Local resident submissions to the Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 5 submissions from Local residents.

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

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: christopher bingham

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

my post code is address at present in "" ward . i have lttle or no community of interest with this ward and belive i should be in ""where common local interests and facilities lay.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3434 16/06/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Gordon Ferguson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The current ward boundaries between Broomhill Ward and Ward and Ward around Hunters Bar do not reflect the community, social and economic activity of the area. There is a distinct community, which might be called ' Vale' or even 'Hunters Bar', which includes Endcliffe Park north of Rustlings Road; the area where I live, which we call 'Endcliffe Corner', south of Endcliffe Vale Road and west of Brocco Bank; the area south of Clarkehouse Road including the Botanical Gardens; plus the area around Sharrow Vale Road itself, north of Psalter Lane and including the Hunter House Road area. Any boundary changes should therefore ensure that all this area is all in one ward. So if Broomhill Ward was extended southwards, the new boundary should be Psalter Lane, but probably not including the houses on Psalter Lane itself, and Rustlings Road. This would result in Broomhill Ward containing three distinct neighbourhoods, Broomhill itself, Broomhall, and 'Sharrow Vale'. It may therefore be appropriate to change the name to reflect this diversity. The student population should also be taken into consideration – in my view there is a distinct 'boundary' between University of Sheffield students, who focus on Broomhill, and Sheffield Hallam Students, who focus on Ecclesall Road. This 'boundary' is more or less Endcliffe Vale Road and Clarkehouse Road. However, there is good administrative reason to include all the major student areas in one ward, which suggests that Broomhill Ward be extended southwards as suggested above.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3657 05/08/2014 2013-2016 Ward Review Submission on Ward Boundaries J.G.Harston –

All details may be made publically available

Contents 1. Introduction 2. Recommended changes to SCC proposed boundaries 2.1 Boundary between and at 2.2 Boundary between Walkley and at Watersmeet 2.3 Boundary between Arbourthorne and at Olive Grove 2.4 Boundary between Fulwood and adjacent wards 3. Boundary changes to examine further 3.2 Boundary between Ecclesall and Dore & at Parkhill 3.3 Boundary between Richmond and Woodhouse 4. Recommended changes to SCC proposed ward names 5. Ward summary 6. About the author 7. Maps of recommended changes

1. Introduction 1.1 After taking submissions, the Boundary Commission has determined that Sheffield City Council should have 84 members, in 28 three-member wards. This is the same as currently, and allows the opportunity to make minimal changes to wards and concentrate major changes on the three wards that have become unbalanced and triggered the review.

1.2 I have participated in Sheffield City Council’s consultations on their submission to the Commission on new ward boundaries. Rather than repeat most of the City Council’s submission and my earlier submission on the council size, in my submission I describe where I believe modifications to the Sheffield City Council proposal should be made to improve it. Attached to this submission are maps of those wards where I recommend changes.

2. Recommended changes to SCC boundaries

2.1 Boundary between Walkley and Hillsborough at Owlerton 2.11 The current boundary between Walkley and Hillsborough is Holme Lane, Bradfield Road and Owlerton Green. A more natural boundary along here is the just south of the current boundary. An attempt was made at the 2004 review to move this boundary to the river, but at that time the population pressure was pushing the boundary northwards from Walkley. This time, though, the population numbers are the other way around and the boundary can be pushed southwards slightly.

2.12 The area along the south side of Holme Lane is a natural part of the to Hillsborough area. All land communications are with the north side of Holme Lane. To communicate with the ward south of the River Loxley you have to travel all the way to the western end at Malin Bridge or the eastern end at Hillsborough Corner.

2.13 Similarly, the area on the south side of Bradfield Road is an integral part of the Bradfield Road sub-area of the Hillsborough Shopping Centre. The eastern end of Bradfield Road mainly comprising Regent Court is part of the Owlerton area. All communications along this area are with the north side of Bradfield Road.

2.14 The City Council’s model puts the south side of Holme Lane in Hillsborough, but not Bradfield Road. The boundary should follow the centre of the River Loxley for its whole length here to include all of Holme Lane and all of Bradfield Road in Hillsborough ward. This moves 245 electors from Walkley to Hillsborough and also nudges the electorate figures for both Hillsborough and Walkley closer to the electoral target.

