Parish Council Submissions to the Central Bedfordshire Borough Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Parish council submissions to the Central Bedfordshire Borough Council electoral review. This PDF document contains 20 submissions from parish councils. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document. Page 1 of 1 Gregory, Eleanor From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 08 July 2010 17:28 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Comment from Billington Parish Council From: Lorraine Mawer Sent: 08 July 2010 16:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Commission Comment from Billington Parish Council Good Afternoon Having read the recommendations, Billington Parish Council would like to comment as follows: Name of Ward - Eaton Bray The PC notes that Eaton Bray will be linked with Gt Billington and Tottenhoe. We do not disagree with this, but would say we have worked closely with the current villages with which we are associated and will continue so to do. Our comment is that by stating Gt Billington, it infers that Lt Billington does not exist (which it certainly does!). Can we suggest the following wording for the Ward description: a) Eaton Bray, Billington, Tottenhoe OR b) Eaton Bray, Gt. and Lt. Billington, Tottenhoe We do not think it is correct that Lt Billington should be ignored and only Gt Billington recognised. We would have preferred the ward to be called South West Ward, but believe that you have already turned this suggestion down from Tottenhoe PC? Please advise your decision in due course. Yours sincerely Lorraine Mawer Chairman, on behalf of Billington Parish Council Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now. 14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1 Gregory, Eleanor From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 26 May 2010 11:19 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Consultation From: gill wiggs Sent: 26 May 2010 10:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: Consultation Dear Sir, Central Bedfordshire Boundary Review The Parish Council feels very strongly that the warding of our village of Blunham with the town of Sandy is inappropriate. Sandy is a medium sized town with all the issues that towns typically attract, such as anti social behaviour, large scale housing developments, fly tipping and waste issues etc etc. It is a quickly growing town, with a high proportion of new houses and young families. The arguments presented to ward this town with our village, seem to be based on “making up the numbers” to secure 3 councillors for Sandy, which completely undermines the needs of our small rural community. We believe we would get very little attention, as the urban needs of Sandy would swallow up our Councillors time and focus. Blunham is a rural village with a conservation area, with no new development, and the issues we face a wholly of a rural nature, such as transport links, post office services etc. We feel a strong affinity with our neighbouring villages who have similar issues, and we have shared values and aim with these villages. We have no affinity with the town of Sandy, and our residents tend use the doctors and other amenities in Great Barford. We fully appreciate the difficulties faced in trying to make the numbers fit, but feel this solution is not the right one for our community and would urge the commission to reconsider this, in order that Sandy can be a ward of its own if it needs to be, and Blunham be warded with its neighbouring villages. Gill Wiggs Clerk to Blunham Parish Council 14/07/2010 Page 1 of 1 Lawrence, Arion From: Karen Barker Sent: 08 July 2010 16:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review FAO Review Officer (Central Beds) Eversholt Parish Council have considered the electoral review of Central Bedfordshire and make the following comment: Eversholt Parish Council strongly support one Councillor serving: Aspley Guise, Aspley Heath, Husborne Crawley, Battlesden, Eversholt, Milton Bryan and Woburn. Karen Barker Clerk 16/07/2010 HARLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Member, Bedfordshire Association of Town and Parish Councils Member, Bedfordshire Playing Fields Association Chairman: Clerk: Mrs K Potter Mrs N S Upton MILCM Email: 12th July 2010 Via email to: Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 78-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 4LG Dear Sir/Madam Re: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire: Draft Recommendations Further to the letter dated 17th May 2010 with regards the above, I have been instructed to write to you by Harlington Parish Council to express its wish to be grouped with Streatley (including Sharpenhoe) and Sundon. The three villages with Sharpenhoe form the boundary of the northern sub area of the Chilterns AONB and thus share a common permanent geographical feature. They also have common issues with the expansion of Luton, loss of south Bedfordshire Green Belt, and the impact of commuter and heavy freight traffic on rural roads with weight and