Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Simon Eardley Sent: 31 October 2017 23:30 To: reviews Subject: West and Consultation - personal submission by Simon Eardley Attachments: sign.jpeg; and Newton Roundabout.jpeg

Simon Eardley

31 October 2017

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft proposals for new electoral boundaries in Cheshire West and Chester Borough Council. I am a resident of Chester (residing in the existing ward of Hoole) and a Parish Councillor on Upton‐by‐Chester and District Parish Council but I also have strong personal links to the village of Ince (currently in the Elton ward, proposed to be in an Elton & ward) and would therefore like to comment on the following:

‐ The proposals in general terms as they affect Chester, with particular reference to Hoole where I live;

‐ The proposals as they specifically affect the general area of Upton‐by‐Chester and District Parish Council, and

‐ The proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward.

Chester and Hoole

Broadly I welcome the Commission proposals as they affect the city of Chester. I believe you have treated the area sensitively and sought to maintain and promote community relationships where they exist in seeking to give them the most effective possible representation at local government level. For example, in areas such as , which has long and established community links within itself, you have sought to ensure they continue to enjoy strong representation in a multi‐councillor ward for the whole area with a logical expansion into that part of the current Garden Quarter ward which borders the current Blacon ward. This area has, in my view, a more established and less transient population than the remainder of the Garden Quarter which is rather dominated by the local student

1 population. It makes sense to place it in with an established community such as Blacon which is very well connected in terms of local transport links and geographical proximity. The Garden Quarter area of Chester does have an important community identity but to suggest it encompasses the whole of the current ward is to overstate the case. As I have noted already, the fact of a large student population that is mobile and changes over a short period of time, makes this an increasingly fluid community. Students living in 'Garden Quarter' are unlikely to refer to it as that, they are much more likely to say they live in Chester. The area naturally looks towards Chester as a city in any case and would be better served by city‐focused councillors who would also be dealing with similar issues in the remainder of their ward.

I also welcome moves to create a strong 'City' ward which draws into itself those areas that have a strong attachment to the city as a whole and look naturally towards it but haven't necessarily been part of its local government representation in recent times. The city has strong transport links within it and unique issues of concern which span across the core of Chester as a whole. Issues such as traffic congestion (inevitable in a relatively small area), air quality and the need for thriving local businesses within the city centre itself. I believe the proposals of the Commission create a logical community of interest and one that can be effectively represented by a strong team of three‐councillors.

I know less of areas such as and and the area of the south of the river, Handbridge Park and Lache. I would, however, note that in the case of Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath they are linked via parish council representation (see image attached) and there is very little to differentiate housing within the existing Great Boughton ward. Roads links are strong within it and there is a large crossover of shared services and community amenities (the shops along Road, for example) and local schools from primary to secondary level. I wonder whether this area ought to be an ongoing and strong two‐councillor ward rather than the two one‐ councillor wards currently proposed. In using the term 'south of the river' I would merely say that this is a well understand collection of communities that have strong precedents for working together in the past and I would therefore suggest it is entirely logical for there to be a three‐councillor Handbridge Park and Lache ward under the historic name, Overleigh.

Finally, in respect of Hoole where I live, I welcome the proposals to join this area largely with its immediate neighbour, Newton. Again, there are strong and established links between the two areas in terms of transport, the make‐up of housing stock across the proposed ward, shared shopping and leisure facilities. I recently received our local community magazine, the 'Hoole & Newton Roundabout' (see attached image) which is delivered across large areas of the proposed ward, if not all. This neatly illustrates the relationship between the two areas and how local residents look to businesses, local amenities and other services that are within the Newton and Hoole community as being therein rather than in other parts of Chester. Indeed, as a resident in Hoole I frequently make use of local shops in the Newton area, such as the veterinary practice on Brook Lane which can also be accessed easily on foot from where I live on the edge of the current Hoole ward. Sharing of local police services and the close geographical proximity of the two areas make the case compelling for a joined‐up approach in this part of Chester which I feel sure will find support from other residents. Whether the ward name should be 'Newton & Hoole' or 'Hoole & Newton' is a debating point; personally I would prefer the latter although this is a minor point really as whatever combination would clearly recognise these two areas in any case.