Ward SCC Proposal SCC Variance JGH Proposal JGH Varience Hillsborough 14,681 -1.14% 14,926 +0.51% Walkley 15,290 +2.96% 15,045 +1.31%

2.2 Boundary between Walkley and Stannington at Watersmeet 2.21 The current boundary between Walkley and Stannington runs along the centre of the . The City Council model proposes to run the boundary along Rivelin Valley Road.

2.22 The River Rivelin is a more natural boundary at this point. It is a continuation of the boundary running along the river for its whole length from its source, and has been used as a boundary since before the 19th century. The only area between the River Rivelin and Rivelin Valley Road at Watersmeet is the allotments, the fire station and Walkley Bank Dam. These are all only accessible from Rivelin Valley Road and are naturally part of the Watersmeet and Walkley Bank areas.

2.23 Consequently, the boundary between Walkley and Stannington should remain running along the centre of the River Rivelin. This transfers zero electors and so has no effect on electorate figures, but makes for a more natural boundary on the ground.

2.3 Boundary between Arbourthorne and Gleadless Valley at Olive Grove 2.31 The current boundary between Arbourthorne and Gleadless Valley at Olive Grove runs along Bank Road and Gleadless Road. The City Council model moves the boundary from Gleadless Road to Derby Street and the footpath running to behind Newfield Green Road.

2.32 The boundary along Derby Street should run along the footpath at the other side of the allotment gardens on the north side of Derby Street, as a continuation of the boundary running south of Litchfield Road and north of Newfield Green Road. This transfers about 15 or so electors. This is also the historic southern boundary of the Sheffield Manor Park.

2.33 The Olive Grove triangle at Heeley Bank Road, Myrtle Road and Olive Grove Road should be part of Arbourthorne ward. Arbourthorne had to include GE/Edmund polling district to balance up numbers, but the City Council proposal leaves Olive Grove protruding into Arbourthorne, giving the ward a strange shape.

2.34 The area around East Road and the top of Myrtle Road runs naturally into the Olive Grove area. A recent councillor for Arbourthone lived on the west side of Heeley Bank Road – five yards outside the ward – and occasionally mentioned that some of his constituents had said they were surprised his house was actually outside the ward. This area was also initially considered to be included in Arbourthorne in the 2004 review, but the electorate numbers would not allow it. The electorate numbers now allow it.

2.35 Putting the Olive Grove triangle into Arbourthorne gives a neater and clearer southern boundary, following the historic southern boundary of the Sheffield Manor Park. This would transfer about 800 electors from Gleadless Valley to Arbourthone, with both wards remaining within the electoral target.

Ward SCC Electorate SCC Variance JGH Electorate JGH Varience Arbourthorne 14,735 -0.77% 15,535 +4.61% Gleadless Valley 15,459 +4.10% 14,659 -1.29%

2.4 Boundary between Fulwood and adjacent wards 2.41 The current boundary between Fulwood and Broomhill at Endcliffe Crescent runs down the centre of Endcliffe Crescent and Endcliffe Avenue. This puts a few properties in Broomhill which only have access to the rest of the ward by going through Broomhill ward. Additionally, these properties are all part of the university facilities associated with the rest of Endcliffe Crescent and Endcliffe Avenue.

2.22 The boundary here should run behind the properties on the east side of Endcliffe Crescent and Endcliffe Avenue so that all properties on these two roads are in Fulwood ward. This transfers about 11 electors from Broomhill to Fulwood.

2.23 The current boundary at Carsick Hill places all of the top of Carsick Hill in ward. The City Council proposal moves this boundary to run along Sandygate Road and Carsick Hill Road.

2.24 The Carsick Hill area here starts when you turn off Sandygate Road, it does not include Sandygate Road. As you turn off Sandygate Road there are large gaps between properties that give a sense of leaving one area and entering another area. Also, as you travel westwards along Sandygate Road it is when the road transitions to Redmire Road that you get a feeling that you are leaving the Sandygate area.

