Local Residents submissions to the Elmbridge Borough Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from surnames of residents from A and B
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 29 July 2015 09:20 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection Letter.
From: Paul Addison Sent: 28 July 2015 19:23 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I wish to object to the proposed local government boundary changes. My objections are as follows:
1. Burwood Park is closely associated with Hersham Village, not Oatlands Village. It is physically separated by a railway line. 2. Hersham is more of a rural area than Oatlands. The proposed new wards are therefore not orientated correctly. 3. Future planning issues involving Burwood Park could be considered in the context of the largely residential nature Oatlands, rather than the more rural context of Hersham Village. 4. The proposed boundary change results in a change in Parliamentary boundary from Esher and Walton to Weybridge and Runnymede.
Yours sincerely,
Paul Addison
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:43 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge boundaries
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mrs Angela R. Adler Sent: 24 August 2015 10:48 To: reviews
Dear Sirs
I strongly object to Summer Road, Gardens and Avenue being taken out of the East Molesey ward. We have absolutely no connection with with either Thames Ditton or Weston Green whichever one you lump us in with.
Angela Adler
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: melanie ager
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: n/a
Comment text:
Hello. I object to the proposal to reduce residents' access to consultation by reducing the number of ward councillors. I object to the amalgamation of ward Walton South with Walton Ambleside: these two areas have very different issues, and the amalgamation would water-down and even nullify by cancelling-out any meaningful consultation. The proposal is contrary to the ethics of a listening and consultative Council. Regards, Melanie Ager
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5486 03/07/2015
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 21 July 2015 11:47 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection Letter
From: Ferrie Al‐Chalabi Sent: 21 July 2015 08:57 To: reviews Subject: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes ‐ Objection Letter
Dear Review Officer,
For the past 35 years I have owned . This has been the home in which I have raised my family.
I am extremely concerned about the boundary changes that are being proposed for Burwood Park. Your proposal to move Burwood Park into Oatlands Park Ward not only contravenes Elmbridge Borough Council’s recommendations but also raises numerous issues. I am objecting to your proposal on the following grounds:
1) The proposed boundary changes move Burwood Park from an orientation to Hersham Village, to which it shares a postcode, to Oatlands, from which it is physically separated by a railway line 2) Burwood Park has an affinity with Hersham Village due to the rural nature of the community compared to Oatlands, which is a residential area with no natural centre. Residents of Burwood Park use the facilities of Hersham Village for shopping, the library, the doctor’s surgery and the Park lies within the parish of St Peter’s Church. The proposed new Wards are therefore not orientated correctly 3) There is a risk that future Burwood Park planning issues will be considered in a residential context rather than the rural environment, which exists today. The current Hersham orientated local councillors understand and fully support the interests of Burwood Park residents 4) The proposed boundary change to move Burwood Park into the Oatlands Ward, results in a change in parliamentary boundary ‐ from Esher and Walton to Weybridge and Runnymede. There are currently no Elmbridge Borough Wards across Parliamentary boundaries. This is a mis‐match, which other Wards do not suffer and will add complexity for residents to navigate and gain support for specific local issues.
I strongly urge you to re‐consider the boundary changes and retain Burwood Park and the surrounding roads in the Hersham Ward.
Ms Al‐Chalabi
This e-mail is confidential and/or legally privileged and is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Cantillon Capital Management LLC or any of its affiliates. In this regard, if you have received this
1 e-mail in error, please notify us by reply e-mail immediately and then delete this message from your system The information contained in this e-mail (and any document attached hereto) is confidential and is intended only for the use of the named addressee(s). Access, copying or re-use of the information in this e-mail (and any document attached hereto) by anyone else is unauthorised. Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Cantillon Capital Management LLP or any of its affiliates. If you are not the intended recipient please contact Cantillon Capital Management using the contact details. Cantillon Capital Management LLP is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority. ______This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service. For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com ______
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Heather Allen
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I object to the proposal to include the Lynwood Road estate in the Long Ditton ward, because this estate is in all respects part of the Hinchley Wood community. As a resident of the estate myself, my family uses the Hinchley Wood shops; we worship at St Christopher's Church, Hinchley Wood; and all three of my children have attended Hinchley Wood primary school and secondary school. We have no connections whatsoever with Long Ditton and it is therefore unreasonable to expect us to be represented by a councillor representing Long Ditton; indeed he or she could not do so adequately. If Hinchley Wood is to be merged with Weston Green ward, then clearly that is where our estate belongs, both geographically and in terms of community identity and proper electoral representation.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5868 17/08/2015 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 August 2015 16:59 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Review
From: Wanda Petrusewicz Sent: 11 August 2015 17:16 To: reviews
Subject: Boundary Commission Review
Dear Sir/Madam,
As Weston Green Residents we are writing in regard to the proposed Ward Boundary Changes in Elmbridge, most particularly the issue of including Lower Green in the proposed Hinchley Wood and Weston Green Ward.
We fully support this inclusion as in our view the communities of Lower Green and Weston Green are inseparable, sharing many links and local facilities.
We have lived in the area for nearly twenty years and have been especially involved with Cranmere School which all four of our children attended.
We have both been Parent Governors and Chairs of the PTA at Cranmere. Over the years both Committees have been made up of many parents resident in Weston Green; indeed, throughout its existence Cranmere School has served families from both communities and so the links are long‐standing and deep, not just on an educational level but also socially.
In addition the school has built up links with the Parish Church of Weston Green, All Saints – for example Harvest Festivals and Carol Concerts take place within the church.
Cranmere has played a very important role in making Weston Green and Lower Green a cohesive geographical area and with its relocation to Arran Way next year, it will be especially important to maintain that cohesion and community element.
Thank you for your consideration.
Yours faithfully
Wanda Petrusewicz-Allen and John Allen
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:46 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge: Objections to LGBCE proposals for Thames Ditton Ward
From: MIke Allport Sent: 23 August 2015 21:33 To: reviews
Elmbridge: Objections to LGBCE proposals for Thames Ditton Ward
Dear Sir/Madam
1. Because of historical Ward and Parish boundaries, as residents of we have always regarded Thames Ditton as the centre of our community. We look to services provided by St Nicholas Church, Giggs Hill Surgery, Thames Ditton Library, Community Centre, Vera Fletcher Hall and the Post Office. To cast us adrift from the heart of our community is surely contrary to the Commission’s aim to reflect community identity.
2. More importantly we would no longer be supported by a Residents Association Councillor on Elmbridge Council. (Long Ditton Residents Association does not put forward candidates in local elections). The Thames Ditton & Western Green Residents Association goes to great lengths to consult on local issues and to represent our views on the council. Without this option, and believing strongly that the main political parties cannot act in the best interests of communities at the local level, we would be disenfranchised by the current proposals.
3. Our suggestion is to retain the existing boundary for Thames Ditton Ward south of Portsmouth Road
Yours truely
Mike & Carol Allport
Y
1
Aug 22 2015
To the Review Officer (Elmbridge)
Local Government Boundary Commission
London EC-1M 5LG
Dear Sir,
Your draft recommendations regarding boundary changes in Elmbridge are generally to be commended as they apply to Hinchley Wood, particularly as the commission clearly saw the Council’s own proposal for the contemptuous folly that it was. You saw with your own eyes, and from the overwhelming negative responses from its residents, that Hinchley Wood is an established and vibrant community with one of the best village shopping areas in the country.
But in restoring some 80 per cent of the village’s boundaries to their existing locations you excluded Lynwood and merged Hinchley Wood with Weston Green, which I can only conclude is a sop to Elmbridge Council’s faux concerns about local government process.
1/ To take Lynwood first:
A glance at a street map of Hinchley Wood shows that it is geographically near the heart of the village. Hinchley Wood station is 200 metres away, via a footpath to the end of the platform. The shops are accessible 50 metres further on by the same route; Hinchley Wood school by a footbridge over the railway.
