Parish council and town council submissions to the Central Bedfordshire City Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 20 submissions by parish councils and town 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.
Dear Arion
Further to your letter dated 27th October 2009 inviting comments from the Parish Council with regard to the proposed new warding arrangements.
The Aspley Heath Parish Council support the Conservative proposal that Aspley Heath should sit in the same ward as Woburn. Aspley Heath has ties with Woburn both geographically and traditionally and the PC feel that it is important to maintain these whereas they fail to see any natural affinity with Westoning, Pulloxhill and Flitton.
Regards
Lyn Davis Clerk to Aspley Heath Parish Council
From: M Mugridge Sent: 10 January 2010 14:51 To: Reviews@ Cc: Gill Wiggs Subject: Blunham Parish - Wardship
Dear Sirs
We (the Parish Council of Blunham) are given to understand that in the matter of the consideration of electoral ward boundaries, Sandy Town Council has put forward a proposal to incorporate our parish and that of Mogerhanger within its boundary.
Our feeling on the proposal is that the current makeup of the Northill and Blunham Ward is aligned with its rural character and would not fit well with the essentially urban nature of the Sandy ward. Although at one time Sandy was a market town and functioned to serve the surrounding villages, because of its location on the A1 and the London rail link its main purpose now is as a dormitory town with a smattering of light industry. We think it fair to say that the residents of Blunham look primarily to Sandy for the doctors and dentist surgeries only, as Bedford, St Neots and Biggleswade offer better shopping facilities.
Inevitably any discussions within the ward would tend to be dominated by the thoughts and needs of the Town Council with the rural parishes being disadvantaged.
Furthermore we understand that the reason for this is to enable Sandy Town Council justification to retain two Unitary Councillors. We are of the opinion this is not a valid justification for changing the current arrangement with which we are well satisfied.
With regards
Malcolm Mugridge Chairman Blunham Parish Council
Page 1 of 1
Eleanor Gregory
From: Harlington Parish Council Sent: 24 December 2009 12:25 To: Arion Lawrence Cc: [email protected] Subject: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Attachments: Boundary Committee - Electoral Review of Central Beds - 23.12.09.DOC
Dear Mr Lawrence
Please find a letter attached with regards the above.
Nicky Upton Clerk Harlington Parish Council
If you have received this email in error, please notify the Council and delete the email and all attachments immediately. This email (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient any reliance on use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for virus but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. Harlington Parish Council does not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this email or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. Email transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free.
19/01/2010 HARLINGTON PARISH COUNCIL Member, Bedfordshire Association of Town and Parish Councils Member, Bedfordshire Playing Fields Association Chairman: Clerk: Mr D J McLeod Mrs N S Upton MILCM
24th December 2009
BY EMAIL TO:
Arion Lawrence Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Mr Lawrence
Re: Electoral review of Central Bedfordshire
Thank you for your letter of 27th October on the above which was received by Council at its last meeting.
Further to the Council’s previous letter dated 11th September 2009 on this matter and the additional information received from Central Bedfordshire Council, it wishes to reiterate that with regards the new warding arrangements, it believes Harlington would be more naturally linked with Toddington and Westoning as all three villages are along the A5120 corridor and thus have very similar interests.
As for the number of councilors per ward it was ask that there be no less than two.
If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerely
Mrs N S Upton MILCM Clerk to Harlington Parish Council
Copied to: [email protected]
Page 1 of 1
Eleanor Gregory
From: karencousins Sent: 11 January 2010 10:49 To: Arion Lawrence Subject: Re: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Attachments: The Boundary Committee - review - 8th January 2010.doc
Dear Mr Lawrence
Please find attached the comments of Shillington Parish Council in respect of the above review. regards
Karen Cousins 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.
19/01/2010 Shillington Parish Council Including Pegsdon & Higham Gobion BEDFORDSHIRE
Mrs. Karen Cousins Chairman: Clerk to the Council Mrs. Sally Stapleton
8th January 2010 The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street LONDON SW1P 2HW
Dear Mr Lawrence
Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire
Thank you for your letter of 27th October 2009 inviting Shillington Parish Council to comment on the future warding arrangements for Central Bedfordshire.
We understand that the proposals put forward by Central Bedfordshire Council propose placing the parish of Shillington in a one member ward with Gravenhurst and Silsoe.
