Parish and Town Council submissions to the Newark and Sherwood District Council electoral review
This PDF contains 18 submissions from parish and town councils.
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission that you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.
From: Balderton Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 25 July 2013 15:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood District Council
Dear Sirs,
Thank you for notification of the above review. I write on behalf of Balderton Parish Council in response to the consultation of new ward boundaries within Newark & Sherwood District Council. Having reviewed the information members expressed the following concerns and asked that they be submitted: a) Balderton could not afford to lose a District Councillor as it is a very busy, heavily populated village. b) Balderton should retain four District members, particularly with the imminent amount of residential development to take place in the village resulting from the agreed Newark Growth Point. c) The confusion should be removed for parishioners on Staple Lane because one half of the properties along Staple Lane are in Fernwood Ward and one half are in Balderton Ward for County Council purposes, but the whole of Staple Lane residents are included within the Balderton District and Parish Wards. The parish map boundary includes Staple Lane properties, so for the sake of the few houses concerned they should all be included in the County’s Balderton Ward.
Thank you,
Mrs Cheryl Davison‐Lyth Clerk to Balderton Parish Council
1
From: Catherine Millward Sent: 24 June 2013 12:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral review of Newark and Sherwood - Caunton Parish Council response
Dear Sirs
Caunton Parish Council discussed the electoral review at its meeting on 12 June 2013. The councillors are concerned that Caunton, as a small rural village, has particular needs and concerns which are specifically compatible with those of other similar communities. These communities share the same issues with regard to, for example, access to schools, transport, youth and elderly services and rural business needs. Naturally, the larger towns and villages in the area have different needs and priorities.
With this in view, the Council unanimously agreed that, to ensure meaningful, effective and equal representation of the Caunton populace, any proposal should ensure that Caunton is grouped with villages and parishes of a similar character as it is now.
As you will appreciate, the Council's small size and very limited resources preclude the collation of detailed data. However, the Council strongly feels that, for the reasons set out above, any proposals should take account of the Council's view, formed on the basis of its in depth knowledge of its community and of those around it.
Yours faithfully,
Catherine Millward Clerk to Caunton Parish Council
1
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
Newark and Sherwood District
Personal Details:
Name: Margaret Evans
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Halloughton Parish Meeting
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I am writing on behalf of Halloughton Parish,its Chair Mr Richard Elliott and Clerk Mr Paul Birks. Halloughton Parish met on August 2nd 2013, and unanimously agreed the following statement: 1. "The new pattern should mean that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters as elected members elsewhere in the authority." The small settlement of Halloughton, which has been located in the West Ward of Southwell since time immemorial, comprises around 55 people. The total population of Southwell West Ward is 3011, and of the whole of Southwell, including Halloughton, 7297 (2011 Census). It is appropriate for Halloughton to remain part of Southwell West Ward and part of the overall total for Southwell. The small number of voters in Halloughton would not adversely affect any new ward divisions for Southwell. 2. "Ward patterns should - as far as possible - reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable." Halloughton people have always considered themselves part of Southwell, situated within its Civil Parish. Halloughton shares the same post code as Southwell, its inhabitants are registered with the Southwell Health Centre, attend the dentist in Southwell and the children attend the local pre-, primary and secondary schools in Southwell. The nearest local shops, Post Office and Library are all in Southwell. At only 1.9km distant from the centre of Southwell and less from the Minster School and Leisure Centre (10 minutes walk), Halloughton is nearer to many Southwell facilities than poeple living within the urban settlement area in the north of Southwell. Halloughton is located immediately adjacent, across the A612 road, to the Brackenhurst campus of Nottingham Trent University, which similarly has very close links with the town of Southwell and is also located within Southwell Civil Parish. Its students use Southwell as their main centre for retail and leisure needs and Brackenhurst students also find placements in farms within Halloughton. The boundary between the next ward, Trent Ward, is clearly identified by Halloughton Dumble, some 1km distant from Halloughton. This separates the ancient Halloughton parish from the land surrounding the villages of Bleasby (3km distant) and Thurgarton (also 3km distant). 3. "The electoral arrangements should promote effective and convenient local government..." Halloughton voters have always voted withon Southwell West Ward (at Holy Trinity School polling station), the nearest voting station available to them. The proposal that Halloughton should remain withon Southwell Civil Parish and West Ward would retain this. Local access to voting for elected representatives that reflect the reality of electors' life experiences, and the use of services that they rely on, should be maintained.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2149 05/08/2013 Fuller, Heather
From: North Muskham Parish Council
Importance: High
This submission is supported also by the Parish Councils of Bathley, Little Carlton & South Muskham, Cromwell and Norwell
We suggest that the submission by Newark and Sherwood District Council, whilst meeting one of the 4 main criteria( the numbers in each ward), it does, in many instances and in particular with the old Muskham Ward parishes and Sutton On Trent parish, not satisfy the other three criteria regarding identity, cohesion, accessibility to services etc . We suggest that the numbers criteria is the lesser of the 4 and should not be the key basis for determination of the ward constituents.
