Local Resident Submissions to the Hertfordshire Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local resident submissions to the Hertfordshire 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 England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: John O'Connor E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I agree with the proposals: In Watford, the Commission have proposed 'No Change' and The recommendations from the Commission make roughly equal areas and also respect our local communities.The communities of Abbots Langley, Croxley Green and South Oxhey each keep their own County Councillor under the Commission's proposals. Carpenders Park and Oxhey Hall remain together in a separate Division and not joined to South Oxhey. Chorleywood and the more rural bits of Three Rivers, including Sarratt, Hunton Bridge and Bedmond, are linked in a Division to be named Three Rivers Rural. And the size and importance of Rickmansworth as the main town in the District is shown in the creation of two Divisions centred there. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4095 21/10/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Brian Parker E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Feature Annotations 1: New eastern boundary for Dacorum 2: Site for new homes, schools etc. as extension to east of Hemel Hempstead as proposed by LEP Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Map Features: Annotation 1: New eastern boundary for Dacorum Annotation 2: Site for new homes, schools etc. as extension to Comment text: A joint Green Belt boundary review by Dacorum, St Albans and Welwyn/Hatfield has identified land between Hemel and the M1 as suitable for major new development, which is also promoted by the LEP. As this is obviously a natural extension to Hemel, it makes sense to revise the boundary between the two Districts to sit on the M1, from the junction of old M10 northwards until it then runs north-westwards with the line of pylons: this will maintain the valuable green 'gap' between Hemel and St Albans and also between Hemel and Redbourn. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4048 08/10/2014 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 October 2014 08:46 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Boundary Review Proposals - Loudwater Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Suresh Patel Sent: 14 October 2014 20:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review Proposals - Loudwater Dear Sir, We understand that there is a proposal that Loudwater is removed from the Three Rivers Rural Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. As residents of Loudwater, we would like to register our strong disapproval to Loudwater becoming part of the Croxley County Division. Loudwater has traditionally been part of Chorleywood and should continue to remain so. Please note various points as follows why we should not be joined with Croxley:- 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the area and community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE Primary School and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley, and Loudwater has always had a much closer relationship with Chorleywood. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. Please acknowledge receipt. Regards 1 Suresh & Jyotsana Patel 2 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 15 October 2014 08:46 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Alay Patel Sent: 14 October 2014 23:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: RE: Local Government Boundary changes Dear Review Officer I understand the Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. My existing Division will be reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. I am against this proposal and must register my disapproval on the following grounds. 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. I sincerely hope the Commission will reconsider its proposal. Regards Alay Patel 1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: David Penn Organisation Name: Comment text: With regard to Watford, I must place an objection to the proposed name changes. I say proposed, but the language of the draft document does not seem to suggest that the commission is giving locals any say. The names on the map have already been changed and the relevent paragraph in the draft uses language that confirms that the change has already taken place as far as the commission is concerned (see below). This is unacceptable. '126 We are, however, adopting different names for some of Watford’s divisions, in order to make the division names more reflective of their communities. Callowland Leggatts will be named North Watford, Central Oxhey will be named Central Watford & Oxhey, and Vicarage Holywell will be named West Watford.' My objection is fourfold. The first is that using the new bland names North Watford, Central Watford and South Watford in no way 'reflects the communities'. In particular, the names Callowland Leggatts and Vicarage Holywell are both historic and extremely well known locally. The uniqueness of these names and the areas they represent are understood by those who live in Watford and have much more meaning than the dull alternatives. My second objection is that the double-barrelled names clearly reflect the relationship between council and county boundaries. As it stands, it is clear from the name that the county ward is composed of the two council wards whose names they bear. It makes no sense to break this link so that it is no longer obvious that West Watford is actually the wards Holywell and Vicarage. My third and most vociferous objection is that there has been no drive or request from local people for any change of name whatsoever. That fact alone means that there should not even be a proposal of change if there is no will for it from the local people. In truth, this appears to be a change driven by a centralised bureaucracy who prefer using uninspiring words like North, Central and West because it is easier for them to understand. It might well explain why it has been done already without any consultation. I therefore think it reasonable to expect the names on the new map to be reversed and the wording of the document to be altered to make it clear that the name change is only a proposal as at the moment it gives the clear impression that the document is not a consultation. My last objection is that knowledge of these changes is hard to find. I only became aware of this by accident through the commission's failure to get North and West Watford in the right order (I should point out that there would be no mix up with clearly different names such as Vicarage Holywell / Callowland Leggatts) and a news story appeared in the local newspaper. In summary, a remote commission should not be interfering in local history and renaming local boundaries without an initial and significant request from local people. They certainly should not then adopt the change and only report it by tucking notification of the change away on page 21 of a 46 page document whose existence is unknown by virtually all who live in the town. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3781 26/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Anthony Peters E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: By combining Eastbury with South Oxhey you are creating a little enclave with other adjacent areas wrapping around it like a rainbow. It doesn't make sense geographically or on a socio- demographic basis. Why can't Eastbury be left with Moor Park and South Oxhey combine with Carpender's Park and Oxhey Hall? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3823 26/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: William Keith Peutherer E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Dear Sir, I am a resident of Hunton Bridge which lies within the Watford constituency area although it is also a part of Three Rivers District Council.