Local residents' submissions to the Council electoral review

This PDF contains 38 submissions from local residents with surnames H-K.

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

Click on the submission that you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Pam Hames Sent: 08 July 2013 22:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: three rivers consultation

Dear Sir Rural part of Three Rivers District council

I recognise that this part of the Three River District is the most difficult to create boundaries that meet all the criteria, The council stated in its previous submission that its original proposals for this area were less than ideal in order to allow for a pattern of 3-member wards. Therefore I agree whole heartedly that this new submission is the best for all the three areas:-

Within the parish, there is a clear division between South and the remainder of the parish. As previously noted, the history of is very distinct from the rest of the parish (and indeed from the rest of Three Rivers) and it still forms a distinct community that as far as possible should not be divided.

The boundary between South Oxhey and the rest of the parish is very strong and well defined. It runs through clear Green Belt and it divides the South Oxhey county division from Oxhey Park; and divides the SW Herts parliamentary constituency from Watford parliamentary constituency. Avoiding crossing this boundary is clearly preferable in order to respect community ties and to enable effective and convenient government.

Respecting this division provides for 5 councillors in South Oxhey and 4 in the remainder of the parish. Clearly this does not accommodate a pattern of 3-member wards.

We therefore ask the Commission to respect the unique situation in this part of the district and the very strong division between South Oxhey and the rest of the parish. That would provide for one 3-member and one 2-member ward covering South Oxhey; together with one 3- member and one single–member ward covering and Oxhey Hall.

A suitable division of South Oxhey would be along the line of Oxhey Drive, with the northern (2-member) ward named ‘Hayling’ and the southern (3-member) ward named ‘Ashridge & Northwick’. The wards in the remainder of the parish area would comprise a 3-member ward covering all of Carpenders Park together with those areas of Oxhey Hall ward east of Hartsbourne Brook (Silk Mill and Green Lane areas); plus a 1-member Oxhey Hall ward covering the whole of the Oxhey Hall estate including Hampermill Lane and Brookdene Avenue. These wards would be named respectively ‘Carpenders Park & Silk Mill’ and ‘Oxhey Hall’.

I feel very strongly that this will be the best for all concerned. I would like the commission to take in to consideration the other grouping for elections that we share, Oxhey Hall and

1 Carpenders Park Wards are already part of the Oxhey Park Ward for The County Council and are in the Constituency of Watford for the government general elections. South Oxhey stands by itself in these two election making it self even more independent , Yours sincerely

Pam Hames

2

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Harrison, Frank G Sent: 30 June 2013 15:07 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Attn of The Review Officer (Three Rivers)

From: Frank Harrison,

I am writing concerning the Three Rivers Review, and in particular regarding future representation of the area known as Oxhey Hall. I am strongly in favour of this area retaining a single local councillor representing Oxhey Hall, and am opposed to adding the Hayling Ward of South Oxhey. My reasons are as follows:

1) Oxhey Hall is a distinctive area, as a glance at a map will show. It is bounded to the East by a tributary to the River Colne which constitutes the dividing line between Watford and Three Rivers. To the North, South and West open ground separates it from all other housing. 2) Much of Oxhey Hall is in a designated Conservation area, a mark of its distinctive architecture and community spirit. 3) There are numerous Oxhey Hall organisations. For instance, we have our own Residents’ Association, an active Neighbourhood Watch and our own Horticultural Society which was founded shortly after WW2. The Horticultural Society has its own trading hut within the community which is staffed every Sunday (outside winter months) by volunteer Oxhey Hall residents. There is Oxhey Hall Community Centre which has provided local social and sporting facilities since about 1940. The local police refer to our area as Oxhey Hall. 4) About two years ago we acquired our own road signs which distinguish Oxhey Hall from South Oxhey. 5) There is a strong local identity; we think of ourselves as residents of Oxhey Hall.

Although many of us use the shopping facilities of South Oxhey, I very much doubt that we feel any real affinity with Hayling Ward. South Oxhey has its own community social and sports facilities – and in all honesty I suspect that South Oxhey residents do not feel they have any significant affinity with Oxhey Hall. I think there is simply no good reason to try and force two different communities to form some sort of marriage for representative purposes. It would be far better for Oxhey Hall to retain its own local councillor.

