Councillor submissions to the District Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 10 submissions from district councillors .

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

Click on the submission you would like to view.

graham cullen

As a working councillor i feel the new bounders for would make it an impossible task to help the public. The vast area that is going to be asked of a councillor would mean that the selected councillor would be working vast hours. Councillor Cullen

7/24/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Sarah Dodds sarah.dodds@e- E-mail: lindsey.gov.uk Postcode: East Lindsey District Organisation Name: Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Within the Priory ward of Louth there has been a very strong Residents Association that meet for the residents of the Mount Pleasant area. This includes Mount Pleasant, Little Lane, Church Street, Robinson Close, Pippin Close, Bramley Close and with Watts Lane as a natural furthest boundary. The association meets monthly with existing Councillors and also organises well supported and much appreciated community social events. These recommendations split the area served by this association into two wards, which is highly detrimental to the sense of well-established social cohesion. Thus we recommend that this whole area is kept within the Priory ward, to include the whole of Watts Lane which is currently divided between Priory and St Michaels. Whilst recognising this would have a knock on impact to other proposals for Louth this sense of community cohesion should be the most important factor of your work. I do not support the proposals to combine St James with St Priory. They are both quite different parts of the town with different identities. With no change to the overall number of councillors within the town the whole exercise seems utterly futile and pointless. Additionally, this also cuts across electoral divisions for the county council further adding to the confusion.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2095 1/1 Janet Harrison [email protected]

East Lindsey District Council

District/County councillor

14/05/2013 17:47

"As the district councillor representing the current ward I note your proposal splits this ward into three and the map shows that Tumby Woodside would be part of the new and Stickney ward.

Tumby Woodside is recognised locally as part of Mareham le Fen. The postal address is Mareham le Fen and it closer to New York, and Mareham le Fen itself than it is to Sibsey or Stickney. The residents of Tumby Woodside are more aligned both culturally and socially to the new ward of Coningsby & Mareham than the new Sibsey & Stickney ward.

I would propose that the boundary is moved to the eastern side of Tumby Woodside to include it in the new Coningsby & Mareham ward. The numbers of residents would not make a significant change to your figures.

I do not wish to upload any supporting documentation at this stage, only refer to your published map." 8/5/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Harrison

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: ELDC

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Changes to Mareham le Fen Ward. After careful consideration I think the changes proposed, that is spliting the present ward into 3 different wards, would be detrimental to the residents. In discussions with the parish councils of Mareham le Fen, Tumby and it was felt that the move to combine with Coningsby and could be a good move. Members felt that they would have 3 councillors representing them, not just one. However Coningsby and Tattershall together comprise a small town, they represent themselves as such. To add one reasonable size village (Mareham), one small village with a lot of outlying areas (New York/Wildmore) and one hamlet, (Tumby) - all very rural -I believe would cause them to lose their identity. Equally to put the village of and its surrounding hamlets with would result in them becoming "forgotten" areas. Horncastle town itself will I believe always take priority over these small settlements. Although they are not a great distance away from Horncastle in terms of miles I don't believe they would gain anything by being aligned with the town. The biggest mistake in dividing up the ward is putting Revesby with Stickney and Sibsey. Revesby is a considerable distance away from both of these large villages and not on a direct route to either. Again, I feel it would become a forgotton area and not be represented adequately. It would be far better to keep Revesby with Mareham le Fen. Coningsby, Tattershall, Stickney and Sibsey are all settlements which are likely to grow in terms of new development in the future. In the current Mareham le Fen ward only Mareham le Fen village has any development potential of any size under the Local Plan. To put small villages and hamlets with the four large settlements would lead to lack of local representation and make it very difficult and impractical for the councillor representing them.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2150 1/1

8/6/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Edward Mossop

E-mail:

