Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains local resident submissions with surnames A.

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

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alan Aburrow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Retain houses fronting Eastfield Road and Road in Westbury/

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Retain houses fronting Eastfield Road and Southmead Road in Westbury/Henleaze

Comment text:

The proposed boundary between Southmead and Westbury/Henleaze Wards should be repositioned at the REAR of the properties that front Eastfield Road and Southmead Road (at the highlighted location). This would allow these few properties to share the same Ward (Westbury/Henleaze) as the properties on the opposite sides of these sections of Road. I know it is easy to draw a boundary down the centre of a road but this unnecessarily splits communities for no other purpose than simplicity!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4471 26/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alan Aburrow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Commission’s current proposals for the “new” Wards of Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze represent a poor attempt at trying to make the best of a bad job. This is admitted by the Commission in the details accompanying their proposals: “In formulating our draft recommendations we also considered joining this [Westbury] ward with Henleaze to form a three-member ward. On balance, we have taken the view that two separate wards provide an accurate reflection of community identity in this area. However, we would particularly welcome submissions on the Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym areas”.The single most important flaw in the proposals is to annex Westbury village from the heart of the existing Westbury Ward into Henleaze and leave the rump in a Ward named “Westbury” that does not even contain the village of Westbury! This indicates a serious error of judgement on the part of the Boundary Commission in their attempt to balance the number of voters for each of Bristol’s 70 councillors. To arbitrarily assume that Falcondale Road is a natural Ward boundary shows a comprehensive lack of understanding by the Boundary Commission which completely ignores the historical development of the area. Falcondale Road is only the “Westbury Bypass” built in the 1920s and not a natural historical neighbourhood boundary at all. The alternative option (within the Commission’s many constraints) would be to retain Westbury with its village in a new Ward with 2 councillors and create a new Henleaze Ward with 1 councillor. However, this would probably be resisted by the residents of Henleaze and make it difficult to redraw the Westbury/Henleaze Ward boundary without creating the same “New Westbury” problem for “New Henleaze”. Therefore, on balance, the simplest option would be to combine the proposed Wards of Westbury (1 councillor) and Henleaze (2 councillors) into a Ward of 3 councillors, named “Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze”.The new Ward should, for historical reasons, be named “Westbury-on-Trym & Henleaze” as Westbury’s history as a village stretches back to the 8th century (even pre-dating Bristol by some 200 years). By comparison, Henleaze is the “daughter” of Westbury that only came into being within the last 100 years, or so. Within Bristol, the precedent for not presenting the names of combined Wards in alphabetical order has been set with “ & ”, where Brentry is the much younger sibling of the village of Henbury. Alan Aburrow

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4546 02/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Feature Annotations

9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not .

10: Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: These houses are accessed from Malvern Road and should be in the same ward

Annotation 3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

Annotation 4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Annotation 8: Remove the unecessary kink in the boundary so that all Troopers Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Annotation 9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not Brislington.

Annotation Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington 10:

Comment text:

I am resident of St George and Chair of St George Neighbourhood Partnership. These are my personal comments and do not necessarily represent the view of the Partnership or any other organisation. a) I support the revised arrangement of wards in St George overall. The proposed St George Troopers Hill and wards do seem to reflect communities better than the current & West arrangement, in particular the Crews Hole area to the south has very little in common with the north east of St George. b) In principle I prefer single Councillor wards as I think they make it clear to the electors who their representative is and individual Councillors have a smaller area to focus on, it might also encourage more people to stand as independent Councillors if they have a smaller area to canvass. Given the Neighbourhood Partnership structure in Bristol Councillors in adjacent wards should be able to cover in the event of a Councillor being on long term sick or similar. On the other hand I can see that arbitrarily dividing a community is not sensible and so a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 Councillor wards can make sense. I would prefer though if there were more than just 4 single Councillor wards across so that they are seen as normal and not as exceptions. c) Areas of green space that are managed by the Council should be in the same ward as the properties adjacent to the entrances where possible so that residents do not have to deal with different Councillors for their street and their green space, I have marked on the map an area where the boundary needs changing to achieve this. d) Residential streets should not have ward boundaries running down them, the boundary should be along the back of the properties so