Upton

2 I was elected to represent the Upton Heath ward of Upton‐by‐Chester and District Parish Council in June 2016. I was immediately struck when joining the council how there is a very strong local sense of identity and understanding of 'Upton' as an area and I therefore strongly welcome the proposals that would see the grouped parish of Upton‐by‐ Chester remain as the main building block for a new ward. I am aware that this is the collective view of the parish council also, passed as a resolution at one of our recent meetings. Issues and concerns that arise in Upton are often just that, Upton‐wide, and therefore a strong two‐councillor ward is the best possible option which I note the Commission recommend. There is widespread sharing of community facilities and services across Upton and it is a strong, distinct community, one of only two parished areas in the city of Chester. I cannot see how one could make a sensible case for a different configuration of ward members in Upton. As a parish councillor I represent the Upton Heath parish ward but in reality this is meaningless to local residents. They identify with Upton as a whole and I believe largely expect me as a parish councillor to act in the interests of the whole parish even if there are very occasional and specific parochial issues to deal with.

I welcome a tidying up of some peripheral boundaries that this exercise affords, such as the Plas Newton Lane area of Upton where it borders the current Newton ward and the uniting into an Upton ward the whole of roads such as 'The Beeches' which is off Plas Newton Lane. I would suggest that it would make a lot of sense to local residents if the whole of Wealstone Lane were placed into Upton as this is a major road within the ward on which our pavilion building and major playing fields sit. It is an anomaly that a small number of houses at the 'Newton end' are separate from the remainder of the ward so consideration to a further amendment in that area would make sense. On closer examination of the map facility on the Commission website, I also noticed that the boundary has been pushed a little further along into the current Newton ward than I believe is desirable or makes sense from a local community perspective. I am referring specifically to Wealstone Court, Queensway and Newton Hall Drive which are proposed to move into Upton. These roads have longstanding and historic identification with the current Newton area and should remain in a ward where Newton is a large component part in my view.

On the whole I believe the Commission have done a good job for local residents in configuring their new local government ward and I'm pleased to add my support to the proposals with the minor tweaks mentioned above.

Elton & Mickle Trafford

I was born in Ince, (via the Countess of Chester hospital!) which is currently in the Elton ward and where my family have farmed for many years. I am currently churchwarden in the Parish of Thornton‐le‐Moors with Ince and Elton which is an ecclesiastical parish encompassing the villages in its name but also the hamlet of which extends the border more or less to Mickle Trafford itself with in between.

For many years the village of Ince, a small and rural community with a long history, was tagged onto the large urban sprawl of with which it had very little affinity or long term association. Issues such as rural transport, the lack of rural services such as shops and other amenities were anathema to the remainder of the ward of which Ince was part, a 'chalk and cheese' relationship. The inclusion of Ince and other similar villages into an 'Elton ward' was welcome prior to this review as it gave a greater sense of integrity to the local government representation offered to them. In recognising the desire to reduce the number of councillors as a whole within the Borough and to achieve strong electoral equality, it makes eminent sense to continue this sympathetic and thoughtful treatment of villages such as Ince when considering their future ward arrangements. I therefore strongly welcome the creation of an 'Elton & Mickle Trafford' ward which will unite communities of a similar outlook and disposition in a two‐ councillor ward. The proposed ward will be made up of areas with their own parish councils and are rural in

3 character and perspective. I would suggest, owing to their proximity to the city of Chester, that they naturally look in that direction rather than towards Ellesmere Port so it is logical to ally them with Mickle Trafford and surrounding parishes on the periphery of our county city. In making this point I would underline their lack of affinity to Ellesmere Port and suggest that if they looked anywhere other than Chester itself it is definitely into the more rural hinterland of the city. Road links throughout the proposed ward are strong and whilst public transport is rather variable, bus services do exist. To illustrate this point I would cite the A56 which runs from to Bridge Trafford and beyond and also forks off to the B5132 which links into Wimbolds Trafford, Thornton‐le‐Moors, Elton and Ince. Similarly the A5117 from Elton through to the villages around is a strong transport link within the proposed new ward.

