Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Sedgemoor Borough Council
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Councillor submissions to the East Lindsey 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 mablethorpe 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 England 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 Mareham le Fen ward I note your proposal splits this ward into three and the map shows that Tumby Woodside would be part of the new Sibsey 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, Coningsby 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 Wildmore it was felt that the move to combine with Coningsby and Tattershall 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 Wood Enderby and its surrounding hamlets with Horncastle 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 Marshchapel Ward: 1) the name of the proposed ward North Somercotes and Saltfleetby 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 Manby 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 Fotherby and Utterby. Fulstow is an exception and with its historic links to Marshchapel, could be incorporated into an enlarged Marshchapel Ward 5) North Cockerington could also be added to the Marshchapel Ward as an alternative. This would allow Grimoldby and Manby to incorpoate the Carltons if required. Cockerington shares a school with Alvingham 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.