Road and Roebuck Road should be in the same ward.

2.12 Option A: The “Roebuck Triangle” is more connected to the Barber Road area to its south than it is to the Springvale Road/Ashberry Road area to its north. All the connecting roads – Sydney Road, Burns Road and Crookesmoor Road – connect it to the Barber Road area, and there are some properties on Roebuck Road that have rear entrances accessed from Katie Place and Barber Place, short roads that run off Barber Road. The “Roebuck Triangle” should be in Broomhill Ward along with Barber Road. This is shown as the line A-A on map 1. Doing this would also have a positive impact on the electoral balance in Broomhill:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Broomhill 13,995 -5.7% 14,365 -3.2% Walkley 14,573 -1.9% 14,203 -4.3%

2.13 Option B: If not transfering the whole of the “Roebuck Triangle”, a clearer on the ground than the LGBR proposal would either follow the whole of the centre of the road, or run behind houses for its whole length. Option B shown as the line B-B on map 1 puts the boundary consistantly along the centre of the road by running it along the centre of Sydney Road above Roebuck Road. This would move about ten electors into Broomhill as follows:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Broomhill 13,995 -5.7% 14,005 -5.7% Walkley 14,573 -1.9% 14,563 -1.9%

2.14 Option C: A better option than Option B would be to put both sides of Roebuck Road into the same ward. As in Option A, the whole of the “Roebuck Triangle” should be in the same ward without the boundary disappearing behind a house at a seemingly arbitary point on the ground. This is shown as the line C-C on map 1. This would move about 60 electors into Walkley as follows:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Broomhill 13,995 -5.7% 13,935 -6.2% Walkley 14,573 -1.9% 14,633 -1.5%

2.15 My recommendation is to adjust the boundary in this area with Option A, in preference to Option C, in further preference to Option B. * Option A keeps the whole of the “Triangle” in the same ward, includes the “Triangle” with the Barber Road area that it is a natural part of, and has the best impact on the electoral balance. * Option C keeps the whole of the “Triangle” in the same ward, but cuts it off from the Barber Road area and pushes the Broomhill electorate further away from parity. * Option B has a clear centre-of-road line on the ground, but splits off half of Roebuck Road and from the rest of the Triangle,

2.2 Boundary between Crookes and Fulwood at Carsick Hill top 2.21 The proposed boundary runs along the centre of Sandygate Road between Carsick Hill Road and Pitchford Lane. This means that the last few houses on Sandygate Road are in a different ward to all the rest of the houses on Sandygate Road.

2.22 Passing Pitchford Lane going west is a natural boundary point for both sides of the road. The boundary between Snaithing Road and Pitchford Lane should be modified so that all the houses on Sandygate Road are in Crookes ward, as well as the handful of houses at the top of Pitchford Lane.

2.23 This is shown on map 2 and would move a couple of dozen or so electors from Fulwood into Crookes as follows:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Crookes 14,177 -4.5% 14,197 -4.4% Fulwood 15,331 +3.2% 15,311 +3.1%

2.3 Boundary between Fulwood and Ecclesall at High Storrs 2.31 At High Storrs the boundary between Highcliffe Road Bridge and Bents Green can be a lot tidier. The proposed boundary loops tightly in towards High Storrs and then loops far out back towards the Porter Valley towards Whitely Wood.

2.32 The boundary can be much tidier by running it along one of the streams from the the south of up towards Road.

2.33 One option would be to run the boundary along the Porter Brook to Ivy Cottage Lane, then follow the stream along the proposed boundary up through Whitely Wood. However, this would transfer the properties at the bottom of Whiteley Wood Road into Ecclesall Ward, and Ecclesall is already rather high at +8.0% from quota and this would push it higher.

2.34 Consequently, my recommened option here would be to run the boundary from Whitely Wood Road Bridge along the stream through Bluebell Wood to the junction of Cottage Lane and Common Lane. This keeps the properties at the bottom of Whiteley Wood Road in the Fulwood Ward, and just removes a handful of electors from Ecclesall Ward on Ivy Cottage Lane and Common Lane. This makes for a clearer line on the ground, and gives a better shape to the ward boundary, looking less like a polyp extending towards Fulwood.

2.35 This is shown in map 3 and would remove about ten electors from Ecclesall:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Ecclesall 16,048 +8.1% 16,038 +8.0% Fulwood 15,331 +3.2% 15,341 +3.3% Fulwood Including Carsick Hill top change 15,321 +3.2%

2.4 Boundary between Dore & Totley and Ecclesall at Ecclesall Woods 2.41 This another point where a polyp appears to be extending into an adjacent ward, and with no effect on elector numbers. The proposed boundary sweeps in and out around the southern boundary of Ecclesall Woods before following a parallel course to the Beauchief boundary towards Abbeydale, leaving Dore & Totley pushing a finger towards Abbeydale.

2.42 The boundary here between Whirlowdale Road and Abbeydale should simply follow the centre of Abbey Lane. This will have no effect on elector numbers, but make for a simpler, tidier and clearer boundary. This is shown on map 4.