Whilst we respect the need to reduce the number of wards and Members, we have therefore amended the Newark and Sherwood proposals and attach an alternative matrix proposal showing ward constituents. We accept there are two wards where the numbers are low in comparison with the other rural parishes but geographically those two areas are large, sparsely populated but highly connected with regards to identity, access to facilities and geographic empathy.
We respectfully suggest that “ Localism” is absolutely key in the determination of local boundaries and compilation of wards that influence and direct the quality of life and public service delivery on a much greater scale than just District Council democracy With regards to the Muskham area, the shape of this previous ward we suggest should stay given that:
With the exception of Norwell all the parishes are part of the Riverside Church Parishes –COE and have been for hundreds of years Bathley has no community facility and shares the Muskham Rural Community Centre- funded by the Lottery to provide an excellent facility to the parishes within the proposed ward group. Bathley people are baptised and buried and worship at North Muskham All of the villages in our proposed “Muskham” ward share the same threat from Wind Turbine development, gravel extraction and flood risk is a common issue. Issues with congestion in villages when the A1 is blocked are common to all of our proposed ward constituents All of the villages share the gravel; extraction risk, have formed a fighting group which collectively has appointed a legal expert to defend against what we consider to be inappropriate policy of extraction in our area. We are basically a Trent Valley catchment area
1 The garage at North Muskham, the shops at Cromwell, Norwell and North Muskham, the pubs at Norwell, North Muskham and Bathley and at Kelham are commonly frequented by residents of all the proposed ward villages. HGV weight restrictions will soon apply to all villages within our proposed ward One main landowner and farmer operates in all of the 8 villages The natural boundary encompassing the 8 villages is afforded by the River Trent to the east and the Debdale/Norwell hills to the west
Jayne Saunders Clerk to North Muskham Parish Council
2 Projected Number of Polling District Parliamentary County Division District Parish/Town 2019 members Ratio Variance Variance % AAAA1 Newark Newark East Beacon Newark Town - Beacon Ward 2491 AAAA2 Newark Newark East Beacon Newark Town - Beacon Ward 2839 AAAA3 Newark Collingham Beacon Newark Town - Beacon Ward 300 AAAA4 Newark Collingham Beacon Coddington - West Ward 94 EEEE1 Newark Newark East Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward 1344 EEEE3 Newark Newark East Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward 255 Total 7323 3 2441 22 0.89 AAAA3 Newark Collingham Beacon Newark Town - Beacon Ward 975 AAAA3 Newark Collingham Beacon Newark Town - Beacon Ward -300 BBBB1 Newark Collingham Bridge Newark Town - Bridge Ward 1159 BBBB2 Newark Collingham Bridge Newark Town - Bridge Ward 1783 BBBB3 Newark Newark West Bridge Newark Town - Bridge Ward 713 CCCC3 Newark Newark West Castle Newark Town - Castle Ward 102 Total 4432 2 2216 -203 -8.41 CCCC1 Newark Newark West Castle Newark Town - Castle Ward 933 CCCC2 Newark Newark West Castle Newark Town - Castle Ward 1774 CCCC3 Newark Newark West Castle Newark Town - Castle Ward 789 CCCC3 Newark Newark West Castle Newark Town - Castle Ward -102 EEEE2A Newark Newark West Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward 494 EEEE3 Newark Newark East Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward 1081 EEEE3 Newark Newark East Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward -255 Total 4714 2 2357 -62 -2.58 DDDD1 Newark Newark West Devon Newark Town - Devon Ward 2305 DDDD2 Newark Newark West Devon Newark Town - Devon Ward 1439 EEEE2 Newark Newark East Magnus Newark Town - Magnus Ward 1072 Total 4816 2 2408 -11 -0.47 FFFF1 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward 2437 FFFF1 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward -129 FFFF2 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward 2048 FFFF2 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward -15 GGGG1A Newark Farndon & Muskham Balderton West Balderton - West Ward 60 Total 4401 2 2201 -219 -9.05 FFFF1 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward 129 GGGG1 Newark Balderton Balderton West Balderton - West Ward 2759 GGGG2 Newark Balderton Balderton West Balderton - West Ward 1529 Total 4417 2 2209 -211 -8.72 HHHH1 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Farndon 1976 HHHH2 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon East Stoke & Thorpe - East Stoke Ward 128 HHHH3 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon East Stoke & Thorpe - Thorpe Ward 56 HHHH4 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Elston 