Yours sincerely,

F G Harrison

1

Maggie Hendra

Member of the public

05/06/2013 15:05

"That anyone could propose to split a village in half, then attempt to strip it of its identity by lumping it together with other localities not even bearing its name and then suppose that local councillors should still be able to best serve its constituents is ludicrous. This plan must surely have been hatched by some-one who has never lived in a village, doesn’t know the village and surrounding area and would likely need a Sat Nav. to find us. The proposal by Three Rivers to add on to Abbots is a perfectly natural solution as Abbots and Bedmond are already linked in many other aspects. Abbots is a thriving village with a successful High Street, numerous, long established societies and annual events which involve the whole united village including a large number from neighbouring Bedmond, the boundary with Bedmond village not being rigidly defined either visually or socially. Primrose Hill on the other hand, is nearer to and also has its own respected identity. None of us are simply numbers on a map!" Cristiana Hill

Member of the public

05/06/2013 08:55

As a resident of for the last 27 years I am very disappointed by your proposal to divide the village, thus denying its identity. While I appreciate the efforts to make the size of each ward more even in terms of population, this should not be achieved by dividing a community. Abbots Langley is a thriving community and should not be denied coherent and appropriate political representation, to reflect and pursue the concerns and interests of its residents. Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Three Rivers District

Personal Details:

Name: Gregory Hill

Organisation Name: (none)

Map Features:

Comment text: In my view the proposal to divide Three Rivers into wards each returning three members is too rigid, and the suggested revisions for produce an unrealist c result. The railway is not in practice a boundary within the village; I live a short distance to the north of the railway, but I and other residents in that area are part of the community focussed on the station and the shops and other facil ties in Lower Road just to the south. More significant is the split, approximately along the line of the motorway, between "Chorleywood West" and "Chorleywood East", recognised by the existing electoral arrangements. "Chorleywood South and " would be an entirely arbitrary construct: Maple Cross is not in any sense part of Chorleywood, and ts commun cations are along the main road, to and Denham. "Chorleywood North and " would similarly be arb trary: Sarratt is a community in tself, w th communications towards and / Kings Langley. I suggest as an outline, therefore, (1) a one-councillor ward for Maple Cross; (2) a one-councillor ward for Sarratt; and (3) two two-councillor wards for Chorleywood, West and East, the boundary between them running north-south somewhere in the neighbourhood of the motorway. I have not done the electoral arithmetic, but I do not think t should be beyond the wit of man to create ward boundaries which give each vote approximately the same weight (and even to adjust the imbalance between Chorleywood and other parts of TRDC under the existing proposals).

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2030 09/07/2013

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

Three Rivers District

Personal Details:

Name: Pat Howell

Organisation Name:

Map Features:

Comment text: I support the draft proposals which seem to be the best arrangements for the reduced numbers of councillors, maintaining community identity, linking like areas where possible and balancing numbers of electors.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2002 08/07/2013

Dunkeyson, Nicholas

-----Original Message----- From: Peter Jennings Sent: 04 July 2013 13:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: Carpenders Park boundary Commission review

To whom it may concern :

My wife and I both wish to inform you that we do not wish to be combined with the South Oxhey area but wish Carpenders Park to retain its own identity and its own councillor.

Susan and Peter Jennings,

1 Dunkeyson, Nicholas

From: Patrick Johnson Sent: 26 June 2013 15:21 To: Reviews@ Subject: Three Rivers

Dear Sirs

RE: THREE RIVERS DISTRICT COUNCIL BOUNDARY REVIEW

Further to you letter regarding the boundary review, we do not want to change to Moor Park we want to stay in Rickmansworth. We shop in Rickmansworth, use the Aquadrome, use the library etc. We definitely feel our interests and identity are more associated with Rickmansworth than Moor Park.

Yours faithfully

Patrick and Maria Johnson

1 James Johnston

Member of the public

29/05/2013 16:38

"The Commission's proposals, in my opinion, fly in the face of history, logic,community values and common sense. Since moving to Abbots Langley 45 years ago I have come to appreciate the unity of the both the parish and the village and believe it would be near sacrilege to destroy both in the name of minor officialdom. Abbots Langley is a historic name - older than its neighbour Kings Langley - and, together with Bedmond, provides us with an unbroken link right back to the . There is surely still merit in appreciating and sustaining our heritage rather than drawing arbitrary boundary lines on maps. Although I do not subscribe to the politics of our current representatives, I sincerely believe that, in this instance, they have their fingers well and truly on the best interests of the electorate of Abbots Langley and Bedmond.

The Three Rivers' proposals adequately meet all the essential requirements of the intended reotganisation of local government administration without destroying either the concept or the reality of continuity.

I rest my case!

