Local Residents Submissions to the North Somerset Council Electoral Review

Local Residents submissions to the North Somerset Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 24 submissions from Local Residents.

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.

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 28 March 2014 16:43 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary change -Backwell North Somerset

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: David Legg Sent: 28 March 2014 09:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary change -Backwell North Somerset

Dear Sirs I object to the proposed change of boundaries and would much prefer a merger with Winford as we have more in common and Backwell would not suffer a loss of identity.

David Legg

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

134

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 14:33 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Mark Lewis Sent: 26 March 2014 08:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

FAO: The Review Officer (North Somerset)

I object to the proposed Map B and strongly prefer the original Map A which is supported by Wraxall and Failand parish council and North Somerset Council.

Map B would split the parish of Wraxall which is listed in Domesday and has its present boundary on the earliest OS (1888): http://www.domesdaymap.co.uk/place/ST4971/wraxall/

The Failand triangle would be in "Pill & Easton‐in‐Gordano" while the fields opposite Weston Road and Flax Bourton Road would be in two different wards which we would not elect councillors to. This would make opposing inappropriate development in and around Failand more difficult.

‐‐ Mark Lewis, Failand, North Somerset www.failand.org.uk

153 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 March 2014 09:09 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: proposed Mega ward "Churchill/Wrington

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: meg lidstone [ Sent: 19 March 2014 12:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: proposed Mega ward "Churchill/Wrington

Dear Sir /Madam,

I would like to register my disapproval of the proposed three councillor ward. I believe it would result in a reduced level and quality of representation. If savings are to be made then I would suggest looking more closely at the other end of the food chain. My view is that you are my "buffer "against the excesses of central government and you should be finding ways to resist wild schemes like this not implementing them.

Mr Terence Lidstone, Congresbury

187 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 31 March 2014 08:48 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Ward change Attachments: Ward Change Objection Letter.doc

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Sent: 28 March 2014 18:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Ward change

Please find my objection letter attached. Martyn G Lindrea

132

The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London. EC1M 5LG.

Email : [email protected]

Re: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes.

Dear Sirs,

I wish to object to the revised proposed changes to the ward boundaries for North Somerset as depicted by Map B. These changes would have a detrimental effect on local democracy and the community identity in the parish of Wraxall & Failand.

The Wraxall & Failand Parish is currently well served by two District Councillors, the proposals shown at Map B divides our parish between two wards and four Councillors, who are unlikely to have the experience or affinity with this parish.

The ward boundaries proposed do not reflect the geography of the area or the local communities. The original proposal that associated Wraxall & Failand with Long Ashton referred to as ‘Map A’ is a much better solution. I urge you to revert to this proposal.

Yours Sincerely,

Martyn G Lindrea.

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 February 2014 09:11 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Ward changes in North Somerset

From: Peter Longden Sent: 23 February 2014 17:57 To: Reviews@ Subject: Ward changes in North Somerset

To the Local Government Boundary Commission. ‐ An objection to the recent 2014 Boundary Proposals

Dear Sir / Madam,

As a parish councillor in Winford I am very concerned at the new proposals that have just been notified to us. The proposal to add Winford into a two councillor ward under Long Ashton would be extremely detrimental to our district council representation for the following reasons.

Long Ashton itself has I understand an electorate of something like 4250 out of a proposed 6900, so it would be extremely unlikely that anybody other than a Long Ashton based councillor could get elected to either of the two seats available. What sort of representation will Winford residents get then ?

Winford, Dundry and Barrow Gurney are rural parishes, and Winford consists of three small villages with few amenities as there is only one shop, one primary school, a pub in each village and almost no bus service. It has little similarity to the life and community structure of the growing urban community of Long Ashton.

Winford secondary school children mainly go to Chew Valley school which is over the border in BANES, as is our local surgery and our most available shopping. What understanding will Long Ashton based councillors have of this situation, or indeed for the impact on Winford parish residents of our immediate neighbour Bristol Airport on our Western boundary.

Winford is separated from Long Ashton by two main roads the A38 and the A370 and the geographical layout of the area makes it unlikely that Winford residents will normally visit Long Ashton for shopping or recreation.