I have alluded to the strong sense of village identity that a village like Ince feels. Whilst I understand the logic of using the two major areas of population in a ward name to give it focus, I fear this neglects the equally passionate and strongly held identity of the more 'minor' populated territory. I would therefore welcome any proposal that might give this new ward a more generic name. I don't have a strong view as to what this might be but perhaps something based on the most obvious geographical feature running through the ward would make sense, i.e. the . This would also help preserve the use of the name 'Gowy' in a ward within the Borough which has a long and established history and is meaningful for local residents.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these proposals at this stage. I look forward with interest to reading the final outcome of this important process.

Yours faithfully

Simon Eardley

4

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Claire Jakeman Sent: 06 November 2017 18:37 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Response to Local Government Boundary Commission for Cheshire West and Chester Council Name, Parish, Cheshire West & Chester Council

Hello

It would be more sensible to have an odd number of councillors (e.g. 69 or 71) so a party/coalition can always have a majority.

It would be preferable to have single‐member wards for this rural section of Cheshire West – the proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward would be too large geographically for councillors to sustain effective relationships with the smaller communities located across the ward. Councillors are also more likely to prioritise the more populated villages (Mickle Trafford, , Barrow and Elton) over the many smaller parishes – the geographic footprint therefore has to be small enough for a councillor to work effectively.

It would be preferable to maintain the current Elton Ward as this is the best way to reflect local identities. The current collection of parishes (Croughton, Elton, Ince, Little Stanney, , Thornton‐le‐Moors & ) have a lot in common: they are all rural green belt communities; most are small settlements (with the exception of Elton); they stem off the A5117 which provides a major transport connection for the ward; the only major bus route in the area (X2) runs through or best most of the PCs; residents share the same local services (Elton Primary School and children’s centre, GP, pharmacy, post office services etc); shared interest in local industries and retail (e.g. Cheshire Oaks, Stanlow/Essar, Protos, University of Chester, iGas fracking proposals etc).

If the LGBCE does not find the argument strong enough to maintain the status quo for the current Elton ward, then it would be preferable to include Dunham‐on‐the‐Hill and CP in the proposal. This would ensure electoral equality as well as still reflecting community identity and allowing for effective local government because: this area also stems from the A5117 and shares the X2 bus route; this is also a small rural green belt community; residents share/access similar local facilities and services; they have a similar demographic (including a GRT settlement, social housing etc); shared interest in local issues such as the M56, wind farm, iGas fracking proposals, recently proposed solar farm etc.

This identity is not shared in the same way with Mickle Trafford CP or Guilden Sutton – these settlements appear to look to Chester and access different services/facilities. The LGBCE should consider how these areas could sustain their own single‐ councillor ward or continue with their links with Christleton and Waverton (current Chester Villages ward).

This identity is also not shared with Barrow CP. The current proposals mean that the River Gowy acts as a natural boundary, splitting Barrow off from the rest of the ward. This would create a detached ward and mean that it would be difficult to have effective local government. The LGBCE may wish to consider placing Barrow CP with the proposed Manley ward.

Regards

Claire Jakeman Councillor Thornton Le Moors Parish Council

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 06 November 2017 16:45 To: reviews Subject: Cheshire West and Chester Boundary review. Review Officer,

Importance: High

To the Review Officer ( Cheshire West and Chester ). The Local Gov't. Boundary Commission for England. 14th Mill Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP.

I wish to make comments on the proposal to split the Swanlow and Dene Wards from one recognised Ward into two separate Wards

I would really like to see this proposal reviewed and the Review decide upon the Status Quo ie, the Swanlow and Verdin Wards kept as one for the purpose of an Electoral area for Cheshire West and Chester.

