sign in sign up
<<
Home , Drypool, Gipsyville, Holderness, Sculcoates, Stoneferry

Local residents W-Z submissions to the electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames beginning with W-Z.

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

We're writing to express our objection to the changes to the ward boundaries in our area.

We live on in , east Hull. At the moment we are in , with all the other streets in Stoneferry.

Your proposals would cut Stoneferry into two halves. Some streets like Glebe Road and Foredyke Avenue are left in Holderness, but others like ours and Rockford Avenue are moved into . This does not make sense. We have no links to the Drypool area. There are no bus services to the shops there from where we live. Our local primary school at Stoneferry is shared with the whole of the Stoneferry area - children in Drypool go to other schools like Mersey and Buckingham.

There is nothing but industry between where we live and the houses in Drypool. We are not the same community. Moving us into Drypool would leave our community with less of a voice - right on the edge of the ward. We have nothing to link us to places like Victoria Dock!

We have an active community group in our area. We have been working hard to tackle the many problems in our streets and on the cycle paths and Rockford Fields - all with the help of the councillors and Area Team at the Council. If you go ahead with this change that community will be split, with half of us having one lot of councillors and the other half having other ones. We'd be split across two of the council's Area Teams, so no one would have an overview of helping to tackle problems here in Stoneferry.

Please rethink these proposals. They do not make sense and would divide our community. Keep all of Stoneferry in Holderness.

Mr and Mrs Waltham

1

City of

Personal Details:

Name: Sarah Weichardt

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: This seems a nature boundary line, incorporating the current Kingswood and taking into account the new build area

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: This seems a nature boundary line, incorporating the current Kingswood and taking into account the new build area

Comment text:

Kingswood Area Action Plan, which was adopted in Sept 2016. States the boundary for the plan goes up to Road, as my drawing shows above. However, if we go with your proposed boundaries, the changes with regards to councillors and council officers, I fear this will confuse residents, they will be different personnel dealing with the different areas. This just doesn't make sense. Kingswood Area Action Plan will be split over two wards which may have a negative impact in the future for funding and possibly services. Kingswood currently has a strong community with a strong residents association, which organise a number of community events. If the boundary was to change, it will divide the community, confuse residents and in the long term have a real negative effect. I don't understand why you would split a new estate!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Dear Sir or Madam,

I live at Kingston upon Hull, and before that I lived on both of these homes are in Avenue Ward.

Between 2012 and 2016 I was a City Councillor on Hull City Council. I’m writing in my capacity both as an individual resident and also as a former councillor to give you feedback on your Draft Recommendations.

I live in Avenue Ward and as a local resident I support your proposal to keep the ward virtually unchanged. The ward is a very coherent area and it would make no sense whatsoever to split it differently. The Avenues cannot be separated from the West Avenues off Chanterlands Avenue (the houses run in number sequence including the West Avenues), nor from the Dukeries as they are too much of a community block. Neither would it make any sense to separate them from Pearson Park as our Residents Association (APPRA) covers both Avenues and Pearson Park. Road to the east and the railway lines to the south, west and north make really strong boundaries.

I was a councillor in Derringham Ward and sat on the Council’s West Area Committee for four years, so I know that part of the city very well. I support your proposal for a revised Derringham ward as it means all of Wold Road will be in Derringham (most of it already was, your changes mean it all will be). I’m happy with the addition of the Sorrell Drive area – it could easily sit in either Boothferry or Derringham. The railway line to the north east of the ward is a very clear and strong community boundary and I very strongly support your decision to retain the railway as the ward boundary.

I also think the addition of the Askew Avenue/North Road area to Pickering and the Northfield, Springfield, Wold Carr Road area to Boothferry is the most logical way to get “electoral equality” in those wards whilst making sense for the communities who live there.

Please keep all four of these wards as per your Draft Recommendations when you finalise your plans.

Yours faithfully

Eliza Whitaker

Sent from my Huawei Mobile

1

As a long term resident I would not support a boundary change to incorporate Newland Ave. The whole ethos is different. We are a mainly residential area with with a range of schools as opposed to Newland Ave which is primarily a business and student accommodation area. Mrs F Whitehead

Sent from Samsung tablet

1 Good afternoon,

I am emailing regarding the recently‐published draft ward recommendations for Hull. I am especially concerned about the plans for Garden Village in East Hull.

I live in Garden Village, which is currently in Drypool ward. The recommended boundaries appear to split up Garden Village between the proposed Drypool and Holderness wards. I do not agree that this is a good solution and it is one that does not take into account community interests, links or facilities.

Most residents of Garden Village go to the area of Holderness Road around ASDA Mount Pleasant, Iceland, Boyes etc. to do shopping. It therefore makes sense for our local area to be in the same ward as these facilities. The current proposals put us together with communities in Holderness ward – these communities shop further up Holderness Road, nearer to East Park.