Vehicular access to Lynwood is indeed restricted to Lynwood Road to Claygate Lane where Long Ditton starts, but by no means does it have any natural or political affinity with Long Ditton, Weston Green or Thames Ditton. That is made clear by the high bank of the Woking to Waterloo railway line.
If you are looking for numbers to balance up your one size-fits-all ward boundary exercise you should look elsewhere, but not damage the contained viability and representational cohesion of the Hinchley Wood community.
2/ My second point is of much greater importance: By manipulating communities in this way Elmbridge Council - abetted by the Boundary Commission - has lost sight of the most fundamental reason for its existence as a local government: to serve its communities, not serve itself. To quote the commission’s own statement in its technical guidance, it intends to “start with a review with no pre-determined view of its outcome.”
But if, having been asked by Elmbridge Council to conduct a review, it had no pre- determined view at the start, it appeared quickly to gain one as the Working Group progressed its preparations. A big question arises as to how it ‘minded’ exactly the same number of councillors as the council majority did - 48.
I have read and re-read both Council and Commission reports in their entirely and still cannot determine how the specific figure of 48 councillors was reached. Council leader John O’Reilly told a council meeting in April, 2013, that 30 or 35 was ‘inappropriate’ given the council’s structure, and 51 or 53 members would raise the question’ why do it at all?’ “There is no way you can scientifically say ‘this is the right number’ and 48 therefore represented a good compromise between a measurable, but not insignificant, reduction from 60,” he said.
This is certainly not a ‘scientific’ right number but an arbitrary one based on an examination of the ‘evidence’ designed to produce business-like efficiencies. The council’s report refers to ‘streamlining services, decision-making and scrutiny, ‘a Strong Leader’ etc “The way a smaller council would operate,” says O’Reilly, “ would enable members to scrutinise effectively and through a smaller, more efficient Cabinet, we will get better decisions on services and that would provide tangible benefits.”
But no real specifics, not even ‘measurable’ evidence, just a Conservative ‘wish’ to reduce the size of the council. And no specifics as to how and why council operations are inefficient or wasteful and how those specific examples could be improved with 12 fewer councillors.
I have no doubt some money could be saved this way (one estimate I have heard is £50,000). But is the damage done to community identity and political turmoil worth that? And out of a budget of some £18 million that is not a large amount.
It is true that a lot has changed in 20 years, not only with the reduction in council housing, a reduction in the budget and moving highways to Surrey County Council but in communications that make physical presence at meetings less important and enable documents, messages and decisions to be made more easily. And I quite accept that most voters care little about the internal workings of Elmbridge Borough Council and possibly don’t even know how many local councillors represent them, who they are or what they do.
But that does not excuse the sloppy work that has gone into this exercise which has led hundreds and thousands of residents to be told they will likely soon live in a neighbouring village.
I say sloppy because closer examination of the Council’s ‘evidence’ – which the Boundary Commission has apparently accepted along with its 48-councillor size – leaves too many assumptions and questions unexamined.
The worst example regards the workload of Elmbridge’s councillors, which is so badly documented and presented in the report it reveals an attitude of at best incompetence and at worst unacceptable bias to suit the council majority’s own ends. Says one Council conclusion of the results of a workload questionnaire sent to all councillors: “Whilst not all 60 members responded, the Independent Remuneration Panel were satisfied that all councillors were given the opportunity to comment.”
This is pure public relations-speak. “While not all 60 members responded’ suggests there were only a negligible few who did not respond. It takes a reading of the several pages of Q&A in the questionnaire - giving an impression of detailed research - to discover that the responses range from SEVEN to 15. In other words at least 45 of the councillors did not respond at all.
What is this Independent Remuneration Panel anyway? I gather it is made up of non- involved citizens, but who are they? How did they come to be on the panel? How independent of the council and its members are they? What exactly did they study of this research?
We are not told.
The report does accept that: “due to the relatively low number of responses received out of the possible total of 60 the information is not wholly representative. However, it could be assumed that those not responding considered the level of work-load to be manageable.”
Assumed? Could it also be assumed that at least half of those 46 councillors ‘not responding’ did so because they were disgusted at the whole party-based operation, and the others did not think it would matter if they ignored it? Or could it even be that some of them were too busy to respond? Or could it be that, like a single flyer pushed anonymously through a door months before an election, nobody followed it up with each councillor to say “Please fill this in. It is important for Council credibility in the boundary commission process.”
As one who has had considerable experience investigating public policy and documentation over a number of years I would not accept this as evidence of the manageability or non-manageability of the councillors’ workload. Nor, I suspect, would any court of law. But you, the commission, appear to accept it as part of the reason to cut 12 councillors from the council.
In fact, looking forward, I think the workload could and should increase, based on local concerns. Planning is one area which has grown considerably as Elmbridge attracts more families moving out of London and properties are extended or rebuilt and every piece of vacant land is competed for. From personal knowledge councillors are being increasingly asked by the public for advice or comment on planning proposals, ranging from large school indoor sports facilities on Green Belt Land next to Telegraph Hill to advertising signs on main road roundabouts – including the heavily-used Scilly Isles.
A good argument can be made for at least returning road and path repairs to Elmbridge authority, and establishing increasingly-important cycle routes to local control. It is clear that Surrey County Council is far behind that of Kingston in both areas (with evidence from experience of the Olympics, and annual Ride London/Surrey bike races and the condition of my own road showing it),
You would have little idea of such workload trends from the council’s survey. 3/ Comparisons with other authorities are also questionable.
While you may be right about the councillor numbers in other nearby districts no evidence is provided as to direct comparisons with Elmbridge in any detail. Waverley Borough appears to the closest comparison in Surrey, though much larger in physical size. Its total population is similar; its largest town, Farnham, is a third smaller than Walton on Thames, but Weybridge is somewhat larger than Godalming etc. Significantly, however, Waverley’s numbers of electors per councillor voters are almost identical to Elmbridge, and its 57 councillors are only three fewer than those in Elmbridge.
There are no cries to change Waverley’s councillor numbers or boundaries that I am aware of.
One other comparable area I looked at was Basingstoke and Deane Borough Council, which also had 60 members and was examined by the Boundary Commission in 2007 apparently because it had a significant number of electoral variations greater than 10%.
After various proposals – one would reduce the number of Councillors by 50% - the public consultation process got to the third stage and 83 submissions before the Boundary Commission decided to have no change, that the council would stay at 60.
4/ Did the commission not question the appropriateness of the councillor assigned to oversee the boundary examination process, given his political affiliation, lack of personal experience as a family home-owner and lack of knowledge of wards such as Hinchley Wood?
5/ Variations in electoral representation are not an issue in Elmbridge.
According to your technical guidance the boundary commission steps in when there is ‘more than 30% of a council’s wards/divisions having an electoral imbalance of more than 10% from the average ratio of that authority.’
With only three out of 22 wards out the 10% variation compliance Elmbridge clearly is not out of ‘electoral imbalance.’ There is no evidence presented that shows the councillors in those three wards feel bullied or dominant by being in an electorally imbalanced ward. The only ward to remain outside the 10% variations level is Claygate, at -12%, and that is the one ward in the borough with parish councillors who, arguably, absorb some of ward’s borough councillors prelimary workload. Yet they retain three councillors.
The rules which prohibit the commission from considering parish councillors cannot be correct in terms of electoral representation.
Does the boundary commission then suggest other wards create parishes to enable them to drop significantly below the 6,000 voters per ward average and gain an acceptably large variance? This, presumably, would help Hinchley Wood to split from Weston Green, regain Lynwood and continue as now with two councillors.
6/ More worryingly is that the Boundary Commission declared it was ‘minded’ to agree to the council’s 48-members well before the start of its active work last April, and without making its own investigation as to whether that was a good number or not.
“Based on the evidence we received during previous phases of the review we consider that a reduction in council size by 12, to 48 members, will ensure the Council can perform its roles and responsibilities effectively.,” says the commission in its draft proposal. The evidence presented in the alternative Sadler and Residents Association proposals, says the commission, was not as good as that provided by the council. (I believe one kept the number at 60, the other reduced it to 54).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
1/ That given the questionable quality of the evidence, as discussed in part here, the commission is in no position to conclude that 48 is the right number of councillors for Elmbridge or not and that the consequent boundary changes proposed will cause unacceptable disruption and damage to community identity for too many voters.
