Parish and town council submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from parish and town councils.

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

Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 16 December 2015 09:26 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: & Parish Council

From: Sent: 15 December 2015 18:40 To: reviews Subject: Barkby & Barkby Thorpe Parish Council

Barkby and Barkby Thorpe Parish Council endorses the changes proposed for county council electoral boundaries. The council recognises that Barkby and Barkby Thorpe will in future be joined with rather than and villages to the north. Given that outline planning permission has been given for the 4500 houses North East of SUE which will be built across the parish council boundaries of Thurmaston and Barkby there is a logic to the changes as our villages in the future will be more closely linked to Thurmaston although the current disparity in populations between the two parishes does give rise to the fear that the interests of our villages and hamlets could be outweighed by the interests of the urban fringe. The parish council wishes to point out that the proposed changes can only be temporary. They will have to redrawn again to ensure fairness in the size of the divisions once the SUE population gets into the low thousands.

Regards Carla Cunningham-Atkins Clerk to Barkby & Barkby Thorpe Parish Council

1 Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Peat

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Carlton Parish Council

Comment text:

Carlton Parish Council strongly supports these recommendations.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6230 25/11/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Elizabeth Crowther

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Clawson Hose & Harby Parish Council

Comment text:

Clawson Hose & Harby Parish Council is concerned that the additional cost of establishing a combined authority would exceed the limited reduction in admistration costs

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6531 07/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Rosalind Folwell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: East Langton Parish Council

Comment text:

East Langton Parish Council objects to the proposed boundary division change. East Langton Parish is a very rural parish. To place it within the Market Harborough Division is in direct opposition to the Commission’s stated criteria to reflect the interests and identity of the local community as Market Harborough is a much larger settlement with quite different priorities. We have found the current electoral arrangements to be effective and convenient. We agree with the current LCC proposals for Gartree, i.e. leaving the Langtons together as now, so the numbers would be: 11,001 by 2021, and the electorate for Market Harborough East would be 10,165. Both still being within the 10% of the average division electorate of 9,984.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6694 12/01/2016 Glenfield Parish Council

Formal response by Glenfield Parish Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) draft proposal for Leicestershire The original Leicestershire County Council (LCC) proposal only recommended one multi- member division and that was combining Glenfields with Kirby Muxloe and Leicester Forest East (LFE) and the addition of the parishes of Leicester Forest West and Thurlaston. The proposal offered no evidence to do this other than trying to improve electoral equality; its proposal recognised Kirby Muxloe (KM) as a distinct community. The commission received other submissions proposing single member divisions for the area, but has accepted the LCC proposal solely on the basis of electoral equality (currently -17% and forecast -16% in 2021 for Glenfields). The LCC proposed no changes to the Electoral Division (current +10% variance and forecast +14% in 2021). The evidence offered for allowing this division with such a variance was the perceived distinctness of the community and the possibility of strong objections by the community to any change. The proposal suggested the M1 provided a natural division between Shepshed and the remainder of Charnwood. It quoted the last Periodic Electoral review of 2003 where the LCC argued keeping Shepshed as a separate community despite a forecast +16% variance; this was accepted by the then Boundary Committee for England. The LGBCE proposal is that it remains a single member division because of its clear separation from by the M1 and open fields; no other evidence is offered. The Parish of Glenfields is a distinct community separated from the parishes of Kirby Muxloe and Leicester Forest East by the M1 and open fields. There are no ties between the separated areas, nor has any evidence of any ties been made. All submissions specific to the area have supported keeping these two communities (Glenfields and KM/LFE) as separate electoral divisions. Changing the proposal to single divisions for this area would have no impact on the proposals for other areas (nor has any been suggested or evidenced). Glenfield Parish Council state the case for retaining a single division for Glenfields is very strong, and parity with the consideration of Shepshed makes the case compelling. ************************************************************************

HUGGLESCOTE & DONINGTON LE HEATH PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Clerk: Simon Weaver,

Website:

Review Officer ( Leicestershire) Local Government Boundary Commission foe England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

30 December 2015

FAO David Owen

Dear David

Electoral Review of Leicestershire Draft Recommendations

At the last meeting the Parish Council considered the proposed draft recommendations for Leicestershire County Council's revised electoral arrangements.

The Council accepts the arrangements as detailed.

The new arrangement reflect our local communities. These will see the parish area served by two county councillors, which makes historical and political sense, and will improve member representation in our area.