460 HHHH5 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Syerston (Meeting) 145 Total 2765 1 2765 346 14.28 FFFF2 Newark Balderton Balderton North Balderton - North Ward 15 HHHH6 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Hawton 1332 HHHH7 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Fernwood (new parish effective 01/05/08) 3378 HHHH8 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Cotham (Meeting) 50 HHHH9 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Alverton (Meeting) 29 HHHH10 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Kilvington (Meeting) 30 HHHH11 Newark Farndon & Muskham Farndon Staunton-in-the-Vale (Meeting) 46 XXXX4 Newark Collingham Winthorpe Coddington - East Ward 1205 XXXX5 Newark Collingham Winthorpe Barnby-In-The-Willows 184 Total 6269 2 3135 715 29.55 JJJJ1 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Lowdham 1990 JJJJ2 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Bulcote 276 JJJJ5 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Gunthorpe 625 Total 2891 1 2891 472 19.49 Projected Number of Polling District Parliamentary County Division District Parish/Town 2019 members Ratio Variance Variance % JJJJ3 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Caythorpe 217 JJJJ4 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Epperstone 414 IIII1 Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Trent Bleasby 659 JJJJ6 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Gonalston (Meeting) 76 JJJJ7 *Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Lowdham Hoveringham 311 IIII4 Newark Farnsfield & Lowdham Trent Thurgarton 362 IIII2 Newark Farndon & Muskham Trent Fiskerton-Cum-Morton 668 IIII3 Newark Farndon & Muskham Trent Rolleston 312 Total 3019 1 3019 600 24.78
KKKK4 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Edingley 355 KKKK8 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Oxton 453 KKKK6 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Halam 334
SSSS1 Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Upton 334 SSSS2 (**) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Southwell Town - East Ward 77 SSSS2 (**) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Southwell Town - East Ward 261 TTTT1 (***) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell North Southwell Town - North Ward 53 TTTT1 (***) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell North Southwell Town - North Ward 670 Total 2537 1 2537 118 4.86 SSSS2 (**) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Southwell Town - East Ward 1527 SSSS2 (**) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Southwell Town - East Ward -77 SSSS2 (**) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell East Southwell Town - East Ward -261 TTTT1 (***) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell North Southwell Town - North Ward 1756 TTTT1 (***) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell North Southwell Town - North Ward -53 TTTT1 (***) Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell North Southwell Town - North Ward -670 UUUU2 Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell West Southwell Town - West Ward 1248 UUUU1 Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell West Halloughton (Meeting) 70 UUUU3 Newark Southwell & Caunton Southwell West Southwell Town - West Ward 1057 Total 4597 2 2299 -121 -5.00 YYYY1 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham North Muskham 782 YYYY7 Newark Southwell & Caunton Muskham Cromwell (Meeting) 188 YYYY6 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham Bathley 205 VVVV4 Newark Southwell & Caunton Sutton-On-Trent Norwell 358 YYYY2 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham South Muskham 418 YYYY3 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham Averham, Kelham & Staythorpe - Averham Ward 189 YYYY4 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham Averham, Kelham & Staythorpe - Staythorpe Ward 82 YYYY5 Newark Farndon & Muskham Muskham Averham, Kelham & Staythorpe - Kelham Ward 150 Total 2372 1 2372 -47 -1.96 RRRR2 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Egmanton (Meeting) 256 VVVV1 Newark Southwell & Caunton Sutton-On-Trent Sutton-on-Trent 1152 VVVV2 Newark Southwell & Caunton Sutton-On-Trent Grassthorpe (Meeting) 57 VVVV3 Newark Southwell & Caunton Sutton-On-Trent Carlton-On-Trent 178 VVVV5 Newark Southwell & Caunton Sutton-On-Trent Weston 281 Total 1924 1 1924 -495 -20.48 KKKK3 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Eakring 346 MMMM4 Sherwood Rufford Rainworth Rufford 381 RRRR10 *Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Wellow 400 QQQQ2 Sherwood Ollerton Boughton Kirton 218 QQQQ3 Sherwood Ollerton Boughton Walesby 1078 Total 2423 1 2423 4 0.15 Projected Number of Polling District Parliamentary County Division District Parish/Town 2019 members Ratio Variance