Shillington Parish Council considers that Shillington parish has no commonality with Silsoe and feels that it would be better placed in a ward with Meppershall and Gravenhurst. Shillington has more in common with Gravenhurst and Meppershall (same middle school catchment area, same Police Safer Neighbourhood Team, etc) and has worked closely with Meppershall in the past, for example when they jointly funded the employment of a Police Community safety officer to tackle antisocial behaviour and other issues.
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 2
Eleanor Gregory
From: Andrew Stephenson Sent: 11 January 2010 14:26 To: Arion Lawrence Cc: [email protected] Subject: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Attachments: SPC 2nd letter to Boundary Committee.doc
Dear Sirs
Please find attached and below, a letter from the Streatley Parish Council.
Yours faithfully A J Stephenson Clerk to the Streatley Parish Council
January 10th 2010 The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Sir
I have been asked to let you know the further views of the Streatley Parish Council concerning the review of Central Bedfordshire.
The Council has been supplied with details of the proposals submitted by the Conservative Group and the Liberal Democrat Group and would like to make the following comments.
The Parish of Streatley has very little in common with the village of Barton-Le-Clay and very little contact with that village or the village of Pulloxhill. The Streatley Parish Council does not consider that it would be appropriate for all these areas to be part of the same ward.
Similarly, the Parish has very little in common with and virtually no contact with the much larger villages of Harlington and Toddington.
The Streatley Parish Council is of the opinion that there should be one ward made up of the parishes of Sundon, Chalton and Streatley. These three villages have much in common and are of similar size.
The Parish Council would again like to draw the Committee’s attention to the small area of the Bushmead estate. This falls within Streatley Parish but is entirely separate and has very little contact with the rest of the Parish. The area consists entirely of dwelling houses and all amenities, such as shops, the community centre and the nearest public house, are outside the Parish. The area is served by a different church and a different utility company to the rest of Streatley Parish, and is part of a different police division. There is very little contact between the residents of the estate and the rest of Streatley Parish.
The Luton Borough Council owns much of the land in the vicinity of the Bushmead estate and is responsible for certain aspects of maintenance and upkeep under the original handover agreement and other agreements with Central Bedfordshire Council. The Parish Council has suggested on a number of occasions that the area should not be part of Streatley Parish.
19/01/2010 Page 2 of 2
Yours faithfully
A J Stephenson Clerk to the Streatley Parish Council
Do you have a story that started on Hotmail? Tell us now
19/01/2010
STREATLEY PARISH COUNCIL
January 10th 2010 The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Sir
I have been asked to let you know the further views of the Streatley Parish Council concerning the review of Central Bedfordshire.
The Council has been supplied with details of the proposals submitted by the Conservative Group and the Liberal Democrat Group and would like to make the following comments.
The Parish of Streatley has very little in common with the village of Barton-Le-Clay and very little contact with that village or the village of Pulloxhill. The Streatley Parish Council does not consider that it would be appropriate for all these areas to be part of the same ward.
Similarly, the Parish has very little in common with and virtually no contact with the much larger villages of Harlington and Toddington.
The Streatley Parish Council is of the opinion that there should be one ward made up of the parishes of Sundon, Chalton and Streatley. These three villages have much in common and are of similar size.
The Parish Council would again like to draw the Committee’s attention to the small area of the Bushmead estate. This falls within Streatley Parish but is entirely separate and has very little contact with the rest of the Parish. The area consists entirely of dwelling houses and all amenities, such as shops, the community centre and the nearest public house, are outside the Parish. The area is served by a different church and a different utility company to the rest of Streatley Parish, and is part of a different police division. There is very little contact between the residents of the estate and the rest of Streatley Parish.
The Luton Borough Council owns much of the land in the vicinity of the Bushmead estate and is responsible for certain aspects of maintenance and upkeep under the original handover agreement and other agreements with Central Bedfordshire Council. The Parish Council has suggested on a number of occasions that the area should not be part of Streatley Parish.