2.5 Boundary between Dore & Totley and Fulwood at Whirlow Hall 2.51 The proposed boundary transfers into Fulwood. The current boundary places Whirlow Hall Farm in Dore & Totley along with the rest of Whirlow and Whirlow Hall.

2.52 I have not seen any arguments in any submissions arguing for Whirlow Hall Farm to be detatched from the rest of Whirlow. Consequently, I recommend leaving the current boundary where it is and leaving Whirlow Hall Farm in Dore & Totley Ward along with the rest of Whirlow. This is shown in map 5 and I believe tranfers fewer than ten electors.

2.6 Boundary between Ecclesall and Nether Edge at Brincliffe Edge 2.61 The proposed boundary here runs along the southern edge of the Brincliffe Edge allotments, along the rear boundary of the properties on Bannerdale Road.

2.62 The boundary at this point should run along the northern boundary wall of allotments, the boundary wall of Brincliffe Edge Road, as this is a much harder boundary – a steep cliff – than the back of the houses on Bannerdale Road – pierced by many footpaths to the allotments. This would have no change on electorate figures, but give a clearer line on the ground. This is shown in map 6.

2.7 Boundary between Arbourthorne and at Heeley Green 2.71 The proposed boundary runs along Derby Street, Heeley Green and Alexandra Street.

2.72 The boundary here should should continue along footpath between Litchford Road and Heeley Green, then between the properties on Alexandra Street and Myrtle Road, thus putting all of Derby Street, Heeley Green and Alexandra Street properties in Gleadless Valley. This is shown in map 7 and transfers about 50 electors to Gleadless Valley:

Ward LGBC Proposal LGBC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Arbourthorne 15,961 +7.5% 15,911 +7.1% Gleadless Valley 15,459 +4.1% 15,509 +4.4%

2.73 I examined putting Olive Grove in Arbourthorne, but the addition of the student flats at The Forge makes this numerically impossible. Adding Olive Grove would push Arbourthorne to about 16,711 electors, 12% over target.

2.8 Boundary between Richmond and Woodhouse 2.81 The proposed boundary between Woodhouse and Richmond sweeps a long way east making for an odd-shaped ward, another polyp-like protruberance into an adjoining ward.

2.82 Between Handsworth Road and the A57 the boundary should follow the rear of properties on Richworth Road to the subway under the A57 to make a neater shape. This would have no change to the electorate, and is shown on map 8.

2.83 This still leaves a “lump” of Richmond ward protruding into Woodhouse ward. The electorate figures do not allow the A57 to be used for the whole of the boundary along here, as then Richmond would be more than 10% too small and Woodhouse more than 10% too big. However, the LGBC proposal has Richmond over target at +6% and Woodhouse under target at –6%, so there is scope for pushing the boundary towards the A57 with a positive effect on elector numbers.

2.84 I haven’t examined in detail how to push the boundary back, but I would support any other submission that does so, and so also balances the electorates closer to each other. West Handsworth has already been split in the LGBC’s proposal along Birklands Drive, so if another submission can propose a better split I would support that.

2.9 Boundary between Burngreave and Southey 2.91 The boundary here should run along the rear boundary of properties on Penrith Road to the footpath opposite Teynham Road, and thence south-west along a footpath to the railway line. This makes for a tidier shape and clearer on the ground. This is shown in map 9 and has no change to the electorate.

3 Ward Names 3.1 This ward review has been triggered by just three wards out of 28 being over- or under-sized. As the review is remaining with 28 wards that has given the opportunity to minimise changes to most wards, and concentrate on those wards that have triggered the review.

3.2 The LGBC has recommened changing some ward names. As the 2002/2004 review replaced many badly-drawn wards from 1983 with a model very close to the best possible within the rules, it would be a mistake to significantly change those ward names, particularly as all the new wards will, in the majority, cover the same areas as the old ward.

3.3 Where ward names are changed, they should only be changed so that the existing alphabetical sorting order is preserved, and so the existing alphabetical ward and polling district prefix codes remains the same. This preserves statistical continuity, and avoids problems that occurred in 2004 when some electors were sent incorrect polling cards for the ward that used to have their new ward's prefix code. As I remember it, electors in the new ward T (Shiregreen) were sent polling cards for the old ward T (Sharrow).

3.4 The LGBC recommends some changed ward names. I recommend those changes be modified as follows: * “Sharrow & Nether Edge” - should be “Nether Edge & Sharrow” * “Park & Arbourthorne” - should be “Arbourthorne & Park” * “Foxhill & Chaucer” - should be “Southey Green & Chaucer” or “Southey Green & Fox Hill”. Note: it is “Fox Hill”, not “Foxhill”. The change from “Broomhill” to “Broomhill & Botanicals” and from “Central” to “City” preserves the alphabetical sorting order and are acceptable.