Variance % KKKK7 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Kirklington 227 RRRR1 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Caunton 319 RRRR3 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Hockerton (Meeting) 113 RRRR4 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Kneesall, Kersall & Ompton - Kersall Ward 30 RRRR5 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Kneesall, Kersall & Ompton - Kneesall Ward 187 RRRR6 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Kneesall, Kersall & Ompton - Ompton Ward 53 RRRR7 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Laxton & Moorhouse 233 RRRR8 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Maplebeck (Meeting) 95 RRRR9 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Ossington (Meeting) 82 RRRR11 Newark Southwell & Caunton Caunton Winkburn (Meeting) 50
Total 1389 1 1389 -1030 -42.59 WWWW1 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Collingham 2364 WWWW1 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Collingham -80 Total 2284 1 2284 -135 -5.60 WWWW2 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Besthorpe (Meeting) 169 WWWW3 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Girton (Meeting) 99 WWWW4 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Harby 236 WWWW5 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering North Clifton (Meeting) 163 WWWW6 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering South Clifton 275 WWWW7 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering South Scarle (Meeting) 140 WWWW8 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Thorney 187 WWWW9 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Spalford (Meeting) 61 WWWW10 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Wigsley (Meeting) 96 XXXX1 Newark Collingham Winthorpe Winthorpe & Langford - Winthorpe Ward 580 XXXX2 Newark Collingham Winthorpe Winthorpe & Langford - Langford Ward 73 XXXX3 Newark Collingham Winthorpe Holme (Meeting) 41 WWWW1 Newark Collingham Collingham & Meering Collingham 80 Total 2200 1 2200 -219 -9.07 PPPP1 Sherwood Ollerton Ollerton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Ollerton North Ward 2655 PPPP2 Sherwood Ollerton Ollerton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Ollerton South Ward 1122 PPPP3 Sherwood Ollerton Ollerton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Ollerton South Ward 840 PPPP4 Sherwood Ollerton Ollerton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Ollerton South Ward 841 QQQQ1 Sherwood Ollerton Boughton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Boughton Ward 1848 QQQQ1A (*) Sherwood Ollerton Boughton Ollerton & Boughton Town - Boughton Ward 732 Total 8038 3 2679 260 10.74 KKKK1 Sherwood Rufford Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Bilsthorpe 1609 KKKK2 Sherwood Rufford Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Bilsthorpe 774 Total 2383 1 2383 -36 -1.51 KKKK5 Sherwood Farnsfield & Lowdham Farnsfield & Bilsthorpe Farnsfield 2414 Total 2414 1 2414 -5 -0.23 NNNN1 Sherwood Rufford Clipstone Clipstone - Clipstone Village Ward (amended name effective 01/04/11) 2760 Total 2760 1 2760 341 14.07 NNNN2 Sherwood Rufford Clipstone Clipstone - Cavendish Ward (amended name effective 01/04/11) 771 NNNN3 Sherwood Rufford Clipstone Kings Clipstone (new parish effective 01/04/11) 283 OOOO1 Sherwood Rufford Edwinstowe Edwinstowe 1474 Total 2528 1 2528 109 4.49 OOOO2 Sherwood Rufford Edwinstowe Edwinstowe 1726 OOOO3 Sherwood Rufford Edwinstowe Edwinstowe 1066 PPPP5 Sherwood Ollerton Ollerton Perlethorpe-cum-Budby (Meeting) 132 Total 2924 1 2924 505 20.85 Projected Number of Polling District Parliamentary County Division District Parish/Town 2019 members Ratio Variance Variance % LLLL1 Sherwood Blidworth Blidworth Blidworth - North Ward 1182 LLLL2 Sherwood Blidworth Blidworth Blidworth - South Ward 1184 LLLL2A Sherwood Blidworth Blidworth Blidworth - South Ward 1036 LLLL3 Sherwood Blidworth Blidworth Lindhurst (Meeting) 14 MMMM3 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward 517 MMMM3 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward 134 Total 4067 2 2034 -386 -15.95 MMMM1 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - North Ward 1331 MMMM2 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward 1933 MMMM3 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward 1859 MMMM3 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward -517 MMMM3 Sherwood Blidworth Rainworth Rainworth - South Ward -134 Total 4472 2 2236 -183 -7.58 94359 39 2419
Fuller, Heather
From: [email protected] Sent: 11 July 2013 10:51 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NEWARK AND SHERWOOD
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
I am writing on behalf of Rolleston Parish Council regarding your letter of 28 May 2013 requesting views on the current consultation on new ward Boundaries.
