Local Resident Submissions to the West Dorset Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local resident submissions to the West Dorset Council electoral review This PDF document contains 22 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. Cooper, Mark From: Egan, Helen Sent: 25 February 2014 16:35 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Chganges Hi Mark, Please see below a submission for West Dorset. Regards, Helen From: JOHN HEAD Sent: 25 February 2014 15:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Proposed Boundary Chganges ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: JOHN HEAD To: "[email protected]" <[email protected] Sent: Tuesday, 25 February 2014, 10:18 Subject: Proposed Boundary Chganges I have heard that under the above, it is proposed that Chetnole should be separated from Yetminster and is to become part of a Frome Valley Ward with Sydling St.Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St. Quentin. With respect - this makes no sense at all if Community Identity is to be given any credence as a criteria to be considered. People living in Chetnole have close connections with Yetminster ( primary schooling/Health Centre/ Benefice) and with Leigh ( joint sports clubs/garden club/Poetry Club etc). We have no community connections whatsoever with Sydling St. Nicholas, Cattistock and Frome St. Quentin! Geographically, they are the other side of Melbury Down. The inhabitants of Chetnole will surely feel they are completely isolated from all they have been familiar with. District Council matters affecting Chetnole will have no bearing on Sydling St Nicholas,Cattistock or Frome St. Quentin - they are too far away, with no common boundaries with Chetnole and vice versa. Please do not isolate us from all we have known and developed with. 38 Cooper, Mark From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 12 March 2014 14:25 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Chetnole and Stockward ward boundaries Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Tel: 020 7664 8514 www.lgbce.org.uk It would help us if you would take a few minutes to answer a few questions about your experience of how we dealt with you. How are we doing? - Click on this link to give us your views From: Maggie Henry Sent: 12 March 2014 13:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Chetnole and Stockward ward boundaries Dear Sirs, I'm writing to protest in the strongest terms at Local Government Boundary Commission proposals to remove Chetnole and Stockwood from Yetminster Ward, and combine us with Frome Valley Ward. Here are some very good reasons why Chetnole and Stockwood should remain in Yetminster Ward: • Our children attend St Andrews Primary School in Yetminster – we are in the catchment area, or the Gryphon in Sherborne together with children from the Yetminster Ward • Our church is part of the Wriggle Valley Benefice – we are served by the same Vicar as Yetminster and regularly have joint services as part of the same community • We are served by the Yetminster Health Centre • We use the post office and shop in Yetminster or Leigh – these are our nearest services and we support them • Our children and young people are enrolled in Beaver/Cub/Scout and Guide groups in Yetminster • As a community we are regularly involved in inter-village sporting and cultural events with Yetminster. In short, we are part of the same community – our lives and interests are linked. You only have to look at the map to see that we are next door neighbours. 35 In contrast, I do not know of any meaningful links between our community and the Frome Valley Ward, or the Halstock Ward which had been suggested previously. The majority of our residents will have no reason to visit either of these areas on a regular basis. It follows then that a councillor serving any other ward other than Yetminster would have no reason to look after the interests of Chetnole and Stockwood residents. We would be isolated from all meaningful representation. Please use your geographical and community-minded common sense. Yours faithfully, Margaret Henry 36 Cooper, Mark From: Egan, Helen Sent: 17 March 2014 09:33 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Boundary Commission - Proposals for Chetnole Hi Mark, Please see below a submission for West Dorset. Regards, Helen From: Anne Hirst Sent: 14 March 2014 18:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Boundary Commission - Proposals for Chetnole I wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the proposal to remove Chetnole from Yetminster Ward. Such a course would disrupt our village's long-established and effective local identification and effective working relationship with Yetminster. These have evolved because of our close proximity, resulting in associated social and church activities e.g. we share an Anglican priest, a valued primary school, a post office and shops, as well as local roads. We have no connections with the villages of the proposed Frome Valley Ward, and are unlikely to develop any in view of their disparate locations. The effects of the proposed move would be detrimental to our communities. As I assume this is not your intention, I beg you to reconsider before any further steps are taken. ANNE HIRST 32 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 March 2014 09:21 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBC - Have your say From: EDWIN HIRST Sent: 12 March 2014 18:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: LGBC - Have your say Chetnole should stay with Yetminster ward:- 1 They have been linked for many decades 2 It is geographically linked - less than 3.5 kms 3 It is socially linked:- a By church groups b By various societies and organisations 4 It comprises a component part of the locations covered by the Wiggle Valley Magazine 5 People know and associate with people from both villages - hardly anyone knows any of the people mentioned in the proposed connections. A DISASTROUS PLAN WITH BUILT IN FAILURE !!!! 34 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 April 2014 14:22 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: West Dorset Boundaries Review From: Helenhughes Sent: 25 April 2014 09:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fwd: West Dorset Boundaries Review Sent from my iPad Begin forwarded message: From: Date: 20 April 2014 20:38:28 BST To: <[email protected]> Subject: West Dorset Boundaries Review Dear Madam/Sir I totally concur with the points raised below and wish to have my views recorded too. Many thanks Helen Hughes Dear Sir, I have no objection in principle to the reduction in size of West Dorset District Council. However I am disappointed to see the proposal that Charmouth be split from Wooton‐Fitzpaine, with Charmouth forming part of Lyme Regis and Wooton‐Fitzpaine forming part of a large ward composed of an increased number of parishes. Lyme is a very commercial urban area, with a plethora of social problems, as reported regularly in the local press. Every month one reads of rudeness, bad manners and yobbish behaviour, and that is only the Town Council meetings! Charmouth is far more rural, its unique selling point is that its beach and foreshore are not commercialised. Our values are not shared by Lyme Regis. In contrast Charmouth and Wooton have joint societies, and many Wooton residents choose Charmouth for shopping, medical and recreational facilities. The proposed arrangements for Wooton link it to other parishes where the only connection appears to be that the A35 runs close to them. Assuming a diligent Councillor is elected for this ward he/she will have a significantly greater number of parish meetings to attend, if they are to have any chance of reflecting the views of, and reporting back to, the electorate of their ward. If one is searching to balance numbers with Charmouth a grouping with Char Valley and Chideock would be a more homogenous group with more closely aligned interests and values. 1 I hope you will reconsider your proposals Yours Faithfully R Hughes 2 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 April 2014 09:29 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: West Dorset Boundaries Review From: Sent: 20 April 2014 20:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: West Dorset Boundaries Review Dear Sir, I have no objection in principle to the reduction in size of West Dorset District Council. However I am disappointed to see the proposal that Charmouth be split from Wooton‐Fitzpaine, with Charmouth forming part of Lyme Regis and Wooton‐Fitzpaine forming part of a large ward composed of an increased number of parishes. Lyme is a very commercial urban area, with a plethora of social problems, as reported regularly in the local press. Every month one reads of rudeness, bad manners and yobbish behaviour, and that is only the Town Council meetings! Charmouth is far more rural, its unique selling point is that its beach and foreshore are not commercialised. Our values are not shared by Lyme Regis. In contrast Charmouth and Wooton have joint societies, and many Wooton residents choose Charmouth for shopping, medical and recreational facilities. The proposed arrangements for Wooton link it to other parishes where the only connection appears to be that the A35 runs close to them. Assuming a diligent Councillor is elected for this ward he/she will have a significantly greater number of parish meetings to attend, if they are to have any chance of reflecting the views of, and reporting back to, the electorate of their ward. If one is searching to balance numbers with Charmouth a grouping with Char Valley and Chideock would be a more homogenous group with more closely aligned interests and values.