James Johnston

richard joseph

Member of the public

22/04/2013 17:05 I disagree with the proposal to change Carpenders Park to include part of South Oxhey. Property prices are higher in Carpenders park and I am concerned that this may affect property prices. Also south oxhey and carpenders park have different issues - the majority of properties in carpenders park are privately owned. I believe having a dedicated councillor to represent carpenders park should remain and south oxhey should have the same. I believe carpenders park are a community and also south oxhey - this should remain - both areas are represented effectively at present there is no need to change this. Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Three Rivers District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Jowsey

Organisation Name:

Map Features:

Comment text: The proposal to spl t the historic village of Abbots Langley into 3 separate wards by dividing the existing well-integrated community into arbitrary affiliat ons with 3 external localities makes no sense at all from a commun ty perspective. It can only act to reduce the existing strong sense of a local village community with no apparent compensating benefits other than ‘making the numbers work’. Proposing to drop any mention at all of the village in the suggested ward names in favour of the 3 less well-defined areas, would only compound the problem. I am strongly opposed to this arbitrary and capr cious proposal since it so completely fails to recognise the value of the established Abbots Langley community, in favour of some administrative convenience. It should not be allowed to go ahead as it stands. As an absolute minimum the histor c Abbots Langley name should be retained as the primary designation of each of the 3 new wards w th the local name appended ( eg Abbots Langley – Bedmond ward) as previously proposed in Point 80. This would add coherence and a sense of practical reality to the proposal that is currently sadly lacking. To dismiss this sound suggestion so summarily (by apparently making the resulting names too long and potentially confusing) just insults the intelligence of the local electors. We deserve better

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2004 08/07/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Three Rivers District

Personal Details:

Name: Linda Jowsey

Organisation Name:

Map Features:

Comment text: The proposal to drop the name Abbots Langley is inappropriate. The village has a strong sense of dentity and to subsume it to Bedmond or Langleybury is counter-intuitive. I want to continue to live, shop, bank and vote in Abbots Langley! To divide the village, and indeed some roads, along these arb trary lines has clearly been poorly researched and even more poorly publicised. I only learned about this proposal from a chance conversation with a neighbour. I can understand the need to balance const tuencies but do not erad cate the name Abbots Langley. Perhaps ‘Abbots Langley - Bedmond’, ‘Abbots Langley - Langleybury’ and ‘Abbots Langley - Leavesden’ might be alternatives? Don’t divide roads. Let boundaries fall along more natural divisions.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2044 09/07/2013

RichardKillick

Member of the public

23/04/2013 11:44 I support the proposed change to create the new Chorleywood South and Maple Cross ward

8 July 2013 By email to: [email protected]

The Review Officer (Three Rivers) LGBCE Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street EC1M 5LG

Dear Review Officer,

Three Rivers District Council: Consulation on ward Boundaries

I am dismayed at the proposed dismemberment of Chorleywood. I don’t see why this (my) area should be divided up to satisfy what seems to me a formulaic approach to boundaries to accommodate the mantra that there must be 3 councillors per ward. Nor do I see why Chorleywood should be divided up seemingly more than other localities, effectively to ‘balance the books’ elsewhere.

No wonder folk feel distanced from their elected local government if their community, a recognisable coherent locality on the ground, is not enabled to elect representatives from and for that community because of artificial boundary shibboleths.

Chorleywood East A new boundary is proposed with all north of the railway line being allocated to Sarratt. There is NO activity boundary along that line. Common Road, Darvells, Colleylands are all clearly mainstream Chorleywood for every conceivable requirement. Likewise Green Street and Orchard Drive. Walkers pour under the over the railway bridges daily to walk on the common, or walk home from the ‘local’ St Clement Danes’ secondary school. It is the antithesis of democractic responsiveness to be joined with Sarratt.

Between Chorleywood and Sarratt lies the farmland either side of .

Heronsgate is where I was brought up and my parents lived there for 50 years. It is no linkages with Maple Cross (apart from the electoral boundary map). For small items, members of local groups, churches, primary schools and catching trains, Heronsgate people come to Chorleywood.

I think the Electoral Commission , in its efforts to devise a fair formula, is taking way too little notice of facts on the oground. To late for this consultation no doubt. But I hope for the future the EC will review the constraints it sets itself.

Yours faithfully

Angela Killick

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

Three Rivers District

Personal Details:

Name: Ronald Knight

Organisation Name:

Map Features:

Comment text: My wife and I believe that Carpenders Park estate should remain as a single ward added to part of Oxhey w th whom we currently share a County Councillor and MP. We think that this is a more logical approach than the proposed joining w th part of South Oxhey with its totally different views and outlooks.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/1995 08/07/2013