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

the whole street is in the same ward. New boundaries should certainly follow this principle and existing boundaries should be adjusted as part of the process unless there is very good reasons not to, again I have marked particular areas on the map. e) The River Avon east to is part of the City of Bristol, currently and in the proposals this is shown as part of Brislington. However, the towpath along the river which is maintained by the Council is on the St George side, this path (and the river) should therefore be part of the St George Troopers Hill Ward so that it is clear that its whole length is covered by the St George Councillor and St George Neighbourhood Partnership. With the current arrangement this strip of land is in effect a detached part of the Brislington Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Feature Annotations

7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: These houses are accessed from Malvern Road and should be in the same ward

Annotation 3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

Annotation 4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Annotation 8: Remove the unecessary kink in the boundary so that all Troopers Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Annotation 9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not Brislington.

Annotation Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington 10:

Comment text:

I am resident of St George and Chair of St George Neighbourhood Partnership. These are my personal comments and do not necessarily represent the view of the Partnership or any other organisation. a) I support the revised arrangement of wards in St George overall. The proposed St George Troopers Hill and St George West wards do seem to reflect communities better than the current St George East & West arrangement, in particular the Crews Hole area to the south has very little in common with the north east of St George. b) In principle I prefer single Councillor wards as I think they make it clear to the electors who their representative is and individual Councillors have a smaller area to focus on, it might also encourage more people to stand as independent Councillors if they have a smaller area to canvass. Given the Neighbourhood Partnership structure in Bristol Councillors in adjacent wards should be able to cover in the event of a Councillor being on long term sick or similar. On the other hand I can see that arbitrarily dividing a community is not sensible and so a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 Councillor wards can make sense. I would prefer though if there were more than just 4 single Councillor wards across so that they are seen as normal and not as exceptions. c) Areas of green space that are managed by the Council should be in the same ward as the properties adjacent to the entrances where possible so that residents do not have to deal with different Councillors for their street and their green space, I have marked on the map an area where the boundary needs changing to achieve this. d) Residential streets should not have ward boundaries running down them, the boundary should be along the back of the properties so

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

the whole street is in the same ward. New boundaries should certainly follow this principle and existing boundaries should be adjusted as part of the process unless there is very good reasons not to, again I have marked particular areas on the map. e) The River Avon east to Hanham is part of the City of Bristol, currently and in the proposals this is shown as part of Brislington. However, the towpath along the river which is maintained by the Council is on the St George side, this path (and the river) should therefore be part of the St George Troopers Hill Ward so that it is clear that its whole length is covered by the St George Councillor and St George Neighbourhood Partnership. With the current arrangement this strip of land is in effect a detached part of the Brislington Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Feature Annotations

3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

1: These houses are8: Remove accessed the unecessary kink from Malvern Road andin the should boundary so that all be in the sameTroopers ward Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: These houses are accessed from Malvern Road and should be in the same ward

Annotation 3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

Annotation 4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Annotation 8: Remove the unecessary kink in the boundary so that all Troopers Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Annotation 9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not Brislington.

Annotation Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington 10:

Comment text:

I am resident of St George and Chair of St George Neighbourhood Partnership. These are my personal comments and do not necessarily represent the view of the Partnership or any other organisation. a) I support the revised arrangement of wards in St George overall. The proposed St George Troopers Hill and St George West wards do seem to reflect communities better than the current St George East & West arrangement, in particular the Crews Hole area to the south has very little in common with the north east of St George. b) In principle I prefer single Councillor wards as I think they make it clear to the electors who their representative is and individual Councillors have a smaller area to focus on, it might also encourage more people to stand as independent Councillors if they have a smaller area to canvass. Given the Neighbourhood Partnership structure in Bristol Councillors in adjacent wards should be able to cover in the event of a Councillor being on long term sick or similar. On the other hand I can see that arbitrarily dividing a community is not sensible and so a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 Councillor wards can make sense. I would prefer though if there were more than just 4 single Councillor wards across so that they are seen as normal and not as exceptions. c) Areas of green space that are managed by the Council should be in the same ward as the properties adjacent to the entrances where possible so that residents do not have to deal with different Councillors for their street and their green space, I have marked on the map an area where the boundary needs changing to achieve this. d) Residential streets should not have ward boundaries running down them, the boundary should be along the back of the properties so