4 Issues raised by other respondants I was unable to get to Sheffield City Council’s final consulation session due to a mix-up in booking a day off work, but I sent a them draft of this submission and received a copy of the minutes. Based on those minutes I have examined some of the concerns raised, and have documented them here.

4.1 Highfield and The Forge 4.11 Respondants have raised the issue that the redrawn boundaries propose to put Highfield and The Forge students flats in Arbourthorne Ward. I have examined this and cannot see how to prevent Highfield being put in Arbourthorne Ward without ripping up most of the warding model, including almost all wards that are almost unchanged.

4.12 Highfield polling district has 2260 electors and The Forge has 1760 electors. Removing these from Arbourthorne would drop it to 11940 electors – a full 20% below quota, well outside of the range of allowable sizes. There is nowhere where the boundary could be moved in the opposite direction to get that 4000 electors back.

4.13 The one possibility is to remove the 1760 electors in The Forge and balance that by adding the 800 electors in Olive Grove, removing them from Gleadless Valley. Assuming the changes in section 2.7 are also done, that would result with Arbourthorne 14,951 electors (+0.7%) and Gleadless Valley 14,709 electors (-0.9%), both acceptable sizes.

4.14 However, that leaves the question as to where to put The Forge. Adding it back into Central pushes it up to +10%, adding it to Nether Edge pushes it close to +20%.

4.15 Adding The Forge to Central Ward and then removing Broomhall would bring Central back down to 14,203 electors, -4% from quota, but that goes against representations from Broomhall and Springfield saying that those two areas seperated by the Ring Road should be in the same ward. If both Broomhall and Springfield are removed from Central to keep them in the same ward, then Central ends up too small, at 13,200 electors, -12% of quota, and there is nowhere else to push back in the opposite direction to get the numbers back.

4.16 Adding Broomhall to Broomhill Ward pushes it up to about 16,500 (+11%), forcing us to keep pushing the jelly around to get the numbers to add up again. Going around in a circle leads us to Sharrow Vale which could be removed from Broomhill Ward to drop it to about 14,400 (-3%). However, Nether Edge is already on the high side at +6.9%, and adding in Sharrow Vale pushes it past +20%.

4.17 By going into further and further detail there may be a way to remove The Forge from Arbourthorne Ward and going around in circles tweeking boundaries. However, the choice is fundamentally that either The Forge is in Central Ward or that Broomhall is in Central Ward. It is not numerically possible for both to be in Central Ward, and it is not possible to put both Broomhall and Springfield together in the same ward without putting them both in Central Ward.

4.17 If residents of Broomhall are happy to be in a different ward to Springfield, then I would support The Forge being put in Central instead of Broomhall – balanced by adding Olive Grove to Arbourthorne. If residents of Broomhall prioritise being in the same ward as Springfield, then both Broomhall and Springfield must be in Central Ward and The Forge cannot be in Central Ward.

4.18 There is no way to avoid putting Highfield in Arbourthorne Ward without abandoning most of the existing proposals. Removing Highfield from Arbourthorne Ward drops its electorate so far it has to knock on all the way across the south and south-east looking for extra electors to add in. It also raises Nether Edge’s electorate so far that it also ends up knocking on across neighbouring wards trying to get rid of the extra electors. The boundary review law and natural democratic principles requires equal representation to take priority over other considerations.

4.19 Any ward model ends up with straggly left-over bits that won’t fit neatly. In the last review it was bits of Handsworth glued onto . This time it will end up being Highfield and, again, bits of Handsworth. The only way to avoid this is to drastically increase the number of councillors so that much smaller wards can be drawn with a mix of 1, 2, 3, and maybe even 4-member wards.

4.2 Addessing Mr Deadman’s comment about John Street; John Street can be included in the same ward as Sharrow by moving the LGBC’s boundary from John Street to Denby Street. As this moves the boundary around industrial premises it does not change the electorate.

4.3. A proposal was made to use Cemetary Road as a boundary instead of Porter Brook. Most of this would just move the Cemetary from one ward to another, though following Napier Road instead of Ecclesall Road would transfer the old Wards Brewery apartments which would transfer about 300 electors. This would still not be enough to balance adding in Highfield, and would still leave the problem of finding 2,500 electors to add back into Arbourthorne.

4.4 A suggestion was made of having some 2-member wards as that would allow smaller wards to better fit the social and physical geography. As Sheffield City Council elects in thirds the Boundary Commission is normally required to use 3-member wards. Having varied-member wards would require the City Council to move to all-up elections. Moving to all-up electins is now a power the City Council has, though recent informal polls have shown people to be split 1/3+1/3+1/3 for, against and don’t know. I understand the City Council feels that is insufficient to justify a formal consulatation that would be required to change the electoral cycle.