Postcode: East Lindsey District Organisation Name: Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Additional comments from Councillor Edward Mossop ELDC Councillor for Ward: 1) the name of the proposed ward and is inappropriate. If you are to use the names of two communities, then why has the Boundary Commission not chosen the names of the largest and second largest community i.e. North Somercotes and Marshchapel? 2) I am concerned that the proposals are based on information for the projected electorate in 2018 which is inaccurate. For example, there is a nil growth projection for Marshchapel village which does not reflect the fact that currently, there are eight two-bedroom bungalows and a pair of semi-detached houses being built. The projection for the village of is wildly inaccurate. The information is based on an extant planning permission which has already been renewed but it is unlikely to be implemented in its current form by 2018 due to a lack of demand. It is impossible to imagine growth in this village to out strip all the other surrounding communities by hundreds of electors. Please contact officers at East Lindsey DC to clarify and understand the reality of growth in rural areas.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2165 1/1 8/6/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Edward Mossop

E-mail:

Postcode: East Lindsey District Organisation Name: Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: This is the third attempt to submit comments on your interactive website. PLEASE take these comments into consideration. I will submit my comments in small chunks to ensure that these get through to you. 1) I am supportive of the reduction to 55 Councillors. I along with Councillor Webb submitted comments to that effect over a year ago. 2) I support the retention of single-member wards in the rural areas, where possible. This is to retain "local" representation across large geographic areas where two-member warding arrangements create difficulties for Councillors in ensuring they are well-known in the respective communities, by attending Parish meetings etc. 3) I do not support the creation of a two-member Somercotes Ward. The Boundary Commission should revisit the Northern Parishes and reconsider where they can create the single-member wards if at all possible. 4) the Marshchapel Ward as existing is cohesive and bound by its links to agriculture. To the North are Parishes more commuter-based as are the Parishes straddling the A16 such as and . is an exception and with its historic links to Marshchapel, could be incorporated into an enlarged Marshchapel Ward 5) could also be added to the Marshchapel Ward as an alternative. This would allow and Manby to incorpoate the Carltons if required. Cockerington shares a school with village and has the unique identity in that its Church shares a churchyard with Alvingham.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2164 1/1

-----Original Message----- From: Preen, Michael (Cllr) [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 05 August 2013 12:30 To: Reviews@ Cc: Sarah. Dodds; Tony Howard; Laura Stephenson; (Cllr) Philip Sturman Subject: Eldc consultation

Council size: No evidence has been submitted to suggest a smaller council size. Other district councils of similar geographic area have a similar ratio to eldc at 60. As it is anticipated that the population is likely to grow faster than the rest of the country, one could argue for an increase. 60 is about right, the case for 55 is merely assertion on your part with no hard evidence. Multi member wards: The commission's brief is to equality of representation. A single member ward will have about 1900 voters. Thus a councillor will represent an electorate of about 1900 and each ultvoter will have one councillor to call on. In a two member ward, each councillor will represent about 3800 electors and each elector will have access to two councillors. How is this equality of representation? In a three member ward, it is even worse. At the last commission review, many multimember wards were split for this very reason. Multimember wards are anti democratic and the proposal for Louth will confuse the voters since the existing boundaries will be kept for the Town council elections which have been held at the same time. At election time, candidates from a party wishing to contest all seats will have a substantial advantage over the independent as the party can cooperate in electioneering while the ind. candidate is on their own. Louth boundaries: Combining St.Mary's & St.Michael's and St.James with Priory doesn't make sense. The wards have traditionally returned members of different parties thus demonstrating that they have different demographies. If the electoral size of these wards are out of balance then this should be addressed by altering a few addresses. People who live in towns relate more to the town than to the actual ward they live in. Boundary changes have been made in the past as the town has grown, these changes have resulted in something strange eg St,Mary's Lane and St. Mary's Church are not in St.Mary's ward, similarly with Trinity, Priory. Where is St.Margaret's Church? : The villages comprising the existing Legbourne ward all look to Louth for their services and shopping. This gives them common purpose. The proposal combines communities that do not have this in common, some look to Louth, some to Mablethorpe, others elsewhere. looks to Louth, Binbrooke looks to . To suggest that communities are linked merely because they are on the same A road is ridiculous. I leave to others to comment elsewhere, Louth area is where I know best. The commission doesn't know the area at all as shown by their suggestions. Sent from my iPad