As proposed the 2013 boundary alignment of one councillor for the four rural parishes of Winford, Dundry, Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton was a much better fit to our village communities. It may be a numericalt fi t bu what use is that to the proper representation of the residents, and I therefore request that the 2013 proposals be reinstated for our future representation by a village based representative.

Yours faithfully,

Peter Longden Councillor, Winford Parish Council Email : [email protected]

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 02 April 2014 10:14 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed boundary changes - North Somerset

Hi Mark,

Please see submission from North Somerset below.

Regards, Helen

From: Graham Lovesey Sent: 01 April 2014 17:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed boundary changes - North Somerset

To : Review Officer (North Somerset) LGBCE

From: Graham Lovesey Congresbury Email

Having reviewed the proposal for a ward called 'Churchill/Wrington', which combines 9 parishes, I am deeply concerned that this 3 councillor ward will not allow each ward to be effectively represented. Each parish has its own specific issues, and it would be extremely difficult for a councillor to understand the details over such large geographic areas, let alone try and try and gain support from the electorate.

I strongly urge you to abandon the proposed revision, and resort to the original draft proposal which included a ward 'Congresbury and Puxton'.

Regards

Graham Lovesey

111 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 April 2014 10:47 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed boundary changes - North Somerset

From: Sue Lovesey Sent: 02 April 2014 10:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed boundary changes - North Somerset

Dear Sir

As a resident of Congresbury I've looked at the draft proposal for the proposed boundary changes for North Somerset and am extremely concerned.

The original draft very sensibly proposed one councillor for a new ward of Congresbury and Puxton, which would have been acceptable to me.

I am therefore wondering why this original has now been revised so that three councillors will attempt to serve a mega-ward of Congresbury, Puxton, Cleeve, Brockley, Wrington, Churchill, Butcombe, Burrington and Blagdon?

This revised proposal is unworkable for the following reasons.

 Each candidate will have to attempt to convey that they are able to adequately champion their local community and help and support their electorate. Each parish has its own issues which are best understood by a resident of that parish.  Each candidate will have to campaign across the whole ward to gain sufficient votes. The time and cost involved in this will preclude all but the wealthiest and, as it is impossible to travel efficiently by public transport across these large, rural parishes, will increase carbon emissions.  Once elected the councillors, with the best will in the world, will be unable to fulfil all their responsibilities adequately.

Therefore, I strongly urge you to abandon this revision and revert to the original proposal of one councillor for the ward of Congresbury and Puxton.

Yours faithfully Mrs Susan Lovesey

110 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 11:12 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed boundary changes to Backwell driven by Local Government Boundary Commission.

From: Dee Marshall Sent: 25 March 2014 15:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed boundary changes to Backwell driven by Local Government Boundary Commission.

Dear Sir/Madam, As residents of Backwell, we wish to express our views concerning the proposed boundary changes. We are in favour of Map A, which would connect Backwell with Barrow Gurney, Flax Bourton and Winford. There is a natural link between this places geographically and ideologically. The common areas of interest are Bristol Airport, A370 and Stancombe Quarry. Ideally we would like to see no changes but to amalgamate Backwell with the other places as identified in Map B would result in the loss of Backwell’s identity which the villagers have always strived to maintain. Regards Dee Marshall DCCR BA(Hons) MSc. Neil Marshall.

140

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 April 2014 10:21 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: winford ward changes

From: Bryony McEvedy Sent: 07 April 2014 14:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: winford ward changes

I have a house in winford in north somerset and want to object to winford being included in long ashton ward rather than the previous proposal for winford to be included with other rural parishes like regil, felton, barrow gurney and flax burton. long ashton is quite far away and not linked by the road system so people in the two villages seldom meet and long ashton is more like part of bristol. long ashton is also much bigger than winford so our votes will count for little and our concerns will not be listened to as much as at present. please reconsider your decision, yours sincerely, bryony mcevedy

11 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 March 2014 08:43 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: LGBCE (FER) Launch of FURTHER draft recommendations for North Somerset

From: Ian McKay Sent: 06 March 2014 13:26 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Ian McKay' Subject: LGBCE (FER) Launch of FURTHER draft recommendations for North Somerset

