Parish and Town Council submissions to the Coastal District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 22 submissions.

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.

ALDEBURGH TOWN COUNCIL THE MOOT HALL, MARKET CROSS PLACE , SUFFOLK, IP15 5DS Tel: Email:

The Local Government Boundary Commission

25 September 2013

Dear Sir/Madam

RE: CONSULTATION ON NEW WARD BOUNDARIES

The Local Government Boundary Commission for has proposed that District should have 43 councillors in future, twelve fewer than the current arrangements and that each of these should represent between 2178 and 2668 electors, so by these standards, it is over-represented.

However, the town, which is combined with neighbouring and , all share a common interest in having a large population of visitors throughout much of the year. Visitor numbers peak during the summer, at an estimated population of approximately 10,000. Most of these visitors are here on a short-term basis, but taken together, require the same services as permanent residents.

For this reason alone, Aldeburgh continues to need to maintain its existing ward boundaries. Should the proposed new Power Station be built at , this will have a considerable impact on Aldeburgh and Thorpeness; increasing further the workload on our two District Councillors.

If it were to be decided that Aldeburgh would have to manage with a single Councillor, then there is clearly a large enough electorate to justify them representing the town alone. However, it very much hoped that this will not be the decision.

Yours faithfully

Cllr Sara Fox Mayor of Aldeburgh

From: Cutts Family Sent: 26 September 2013 12:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal Representation

Dear Sir

Please see attached representation from Parish Council regarding the proposal to change ward boundaries.

Regards

Rob Cutts Bromeswell Parish Clerk

1 BROMESWELL PARISH COUNCIL

Parish Clerk: Mr Robert Cutts

Email Tel: 26 September 2013

Dear Sir

Review of District Ward Boundaries – Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

I refer to your letter of 23 July inviting representations regarding new ward boundaries.

Bromeswell Parish Council believes that this should not entirely be an exercise in creating wards with the same numbers of electors and full weight needs to be given to ensuring that where there are shared interests for neighbouring villages these should be accommodated within the new ward boundaries.

The Parish Council believes that the best synergies for our village are with other similar peninsula parishes – predominantly (but not exclusively) “other villages” in the planning hierarchy. We are a small rural Deben Estuary village and therefore propose a ward boundary comprising of the current Sutton and -with- wards.

We are aware that a neighbouring village (Melton) is proposing that we become part of that ward. The Council reject the idea of being in that Ward which would be divided by the River Deben and which is essentially part of a larger urban area (Woodbridge, Melton, & Ufford) rather than the small rural communities that typify the Deben Peninsula such as Sutton, and Boyton with which we share many common issues.

Yours faithfully

Robert Cutts

Parish Clerk

From: Eyke Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 11 September 2013 12:37 To: Reviews@ Cc: Jane Marson Subject: Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Warding arrangements.

With reference to the above, Eyke Parish Council wishes to maintain its historic links within the Hollesley ward, with which it has more in common than with its neighbour, . Jackie Pooley Clerk.

1 ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Debbie Frost Sent: 24 September 2013 15:20 To: Reviews@ Cc: Andy Smith; Caroline Barrett Subject: Warding consultation ‐ Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Dear Sir or Madam

As part of the warding consultation for the Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal, please find attached a letter from Town Council regarding our views.

If you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us.

‐‐ Debbie Frost Finance Administration Officer Felixstowe Town Council Tel: 01394 282086

1

From: Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 16 September 2013 10:10 To: Reviews@ Cc: 'Patricia O'Brien'; Susan Harvey Subject: ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SUFFOLK COASTAL

KIRTON & PARISH COUNCIL ELECTORAL REVIEW OF SUFFOLK COASTAL Dear Ms Evison

Kirton and Falkenham Parish Council (KFPC) has debated the Suffolk Coastal District Council (SCDC) ward boundary changes, and has unanimously voted that it OPPOSES SCDC’s proposal that Kirton and Falkenham is moved to a ward including Brightwell, , and .

The Parish Council instead proposes that Kirton and Falkenham be part of a ward including Trimley St. Martin and Trimley St. Mary. The reason is that the geography of Kirton and Falkenham is such that on infrastructure, education, social and other issues it has a far greater common interest with the Trimleys.

In brief, these areas of common cause with the Trimleys include:

. KFPC is in the catchment area of Trimley St. Martin School.

. The A14 creates a physical and social divide in the peninsula. On the Kirton and Falkenham side of the A14 there is a significant area of land and numbers of houses within the Trimley St. Martin parish, as well as the Trimley St. Martin School.

· It is very close to the A14, and very close to the Trimleys. Issues of congestion and emergencies on the A14 affect Kirton, Falkenham and the Trimleys in a very similar manner; roundabouts and slip roads are shared.

