Local Residents J - K submissions to the 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 Subject: Fw: 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 Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Rizwan Janmohamed E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Feature Annotations

11:: BBalsallalsall HeathHeath W ardard

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

M ap Features:

Annotation 1: 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 Subject: B5 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 Subject: Revised proposals for the area of ,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 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 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 8‚‚ƒr Hh x

A ‚€) Hh’r †Hv†u xh‚iruhys‚s r‰vr† Tr‡) %Eˆr! % ")$& U‚) 8‚‚ƒr Hh x Tˆiwrp‡) AX )i‚ˆqh ’puhtr†

From: Sent: 06 June 2016 12:07 To: reviews 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 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 to , 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 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

I would like to comment on the proposed two-member ward of and .

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 8‚‚ƒr Hh x

A ‚€) Hh’r †Hv†u xh‚iruhys‚s r‰vr† Tr‡) %Eˆr! % %)"' U‚) 8‚‚ƒr Hh x Tˆiwrp‡) AX )Tˆ‡‡‚8‚€ € ˆv‡vr†

From: jones brian Sent: 04 June 2016 11:17 To: reviews 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 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 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 (around Norfolk Road and Rocklands Drive) into the Roughley Ward where it belongs.

Sutton Roughley:

19 This ward needs major changes with the proposed ward being two completely different communities. The proposals have a Roughley Ward with the communities of Roughley, Harvest Fields and and the wholly separate and barely connected areas of half of Whitehouse Common and half of the Defence Estates. These two completely separate and distinct areas of the ward as proposed are in fact only connected by one road, Weeford Road, which runs between a golf course and green belt land. Also these two areas are separated by the busy A453. Clearly this proposal divides communities.

The proposed ward does not include Little Sutton with which it shares a clear link.

We propose that the southern boundary should run along the Tamworth Road (A453) which, as an arterial road, is an ideal boundary. The boundary should use the Lichfield Road (A5127) as the boundary to the west up to Four Oaks station which runs off a roundabout. On one side of the Lichfield Road are a small run of houses and the relatively small estate of Doe Bank. On the other is the private Four Oaks Estate (also known as Four Oaks Park) and thus the Lichfield Road seems a suitable place to run the boundary, finishing at the junction of the A5127 and the A453.

By making these adjustments, a new ward of Whitehouse Common would be created.

Yours faithfully

Brian D Jones

Chartered Accountant

FCA LLB(Hons)

Confidentiality Notice

This email message and any attachments are private and confidential

If received by you in error please (i) accept my apologies (ii) let me know and (iii) delete from your system

20 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Diane Jones E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Feature Annotations

11:: tthehe w h holeole ooff RRuberyubery sshouldhould bbee iinn oneone placepl22:a:ce - itit hashas a nnaturalatural boundaryboundary 33:44:: Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.

M ap Features:

Annotation 1: the whole of should be in one place - it has a natural boundary

Annotation 2:

Annotation 3:

Annotation 4:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8042 1/1

Cooper, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 12 May 2016 10:22 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Birmingham: Further Draft Recommendations

From: Mark Jones Sent: 11 May 2016 16:32 To: reviews Subject: Electoral Review of Birmingham: Further Draft Recommendations

Dear Mr Cooper,

Thank you for your email of the 10 May 2016 regarding the Electoral Review of Birmingham and its further draft recommendations.

I am delighted to see that many of the boundaries suggested in the initial consultation have been redrawn in line with the feedback received from stakeholders and members of the public. As someone who regularly works in an organisational that consults with the public, it is very pleasing to see that the views of ordinary people have been taken into account and have helped shape future ward boundaries in Birmingham.

In particular it is pleasing to see that my comments (and those of many other respondents) have been taken into account with regard to the Moseley Ward boundaries. As I noted in my earlier submission to the boundary commission, Moseley is a melting pot of different ethnicities and cultures, with levels of integration rarely seen in other areas of Birmingham. Moseley has a unique, multi ‐ethnic, community spirit and to split such a community would have been a very great shame. Furthermore, to have lost our high street with its independent shops, restaurants and markets would have cut the heart out of our community.

I am pleased to say that I fully support the new boundary and once again reiterate my pleasure at seeing consultation taken seriously and enacted appropriately.

