Parish and Town Council Submissions to the Leicestershire County Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parish and town council submissions to the Leicestershire 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: Barkby & Barkby Thorpe Parish Council From: Sent: 15 December 2015 18:40 To: reviews <[email protected]> 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 Thurmaston rather than Queniborough and villages to the north. Given that outline planning permission has been given for the 4500 houses North East of Leicester 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 England 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 Shepshed 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 Loughborough 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> Subject: Electoral review of Leicestershire This is to confirm that Sheepy Parish Council agreed with the Local Government Boundary Commission’s draft recommendations on