Local Residents submissions to the North Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 24 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: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 10:42 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBCE Review

From: Michael Tuckwell Sent: 26 March 2014 18:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: LGBCE Review North Somerset

Dear Reviewers

I live in Easton in Gordano and support the proposals put forward by Don Davies, our local Independent Councillor. Pill and Easton in Gordano have a strong history and sense of community. Having one member to represent us on the council will be important. For our villages to be split would be madness and not afford us the possibility of proper democratic representation at a local level. I hope you will take note of the views and support the proposal Donald Davies has made known to you.

I trust that our views will be properly heard ensuring that we will be represented in the most democratic and appropriate way in the future.

Michael Tuckwell

149 Cooper, Mark

From: Bowden, Tim Sent: 04 April 2014 14:17 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Wraxall and Failand boundary

Tim Bowden Review Manager Local Government Boundary Commission for 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: Guy Turner Sent: 04 April 2014 14:08 To: Reviews@ Subject: Wraxall and Failand boundary

I would like to express my rejection of Map B and support your original suggestion of Map A.

Your proposal divides, Wraxall & Failand with . We would lose the input of our current North Somerset Councillors who have much experience and affinity with our . Instead 4 unfamilar Councillors from 2 wards could attend our meetings and would have to be briefed about all the issues affecting our parish. This would significantly impair good local government in our parish.

Kind regards

66

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 14 March 2014 10:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Council - Backwell area - BS48 3

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Patricia Walker Sent: 13 March 2014 23:04 To: Reviews@

Subject: North Somerset Council - Backwell area - BS48 3

I support Map A as I think the L G Boundary Commission, whilst equalising the number of voters per Councillor, has completely neglected the common sense and equally important Boundary Commission criteria of ‘reflecting the community’ and ‘providing for effective and convenient local government’.

Patricia Walker

208 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed possible changes to Electoral Ward Boundaries - Failand.

From: Paivic Sent: 02 April 2014 16:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed possible changes to Electoral Ward Boundaries - Failand.

Dear Sir, we are writing to express our support for the Wraxall and Failand Parish Council’s submission of May 2013 whereby the existing Ward boundaries should accord with Map A and Failand is NOT transferred to Pill & Easton‐in‐Gordano Ward and will remain in the Long Ashton Ward.

Experience has shown over the years that two District Councillors have served the Parish efficiently and the recent rebuff of a proposed major development in Failand demonstrates that the democratic process has worked well and could do so in the future without major change to the Ward boundaries.

Yours Faithfully,

Mr & Mrs P.M.Warr,

79

From: Sent: 03 April 2014 20:42

Subject: boundary commission

Just a comment - being a resident of Claverham I would like to see our village named in the ward of because we are a joint Parish Council, it is a shame Cleeve is not with us as we join together in so many church/social organisations, -Jean Watson

75

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 08:48 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Ward Boundaries

Hi Mark,

Please see the submission below for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Christine Weller Sent: 22 March 2014 20:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Ward Boundaries

To whom it may concern.

I write with reference to the proposed change in electoral ward boundaries.

I live in the Parish of Wraxall and Failand and have previously been impressed with the way our local councillors have engaged in local issues, especially with regard to the ground on which the Granary Care Home is now built. I feel the local population would be best served by leaving the boundaries as they are and continuing to have our own local representatives who are aware of and concerned with issues relevant to this immediate area.

Christine Weller

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

161

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 March 2014 13:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Backwell Boundary Review, North Somerset

From: Lucy-Jane Whitehead Sent: 24 March 2014 18:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Backwell Boundary Review, North Somerset

24 March 2014

The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs

North Somerset Local Government Boundary Review – Further Consultation

I am writing about the above Consultation. I am a resident of Backwell and have been for nearly 20 years. I am also a member of Backwell Residents’ Association.

I am not in favour of the Commission’s latest proposal to create a new two-member Ward to be called Gordano and Wraxall as outlined on Map ‘B’ and reject it as inappropriate for the following reasons:-

1. It appears that this proposal has been driven purely by a desire to equalise the number of electors of each Councillor.

2. The Commission has ignored its other two criteria of reflecting community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government.