Yours sincerely

Simon Weaver Clerk to the Council

Owen, David

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 December 2015 09:09 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Leicestershire, draft recommendations

From: market bosworth parish council Sent: 02 December 2015 15:22 To: reviews Cc: Subject: Electoral Review of Leicestershire, draft recommendations

Dear Sirs

I am emailing on behalf of Market Bosworth Parish Council with regard to the Electoral Review of Leicestershire, draft recommendations.

The Parish Council wishes only to comment on the Market Bosworth Division.

It is noted that the draft recommendations include removal of Barlestone from the Market Bosworth Division.

I can confirm that Market Bosworth Parish Council fully supports the draft recommendations for the Market Bosworth Division.

Regards

Mrs Cathy Monkman Parish Clerk Market Bosworth Parish Council

R

m m This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.

www.avast.com

1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Dawn Roach

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Measham Parish Council

Comment text:

Measham Parish Council support the proposed change to North West Leicestershire Forest & Measham.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6353 17/12/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: Liz Boswell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Ravenstone with Snibton Parish Council

Comment text:

At the Parish Council Meeting of 26 November 2015, Members resolved to object to Ravenstone with Snibston Parish being moved from Valley Division to within the Ibstock and Appleby Division when there are closer allegiances to the existing Valley Division or indeed the Coalville Division.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6243 02/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Leicestershire County

Personal Details:

Name: jane Reed

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Shackerstone Parish Council

Comment text:

Shackerstone Parish Council support the draft recommendations for electoral arrangements for Leicestershire County Council resulting in our parish remaining within the Market Bosworth Division.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6670 12/01/2016 Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 02 December 2015 10:04 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Electoral review of Leicestershire

From: Sheepy Parish Council [mailto ] Sent: 02 December 2015 09:15 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Leicestershire

This is to confirm that Sheepy Parish Council agreed with the Local Government Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Leicestershire County Council, which includes new electoral division boundaries across Leicestershire.

Mavis Bassett Clerk to Sheepy Parish Council

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 December 2015 09:20 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Leicestershire

From: Theresa Case [mailto ] Sent: 03 December 2015 09:18 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Leicestershire

Stoke Golding Parish Council agree with the Boundary Commission's draft recommendations/proposals for Leicestershire.

-- Kind regards Theresa C Case Clerk to Stoke Golding Parish Council

Stoke Golding Parish Council is committed to respecting the personal information you submit and will take all appropriate measures to secure it and process it in accordance with the Data Protection Act.

This email may contain confidential or privileged material for the use of the addressee. If you receive this email in error please contact the sender and delete the material from your computer.

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 04 December 2015 09:48 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Leicestershire, proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward

From: Clerk [mailto ] Sent: 03 December 2015 14:50 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Leicestershire, proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward

Review Officer (Leicestershire) 3RD December 2015 Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Mill bank London SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Electoral Review of Leicestershire, proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward,

Thurmaston Parish Council would like to submit their views on the draft recommendations as follows:

In accordance with the draft recommendation to deliver electoral equality across the county, Councillors support the principles of recommendations. However, with reference to the proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward, consideration needs to be given to the future development of 4,200 new dwellings East of Thurmaston, as per the recently adopted Core Strategy. Charnwood Borough Council have recently approved a planning application for the development of over 3000 new homes East of Thurmaston, North of Hamilton. In accordance with Charnwood Housing Trajectory, an additional 500 properties could be developed by 2018 and over 3000 dwellings could be developed in the next 10 years; progressively and substantially increasing the number of electors in the vicinity of the proposed Thurmaston Ridgemere Ward. The proposed new electoral ward, Thurmaston Ridgemere would include the Parishes of Thurmaston, Barkby, , South Croxton and a proportion of (South). Councillors support the proposed inclusion of the hamlets of Barkby, Beeby, South Croxton geographically, and note that this proposed pattern of division would incorporate a majority of the new development.

However, Councillors do not agree that any part of Syston should be included within the proposed ward. Councillors are of the opinion that the

1

Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 December 2015 08:57 To: Owen, David Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Leicestershire: Draft Recommendations

From: Whitwick Parish Council Sent: 21 December 2015 07:57 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Leicestershire: Draft Recommendations

The Parish Council would like to record its support for the recommendations in respect of the Whitwick Division.

Lorraine and Phil Ellis Clerk/Assistant Clerk Whitwick Parish Council

Tel:

1