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

the whole street is in the same ward. New boundaries should certainly follow this principle and existing boundaries should be adjusted as part of the process unless there is very good reasons not to, again I have marked particular areas on the map. e) The River Avon east to Hanham is part of the City of Bristol, currently and in the proposals this is shown as part of Brislington. However, the towpath along the river which is maintained by the Council is on the St George side, this path (and the river) should therefore be part of the St George Troopers Hill Ward so that it is clear that its whole length is covered by the St George Councillor and St George Neighbourhood Partnership. With the current arrangement this strip of land is in effect a detached part of the Brislington Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Feature Annotations

5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: These houses are accessed from Malvern Road and should be in the same ward

Annotation 3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

Annotation 4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Annotation 8: Remove the unecessary kink in the boundary so that all Troopers Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Annotation 9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not Brislington.

Annotation Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington 10:

Comment text:

I am resident of St George and Chair of St George Neighbourhood Partnership. These are my personal comments and do not necessarily represent the view of the Partnership or any other organisation. a) I support the revised arrangement of wards in St George overall. The proposed St George Troopers Hill and St George West wards do seem to reflect communities better than the current St George East & West arrangement, in particular the Crews Hole area to the south has very little in common with the north east of St George. b) In principle I prefer single Councillor wards as I think they make it clear to the electors who their representative is and individual Councillors have a smaller area to focus on, it might also encourage more people to stand as independent Councillors if they have a smaller area to canvass. Given the Neighbourhood Partnership structure in Bristol Councillors in adjacent wards should be able to cover in the event of a Councillor being on long term sick or similar. On the other hand I can see that arbitrarily dividing a community is not sensible and so a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 Councillor wards can make sense. I would prefer though if there were more than just 4 single Councillor wards across so that they are seen as normal and not as exceptions. c) Areas of green space that are managed by the Council should be in the same ward as the properties adjacent to the entrances where possible so that residents do not have to deal with different Councillors for their street and their green space, I have marked on the map an area where the boundary needs changing to achieve this. d) Residential streets should not have ward boundaries running down them, the boundary should be along the back of the properties so

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

the whole street is in the same ward. New boundaries should certainly follow this principle and existing boundaries should be adjusted as part of the process unless there is very good reasons not to, again I have marked particular areas on the map. e) The River Avon east to Hanham is part of the City of Bristol, currently and in the proposals this is shown as part of Brislington. However, the towpath along the river which is maintained by the Council is on the St George side, this path (and the river) should therefore be part of the St George Troopers Hill Ward so that it is clear that its whole length is covered by the St George Councillor and St George Neighbourhood Partnership. With the current arrangement this strip of land is in effect a detached part of the Brislington Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: n/a

Feature Annotations

6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: These houses are accessed from Malvern Road and should be in the same ward

Annotation 3: Consider putting this area into St George Central to better equalise numbers between wards. This also seems a more natural boundary

Annotation 4: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 5: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 6: Move ward boundary so that both sides of residential road are in the same ward.

Annotation 7: This area of green space should be in the same ward as the houses in Meg Thatchers Green which is where the access is.

Annotation 8: Remove the unecessary kink in the boundary so that all Troopers Hill Field (recreation ground) is in the same ward.

Annotation 9: Area with path on north side of the river should be St George not Brislington.