Reasoning:

There are Community Links between the Swanlow Ward and Dene Ward, for instance the St. Chad's C of E School on the Dene Estate, the School also has a Community building that Swanlow Ward members & Children utilise. This provides a strong bond between the two wards. The Lifestyle Centre is on the Dene Estate that many ward members of the Swanlow Ward visit.

The Boundary between Swanlow and the Dene may be identifiable on a Boundary authority map, however I would ask many residents of both Wards to identify where one finishes and the other one starts. I am the Mayor and I have to ask sometimes, is all of Swanlow Lane from the Townsfield Junction Swanlow.

Interests that join the Communities together & Community Identity ! Indeed even the Church that is on the Swanlow Ward is the Main Parish Church by area for Weddings, funerals etc, If you Live on the Dene Ward you come under ( Church Parish area ) for St Chad's Church which is in Swanlow area. The main & only Community hall on the Dene is owned and run by St. Chads Church on the Swanlow Ward.

Our Parish Council has two Members for the Swanlow & Dene however at times because the Shopping precinct, the Council Offices and Lifestyle Centre are on the Dene their is regularly a swap over of interests and representation at Town Council which we accept & do not insist on individual Councilor of individual area interests only.

I believe I have identified just some of what binds the Communities of Swamlow and Dene together.

Another major issue that binds the Communities is the Traffic element, there are crossroads at the junction of the Swanlow & Dene that have been under review and effects both areas for access and egress, the two Councillors have indeed been working effectively as a team on joint issues since the inception of Cheshire West and Chester Council.

1 Effective Local Gov't The links are are also evident with Transport which in itself is always a major topic, a bus service runs from the Dene Ward through the Swanlow ward all day long especially to the Main Hospital for Mid Cheshire Health service. No other Ward has such connectivity.

Electoral Area.

The Dene Ward is growing by the month with extra housing provision as in the Neighbourhood Plan, the plan also allows for more housing in the future, the Swanlow Ward has some extra housing. However it makes sense that with the ever increasing Housing as in the N/P and more identified, the close Boundary, traffic and transport between the two ( Swanlow and Dene), Community etc, that the Swanlow and Dene remains as titled one Cheshire West Ward with two Councillors.

One last Issue.

The local Policng area identifies this as Swanlow & Dene with one P.C.S.O especially being allocated (Swanlow & Dene).

I thank you for taking your time to read all of this, I should have put it an attached Letter format, however I have spine issues awaiting an operation and I cannot effectively stay at a Computer.

Many thanks,

Mike Cllr. Mike Kennedy Mayor : Town Council

Winsford Town Council ( Dene Ward )

2 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Glen.Ltd Sent: 23 October 2017 10:31 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Comments on The Local Government Boundary Review - On the draft recommendations.

Importance: High

Dear Sirs,

Re: Comments on The Local Government Boundary Review - On the Draft Recommendations (Elton and Mickle Trafford Ward).

As a local Professional businessman and Chairman of Mickle Trafford and District Parish Council, I would support the proposal that the following Parishes be grouped together to form the new Ward - Ince CP; Elton CP; Little Stanney; Thornton-Le- Moors CP; Stoak CP; Croughton CP; Wervin CP; Mickle Trafford and District CP; Barrow CP; Guilden Sutton CP. This will help to strengthen the community and give it a united voice.

I would not support the proposed naming of the Ward as Elton & Mickle Trafford as this excludes the smaller Parishes and makes them appear inferior and insignificant and this is not what the new Ward should portray, the collective Parishes ned a neutral identity but one that has a common link to all of them

Further I would support the New Ward being named “Gowy Rural”. As this is considered to be a neutral name that does not favour anyone of the existing Parishes, that will make up the New Ward but as the River Gowy runs through of near to the collective Parishes it is the common thread.

Cllr. J.P. Glen Nicholas Chairman Mickle Trafford and District Parish Council

T:

W: www.glenltd.co.uk

® ®

1 The content of this message and attached file are confidential and / or privileged and are for the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, any unauthorised review, use, re‐transmission, dissemination, copying, disclosure or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon this information is strictly prohibited. If you receive this message in error please contact the sender immediately and then delete this email from your system. Copyright in this email and attachments created by us belongs to Glen Ltd Chartered Surveyors. Any attachment with this message should be checked for viruses before it is opened. Glen Ltd Chartered Surveyors cannot be held responsible for any failure by the recipient to test for viruses before opening any attachments. Should you communicate with anyone at Glen Ltd Chartered Surveyors by email you consent to us monitoring and reading any such correspondence.