This matter was discussed by Rolleston Parish Council at its meeting on 1 July 2013 (Minute 35.). The District Councillor for Rolleston (Cllr Blaney) was at the meeting and advised that two possible options were currently being considered by the District Council in respect of the Rolleston area:
A local ward including the parishes of Bleasby, Fiskerton, Rolleston, Averham, Kelham, Staythorpe, and also possibly South Muskham/Little Carlton; or
Fiskerton and Rolleston being including under the umbrella of Southwell, where the number of District Councillors would probably increase from two to three.
Rolleston Parish Council gave consideration to the matter, including the likely response to be made by the District Council, and unanimously AGREED that this Council's response to the Boundary Commission would be as follows:
That the boundaries of a new ward to include Rolleston should comprise the Trent-side Villages, such as Bleasby, Fiskerton, Rolleston, Averham, Kelham, Staythorpe and, possibly, South Muskham - there being shared community identity and interests, with the natural feature of the River Trent as a boundary;
And specifically
That the Parish should not be attached to the larger Southwell Town conurbation with which it had very limited shared interest.
In writing, it was further agreed that Rolleston Parish Council would wish to draw attention to the very strong community spirit within the Village – as evidenced during the period of severe flooding last winter, and the ongoing work, support and investment of the community to try and ensure that
1 the risk of flooding in the future was minimised and all local residents felt safe in their own homes.
Mrs Christine Slim Clerk, Rolleston Parish Council
Mrs Christine Slim
Clerk, Rolleston Parish Council
FREE Animations for your email Click Here!
2 Emailed Response to [email protected]
21 July 2013
Reponse from South Muskham/Little Carlton Parish Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission’s consultation on new ward boundaries in Newark
I am writing on behalf of South Muskham/Little Carlton Parish Council (SMLC), following your letter dated 28 May 2013 regarding the Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood, and the current consultation process in respect of revised ward boundaries. This matter was formally considered at the meeting of SMLC Parish Council dated 17 June 2013 (Minute 23.).
The District Councillor for South Muskham/Little Carlton (Cllr Mrs S Saddington) was at the meeting and advised that the response of Newark and Sherwood District Council was that
the parish of South Muskham and Little Carlton would no longer form part of the current Muskham ward;
and should now be included with the parishes of Bleasby, Fiskerton, Rolleston, Averham, Kelham, Staythorpe, Rolleston, Fiskerton and Bleasby.
This proposal was unanimously opposed by SMLC Parish Council. They wished to remain part of the Muskham Ward which included North Muskham, Bathley and Cromwell. Over very many years these parishes had become a close community, which worked well and in the interests of local residents.
Examples of the benefits of the current arrangement with regard to the important social aspects of a integrated community, include
. current shared facilities, such as village halls and social centres
. shared groups such as Brownies, history societies, pre-school and after school clubs, football clubs, W.I., lunch club, and toddlers group
. the churches in this ward ‘share’ facilities
. the school catchment area was within this ward
Further, local parish councillors work well with each other as they have common interests. Examples include
. the 2003 Gravel Extraction campaign when considerable resources of time and money were required to oppose the County Council’s proposals. Whilst successful at that time, the 2014 Mineral Plan is currently out for consultation and, again, a joint approach has been employed using expertise from local residents throughout the four parishes, with the Parish Councils collectively again agreeing to share the considerable financial costs of such a campaign
. other areas with which a joint approach is beneficial include the thorny issue of the installation of wind turbines, and highway issues - which are significant as the A1 (the Gt North Road), runs alongside South and North Muskham, Cromwell and Bathley and all villages suffer problems with HGVs short-cutting through the villages, and/or severe congestion following all too frequent traffic incidents on the major routes. In this regard united protests to the authorities have recently brought about a number of formal weight restriction orders.