Yours faithfully
A J Stephenson Clerk to the Streatley Parish Council
Page 1 of 2
Eleanor Gregory
From: Sent: 10 January 2010 16:06 To: Arion Lawrence Subject: Re: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review Attachments: Boundary Committee 2 .doc; Boundary Committee.doc
Dear Arion Lawrence Please find the views of Totternhoe Parish Council to the proposed changes in the number of elected Councillors for Central Bedfordshire Council from the 2011 elections and the Ward make up in our letter dated 10th January 2010 and a copy of the letter our Parish Clerk sent on the 7th Sept 2009 on the same subject in the attachments. Please could you confirm receipt. Regards Peter Tasker Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council
----- Original Message ----- From: Arion Lawrence To: 'Norman Eighteen' ; Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council Cc: Ken Janes ; Marion Mustoe ; Brian Dunleavy Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:26 AM Subject: RE: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review
Dear Mr Tasker
Thank you for your email. Further to Mr Eighteen's email I can confirm that the reference to an elected mayor does indeed relate to Bedford Borough Council and not Central Bedfordshire Council.
Apologies for any inconvenience or confusion caused by this error.
We look forward to receiving your Parish Council's comments. Please note the consultation stage closes on 11 January 2010.
Kind regards Arion Lawrence
From: Norman Eighteen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 December 2009 08:24 To: Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council; Arion Lawrence Cc: Ken Janes; Marion Mustoe; Brian Dunleavy Subject: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review
Dear Mr Tasker
Brian Dunleavy, who is now out of the office until after Christmas, has asked me to reply to your email to him of 20 December. Whilst we have had no sight of Mr Lawrence's letter, the Elected Mayor reference will relate to Bedford Borough Council only where a review is also being carried out separately. There are no proposals for a Mayor for Central Bedfordshire Council.
Regards
Norman Eighteen Committee Project Officer
19/01/2010 Page 2 of 2
Tel: 03003005457
Central Bedfordshire Council Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ Customer Services 0300 3008000 www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk
*********************************
Improving the quality of life for all
*********************************
This email is confidential and intended exclusively for the use of the intended recipient(s). Any views or opinions presented are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of Central Bedfordshire Council. If you are not the intended recipient(s) please note that any form of distribution, copying or use of this e-mail or the information in it is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and then delete the message and any attachments from your system.
This message has been checked before being sent for all known viruses by our antivirus software. However please note that no responsibility for viruses or malicious content is taken and it is your responsibility to scan this message and any attachments to your satisfaction.
Central Bedfordshire Council reserve the right to monitor e-mails in accordance with the Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice) (Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000.
Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail. Thank you
19/01/2010 TOTTERNHOE PARISH COUNCIL
10th January 2010. The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Mr Lawrence
Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Council
In reply to your letter of the 27th October 2009 on the above subject, Totternhoe Parish Council have given due consideration to the matter as out lined in the documents and have the following comments to make.
Firstly we have been very satisfied with the current Ward arrangements, which covers the 7 parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray, Stanbridge, Tilsworth, Billington, Whipsnade and Studham, all being rural and not associated with any Town. This we have found to work very well and both elected Councillors have been very supportive to our Council on many matters that need being raised at Central Beds Council level on behalf of our Parish.
Having given due consideration to your proposal to reduced the number of elected Councillors to 59 from the 2011 elections, the proposal from the Conservative Group on Central Bedfordshire working Party we feel gave the best support to the 3 rural Parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray and Billington, all being close to each on the edge of the County next to Buckinghamshire and having very similar circumstances, little or no industry, mainly farming, be it that it will only have one Councillor.
We also considered that the grouping of the rural Parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray, Billington, Stanbridge and Tilsworth all being close to each other and having very similar circumstances with no close proximity to a Town and very little industry other than farming. However this only gave 4320 electorate so again only one Councillor
The other proposal from the Liberal Group on the working Party we felt was too large and Totternhoe would not get the best support.
We would still like the Ward to be called South West Beds as this truly reflects the area were all 3 Parishes are located in the County of Bedfordshire. Yours faithfully
Peter G Tasker Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council
Copy to Mrs M.Burton Clerk to the Council TOTTERNHOE PARISH COUNCIL
Mrs M Burton Clerk to the Council
The Boundary Committee for England 7 September 2009 Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Sirs
Central Bedfordshire Electoral Ward of South West Bedfordshire Elected Councillors – Cllr. M Mustoe and Cllr. K Janes
Totternhoe Parish Council, whose Parish forms one of the 7 parishes that make up this rural ward, would like to state the following facts:
“Our considered view is that the current Ward, size and location are very good; the 2 Councillors are working very well with our Parish and we understand, the other 6 parishes. They both ensure our interests are well represented on the Central Bedfordshire Council. We would request, therefore, that this is left alone and no interference is made by your Review, so that it can carry on in this satisfactory manner.”