Kind regards,

Mark Jones

4 Cooper, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka Sent: 12 May 2016 09:47 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Birmingham: Further Draft Recommendations

From: ronald jones Sent: 12 May 2016 09:27 To: Mayers, Mishka Subject: RE: Electoral Review of Birmingham: Further Draft Recommendations

D ear Mr M. Mayers,

Thank you I wish to confirm that I agree with the name Yardley East Ward being used. Yours sincerely, Ronald Jones

From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Electoral Review of Birmingham: Further Draft Recommendations Date: Tue, 10 May 2016 15:51:47 +0000

Dear Mr Jones, ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BIRMINGHAM: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS The Local Government Boundary Commission for England has published further draft recommendations on the future electoral arrangements for Birmingham City Council. Today is the start of a 6 week public consultation on the Commission's further draft recommendations on new electoral division boundaries across Birmingham City Council. The consultation closes on 20 June 2016. View the new draft recommendations You can view the Commission's new draft recommendations at https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5688 where you can find interactive maps, a report and guidance on how to have your say. The Commission has not finalised its conclusions and now invites representations on the further draft recommendations. An interactive map of the Commission's recommendations for Birmingham, a summary outlining the Commission's draft recommendations, electorate figures and guidance on how to propose new wards is available on the consultation area at: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/5688. Further information about the review is published on our website at: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/west-midlands/west-midlands/birmingham Have your say We encourage everyone who has a view on the further draft recommendations to contact us whether you support them or whether you wish to propose alternative arrangements. Before finalising the recommendations, the Commission will consider every representation received during consultation whether it is submitted by an individual, a local group or an organisation. We will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements:

6 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Stephen Jones E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Houses 213-247 Road are due to be removed from the Moseley ward and placed in the Sparkhill ward. As a resident of , I would prefer to remain in the Moseley Ward for the following reasons: The block of houses mentioned have always been in Moseley. I feel no connection with Sparkhill, but do identify with the village of Mosely and its community, as do most, if not all of the local residents. I fail to see what practical advantages there are to be had in such a move. Steve Jones

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8313 1/1

 

       6 ! 9/ #   $% & +' % , 

From: Mustafa Kapadia [mailto: Sent: 12 June 2016 13:18 To: reviews Subject: Boundary change proposal

I understand that ( has been proposed to be changed to Quinton ; I would like to submit that I wish Hunstanton Ave. , where I have been resident since 1981, to remain as Harborne .

Mustafa Kapadia

46 8‚‚ƒr Hh x

A ‚€) Hh’r †Hv†u xh‚iruhys‚s r‰vr† Tr‡) &Eˆr! %()!# U‚) 8‚‚ƒr Hh x Tˆiwrp‡) AX )!'uh€ vyy‡‚6‰rˆrCh i‚ r7v €vtuh€ 7 &'6E

From: Raj Sent: 06 June 2016 17:07 To: reviews Subject:

Just a short note to say we would like remain in Harborne Ward and NOT Quinton Ward.

Regards,

L Karavadra

4 5/31/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Jerome Karlovsky E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

I am very happy that the proposed boundary for the Acocks Green ward has been extended north to include the area between the railway line and the Grand Union canal, as residents of this area defdinitely identify as being part of Acocks green and use Acocks Green high Street as a shopping centre. The ward has ened up rather large, and does extend surprisingly far south into , but I am far happier with these revised proposals than the original proposal which split a close community into two. Thank you for listening to the residents of this area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8148 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: safiah kauser E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e: Mrs

Comment text:

Keep Ninfield road in accocks green

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8463 1/1 Cooper, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 12 May 2016 10:21 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Revised Proposed LGBCE Birmingham Council ward changes - Moseley - Thank you!! Attachments: Boundry ward letter.pdf; ATT00001.txt

-----Original Message----- From: Akif Kazi Sent: 11 May 2016 22:06 To: Bowden, Tim Cc: me

Subject: Re: Revised Proposed LGBCE Birmingham Council ward changes - Moseley - Thank you!!

Tim,

Further to my previous letter (attached) which set out my reasons for Moseley being a larger and cohesive 2 member ward, I fully support the revised new boundary for Moseley. It addresses all of our concerns and we are very grateful that you have listened to our arguments and assessed the evidence we provided.

Once again, thank you for all your kind support.