Annotation Continuation of area 9 path should be in St George not Brislington 10:

Comment text:

I am resident of St George and Chair of St George Neighbourhood Partnership. These are my personal comments and do not necessarily represent the view of the Partnership or any other organisation. a) I support the revised arrangement of wards in St George overall. The proposed St George Troopers Hill and St George West wards do seem to reflect communities better than the current St George East & West arrangement, in particular the Crews Hole area to the south has very little in common with the north east of St George. b) In principle I prefer single Councillor wards as I think they make it clear to the electors who their representative is and individual Councillors have a smaller area to focus on, it might also encourage more people to stand as independent Councillors if they have a smaller area to canvass. Given the Neighbourhood Partnership structure in Bristol Councillors in adjacent wards should be able to cover in the event of a Councillor being on long term sick or similar. On the other hand I can see that arbitrarily dividing a community is not sensible and so a mixture of 1, 2 and 3 Councillor wards can make sense. I would prefer though if there were more than just 4 single Councillor wards across so that they are seen as normal and not as exceptions. c) Areas of green space that are managed by the Council should be in the same ward as the properties adjacent to the entrances where possible so that residents do not have to deal with different Councillors for their street and their green space, I have marked on the map an area where the boundary needs changing to achieve this. d) Residential streets should not have ward boundaries running down them, the boundary should be along the back of the properties so

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

the whole street is in the same ward. New boundaries should certainly follow this principle and existing boundaries should be adjusted as part of the process unless there is very good reasons not to, again I have marked particular areas on the map. e) The River Avon east to Hanham is part of the City of Bristol, currently and in the proposals this is shown as part of Brislington. However, the towpath along the river which is maintained by the Council is on the St George side, this path (and the river) should therefore be part of the St George Troopers Hill Ward so that it is clear that its whole length is covered by the St George Councillor and St George Neighbourhood Partnership. With the current arrangement this strip of land is in effect a detached part of the Brislington Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4659 09/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Susan Acton-Campbell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: The boundary at the back of Meg Thatchers Green (to the south) should be extended to include the green space to which the residents have access (Meg Thatchers Open Space). No other residents can access this space without going via Meg Thatchers Green

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: The boundary at the back of Meg Thatchers Green (to the south) should be extended to include the green space to which the residents have access (Meg Thatchers Open Space). No other residents can access this space without going via Meg Thatchers Green

Comment text:

I am in favour of the proposals for the new boundaries insofar as they affect St George East and West with the following small changes: a) The boundary that currently extends from south across both sides of the River Avon should be returned to the centre of the river and the boundary for St George Troopers Hill extend to meet it. It is ridiculous that residents in St George Troopers Hill should have to approach a Brislington East Councillor about issues on the towpath on their side of the river that no-one from Brislington East can reach without using a 3 day a week, 6 months a year ferry service or use a bridge more than 2 miles downstream. b) The boundary at the back of Meg Thatchers Green (to the south) should be extended to include the green space to which the residents have access (Meg Thatchers Open Space). No other residents can access this space without going via Meg Thatchers Green. It is a steeply sloping hill side covered with bramble on the slope farthest away from Meg Thatchers Green. I have drawn a line on the map to show the suggested, better line. c) I have no issue with the numbers of councillors allocated to the new wards. As I would expect them to be in a single Neighbourhood Partnership I would expect the councillors to work together to support each other, covering any times when a single councillor cannot give his/her time to their ward. The same number of councillors, 4, are covering the same area that currently is two wards, that could become 3 wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4823 16/02/2015 Porter, Johanna

From: Hilda Adair > Sent: 10 February 2015 14:34 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Henleaze Lake Neighbourhood - Propose Ward Boundary Change

Dear Sir

I strongly oppose the change to move the above neighbourhood from Westbury on Trym ward to Southmead ward:

‐ The natural community focus for this area is towards shops/ churches / facilities in Westbury on Trym and / or Henleaze ‐ Typical journeys are towards Westbury on Trym and / or Henleaze and not Southmead ‐ The nature of the neighbourhood is more aligned to Westbury on Trym and / or Henleaze than Southmead

It seems that this decision is purely political and shows no respect for the people most affected by the change.