Yours faithfully
Marilyn Burton Totternhoe Parish Clerk From: Rosie Davey-Hunt
To: Arion Lawrence
FW: Boundary Committee - Cranfield Ward Clarification
Dear Sir
This Council objects to the proposals of the Liberal Democrat group, insofar as they affect Cranfield, for the following reasons:
• Historically, the Airfield and University has always been linked. • Wharley End and Cranfield are linked by the development of the tech park and the traffic problems caused to Cranfield Village (traffic calming measures have recently been triggered and this Council is working together with Highways and the University to agree upon suitable measures) • Many employees of the University live in Cranfield • Cranfield Village and the University are working together to improve footpaths/Cycleway to and from the village. • The University/Cranfield Liaison Committee have been working for many years to strengthen links between the village and Wharley End. • Cranfield has more in common with Marston (large village with similar problems/issues) than with the smaller villages of Aspley Guise etc. • The growth of Cranfield will significantly raise the number of residents; this could be a case for a three member ward for Cranfield Village and Wharley End.
For the reasons given above we cannot support the separation of Wharley End from Cranfield village and, therefore, favour the Conservative group proposals
Rosie
Rosie Davey-Hunt (Mrs) Clerk of the Council Cranfield
Jessica Metheringham Review Officer Boundary Reviews The Electoral Commission Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW Tel: 020 7271 0722 Fax: 020 7271 0505 www.electoralcommission.org.uk www.aboutmyvote.co.uk Democracy matters P Please consider the environment before printing this email.
-----Original Message----- From: Sara Crann Sent: 07 December 2009 23:45 To: Reviews@; Tricia Humber; Pater Rawcliffe; [email protected] Subject: Re: Electoral Boundary Review for Central Bedfordshire - Village of Heath & Reach
The Review Manager (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Re: Electoral Boundary Review for Central Bedfordshire - Village of Heath & Reach
7th December 2009
Dear Sir / Madam
Heath & Reach Parish Council reviewed the two proposals put forward by Central Bedfordshire Council for the new electoral wards for Heath & Reach on Monday, 7th December 2009.
Option proposed by the Conservative Party - Heath & Reach, Chalgrave, Eggington, Hockliffe, Tilsworth, Standbridge Option propsed by the Liberal Democratic Party - Heath & Reach, Woburn, Eversholt, Husborne, Milton Bryan, Battlesden, Ridgemont, Tingrith, Potsgrove, and Steppingly
Heath & Reach Parish Council resolved that it wishes to retain its current electoral ward in which Heath & Reach is linked with Plantation Ward - Leighton Buzzard and not the proposals suggested by Central Bedfordshire Council.
The Parish Council stongly opposes The Liberal Democratic Parties suggestion of becoming part of Woburn Unitary ward. If the parish councils request to remain within Plantation Ward is not granted by The Boundary Committee they would opt for The Conservative Parties suggestion to link Heath & Reach with Hockcliffe.
Should you require any further informaiton please do not hesitate to contact me.
Kind regards
Sara Crann
From: Clerk to PC To: [email protected] Cc: Arion Lawrence Subject: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Council Sent; Wed 16/12/2009 19:16
Dear Mr. Dunleavy,
Thank you for your letter dated 27th November which was discussed at our recent council meeting.
I have been requested to reply that my Council supports the Liberal Democrat proposal which would link our village of Maulden with Clophill village. My Councillors feel that the two rural villages would be the best combination and do not wish to be linked with the urban town of Ampthill as suggested by the Conservative Group.
Yours sincerely,
Lynda Galler Clerk to Maulden Parish Council.
From: Doreen Bradshaw To: Arion Lawrence; [email protected] Cc: Sue and Graham Young; Subject: BOUNDARY REVIEWS - SUBMISSION BY PULLOXHILL PARISH COUNCIL Sent:Sun 03/01/2010 16:27
Dear All
Please find attached Pulloxhill’s submission towards the Boundary Review.