With best regards Dr. Akif Kazi

5 Cooper, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 May 2016 11:04 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed LGBCE Birmingham Council ward changes - THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 10 May 2016 21:20 To: reviews Subject: Fwd: Proposed LGBCE Birmingham Council ward changes - THANK YOU !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Many, many thanks for kindly listening to us - We are very grateful. > > The LGBCE has shown it really does listen and where appropriate, make changes. > > We support the revised recommendations for the Moseley ward. > > > > Once again, many many thanks for your kind and considered response, > > With best regards, > Mr. A. Kazi.

>>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Akif Kazi [mailto:[email protected]] >>> Sent: 18 January 2016 11:40 >>> To: Bowden, Tim >>> Cc: Pascoe, Mark ; Mellors, Colin ; [email protected] >>> Subject: Proposed LGBCE Birmingham Council ward changes - Moseley - My letter >>> >>> Dear Tim, >>> >>> Please find attached my letter. >>> >>> May I take this opportunity to thank you for you courteous and kind help. >>> >>> I am grateful for this. >>> >>> We will be somewhat anxious until we know the outcome but I have certainly felt better placed in responding to the draft as a result of your help. >>> >>> I have mentioned you in my letter (I hope this is ok!) and uploaded it. >>>

20

Professor Colin Mellors (Chair) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP 18th January 2016

Dear Sir

Plans for Moseley

I have lived in Moseley since my school years and attended Moseley School. I am treasurer of the fionaMoor Green Lane Residents Association and also a member of a number of Moseley Community groups., including the Moseley Society and I am co-chair of the Moseley Muslim Volunteers Group.

I am particularly proud to be part of such a diverse and vibrant community. Indeed, as you are no doubt aware Moseley has won a number of awards including the Sunday Times award last year of “best place to live” An extract from the article is shown below:

“The 600-year-old suburb topped the list of Britain’s top 50 urban districts and comes just days after a report ranked Birmingham alongside Rome in a global index rating the quality of life for city dwellers. Moseley was praised by judges for its "village community." The panel based its results on a number of factors including schools, crime rates, house prices and transport links, as well as "the expertise and knowledge of Sunday Times writers."

We had a meeting on 16th January at the local secondary school and I would estimate that some 500 or so Mosleyites were there. This indicates the strength of community we have and the general consensus was for us to remain as one.Please see attached photographs from the meeting. 2

Your guide states that Schedule 2 to the 2009 Act sets out the statutory criteria to which you are required to have regard in conducting electoral reviews. In broad terms, in making recommendations, you are required to have regard to: • the need to secure equality of representation; • the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities; and • the need to secure effective and convenient local government.

Equality of representation

I believe we need to maintain the population of voters per elected councillor within the +10% margin, while fixing the number of councillors at 101.

My understanding is that the population of Moseley as currently constituted is slightly more than twice the proposed average size of 7215, but well within the + 10% margin.

Rather than combine Moseley (rebranded ‘Cannon Hill’) with Balsall Heath, it is clearly possible to set up a two-councillor ward that leaves Moseley, with its coherent identity, sensibly intact. If necessary, adjustments at the margins will allow you to incorporate the requisite number of voters within the Moseley double ward and (for example) the Balsall Heath single ward.

I have been in regular contact with Mr. Tim Bowden, Review Officer at the LGBCE. He has been extremely helpful and provided guidance to me on a number of occasions.

I have tried to provide an alternative that has as little “knock-on” effects on the adjoining wards as proposed in the draft proposals. 3

I am attaching therefore, a map of what a 2 councillor ward Moseley ward could look like.

In numerical terms, using data provided on the LGBCE website, this would (using my rough calculations lead to a ratio of about 6517 for Balsall Heath and 6768 for Moseley. Both would be comfortably within the current tolerance.In 2021, using the LGBCE projections this would increase to 7619 for Balsall Heath (-5%) and 7612 for the 2 councillor ward Moseley (-6%). So both will have equality of representation.

This also preserves the neighbouring proposed wards and the geographic size of my proposed Moseley ward is roughly the same as near by 2 councillor wards such as Billesley and Bournbrook and Selly Park.

The need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities

Moseley is a unique community. I believe my alternative will retain most of this as virtually all of these will remain firmly anchored in Moseley.

There are numerous community groups and residents associations.

These include the Moseley Society, Moseley Forum, Moseley in Bloom and Moseley Inter-faith group, Moseley Park and Pool, Moseley festival, Moseley Arts Market. The list is endless. Each of these, i made up of people who care passionately about Moseley giving up precious time to help the community.