5. Ward summary

Current ward New ward name Recommended new ward Electorate Variance A Arbourthorne Arbourthorne & As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,911 +7.1% Park boundary at Heeley Green. B Beauchief and Beauchief & As per LGBC proposal. 14,766 -4.65% Greenhill Greenhill C Beighton As per LGBC proposal. 14,359 -3.30% D Birley As per LGBC proposal. 13,739 -7.48% E Broomhill Broomhill & As per LGBC proposal with addition of Roebuck 14,365 -3.2% Botanicals Triangle. F Burngreave Burngreave As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,376 +3.54% Southey boundary. G Central City Centre As per LGBC proposal. 14,596 -7.98% H Crookes Crookes As per LGBC proposal with addition of Sandygate 14,197 -4.4% Road at Carsick Hill top. I Darnall Darnall As per LGBC proposal. 14,024 -5.56% J Dore & Totley As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,096 +5.67% boundary at Ecclesall Woods and Whirlow Hall. K East As per LGBC proposal. 14,735 -0.78% L Ecclesall Ecclesall As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 16,038 +8.0% boundary at Ecclesall Woods, Whitely Woods and Whirlow Hall. M Firth Park As per LGBC proposal. 14,985 +0.91% N Fulwood Fulwood As per LGBC proposal, with removal of 15,321 +3.2% Sandygate Road, adjustment of boundary at Whiteley Woods. O Gleadless Valley Gleadless Valley As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,509 +4.4% boundary at Heeley Green. P Graves Park As per LGBC proposal. 13,979 -5.87% Q Hillsborough As per LGBC proposal. 14,927 +0.51% R Manor Castle Manor & Castle As per LGBC proposal. 15,063 +1.43% S Mosborough As per LGBC proposal. 14,130 -4.85% T Nether Edge Nether Edge & As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,880 +6.96% Sharrow boundary at Brincliffe Edge. U Richmond Richmond As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 15,861 +6.81% Woodhouse boundary. V Shiregreen and Shiregreen & As per LGBC proposal. 15,152 +2.04% Brightside Brightside W Southey Southey Green & As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment to 14,911 +0.41% Fox Hill Burngreave boundary. X Stannington As per LGBC proposal. 14,927 +0.52% Y and Stocksbridge & As per LGBC proposal. 15,254 +2.72% Upper Don Upper Don Z Walkley Walkley As per LGBC proposal, with removal Roebuck 14,203 -4.3% Triangle. 1 West Ecclesfield As per LGBC proposal. 14,572 -1.87% 2 Woodhouse Woodhouse As per LGBC proposal, with adjustment of 13,924 -6.23% Richmond boundary.

6. About the author 6.1 I was a Sheffield City Councillor from 1999 to 2010. From personal study and council work I have an knowledge of the geography, history and community groupings across Sheffield and from living in Sheffield and from friends, family, campaigning, leafleting and other contacts have built up a grass-roots knowledge of large on foot on the ground.

6.2 I submitted reports to the 2002-2004 Sheffield Ward Review, the 2005-2010 Parliamentary Review and the aborted 2013-2015 Parliamentary Review. I have also written and published various other mapping and political geography reports and publications.

Map 1 – Walkley/Broomhill

Map 2 Crookes/Fulwood

Map 3 – Fulwood/Ecclesall

Map 4 – Dore & Totley/Ecclesall

Map 5 – Dore & Totley/Ecclesall

Map 6 – Ecclesall/Nether Edge

Map 7 – Arbourthrone/Gleadless Valley

Map 8 – Richmond/Woodhouse

Map 9 – Burngreave/Southey Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Robert Hartley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have no problems with the proposals, but why are always changing boundaries, obviously there is a financial cost to all this, what is it costing? Also since over the past 25 years we have slowly put many services which have historically been run by the council are now carried out by private companies.. Why do we need three councillors. I propose to reduce this to two, can you tell me how much this would save. I have lived at the same address for 45 years and never seen a local councillor or for that matter national MP. Yet they say they are representing me?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4175 03/11/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Jonathan Jordan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

See attached document.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4318 17/12/2014 1 Highfield and Arbourthorne

The most unfortunate part of the proposals seems to be the inclusion of much of Highfield in the proposed “Park & Arbourthorne” ward. It seems that the electorate figures require some areas west of the Sheaf Valley to be included in wards largely to the east, so something like this may be forced, but I would suggest that if any other options are put forward they should be carefully considered.

If the Highfield/Arbourthorne link is considered to be the best solution, then I think the area of Highfield concerned should be explicitly included in the ward’s name, which should at least make the area feel more part of the ward. In my view, “Park & Arbourthorne” does not achieve this; “Park” generally refers to areas east of the Sheaf already in Arbourthorne ward (or even in Manor Castle ward, which is where Park Library is, for example). The name “Arbourthorne & Highfield” could be considered, but the name Highfield also refers to areas west of Bramall Lane, and these are outside of the proposed ward. Another possibility is “Arbourthorne & St. Mary’s”.

