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. It would seem that the ‘neat’ alignment of the Leighton Linslade wards must take precedent over the needs of the local rural communities.
Given the alteration to include Heath & Reach within Leighton–Linslade in the previous Boundary Review in 2004, the Boundary Commission is contradicting its previous decision by now determining that the village’s inclusion would result in an “arbitrary split”. No justification has been provided that now changes the village’s current inclusion in Plantation ward within Leighton Linslade. No consideration has been given to seeking other ways of balancing the overall Leighton-Linslade and hinterland wards that would enable the various villages that lie around the town to still maintain and build on their strong links with the town. Just because there may be “significant consequential effect” is no justification for not considering other ways forward.
The Boundary Commission “acknowledges the evidence of a shared community identity and communication links” but fails to acknowledge the shared issues with the town as described in our earlier submission. Heath & Reach considers that the recommended change will have a significant and potentially detrimental effect on the village through the weaken of its ties to the town, particularly on critical strategic matters such as quarries, housing developments, green belt, education, traffic and HGV management and amenity development (Leighton Buzzard Narrow Gauge Railway, Go Cycle, Stockgrove and Rushmere). To re-iterate the point already made – There is no meaningful synergy, shared community identity or communications link between Heath & Reach and the five other villages in the proposed ward.
Point 124 The Boundary Commission states that the Liberal Democrat proposal “would breach the A5, which we consider to be a strong boundary ...” and yet includes Chalgrave parish within the proposed grouping which contradicts its own view. Heath & Reach’s statement that it would “rather be linked with Hockliffe parish (to the east) than areas to the north” is incorrect. The Parish Council did not state, or infer, that it would prefer to be anywhere other than within Leighton-Linslade but that if there was absolutely no other option i.e. to stay within Leighton-Linslade, then the Council would opt for the suggested linked with Hockliffe, there being no sense in the alternative suggestion.
Point 125 The Boundary Commission states that they consider the “proposed warding arrangements to provide the best warding pattern at this time...”. This strongly suggests that there may well be a requirement to alter it in the short to medium term and is not a convincing final statement. The Parish Council would contend that the “best” warding arrangement is to remain with Leighton-Linslade for the reasons already stated in this response and previously, particularly given that no substantive reasons have been provided as to why the ward should be altered apart from meeting a ‘numbers’ criteria.
Practicalities The Parish Council is extremely concerned about the practicalities of one councillor representing the six parishes all with differing priorities and issues.
Clerk: Mrs Sara Crann HEATH & REACH PARISH COUNCIL
A series of smaller parishes does not require proportionately less time and resources and in the case of the proposed Heath & Reach it could result in a ward councillor becoming a “Jack of all Trades” and less effective in representing individual parishes rather than being able to provide in-depth input, support and expertise. It may also result in an uneven spread of resources due to needing to focus on specific issues at any one time. The ward councillor’s ability to represent the views of a particular village could be compromised if there are opposing or conflicting views within the group. This could result in bias for one over other or the councillor remaining neutral which would be to the detriment of all.
The Parish Council has attempted to join with and to work with other villages in the area in the past but with little success as there was so little synergy or common ground. As a consequence Heath & Reach withdrew to focus its links with Leighton Linslade instead.
In Conclusion Heath & Reach Parish Council does not consider that the Boundary Commission has provided sufficient tangible and justified reasons for its proposed warding for the village with five other parishes around Leighton Linslade. The Parish Council therefore re-confirms that it does not want to be linked in this way and that the parish must remain linked with Leighton Linslade.
Yours faithfully
Mrs. S. Crann Clerk to Heath & Reach Parish Council
Cc Mr. A. Selous M.P.
Clerk: Mrs Sara Crann Page 1 of 1
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Clare Evans Sent: 13 July 2010 13:54 To: Reviews@; Lawrence, Arion Subject: Ele ctoral Review Attachments: Boundary Committee 100712.doc Further to my conversation today with Mr Lawrence please find attached the Town Council response to the current consultation.