2.25 Consequently, the boundary here should run behind the properties on the south side of Sandygate Road so that all the properties on Sandgate Road are in Crookes ward. This would transfer about 80 electors from Fulwood to Crookes.

2.26 On the southern side of Fulwood ward the ward has had to be pushed over the to gather enough electors to get to target. However, the boundary as drawn by the City Council is rather ragged and leaves a strange lump of Ecclesall ward protruding into Fulwood ward. A neater boundary along here would be to follow the stream up from the Porter Brook at Whitely Wood Bridge up through Bluebell Wood to the junction of Cottage Lane and Common Lane. This would transfer about 15 electors from Ecclesall to Fulwood. After skirting around Clay Croft the boundary should run directly westwards to the Limb Brook so that the playing fields and open areas accessed from Coit Lane at the south are in Dore & Totley ward to the south, and the playing fields and open areas accessed from Road to the north are in Fulwood Road to the north. This would transfer no electors.

Ward SCC Electorate SCC Variance JGH Electorate JGH Varience Fulwood 15,315 +3.13% 15,261 +2.76% Broomhill 15,193 +2.31% 15,182 +2.23% Crookes 14,677 -1.17% 14,757 -0.62% Ecclesall 16,058 +8.14% 16,043 +8.03%

3. Boundary changes to examine further 3.1 There are some boundaries that could be adjusted to make them clearer or better group together communities.

3.2 Boundary between Ecclesall and Dore & Totley at Parkhill 3.21 The City Council proposal puts all of Parkhill in Dore & Totley ward. It also puts the area around Hill Turrets Close and surrounds roads in Dore & Totley ward. The boundary here really should be further south near to the Abbey Lane/Ecclesall Road South junction. However, Ecclesall ward is already 8% over target and moving the boundary south would add about 350 electors to it, pushing it over +10% to about 10.5%. If the Commission can find a compensating reduction to Ecclesall, or would accept this ward moving very slightly over +10%, then the area north of Abbey Lane should be in Ecclesall ward.

3.3 Boundary between Richmond and Woodhouse 3.31 The City Council proposal to the west of Handsworth balances electoral numbers, but ends up with up with a strange shape poking into Woodhouse ward. The boundary in this area could be re- examined to keep the transferred electors but drawing a neater boundary.

4. Recommended changes to SCC ward names 4.1 The City Council has recommended a few changes to ward names. The review is retaining the same number of wards and is doing a lot of work to make the minimum changes needed to update the wards. This makes it easier to keep consistency of ward-based data and other information. As part of this, the ward names must also keep the same alphabetical order so that they retain their ward codes.

4.2 The City Council has recommended changing some ward names that change the alphabetical ordering of wards. These name changes can be adjusted slightly to preserve the alphabetical sorting.

Current ward SCC recommended name Name that preserves sorting order Arbourthorne Park and Arbourthorne Arbourthorne & Park Broomhill Botanical Botanical or Broomhill or Broomhill & (some other name), for example: Broomhill & Botanical or Broomhill & Hunter’s Bar Central City City Centre Nether Edge Sharrow and Nether Edge Nether Edge & Sharrow Southey Chaucer Southey & Chaucer

4.3 Additionally, ward names that include “and” should be named with “&”. This makes for more understandable English when listing ward names, for instance “Dore & Totley and Shiregreen & Brightside” is more semantically correct than “ and Shiregreen and Brightside” and is easier to scan and understand.