2 Crookes and Broomhill

I think it is unfortunate that the Commission was unable to follow the Coun- cil’s proposal to transfer the area between School Road and Crookesmoor Road from Broomhill to Crookes ward. This area, especially Conduit and Glebe Roads and the houses on School Road itself, feels like it belongs with Crookes; School Road does not feel like a boundary at this point, with the shops and doctors’ practice on the south side of the road being largely used by people in Crookes, whereas the area around the Management School building at the bottom of Conduit Road does.

I notice that in their submission the Liberal Democrats opposed the pro- posal to transfer the area between Tapton Crescent Road and Ryegate Road to Crookes. If this area were retained with Broomhill then perhaps the elec- torate figures would make it possible to transfer the Glebe Road/Conduit

1 Road area.

I would suggest that “Broomhill & Sharrow Vale” is a better name than “Broomhill & Botanicals”. “Sharrow Vale” covers the southern part of the ward furthest from Broomhill proper, and is a well known name, whereas “Botanicals” only suggests the small area around the Botanical Gardens and not the area on the other side of Ecclesall Road.

3 The Ecclesall Woods area

The boundaries between Ecclesall, Dore & Totley and Beauchief & Greenhill in this area look awkward on the map. I notice that most of the “finger” of Dore & Totley between the other two wards consists of the dam of Abbey- dale Industrial Hamlet. It would make sense to include this in the same ward as the Hamlet itself, i.e. Beauchief & Greenhill. This would make the boundaries look tidier.

4 Lower Bradway

Lower Bradway should be included in Dore & Totley as per the Council’s original submission and the submissions from the community there.

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

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: john le corney

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Heeley City Farm

Comment text:

I live and work in part of the Sheffield Gleadless parliamentary ward and relevant wards. I understand there are no significant proposals for any change. However I have been made aware of proposals recently submitted for changes in boundaries, i.e to make a new constituancy combining Gleadless Valley and Arbourthorne areas. I would like to confirm that the present boundaries work well and should be retained. They work well, and create a mix of social and private housing, good social balance etc. in existing wards and constituencies. john le corney,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4414 12/01/2015 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 January 2015 08:46 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Petition regarding changes to Sheffield Central Ward

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Gareth Slater Sent: 07 January 2015 23:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: Petition regarding changes to Sheffield Central Ward

Hi,

I enclose a petition covering the proposed changes to Sheffield Central ward. One of these changes is to move the Highfield area into Arbourthourne. As per petition it has no links with this area and has far more links with the Sharrow Area. Therefore we are proposing that these two areas are kept together.

Arbourthourne is across a railway and main road from Highfield, the Highfield community has no links with the areas covered by the Park and Arbourthorne ward and we want to keep our community links with Sharrow. This is vital both for the the cohesion of the local community and the economic well‐being of the area. https://www.change.org/p/boundary‐commision‐keep‐highfield‐in‐sharrow

There are 49 signatures, 38 on the website and 11 on paper (I can scan and send them on request). We did not have a lot of time to draw up this petition over Christmas hence why relatively few signatures.

Please can you confirm receipt and let me know what happens.

Many thanks,

Gareth Slater

1 Morrison, William

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 05 January 2015 09:15 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Sheffield ward boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From

Sent: 27 December 2014 15:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Sheffield ward boundaries

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to raise my objection in the proposal to incorporate Carterknowle road/Bannerdale centre from the Netheredge ward into the Ecclesall ward of Sheffield.

There is a huge need for larger affordable family homes in the Netheredge area of the city. By taking out the Carrterknowle road area from the Netheredge ward and incorporating it into the wealthier Ecclesall ward, you will be significantly raising prices of the houses in the proposed new housing developments in the Carterknowle/Bannerdale area.

The only people beneffiting from this will be the private housing developers whose pockets will benefit from being able to command higher house prices linked to the affluent Ecclesall ward.

If the boundary change goes ahead the development will become unaffordable and inaccesible to the local community, for whom these houses were origionally intended.

Ms Razzaq

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

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Winnie Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Arbourthorne Tenants and Residents Association

Comment text:

As a committee member of Arbourthorne Tenants and Residents Association I would like to say that we should preferably stay as we are because we have a good ward with good communities, but if needs be we could go with the council's proposal. Any other proposals that would split our ward and split up our communities are wrong. We would lose our TARA and we do a lot of good work in the community that we could not do if the ward was split.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4393 09/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: James Saunders

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in the Highfield area of Sheffield for 20 years and on Kearsley Rd for 17. My children attend the local school, Sharrow and I am the chair of the Highfield Adventure Playground (which under the boundary changes will be in Sharrow). The local Sharrow community, which without any doubt includes Highfield is strong and unique and risks being endangered by the proposed changes. The Park and Arbourthorne ward also has a strong identity but one which is completely distinct from that of Sharrow/Highfield (terms which are used interchangeably locally). The implications of the proposed change would therefore isolate and disenfranchise the residents Highfield rather than the intended aim of improving democratic accountability/fairness. I am very much against the changes, as I believe the vast majority of residents of Highfield/Sharrow would be if they knew what was being planned. A far more logical boundary for the Sharrow area would be Shoreham St. Whilst this may have implications for the arithmetic, surely there are other factors which should also be considered?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4338 17/12/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Anthony V Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Private