Kind regard

Mrs H Adair

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Adams

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think the and Harbourside boundaries need work. For example, Hotwells primary school isn't in the Hotwells ward. As a resident of Cliftonwood, I'd have said we would much more naturally go into the ward than Clifton West - we have a lot more to do with our neighbours in Hotwells than we do with people who live up near the zoo. A much more natural boundary for the north of H&H would be Constitution Hill, Goldney Avenue and Cornwallis Crescent.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4536 02/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: James Adamson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: More obvious and significant alignment of Bishopston/Redland boundary to edge of HMP Horfield walls and allotment gardens fenceline

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: More obvious and significant alignment of Bishopston/Redland boundary to edge of HMP Horfield walls and allotment gardens fenceline

Comment text:

This consultation is presented firstly about Councillors representing more equal numbers of eligible voters and secondly the sense of local community boundaries. The first goal has failed to be addressed by the current division of Redland and Bishopston along Bishop and Fenton Road: Redland councillors will only have an additional 2.11% voters whereas Bishopston councillors will see a 10.43% increase leaving a 5% difference between these two wards. The second area is far more important as local people make up the fabric and spirit of a community whereas councillors and MPs come and go and often do not live in the ward they represent. The proposed Bishopston boundary along Bishop Road cuts through the heart of a strong community - the fact that Monk Road, which is very short, is cut in half is a mistake as the street holds a popular annual street party to celebrate its unity, friendship and shared values and the thought of taking a 1 minute walk to a friend's house on the same road and crossing ward boundaries seems crazy. There is a clear and continuous boundary to the local community that follows the walls of HMP Horfield and the allotment gardens at the North end of Monk and Clevedon Roads. In terms of numbers of voters and keeping communities together there is more sense in aligning the boundary along cambridge and clevedon roads.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4866 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: C Aguet

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: to include all of Monk Road (incl. the northern side) into the Redland ward! it makes no sense to cut it off from the other side of the road or the nearby roads it is associated with and links on to

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

Map Features:

Annotation 1: to include all of Monk Road (incl. the northern side) into the Redland ward! it makes no sense to cut it off from the other side of the road or the nearby roads it is associated with and links on to

Comment text:

I was highly surprised at the reasoning for cutting Monk Road and splitting it into two wards, as indeed there is a strong community spirit on the road and the nearby roads, as exemplified by Monk Road's annual street party. The draft proposal boundary uses the allotment ground to the north as an obvious boundary and includes Fenton Road, however misses the north of Monk Road which is just as much part of the same community and neighbourhood! As someone living on this street, I use more services and have friends situated in the area outlined in the new Redland ward (e.g. shopping on the Gloucester Rd south of Bishop Rd, using the Henleaze library, schools attended by children, church). Personally, I would also amend the proposed boundary betw. the Reland and Bishopston wards to run it alongside the prison boundary wall, alongside Clevedon Rd and Cambridge Rd, and include the streets south of it within the Redland ward (which I see more belonging together). All in all, I feel strongly about Monk Road being included wholly (and not partially) within the Redland ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4833 16/02/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 February 2015 08:43 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Ward Boundaries for "New" Westbury and Henleaze

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Patricia Allen Sent: 05 February 2015 22:54 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Ward Boundaries for "New" Westbury and Henleaze

For the attention of the Review Officer ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐

Dear Sir

The Commission claims that it aims to ensure that the pattern of wards reflects the interests and identities of the local communities as well as effective local governance.To make a new ward of 'Westbury on Trym" which does not include Westbury village itself, with it's long history and vibrant community spirit, seems very strange and I and my family would strongly object to this.

The proposed single‐member Westbury Ward has no identifiable centre of its community within the Ward. The centre of the community is Westbury Village, which has a thriving community spirit through the various churches and groups drawing participants from both sides of Falcondale Road.

Westbury on Trym was first recorded with the foundation of the Parish Church in 717 AD, making it one of the oldest villages in North Bristol, far older than any part of Henleaze.

Falcondale Road was only built in the 1930s, and is not a barrier in the area. It is crossed on a daily basis for many reasons, including business, transport, education and leisure. My husband and I regularly walk across it to go to Canford Park and Canford Cemetary.

PLEASE do not cut Westbury in half. It would be much more sensible to have a 3‐member ward called Westbury on Trym & Henleaze.