2/ That the number of Elmbridge councillors should remain at 60, at least until the commission restarts its work from the beginning – with full input and transparency from all councillors and public.
3/ That Lynwood should be returned to Hinchley Wood.
4/ That Weston Green should not be joined to Hinchley Wood.
5/ That if the separation results in too few electors in Hinchley Wood an area of Long Ditton which was part of Hinchley Wood until a boundary change in 2000 should be returned. With return of the whole area taken in 2000 Hinchley Wood should thus have three councillors
A natural boundary between Hinchley Wood and Long Ditton runs along Orchard Avenue from the railway line in the north to the allotments/Hinchley Wood school playing fields in the south, and includes Dene Gardens, Manor Dene Court, Greenwood Rd, and Greenwood Close.
6/ That Hinchley Wood, Long Ditton, Thames Ditton, Weston Green and East Molesey continue as they are under 60 councillors, and that variations greater than 10% be accepted as necessary (they will still account for less than 30% of the total.)
7/ That the number of councillors in these five wards can be different from those elsewhere in the borough in order to confirm a different election pattern.
8/ That the principle of elections by thirds be maintained in order to ensure regular annual elections that keep local voters interested and involved in their communities.
9/ That the commission accepts local government exists to serve communities and not the other way round. There is no compulsive evidence to change council numbers or boundaries, The best advice to the Boundaries Commission is: “IF IT AIN’T BROKE DON’T FIX IT!”
Sincerely Yours,
Peter Almond
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:45 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Thames Ditton boundary changes
From: Andy Anderson Sent: 23 August 2015 22:54 To: reviews
I wish to object to the proposed changes to the Thames Ditton electoral boundaries.
The Thames Ditton ward has existed in its present form for many decades. It has a high degree of social cohesion and a real sense of community. The proposed changes to exclude various roads in the ward would be divisive and serve no social purpose.
Yours faithfully,
J A Anderson
1 18th August 2015
We are writing to object to the proposal to change the boundary of the Esher ward, of Elmbridge Borough Council.
The proposal is to cut off from Esher the Lower Green community which has been part of the Esher ward at least since the establishment of Elmbridge Borough Council in 1974.
The Esher Residents Association raised funds and supported the building of the Community Centre in Lower Green. Most of Lower Green is in the bounds of the parish of Christ Church Esher and has many regular church goers in the community.
The nearest shopping centre for those living in Lower Green is obviously Esher. Although the railway line divides Lower Green from Esher there are two vehicle crossing points and a pedestrian one, and the local bus service goes directly into Esher town centre.
The proposal is that part of Hersham is joined to part of Esher. Hersham is vibrant community in its own right and is some distance from Esher and the other side of the River Mole. There is no natural sharing of facilities with Esher as there is with Lower Green. Esher and Hersham are very different types of communities and are unlikely to share the idea of what their local councillor should represent.
The current Elmbridge administration, in their submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission, argued that the railway line formed a natural boundary to the Esher ward. The River Mole is a much more established boundary and has only one crossing from Esher to Hersham.
We believe that, to maintain social cohesion and an integrated community, Lower Green should remain in the Esher Ward and that the best way of achieving this is to support the Draft Recommendations of the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.
Christine and Michael Andrews Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 August 2015 16:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objecton to LGBCE propsals for Thames Ditton (Elmbridge Council)
From: Sarah Archer Sent: 13 August 2015 14:42 To: reviews
I am writing to object tot the boundary change for Thames Ditton Ward. The proposal to remove all residents on the CB register on the roads east of the Portsmouth Road to Long Ditton ward would divorce them from the Thames Ditton ward, parish and community of which they have been a part since 1100 AD. This is contrary to one of the main boundary commissions considerations to reflect community identity
The Thames Ditton ward's boundary has included the roads east of the Portsmouth road since the first local council (the Esher & the Dittons Urban District Council) was established in 1895. As a resident in one of these roads Residents I look to Thames Ditton as the centre of my community for shops, doctors, schools, village hall (now Vera Fletcher Hall), St. Nicholas Church, village green (Giggs Hill Green) Thames Ditton Centre for the Community, Girl Guides etc. Thames Ditton ward councillors respond to local residents re: improving/campaigning for High Street shops, doctors' services, leisure services eg. at Giggs Hill Green. Giggs Hill Green is Thames Ditton's village green, Thames Ditton Cricket Club has played on the green since 1833 and the houses round the Green have always formed part of Thames Ditton. It is now proposed to move all those on one side of the Green into Long Ditton. There is an active Residents' Association for the whole of Thames Ditton and Weston Green. The community magazine “Thames Ditton Today” and website serves the whole of the existing Borough wards of Thames Ditton and Weston Green.
By removing myself and hundreds of other electors from the Thames Ditton ward based organisation which is represented by Thames Ditton and Weston Green Residents , it diminishes community involvement in the democratic process and causes confusion as to who we should lobby for local issues such as parking, shopping, services. This is in contrast to the Boundary consideration to provide 'effective and conventional local government'. I voted for the residents association in my local election and want to be represented by them, not another council candidate.
I hope you will consider my objection seriously and consider the individual residents involved as people rather than a line on a piece of paper that needs to be tidied for the sake of bureaucracy.
Regards
Sarah Archer
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 August 2015 16:58 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Ward Boundary Changes.
From: Pam Arnold Sent: 09 August 2015 11:24 To: reviews
I, Mrs Pamela Arnold of . Agree with Council revise Plans.
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 August 2015 16:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge Electoral Review - Objection: Proposals for Thames Ditton Ward
From: Veronica Ashcroft Sent: 12 August 2015 22:53 To: reviews
Dear Sir
Residents of the existing Thames Ditton ward celebrate their strong and historic community identity.
Far from “reflecting” this identity, proposals set out by the Boundary Commission would fracture this unity, and destroy the sense of community that has built up over centuries. The schools and doctors’ practices, St Nicholas Church, Giggs Hill Green, the Vera Fletcher Hall and The Thames Ditton Centre currently provide vibrant centres for community life for residents in the whole of the current ward.
The 940 electors on the south eastern side of the Portsmouth Road identify themselves with Thames Ditton, as much as those living to the north west of the A307 and around the village centre. We are all very effectively and knowledgeably served by our local Residents’ Association Councillors. Combining any Thames Ditton residents with Long Ditton would lessen, rather than enhance their "electoral equality”.
I strongly oppose the new boundary proposals.
Regards
Veronica Ashcroft Resident of Thames Ditton
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 July 2015 08:42 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: support for Elmbridge boundary to be moved behind the Hersham library premises.
From: Nicole Aston Sent: 18 July 2015 09:44 To: reviews Subject: support for Elmbridge boundary to be moved behind the Hersham library premises.
Hi
I am writing to show my support for the Elmbridge boundary to be moved behind the Hersham library premises.
I am a mum of 2 young girls and we use the library regularly. Its a great walking distance from our house and our girls love going to get books out and attending school holiday events. The staff are friendly and helpful.
Its such a small move to the boundary, surely it can be accommodated?
Thank you for your time
Kind regards Nicole
1
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:44 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge - objection to Thames Ditton proposal
From: Phil Atkins Sent: 23 August 2015 23:22 To: reviews
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to voice my objection to the proposed boundary change which will force me join the Long Ditton Ward.
As a resident of Thames Ditton I feel my community identity is aligned to the Ward of Thames Ditton and not Long Ditton. I wholeheartedly disagree this historic link being removed for the sake of bureaucratic convenience.
Currently there is an on-going dispute relating to the proposed installation of a 24 hour storage facility. The support of the Thames Ditton Conservation Area Advisory Committee has been invaluable to the residents of Angel Road in this respect. There is no such committee in Long Ditton which would be able to offer us such protection.