Comment text:

. My name is Anthony V. Smith, Bradway, Sheffield S174QQ. My comments are in regard to Bradway, South Sheffield, now in the Beauchief Ward. Bradway is an ancient community, first mentioned in 1200. It is a liner community along an ancient highway and consists mainly of Upper Bradway and Lower Bradway. I attach an extract from the 1898 Ordnance Survey showing Bradway at that time. This illustrates how Bradway was one community, the nearest settlement was Greenhill, separated by nearly a mile of green fields. In the 1930s there was ribbon housing development along Hemper Lane which disguised the division between the two communities. It is understandable today that anyone without historical knowledge of the area will not appreciate that Bradway and Greenhill are still two separate areas, and Lower Bradway is still very much part of the rest of Bradway. The whole of Bradway was in the same Dore Ward until about 10 years ago. When without any effective public consultation we found that Bradway was being split apart, with the smaller section , Lower Bradway, being put into Beauchief. Two or three of us found out at the last minute and wrote objecting, I received a reply that it was too late to comment. Recently I and a few other people wrote to Sheffield City Council urging that Bradway be united once again into the same Ward. I was grateful to Ms. Penman for understanding the request and recommending that Bradway should once again be united. It is with dismay therefore I find that the Boundary Commission states that there should be no change. It states that our links in Lower Bradway are to the east. This is utter rubbish, our links are with the rest of Bradway. I live in Lower Bradway, my children went to Bradway School,. My wife is on the Committee of Bradway Community Hall. All our shopping is in the Bradway shops only a short distance away, We are naturally members of BAG ( Bradway Action Group, which represents the people of Bradway). I have lived in Lower Bradway for 50 years, I know many people here and almost without exception they think our connections are to the west, the rest of Bradway. You will probably think I am a fairly lone voice in writing about our Bradway, I don't think I am, it is because I ask other people in Lower Bradway if they have heard about these present boundary matters, no one has heard anything about the review. I do make a plea the members of the Boundary Commission to think again and reunite all of ancient Bradway and have regard for our historical boundaries and not to just look at these divisions as lines on a map. And to accept the recommendations of Sheffield City Council with their local knowledge. Anthony V. Smith Sent from Yahoo! Mail for Windows 8