5. Ward summary

Current ward New ward name Recommended new ward Electorate Variance A Arbourthorne Arbourthorne & As per City Council proposal with addition of 15,535 +4.61% Park Olive Grove and adjustment to boundary at Derby Street.. B Beauchief and Beauchief & As per City Council proposal. 14,159 -4.65% Greenhill Greenhill C Beighton As per City Council proposal. 14,539 -3.30% D Birley As per City Council proposal. 13,739 -7.48% E Broomhill Broomhill or As per City Council proposal with removal of 15,182 +2.23% Botantical or Endcliffe Crescent and Endcliffe Avenue. Broomhill & F Burngreave As per City Council proposal. 15,376 +3.54% G Central City Centre As per City Council proposal. 13,665 -7.98% H Crookes Crookes As per City Council proposal with addition of 14,757 -0.62% Sandygate Road at Carsick Hill top. I Darnall As per City Council proposal. 14,024 -5.56% J Dore and Totley Dore & Totley As per City Council proposal with adjustment to 15,693 +5.67% boundary between Limb Brook and Ringinlow Road. K East As per City Council proposal. 14,735 -0.78% L Ecclesall Ecclesall As per City Council proposal with removal of 16,043 +8.03% parts around Common Lane. M Firth Park As per City Council proposal. 14,985 +0.91% N Fulwood Fulwood As per City Council proposal, with removal of 15,261 +2.76% Sandygate Road, addition of Endcliffe Crescent and Endcliffe Avenue, addition of parts around Common Lane, adjustment of boundary between Limb Brook and Ringinglow Road. O Gleadless Valley Gleadless Valley As per City Council proposal, with removal of 14,659 -1.29% Olive Grove and adjustment to boundary at Derby Street. P Graves Park As per City Council proposal. 13,979 -5.87% Q Hillsborough Hillsborough As per City Council proposal, with addition of 14,926 +0.51% south side of Bradfield Road. R Manor Castle Manor & Castle As per City Council proposal. 15,063 +1.43% S Mosborough As per City Council proposal. 14,130 -4.85% T Nether Edge Nether Edge & As per City Council proposal. 15,884 +6.96% Sharrow U Richmond Richmond As per City Council proposal. 15,851 +6.81% V Shiregreen and Shiregreen & As per City Council proposal. 15,152 +2.04% Brightside Brightside W Southey Southey & As per City Council proposal. 14,911 +0.41% Chaucer X Stannington Stannington As per City Council proposal, with adjustment to 14,927 +0.52% boundary at Watersmeet. Y and Stocksbridge & As per City Council proposal. 15,254 +2.72% Upper Don Upper Don Z Walkley Walkley As per City Council proposal, with removal of 15,045 +1.31% south side of Bradfield Road and adjustment to boundary at Watersmeet. 1 West Ecclesfield As per City Council proposal. 14,572 -1.87% 2 Woodhouse Woodhouse As per City Council proposal. 13,924 -6.23%

6. About the author 6.1 I was a Sheffield City Councillor from 1999 to 2010. From personal study and council work I have an knowledge of the geography, history and community groupings across Sheffield and from living in Sheffield and from friends, family, campaigning, leafleting and other contacts have built up a grass-roots knowledge of large on foot on the ground.

6.2 I submitted reports to the 2002-2004 Sheffield Ward Review, the 2005-2010 Parliamentary Review and the aborted 2013-2015 Parliamentary Review. I have also written and published various other mapping and political geography reports and publications.

file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Arbourthorne.gif[20/08/2014 16:33:24] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Broomhill.gif[20/08/2014 16:34:01] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Crookes.gif[20/08/2014 16:35:27] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Fulwood.gif[20/08/2014 16:35:42] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Gleadless (1).gif[20/08/2014 16:36:06] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Hillsborough (1).gif[20/08/2014 16:36:33] file:///C|/Users/william.morrison/Downloads/Walkley (1).gif[20/08/2014 16:36:55] Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Kaye Horsfield

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Green party

Comment text:

Would make more sense to divide these wards horizontally through mostly open country rather than vertically through the middle of communities giving two wards of and Chapeltown; then and Ecclesfield.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3578 05/08/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Sheffield District

Personal Details:

Name: Diane Patchett

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As we are in the Stannington ward and Bradfield Parish boundary we should also be in the Bradfield School catchment area as we are only a mile from and Stannington area is much further away but it is in the school catchment area. We have had no input in from Stannington councillors which is not the case for the rest of the ward so it would be nice to have more from local Councillors and for public meetings to take place in the Wadsley area there are plenty of places to do this. Some of us do not drive cars and getting to places in Stannington by public transport would be a nightmare as the bus services are so bad here in Wadsley/Worrall especially in the evening. I am very disappointed in how this ward has been managed even though I accept local councillors have done good things in other areas. Please call a local meeting and listen to us and our problems over on this side of the ward!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3405 29/05/2014