Bus routes also connect Garden Village with communities along Holderness Road towards the city centre. Most of Holderness ward is to the north of Drypool ward and there are no buses going in that direction to link us with those areas.

The exact boundary line proposed is not a clear community boundary ‐ it goes down the middle of Garden Village tenfoots. There have been many crime problems in these tenfoots, especially break‐ins and other crime. A lot of these have been between Durham Street, Beech Avenue, Derwent Street and Chestnut Grove. I understand that the Council is currently working on solutions to this with the residents – surely it would be easier to achieve this if all these streets remain in the same ward as each other.

I understand that the Boundary Commission need to create wards that are roughly equal in size, but surely there are ways to achieve this without making such dramatic changes to the Drypool/Holderness ward boundary. The current boundary along Chamberlain Road marks a clear community division ‐ people on the north side use different schools, shops etc. to people on the south side and in Garden Village. I think it

1 would make much more sense to leave the boundary as it currently is, which would maintain the current boundary between two different communities, while still retaining two wards of the required size.

Best regards, Stuart Whittingham

2

Whilst I completely understand why you need to review boundaries, I do not believe that you should be dividing Garden Village into two and moving the bulk of it into Holderness ward.

Garden Village is one of the oldest (if not the oldest) conservation area in Hull. It has an active residents association (the Garden Village Society) that was set up in the 1970s.

By putting the line down the centre of James Reckitt Avenue and between Chestnut Grove, Derwent Street, Beech Avenue and Durham Street you are creating a clumsy boundary that cuts Garden Village into two. It is not in any way an identifiable boundary. Any boundary drawn between Garden Village and streets to its west is an artificial one, that fails to take into account our community and it's interests.

The streets immediately to the west of Garden Village (Buckingham, Brecon, etc) are united with us by local shops and the primary schools of choice (Buckingham and Mersey Primaries). Derwent Street is partly in Garden Village anyway so, as well as on James Reckitt Avenue, you are cutting off part of the conservation area.

Mersey Primary School has always been the school for Garden Village - we have fought to save it from closure on several occassions. Your plan puts us in a different ward to it and splits the area it serves into two. Incidentally, by putting streets to the north of Chamberlain Road into Drypool ward you are doing exactly the same thing to Stoneferry Primary School.

Garden Village has always been a part of Drypool ward. The boundary between it and Westcott Street (in Holderness ward) to the east is a sensible one. Unlike to the west of Garden Village there are no roads interconnecting us to the streets to the east.

I see no reason why the boundary should be moved from its current location. It would be better to leave Garden Village in Drypool ward and leave the streets to the north of Chamberlain Road in Holderness ward. That should mean that the numbers add up, a clear boundary between communities is left in place and Garden Village is not divided artificially.

Please reconsider your proposals and do not split our community.

Regards,

Mrs Wilkinson

1

I do not believe the two wards of Bricknell and Newland should be combined. Bricknell is a residential area with most people living in their own family homes, Newland is totally the opposite with houses converted to student flats or flats for the numerous immigrant families that live there in that densely populated area. As we all know once houses change from family owned to rented houses of multiple occupation the areas cleanliness and building maintenance drops dramatically and we do not want that to creep into the Bricknell area.

Sent from my iPhone...Syd and Lynn Williamson

1

The Review Officer (Kingston upon Hull) Denise Wilson Local Government Boundary Commission for 14th Floor, Millbank Tower L Millbank SW1P 4QP

5th March, 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you as a resident within the Pickering Ward of Kingston upon Hull to express my opinion on the proposed local government boundary changes.

The draft proposals rightly use the as a natural boundary between the east and west of the City. There is a clear east and west identity divide in the Hull namely between the City’s two rival rugby league teams; Hull KR and Hull FC.

I have lived in what is now Pickering Ward all of my life in various areas; , Boothferry Estate and High Road. These are closely knitted communities that share some of the same local amenities most noticeably Pickering Park. Most of my close family relatives live in the same area, my children were baptised at Askew Avenue Methodist Church and I was married at St Nicholas Church on Pickering Road.

As a young girl I attended Francis Askew School before moving onto Kingston High School (what is now Sirius Academy). I played and socialised with friends on Pickering Park as did my children.

I have recently become a grandmother and I expect that my granddaughter will be schooled locally and use Pickering Park as much as I did when I was younger.

The draft proposals for Pickering Ward I believe accurately reflect our area. Currently some of the local amenties I have used in my life, such as Francis Askew School and Askew Avenue Methodist Church, are within the Newington Ward boundary; Askew Avenue is currently split between two different wards. The proposals brought forward by the Boundary Commission ‘re-unite’ the Gipsyville area, and surround one of the four historic parks in Hull.

Kind Regards,

Mrs Denise Wilson Mrs M L Wilson

27th February 2017

To The Review Officer for Kingston upon Hull,

I am a professional working and living in Hull and have worked and lived in various places in the city over the last 20 years. There are a number of things I wish to bring to your attention having looked at the different proposals submitted as part of the warding review currently underway.