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4302 17/12/2014

Alas, there isn’t a great deal of history to write about for Bradway - it was never a village, it was barely a hamlet, had no ancient church, few ancient houses. The history of the place can be summed up in a few words; it was a highway, along which some eight farms were located , and it had three or four water mills some distance away but within its boundaries. It had a Hall which disappeared long ago and it had a stone cross. Until about 130 years ago, that was all—and then came a great event, the building of a railway tunnel. Very little can be found giving any historical information about Bradway. Histories of Sheffield say little about an area that was outside its boundaries until 1934. Books on hardly notice an obscure hamlet on its north east border. Much has been written about the Peak District, but these end at Owler Bar. In the book ‘Chantreyland,, (Harold Armitage 1910 and 1990) its author gives 6 pages out of 402 to Bradway, but they are very valuable pages and probably give the only original historical information ever written about our area. To that may be added the deeply researched account of the building of the tunnel, by John Dunstone, published by the Dore Village Society (1970). And that’s about all that has been written! Variously described in old documents as BRADWEI, BRADWEY, BROADWAY 1, the names appear as far back as 12-1300. It was an ancient highway following the ridge of land through to Norton, Gleadless, Ridgeway and the east. Almost certainly an important route along which some of the heavy products of the Peak District (lead and millstones) would have been moved, particularly to Bawtry which in the middle ages was an important inland port. In the book ‘Chantreyland’ it is stated that in an old deed of 1280, Bradway Road is described as 'Regia Via' (King's Highway). This would have meant that the trackway was of particular importance and special responsibilities were placed on the inhabitants of the Manors which were on the route of such a way. The trackway itself had to be of a width to allow horses to pass each other (could this be where the name Broadway or Bradway originated) and trees and undergrowth had to be cut back for a substantial distance each side of the route to make it more difficult for robbers to jump out and attack travellers. Also there were especially severe penalties for those caught committing such crimes on a King's Way. If Armitage is correct in his discovery that the Bradway Road route was a King's Way (unfortunately he does not give any source for the statement to allow checking) one can only conjecture why it was considered to be of such importance. Perhaps it was a reflection of the prominence of this area when it was border country. In Anglo-Saxon times the border between the Kingdoms of and Mercia ran down the from Dore and then down the to the at Heeley. Or our road may have been important as a link from the main north to south routes in the east (one of which developed into the present day Great North Road) to the Royal Forest of the Peak, and the castle at Castleton with the castle at Holmesfield on route. Ancient main trackways (the term ‘road’ did not come into use until the late sixteenth century) were usually 'ridgeways', developing on better drained high ground and avoiding the marshy, overgrown valley bottoms. Bradway Road was on a route that ran from the barren, featureless wastes of moorland in the west, along a ridge of high land that projected out to the east, giving a reasonably level way marked by many ancient villages – Holmesfield, Woodhouse, Greenhill, Norton, Gleadless, Ridgeway and Killamarsh, the majority of which were listed in Doomsday Book, (1087) or in the case of Greenhill mentioned in a Beauchief Abbey charter of about 1200. The age of these villages certainly suggests that the route is at least 900 years old. Its importance was probably reflected in part of it becoming one of the earlier (1781) turnpike roads in this region. We have some references to Bradway in surviving Beauchief Abbey documents. An Alan de la Bradway 2 - possibly as early as 1200; a Rog de Bradway 3 who leased land and there are the names of various people who leased water mills. An Abbey document 4 that lists the land they had leased out appears to have just one item for Bradway; this compares with possibly 19 at and 12 at . This might just be an indicationthat very little of Bradway was being farmed in medieval times. This is possibly supported by an old map 5 that labels the area around the present day Tinker’s Corner as ‘Bradway Moor’; we also have ‘Rod Moor’ going back to Dronfield Woodhouse and we have ‘Greenhill Moor. It is probable that our ridge on which ‘Broadway’ runs, remained as a finger of moorland long after lower areas such as Totley and Dronfield were established farmlands. In fact, Greenhill Moor remained as moorland until the 19th century. Bradway Hall (item 5) was probably fairly early, and then at some undeterminable date small concentrations of buildings, barely describable as hamlets, developed at Upper Bradway (Tinker's Corner) and around the 'S' bend near the Bradway Road junction with Greenhill Parkway, this being Lower Bradway. They would be mainly farms and farm workers cottages. Building had certainly developed in these positions before 1767 as they are indicated on Burdett’s map. We also have a reference to Nether Bradway 3, which means Lower Bradway but appears to refer to the area of the dams on the River Sheaf. Further building took place in the area at the top of Twentywell Lane in the 19th century and this became known as Bradway Bar, because here was the turnpike tollgate. Other 'bar' names still survive, such as Owler Bar and Hunters Bar. Bradway was part of the extensive Parish of Norton in the County of Derbyshire The Parish extended to the (near Ponsfords at Heeley), almost to Gleadless, then to near Coal Aston and to Bradway in the west. In the mid 19th century the Norton Parish was sub divided into an Urban District area; Woodseats, Norton Woodseats and a Rural District area; Bradway, Greenhill and Norton itself. The boundary of this western tip of the parish, the Bradway area, ran from the 'Spitfire' pub on Mickley Lane, down , the River Sheaf, then up Twentywell Lane and roughly along the top of the escarpment that runs along the south east boundary of Abbeydale Golf Club. The southern boundary of Bradway ran roughly parallel with Bradway Road and then back down to the 'Spitfire'. There has never been a hard and fast boundary between Bradway and Greenhill; they were just two areas in the same parish and in the 19th century were often grouped together as one locality Greenhill/Bradway in much the same way that Dore and Totley are often grouped together. Greenhill/Bradway shared the same village policemen and the same postman, based at the post office in Greenhill. However the eastern boundary of Bradway is today usually considered to be the end of Bradway Road, at the junction with Hemper Lane, Fox Lane and Beauchief Drive. For many centuries counties were subdivided into sub regions called, in this and southern areas, Hundreds. Our area was in the Scarsdale Hundred, centred on Chesterfield. A directory of 1859 referred to Chesterfield as the capital of Scarsdale Hundred . For a thousand years or more the boundary between and Derbyshire ran to the north east of Bradway, along the Limb Brook and River Sheaf. At the beginning of this century Sheffield took over the northern part of Norton parish and in 1934 they acquired a further part, which included Greenhill/Bradway , and so Bradway Derbyshire folk became Bradway Yorkshire folk. The original southern parish boundary of Bradway then became the Yorkshire - Derbyshire border. From this time the conversion began of a sleepy farming community into a suburb of Sheffield; the last ancient working farm within the old boundary closing down in 1988. The major expansion of course took place after 1945. In 1900 there were approximately 75 dwellings in Bradway, including some 22 in the Queen Victoria Road area. By 1920 about 100, 1945 about 320 and today some 1850 within the old boundaries. Using the standard rate of 3.5 persons a dwelling, that makes the present population within the original boundaries of Bradway about 6475, a sizeable town, larger than Bakewell, over twice the size of Baslow.