3. There is no natural synergy between the Parish of Backwell and the villages of the . Although on the map they would appear to make a convenient grouping they are very different in character and topographically they are to a great extent divided by the high ridge of land of the Failand area and the combination would not lend itself to effective local Government.

4. Backwell is the largest community in the proposed Ward and yet would suffer a complete loss of identity if the name Gordano and Wraxall is adopted.

164 My preference would be for reverting to the previous draft proposal (Map ‘A’) with the minor variation of combining the proposed single member Wards of Backwell and Winford into a two- member Ward (including Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton).

This would have the following advantages:-

1. I believe it would better satisfy the wishes of Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton to remain with Backwell with whom they have common interests – notably the A370 road and Stancombe Quarry which is planning to extend its activities.

2. This combination would achieve a slightly better balance of numbers of electors than the alternative proposal.

3. Both Backwell and Winford Parishes adjoin Airport and any future development of that site would be of common interest.

4. There is a consensus that being in a two-member Ward better serves the interests of all Parishes within that Ward by virtue of improved availability of Councillors during sickness or holidays etc.

5. Backwell would not suffer a loss of identity.

In summary, therefore, I am strongly in favour of the creation of a Backwell and Winford Ward as outlined in Map ‘A’ with the inclusion of Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton.

Yours faithfully

Lucy-Jane Whitehead

165

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 14 March 2014 10:14 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: boundary changes for Leighwoods BS8

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Janet Wigley Sent: 13 March 2014 20:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: boundary changes for Leighwoods BS8

Dear Sirs

We wish to support the revised proposals for our area of North Somerset. We wish to be part of the 2 member Pill and Easton in Gordano ward as we feel this would best serve our local connections which lie along the A369, as our previous representations have stated. Leigh Woods, about 270 households, would like to stay part of the Easton in Gordano ward as Leigh Woods is primarily affected by the A369 and the Clifton Suspension Bridge, concerns more closely allied with Abbots Leigh, Portbury and Easton in Gordano than Long Ashton. The revised proposals ensure we stay as nearly as possible the same as present, even with the reduced number of Councillors, ie part of the Easton in Gordano ward. Ashton Court lies between us and Long Ashton and

209 our community is affected by the suspension bridge and A369 unlike Long Ashton.

Kind regards

Merlin & Janet Wigley

210 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 10:43 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: sally williams Sent: 26 March 2014 15:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

I wish to express my concerns at the proposed revisions to the boundaries which affect Wraxall and Failand in the map "B".

Longwood House, where I live is on the boundary of Long Ashton and Failand. We are nearer to, and feel part of, the village of Failand and join in village activities. However, we come under the parish of Long Ashton. This has worked well for the 22 years we have lived here.

Under the proposed changes we would come under the Ward of Pill and Easton‐in‐Gordano which is some way away and separated by the A369 road. Failand has a real affinity with Wraxall and I would not wish to be in a separate Ward.

We currently have two very knowledgeable District Councillors in Bob Cook and Charles Cave, who have a good understanding of the Parish of Wraxall and Failand and we would not want to change them.

Some points which I feel should be considered are :

1. Failand Village Hall is used by organisations from both Failand and Wraxall. 2. Wraxall Schools catchment area includes the village of Failand. 3. Tyntesfield events are supported by Failand and Wraxall residents. 4. The topography of Wraxall, Failand and Long Ashton makes a natural boundary for the Ward on map "A". 5. Wraxall and Failand Churches alternate their services throughout the year and share a Vicar.

I hope you will be able to re‐consider the boundaries as I feel that map "A" would be the preferable option.

Yours faithfully

Sally Williams

147 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:05 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed new electoral ward boundaries

Hi Mark,

Please see the below sub for NS.

Helen

From: Sarah Willson Sent: 06 April 2014 22:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed new electoral ward boundaries

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

I am a resident in Wraxall living at . I have recently be informed of the proposed changes to the electoral ward boundaries. While I understand and accept the principles of reducing the total number of councillors, I am deeply unhappy about the way in which the changes are currently proposed for our area.