Regards Doreen Bradshaw Clerk - Pulloxhill Parish Council
January 2010
Pulloxhill's Submission to the Boundary Commission for England and Wales for the Parishes of Pulloxhill, Flitton and Greenfield and Silsoe
It is the wish of Pulloxhill Parish Council that the Boundary Commission should consider our submission to create a Central Bedfordshire Ward to include Pulloxhill, Flitton/Greenfield and Silsoe. We would be happy if this arrangement included other parishes as necessary.
It should be pointed out at this stage that the combined parish of Flitton and Greenfield also includes the hamlet of Wardhedges which lies between Flitton and Silsoe. The five communities form a unified geographical unit.
We contend that the current arrangements whereby Flitton/Greenfield and Pulloxhill being associated with Flitwick (East) and Silsoe with eight other villages and hamlets to its East divides our villages and does not truly reflect the combined interests of the communities.
Our case is based on a number of factors:-
• Electoral role size • Expected growth of the four villages • Electoral boundary history • Local history • Church Benefice • School catchment areas • Emergency (fire and ambulance) cover • Police Division coverage • GP, dentist and hospital cover • Transport links • Employment patterns • Post Office provision • Current tri-partite working parties
Electoral role size
The current electoral voters' lists for the three villages are as follows:-Flitton 547, Greenfield 541, Pulloxhill 714 and Silsoe 1353. Based on the Boundary Commission's recommendations for the number of councillors required (i.e. 59) the combined total of 3155 falls within the 10% margin for the average number of voters within each ward.
Expected growth
Silsoe in particular is already expected to increase with both the current Millar Homes development of 168 houses and the Cranfield Campus redevelopment of some 434 houses. The former Millar Homes site, already under construction, will result in a population increase of 420 over the next 3 (+/-) years. The Cranfield Campus development, although likely to be delayed due the effects of the recession, is planned to further increase the population of the village by 1100 from 2014 onwards. There is provision for a new lower level school to be included in the Campus scheme.
Pulloxhill and Flitton/Greenfield have some plots available for development and based on recent increases, would each grow by 14-20 souls a year. In a five year period this would result in a population increase of 175(+/-).
Electoral boundary history
Research in the Bedfordshire archives has identified that the grouping of Silsoe, Pulloxhill, Flitton and Greenfield with each other was originally mooted in the late 19th century, and by the early part of the 20th century the Silsoe, Flitton, Pulloxhill nexus had been established.
In 1885-6 Flitton (122 voters) Flitwick (172) Pulloxhill (111) Silsoe (102) Steppingley (72) and Westoning (112) were all in the same ward and this remained so until 1954, when Silsoe became a separate ward. In 1974 more changes were made, although all four villages have remained close regarding dealings with Parish matters.
In 2008 in preparation for the creation of Central Beds Unitary Authority a number of artificial two councillor wards were created whereby our four villages remained divided with Pulloxhill and Flitton/Greenfield part of Flitwick East and Silsoe joined several villages to their East.
Local history
The historic influence of Wrest Park can be seen on the ground, particularly in the villages of Silsoe and Flitton. Wrest Park House and gardens in Silsoe are linked to Flitton with the De Grey family Mausoleum being located in the Flitton Parish Church of St John the Baptist.
Church Benefice
The three parishes are part of the United Benefice of Silsoe, Pulloxhill and Flitton and share the same vicar. This results in services being shared between the three churches and also joint fund raising events.
School catchment areas
Each parish has their own lower school under the current education system. However children from all three parishes attend the same middle school (Arnold in Barton-le-Clay) and upper school (Harlington Upper in Harlington). Children from all four villages use the same school bus service and consequently can develop friendships made in their schools.
The Pulloxhill and Greenfield Lower schools are federated, sharing a head teacher and governing body. The Vicar of the three parish churches is also a governor of all three lower schools.
Emergency (fire and ambulance) cover
The first response base for the parishes for both fire and ambulance cover is located at the two stations in Ampthill.
Police Division coverage
All three parishes come within the Woburn Police district of Bedfordshire Police and in consequence share the same Police support team of one Sgt, two PC's and two PCSO's.
GP, dentist and hospital cover
The population of all four villages is covered by five GP and seven dental practices in Barton-le-Clay, Flitwick and Ampthill, all within 4 miles. The two main hospitals serving them are Luton & Dunstable and Bedford South Wing.
