Local Residents W-Z Submissions to the Hull City Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local residents W-Z submissions to the Hull City Council 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 Stoneferry, east Hull. At the moment we are in Holderness, 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 Drypool. 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 Kingston upon Hull 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 Wawne 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. Beverley 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.