The logistics of having to deal with multiple councillors and funding bodies for an area we love is going to make our lives extremely difficult. 4

We always see an amazing range of people at the monthly Moseley farmers market or watching Citizen Khan actor (Adil Ray) turn on the the rather small number of Moseley Christmas lights last year. Our shared community spirit is surely worth preserving.So without doubt, this is not an exclusive community, All are made to feel welcome here and get involved..

Personally, the one thing I love about Moseley is that everyone is welcome here as we all strive to make Moseley better. “Moseley is a little oasis with a great sense of community, but it isn’t exclusionist, it’s not as if everyone is a middle class Land Rover driver” as the article in the Sunday Times said.

Indeed, I also believe Balsall Heath would also be better served as a single councillor ward. Looking at recent studies into deprivation, Balsall Heath is improving but has very different economic needs compared to Moseley and .

The need to secure effective and convenient local government

I don’t think I can argue that my proposals are any better than the draft LGBCE ones in this area.

In summary There is no need for the Boundary Commission to destroy Moseley in order to fulfil its statutory duty, and I ask as a proud Mosleyite, part of a diverse and happy Moseley community that you reconsider these proposals.

Yours faithfully

Mr.Akif Ehsan Kazi

Managing Director of Abraxus Associates Limited, Programme Manager for HMRC

Co-chair of Moseley Muslim Volunteers Group

Treasurer of Moor Green Lane Moseley Residents Association Member of Moseley Society 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: lawrence kempster E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Name: way2close,residents association/n.watch

Comment text:

dear sir/madam re your recent proposals over boundaries that wentworth way ,vale close and st.andrews close stays within harborne ward will be a decision that that is fully backed by residents of this area. kind regards mr.and mrs l.kempster

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8079 1/1  

        !!  $   %& ' ,(-.(' / )/ 01 23,45+  3 &  '+ + 6*&

From: Vipal Keshwala Sent: 15 June 2016 16:23 To: reviews Subject: REVIEW OF BOUNDARY‐Harborne

To whom this may concern,

Please see letter attached regarding boundary issue and look to hearing from you soon.

Regards,

Vipal Keshwala

3

The Review Officer (Birmingham) Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Millbank London SW1P 4QP

15/6/16

Sir or Madam,

Consultation on further recommendations for Birmingham City Council

I would like to comment on the proposed Harborne and Quinton wards.

My neighbourhood is currently assigned to Quinton ward. It is my strong view that we would be most appropriately assigned to Harborne ward instead. My neighbourhood is much more closely associated with Harborne than Quinton for the following reasons:

1. My neighbourhood was part of Harborne village prior to Harborne being annexed into Birmingham in 1891. It remained an integral part of Harborne ward right up until 2004, when it was moved into Quinton ward.

2. Residents and local organisations have retained their association with Harborne; for example, they still use Harborne in their postal addresses.

3. The neighbourhood is adjacent to Harborne Golf Club and a short walk from Harborne High Street which is the closest location for shopping facilities and similar amenities.

4. West Boulevard is a major four-lane highway that physically separates the neighbourhood from Quinton. This major barrier prevents natural movement and stops the area associating with Quinton.

5. Minton Road, Doulton Close and Chelsea Close are accessed from Welsh House Farm Road and connected by a path to Wentworth Way. Residents on these roads associate with the ‘Harborne Rise’ area and note that the Boundary review has already listened to the residents of Wentworth Way, returning it to the Harborne ward.

6. Tennal Road takes its name from the historic Tennal Hall which was a major landmark in Harborne. However, one side of Tennal Road is in the proposed Harborne ward and the other side in the proposed Quinton ward. The Quinton side includes the cul de sacs of Savoy Close, Copperbeech Close and Rosehead Drive; these are only accessible from Tennal Road and face towards Harborne. This arrangement is illogical and it would be much better if the whole neighbourhood were in Harborne.

In summary, the proposal I am making will result in better, more appropriate representation for my neighbourhood and I urge you to give it serious consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully, Vipal Keshwala

6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Anne Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Do not change the boundaries. Keep Ninfield road and Ninfield Gardens in Acocks Green.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8493 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Ahmed Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

I currently live in Acocks green on Ninfield road. I was shocked to hear their is the possibility that its boundaries may change to . I would like it to stay in Acocks green

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8442 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Dilawar Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Hi, I'm happy with the ward. Dilawar Khan

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8388 1/1  

         ! " ,+'+ -!) (' ()  + ). 