Regards
Clare
Clare Evans Town Clerk Houghton Regis Town Council
Please consider the environment and don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. **** This e-mail and any attachments hereto are strictly confidential and intended solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is privileged. If you are not the intended addressee, you must not disclose, forward, copy or take any action in reliance of this e-mail or attachments. If you have received this e-mail in error, please delete it and notify us as soon as possible. The anti-virus software used by Houghton Regis Town Council is updated regularly in an effort to minimise the possibility of viruses infecting our systems. However, you should be aware that there is no absolute guarantee that any files attached to this e-mail are virus free.****
14/07/2010
HOUGHTON REGIS TOWN COUNCIL
Local Government Boundary Commission Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 4LG
12th July 2010
Dear Sir
Central Bedfordshire Electoral Review
Further to y our letter da ted 17th May 20 10 th e Town Counc il c onsidered the draft recommendations for electora l arrange ments for Central Bedford shire at its meeting o n 28 th June 20 10. At this meeting the Counc il noted the rec ommendations but again ex pressed its disappointment on a proposed council size of 59 membe rs. It is felt th at this number is insufficient to meet the requirements of Central Bedfordshire Council and that it would result in a considerable councillor workload such that th ose in employment would be disadvantaged from taking on the role.
Yours faithfully
Clare Evans Town Clerk
Cc Mr B Dunleavy, Central Bedfordshire Council
Town Mayor: Cllr Mrs L Walmsley Town Clerk: Mrs Clare Evans
Page 1 of 1
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Skerten, Alex Sent: 09 July 2010 15:41 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Lidlington Parish Council's response Attachments: 2010.07.09 electroal review ltr.doc I
From: Gregory, Eleanor Sent: 09 July 2010 15:39 To: Skerten, Alex Subject: FW: Lidlington Parish Council's response
From: Lizzie Barnicoat
Sent: 09 July 2010 14:55 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lidlington Parish Council's response
Please find attached the response of Lidlington Parish Council.
Kind regards
Lizzie Barnicoat Lidlington Parish Clerk
Get a free e-mail account with Hotmail. Sign-up now.
14/07/2010 LIDLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL
9th July 2010
The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG
Dear Review Officer,
RE: UNIT ARY AUTHORITY ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CENT RAL BEDFORDSHIRE
In response to the analysis and final r ecommendations for w arding arrangements for the Central Bedfordshire Council, Lidlin gton Parish Council discussed this item recently at their full Council meeting in detail.
The Parish Council understand that due to the num ber of rural parishes and their proximity in Central Bedfords hire it is the refore difficult to get ‘ne at’ one m ember wards with in the req uired ele ctorate for m any of the are as within Cen tral Bedfordshire. The Parish Council have looked at the final proposal that Lidlington be in a three m ember ward, and appreciate th at structu re would satis fy the correct number of electorate to ward members ideal ratio.
The Parish Council, however, are very conc erned and worried that as a s mall rura l parish in a large ward represented by three elected members that it is un realistic that all th ree mem bers will attend reg ular Parish Council m eetings and be easily contactable when significantly large parishes are likely to be dem anding their tim e. This would provide no continuity and support to the Parish Council but more worryingly for the elec torate whom have one of three m embers to contact, scenarios such as resident contacts one elected m ember with problem, another resident contacts a different elected m ember with s ame pr oblem, problems are lik ely to a rise. The Parish Council strongly urge the Co mmission to include in their f inal recommendation that within the elected three member ward, each elected member has a designated electorate so everyone has a cl ear understanding of wh at there role is accountability.
If you have any questions regarding the above, then please feel free to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Lizzie Barnicoat Lidlington Parish Clerk
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Sent: 09 July 2010 13:23 To: [email protected]; [email protected]; Lawrence, Arion Cc: Morrison, William Subject: Pulloxhill Submission
Dear Brian, Arion,
Further to the previous submission by Pulloxhill Parish Council.
Following consideration of the initial boundary commission proposals for Central Bedfordshire, consultation with neighbouring parish councils and discussion at the most recent parish council meeting, Pulloxhill Parish Council has identified the following as its favoured option from those that are still viable.
A single member ward consisting of Pulloxhill, Flitton, Greenfield, Westoning and Tingrith.
The rationale behind support for this option is that these are all local villages and therefore have more common interests than the larger town of Flitwick.