I urge you to reject this proposal in order to preserve a long-standing and important link to the Ward I consider to be my community. kind regards,
Phil Atkins
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 August 2015 17:03 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objection to LGBCE proposals for THAMES DITTON (ELMBRIDGE)
-----Original Message----- From: Rowena Austin Sent: 10 August 2015 09:37 To: reviews
I object most strongly to the proposed removal of a section of Thames Ditton village from the Thames Ditton ward. These streets have been an integral part of the community for hundreds of years. By taking this wedge of Thames Ditton away it will then be replaced by removing a wedge from another area to make up our numbers. What a complete waste of time and tax payers money. The main issue though, it makes no sense to remove these streets from Thames Ditton when that is where their identify is and the village they support wholeheartedly through schools, clubs, local shops and community activities. Do not just look at a map come and see the area to understand why residents wish the original boundaries to remain. Thank you
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Ulla Baagoe
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
On Council size: A) Recommendations based on: A) Historic reductions in EBC services/FT staff compliment only, while future planning including customer-focused/smart city/digital service transformation (1. advancing towards personalised services; 2. insight-driven operations; 3. a public entrepreneur mindset; 4 a cross-agency commitment to mission productivity) not covered. B) Annual elections by thirds cycle. This could be/should be changed to a whole council election every 4 years based on a broader and representative referendum model, as the decision taken on a very narrow basis. As the recommended number of 48 members is based on having to be divisible by three, this could/should also be changed. C)The evidence and analysis on the workload for members is too weak and generalised to reflect the actual workload of council members - with 2014/15 based on 15 member questionnaires only. This roughly reflects the individual council members' individual pages on the EBC website, with a great number of councillors not providing information on their current concerns, annual work programme and achievements/outcome/results. In summary, a more robust work load analysis should be required. Also the number of members on the Local Spending Boards (a.o.) seems to be inflated and unnecessarily high. D) Insufficient/absence of pro-active/interactive customer research/reviews, the public's (representing age groups etc) view of council members' performance/EBC service performance. As presented, focus is on a) convenience for council members in fulfilling their roles as elected councillors; and b) EBC staff having been provided with iPads to check their e-mails/access websites. A future perspective of customer focus of council member and EBC service delivery incorporating the points made above under A) 1. advancing towards personalised services; 2. insight-driven operations; 3. a public entrepreneur mindset; 4. a cross-agency commitment to mission productivity not covered in terms of customer service and results. Conclusion: While it is difficult to assess the right number of elected councillors on the basis of the information given, it would be recommended to review the case based on the above points and consider/provide an alternative scenario/option with best practice examples from other areas than the other Surrey borough councils, with for instance 2 councillors per ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5858 13/08/2015
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 28 July 2015 08:40 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Library
From: Jackie Sent: 27 July 2015 15:50 To: reviews
I feel that it would be a great shame if Hersham library is closed if the boundary is changed. The staff at the library are extremely helpful and the library does wonderful things for children and is also a place for pensions to go.
J. Balding
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 02 September 2015 16:20 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hinchley Wood Boundary review
From: Darren Barber Sent: 02 September 2015 14:03 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam,
I have just been told about the boundary review which affects my property, so I would like this view considered.
I currently fall under the Hinchley Wood ward boundary. Apparently there are proposals to move my property/estate into the Long Ditton ward, which I do not agree with for the following reasons:
1. GEOGRAPHY We live very close to Hinchley Wood shops and schools, closer even than many residents & roads which are proposed to stay in the Hinchley Wood ward. We are 0.25miles to the shops/station, and 0.3miles to the school. If you view our estate on a map, you will see “as the crow flies” our houses are very close to Hinchley Wood station and shops. And we are joined to the heart of that community via a series of paths and fields. The train lines are not boundaries for us as there are paths and bridges directly behind our house to the shops and school running alongside the trainline. These are quick, direct links that join us directly to the heart of the Hinchley Wood community, and we use them daily to commute, shop and take our children to school.
We are 0.9miles from Long Ditton shops, and 1 mile from Long Ditton Infants. That is nearly 4 times further away from us than Hinchley Wood.
2. COMMUNITY On that basis, we consider ourselves a part of the Hinchley Wood community, which you state is a vital part of the decision process. We use all areas of community life: Hinchley Wood station twice daily to commute; Hinchley Wood Primary School is our daughters’ school and our main catchment; Hinchley Wood shops are used for all our day to day supplies; our dentist is next to the station; we are members of Hinchley Wood Residents Association; my wife is a class representative for Hinchley Wood Primary School and meets regularly with parents at Hinchley Wood shops for parents meetings. We are supportive of St Christopher’s church and HW school events and have been to many. The school and nursery have established our network of friends, who all live in Hinchley Wood ward. Hinchley Wood is our community.
We have zero community connection with Long Ditton, not the shops, not the schools, no events and no friends live in that area.
3. COUNCILLOR REPRESENTATION We are an easy area to represent. We are relatively self‐contained, have our own Residents Association as well as many being members of Hinchley Wood Residents Association, and the estate layout means it is easy 1 for a councillor to meet and greet the community quickly. On that basis, we would say we are no trouble, and easily manageable by the Hinchley Wood war councillors.
We have no relationship with Long Ditton, and would feel unrepresented and disconnected from that ward if the change was made. Any ward discussions or decisions related to Long Ditton would have no relevance to us, and we would effectively be being asked to be governed by ward councillors with no connection to our area or community.
In summary, we consider ourselves in the heart of the Hinchley Wood community, using and supporting all the local facilities and businesses.
Please reconsider the boundary recommendation on that basis, and re‐include Lynwood Road and attached roads to the Hinchley Wood ward boundary proposals.