2 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 30 October 2017 14:22 To: reviews

Dear Sir/Madam I would like to commend your draft proposals for single member wards in Winsford on the Swanlow/,Dene Wards and also the Gravel and Wharton Wards for the following reasons

1 Residents know who to contact for advice

2 Voters know who to praise or blame when things happen in their wards

3 Single member Wards avoid the rivalry that can occur when to Councillors from different parties are representing the same residents

4 Councillors from different parties will often try to blame an unpopular decision on to their fellow Councillor can i request you look again at the Over/ Verdin Ward the draft decision to include Whitegate .Salterswall Marton in the Over/Verdin Ward is in my opinion wrong for the following reasons Whitegate, Salterswall,Marton have never considered themselves as Winsford residents they have always associated themselves as being residents. they have their own Parish Council which meets every month and have no interest in attending Wnsford Town Councl meetings despite being less than 2 miles from Winsford Town Centre the community of Whitegate Salterswall Marton have approx 900 voters mostly professional people and live in homes starting at approx £200,000 as against the deprived area of Over/Verdin with 3 large Council Estates and have absolutely nothing in common with Winsford residents I would ask you to have a serious look at the draft proposal regarding Over /Verdin Wards again for the reason i have stated above

Kind Regards Cllr Charlie Parkinson

Winsford Town Councillor Over Ward

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Kate Vaughan Sent: 06 November 2017 14:26 To: reviews Subject: Cheshire West & Chester consultation - personal submission by Kate Vaughan, Chester resident

Miss Kate Vaughan

6th November 2017

Dear Sir,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s draft proposals for new electoral ward boundaries in Chester West & Chester.

I am a resident of Hoole and a parish councillor on Upton‐by‐Chester & District Parish Council. I am also a school governor in Hoole and previously worked for a former Member of Parliament for the City of Chester constituency.

I support the Commission’s proposal to reduce the number of councillors in Cheshire West and Chester to 70, a number which will enable councillors to effectively represent residents and carry out their roles and responsibilities, whilst providing good electoral equality across the borough. I also support the Commission’s proposal for a mix of one‐, two‐ and three‐member wards as this will ensure the needs of each area can be effectively met, rather than attempting a “one size fits all” model.

I would like to comment on the following:

‐ The proposals for Chester;

‐ The proposed Newton & Hoole ward; and

‐ The proposed Upton ward.

1

Chester

I welcome the Commission’s proposals for Chester. It is clear the Commission has sought to propose practical and sensitive changes and maintain community links where possible. This is not an easy task, especially given the geographic restriction of Chester bordering Wales.

I note the Commission’s proposal includes the & Mollington ward amongst recommendations for the area. Whilst Saughall & Mollington is geographically located between Chester and Ellesmere Port, the villages in this ward are very much Chester‐oriented. Residents consider themselves part of Chester and look to the city rather than Ellesmere Port.

Saughall & Mollington is rural in nature and has little in common with nearby urban areas. It would be wrong to seek to attach the villages within this ward to other areas just to make it a two‐ or three‐member ward. I welcome the Commission’s proposal to retain this single‐member rural ward, with the slightly amended boundaries as proposed.

The nearby Blacon area has a distinct community identity. Leaving the current Blacon ward boundaries unchanged would result in a large electoral inequality, however splitting the ward would risk breaking up the community. To avoid this, the ward needs to expand to take in other areas. As Blacon borders Saughall & Mollington to the north, Wales to the west and the River Dee to the south, the only logical direction for expansion is to the south east which would mean taking in part of the existing Garden Quarter ward. The proposals put forward by the Commission are the most practical, as the proposed Blacon ward would take in the more established part of the current Garden Quarter ward which runs into the Sealand Road area, ensuring minimal disruption and providing a three‐member ward of good electoral equality. Calling the ward “Blacon” may cause some residents to feel disenfranchised, so I suggest this proposed ward be renamed “Blacon & Sealand”.

