Local resident submissions to the 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: & Boundary proposals

From: D Leader Sent: 01 December 2015 14:14 To: reviews 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 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 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 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, to become 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 and town of . 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 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 . Melton Road is the spine of Syston and runs straight through our community. Drawing lines in the proposals for electoral boundary reasons will not take away from the strong community identity that exists for us. Syston & Thurmaston both have very distinct and different identities and characters, and regard themselves as distinct and separate places, with the residents of this part of Syston identifying themselves strongly with only Syston. Transport Links between the two areas

1 The roads are good between the villages, however, bus routes are not. Buses come along Melton Rd (& a small part of Thurmaston). It is not easy to move around by this means and there is no train station in Thurmaston. The easiest mode of transport between the two is via car. Boundary Changes Group As a result of this proposal the residents affected by the area have come together as a group. Many of us already know one another as neighbours and I am one of the Directors on my estate. There are a number of Councillors and business owners who live in the affected area; and their links are with the local community in that they represent our interests and we utilise some of their businesses.

I hope that you will take my views and that of others onboard.

Thanks & Regards

2 Owen, David

From: Nisha Popat Sent: 10 January 2016 17:50 To: Owen, David Subject: Boundary Issue

Dear Mr Owen

As a resident of Syston, I would like to object to your draft proposal regarding the South Syston boundary.

My reasons are:

That adding this small proportion on houses to equalise the electors and splitting this small community from the main part of Syston, who have lived here for many years, will be detrimental to the lifestyle of this portion of the community.

Many of the community members on this side of Syston are involved in a number of community organisations and see the focal point of the services that Syston provide as a major part of their lives.

Furthermore, I would like to ask you if you have:

1) taken into account the 3500 to 4500 houses that are going to be built in Thurmaston, that will add significant number of electors to your proposed Thurmaston Ridgmere ward.

2) The By Pass that will be built for this particular development, which will provide a natural boundary between Thurmaston and Syston according to your criteria, which will further cut off the South part of Syston from both Thurmaston and the rest of Syston.

3) According to your criteria, you prefer to see parish boundaries fully within a County Council division. The natural boundary for us would be Syston Fosse or Syston Ridgeway that would put us as a parish fully into Syston.

I look forward to your response.

Best Wishes Nisha Popat

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 04 December 2015 09:45 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Oadby and Wigston boundary change

From: Rob Sindall [mailto Sent: 04 December 2015 08:22 To: reviews Subject: Oadby and Wigston boundary change

Dear Sirs, With regard to the proposed creation of an Oadby South and Wigston East ward I would object most strongly. The demographic of the Wigston East area has totally different needs and outlook to that of Oadby South. Oadby North and Oadby South have much more in common (the clue is in the name) and the fact that they are divided by the A6 trunk road is irrelevant. Sincerely.

Dr Robin Sindall

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 04 December 2015 12:26 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Oadby and Wigston boundary change

From: Wendy Sindall [ Sent: 04 December 2015 10:11 To: reviews Subject: Oadby and Wigston boundary change

Dear Sirs,

I strongly oppose and object to the proposed boundary changes.

The demographic of the Wigston East area has totally different needs and outlook to that of Oadby South.

Oadby North and Oadby South are a unit and an entity. Wigston is a separate place. To split Oadby at the A6 and lump Oadby South with Wigston is madness and completely unnecessary.

Leave Oadby as it is please!

Regards,

Wendy Sindall

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 December 2015 11:18 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: oadby/wigston

From: Sent: 16 December 2015 20:30 To: reviews Subject: oadby/wigston

Dear Sir/Madam I would like to state my opposition to plans to link Oadby and Wigston even more closely together when we should be recognising their separateness.

Yours faithfully

Mr A. Singh Oadby

1 Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to express my concerns regarding changes to the Syston/Thurmaston electoral boundary. A resident of The Meadway, I have lived in Syston for over thirty years. I have listed six of my reservations below for your consideration.

Having grown up in Thurmaston, I have witnessed its development first hand. Ever since the construction of the Thurmaston Bypass (which cut the village down the middle) it has become increasingly difficult to define, to the detriment of the community. The gradual effect of urban sprawl combined with the construction of large shopping centres has (whilst benefiting to the area in some ways) impacted negatively on Thurmaston’s close-knit community heritage. In the context of recent developments to Thurmaston, the proposed changes to the village’s electoral boundary with Syston can only be seen as a further blow to the areas identity.

I am one of the thousands of Syston residents who would find themselves shoehorned into the proposed extension of Thurmaston’s boundaries. If you have ever visited the area, you will be aware that the two villages are separated by what is now a hub of shopping centres which is intersected by a large roundabout, two bypasses as well as a main road into Leicester. Were the proposals enacted, you will have dissected a functional and practically defined part of Syston. Those affected would be isolated from Thurmaston village, and awkwardly separated from its public services. Frankly, given the implications that the proposals would impose on catchment areas (such as for schools and doctors surgeries), I sincerely hope that you fully consider the health and wellbeing of the those who would be made to traverse the busy road network (schoolchildren, the elderly and the disabled in particular) in order to access such amenities.