Regards,
Darren Barber
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not copy or deliver this message to anyone. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer does not consent to email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of Group M Worldwide LLC and/or other members of the GroupM group of companies shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it. GroupM is the global media investment management arm of WPP. For more information on our business ethical standards and Corporate Responsibility policies please refer to WPP's website at http://www.wpp.com/WPP/About/
2
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Philip Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I understand that in your proposals for the reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors you have suggested moving my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I want to register my opposition to that change. It seems obvious to me that our interests are much closer aligned to Weybridge town itself and the new Weybridge Riverside ward . St Georges on the other hand is separated by a railway line and has an entirely different community, and has entirely different ward issues. 23/8/15 Mr Philip Barnes
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5919 24/08/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Sue Barnes
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I understand that in your proposals for the reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors you have suggested moving my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I want to register my opposition to that change. It seems obvious to me that our interests are much closer aligned to Weybridge town itself and the new Weybridge Riverside ward. St Georges on the other hand is separated from us by a railway line, has an entirely different community, and has entirely different ward issues. I hope the views of the residents here are taken into account. Mrs Sue Barnes, 23/8/15
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5918 24/08/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Martin Barrell
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
We live in which is currently in Hersham South but is proposed to be in the new Oatlands Park and Burwood Park Ward. We live in Hersham, in that you pass a welcome to Hersham sign on the way to our house, we have a Hersham postal address and Hersham village centre and shops are a short walk away. The local polling station is situated in Hersham village and it would be inconvenient to have to travel further to vote. Oatlands - the other half of the new ward - is separated from Hersham by the railway line and has always beenn associated with Weybridge. Overall it seems this new ward which we would be part of is made up of leftovers from Hersham and Weybridge and is not a natural fit. Finally Oatlands is in a different parliamentary constituency to ours and surely it would be better to have alignment of boundaries.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5805 06/08/2015 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 30 July 2015 17:50 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham, Surrey - Boundary Review
From: thomas barth Sent: 30 July 2015 16:44 To: reviews
Dear Sirs We are writing to object to the proposed boundary changes We live at
We have always considered our house to be part of the Hersham area It is in the Hersham area There is a natural boundary between Hersham and Oatlands, namely the railway line The nearest shops are in Hersham. The village green is in Hersham The village hall is in Hersham Oatlands - where we used to live for some11 years - is completely distinct from Hersham, having its own shops and village green We have been well served by our local counsellors in Hersham We understand that you have received many other objections and we agree with all of therm and re-iterate all their objections in ours We do not want to be part of the Oatlands area Yours sincerely Tom & Muriel Barth
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Neil Bates
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I think whilst the decisions are tough to make, it is for a good reason. Good luck in your recommendation. I support it. I think any arguments around fit for a ward will stifle change and growth in an area and should be dismissed.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5861 13/08/2015
Tel.: e-mail:
28th. July 2015 Review Officer (Elmbridge), Layden House, 76-86 Turmill Street, London EC1M 5LG
Dear Sir, Elmbridge Boundary Change Proposals Review Further to the recent issue of your proposals that show revisions to those originally put forward by Elmbridge B.C.. The fundamental change which essentially retains the unity of the Hinchley Wood community, albeit as a joint ward with Weston Green, is welcomed. However, there still remain concerns about the proposal for the Lynwood Road residential area to be merged into the Long Ditton Ward. It may be true that the directional alignment of Lynwood Road is towards Long Ditton, but it is also a fact that the residential area is relatively close to the heart of Hinchley Wood, to which there are well used pedestrian footpath links to Manor Road North, via a footbridge over the railway line, and secondly, alongside the rail line to Hinchley Wood station & shopping area. Many residents in this area are very active members within the Hinchley Wood community. It is appreciated that you are targeting an even balance of electors across wards, however this area does not comprise a significantly large electorate. I question whether any imbalance created by inclusion of this area in the Hinchley Wood/Weston Green ward as already proposed would be problematic and I suggest that the factors outlined above merit the retention of this section of our community within the Hinchley Wood/Weston Green ward and that this should be without forfeit of any other area of Hinchley Wood. A further consideration in addition to the above is that sited on Lynwood Road are The Hinchley Wood Scout & Guide headquarter facilities, the Hinchley Wood allotments and a major children’s recreation area which is used by families from across Hinchley Wood, which is immediately accessed from Manor Road North via the footbridge rail crossing. This all adds weight for the retention of the Lynwood Road area in the Hinchley Wood/Weston Green ward. All of these have received excellent support and backing from our Hinchley Wood councillors over many years. Should they become part of the Long Ditton ward then there is real risk of a weakening of this back-up and support due to conflict of claim by duplication with parallel facilities in Long Ditton. Notwithstanding the original suggestion that the whole of the Lynwood Road area should be retained as part of the Hinchley Wood/Weston Green ward, should the Boundary Commission not accede to this then a compromise solution might be achieved by setting the boundary line in such a way that the Scout/Guide HQ, allotments, and recreation area remain in Hinchley Wood. This could be achieved without impacting on the strength of the ward electorate. Yours faithfully,
Don Beardshall
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Michael & Sally Behan
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: N/A
Comment text:
I understand that in your proposals for the reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors you have suggested moving my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I want to register my opposition to that change. It seems obvious to me that our interests are much closer aligned to Weybridge Town itself and the new Weybridge Riverside ward. St Georges on the other hand is separate from us by a railway line, has an entirely different community, and has entirely different ward issues. Michael & Sally Behan
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5906 24/08/2015
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:50 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Ward boundary draft recommendations Elmbridge
From: Karen Bimson Sent: 23 August 2015 09:07 To: reviews
Dear Sir, We are writing to oppose the suggested merger of Lynwood and Woodfield Road with Long Ditton Ward on the grounds that it most definitely does not reflect the interest and identity of the local community.
Having resided at for 25 years we feel strongly that all community links are with Hinchley Wood. When studying the map of the area it is quite clear that the proposed boundary is not easily identifiable, with pathways leading to the railway station, local shops and surgeries, schools, Church, scout and guide groups and recreation ground all within Hinchley Wood!
Over the years our children have attended both Hinchley Wood schools, Rainbows, Brownies and Guides.As a family we have attended St. Christopher's Church, singing in the choir for 9 years. Hinchley Wood station is where we begin our journey to London daily. Local shops visited are in Station Approach- never in Long Ditton. There are several community groups operating in Hinchley Wood (Mother's Union, Women's Wednesday Fellowship, Residents Association to name but a few). The local library is also situated in the proposed Hinchley Wood and Weston Green ward.
Taking the decision to link the Lynwood Road development with Long Ditton in order to represent an equal number of people cannot be in the best interests of the voting public.We have spoken to our present local councillors on many occasions and have always been able to rely on them to represent local concerns. We will not be able to have the same faith in new councillors who know nothing of community concerns in Lynwood and Woodfield road,which will be stuck out on a limb at the edge of their ward,
We would urge you to reconsider your recommendation and keep us part of the community of Hinchley Wood . Yours Faithfully, Gareth and Karen Bimson. .
1
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 August 2015 15:58 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Proposals - Objection re/Thames Ditton
From: Tricia Welch Sent: 24 August 2015 17:33 To: reviews
Dear Sir/Madam
I am writing to object to the Government’s Boundary Commission proposals to re‐draw the boundary of Thames Ditton with the intention of moving 940 Thames Ditton residents, who have always been members of the Thames Ditton community, into the Long Ditton Ward. The majority of those affected are extremely unhappy with the proposals which will mean they will no longer have the opportunity to be represented by Thames Ditton Residents’ Association Councillors. Many of those in the affected roads are incensed by this as they feel that they are being forcibly disenfranchised; at present they have no opportunity to vote for a Resident Association Councillor in the Long Ditton area.
There are many reasons why I am unhappy with the proposal to re‐draw the Thames Ditton boundary, but the key objection, is that I do not agree with the decision to reduce the number of Elmbridge councillors from 60 to 48, as this has led to the process of re‐drawing ward boundaries in Elmbridge as a whole. This unnecessary ‘decision’ has already proved extremely costly and time consuming and will result in communities being ripped apart for no good reason. The Boundary Commission states that “wards should reflect the interests and identities of local communities and that electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government,” but this aim has been ignored in the case of Thames Ditton. In particular I would like to draw attention to Giggs Hill Green, Thames Ditton’s much loved village green, and how the new boundary proposals will affect this. All of the houses surrounding the Green, extending to Angel Road and on to Thorkhill Road, are an integral part of Thames Ditton village, yet the BC proposal is recommending to move all the houses on one side of the Green into Long Ditton which makes no logical sense at all. It is an absurd suggestion.
I would urge you to reconsider this proposal and to leave the 940 residents where they are, in Thames Ditton, where they have been for centuries. This is vital to preserve our community identity and to ensure these residents are able to continue to be able to participate in the democratic process, enjoying representation by the Thames Ditton & Weston Green Residents’ Association.
I do hope you will be guided by the strength of local feeling and sensible argument and leave the Thames Ditton community intact so it may continue to thrive and prosper as a united, coherent ward grouping.
Thank you for taking the time to read my email.
Yours sincerely,
Tricia W. Bland
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 04:03 PM To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge Council resorting to "Gerry Mandering" to have the right kind of wards
From: chas blandy Sent: 21 August 20 To: reviews
Electoral Review of Elmbridge
I strongly object to what is being planned breaking up the old wards that have served the local residents well over the years. It is a akin to the boundary commission suggesting parts of Yorkshire should now go into Lancashire. Here the same is happening this time by Elmbridge Council. These wards are different and have different identities. Is Weston Green address now to be changed from Thames Ditton to Hinchley Wood! Why break something up that works. It is going completely against the local interests and common sense.
Elmbridge Council says it's to save money. There are some savings but not much. After this is done…. expenses I expect will be increased....the amount that can be claimed as more travelling for the councillors. This should be part of a play as you could not make it up! What about the reserves the council has? More could be saved if it sorted out the pension shortfalls and changed the council pensions to money purchase ones for all new employees. This is what needs to be done urgently if not already done. It is just “Smoke and Mirrors” with the ward changes. That is why it amounts to ‘Gerry Mandering’ at a local level. The majority conservative party is doing this to suit themselves and to ensure the ward changes are weighted towards them in the future. Why target independent wards in the main. This is just ‘Gerry Mandering’ at the local level in a big way.