1
And specifically it is the unanimous view of South Muskham/Little Carlton Parish Council that it should not be included in a cluster of villages with which it has no shared interests. Amongst many concerns
. the other villages, set out in the District response, are some distance away with no public transport links to engage community involvement; and with limited opportunity for any local social groups, such as Brownies, the Lunch Club, Toddlers, to use shared facilities
. and major issues, such as those set out above, would be of little interest and no concern to most of the parishes in the proposed new ward. The County Minerals Plan would have no impact on, say Bleasby Parish, located some 15 miles from the proposed area of gravel extraction; and for the same basic geographical reason nor would an increase in the number of Wind Turbines causing local concern as to noise and detrimental visual impact directly affect most of the parishes set out in the NSDC preferred option.
Mrs Christine Slim Parish Clerk, South Muskham/Little Carlton
2
Southwell Town Council
Response to the Electoral Review of Newark & Sherwood Consultation July 2013
The Town Council carefully considered the questions posed on the LGBCE web site (shown below) to assist in its deliberations in regard to the Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood.
• Where should your new ward/division boundaries be drawn? • Do you share community identity and interests with another area? • Are there any natural or constructed features which could be used as boundaries? • In your community where do people go to access services, use local facilities or socialise? • Do your proposals mean each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters? In response to the above please find the following comments.
Where should your new ward/division boundaries be drawn? Southwell Town Council proposes the retention of its three member ward with the boundaries covering the current urban and rural parts of Southwell and extended to include the parishes of Edingley, Halam, Hockerton. This will have minimal consequential implications for the rest of the wards in the proposed District Council Scheme.
Edingley and Halam to be added to Southwell West Ward and Hockerton to Southwell North Ward and some minor adjustment within the town to even out the numbers.
Do you share community identity and interests with another area? Southwell is an historic Minster town with ties to the surrounding villages going back over hundreds of years and was until relatively recently, the location of the rural district council. It has a very strong sense of community identity and acts as a service centre to the local villages with its shops, supermarket, schools, medical centre, fire station, library, public transport hub, industry and employment.
Are there any natural or constructed features which could be used as boundaries? Several main roads are used as boundaries.
In your community where do people go to access services, use local facilities or socialise? All of the immediate villages access the wide range of services and facilities in Southwell. People move into the area to access the highly commended Minster School. All junior activities like Guides and Scouts are Southwell based. The Town not only has the Senior Church of England in Nottinghamshire it also has Methodist, Baptist, Roman Catholic and Evangelical churches which cover a wide area and services these villages. Southwell has a large number of pubs and restaurants, four banks, a travel agent, car parks and a Veterinary surgery. It has the recognised sports clubs in the area for Tennis, Cricket, Football, Rugby and Bowls and includes members from the neighbouring villages. The University of the Third Age has over 600 members again drawn from Southwell and the surrounding villages.
Do your proposals mean each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters? Yes. With Southwell also being viewed as a highly desirable place to live, the planned growth of the town will also raise the electoral numbers in the nearer, rather than distant future.
Summary The suggestion of a two member Ward covering the majority of the urban part of Southwell and a single member ward covering the parishes of Edingley, Halam, Hockerton and Upton is seriously flawed. It takes no notice of the permanent ties of the villages with Southwell, ignores the fact that the villages have minimal links with each other and in fact cuts off a number of homes within the town boundaries.
The Town Council is not convinced that the submission from Upton Parish Council was made with full understanding of the options and does not believe that its views are shared by the three other parishes. It does support the statement regarding the strong identities of the four rural parishes and reiterates the strong social and business links of the villages with Southwell and the geographic nearness of these to Southwell and lack of such with each other, Upton and Halam being on opposite sides of Southwell for example.
Should a hinterland villages ward be created this could also potentially pose problems as the financial and transport issues may restrict the ability of individuals to stand for election.