Transport links
Bus services and the lack of such services are a common thread that ties the villages together. There are currently three services covering the villages (not including the school bus service). These are the Stagecoach service X1 (Saturn) that runs from Bedford to Luton via Silsoe. Grant Palmer Buses run their X44 service from Bedford to Silsoe via Greenfield, Pulloxhill and Flitton. Flittabus Community Transport provides periodic services on five routes linking the villages to Ampthill, Flitwick, Bedford and Milton Keynes. With the current pressure on council funding all the villages share common cause in at least maintaining their bus links with the outside world. There are no services linking the villages to those in the east, i.e. Gravenhurst, Shillington and Stondon.
Employment patterns
All four villages have Small to Medium sized Enterprises (SME's) located in their midst. In the case of Silsoe and Pulloxhill pressure to expand these firms is causing severe concern to both populations. In the main these SME's draw their employees from outside the villages, whilst villagers themselves work elsewhere, including commuting to Bedford, Luton, London and Milton Keynes.
Post Office services
Following the recent closure of Pulloxhill's shop and Post Office, Silsoe is now the only Post Office in any of the villages and is the closest to the majority of the population in all four.
Current tri-partite concerns
A measure of the mutual interests shared by the villages has been recently expressed by a common position on the location of Gypsy and Traveller sites. An equal concern is the problem of speeding and the three parishes have formed a common working group thereby reinforcing the steps they are taking individually.
Conclusion
Pulloxhill Parish Council asks that you give serious consideration to our request for the Parishes of Pulloxhill, Flitton/Greenfield and Silsoe to be united in a new Ward regardless of the political motives of any party. We would be content to join other parishes as required to keep the electoral roll numbers correct. We have a natural bond and affinity to work together and feel this should be maintained for the future benefit of all our residents.
Mrs D Bradshaw Clerk –Pulloxhill Parish Council From: Eilbeck To: Arion Lawrence Cc: Jo Bowater Subject: Re: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Date: Wed 02/12/2009 18:49
The address of the Parish Clerk is and her e-mail address is as follows:
Kind regards John Eilbeck ----- Original Message ----- From: Arion Lawrence To: 'Eilbeck' Sent: Wednesday, December 02, 2009 5:17 PM Subject: RE: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire
Dear Dr Eilbeck
Thank you for your submission. Please provide the mailing address for Steppingley Parish Council to enable us to write to you at the end of the consultation stage.
Kind regards Arion Lawrence
From: Eilbeck Sent: 02 December 2009 17:04 To: Arion Lawrence Subject: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire
At the meeting of Steppingley Parish Council on 26 November 2009 the Electoral Review planned for Central Bedfordshire was discussed. At that meeting the Parish Council resolved to convey to the Boundary Committee it's preferred arrangement which is to continue to link Steppingley with Flitwick West. This is the current arrangement and has worked satisfactorily for many years. I would be grateful if you would consider this resolution when formulating your proposals.
Yours sincerely
Dr W John Eilbeck, Chairman Steppingley Parish Council
From: Dan Clark Sent: 09 January 2010 18:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Central Bedfordshire Ward Boundary Changes
Dear Sirs.
I have submitted my comments via the online form but did not get confirmation that the comments had been received.
My comments were along the following lines and were my own personal view.
Tempsford has traditionally been allied with Blunham, Moggerhanger, Northill, Icknield and Old Warden. There is a regular meeting of these villages which is very useful as we have a lot in common being rural villages. I would oppose being in a ward with Sandy or villages to the east such as Potton, Gamlingay, Gransden etc.
Perhaps not relevant but something I feel very strongly about is the anomaly that is Little Barford. Being part of Bedford Borough despite being the far side of both the man made barrier of the A1 and the natural border of the River Ouse. I would like to see Little Barford be part of Central Beds with a joint Tempsford & Little Barford Parish Council. I believe this would compliment Ecclesiastical boundaries.