Here once stood a stone cross. The base and shaft have survived, and almost certainly there would have been an actual cross on top of the shaft but this must have disappeared long ago, possibly destroyed by iconoclasts 200 or 300 years ago in recurrent mania for destroying religious symbols. The cross stayed in its original position until about 1938 or 39. A local resident at the time recorded 7 that the modern Totley Lane was being constructed and that the road builders were going to smash up the cross for road stone. He rescued it and took it to a place of safety where it still exists. The original position is somewhat uncertain as the only photograph of the cross to have emerged was in a Clarion Ramblers' Handbook of the mid 1930s. This shows buildings in the background, which fixes one position shown on the plan: near to where the present day footpath bridleway sign is positioned. The 1876 ordnance map, 25 inches to the mile, show a somewhat different position; however the photographic evidence and the position it gives seems conclusive. It is possible that a new stone boundary wall was built and the cross moved after 1876. Older people, some 50 years ago, often described this feature as a market or butter cross , but it certainly was not such a cross. The right to hold a market was jealously guarded and in medieval times required crown permission given by Royal Charter. Normally markets were 8 to 14 miles apart to avoid competition. No person would be more than 4 to 7 miles from a market as this was considered a reasonable distance to walk, sell or buy ones goods and walk home all in one day. The nearest markets were Sheffield and Chesterfield although a short lived one was established in Dronfield. Towns granted a charter are well recorded 8, and an obscure rural corner such a Bradway would never be given the right to hold an official market. However, the area around the cross may well have been an unofficial bartering place, roughly equidistant from Dore, Totley, Greenhill and Holmesfield. Adjacent to the wall along the frontage to Mason Farm lies a long line of stones (many are hidden by the grass surface). These appear to be paving slabs but in fact many of them appear to go down on further walling deep below the present day surface. These slabs may well have formed a long stone bench , now disguised by soil being piled up above the original ground level to form the present day grassy bank. Perhaps if this was a place for barter, such a long bench was a place where people could lay out their wares. Another claim (made by the well known editor of The Clarion Ramblers' handbooks, G.H.B.Ward, in the issue containing the photograph of the cross) is that the cross was a boundary marker for Beauchief Abbey land. However this again seems to be erroneous. The cross has been dated bythe Archaeology Service (Clive Hart) as 17th Century, well after the abbey was dissolved in 1537. We have in Beauchief Abbey charters 2, of about 1200, the boundaries defined; on this west side it ran down Quintinwelle (Twentywell Lane) to the River Shava (Sheaf), well away from the position of the cross. This writer considers its origin to be what is defined as a wayside or weeping cross. More history required here. Dore and Totley were until 1845 part of the Parish of Dronfield. Until the present church was built in 1828/9, Dore only had a chapel and no burial ground, Totley had neither. Burials from both places took place in Dronfield and bodies were carried, often on the backs of horses or mules (only the rich had coffins) along the respective trackways from Dore (Prospect Road), or Totley (Totley Lane). Both these routes were referred to until recent times as 'corpse roads' . Now where a lengthy journey was required to carry a body to a parish church, it was common for the church authorities to erect a cross or crosses along the way where the burial party could rest and say prayers for the deceased. Such crosses are today defined as wayside or weeping crosses (in some areas also known as travelling crosses). The position of Bradway Cross seems a very logical place for it to serve such a function, where the routes from Dore and Totley join, and in each case at the top of the climb from the valley bottom. Also, if the slabs along the wall are benches, they would serve as a resting place for the mourners on their journey. It has been passed down as legend that 'Mary Queen of Scots stayed here'. Mary was imprisoned in Sheffield Castle and The Manor for nearly 14 years and it is well documented that she made many visits to Chatsworth in this period. Bradway Hall was on what was at that time the most direct route between Sheffield and Chatsworth. That route was probably coming up an ancient packhorse way (roughly followed today by Derbyshire Lane and Little Norton Lane) along our ridgeway to Holmesfield, then down Horsleygate and up Fox Lane (past still existing guide crosses) an old pack horse route which led to Baslow and Chatsworth, Curbar and Calver. Travel was very slow on the rough packhorse trackways of the period, so the 14 mile journeybetween Sheffield and Chatsworth would no doubt be done in stages, Bradway Hall was very nearly half way and would be a likely place to break the journey. The legend seems logical. It is most unlikely that there would be any lengthy stay at the Hall, (The party would no doubt be too large), just a short stop for a rest and a meal. Why should such happenings be held in the memories of local people for some 400 years? Well at the time, if Mary Queen of Scots did pass this way, it would not be a small party. She would travel with a retinue of her court and servants, probably her gaoler, The Earl of Shrewsbury and his servants and soldiers. She would also take furniture and personal belongings. There would probably be 60 to 80 people, mostly on horses, making up the party. To the people of these areas who probably never travelled more than 10 miles from their homes in their lives, such a procession of finely dressed people would be a wonder of the same order as if today we saw a party from another planet wandering our streets. It appears that this legend was also maintained until recently in other villages. Dorothy A Trott (the one time owner and head mistress of Dore and Totley High School) in 'A Tapestry of Life' (1984) refers to ‘history recording Mary Queen of Scots being on the ridge above Totley’.

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Malcolm Wood

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I cannot understand why we need to change the boundaries. It just seems like an expensiv excersise. The system works as it is. So the phrase is "If it aint broke why fix it?". How much will it cost to change all this over. Can we really due with the expense when it works already.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4250 17/11/2014