width restrictions. Harlington already actively participates in the Growth Area Partnership (GAPP), a Parish Council pressure group focused on the strategic area Streatley - Dunstable. The combined population of the three villages should create a voter/Councillor ratio within 3% of the ideal target as set out by the Boundary Commission when considering the number of Councillors Central Bedfordshire would need. Although a grouping with Toddington may seem more obvious, such a grouping would result in a ratio perhaps 14% higher than the ideal. This would leave both villages under-represented in an important growth area of the Unitary Council. Yours faithfully Mrs N S Upton MILCM Clerk to Harlington Parish Council cc: Streatley Parish Council and Sundon Parish Council www.harlington.bedsparishes.gov.uk Page 1 of 1 Gregory, Eleanor From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 30 June 2010 10:33 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: electoral review - Central Beds From: gill wiggs Sent: 28 June 2010 08:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: electoral review - Central Beds Dear Sirs, There are 2 comments from Parish Councillors to be submitted: 1 – Given that the increase in our ward is due to Houghton Conquest growth, will Haynes be adequately covered 2 – Given that there are already other “Houghton” wards, should our ward be named “Haynes” to minimise any confusion Kind Regards Gill Wiggs Clerk to Haynes Parish Council 14/07/2010 Gregory, Eleanor From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:03 To: Lawrence, Arion Subject: FW: Heath & Reach Parish Council Responce to Central Bedfordshire Draft Recommendations Attachments: Boundary Commission response July 2010 v2.doc Boundary mmission response J -----Original Message----- From: Sara Crann Sent: 12 July 2010 07:50 To: [email protected] Cc: Tricia Humber Subject: Heath & Reach Parish Council Responce to Central Bedfordshire Draft Recommendations Dear Sir /Madam Please find attached the responce from Heath & Reach Parish Council in reply to the Draft Recommendations Consultation for Central Bedfordshire. Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me. Kind regards Sara Crann Clerk to Heath & Reach Parish Council 1 HEATH & REACH PARISH COUNCIL The Review Officer Central Bedfordshire Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 12th January 2010 Dear Sirs, Re: Electoral Boundary Review for Central Bedfordshire – Village of Heath & Reach Further to our previous response of 15th June by e-mail please find below an replacement submission from Heath & Reach Parish Council regarding the Draft Recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Central Bedfordshire of May 2010. The Parish Council has now considered the recommendations at length and has the following response: Points 120 and 121 The Boundary Commission accepts that the Parish Council and others “provided good evidence of community identity” with the Plantation area and that other respondents from Leighton-Linslade town “echoed these views”. It is not just the Plantation area that there are links with but Leighton Linslade town as a whole as our previous submission clearly demonstrates. No evidence has been presented by the Boundary Commission that demonstrates any links or community identity with the villages in the proposed ward. The only tenable link is that Heath & Reach share our vicar with Hockliffe but this is in the context that both parishes are within the Ouzel Valley team which also includes Leighton, Linslade, Billington and Eggington. There are no other known material links with any of the other villages. Points 122 and 123 The Boundary Commission states that there is “the need to secure good electoral quality”; that if Heath & Reach were included in some way within Leighton-Linslade there would be “significant consequential effect beyond ...”; that “it would result in an arbitrary split of Leighton-Linslade parish” and that it would not “provide the best balance between the statutory criteria....” In its October 2009 document on the patterns of wards it accepted that the achievement of “perfect electoral equality” was not always going to be possible and yet is now seeming determining wards to meet a target of 3251 average as being its sole objective rather than also reflecting the key criteria for “a good pattern of wards”. A good pattern of wards should: Provide good electoral variance, with all councillors representing as near as possible to the same number of electors. Contain considerations of community identities and include evidence of community links. Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. Be supported by local residents or parish or town councils. HEATH & REACH PARISH COUNCIL The Parish Council would contend that the Boundary Commission’s proposal runs counter to all but the first criteria. The proposed ward could be regarded as being a “easy way out” for the Boundary Commission – lumping together a collection of disparate villages that can’t be fitted elsewhere without material thought and consideration.