Thank you for taking the opinion of the council into consideration when making your final decision.
Martin Davey
Martin Davey Clerk Pulloxhill Parish Council
Telephone
1
Page 1 of 1
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 08 July 2010 10:41 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATONS Attachments: The Boundary Committee - review - 8th July 2010.doc
From: karencousins Sent: 08 July 2010 09:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: Re: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATONS
Dear Sirs
Please find attached the comments of Shillington Parish Council on the draft recommendations for the future electoral arrangements for Central Bedfordshire.
I trust that you will take into consideration these comments when making a decision.
Yours Faithfully
Karen Cousins Clerk to Shillington Parish Council
Clerk to Shillington Parish Council
This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this e-mail by mistake, please advise the sender immediately by using the reply facility in your e-mail software. Please also destroy and delete the messages from your computer. Any modifications of the contents of this e-mail is strictly prohibited unless expressly authorised by the sender.
14/07/2010 Shillington Parish Council Including Pegsdon & Higham Gobion BEDFORDSHIRE
Mrs. Karen Cousins Chairman: Clerk to the Council Mrs. Sally Stapleton
8th July 2010 The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 4LG
Dear Mr Lawrence
ELECTORAL REVIEW OF CENTRAL BEDFORDSHIRE: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
Thank you for your letter of 17 th May 2010 inviting Shillington Parish Council to comment on the draft recommendations for the future electoral arrangements for Central Bedfordshire.
As stated in our previous representations made on 8 th January, Shillington Parish Council considers that Shillington parish has no commonality with Sils oe and feels that it would be better placed in a ward with Meppershall and Gravenhurst. This view is based on the following:
Location
Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall are separat ed from Silsoe by the A6 with Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall to the east ‘on the other side of the hill’ and Silsoe to the west.
Schools
The table below indicates the catchment schools for each village.
Village Low er School Middle School Upper School
Shillington Shillington Robert Bloomfield, Samuel Whitbread, Shefford Shefford
Gravenhurst Gravenhurst Robert Bloomfield, Harlington Shefford
Meppershall Meppershall Henlow VC Middle Samuel Whitbread, Shefford
Silsoe Silsoe Arnold, Harlington Barton-le-Clay
All four villages have their own lower school. Shillington & Gravenhurst children attend the same catchment middle school and whilst the catchment school for Meppershall is Henlow VC Middle School many children attend Robert Bloomfield Middle School instead. Shillington & Meppershall children attend the same catchment Upper School at Clifton and Gravenhurst & Silsoe children attend
the same catchment Upper School at Harlingt on. There is no commonality between any of the catchment schools which children from Shillington and Silsoe attend.
Robert Bloomfield Middle School and Samuel Whitbread Upper School are both members of the Bedfordshire East Schools Trust (BEST) whilst Henlow VC Middle School is an associate member.
A joint annual barbeque is held each summer for the year 4 leavers who attend lower schools at Shillington, Gravenhurst, Meppershall, Campton and Stondon to ease the transition for the children from small village schools to larger middle schools.
Fire and Rescue
The first response base for the parishes of Shillingt on and Gravenhurst is located at Shefford whilst for Silsoe it is located at Ampthill.
Police
Shillington and Gravenhurst parishes are covered by the Shefford Safer Neighbour-hood Team whilst Silsoe parish is covered by the Woburn Safer Neighbourhood Team.
In the past Shillington and Meppershall parishes have worked together to tackle crime and in particular issues of anti-social behaviour. In 2007/8 Shillington and Meppershall Parish Council jointly part funded the employment of an additional PCSO (Police Community Support Officer) to work exclusively in the parishes of Shillington and Mepper shall. This partnership arrangement was very successful and would have most likely have continued if the Home Office had not withdrawn in 2008 their part funding of the scheme.
Church Benefice
Shillington, Gravenhurst and Stondon are all part of the same Benefice of Shillington and share the same vicar.
The three parishes of Silsoe, Pulloxhill and Flitton are all part of the same Benefice and share the same vicar.
GP and Hospital Cover
The villages of Shillington and Gravenhurst are cove red by General Practices at Lower Stondon, Shefford and Barton-le-Clay, all within 4 miles. Meppershall is covered by Practices at Lower Stondon and Shefford whilst Silsoe is covered by General Practices in Barton-le-Clay, Flitwick and Ampthill.