You wonder why people get sick and tired of the big parties riding over the locals and their interests. The local MP was parachuted into the seat by the national party. No locals were even considered for the shortlist. He had no prior interests or connection to the area. Now he endorses what is being proposed. Obviously a supporter of ‘Gerry Mandering’. He should have known better and kept out of it. He obviously just now wants to represent the select few. Locals will not forget this...... mark my words!
Lastly the Elmbridge committee looking into the ward changes is heavily weighted to the party in power and not representing all. The review should have been done completely independently and void of all party politics. The majority party at the council is just riding over the local interests through ‘Gerry Mandering’. Mark my words, this will leave a stain on the careers of those involved and bad feelings towards the council itself...... for years to come. The locals will not forget. Locals should be the driving force at the local level …….not national parties through Gerry Mandering.
So let’s avoid this and let the locals have their say and not be dictated by a few and national parties now resorting to ‘Gerry Mandering’ to push through their own interests locally.
PS I seriously doubt whether the Council has shown ‘Duty of Care’ throughout. If it cannot meet any Judical Review and Audit that is asked of them, heads should roll. Not just token ones but those right at the top!
Martin Blandy
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 August 2015 17:04 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: boundary commission review Weston Green and Lower Green
From: CLAIRE BLETCHER Sent: 09 August 2015 17:57 To: reviews
To: The Review Officer (Elmbridge)
From: Claire Bletcher
I would like to fully support the proposal that the larger Hinchley Wood and Weston Green Ward includes Lower Green, north of the railway line.
I have lived in Lower Green Road since 1982 and have always regarded Weston Green as my local area. I would be very concerned if I no longer had the opportunity to influence what happens in this area.
Historically, my children went to Thames Ditton first and middle schools (as they then were) and then to Hinchley Wood and Esher College. The links between these areas are very strong and also feel entirely natural geographically. I meet many of my neighbours as we walk across the common to the shops on Hampton Court Way and I feel completely part of that community.
Please do not separate us from these important links to our community and local parish.
Yours sincerely,
Claire Bletcher
1
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 August 2015 15:57 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge Electoral Review- Proposed change to Thames Ditton Ward: OBJECTION
From: stefano boggiani [ ] Sent: 24 August 2015 19:18 To: reviews
Dear Sir / Madam,
We the undersigned wish to raise an objection to the proposal to move us from the Thames Ditton ward and into Long Ditton.
Thames Ditton is an ancient parish with very strong community ties. Part of that sense of identity / closeness is our voting ward. It is the strong small communities which rely less on Government and Local Councils. As a result they make a valuable and significant contribution to the 'Big Society' that is expounded by national politicians! Thames Ditton is one such community.
We overlook Giggs Hill Green - 'our' village green. Long Ditton may not be geographically far away but its community is. Long Ditton has, no doubt, its own sense of community - so do we in Thames Ditton.
- We value our small community. - We value our local shops and local services. - We value our neighbours, and friends who live across the Green. - We value our community magazine, our website and Residents Association. - We value our Councillors. - We value our Ward.
We do consider it sharpe practice to end a consultation period during the summer holiday! We may be considered 'small beer' in the grand scheme of things but beware, to quote a current politician who once said ''do not underestimate the determination of a quiet man' . We would add that he / she has a vote!!!
Finally we did not receive any information from the Boundary Commission/ Council directly. We would have appreciated an individually addressed communication informing us and detailing this change- it is a common courtesy.
1 Please take a look at our statistics re: crime and payment of taxes for example. We implore you not to 'fix' what is not broken. We are a community - we are Thames Ditton; in which we wish to remain.
Yours faithfully,
Stefano Boggiani Mrs Maria Miles (Boggiani).
2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: James Bowles
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I understand that in your proposals for the reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors you have suggested moving my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I want to register my opposition to that change. It seems obvious to me that our interests are much closer aligned to Weybridge town itself and the new Weybridge riverside ward. St Georges on the other hand is separated from us by a rail line, and has an entirely different community and has entirely different ward issues.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5908 24/08/2015
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:44 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: HERSHAM WARD BOUNDARY CHANGES- OBJECTION LETTER
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Danny Boyle Sent: 23 August 2015 23:39 To: reviews
Attn. The Review Officer ‐ Elmbridge‐
We wish to register our concerns about the proposed changes to the Hersham Ward.
Burwood Park is much closer, geographically and in the usage of local facilities and services, to Hersham Village. We wish to retain the rural classification of Burwood Park‐ Oatlands is primarily residential. We do not believe that it makes sense to move us across parliamentary boundaries.
We wish to remain fully served and represented by Elmbridge Borough Council.
Danny and Gayling Boyle,
‐‐‐ This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 August 2015 16:59 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Major Objection to LGBCE proposals for Thames Ditton (Elmbridge Council)
From: Guy Bracewell Sent: 11 August 2015 12:19 To: reviews
To whom it may concern,
I wish it to be known that as a resident of Thames Ditton of over 25 years, I totally reject any necessity alter the boundaries unless these are for genuine humanitarian reasons.
Please ensure any decision is a democratic one and is based upon the genuine transparent facts presented to all residents in person.
Thank you, -- Guy Bracewell
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 04 August 2015 09:44 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary Commission: Objection to Proposals for Thames Ditton Ward
From: Jonathan Branson Sent: 03 August 2015 16:55 To: reviews
To the Review Officer
I am writing to formally lodge my strong objection to the Boundaries Commission´s proposal to re‐set the boundary for the Thames Ditton ward.
I live in Thames Ditton which is one of the proposed streets to transfer into the Long Ditton ward under the current proposals. We moved to Thames Ditton over 13 years ago having been inspired by the strong community values which are well renowned throughout Surrey. Over the years we have contributed significantly to supporting the local businesses, events and amenities within the village and are extremely proud of our involvement in the community. Thames Ditton is a unique part of Surrey and the associations and friendships we have formed here are down to the fact that the Village creates a culture of belonging which helps to shape how we engage, communicate and support our neighbourhood.
You will no doubt recall Prime Minister David Cameron's Speech in 2009 about embracing the Big Society where he advocated the need for local people and neighbourhoods to feel free and powerful enough to help themselves and their own communities and not to rely on local authorities and central government for all the answers. Well the Thames Ditton people have stepped up and embraced community empowerment and social action and continue to work as a strong united team. What is being proposed now by the Boundary Commission is a clear example of micromanagement from a government established quango. Coincidently everything which the Big Society vision was vehemently opposed to encourage.
Following on the ideology of the Big Society we have supported the re‐election of the Thames Ditton and Weston Green Residents Association since being resident in the area as they are extremely proactive, effective and considered part of the political fabric of Thames Ditton. It is not unreasonable to state we do not feel this level of association with Long Ditton or its political charges!
I would be deeply alarmed if the Boundary Commission did not listen to the voices of the Thames Ditton residents and reconsider its proposals to ostracise those who have contributed for so long towards making the community what it is today.
Yours sincerely
Jonathan Branson
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 August 2015 12:41 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objection: Proposals for Thames Ditton Ward
-----Original Message----- From: Melanie Branson Sent: 03 August 2015 12:40 To: reviews
To whom it may concern
I have been a resident of Thames Ditton for the last 13 years. I lived on and currently I'm living on .
Firstly, I was not consulted or informed of such changes to the boundaries within TD. The first I heard of it as well as my neighbours was only one week ago.
Secondly, I object to the changes and feel quite strongly against being forced to join the Long Ditton ward. I have no affiliation what so ever with Long Ditton. I have however, supported the local community, businesses within TD such as the High St., restaurants, Collets Health Club, hair dressers, Vera Fletcher Hall, transportation, my doctors surgery is in TD. Etc...
Lastly, I have supported the TD Residents Assoc. for the last 13 years, and I believe they represent the local people of TD with our best interests at heart. There is a great community spirit here and fantastic camaraderie. By Changing the boundaries I would feel ostracised from the community that I am so proud to be part of.