Best Regards,
Cllr Dan Clark Tempsford Parish Council
From: To: Arion Lawrence Sent: Sun 10/01/2010 16:06 Subject: Re: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review
Dear Arion Lawrence Please find the views of Totternhoe Parish Council to the proposed changes in the number of elected Councillors for Central Bedfordshire Council from the 2011 elections and the Ward make up in our letter dated 10th January 2010 and a copy of the letter our Parish Clerk sent on the 7th Sept 2009 on the same subject in the attachments. Please could you confirm receipt. Regards Peter Tasker Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council ----- Original Message ----- From: Arion Lawrence To: 'Norman Eighteen' ; Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council Cc: Ken Janes ; Marion Mustoe ; Brian Dunleavy Sent: Wednesday, December 23, 2009 11:26 AM Subject: RE: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review
Dear Mr Tasker
Thank you for your email. Further to Mr Eighteen's email I can confirm that the reference to an elected mayor does indeed relate to Bedford Borough Council and not Central Bedfordshire Council.
Apologies for any inconvenience or confusion caused by this error.
We look forward to receiving your Parish Council's comments. Please note the consultation stage closes on 11 January 2010.
Kind regards Arion Lawrence
From: Norman Eighteen [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 December 2009 08:24 To: Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council; Arion Lawrence Cc: Ken Janes; Marion Mustoe; Brian Dunleavy Subject: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review
Dear Mr Tasker
Brian Dunleavy, who is now out of the office until after Christmas, has asked me to reply to your email to him of 20 December. Whilst we have had no sight of Mr Lawrence's letter, the Elected Mayor reference will relate to Bedford Borough Council only where a review is also being carried out separately. There are no proposals for a Mayor for Central Bedfordshire Council.
Regards
Norman Eighteen Committee Project Officer
Tel: 03003005457
Central Bedfordshire Council Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire SG17 5TQ Customer Services 0300 3008000 www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk
From: To: Arion Lawrence Subject: Re: Central Bedfordshire Council Ward/Councillor Review Date: Sun 10/01/2010 16:06
The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) The Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
8th January 2010
Ref: Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire
Dear Sirs,
I represent the current Plantation and Heath and Reach Ward Conservative Association. We are a local political group which supports the residents of the existing Plantation Ward which includes the village of Heath and Reach within South West Bedfordshire.
We have read with interest the documents regarding the proposal to create a new ward pattern in Leighton Buzzard and its surrounding villages and note that there has been a recommendation to remove Heath and Reach from the current Plantation Ward and place it out of the main town wards in a village grouping instead.
I note from your letter to Mr Richard Carr on the 27th October 2009 that you have a paragraph which is headed “Creating a Ward pattern”. This states that these wards should “reflect community identities and interests and would seek to use strong, easily identifiable boundaries. We as a committee wholly agree with this statement.
Heath and Reach although holding a village status is in no way separated from Leighton Buzzard either physically or environmentally. The Heath Road (The C 194) runs through the Plantation ward and continues through Heath and Reach to the A5 without a break in housing, thus there is no strong boundary between the two. The residents of both Plantation and Heath and Reach use the schools, facilities and parks which adjoin both areas and all share a common environmental program with the shared recycling centre and waste disposal services. The Leighton Buzzard Golf Club for instance has its club house in Plantation Road, Leighton Buzzard yet the course bisects Heath and Reach parish. We consider Heath and Reach to wholly be a part of this ward in every sense.
During a previous review of boundaries in 2004 the conclusion was drawn that Heath and Reach should remain as part of the main body of Leighton Buzzard’s ward pattern and nothing has changed since then. The autonomy of the Parish Council has worked successfully since 2004 and has not been overrun by the Town Councils will and in this case I believe the Parish Council have written to you to express their desire to remain in the Plantation Ward also.
We fully realise the need to reduce the size of the number of council members but we feel there are many alternatives the proposed grouping of Plantation, Planets and part of Central Leighton Buzzard. With a population of only 1300 in Heath and Reach a grouping which includes Planets, Plantation and Heath and Reach would be both geographically and socially more coherent.
From the political perspective to maintain consistent representation this would also make sense as by moving Heath and Reach into a group as suggested to include Woburn, Ridgmont etc this would also change the boundary for the South West Bedfordshire Parliamentary Ward into Mid Bedfordshire thus changing the residents elected MP. In conclusion, we would respectfully like to request that Heath and Reach is not removed from the Plantation Ward pattern and that an alternative grouping is considered where the long and amicable links between the residents of Leighton Buzzard and Heath and Reach are allowed to continue.