From: Humza Shazeb Sent: 01 June 2016 22:03 To: reviews Subject: Proposed Boundary changes in Birmingham and Swanshurst Lane

To The Review Officer (Birmingham)

Dear Sir/Madam

I am writing to you with regards to your newest proposed boundary change, separating the odd numbered houses currently on Swanshurst Lane in Moseley and moving them under the Billesley ward. I currently reside in Moseley (unfortunately soon to be Billesley) on Swanshurst Lane. My family chose to live specifically in Moseley, and even paid several thousand pounds in stamp duty to reside here, as well as paying extra for the council tax all these years. We feel that due to the fact that we live on the opposite side of the road with odd numbers, it would be totally unfair and outrageous to change our side of the road to the Billesley ward instead of it remaining under Moseley as it should be. It would also be poor decision and confusing having houses on the opposite sides of the same road being separated by different area wards. We have lived here for many years under the Moseley Ward and it is the only area we identify with. Everything we do in our day to day lives is associated with the area, whether it is having a morning stroll through Moseley Bog, or shopping in Moseley Village.

Furthermore we firmly believe that this proposed change will drastically reduce the value, status and strip the identity of our property, something very dear to us. We are unhappy and disappointed with this decision and hence we disagree with the drafted proposal made from the boundary commission, and I am sure that most of the residents on this side of Swanshurst Lane feel the same way. We are upset as your proposed decision to force us into Billesley does not reflect our community identity and what our family wants or identifies with. We are residents of Moseley, this is our community, and wish to remain in Moseley, where Swanshurst Lane belongs. Therefore, we would be very grateful if you could re-evaluate this proposed decision and reinstate the odd numbered houses of Swanshurst Lane, just like the opposite side of the lane, under the Moseley Ward where it should remain.

Yours sincerely, Gulzar Khan and family.

2 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Halima Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Im not happy with the acocks green boundary changes and I am against this going ahead. I would like Ninfield Road B27 7TS to remain under Acocks Green. I am also disappointed that i was not informed about these changes and was only told about this after a neighbour went from door to door to inform everyone.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8477 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: john khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

I have lived and worked in Balsall heath a good part of my life and to see it split would see all the hard work people have put into making it a better and safer place to bring up your family unfair and unjust.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8337 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Nobila Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

As a resident of keel drive, my family and I strongly oppose to the new boundary changes. We all have historical and cultural links to Moseley village. We have similar links to Moseley bog and joys wood in our neighbourhood. Being an active member of the volunteering team for Birmingham art and gallery museum I have a strong link to , if the proposals go ahead I feel its historical link to Moseley will be lost, and forgotten. I hope you take my views into consideration and strongly feel that the boundary change should not go ahead. Thanking You.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8395 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Sadif Khan E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Keep Ninfield Road B27 7TS in Acocks Green

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8481 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Mahmood Khwaja E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Wake Green Road Springfield re LGBC proposal to change the Moseley Boundary. I am a resident who resides between the houses of 213 and 247 Wake Green Road, Moseley,which I understand is in proposal of being moved to the Sparkhill ward. I absolutely appose the proposed plans, as I believe all my neighbours do as well. I am at a loss to understand the reason behind the proposed move. When purchasing this house, one of the main factors was I wanted to purchase a house in Moseley. I was brought up in a relatively under privileged area, and have been working since I left school, (24 years now). With solid graft and using my life savings I chose to live in Moseley on Wake Green Road, due to a number of reasons. The history of Moseley was something of great fascination, the area, community, the area, particularly Moseley village, and Moseley bog which my wife and children are frequent visitors. My wife who was brought up in Moseley and has literally lived all her life close to our current home, is devastated of the proposed changes. She has also, given up her life savings, and worked since she left college to provide a home for our children, whom like myself she wanted for them to be part of the wider Moseley history. My wife went school in Moseley, and our children have followed in her footsteps attending St Bernard Primary school which is directly opposite our house. As I understand the houses further away from Moseley but on the same road as ourselves (249-267) are considered within the new boundary of Moseley, which makes absolutely no sense at all to change our block of houses in the middle of the road. From a practical sense and financially it cannot be beneficial to change 18 houses to a different ward for the sake of "making up the numbers". My wife and I both consider ourselves as Moseley residents and wish to remain this way, and hope our children who will inherit our home will continue to live and be part of the Moseley history and Moseley future. As Moseley residents we are not part of the Sparkhill community, since we have moved here all of our social and domestic ties have been connected to Moseley, including using the restaurants, local amenities, attending neighbourhood barbecues and bonfires. We are frequent visitors to the farmers market in Moseley village, we regularly take the children to Moseley bog and Sarehole Mill. As mentioned I strongly oppose the LGBCE proposal and agree to the boundary submission proposed by the Moseley Boundary working group incorporating the Moseley forum and Moseley society, and that the Moseley border remains along the back of our houses as it has always done, to ensure we remain in the Moseley ward. For community cohesiveness and practical reasons it makes much more sense for Wake Green Road to be fully within one ward, Moseley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8350 1/1