· The Trimleys are very close to port facilities. There have been, and continue to be, several proposals for additional port facilities to be placed on Trimley St. Martin land which would adjoin Kirton, be on the same side of the A14 as Kirton, and closer to the centre of Kirton than the Trimleys. In general, port, housing and transport issues affect Trimley, Kirton and Falkenham, but do not affect Waldringfield, Hemley, Newbourne etc. in the same manner.

Whilst the Parish Council can understand the desire for SCDC to bundle the small villages such as ours together to balance the ward numbers, it strongly believes that this would be a bureaucratic convenience to the detriment of the real issues of Kirton and Falkenham, and urge the Boundary Commission and SCDC to maintain our common ward with the Trimleys. Should the Boundary Commission decide that Trimley St. Martin and Trimley St. Mary be split into individual wards, then Kirton and Falkenham would be best aligned with Trimley St. Martin.

We trust this is of assistance.

1 Yours sincerely

C A Shaw Clerk to the Council

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

Suffolk Coastal District

Personal Details:

Name: John Rayner

E-mail: [email protected]

Postcode:

Organisation Name: -cum-Sizewell Town Council

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

Map Features:

Comment text: LEISTON-CUM-SIZEWELL TOWN COUNCIL strongly suggest that a 2 member ward should be established to cover the predicted 4,400 electors in the parish in 2019. The ward should use the parish boundary of Leiston-cum-Sizewell. The current ward incorporates but this would not be feasible for 2 members as this would be on the top end of the democratic representation sought (5100 electors) and the Snape ward will likely need Knodishall to balance the books. The Town Council would therefore endorse a clearly sensible 2 member ward based on the parish boundary w th no suggestions for elsewhere in the District.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2188 20/08/2013

From: Littlebealings parishcouncil [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 15 September 2013 16:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Dear Ms Evison

Thank you for your letter of 23 July concerning the above. The PC discussed the matter at its recent meeting.

The PC is of the view that it would not be appropriate to place the rural parish of Lt Bealings in a ward with either Woodbridge or . In our view the appropriate parishes to be included in a ward with Lt Bealings are Gt Bealings, Playford, and . These parishes are all located north of the A1214 and have similar concerns and issues.

Regards

Carol Ramsden Clerk to the Council

1

From: Parish Council [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 September 2013 11:58 To: Reviews@ Cc: Kesgrave TC; woodbridge tc; C Blundell SCDC; Geoff Holdcroft; Geoff Lynch; J Kelso; Mary Neale; Sally Ogden Subject: Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Dear Sir/Madam

Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Please find attached Martlesham Parish Council’s representation.

Please acknowledge receipt.

Kind regards Susan Robertson (Mrs) Clerk to Martlesham Parish Council Parish Room, Felixstowe Road, Martlesham, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 4PB 01473 612632

1 Martlesham Parish Council Parish Room Felixstowe Road Martlesham Woodbridge Suffolk IP12 4PB

Telephone : 01473 612632 Email: [email protected] Clerk: Mrs Susan Robertson

27 September 2013 Review Officer (Suffolk Coastal) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG

Our ref: 13-270-electoral review

Dear Sir/Madam

Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

Martlesham Parish Council (MPC) is restricting its comments on this consultation to warding for its own parish as it does not feel in a position to propose warding arrangements for other parishes.

MPC would wish to see the district council ward boundary match its parish boundary with representation by 2 district councillors. Therefore there would be just one Martlesham ward.

We propose that the Martlesham North electorate, identified as MAX on the Electoral Register, is included in the MA Martlesham Polling District and the Martlesham West electorate, MAY, is included in the MB Martlesham Polling District. This reduces 3 wards to one but the ward is split into two lists for voting purposes.

Our reasons are as follows: • Using Suffolk Coastal’s current figures, 2 district councillors for Martlesham would represent 4528 electors, i.e. 2264 per member, and this sits comfortably within the suggested band for electoral representation. However we do note that Suffolk Coastal project on their website an electorate of 5875 for the whole of Martlesham by 2019. This does represent 21% above the average number of electors per councillor identified by Suffolk Coastal but the Council’s preference still remains one ward for the whole parish. • The warding system introduced over 10 years ago made Martlesham complex as the parish as a whole is currently represented by 6 district councillors, 4 county councillors and 2 MPs; some of which are unaware that they represent a small part of Martlesham when elected. A return to one ward for district council elections and consequently, we would hope, one ward for parish council elections would simplify this system.