Shillington, Silsoe and Gravenhurst are served by Luton & Dunstable and Bedford hospitals and in addition Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall are served by Lister Hospital, Stevenage.
Post Office Services
Shillington, Meppershall and Silsoe both have their own Post Office. Shillington Post Office is the closest to Gravenhurst.
Transport links
Bus services, and the lack of such services, are a common concern that all the parishes share
There are currently three services covering the parishes of Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall (not including the school bus service). These are the Centrebus service 79 that runs from Meppershall to Luton via Shillington and Gravenhurst. The Centrebus service 89 that runs from Henlow Camp to Hitchin via Shillington and M eppershall. Whitbread Wanderbus local community minibus scheme provides periodic service on seve ral routes linking the villages of Shillington,
Gravenhurst and Meppershall to the towns of Shefford, Milton Keynes, Welwyn Garden City, Bedford and Biggleswade.
There are no services linking Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall to Silsoe.
To travel to Silsoe from Shillington by car woul d mean driving approximately 6 miles via Barton-le- Clay or 6 miles via Gravenhurst & Clophill to get there. Whilst Silsoe and Shillington share a parish boundary which we understand to be roughly 19m long, this is a field boundary. There are public rights of way linking Shillington to Silsoe but these would only be suitable for recreational use and not for day-to-day use by persons needing to get to Silsoe. Shillington is connected to Gravenhurst by the ‘Gravenhurst Road, Shillington/Shillington Road, Gravenhurst’ and Meppershall by the ‘Meppershall Road, Shillington/Shillington Road, Meppershall’.
Conclusion
From this information it is clear that Shilli ngton and Silsoe have few common links whilst Shillington, Gravenhurst and Meppershall who already have a relationship history, have numerous issues in common. To include Shillington (and Gravenhurst) in a ward with Silsoe would be of no benefit to the electorate of either parish and would create extra work load for a ward member who would have to deal with different partners when taking up issues relating to the different parishes.
We trust that you will take into consideration these comments when making a decision but should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact us
Yours sincerely
Clerk to the Council
Page 1 of 1
Gregory, Eleanor
From: Gre gory, Eleanor Sent: 13 July 2010 18:02 To: Lawre nce, Arion Subject: FW: Boundary review - Central Bedfordshire - Silsoe Parish Council comments Importance: High
From: Myles Greenhalgh Sent: 12 July 2010 11:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary review - Central Bedfordshire - Silsoe Parish Council comments Importance: High
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-78 Turnmill St London EC1M 5LG
Dear Sirs
It was with deep disappointment that we in Silsoe Parish Council read your recommendations for our ward arrangements in the Central Bedfordshire review. For 'the greatest good for the greatest number' you appear to have placed us with Shillington, a community with whom we share no common bond. Moreover a feeling we believe reflected by them.
The arrangement made even more confusing when one considers that you in your report acknowledge an affinity shared with neighbouring villages to our west, namely Pulloxhill, Greenfield and Flitton. Furthermore a two councillor ward appears to have been considered, but rejected on the grounds that one of the six parishes concerned (Shillington) objected. Whilst we in Silsoe have little in common with Shillington, an affiliation with Pulloxhill etc would at least had the effect of sharing the views of the majority, rather than being disconnected from our neighbours in your proposed plan.
The inhabitants of Silsoe already feel hard done by with an enforced imposition of two major housing developments, effectively doubling the size of the village. Added to this we are actively contesting the creation of a distribution centre, and a light industrial complex (within the grounds of a house of national importance). With no personal reflection on our current councillors, to place us with communities to our east is to dilute our representation at this critical time, and is we believe unsupportable. Given the current early involvement of legal process it is likely that the affairs of Silsoe will become an ever increasing pressure on the Local Authority. We would therefore wish to place on record our continued opposition to your proposed arrangements for Silsoe, and ask you at this eleventh hour to reconsider at the very least the two councillor ward arrangements discussed in your review.
Yours faithfully Cllr Myles Greenhalgh (on behalf of Silsoe Parish Council)
14/07/2010