Yours faithfully Patricia Allen (Mrs)

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Pauline Allen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The current proposals would divide the Kingsdown community into 3 parts, in 3 different wards! This is not necessary, and can be avoided by not splitting the existing Cabot ward into 'Central' and "Hotwells and Harbourside'. Instead, it could/should be split along a perpendicular axis, to form a smaller Cabot ward (2 Councillors) and a new Redcliffe ward (1 Councillor)

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4806 13/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Heather Andrews

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like to voice my opinion on the ward changes to Westbury /Henleaze and say that I am in agreement to enter a partnership ward with Henleaze and sharing the three councillors. I do not want our village split apart. signed Heather Andrews

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4877 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Nigel Andrews

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident of Westbury on Trym

Comment text:

Dear Sirs, I would much prefer that the village of Westbury on Trym be combined as a partnership ward with Henleaze. It is important to both communities that the villages maintain their identities and are not split. Yours faithfully N R Andrews Westbury on Trym resident.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4485 27/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Maggie Ansell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Lake Road BS10 is currently part of W-o-T ward. It should stay in Westbury or move to Henleaze. The character and concerns of this area are completely different from the majority of Southmead and would not benefit at all from having the same councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4429 14/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: alison archibald

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

"I am a small business owner of Hotwells in Clifton ward in Bristol. The proposal to create a Hotwells and Harbourside Ward will divide the historic neighbourhood of Hotwells between the new wards of Clifton West and Hotwells & Harbourside as well as dividing Cliftonwood from Hotwells. The community of Cliftonwood and Hotwells, is clearly recognised as a single entity by residents and defined by the parish boundary. The new boundary proposals will divide this established community rather than reflect community identity. Voters in Hotwells & Cliftonwood are currently represented by two Councillors. The proposed Hotwells & Harbourside ward will have only one. The rights of this community to lobby for changes through the City Council will be diluted with only one Councillor rather than two working on their behalf. This represents a reduction in electoral equality relative to other 2 or 3 Councillor wards, definitely not an improvement. The proposed changes will also impact on the existing Neighbourhood Partnership structure. This has established itself as an improved system for making local government more responsive and accountable. The proposed changes represent a threaten an effective local government in our area and my fear is that it will undermine the work that Council officers and community representatives have already undertaken together in improving the delivery of local services".

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4651 09/02/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:31 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: "Stapleton Boundary"

From: Sent: 15 February 2015 23:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fwd: "Stapleton Boundary"

Dear Commissioner,

Please accept the following email received in regards to the City of Bristol "EASTVILLE" ward boundary review.

Kind regards

Chris Harris

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: BARRIE ASHFORD Date: 5 February 2015 16:44:46 GMT To: Subject: "Stapleton Boundary" Reply-To: BARRIE ASHFORD

Dear Mr Harris

As a "Stapleton villager" for nearly 70 years, I would like to add my preference for any change in it's boundaries for voting purposes.

I would prefer that.

1. Stapleton Ward should be just that i.e. to include Stapleton as it was some 30 + years ago. These days to include the Bailey's Mead estate and those at Duchess Way, Brinkworthy Road and its offshoots, and possibly those at Trendlewood estate. This would give a true picture of the community that has been changed to include new housing and their residents since the last change.

1 2. It should not, in my opinion, be placed within the Eastville Ward, nor with the areas of , Oldbury Court, Easton, or Eastville. In the present structure many voters do no bother to vote as they feel that any vote placed is likely to be cancelled out or in fact "beaten" by the larger number of voters who tend to vote as one in the Easton, Upper and Lower Eastville areas.

My belief is that a truer representation would be made if the Stapleton Ward started in Bell Hill where the turning to Bailey's Mead is situated to the other end of Park Road at Duchess Gate thereby including the areas I have mentioned in paragraph 1.

I would be grateful if my views, which may not be the same as yours, are forwarded to the relevant bodies who are to make these decisions...... Thank you.

