K Submissions to the Birmingham City Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Residents J - K submissions to the Birmingham City Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames beginning with J - K. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. ! "9 # $% & 3 8+7 From: Sent: 14 June 2016 20:38 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Fw: Harborne or Quinton B17 To Whom it may concern I would like to register my protest at the proposed boundary changes for my property (Lordswood Rd, Harborne, B17). Having bought my property in good faith for a premium because of the Harborne address, over ten years ago, I believe that a boundary change that will place it in a Quinton Ward will have an adverse effect on the price. I have always enjoyed living in Harborne and want this to remain. I therefore strongly object to the proposed boundary changes. Yours sincerely Gillian Jackson 7 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Birm ingham District P ersonal Details: Nam e: Rizwan Janmohamed E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Feature Annotations 11:: BBalsallalsall HHeatheath W a ardrd Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. M ap Features: Annotation 1: Balsall Heath Ward Comment text: Balsall Heath should not be split up for the following reasons:- a. There is a recognised Neighbourhood Plan that covers Balsall Heath for which almost 2,500 turned out to vote. b. If it Balsall Heath is split in half, will make it harder for voters to implement the plan and more complicated for the Council, reducing the effectiveness of public administration. c. Balsall Heath has had a strong identity for hundreds of years. d. For the last 40 years, the community of Balsall Heath has worked hard to make the area a better place to live, work and grow up. In doing so, it has reinforced the sense of community identity and unity. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8333 1/1 ! ?"? $ %& ' )(*7 ,*7 3 & . < =?69 < @3$$ 6: -----Original Message----- From: yousuf MJ Sent: 18 June 2016 21:21 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: B5 Edgbaston Residents group Dear B5 Edgbaston Residents group, Please see attached filled out form to remain a B5 resident and vote against the boundary move. Kind Regards, Mohammed Yousuf Javed 78 ! 8 $ %& ' ,* ) 7 6 From: Rosie Jenkins Sent: 19 June 2016 21:28 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Revised proposals for the Sarehole area of Moseley,Birmingham. I live in one of the two cul‐de‐sacs that runs off a lane called Green Road in Moseley; and I am very concerned by the proposal not only to place my part of Sarehole, Moseley into Sparkhill Ward; but to divide our close community of 42 houses between Moseley and Sparkhill Ward. This part of Moseley is a small enclave with a strong community focus; and I don’t consider drawing council boundaries, in this way, which splits us dramatically, conforms to the spirit of local government guidelines. We, after all, have common interests, needs and concerns over City Council services and resources: indeed,our overall representation. We,also, share these with the other parts of Moseley. I identify with Moseley: its village; its societies; the facilities it offers.These are the connections I have. I,also, use its park; and green spaces like Moseley Bog and Joy’s Wood, which is in my close neighbourhood. I don’t have,for example, road access to Sparkhill, nor do I share commonality of interests or facilities with Sparkhill Ward. Please: if you saw the area I live in, you would see its natural affinity to the rest of Moseley. Rosie Jenkins 110 8r Hh x A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %Er! % ")$& U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )iqh puhtr From: Sent: 06 June 2016 12:07 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: boundary changes To whom it may concern, I live at I would like to firmly state my case for my address to remain in the Harborne area. Is is after all a B17 postcode and always has been. I see no real reason for change, and would be very interested in the reasons for change in any proposals you might have. Once again I am strongly in favour of staying within the Harborne area. Kind Regards, Naveed Jhinjer 6 ! ?; $ %& ' + );831 -----Original Message----- From: Manish Jogia Sent: 20 June 2016 23:18 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: HarborneB178AN To who it may concern, We at have always been a part of Harborne and NOT Quinton! And we object to the boundary change ! Kind Regards, The Jogia's Residents since 1988 187 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Birm ingham District P ersonal Details: Nam e: Stuart Johnson E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Comment text: Having just moved away from Acocks Green to South Yardley, I am pleased to see that the draft proposals now restore the Acocks Green ward to its traditional northern boundary of the Grand Union Canal. And as a proud new resident in South Yardley, I am pleased to see that the ward will retain it's historic name, even if it's definition has been adjusted somewhat. As for the rest of Birmingham, I cannot comment on specifics, as I'm not familiar with those areas. I would just like to put it on record though, that I hope that this boundary review is not being undertaken in such a way that it will continue to influence the level of control that the Labour party has over the current council (ie by shifting votes from areas with huge Labour majorities into new or surrounding wards where Labour support was marginal). Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8035 1/1 ) ( ( %** + ! " & ,( $ ) - !( !%$ ).$! -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Jones Sent: 21 June 2016 20:34 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Birmingham boundary review Please see attached 3 Adrian Jones, 21 June 2016 The Review Officer (Birmingham) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP Dear Sirs Consultation on further recommendations for Birmingham City Council I would like to comment on the proposed two-member ward of Bournbrook and Selly Park. I am grateful that the Commission considered residents’ proposals for separate single-member wards for Bournbrook and Selly Park during the last consultation period, even though the Commission ultimately decided not to act on them. The Commission’s comments suggest that the proposals may well have been successful had there been a way to avoid dividing the Bournbook community and to ensure the correct population balance. Firstly, I would like to reiterate the substantial differences between the Bournbrook and Selly Park neighbourhoods. Bournbrook and Selly Park are distinguished from each other by different demographics, housing stocks, community groups, conservation areas and commuting habits. These can be summarised as follows: To address the requirements of population balance and community cohesion in terms of where a ward boundary could be drawn, I suggest that an ‘internal’ boundary defined by Raddlebarn Road and Bournbrook Road, with both sides of both roads in Selly Park ward, would satisfy both of these requirements. It may seem counter-intuitive to include Bournbrook Road in Selly Park rather than Bournbrook, but the nature of the homes in that road is in fact more similar in character to Selly Park than the rest of Bournbrook, its consisting mainly of larger housing with a settled population. The eastern side of Bournbrook Road is part of the historical Selly Park Estate and subject to the covenants shared in the Selly Park area. In summary, the proposals I am making would result in better, more localised representation for the people of Bournbrook and Selly Park. Implementing them would reflect the views of the overwhelming majority of residents who sent submissions to the Commission during the last period of consultation. Finally, they would have no effect on the proposals for the rest of Birmingham. I do hope that you will give my proposals serious consideration and I look forward to hearing from you. Yours faithfully Adrian Jones 8r Hh x A ) Hhr Hvu xhiruhyss rvr Tr) %Er! % %)"' U) 8r Hh x Tiwrp) AX )T8 vvr From: jones brian Sent: 04 June 2016 11:17 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Sutton Communities Dear Sirs I request that The Boundary Commission gives proper consideration to Sutton’s communities and that Sutton has 11 rather than 10 councillors on Birmingham City Council taking account of the following. Sutton Mere Green: We propose only a small change for this ward with Little Sutton moving into the Sutton Roughley Ward. This area, which runs off Dower Road and encompasses roads such as Ley Hill Road and Trinity Road, is only connected to Mere Green by one small road, Jordan Close and therefore is a much better fit with the Sutton Roughley Ward. This means that the busy Little Sutton Lane is no longer split between two wards. It also ensures that the boundary runs to the busy roundabout at Four Oaks Station, which forms an excellent natural boundary. Sutton Four Oaks: Here again we propose only a very small change which sees the busy A5127 Lichfield Road used as the boundary between the Tamworth Road (A453) junction and Four Oaks train station, with both acting as natural boundaries. This also moves the community of Doe Bank (around Norfolk Road and Rocklands Drive) into the Roughley Ward where it belongs.