Regards, Melanie Branson
Sent from my iPad
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:44 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objection to LGBCE proposals for Thames Ditton (Elmbridge Council)
From: Karen Brazier Sent: 24 August 2015 07:21 To: reviews
For the Attention of the Review Officer
I am writing to object to the Boundary Commissions’ proposal to re‐set the boundary for the Thames Ditton ward.
The homes on those roads affected by the Boundary Commission’s proposal form a valued and integral part of the Thames Ditton community. Their residents attend the Thames Ditton Infant and Junior Schools, contributing to them being thriving and popular schools, and they are active members of many other clubs and groups in Thames Ditton such as the tennis and cricket clubs, the library and Residents Association.
Giggs Hill Green is Thames Ditton’s village green and all the houses surrounding it feel part of our Thames Ditton community. Over many years, the families living in them have played an important role in making Thames Ditton the fantastic community it is today. I urge you to listen to the voices of the Thames Ditton residents and to reconsider your proposal.
Kind regards Karen Brazier
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 July 2015 08:42 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection letter
From: Caroline Bridges Sent: 17 July 2015 19:10 To: reviews Subject: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes ‐ Objection letter
For the attention of:
The Review Officer (Elmbridge) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sirs
Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection letter
I understand that the Local Government Boundary Commission are recommending that Burwood Park, where I live, be removed from the revised Hersham Village ward and combined with Oatlands Park.
I should like to register my objection to this and would ask that it be reviewed. I have lived in Burwood Park with my family for 25 years and we consider ourselves to be part of the Hersham Village community which would come as no surprise as our home is closest to Hersham as a centre then anywhere else. The local library and the parish church of St Peter's, Hersham serves us and we shop daily in the Hersham Centre. Our GP surgery is in Hersham as it was designated to us when we moved here. It seems unthinkable that we would consider Oatlands Park to be our new ward when we both personally, and as residents of Burwood Park, affiliate ourselves with Hersham and have done so for a quarter of a century. Furthermore, some years ago, our postal district was amended slightly registering Burwood Park as being in Hersham and not Walton on Thames as previously - the Park has never been viewed as part of Oatlands and therefore Weybridge.
The Boundary Commission is by its very name, looking at boundaries and in this instance, the natural boundary between Burwood Park and Oatlands Park is the main South West train line to London and the south. Sir Richards Bridge crosses this line before the main entrance to Burwood Park and the sign confirming that one is entering Hersham. At no point does Oatlands Park cross the railway and there is a very clear separation between us. Logic would seem to indicate that therefore Burwood Park is clearly in the Hersham ward, and not Oatlands Park.
I feel very strongly about this proposed change and would ask that it be reconsidered.
Yours faithfully
Caroline Bridges
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 July 2015 08:41 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection letter
From: BB Sent: 18 July 2015 12:25 To: reviews Subject: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes ‐ Objection letter
For the attention of:
The Review Officer (Elmbridge) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sirs
Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection letter
I understand that the Local Government Boundary Commission are recommending that Burwood Park, where I live, be removed from the revised Hersham Village ward and combined with Oatlands Park.
I should like to register my objection to this and would ask that it be reviewed. Having lived in Burwood Park for 25 years, we consider ourselves to be part of the Hersham Village community and use the local library and the parish church of St Peter's, Hersham, we shop for our everyday needs in the Hersham Centre and our GP surgery is also in Hersham Village. Many years ago, our postal district was amended to register Burwood Park as being in Hersham, Walton on Thames - the Park has never been viewed as part of Oatlands, Weybridge. It seems unthinkable that we would consider Oatlands Park to be our new ward when we both personally, and as residents of Burwood Park, affiliate ourselves with Hersham Village.
The Boundary Commission takes its lead by looking at boundaries and in this instance, having reviewed your website, I would strongly argue that the natural boundary between Burwood Park and Oatlands Park is the main South West train line to London and the south. Sir Richards Bridge crosses this
1
Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:42 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: New Boundaries in Molesey/Thames Ditton
From: John Broomfield [ ] Sent: 24 August 2015 14:15 To: Subject: Re: New Boundaries in Molesey/Thames Ditton
Dear Sirs,
I am disappointed to see the draft recommendations to remove electors in Bridge Road and the residences to the South East of Bridge Road which all feed into Bridge Road from the Molesey East Ward to Thames Ditton Ward .
The consultation document states that the changes should " reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable." This proposal fails to meet any of those criteria. The community is being divided, we have no interest or identification with Thames Ditton, we identify with East Molesey/Molesey East and the proposed boundary down the centre of Bridge Road, a local road with shops on, serving the whole community, divides the community. We shop in Molesey, go to churches and our children to to primary schools in Molesey. Bin collection and other services are provided to us as part of Molesey, not as part of Thames Ditton.
Our Local Polling Station is a few yards away from us in East Molesey as shown on the consultation map. Will we have to go to Thames Ditton Ward to vote, crossing into Molesey East Ward and then out again, or will we continue to cast our vote in the polling station 100 yards away but now a different Ward? Either suggestion shows how contradictory this proposal is.
Thames Ditton councillors will have minimal interest in a few East Molesey residents tagged onto their ward for numerical convenience. We do not shop on their shops, we have little interest in their planning applications and they will have little interest in ours.
The natural boundary is to continue along River Mole, leaving all of Bridge Road and the properties that feed into it within the Molesey East Ward represented by councillors who know and understand our concerns and interests.
I would ask you to implement the requirements that Ward patterns should – as far as possible – reflect community interests and identities and boundaries should be identifiable and leave our Bridge Road community where it belongs, fully in Molesey East Ward, with the boundary continuing up the river Mole to the bridge on Esher Road
Yours sincerely,
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 August 2015 16:52 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Hersham Ward Boundary Changes - Objection Letter
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Brian Brown Sent: 24 August 2015 16:46 To: reviews
The Review Officer (Elmbridge) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower London SW1P 4QP
Dear Sirs,
We understand that the Local Government Boundary Commission last month recommended that Burwood Park be merged into Oatlands Park Ward, together with several surrounding roads.
We object to such a change for the following reasons:
1) Burwood Park is currently in Hersham Village Ward and there seems no reason why it should not continue within the enlarged Hersham Villager Ward. Ou current local councillors know and represent well the viewpoints and interests of Burwood Park residents.
2) Elmbridge Borough Council recommended that Burwood Park remain in the enlarged Hersham Village Ward ‐ why should the Council’s recommendation be overruled?
3) The London Waterloo to Woking, Winchester, Southampton, Hampshire and Dorset main railway line ‐ and the A317 (Queen’s Road) which runs alongside it in this vicinity ‐ form a natural barrier between Burwood Park and Oatlands. Hersham is the natural local centre for shopping and various community activities for Burwood Park: Oatlands is not, and indeed does not offer such amenities.
4) Burwood Park shares a postcode with Hersham and lies within the parish of St Peter’s Church, Hersham. What is the point of breaking this up ‐ and of messing up the parliamentary boundaries at the same time?
We request that the Boundary Commission’s recommendations be reconsidered and that Burwood Park and surroundings road should continue in the enlarged Hersham village Ward, as recommended by our Borough Council.
Yours faithfully,
(Mr & Mrs) Brian & Carolyn Brown
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Frank Brown
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am writing re proposed reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors and the proposed movement of my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I wish to register my STRONG OPPOSITION to this change. This area is closely aligned with Weybridge town itself, and Weybridge Riverside. The issues and interests differ completely from , it has a different profile, community and environment.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5889 21/08/2015 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 August 2015 15:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: REVIEW ELMBRIDGE BOROUGH COUNCIL REVIEW
From: Ruth Bruce Sent: 24 August 2015 22:07 To: reviews
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN RE HINCHLEY WOOD & WESTON GREEN WARD
I, Alistair J Bruce, comment on the above.
I am appalled at this 'interference from above' in civic life.