Firstly, I believe the assertion that a ward cannot cross the river is flawed. While I can understand this would not be acceptable at the city centre end of the River Hull, as it is largely industrial, the northern end is surrounded by housing with much more yet to come. As you can see from my address I live towards the northern end of Beverley Road and this area is predominantly owner occupier with a small amount of private rented property. There is a significant amount of student accommodation near here on the streets towards the shops at the corner of Cottingham Road as well as further up Beverley Road but, the vast majority of the property is privately owned family housing with a high proportion of public sector workers including nurses, teachers and other Local Authority staff.

Further up Beverley Road, the houses are larger, especially on the front of the main road which continues to the top of Beverley Road. Over the bridge towards Kingswood, there are newer houses but they are similar in that they are predominantly owner occupied with a high proportion of resident professional people.

I know several people, including people with whom I work, who have chosen to live in this area. I often travel to the shopping area and other amenities on Kingswood. This is very close by car and it is my preferred shopping area as opposed to the city centre.

The draft proposal seems to see the river crossing near here as a significant divide. This is simply not the case because of the ease of travel to and from this area via two major bridges. Your report states that access to Kingswood from the top of Beverley Road requires exiting the city and re-entering it again. Whilst this is true, it is inconsequential in terms of the people who live here and I suspect many would not even consider that they had left the city boundary and re-entered, had it not been pointed out. In addition, the absurd city boundary in this area, amongst others, is a false division that really needs addressing, although I realise this is not your remit.

In terms of commonality, I see the ward structure proposed in the Labour proposal for this area to be a far more rational fit. It may be that in rejecting this river crossing the Commission may have been influenced by the view, expressed more than a dozen times in the Liberal Democrat document, that no ward has crossed the river and the city is divided east and west. In fact I have lived in North Hull for many years and know people in all parts of the city. A purely east/west view of Hull is ‘dated’ at best with increased diversity and change around the city, one of the reasons the wards have to be revisited in the first place.

Secondly, I certainly do not consider the draft proposal of a ‘Beverley Ward’ to reflect any linkages whatsoever. In the area I live, voter turnout is relatively high. In the Euro-referendum people were queuing to vote at my polling station; but I know that the council estate on the edge of the city centre has a low voter registration and also very different social and economic challengers. In my professional experience as a person who works within the community, I can state clearly that the demographic needs are very different in these areas.

I believed that the proposal to have all three seat wards has been an overriding concern in terms of voter equality and better representation. The similarity between the upper section of Beverley Road and Kingswood appear to me to outweigh any perception that the river, at this point, is a dividing factor despite the presence of two major, very busy bridges. Furthermore, I would say that the areas surrounding Beverley/Kingswood area are in fact quite different from them, which would be another factor in uniting Beverley and Kingswood.

The Council Estate at the foot of the proposed ward, on the edge of the city centre, has high levels of deprivation and unemployment. Its proximity to the city centre means people living here naturally turn to the city centre for nearly everything and see this as an advantage. The experiences and needs in this area could not be more different to those in the area in which I live.

Between these two poles is an area that is different again. The middle section of Beverley Road, around Stepney has a very high proportion of flats, bedsits and shared houses which largely accommodates people in short-term work. It is an area that is in constant change, currently predominated by workers from Eastern Europe who live there when they first arrive before feeling stable enough to settle, or before they move on elsewhere to work. Slightly more to the north of here one of the main student areas begins and spreads across into the west of Beverley Road around the Newland area, although there is also a lot of family housing there too.

Given the above, I believe serious consideration needs be given to seeing the council estate to the south returned to a city centre type ward and the northern end united across the river. This would facilitate a balance being struck, as outlined in the Labour proposal. The only compromise would be a river crossing which I feel, any rational and reasonable person would agree, is negligile compared to achieving electoral balance and improved representation across the city as a whole. If this cannot happen then there has to be an acceptance of a pattern that is less stable with two seat wards. As all the groups agreed to have elections in thirds this would seem to be illogical.

Not accepting the river crossing in the north limits options but the proposal to have the Beverley Sculcoates Ward cannot seriously be accepted, given the reasons stated. Would it not be far more judicious to divide this long ward, perhaps by moving some small areas in to get the balance right but seeing the council estate returned to a city centre ward?

I apologise for this lengthy deliberation but, having looked at the different proposals and having talked to several people, including some who were involved in the submissions, I wonder if the Commission may have been unduly influenced by repetition of an unsubstantiated view that no ward has ever crossed the river. This in itself is retrospective and meaningless as nothing has ever happened, until it has happened. We should be more mindful of what unites us and more focused on achieving electoral equality, less difference in electorate between wards and better representation.

Yours faithfully

Mrs M L Wilson