Yours sincerely,
Simon Rossiter Chairman Plantation- Heath and Reach Conservative Association
TOTTERNHOE PARISH COUNCIL
10th January 2010. The Review Officer (Central Bedfordshire) Boundary Committee for England Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Mr Lawrence
Electoral Review of Central Bedfordshire Council
In reply to your letter of the 27th October 2009 on the above subject, Totternhoe Parish Council have given due consideration to the matter as out lined in the documents and have the following comments to make.
Firstly we have been very satisfied with the current Ward arrangements, which covers the 7 parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray, Stanbridge, Tilsworth, Billington, Whipsnade and Studham, all being rural and not associated with any Town. This we have found to work very well and both elected Councillors have been very supportive to our Council on many matters that need being raised at Central Beds Council level on behalf of our Parish.
Having given due consideration to your proposal to reduced the number of elected Councillors to 59 from the 2011 elections, the proposal from the Conservative Group on Central Bedfordshire working Party we feel gave the best support to the 3 rural Parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray and Billington, all being close to each on the edge of the County next to Buckinghamshire and having very similar circumstances, little or no industry, mainly farming, be it that it will only have one Councillor.
We also considered that the grouping of the rural Parishes of Totternhoe, Eaton Bray, Billington, Stanbridge and Tilsworth all being close to each other and having very similar circumstances with no close proximity to a Town and very little industry other than farming. However this only gave 4320 electorate so again only one Councillor
The other proposal from the Liberal Group on the working Party we felt was too large and Totternhoe would not get the best support.
We would still like the Ward to be called South West Beds as this truly reflects the area were all 3 Parishes are located in the County of Bedfordshire. Yours faithfully
Peter G Tasker Chairman of Totternhoe Parish Council
Copy to Mrs M.Burton Clerk to the Council
TOTTERNHOE PARISH COUNCIL
Mrs M Burton Clerk to the Council
The Boundary Committee for England 7 September 2009 Trevelyan House Great Peter Street London SW1P 2HW
Dear Sirs
Central Bedfordshire Electoral Ward of South West Bedfordshire Elected Councillors – Cllr. M Mustoe and Cllr. K Janes
Totternhoe Parish Council, whose Parish forms one of the 7 parishes that make up this rural ward, would like to state the following facts:
“Our considered view is that the current Ward, size and location are very good; the 2 Councillors are working very well with our Parish and we understand, the other 6 parishes. They both ensure our interests are well represented on the Central Bedfordshire Council. We would request, therefore, that this is left alone and no interference is made by your Review, so that it can carry on in this satisfactory manner.”
Yours faithfully
Marilyn Burton Totternhoe Parish Clerk
FYI
-----Original Mes From: Sara Crann Sent: 30 December 2009 18:18 To: Reviews@ Cc: Cllr Budge Wells; WENDY BOND Subject: Re: Electoral Boundary Review for Central Bedfordshire - Village of Woburn
The Review Manager (Central Bedfordshire) > The Boundary Committee for England > Trevelyan House > Great Peter Street > London SW1P 2HW > > Re: Electoral Boundary Review for Central Bedfordshire - Village of > Woburn > > 30th December 2009 > > Dear Sir / Madam > > Woburn Parish Council reviewed the two proposals put forward by > Central Bedfordshire Council for the new electoral wards for Woburn on > Tuesday, 8th December 2009. The options proposed:
* Option proposed by the Liberal Democratic Party – 1 councillor: Heath & Reach, Woburn, Eversholt, Husborne, Milton Bryan, Battlesden, Ridgemont, Tingrith, Potsgrove, and Steppingly. * Option proposed by the Conservative Party – 2 councillors: Flitton & Greenfield, Pulloxhill, Tingrith, Westoning, Aspley Guise, Aspley Heath, Husborne Crawley, Battlesdont, Eversholt, Milton Bryan and Woburn.
The council reviewed and discussed the options proposed by the Conservative and Liberal Democratic Party for CBC. The main issue raised was the lack of commonality between the villages. The Council resolved that Woburn Parish Council does not support either the Liberal Democratic or Conservative Parties proposals for Central Bedfordshire and seeks its own option be considered by the Boundary Committee for England as follows:
* 1 councillor serving: Aspley Guise, Aspley Heath, Husborne Crawley, Battlesdont, Eversholt, Milton Bryan and Woburn. (3671 electors)
Should you require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me.
Yours sincerly
Mrs Sara Crann Clerk to Woburn Parish Council