The Town Council proposes of the retention of its three member ward with the boundaries covering the current urban and rural parts of Southwell and extended to include the parishes of Edingley, Halam, Hockerton.
This based on first hand impartial knowledge of the town and villages from people actually living in the immediate area and aiming to serve the people of the town and its villages and not merely juggle numbers.
CS v2 July 13
Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood The Council understands that one of the Boundary Commission’s main objectives is to ensure that each councillor represents approximately the same number of electors. However, a District Councillor in a rural area has a different job from one in a town. As an example the Ward Councillor for Sutton-on-Trent currently has 4 parishes with Parish Councils - Sutton-on-Trent, Carlton-On-Trent, Norwell and Weston. There is some commonality between the villages but each village also has its own unique problems. District Councillor Wards in Newark do not have any Parish Councils and are represent a concentrated geographical area where there is considerable commonality. Moreover there are 2 or sometimes 3 councillors in each ward. Nevertheless, with 8 fewer District Councillors, each councillor would need to represent around 500 more electors by 2019 than they do currently and the Council accepts that it would not be possible to retain the current boundaries of the Sutton-on-Trent Ward. The Council believes, however, that it is sensible for Sutton-on-Trent to be the core of a District Council ward – it is defined as a principal village in Newark and Sherwood District Council’s Core Strategy and residents of Weston, Grassthorpe and Carlton-on-Trent naturally look to Sutton-on-Trent for services such as the Primary School, doctor’s surgery, library and local shops. This is not true of Norwell which may have been included in the Sutton-on-Trent ward in an earlier electoral review to ‘make the numbers right’. The ward is bounded on the east by the river Trent and so the options available to enlarge the Sutton-on-Trent ward are: 1 to incorporate Laxton, Egmanton and Ossington 2 to include North Muskham and Ossington and to remove Norwell None of these villages have a natural connection with Sutton-on-Trent and so there is no reason to prefer one over the other. However, option 1 would involve the District Councillor in an additional Parish Council meeting (Laxton) whereas in option 2 the number of Parish Council meetings would remain the same (North Muskham instead of Norwell).
D Landon Clerk to Sutton-on-Trent Parish Council 9 July 2013 PS the electorate numbers are confusing because the 2 excel files that your website links to: n_and_s-proforma-130703; newark_and_sherwood_electorate_forecasts; contain different data.
Fuller, Heather
From: Waller, Matthew Sent: 24 July 2013 08:58 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Lynn Tolliday‐Jones Sent: 23 July 2013 21:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Newark and Sherwood
Good morning At the meeting of Bathley Parish Council on 10 July 2013 the Electoral review of Newark and Sherwood was discussed. At that time it was likely but had not been confirmed that Bathley would be affected by the proposals. The Parish Council are now aware that the proposed changes significantly affect Bathley I have been asked by Bathley Parish Council to point out in the strongest terms that they are unanimously against the proposal to separate Bathley from North and South Muskham. The villages are interlinked sharing facilities such as the churches, the community centre, and the the schools. Clubs like brownies, exercise classes and community events that take place at the community centre are attended by villagers from both villages and separation would be a huge blow to individual communities. Bathley Parish Council urgee th review to reconsider this proposal as being detrimental to the communities of Bathley and Muskham Regards Lynn Toliday‐Jones Clerk to Bathley Parish Council Sent from my iPad
1 Fuller, Heather
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 June 2013 15:11 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Newark and Sherwood Electoral Review Consultation - Upton Parish Council response
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
From: Catherine Millward [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 27 June 2013 15:00 To: Reviews@ Cc: Ian Johnson; David Jordan; Harris, Richard; Karen Aspley; Malcolm Yates; Theresa Pick; Peter Snow Subject: Newark and Sherwood Electoral Review Consultation - Upton Parish Council response
Dear Sirs,
Upton is the first village on the A612 to the east of Southwell. It has a population of around 430 people of all ages, of whom 337 are on the electoral roll. Currently it is part of the East Southwell electoral ward for Newark and Sherwood District Council (NSDC). We understand that the number of NSDC councillors is to be reduced from 46 to 38, and that this will almost certainly affect Upton’s position in the political ward map. We have been informed that several options are being discussed. It seems likely that, under the new system Southwell will either have three councillors, in which case some surrounding villages will be included, or two councillors, in which case villages such as ours will have to be incorporated into other wards.