Dear Sirs

We wish to support the revised proposals for our area of North Somerset. We wish to be part of the 2 member Pill and Easton in Gordano Ward as we feel this would best serve our local connections which lie along the A369, as our previous representations have stated. Leigh Woods, about 270 households, would like to stay part of the Easton in Gordano Ward as Leigh Woods is primarily affected by the A369 and the Clifton Suspension Bridge, concerns more closely allied with Abbots Leigh, Portbury and Easton in Gordano than Long Ashton. The revised proposals ensure we stay as nearly as possible the same as present, even with the reduced number of Councillors, i.e. part of the Easton in Gordano ward. Ashton Court lies between us and Long Ashton and our community is affected by the suspension bridge and A369 unlike Long Ashton.

Yours faithfully

Ian & Susan McKay

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 08 April 2014 11:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary Commission - Wraxall & Failand Parish Council Attachments: 140407 - Objection Letter - Colin McKee.pdf

Hi Mark,

Please see the below submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: McKee, Colin Sent: 07 April 2014 16:59 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Colin McKee' Subject: Boundary Commission - Wraxall & Failand Parish Council

Dear Sir or Madam,

Please find attached my letter of objection in relation to the recent proposed boundary changes affecting Wraxall & Failand Parish.

Yours faithfully, Colin McKee

Colin McKee Director, Accounting & Regulatory Advisory | Strategic Client Solutions LLOYDS BANK COMMERCIAL BANKING

Lloyds Banking Group plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. Registered in Scotland no. SC95000. Telephone: 0131 225 4555. Lloyds Bank plc. Registered Office: 25 Gresham Street, London EC2V 7HN. Registered in England and Wales no. 2065. Telephone 0207626 1500. Bank of Scotland plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. Registered in Scotland no. SC327000. Telephone: 08457 21 31 41. Cheltenham & Gloucester plc. Registered Office: Barnett Way, Gloucester GL4 3RL. Registered in England and Wales 2299428. Telephone: 0845 603 1637

Lloyds Bank plc, Bank of Scotland plc are authorised by the Prudential Regulation Authority and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and Prudential Regulation Authority.

Cheltenham & Gloucester plc is authorised and regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority.

Halifax is a division of Bank of Scotland plc. Cheltenham & Gloucester Savings is a division of Lloyds Bank plc.

HBOS plc. Registered Office: The Mound, Edinburgh EH1 1YZ. Registered in Scotland no. SC218813. 2

7 April 2014

The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London. EC1M 5LG.

Email : [email protected]

Re: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes.

Dear Sirs,

The Parish currently has a strong sense of community which has been maintained through, for example, the churches at All Saints’ and St Bartholomew’s, various groups associated with these churches, local Wraxall societies which are hosted in Failand Village Hall, close links and good working relationships with neighbouring parishes and communities (e.g. collective engagement with Nailsea residents to counter proposals for pylons to be local area). I feel that this sense of community would be better protected under the proposals in map A which do not act to divide the parish.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin McKee

Email: Tel:

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:01 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Boundary Change Proposals - Long Ashton Ward

Hi Mark,

Please see the below sub for NS.

Helen

From: Gordon Sent: 06 April 2014 18:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Boundary Change Proposals - Long Ashton Ward

Dear Sirs,

I write to oppose the proposed integration of Winford PC with Long Ashton PC to create the 2 member Long Ashton Ward. The new ward will have just under 7,000 eligible voters, 4,200 of whom live within Long Ashton and the remaining 2,800 within Barrow Gurney, Dundry, Regil, Felton and Winford. Quite clearly we would end up being represented in the Town Hall by two Councillors, both of whom will be living in Long Ashton and, in all probability, both from the same political group and I doubt that their interests will extend to the issues in the outlying areas of the enlarged ward.

The residents in Dundry, Regil, Felton and Winford have concerns over the extension and activities at Bristol Airport. How will they be best represented by a Councillor living in Long Ashton?

Dundry, Regil, Felton and Winford are rural communities and their priorities differ to those who live in Long Ashton which is almost a small town, much closer to the city.

Therefore, I ask that you revert back to the original the proposals which provided a better aligned and balanced way forward for the residents and their differing needs.