5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Richard Kimberlee E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Warmly endorse your revised proposals for the ward of Moseley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8064 1/1

 

    ! ! ?8 $   %& '  7) 7 ' *)* 

From: Roger King [mailto Sent: 16 June 2016 09:12 To: reviews Subject: Changes to Birmingham Ward Boundaries

Sirs,

My wife and I are regular worshipers at St Laurence Parish Church, Northfield. Our three children were all educated there. We are thus concerned to hear of your proposal to include our church in the Northfield Ward and the St Laurence Infant and Junior Schools in a and Ward. I am sure you will appreciate that the Church and Schools have nothing in common with Bournville and Cotteridge.

As early as the 1600`s a school has been incorporated at St Laurence Church. The present junior school was opened in the 1960`s and the infant school in the following decade. Community groups, Brownies, Guides,Cubs and Scouts, Pensioner Clubs, etc., have dual use of the facilities at St Laurence Church and the St Luarence Schools and the full support of the present Northfield councillors. We believe it would be wrong for any part of their well used facilities to be split from each other as the Boundary Commission are suggesting, as the amenities they provide are integrated into the local Northfield community.

We would ask that you reconsider your proposal and put the St Laurence Schools back where they truly belong.

Roger and Jennie King.

12 5/19/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Jason Kirby E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Feature Annotations

11:: LLongbridgeongbridge & RuberyRubery RednalRednal W a ardrd - eextendxtend BBirminghamirmingham BoundaryBoundary

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

M ap Features:

Annotation 1: & Rubery Ward - extend Birmingham Boundary

Comment text:

Would it not make the proposed ward of Longbridge & Rubery Rednal more meaningful if Rubery were actually included? Currently the area outside of the Birmingham boundary falls within the remit of Bromsgrove District Council/ County Council. The area has Birmingham post codes, dialling codes, unlike Bromsgrove that has Redditch 01527 prefix and Birmingham postal addresses. The schools in the area operate under the infant, junior secondary system, rather than that of Worcestershire first, middle and high school, although administered through Worcestershire Country Council. There are natural boundaries in place, as I have indicated on the map. The anomaly of Rubery being in Birmingham, but not being in Birmingham should be resolved. This would bring huge benefits for the area as a whole, being able to be associated with a city that most, if not all residents class as their home city, rather than the town of Bromsgrove, that to honest, tends to forget that they have a responsibility for the area. Please give this request some serious consideration.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7989 1/1 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Christine Kirkham E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Feature Annotations

44:: UUndernder CCommissionsommissions planplan thisthis rroadoad iiss iinn PPee rryrry CommonCommon butbut ttherehere iiss nnoo w a ayy ttoo aaccessccess iitt bbyy ccarar ddueue ttoo ssurroundingurrounding rroadsoads beingbeing removed.removed. ThisThis w a ass iinn thethe BirminghamBirmingham mailmail

11:: PPeer rryry CCommonnommonn

22::

55:: TThehe W y yrleyrley BBirchirch eestatestate aarearea bbelongselongs iinn SStocklandtockland GreenGreen W a ard.rd. TThehe ccommissionommission addedadded iitt ttoo PPeer rryry CCommonommon W a ardrd butbut tthishis aarearea bbacksacks oonn toto thethe ssharedhared pparkark iinn StocklandStock33:l:a nSStocklanddto GreenGckrelaennd GreenGreen aandnd hhasas nono communitycommunity connectionsconnections w i ithth rresidentsesidents inin PeP e rryrry Common.Common.