In Upton there are no shops, post office or schools, just one public house. Villagers look to Southwell for services. For children, virtually all pre-schooling and more than 95% of state schooling is in Southwell. For the vast majority of villagers medical and dental care is based in Southwell. Local shopping is based there. With the A612 as the only road through Upton and the main road through Southwell, changes in traffic management affect both similarly. Even Southwell tourist attractions and events, such as the Workhouse and the annual folk festival are wholly or partly in Upton Parish. It must be clear that in terms of provision of service and social interaction there is tremendous commonality of interest. In the last three years there have been more families with children moving in to Upton than at any comparable time since the school closed more than 25 years ago. The village is alive and thriving, despite the lack of intrinsic services. This position can only be maintained if the links to Southwell remain.
Although we have, in general, been content with our position in East Southwell as a relatively small political part in a much larger town, there are obvious potential disadvantages. The possibility of the larger political dog ignoring the interests of its tail are self evident. Linkage with similar sized villages, with similar problems and opportunities would therefore have some attractions, particularly if those villages were clearly in the same position of symbiosis with Southwell as is Upton. Even then, the loss of any political input into Southwell through NSDC councillor representation could be too high a price to pay.
It is clear that because of the numbers of voters in each ward the current status quo cannot be maintained. Two types of solution have been mentioned to us by local politicians:
1 1. Southwell has three councillors. Two represent two wards forming the bulk of the town, with electorates of around 2500 each. The third councillor will represent ‘rural Southwell’, those villages immediately adjacent to the town, such as Upton, Halam, Halloughton, Normanton and perhaps others, to consist of around 1500 electors, together with the last 1000 electors in one of the peripheral parts of Southwell itself.
There is no doubt that this is our preferred option. It maintains the political link to Southwell, whilst also linking us to other similar villages. It is the most democratic option. It maintains appropriate influence in the decisions that affect the lives of the villagers.
2. Southwell has two councillors that represent 5000 electors in Southwell itself. The peripheral villages and part of the edge of the town are stripped away and redistributed within other wards or new groupings.
This would clearly not be our chosen option, for all of the reasons detailed above. However, if it was to be imposed upon the village, the groupings chosen are particularly important. We already have many social links with other villages along the Trent such as Rolleston, Morton and Fiskerton. For instance we make use of each other’s social facilities, village halls and so on. Also through the church; we have shared a vicar for very many years. These villages form a coherent group that also looks to Southwell in the same way that we do. Linking Upton to more distant villages, perhaps stretching towards Newark, would be a serious disadvantage to the village.
We believe that in any electoral boundary solution the prime driver must be democratic, that communities have influence where decisions are taken that will influence their lives. Any solution that joins Upton to villages that look towards Newark rather than Southwell does not fulfil that requirement.
Yours faithfully
Professor Ian Johnson
Chair, Upton Parish Council
2
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2
Newark and Sherwood District
Personal Details:
Name: Sandra Akerman
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Weston Parish Council
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.
Map Features:
Comment text: I am writing on behalf of the members of Weston Parish Council to express their desire for Weston to remain in the Sutton-on-Trent ward and thus retain the current District Councillor as the representative for Weston. Weston has a close affinity to the other villages within the current ward boundaries and in particular with Sutton-o-Trent itself being within both the school and doctor catchment areas. Having no facilities of its own within the village means that Weston also relies on the library, Post Office services and supermarket in Sutton via valuable transport links within this very rural area. District Councillor Rose has always supported Weston and the village needs, attends every Parish Council meeting and always provides a valuable input to the proceedings. Weston Parish Council believes that in changing ward boundaries and incorporating more villages into new wards will have a detrimental affect on the service and support rural villages receive from their District Councillor.
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2057 17/07/2013
Fuller, Heather
From: Sarah Tomlinson Sent: 09 July 2013 18:34 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Electoral review - Newark and Sherwood
Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged
Dear Lucy,
Thank you for the letter regarding a review of the new ward boundaries within Newark and Sherwood.
I have been asked to email you to advise that Winthorpe with Langford Parish Council welcomed this review but hoped that it would not be merged with any nearby newark town parishes as it was felt that they had no affinity to a village Parish such as ours.
Thanks again for the corresponce
Yours Sincerely
Sarah Tomlinson
1