If the current recommendations go ahead our current parish of Wraxall and Failand will be split and each element will be combined with other areas. This will result in unfamiliar councillors attending our meetings and much additional briefing to ensure that local issues are understood etc. In summary I believe that there will be unnecessary disruption to good local government in our parish.

Regards

Sarah Willson

26 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 31 March 2014 16:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Proposed Boundary Changes

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Sent: 31 March 2014 14:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Proposed Boundary Changes

Dear Sir

We have lived in Failand, North Somerset for over 40 years and have found our own District Councillors simply the best, who have served both Failand and Wraxall so very well during our years here and have helped us personally many time with their local knowledge.

It will be tragic to split our parish with another but if we have to it has to be long Ashton/Wraxall/Failand, referred to as Map A.

Long Ashton our direct neighbours would be a much better option, so please think again on our behalf.

John and Heather Winter

Sent from my iPad

125 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 10:56 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Boundary Review

Hi Mark,

Please see below a sub for North Somerset.

Helen

From: C WOODTHORPE Sent: 06 April 2014 17:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Boundary Review

Dear Sir, As a resident of the Parish of Cleeve I wish to object most strongly to the proposal to remove Cleeve from the Yatton Ward and place it in the new Churhill/Wrington Ward. Cleeve has very strong links to Yatton and especially to one of its constituent villages - Claverham- whereas we have very few links with Wrington and even less with the other villages in this ward apart from .

Transport - Yatton and Cleeve use the A370 as the main road to both Bristol and Weston-super Mare.There is a bus service to Yatton and many Yatton and Claverham residents come to Cleeve to use the X1 direct service to Bristol and WsM. Many Cleeve residents also use the railway station in Yatton. There is no public transport link to Wrington or any of its constituent villages apart from Congresbury ,and access to these villages is via minor roads. Schools- Cleeve children use the primary schools in Claverham and Yatton and the secondary school in Backwell. Doctors - The majority of residents use surgeries in Yatton,Backwell or Congresbury. Shops/libraries etc - Yatton is our local centre for most amenities. Social/religious - most clubs/societies etc used by Cleeve residents are either in Cleeve or Yatton,and the Church is part of Yatton Moor ministry.

Wrington is separated from Cleeve by a heavily wooded ridge and one only has to look at the map to see how this affects the social separation by the dearth of residences between the 2 villages .

Organising villages into wards purely on the basis of electoral numbers may seem a sensible way to spread the load of councillors' work, however, when one area of a ward has so few links to the rest it is likely to have totally different issues to be dealt with, thus disproportionately increasing the work involved. It is stated that the proposed Churchill/Wrington ward will have an average electorate per councillor with 3 councillors and that Yatton will have 2% more than average with 2 councillors . However by 2019 the projected figures are minus 5% for Churchill/Wrington and average for Yatton. Therefore , adding Cleeve to Yatton is likely to have less impact in the future,and as the issues affecting Cleeve are similar to those of Yatton the workload would be less anyway. Another sensible possibility would be to include Congresbury in a 3 member ward with Yatton,Cleeve ,Kingston Seymour ,Kenn and possibly Brockley - all villages with close connections - leaving Churchill,Wrington and the othe villages with 2 councillors. To base decisions purely on numbers totally ignores the subject of community cohesion and may well be counter-productive in terms of efficiency,

37 Yours Faithfully, Carolyn Woodthorpe.

38 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 08 April 2014 10:44 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: District Council Boundary Changes - Winford Ward

Hi Mark,

Please see sub below for NS.

Helen

From: Kay Wooler Sent: 07 April 2014 18:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: District Council Boundary Changes - Winford Ward

Dear Sirs

I understand that the boundaries of North Somerset Council need to change to reflect the number of voters of approx 3350.

I ask that you choose your plan A to consist of Barrow Gurney, Flax Bourton, Dundry and Winford( Felton Regil and Winford) This will constitute the correct number of voters.

Your plan B would not be appropriate for this rural area. Under that plan we would be merged with part of Long Ashton.

Long Ashton although classed as a village is in reality almost a suburb of Bristol and does not have the same issues as the communities in Those villages of Plan A.