Following on from my last paragraph, your proposals make no mention of the separate and ongoing proposal to locate a new bypass by Roundhill School. Were your proposal to be enacted alongside the creation of a third bypass, the affected area would be further isolated from Thurmaston than it already is. The construction of this bypass relates to the highly controversial construction of 5000 house across 700 acres of land towards barky, to which I will make a passing reference given the massive impact it alone will have on the area.

Finally, your proposals will impact local residents financially. In line with the negative effects I have highlighted above; local house prices will devalue and insurance will increase.

I urge you to reconsider your plans in light of those whose day to day lives you will affect. I can see absolutely no benefits to the implementation of the proposed changes to the Thurmaston/Syston electoral boundaries.

Kind regards,

Barry Strong

Barry Strong

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: RAKESH KISHORE Thakrar

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Review Officer for LGBCE, Re: Boundary changes and the creation of Thurmaston Ridgmere. After receiving some information from one of our Parish Councillor's for our area, we are very disappointed according to your consultation criteria, that you did not inform or consult us directly about the changes proposed for my house to be part of Thurmaston Ridgmere. As a resident of Syston, we disagree with your proposal of putting our house in this new ward and our property being added to the New electoral register of Thurmaston Ridgmere. The reasons are: *We bought the house in Syston because we wanted to live in Syston and be part of Syston in every respect, i.e. The Syston Fosse or Syston Ridgeway. We want to stay in the Syston ward not Thurmaston. *You are well aware that statistical data regrading the following: house prices, insurance, doctors surgeries, school choice etc. is based on the Electoral register. Putting us in Thurmaston Ridgmere ward will have fundamental affect on many of these services. *You have not taken into account the big development of 5000 houses taking place at Thurmaston, which then will undermine your need for improvement for electoral equality in this division. *Your sentence regarding 'This part of Syston being contiguous with and of similar character to the part of Thurmaston Parish.' Is totally incorrect. We would like you to visit this part of Syston and find out for yourselves and not base you fact totally on statistical data. *The Thurmaston Parish Council have written to your, clearly stating that they do not wish this part of Syston to be put into Thurmaston. *Syston Parish Council in their recent Full council meeting have unanimously voted to support Thurmaston Parish Council and agree with the fact that the proposed part of Syston should stay in Syston and not Thurmaston. We would like you to take the above into consideration and keep our house in Syston, where we have always lived in the Syston community. Your sincerely,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6486 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Thompson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I note that the proposal will move from Syston Ridgeway to Thurmaston Ridgemere. As Barkby is still a rural village and has a vibrant agricultural community I feel that remaining in a more rural based wardwill be the best way to maintain the village's interests. If we are moved to Thurmaston Ridgemere which has now become an urban development our interests will be overwhelmed by the differering interests of a more urban population.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6273 08/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Thornton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wish to comment on the proposals for Oadby (and to some extent Wigston). First some general comments. These proposals are for the electoral arrangements for the County. In that context, the district and borough boundaries are irrelevant. It’s a pity, therefore, that it’s not possible to eg combine Newton Harcourt and the surrounding area (the inhabitants of which possibly see themselves as part of the community of Wigston, rather than that of Harborough, or even Great Glen) with the adjoining Wigston division. It’s also a pity that it is not possible to adjust some of the Borough ward boundaries in the centre of Wigston at the same time, to facilitate this. That would alleviate the electoral balance problems in both the Wigston divisions and Gartree division. If the Government is so concerned about electoral equality it should be able to see the force of this argument. But we are where we are. However, there is no justification in the proposals for attempting to balance the electoral numbers throughout the Borough rather than throughout the County as a whole. Turning to the specific proposal for Wigston South. It’s difficult to reconcile this proposal with the community cohesion and governance criteria. For all intents and purposes, it consists of two separate communities separated by farmland, school premises, a railway line, and an industrial estate; there is no residential accommodation between them. The two residential communities have nothing in common. In addition, it splits the Little Hill Estate in Wigston, which is a community in itself. I appreciate that South Wigston has to combine with some part of Wigston. But this isn’t it. The proposals for Oadby are even more unsatisfactory. The existing arrangements recognize that Oadby is a cohesive if diverse community, with well-defined boundaries, good internal communications, and an electorate which is within 5% of the County average. Instead, the proposals envisage splitting the community of Oadby, and that of Little Hill in Wigston, to create of a huge division, each half of which is separated by a country park (to which the residents of Oadby have no direct access except from Wigston Road), and has its focus on two different town centres. The two halves are connected by a single road, along which a bus travels once an hour (less on Sundays). And the electoral variance of both Oadby North and Oadby South & Wigston East is greater than 5%. It doesn’t achieve the County Council’s (and possibly the Government’s) desire for single-member divisions. So why is it an improvement?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6571 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Troke

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not think St Marys ED should include the area south of the railway line which takes in the area from Brookside to Forresters Road. This is very much a part of Burbage village, closely associated with its interests & activities. If it is felt necessary to include properties south of the railway line, in a numbers exercise, I would suggest Sketchley Brook new development would be more appropriate. Its distance from Burbage village and the fact that its residents would not have yet identified with anywhere in particular make it an good candidate.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6515 05/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Lilias Anne Turner