Yours faithfully, Gordon McLintock

33 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 10:51 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary Changes

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: Dave Miles Sent: 06 April 2014 14:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Proposed Boundary Changes

Dear Review Officer

We would like to voice our objections to the proposed boundary changes in North somerset in particular Congresbury. This is in our view a retrograde step as Congresbury is a large village with the possibility of not having a local councillor with specialist knowledge of village issues.

Therefore please take this view into consideration in your review.

Regards

David and Mairwen Miles

41 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 11:03 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Winford Ward

From: Jess Monks Sent: 26 March 2014 12:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Winford Ward

I write to express my extreme disappointment and concern that you are considering almagamating our Ward (Winford, Dundry, Felton & Regil) in North Somerset. It appears we would lose our name & become part of a "Long Ashton Ward" which is a fair distance from us and being could end up being represented by two councillors, both from the same political group and both living in Long Ashton, and probably not at all committed to significant issues in our area. Our own councillor is local and attends regular Parish Council meetings, & airport traffic meetings (which currently seems to be a real nuisance). Being more rural too, I have seen him out clearing gullies during the floods to save houses that have been ruined before from the same fate....and it worked!! A councillor living 10 miles away is not going to give us that same level of commitment, equally Long Ashton is almost a small town compared with our rural 'green belt' villages; therefore priorities differ. Long Ashton does not have 108 acres of Felton Common to manage and cherish, nor a busy Community Composting Site. Long Ashton has no airport to worry about, yet the Parish Councillors of Dundry & Winford have constant concerns over aircraft flight paths, noise levels and airport traffic.

It also worries us greatly that because the Dundry & Winford parishes are on the extreme edge of the North Somerset District, we have always had to "shout & holler" loudly and persistently to catch the attention of North Somerset Officers, and to ensure that a fair balance of investment is put into our facilities and amenities.....we don't have many, but we pay our hefty Council Tax which should entitle us to fair service, which I believe we are getting, but only due to the fact that we have our own District Councillor which we would be grateful for it to be left that way.

Thanking you

Jessica Monks

144 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 10:58 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET REVISED

Hi Mark,

Please the below sub for NS.

Helen

From: Gillian Moon Sent: 06 April 2014 18:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET REVISED

Electoral Review of North Somerset: Revised Proposal.

Dear Sir/Madam, I find your revised Ward Boundary Proposal very poorly conceived with regard to the splitting of the Parish of Wraxall & Failand between different wards and the merging of fragmented and unrelated communities for future coucillors to represent. The reduced number of District Councillors means each will be busier anyway and attending extra P.C.s will further increase the pressure with reduced attendance likely. Further, when attending a split P.C. items for the other section of the Parish will waste their valuable time. Also trying to represent a greater number of possibly conflicting interests will be liable to lead to individual decisions rather than ones resulting from council debate.

Yours Faithfully, (Dr.) David J. Moon.

35 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:04 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET

Hi Mark,

Please see the below sub for NS.

Helen

From: Gillian Moon Sent: 06 April 2014 21:58 To: Reviews@ Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET

5/4//14 The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government Boundary Commission for England London.

OBJECTION TO REVISED PROPOSAL PLAN B

Dear Sirs

I write to object, in the strongest possible terms, to the proposed alternative scheme (Map B) for North Somerset District Council Ward Boundaries. I write both as a resident of Failand for 38+ years, and as a Wraxall and Failand Parish Councillor for the last 12 years.

When the original scheme (Map A) was announced in Summer 2013, this appeared to be acceptable to the vast majority of people. I understand that, unusually, a further consultation phase with Map B has been introduced as a result of aggressive lobbying by one Parish, Pill and Easton in Gordano. They are objecting to Map A, because the two villages would be allocated to different District wards, thus dividing the parish. I can sympathise with them, because that is precisely what Wraxall and Failand Parish now face under Map B. Map B shifts the same problem, a division of a parish between different District wards, from one Parish Council to another, and, I would argue, the detrimental impact on Wraxall and Failand would be the greater.