Barrie J. Ashford

Stapleton

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Matt

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I currently live on Kings Drive in Bishopston ward. I identify strongly with living in Bishopston and feel part of the community, particularly living near and regularly using the Gloucester Road and its associated facilities. I do not feel that I have any connection to living in Redland which I see as a place where students live and which is more associated with the WHiteladies Road than the Gloucester Road. I think that your proposed change to move my property from Bishopston to Redland ward will diminish my identity.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4542 02/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Audra Atkins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Clearly the person who thought of this idea doesn't live in Westbury on Trym. We have lived in this area for 14 years and have always supported our village Westbury on Trym.This is our local village and the thought of it no longer being part of Westbury on Trym is nonsenicle. Living in Tuffley Road just off lake Road we would be cut off from the proposed revised area of Westbury on Trym. This is a very depressing prospect for anyone living in lake, charis, Tuffley, delvin , cranham road area. the name Southmead carries a considerable stigma. This will have major effect on the value fproperties for anyone living in the area. And cast a shadow across this vibrant community! It will also have an impact on the the very successful but outstanding primary school. We would welcome the boundary commission to explain to us face to face why this is a good idea. We are far more concerned about this boundary change than we are about the number of representatives which would have far less impact on us than this proposed boundary change. Kind regards Audra Atkins .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4753 12/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Nick Atkins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It seems very easy to look at a lap, mark the major roads and make some changes. Especially if it doesn't affect the area in which you live. The same approach was taken by the European colonists in Africa and other continents. The problem being with the latter it didn't take note of the tribal boundries which have caused problems ever since. It is disappointing to hear our MP referring to parts of Westbury-on-Trym as "deprived" when a quick wander down, Charis, Lake, Tuffley or Delvin road would show this to be far from the case. A number of GPs, School teachers and business people leave in this area and it has a fantastic community spirit. Part of the Westbury community focussed in the Westbury village. This is our centre, not Southmead for which most of us are only really familiar with the Southmead road or maybe the hospital. Making these proposed changes will have a very negative effect on the appeal of this area for young families or business professionals looking to move to this part of Bristol and for those of us already there we will see a big reduction in the value of our homes. This will have a far greater effect than any political changes made. We also wonder how classing the ancient centre of Westbury as part of Henleaze can cause anything other than confusion. Please have an urgent rethink on these boundry proposals based on experience on the ground not by looking at a map. Kind regards Nick Atkins

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4817 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rosemary Atkins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed new boundary of Westbury a residential area offers no community facility or identity apart from Canford Park and the Cemetery, does not preserve the long historic associations in the Parish Church and College. A thriving community with Business Association, annual fairs, flower show in the Village Hall (outside the Village under the new boundary) and other social activities; good public transport - four buses into the Village, Henleaze, ; two free car parks encourage people to shop locally. My suggested Westbury boundary would be identified as the existing map to include Henbury Road, Trym Road, Chock Lane, Waters Lane, Stoke Lane to the traffic lights at Falcondale Road. It incorporates Parish Church, College, Village Hall, High Street and War Memorial, keeping Westbury village history. These suggested more identifiable boundaries would give Henleaze 2 Councillors, Westbury 1, a more equal distribution of votes better reflecting community interests and identities. Uniting the three Councillors, as WOTBA proposal, would improve efficiency and avoid any lack of representation if the single Westbury councillor were absent.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4785 12/02/2015 The proposed new boundary of Westbury a residential area offers no community facility or identity apart from Canford Park and the Cemetery, does not preserve the long historic associations in the Parish Church and College. A thriving community with Business Association, annual fairs, flower show in the Village Hall (outside the Village under the new boundary) and other social activities; good public transport - four buses into the Village, Henleaze, Bristol city centre; two free car parks encourage people to shop locally. My suggested Westbury boundary would be identified as the existing map to include Henbury Road, Trym Road, Chock Lane, Waters Lane, Stoke Lane to the traffic lights at Falcondale Road. It incorporates Parish Church, College, Village Hall, High Street and War Memorial, keeping Westbury village history. These suggested more identifiable boundaries would give Henleaze 2 Councillors, Westbury 1, a more equal distribution of votes better reflecting community interests and identities. Uniting the three Councillors, as WOTBA proposal, would improve efficiency and avoid any lack of representation if the single Westbury councillor were absent.