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to raise an objection to the new Burbage county wards. I currently live in and am part of the Burbage community. I feel that by moving into the new proposed St Mary's ward I will not have voting ability to be part of decisions involving my Burbage community. I feel the Burbage boundaries should go to the railway line which is already the recognised boundary between and Burbage.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6484 04/01/2016

Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 02 December 2015 09:21 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Boundary change proposals - Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston,

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: terry vasey [mailto Sent: 01 December 2015 21:42 To: reviews Subject: Boundary change proposals ‐ Leicestershire Oadby and Wigston,

Dear Sir,

Firstly I have lived in Oadby for over 20 years and I am totally against the Boundary Commissions proposals and believe it is in everyone's interest to retain the status quo.

1. The new Pattern does NOT represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in the County.

Retaining the current arrangement gives 3% fewer electors per council or than the average. The Commission's proposal gives 8% fewer!!!!!

This is NOT an improvement and I believe the option of REDUCING the number of Councillors overall has not been properly explored.

2. The proposals should be based on clearly identifiable boundaries and local interests.

‐ Whilst the current arrangements are based on clearly identifiable and well established boundaries ‐ those in the proposals are NOT.

‐ The Oadby community has different priorities to those of Wigston. As such each has developed their own identities and supporting structures. It is clear where to go to for help and support in the event of a problem. With the changes being proposed many of these structures may well have to changee th way in which they operate creating even more confusion.

I suspect Wigston has different needs and priorities to those of Oadby and to merge part of Oadby with Wigston without clearly identifiable boundaries may well adversely impact on one of the communities creating unnecessary resentment.

‐ In addition I do believe there will be a significant impact on the political scene. Oadby is mainly Liberal at local level, Wigston is not. The Commissions proposals will very likely result in the Liberals losing their majority which will be against the wishes of the local community. The Commission is supposed to be politically neutral.

‐ There are significant road transport difficulties between Oadby and Wigston at certain times of the day which will adversely impact on the delivery of effective local government.

3. I understand that the last boundary changes occurred in 2004. I have lived in Oadby for over 20 years and I see no reason why changes of this magnitude are being proposed. The existing system works well, so why change it unnecessarily.

1 Finally I would just like to comment on costs. There is nothing in the Commissions mandate on reducing costs which I find particularly surprising and alarming. Throughout the country everyone is having to reduce costs and work longer and harder, yet when it comes to government at both local and national level costs are ignored!!

Yours faithfully,

Terence Vasey

Sent from my iPad

2

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Martin Ward

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think the boundary, if it needs to be moved at all, should place the area shown to the north of the A6, currently proposed to be included in Oadby South & Wigston East ED, to be included in Oadby North ED. This would even out the massive disparity that the proposal currently shows. This would make Oadby North etc Slightly bigger than proposed, and Oadby South etc slightly smaller. It would also provide a perfectly natural division along the A6 trunk road, a strong and easily identifiable boundary. Much simpler. Is that not obvious ?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6524 06/01/2016

Mr F E Wilkinson

10-Jan-2016

The Review Officer (Leicestershire) LGBCE 14th Floor, Milbank Tower LONDON SW1 4QP

LGBCE Consultation on draft recommendations for Leicestershire Proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Division

I am completely opposed to the recommended boundary change for the southern part of the parish of Syston for County Council elections. It has been stated that the area comprising of part of Melton Road, The Meadway, Barkby Lane, Wilkes Way and Clover Way are contiguous with and similar in character to Thurmaston.

Thurmaston and Syston are as different to each other as chalk and cheese. They bear little resemblance to each other. In addition, once the proposed development of the land between Barkby, and Thurmaston gets under way, the inclusion of an additional 250 dwellings in this new County Council electoral division will make very little difference.

Both of these areas have a distinct identity with clearly defined village/town centres, shopping areas, health and education provision. It would make no sense for people in the southern part of Syston to be represented by a County Councillor who has responsibility for Thurmaston.

I understand that there are also plans to build a new link road from the A46/A607 through the green wedge which currently divides Syston and Thurmaston in order to improve highway links between Hamilton and the A47 to the east of Leicester & the A46 – Leicester Western By-pass linking onto the M1 or north towards Nottinghamshire & the east. This road would further isolate our part of Syston from the rest of the Thurmaston & Ridgemere district.

Although this consultation process has been on-going since the spring of 2015, the information concerning the boundary changes to this County Council district only came to the attention to the vast majority of the electorate it concerns in the last week or so. The poor communication from the County Council and Syston Town Council to its electors has meant that we have not really had enough time to consider a more detailed response in the given time scales.

I would appreciate it if these points could be taken into consideration by the LGBCE when the decisions are made regarding the final boundaries and the new County Council Districts continue to reflect the clear distinction between Syston and Thurmaston for electoral purposes & urge you to reconsider this part of the draft electoral boundary changes for Leicestershire and place these dwellings into the new Syston Ridgeway district along with the other streets that make up the Syston Parish and District Council Wards.

Yours sincerely,

F. E Wilkinson (by e-mail)