Wraxall and Failand is one Parish, both in an Ecclesiastical sense, and from a Civil point of view. Ecclesiastically, the Parish Church is Wraxall, and Failand Church is a Chapel of Ease within the Parish, which is properly called Wraxall with Failand. Failand lost its (part time) dedicated Priest about 35 years ago, and both Churches have been served by one priest since then.That Priest is specifically charged with uniting the Parish. To that end, there are numerous united Acts of Worship, and frequent joint meetings, for fellowship and for social occasions. At a civil level, the Parish is represented by 11 Councillors. At present, there are 6 from Wraxall and 5 from Failand, but there is no allocation of numbers to either Village, and all are expected to represent the

27 whole Parish. My understanding is that this is not the situation with Pill and Easton in Gordano, and I think it is a significant difference.

Wraxall and Failand Parish has been in the Long Ashton District ward for over 40 years. The support given to the Parish from the District Councillors has always been quite outstanding. Individuals come and go, according to elections, but we have been very fortunate in the continuity the Parish has enjoyed, and from which we have benefited. For many years, the Councillors were Howard Roberts and Bob Cook, and some years ago there were three Councillors. Charles Cave has succeeded Howard after his unfortunate illness. All of these individuals have been closely associated with the Parish, (and 2 have lived in Failand.) One, and frequently both, attend the Parish Council meetings, and with intimate knowledge of the area, can advise and assist both Council and residents. They carry that personal knowledge with them, when necessary, to Weston super Mare, to raise matters of concern at District level..

Two councillors are able to do this. Under the proposed Map B, this arrangement would be completely lost, and neither village would be part of the Long Ashton Ward. Four entirely new Councillors would represent the 2 Villages and a further 2 for some parts of the Parish. This change would have a far more significant impact on Wraxall and Failand Parish than would the implementation of Plan A have on the Pill and Easton in Gordano Parish.

Of course, we do not know who the individual Councillors will be. They have yet to be elected, but if Map B were implemented, they would certainly have no particular knowledge of Wraxall and Failand. However diligent, experienced or enthusiastic they may be as Councillors, it will take a long time, possibly years, to acquire background knowledge. It is difficult to see how 4 (potentially 6) Councillors, possibly randomly attending the Parish meetings can do so. Each part of the Parish that they represent will be a very small part of their District, both in area and electoral numbers. It is possible that our representation at Weston will be so severely affected that there would be a real prospect of the Parish becoming disenfranchised.

What is currently happening in the Parish of Wraxall and Failand, with the support of the District Councillors, is local government at its best, and as it should be practised. “Localism” is a mantra of the Coalition Government, and to destroy the pattern we now experience would be a serious threat to this.

In our part of North Somerset, Plan B shifts the same problem from one Parish to another. It would be unfair and unjust to accede to a minority – however vocal - when Plan A was satisfactory or acceptable to a silent majority. I ask that you revert to Map A.

Yours sincerely,

Gillian Moon (Dr)

I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this letter.

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 14 March 2014 11:16 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Council Ward Boundary Changes

Hi Mark,

Please see below submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Morris, Bill Sent: 14 March 2014 10:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Council Ward Boundary Changes

As a resident to Abbots Leigh and also working in Leigh Woods I’d like to support the revised proposals for North Somerset that puts Leigh Woods, Abbots Leigh with Pill and Easton in Gordano in a new ward. I think is a better match of the existing connections between these communities rather than the current link of Leigh Woods with Long Ashton.

Kind regards Bill

Bill Morris Head Ranger

National Trust – Leigh Woods

Website: www.nationaltrust.org.uk/leigh-woods

On Facebook: www.facebook.com/LeighWoodsNT

The National Trust is a registered charity no. 205846. Our registered office is Heelis, Kemble Drive, Swindon, Wiltshire SN2 2NA. The views expressed in this email are personal and may not necessarily reflect those of the National Trust unless explicitly stated otherwise. This email 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 email in error, please notify me immediately. If you are not the intended recipient of this email, you should not copy it for any purpose, or disclose its contents to any other person. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under the Data Protection Act 1998, the contents may have to be disclosed. This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System. For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email. However the National Trust cannot accept liability for viruses that may be in this email and we recommend that you check all emails with an appropriate virus scanner.

204