8/6/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Daniel Simpson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: East Lindsey District Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: I support Louth Town Councils Comments on new boundary arrangements as proposed by the Electoral Commission. It is inconceivable that ward name changes should result in the dropping of the name St James. St James Church is Louth and is the hallmark of Louth and the surrounding area and landscape. Perhaps nobody noticed it. Multi-member wards are politically divisive. Have recent proposed developments been taken fully into account, ward number balance could very soon be skewed again. Opportunity to reduce the number of district councillors for Louth missed. 1. The aim of the re-organisation of Wards is electoral fairness but it is the opinion of Louth Town Council that the proposals will have the opposite effect. Louth is divided into seven wards which at present functions well with one district councillor per ward. Residents understand this with little or no problem, not least as this has worked efficiently and effectively for many years and they are familiar and comfortable with the set up. But for four wards to suddenly become two member wards while three remain as they were will cause confusion. 2. Political differences could then mean the more popular and more approachable councillor gets all the work in a two member ward, leading to uneven representation. 3. Canvassing a two member size ward would be ‘doubly’ expensive for candidates and would definitely favour the main political parties, who finance their candidates. This would also have the effect of putting less well off possible councillors putting their names forward for election which would be contrary to fostering local democracy. 4. There is no intention of altering the present town council system of three members per Ward and this will cause further confusion for residents who will be asked to elect two district council members in four of these wards. 5. There is no intention to change the County Council boundaries as part of this consultation which will further complicate matters. Presently Louth South has well over 2000 more voters than Louth North and this inequality is not addressed at all. This further complicates voting arrangements and inequalities within Louth. 6. In conclusion the proposals do not go any way to reflect communities within the town and actually work against effective and convenient local government. On a Ward basis the proposals fail again to reflect community identities within the town. 1. The loss of the name St James’s Ward is of great regret. The parish church of St James provides the town with its identity and the Electoral Commission’s plans to eradicate the name is felt to be an insult to the town! 2. The plan to put South Street, Edward Street, Westgate and Upgate into an enlarged Priory Ward fails to recognise the distinctive local character of the town. It would also leave Horncastle Road without a road link to its ward, which would seem to be highly irregular and contrary to the stated aims of this exercise. As is well appreciated locally Upgate is an effective boundary, to the west has a totally different character to the east contrary - to the EC’s suggestion. 3. St Mary’s Ward could have its numbers enhanced by ensuring all of Kenwick Road, Kenwick Pastures, Kenwick Close, Southlands Avenue and the south side of Legbourne Road and by adding the north side of Westgate. This move reflects the distinctive character of this ward. This move would https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2162 1/2 8/6/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal make far more sense than what is presently proposed. 4. St James’s Ward would be enhanced by adding the north side of St Mary’s Lane – this area has very little in common with the general character of North Holme Ward. 5. Priory Ward should keep the Robinson Lane development within its boundaries as it is served by a single road network coming from Little Lane and Mount Pleasant, which are both in Priory Ward. There is no direct road link to the St Michael’s Ward, which again is contrary to what the EC is trying to achieve. Watts Lane is already an easily understood boundary between these two Wards. In conclusion Louth Town Council wishes to stress that it is felt very strongly that the proposals put forward for change in the town will actually result in less effective and convenient local government, which fails to reflect community identities. Time would have been better spent reducing the number of parish councils and parish meetings in East Lindsey....189 for 131,000 people and 700 square miles.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2162 2/2 8/6/13 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

East Lindsey District

Personal Details:

Name: Daniel Simpson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: East Lindsey District Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: The Ward named and should be Donington-on-Bain and Tetford Ward. Donington and Tetford are at the extremities of the ward, both have a school, public house/hotel, village hall, church and graveyard in current use, play / games areas, businesses located within the village of a scale that provide employment for some residents and for people from outside the community. Donington has two shops, Tetford a doctors surgery.Both are on mains drainage and can cope with growth. Goulceby has none of the above apart from the church and a public house/shop.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2161 1/1