• Martlesham West residents share a common identity with Martlesham rather than Kesgrave East. The primary schools & play groups, the shops in The Square and in the Business Park, the surgery, the dentist, open spaces and play areas are all far more easily accessible than facilities in Kesgrave. Further evidence of residents’ affiliation is their active membership of the Portal Woodlands Conservation Group, which looks after adjacent woodlands in Martlesham. In the past 10 years we have had 4 councillors living within the Martlesham West ward, who have been active members of Martlesham Parish Council, which clearly demonstrates the sense of identity with Martlesham rather than Kesgrave. • It has to be acknowledged that Martlesham North residents may have closer links with Woodbridge for shops and services but there are shared public transport links as well as known membership of Martlesham community groups. This review will make no change to the parish boundary and therefore including this area in a new single Martlesham district ward will streamline and simplify the electoral process.

Yours faithfully

Mrs Susan Robertson Clerk cc Martlesham district councillors Kesgrave Town Council Woodbridge Town Council

From: Parish Clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 01 October 2013 17:19 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal

The Review Officer [Suffolk Coastal] Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐78 Turnmill Street LONDON EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir/Madam

Please find attached response from Melton Parish Council to the Electoral Review of Suffolk Coastal.

Yours sincerely

Malcolm Green Clerk to Melton Parish Council The Lindos Centre Saddlemakers Lane Melton Woodbridge IP12 1PP Tel: 01394 382224 eMail: clerk@melton‐suffolk‐pc.gov.uk Web: www.melton‐suffolk‐pc.gov.uk Melton Parish Council Office Opening Hours: Tuesday and Thursday 9.00 a.m. to 12 noon

A Quality Council – ID no. QC‐07‐08‐00599

1

Rushmere St. Andrew Parish Council www.rushmerestandrew.onesuffolk.net “Seek The Common Good”

The Review Officer (Suffolk Coastal) Our ref: Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 1.10.4 Elec Bndry Rvw PC Resp 290913.doc 76-86 Turnmill Street Date: 29th September 2013 London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sir,

Suffolk Coastal District - Electoral Boundary Review Consultation 2013

Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council wishes to make the following observations regarding the electoral boundary review for the Suffolk Coastal area. We respectfully request that these are taken into consideration when coming to your decision. Response to the Commission:  (RSA) Parish Council does not wish for Parish Council elections to be carried out on a warded basis.  Under the suggested electorate parameters of 2419 (+/- 10%) electors per District Councillr, for year 2019, RSA should be allocated between 2 and 3 Councillors.  Given these figures we recognise that there may not be quite enough electorate to fall within the recommended parameters of average 2419 plus or minus 10%.  However, a case can be made for a demographical increase in electorate for Rushmere St Andrew and Martlesham in excess of the predicted figures for year 2019. Although estimated provision of these figures has been made already, it is felt that they are too conservative given how fast Rushmere St Andrew is growing with vigorous new home development in progress and many teenagers coming of age in the next few years. In other words we should retain our 3 councillors, particularly as according to the published figures there is an over-representation of District Councillors is some other areas.  For District Councillor elections it may be possible to split the parish electorate such that RSA “North” is covered by 1 Councillor and RSA “South” is covered by 2 Councillors (As per the current electoral division RB and RC split). /over

______Mr M R Bentley, Clerk. Email Tel: 01473 711509 Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council, PO Box 456, Rushmere St Andrew, , IP4 5WH ------Mrs J E Potter, Assistant Clerk. Email Tel: 01473 723409 Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council, 21A Claverton Way, Rushmere St Andrew, Ipswich, IP4 5XE ______1.10.4 Elec Bndry Rvw PC Resp 290913.doc  From a synergy point of view (rural vs urban), the current Rushmere St Andrew electoral division ‘RC’ is best aligned with Kesgrave or areas as urban communities, whereas a significant portion of current electoral division ‘RB’ is closer aligned to either and/or Playford as rural communities. It may be worthwhile therefore, considering additions from these areas to generate constituencies which bring RSA Area into a “North” = 1 and “South” = 2 district councillor allocation.  Alternatively RSA could gather a small number of electorate from other neighbouring parishes to justify 3 District Councillors for a single area.  Lastly, a split north and south of the A1214 road might provide an alternative. South of the A1214, the broadly ‘urban’ electorate would justify 2 Councillors in its own right. Incorporating the rural RSA electorate north of the A1214 with the ‘rural’ Parishes to the North & East (selected from , Tuddenham, Playford, , ) would justify 1 Councillor. In summary, Rushmere St Andrew Parish Council considers there is enough justification for the Ward/Parish to retain the current allocation of three District Councillors. ------

Yours sincerely,

Mr M R Bentley. Clerk to Rushmere St. Andrew Parish Council

______Rushmere St. Andrew Parish Council Page 2 of 2