We, the people of the Winford ward, have to contend with Bristol Airport and the many issues that raises. Adjacent to the Airport is the beautiful area of Felton Common, currently managed by Winford Parish Council. I do not feel that councillors based in Long Ashton will be as concerned for those problems as they will be remote to the area.

Geographically, on a map, we may look vaguely near to Long Ashton, however we are separated from them by both the A38 and the A370. We have absolutely nothing in common with the voters there. Probably little in common with the councillors. I have lived here for 37 years and have never heard of anyone saying they were going to Long Ashton for anything.

I attended a Council Planning meeting the last time bristol Airport put in a planning application. Apart from being appalled at the calibre of the people representing us at Council level, it was very obvious that most of the councillors were pro airport whatever it wanted to do. We are not against airport expansion per se but feel we need a good local councillor to represent our views and to be a moderate voice.

I apologise for the tardiness of this letter, but sadly my daughter is terminally ill and I have been a little preoccupied

6

Kind regards

Kay Wooler ‐ Mrs

app

7 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 February 2014 17:06 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBCE (FER) Launch of FURTHER draft recommendations for North Somerset [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED] Attachments: LGBCE reply re ward Cllrs.doc

From: Dave Woolley Sent: 18 February 2014 16:32 To: Reviews@; Dave Woolley Subject: LGBCE (FER) Launch of FURTHER draft recommendations for North Somerset [NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED]

Hi Attached my proposals for Churchill‐Wrington‐See North Somerset Council Regards Dave Woolley Ex Parish Clerk , now with Winscombe Parish Council

1

Dave and Colette Woolley

Dear

Consultation LGBCE (FER) Churchill and Wrington ward

I have followed this process through from the very beginning and was supportive of your original proposal for single member wards within the new proposal for a 3 member ward for Churchill and Wrington

I believe it important that the electorate feel they have an identity with their “patch” when they vote and this for me is perhaps the major reason for objecting to the latest proposals in that it effectively renders anonymous 7 parishes including, staggeringly, the biggest parish of the nine parishes,Congresbury.

My proposal is 3 single member wards with a population size more or less in line with the average Ward 1 Wrington, Cleeve and Brockley-Each Parish adjoins the other and would provide a total of 3191 electors (2018 estimate) Ward 2 Blagdon,Burrington, and Churchill 3351 electors I note the earlier view over Wrington links with Blagdon but Blagdon PC and Butcombe PC work closely together and indeed have met to discuss areas of mutual interest whether planning, airport , and even dog bins to ensure that those dogwalkers using the Blagdon Butcombe footpaths have the necessary facilities . Ward 3 Congresbury Puxton 3188 voters

The Parishes of Congresbury and Puxton are linked by the permanent travelers site in between the two villages with the present Ward Councillor(and no doubt future ward Cllrs) regularly involved This proposal allows for better identity of the number of parishes which the present proposals do not,allows no one of the proposed wards to be significantly beyond the average electorate and crucially brings together those parishes best linked geographically and historically

Yours sincerely

Dave Woolley

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 14:06 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Local Government Boundary Review - Further Consultation

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Sent: 25 March 2014 22:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Local Government Boundary Review - Further Consultation

Dear sir

I write regarding the Commission’s latest proposal to create a new two-member Ward to be called Gordano and Wraxall as outlined on Map ‘B’ to advise that I am not in favour of this proposal for the following reasons:-

1. It appears that this proposal has been driven purely by a desire to equalise the number of electors of each Councillor.

2. The Commission has ignored its other two criteria of reflecting community identity and providing for effective and convenient local government.

3. There is no natural synergy between the Parish of Backwell and the villages of the Gordano Valley.

4. Backwell is the largest community in the proposed Ward and yet would suffer a complete loss of identity if the name Gordano and Wraxall is adopted.

I share the views of many of the members of Backwell Residents’ Association who have responded to the consultation by expressing an overwhelming preference for reverting to the previous draft proposal (Map ‘A’) with the minor variation of combining the proposed single member Wards of Backwell and Winford into a two-member Ward (including Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton).

Yours sincerely

Stan Wroe

154

155