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

M ap Features:

Annotation 1: Perry Commonn

Annotation 2:

Annotation 3:

Annotation 4: Under Commissions plan this road is in Perry Common but there is no way to access it by car due to surrounding roads being removed. This was in the Birmingham mail

Annotation 5: The Wyrley Birch estate area belongs in Stockland Green Ward. The commission added it to Perry Common Ward but this area backs on to the shared park in Stockland Green and has no community connections with residents in Perry Common.

Comment text:

I have drawn above what the areas of Perry Common and Stockland Green are. I hope that the commission will make changes to ensure residents get the area we want to live in, not what people from London want us to live in. The area marked Perry Common has lots in common with each other and is a recognizable community. The only link between Perry Common and Wyrley Birch is the Witton Lodge Community Assoication who get paid to do work on the Wryley Birch estate. it is not and never has been part of Perry Common. Thank you

Uploaded Documents: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8341 1/2 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8341 2/2

Cooper, Mark

From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: 11 May 2016 11:03 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BIRMINGHAM: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

-----Original Message----- From: Martin Knowles Sent: 11 May 2016 08:37 To: reviews Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BIRMINGHAM: FURTHER DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

Greetings,

Concerning the revised draft proposal, thank you, from my personal perspective, excellent.

Kind regards

Martin Knowles

23

 

        ! "6 #   $% & +' % ,+ , 

From: Stuart Knutton Sent: 14 June 2016 18:55 To: reviews Subject: Boundary changes in Birmingham City

Dear Sir/Madam,

Consultation on further recommendations for Birmingham City Council

I would like to comment on the proposed Harborne and Quinton wards.

My neighbourhood is currently assigned to Quinton ward. It is my strong view that we would be most appropriately assigned to Harborne ward instead. My neighbourhood is much more closely associated with Harborne than Quinton for the following reasons:

1. I bought my house in the 1980’s when it was part of Harborne because I wanted to be part of the Harborne community. My neighbourhood was part of Harborne village, prior to Harborne being annexed into Birmingham in 1891. It remained an integral part of Harborne ward right up until 2004, when it was surprisingly moved into Quinton ward without us ever knowing.

2. Residents and local organisations have retained their association with Harborne – for example they still use Harborne in their postal addresses.

3. The neighbourhood is adjacent to Harborne Golf Club and a short walk from Harborne Parish Church and Harborne High Street, which is the closest location for shopping facilities and similar amenities.

4. West Boulevard is a major four‐lane highway that physically separates the neighbourhood from Quinton. This major barrier prevents natural movement, and stops the area associating with Quinton.

5. Tennal Road takes its name from the historic Tennal Hall which was a major landmark in Harborne. However, one side of Tennal Road is in the proposed Harborne ward, and the other side in the proposed Quinton ward. No one has ever considered Tennal Road to be part of Quinton and the current arrangement, with one side of the road in Harborne and the other in Quinton, is illogical and it would be much better if the whole neighbourhood was in Harborne.

In summary, the proposal we are making will result in better, more appropriate representation for our neighbourhood, and I urge you to give it serious consideration. I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours faithfully,

Stuart Knutton

4

5 6/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Birm ingham District

P ersonal Details:

Nam e: Saira Kouser E-m ail: P ostcode: Organisation Nam e:

Comment text:

Keep Ninfield Road, b27 in Acocks green

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/8487 1/1  

     ! ?"8 $   %& ' 9*& 7 & +  *> ** 6

From: Jagjeet Singh Sent: 18 June 2016 13:59 To: reviews Subject: Proposed change back to Harborne and Quinton wards boundaries.

The Review Officer (Birmingham)

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

14th Floor Millbank Tower

Millbank

London

SW1P 4QP

18/06/2016

Dear Sir or Madam,

Consultation on further recommendations for Birmingham City Council

I would like to comment on the proposed Harborne and Quinton wards.

71

When we bought our house in 1985 we were part of Harborne ward. After several years we were told that one side of Tennal Road is in Harborne and the other side is in Quinton. The private Harborne Golf Club on our side remained in Harborne but our house was transferred to Quinton Ward. Since than we haven’t been to vote in the local elections because we don’t feel a part of Quinton Ward. The road signs marking Harborne boundaries remained at the same place and our house is well within those signs. Just because our post code is B32, same as the other side of Tennal Road and the Harborne Golf Club, we were unfairly considered to be in Quinton ward. Please undo this injustice and reconnect us back with Harborne village we thought we always belonged to.

Your faithfully

Mr & Mrs Kundi

& Family

72