Local Resident Submissions to the Leicestershire County Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local resident submissions to the Leicestershire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Owen, David From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 01 December 2015 14:33 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Oadby & Wigston Boundary proposals From: D Leader Sent: 01 December 2015 14:14 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Oadby & Wigston Boundary proposals Sirs After looking at your proposal for Oadby on the new boundary review I am surprised to see that once again our area has been segregated from the rest of north Oadby. Why do you find it necessary to take a slice from the Washbrook up to the golf course and add it to Wigston. We do not live in Wigston nor have any affinity to that town. It I obvious that we will be isolated and without much of a voice as to what goes on in our area. I live on and it is mostly elderly people. We are not interested In schools nor play areas..Our priority is Doctors and easy access to shops. Good district nursing care and help when needed. I think that it would make more sense if the boundary ran along the A6 thus including our area into the Oadby North. Maybe this would give a much better balance of voters and also mean that we have some say in how our district is run. Since we have lived here the boundary has been altered several times, each time against us, it seems that we are not to be considered but just a convenient slot to push around. I think you will find that most people who live in Oadby do not appreciate being part of Wigston & Oadby as we always feel we are second class citizens when any money is to be spent in the present districts. This new idea would make matters worse. Oadby has always had a good proportion of better housing and thus paid a higher ratio of Council Taxes and yet we do not seem to have the same amount, per head , spent on our area. The roads and pavements in particular, and with this new arrangement we would be worse off with even less of a voice over these matters. I look forward to your comments D. Leader 1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Leicestershire County Personal Details: Name: Matthew Luke E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I do not believe that Oadby and Wigston should be muddled around with in the way that is proposed. I agree with the Oadby North Division, and I agreed with the previous proposals which saw the rest of Oadby being a single member division with Wigston being three single member divisions. Oadby and Wigston are two separate communities, these proposals would pose the serious likelihood of Wigston politicians representing Oadby residents or vice-versa which would not be to the area's benefit. I also strongly disagree with two-member wards on principle. They favour the party with diffuse support over the whole area as opposed to the party with strong support in a particular area, diluting the connection between elector and representative. I would prefer five single member divisions of any kind in Oadby and Wigston to the current proposals, even if that meant a division around the Green Wedge which bridged the two towns. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6438 22/12/2015 Page 1 of 1 http://lgbcebucket.s3.amazonaws.com/draft/1452002630_IMG-20160105-WA0004.jp... 06/01/2016 Owen, David From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 07 January 2016 08:41 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Proposed Electoral Boundary Change From: margaret mcmanus Sent: 06 January 2016 18:42 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Proposed Electoral Boundary Change 6th January 2016 For the attention of The Review Office (Leicestershire) Dear Sir / Madam Electoral Boundary change for The Meadway, Syston to become Thurmaston Ridgeway. I write in connection with the above electroral boundary change. I have examined the plans and I know the area well. I wish to object strongly to the change of these electoral boundaries. Syston is a village which has evolved and changed into a thriving town over a number of years. The area is renowned for its beauty and close proximity to the city of Leicester and town of Loughborough. As residents of Syston we disagree with the proposal, it seems ridiculous to change the boundary in the manner suggested as it is clearly for an ulterior motive. We bought a house in Syston to provide a home for our family. We invested in an area which we deemed as suitable for our needs. The potential investment in this property was significant and with this proposed boundary change there is a clear suggestion that the value of my property will be impacted upon. We also feel that the houses in Thurmaston are not comparable with the area in Syston in which this boundary change is proposed. 1 As residents of Syston for over 40 years we make use of the high quality facilities which exist within the area. The impact on medical treatment of my family with a doctor surgery and practice which we trust is clearly going to be impacted upon. The statistical data provided is such that the insurance, house prices, amenities, school choices will all be impacted upon, and I feel that this is an absolute disgrace that these proposed changes will impact on a handpicked section of the village. The suggestion that the boundary change will create a fairer system takes not account of the proposed 5000 new homes which have been proposed in the area which would potentially sit within the existing Thurmaston boundary, therefore there is no need to adjust the boundary. The proposed changes are particularly ill-considered: The proposed plan picks and chooses the houses to create the new ward. It suggests an improvement in the electoral equality but does not look at the potential impact on my family and others within this community. We understand that the Parish Council’s of both Thurmaston and Syston both feel that this is not the proposal that would be beneficial for either area, we completely agree and wish to remain in the ward of Syston. We also would like to protest that neither ourselves or any of or neighbours were officially informed and only learned of these proposals by neighbours informing each other. If this application is to be decided by government, please take this as notice that I would like to speak at the meeting of the committee at which this application is expected to be decided. Please let us know as soon as possible the date of the meeting. Yours faithfully Mr & Mrs B McManus 2 3 Owen, David From: Owen, David Sent: 12 January 2016 16:53 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Leicester Ward Changes From: Ashish Pattani Sent: 11 January 2016 19:34 To: Owen, David <[email protected]> Subject: RE: Leicester Ward Changes The below are some points you may have already received from a resident but I agree with and would therefore like them to be taken into account and support them. Communication Links – the residents relate to Syston Town and its local community. 1. There are a vast number of community groups (approx. 40) that residents participate in as they identify with the community of Syston, eg Sports clubs; WI; rotary club; churches; flower club; chess club etc. Many of us local people are members of these and we identify ourselves as being part of Syston’s community. 2. This has fostered strong community spirit throughout the years and there are many informal communication networks in place as a result of families historically being based within the town. 3. The residents relate and rely on Syston Town Council for its updates. We use mainly their amenities/facilities. My family would not think of going into Thurmaston for these as they are not part of our local area. 4. As this would be an electoral boundary change it is important to note that most of us know little about Thurmaston and its politicians. We would be clueless. Facilities – in terms of facilities there are a very good amount of these. 1. Some of which are the Syston health Centre (my family & I have been part of one of the practices for over 10 yrs now); local businesses; South Charnwood Leisure Centre (my children undertake their swimming here & my husband & I are gym members); local train station , several local parks ( used by my family – small kids); opticians; schools and many other local businesses (we use the shoe store; jewellers; butchers; fruit & veg shop; co‐op/tesco; charity shops; local chippy and other local businesses). 2. These are all utilised by the community you are proposing to place within the above Division as they are the most local to us. 3. Statistically it is well known that local people do not travel far to utilise certain facilities and this is the case for the people living in the area you are proposing to place with the other division. They are utilised because they are our local town centre, eg Syston Town. As the businesses are next to one another we tend to go from one to the other in terms of our shopping habits. Boundary Changes Some of the boundary changes proposed draw a line straight down communities, eg Fosse Way. Melton Road is the spine of Syston and runs straight through our community.