The other half of the current Garden Quarter ward has a large, transient student population and I welcome the Commission’s proposal to include both this and part of the current Newton ward around Liverpool Road into the proposed City ward, along with the existing City ward and those parts of Boughton ward which naturally look to the city. This wider area is a mix of residential and business, with shared interests and concerns such as traffic congestion. The proposed three‐member ward would ensure strong and effective representation for central Chester. The Boughton area – once the village of Spital Boughton – has a long and well recorded history of its own. The area was located outside the Roman Fortress, but provided water to public baths inside the walls from springs in Boughton and in 1821 a Roman altar which marked the position of the well head was discovered. The area was a place of execution and martyrdom during the middle ages and the site of a leper hospital a mile from the city walls. Boughton was also the site where many royalist defenders lost their lives in the English Civil War and were buried in St. Giles Cemetery, near where the main thoroughfare of Boughton splits into the A51 and A41. I suggest the Commission call the proposed City ward “City & Boughton” instead, to ensure that the historic importance of Boughton and its longstanding connection to Chester city is reflected in the ward name.

I note the Commission proposes to split the existing Great Boughton ward into two single‐member wards of Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath. I respectfully request the Commission review this aspect of its proposal and consider

2 retaining the Great Boughton ward. Great Boughton is one of two parished areas within Chester (the parish was formed in 1894) and the areas of Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath are intrinsically linked, with a strong community, shared services, road and transport links, schools and amenities. Local road signs say, “Welcome to the Parish of Great Boughton, incorporating Vicars Cross and Boughton Heath”. Currently Great Boughton is a two‐member ward and retaining this ward and structure would ensure ongoing and strong representation.

I welcome the Commission’s proposal for a Christleton & Huntington ward to the south east of Chester and an Elton & Mickle Trafford ward to the north east. The villages in these proposed wards look to Chester (I would specifically note that villages in the existing Elton ward do not have any connection to Ellesmere Port). The current single‐ member ward of & Huntington is predominantly rural in nature and has grown significantly in recent years with the ongoing development of , leading to electoral inequality. It is clear the Commission has sought to propose wards where similar rural areas with strong village and parish identities are appropriately linked and the proposed two‐member Christleton & Huntington ward will provide strong representation and ensure good electoral equality. Similarly, the Commission has treated the rural communities in the proposed Elton & Mickle Trafford ward with sensitivity and this two‐member ward will ensure that these communities are fully and effectively represented, as well as ensuring good electoral equality.

I also welcome the Commission’s proposal to unite the Handbridge Park and Lache wards in a three‐member Overleigh ward. This area “south of the river” shares common services, including shops and schools, as well as road links and bus routes. The police and fire service also treat this as one area. The Overleigh ward as proposed will also account for the planned Wrexham Road development, which will provide additional housing and a new school for the area south of the river. I note that residents from both the existing Handbridge Park and Lache wards have written to the Commission in support of uniting the current wards into one and I support the Commission’s proposed Overleigh ward.

Newton & Hoole

I welcome and fully support the Commission’s proposals for a three‐member Newton & Hoole ward. The proposed ward would deliver good electoral quality and ensure minimal change to the existing wards. It would also provide a compact, clearly defined ward with shared interests, and ensure strong representation in the borough. I particularly welcome the Commission’s decision not to split communities unnecessarily by creating single‐member wards across Hoole and Newton. As a Hoole resident I share the strong community feeling of this area and believe it would be detrimental for Hoole to be unnecessarily split.

Hoole and Newton have clear and distinct identities but their close geographical proximity means they have shared history and interests. Prior to the abolition of Cheshire County Council there was a Hoole & Newton electoral division which covered a similar area to that which is now being proposed by the Commission. The former division enabled residents to be effectively represented and ensured that common interests and challenges could be addressed. Since the Cheshire West and Chester Unitary Authority came into effect, residents are in either Hoole ward or Newton ward, but the wider area continues to retain strong, established links.