Your officers have no comprehension about our communities and rely on the opinions of only those who can be bothered to write.
The varied dynamics of various micro areas within Elmbridge ensure certain communities remain unrepresented.
I have had much to do with the (in some part) disadvantaged area of Lower Green by various connections for over 20 years.
This community will rarely write, yet their views are as valid as any.
This process is one that some of the residents in Lower Green will find difficult to engage with. A more helpful approach might have been to visit any community event and interview people.
In short, the area called Lower Green to the north of the railway line, for the benefit of the Lower Green community will be better served in the new ward of Hinchley Wood and Weston Green.
Cranmere School will be seriously disadvantaged if it is not included in the above ward.
Please add my comments to your website forthwith.
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 August 2015 15:57 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary Issue
‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Hazel Bruce Sent: 24 August 2015 19:52 To: reviews
I am a resident of Elmbridge, living in Esher
I have looked at the proposals of the Commission of 30th June, 2015 on your website.
I do not think it is in the interests of Elmbridge residents to have the number of councillors reduced. The ones I know work very hard already.
If this must happen then the ward pattern covering where I live needs adjusting.
The new Hinchley Wood and Weston Green ward MUST be amended to take in Lower Green to the north of the railway line. The social, transport and community links are to Weston Green rather than Esher. It has always been 'tacked on' to Esher.
At the very least Cranmere School, when moved, should be in this new ward.
This means that the new ward must be up to and include Arran Way.
Regards, Hazel Bruce
Sent from my iPhone
1 Starkie, Emily
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 August 2015 15:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge Review
From: lauren bruce Sent: 24 August 2015 21:18 To: reviews
Dear Sir or Madam,
I have lived in Elmbridge for 23 years, in Esher.
I write to comment on the 30th June 2015 proposals from the LGBCE.
Whilst I applaud the idea of EBC saving money, I believe the reduction of the number of Councillors will prove to be a false economy and that more officers will need to be employed in years to come. Our Councillors work very hard as far as I can see.
With regards to new ward boundaries I support the Council's proposal to join Lower Green, north of the railway line, to the new Hinchley Wood & Weston Green ward. This area has always more naturally related to Weston Green than the part of Esher that is 'up the hill' and the other side of the railway line.
It is also essential from the point of view of the pupils, teachers, parents and governors that Cranmere School is incorporated into the new ward above. This means that the new ward must go up to and include Arran Way.
Yours faithfully.
Lauren Bruce
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 05 August 2015 09:39 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Boundary redistribution
-----Original Message----- From: Simon Burkey Sent: 05 August 2015 09:09 To: reviews
Dear Review Officer,
I am writing to request that the boundary between Hersham Village and Esher ward be moved behind the library premises. I am opposed to Hersham library being part of Esher ward. Hersham library should stay in Hersham and belongs in the Hersham Village ward. It will not affect the number of voters. Counsellors in Esher are too far away from Hersham library and they have their own library to support. Please reconsider the new boundaries and keep Hersham library where it belongs. Thank you for your time, Simon Burkey.
1
Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 August 2015 16:56 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Elmbridge Review of Weston Green Ward
From: Clare Burrows Sent: 12 August 2015 17:37 To: reviews
Dear Sir
I am a resident in Elmbridge and I wish to voice my concerns about the Boundary Commission’s proposed changes to the wards. If the proposed changes go ahead I will live in the new ward of Hinchley Wood & Weston Green. Whilst I have no objections to being connected to Hinchley Wood, I am concerned to note that Lower Green will not fall in the same ward, as this will fall in the new ward of Esher.
Lower Green has always formed a part of the community of Weston Green. My children attended Cranmere Primary School. This forms a central hub of the community. When the new building for Cranmere opens next year it will no longer fall in my ward. As the children from the local community walk to school, I feel this creates an unnatural divide. I believe the head teacher of Cranmere and the Board of Governors would also prefer to remain a part of the newly created ward of Weston Green & Hinchley Wood. As with any local school, Cranmere draws many of the governors from the local community. The majority of these community governors will no longer live in the same ward as the school if the proposed changes take place.
All Saints Church forms a central community focus within Weston Green. The work of the church supports many community projects, including running the local food bank which serves the Lower Green area. All Saints’ Weston is nominated by Guildford Diocese to provide support to Cranmere Primary School and children from the Lower Green area attend SmAll Saints and other children’s groups run by the church. Brownie and Scout groups are also based at the church and serve the community including the Lower Green area.
As a resident in the area, it seems to me that the railway line creates a more natural boundary to the edge of the newly proposed ward. When walking around the area, until you reach the railway line the housing appears to be continuous with roads backing on to each other, sharing the same local issues such as problems with lorries going down to the industrial estate at the bottom of Mill Road, and school places.
I urge you to reconsider the proposed new boundaries, adjusting the ward of Hinchley Wood & Weston Green to include the area of Lower Green.
Yours faithfully
Clare Burrows
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 05 August 2015 13:28 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: THAMES DITTON/ LONG DITTON BOUNDARY
From: Maria Bussell Sent: 05 August 2015 13:00 To: reviews
It has come to my attention through a neighbour that plans are afoot to change the Thames Ditton and Long Ditton boundary.
In my view this is bloody minded, bureaucratic thoughtlessness and an insult to both wards.
I want to live in Thames Ditton thank you. I chose to live in Thames Ditton and wish to continue to do so.
Karen – is there a petition to sign?
Maria Bussell
Save a tree...please do not print this e‐mail unless you really need to. This message is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain confidential and/or privileged information. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. The views expressed in this communication or any attachment may not necessarily be the views held by Haskoll.
-- This email was Virus checked by Sophos UTM 9. http://www.sophos.com
1 Hinds, Alex
From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 August 2015 13:15 To: Hinds, Alex Subject: FW: Objection to the Thames Ditton Boundary change proposal
From: Ian G Buxton Sent: 07 August 2015 12:55 To: reviews
Dear Sir,
I have read with great concert that there are proposals to redraw the Council’s ward boundaries which will result in moving 940 residents of Thames Ditton to Long Ditton. I have lived in Thames Ditton for well over thirty years and enjoyed being part of the Thames Ditton community and have no wish for this to change. I live in Thorkhill Road which is included in the proposed change.
It appears that the close community of Thames Ditton is being changed for no good or justifiable reason. The residents, in the area which the proposals concern, have always been part of the parish of St Nicholas, Thames Ditton and part of the Thames Ditton electoral ward since 1895. The proposal will remove those residents affected from the Thames Ditton Parish and community, which has been in existence since 1100AD.
I regard Thames Ditton as the centre of my community for shops, medical care, the church and the village Hall. I do not want this to change, as it inevitably would, if the proposed change were implemented. I am sure that I speak for many who would say that the proposal would destroy their sense of belonging to the community of which they have been part for many years. In times of progressive macro‐urbanization, the local community is precious should be protected at all costs.
There is an active Residents Association for the whole of Thames Ditton and Weston Green. We have an excellent community magazine “Thames Ditton Today” the distribution of which I have played a small part for many years.
The proposals conflict with two of the Boundary Commission’s own criteria: that wards should reflect the interests and identities of local communities and that the electoral system should provide for effective and relevant local government. What may seem an unimportant issue to those who have no personal involvement in a community, is a major concern to the local residents who are personally affected.
I wish to formally record my disapproval of the abovementioned proposals.
Yours Faithfully
Ian G Buxton
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Elmbridge District
Personal Details:
Name: Louise Byron-Sinclair
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Elmbridge Borough Council - Consultation on Draft Recommendation I understand that in your proposals for the reduction of Elmbridge Borough Councillors you have suggested moving my local ward from Weybridge South to Weybridge St Georges. I want to register my opposition to that change. It seems obvious to me that our interest are much closer aligned to Weybridge town itself and the new Weybridge Riverside ward. St Georges on the other hand is separated from us by a railway line, has an entirely different community and has entirely different ward issues. L Byron-Sinclair, 21 August 2015
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/5902 21/08/2015