3 Our local community magazine is called “Hoole & Newton Roundabout” and it features news articles and advertisements from both Hoole and Newton, as well as details of elected representatives in both the existing wards.

At the war memorial located on Hoole Road (near the corner of Kilmorey Park Avenue), the Hoole and Newton Cross and Stone commemorates the conflicts of the First and Second World War. The commemorative panel is dedicated “in proud and loving memory of the men of Hoole and Newton”. For many residents of Newton, the Hoole war memorial is their closest memorial, and commemorating the sacrifice made by men from Hoole and Newton provides a valued, permanent link between these two areas.

Hoole and Newton share local policing services, with one PC covering “Hoole and Newton”, working with the PCSO allocated to each area. The proposed Newton & Hoole ward would enable elected representatives to work closely with our local PC and PCSOs on policing issues across the entire ward and ensure strong representation.

There are also strong and well established transport links between Hoole and Newton. Hoole Road provides access to both Hoole and Newton, whether travelling to or from the city. The 53 bus services both Hoole and Newton, including stopping along Hoole Road.

As a local resident, I regularly use the shops in Hoole. I also use shops and services in Newton, and my pets are registered at the vet on Brook Lane in Newton. Residents of Hoole and Newton look to businesses and local amenities within this area and the close geographic proximity means it is easy to access services within the wider area, such as local shops, doctors’ surgeries and dentists, restaurants, playing fields and community centres.

I welcome the inclusion of both Hoole and Newton in the name of the proposed ward. I respectfully request that the ward is named “Hoole & Newton”, as this would clearly reflect the order of names already widely used in the area as outlined above.

Upton

I welcome the Commission’s proposal to retain a two‐member Upton ward which would incorporate the entirety of the Upton‐by‐Chester & District Parish Council area. Upton has a strong and distinct identity and is one of two areas in the city of Chester which has a parish council. The parish council passed a resolution supporting the retention of a two‐member Upton ward to include the entire parish area.

I welcome the changes proposed to the area on the existing Upton and Newton ward boundary. It is sensible that Plas Newton Lane is the boundary between the proposed Upton and Newton & Hoole wards, ensuring roads such as The Beeches are unified in the Upton ward. I also welcome the addition of Arradon Court, Breton Close, Bank Close

4 and Tiverton Close in the proposed Upton ward; this provides a clearer boundary and I am sure residents will welcome this move. It would be sensible for the boundary between the wards to go further down the middle of Plas Newton Lane, to “Newton Corner”, so that all of Wealstone Lane, Whitton Drive and Horrocks Road are included in the proposed Upton ward. I respectfully request that the Commission review the proposal to put Wealstone Court, Queensway and Newton Hall Drive, as well as this side of Plas Newton Lane in Upton, as these roads and residents have long identified with Newton, not Upton. This small part of the proposed ward boundary is currently messy, but I believe these minor changes would tidy it up, whilst respecting and strengthening community links.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Commission’s proposals at this stage and I look forward to the final recommendations.

Yours faithfully,

Kate Vaughan

5 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Christopher Ward Sent: 06 November 2017 15:20 To: reviews Subject: Cheshire West and Chester Boundary Review - Consultation on draft recommendations

I believe the proposed Christleton & Huntington Ward could be detrimental to the communities of Dodleston parish and other surrounding villages and communities. These communities have few links to the areas it would be joined with in the proposed 2-member ward.

Unlike the connection and similarity shared by Dodleston, and Eccleston, transport links and travel routes do not make all the villages in the proposed ward a natural ward community. Whilst far from perfect, in part owing to the geography - the Welsh border and the River Dee (straddled by the Grosvenor estate) - I would suggest that Dodleston and Huntington remain a single member ward.

Christopher Ward Dodleston Parish Councillor

Right-click or tap and hold here to download pictu protect your privacy, Outlook prevented automati this picture from the Internet. Virus-free. www.avg.com

1