9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Simon Bingham E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Mr

Comment text:

As a resident of Cottam I am dismayed that you are considering splitting Cottam and Lea into different wards. I have lived in this area all my life and the area of Cottam and Lea has always been known to be one community as reflected in the current parish council. If one of your criteria is to "reflect community ident ty" then these ares should not be split up. Further more the needs of both Cottam and Lea are very similar and are much different to those Larches and of and I do not believe that our needs would be heard should these proposals go ahead as emphasis would no doubt go towards those parts of the ward w th more problems so the people of Cottam would not be sufficiently represented. If the number of people w thin the ward is currently insuff cient then I believe it would be better to include the Summertrees estate into Cottam and Lea especially as Summertrees has been regarded locally as being part of Lea ever since it was built. There has always been a community identity between Cottam and Lea which has never existed w th Ingol or Larches.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10483 1/1 9/28/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Ken Brizland E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Boundary Commiss on "seeks to reflect the interests and ident ties of local communities" but, in splitting Cottam from Lea ( a parish for over 20years ), it is undoing the work that has been done to build a cohesive community between the two places which are geographically interlinked. Furthermore the historical connection between Lea and Lea Town is being severed by the proposal to place them in different c ty wards. It is my understanding that Preston City Officers put forward an alternative plan which d d not involve the severing of Lea & Cottam and, I strongly suggest the commission revisit their boundary review proposals to find a solution that more respects the identity and sentiments of the Lea & Cottam community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10519 1/1 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Brian Bromley E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I find the Commission's work logical as per the number of electors per councillor per ward. My only comment is the size of families per elector per ward. The size of families in Lea & Larches is much larger than my proposed ward of Greyfriars. There are many single or couples without children in Greyfriars, but Lea, Brookfield, Ingol and have many residencies with large families. Presumably if an elector has a problem affecting a number of non- voters t is considered within the 10% aggregation?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10238 1/1 Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: HARSHAD CHAUHAN

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Independent

Comment text:

I have noted the new boundary changes for Ward and it covers most of Cadley and it is appropriate to rename as Cadley Ward and as being proposed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Hilary Coward

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

You state in your draft recommendations that your criteria are "To reflect community identity" as well as trying to balance and equalise the number of electors that each councillor represents. I object to your proposal to split the Lea ward which includes the growing area of Cottam as it would destroy the existing community identity that has been built up over the last 25 years. This area has a thriving Parish Council of Lea & Cottam which mirrors the existing Preston City Council Lea Ward. The Cottam area is growing and has planning permission granted for 1000+ new homes which will help to equalise the numbers but if this is not enough then a small tweak to include the Summertrees Avenue area would help to increase the numbers and they have more of a community identity with the Cottam area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

8/29/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Dorothy Haliwell E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: RAFT/Farri park CiC

Comment text:

I have for some time been complaining about where Farringdon Park is situated. We are at the end of New Hall Lane just before you go down the hill to the Tickled Trout but we are part of wh ch is no where near Farringdon Park. In fact there is no access to Ribbleton from Farringdon Park because we are cut off by the Cemetery and we have to negotiate Road as far as Miller Road to get anywhere near Ribbleton. We used to be part of Fishwick which was much better for us. I would also be concerned about the number of Cllrs you are propoposing - mainly because of the spread of the area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10234 1/1 Hinds, Alex

From: Barry Haughey Sent: 20 September 2017 14:47 To: reviews Subject: Preston Boundary Changes

Dear Sir,

I applaud most of the decisions made in what must have been a difficult calculation given the vagaries of boundaries in use and also those others now available, however I feel that the two wards of Ingol & Cottam plus Lea & Larches are disproportionate when altered because an 8% variance from the average for the City for each of them is too large. I would submit that any area that is plus or minus more than 5% cannot be viewed as a successful solution.

The effective Parish Council of Lea & Cottam would have to be radically dissected and a large area of “different needs” to that which they are used to handling would fall into their remit and how they would perform is very much open to conjecture.

In order to try to even things up between the four wards I would propose that the Tanterton “bulge” shown on the North East side of Tulketh ward be incorporated therein, thus running the boundary right along Road to the roundabout on Tom Benson Way.

The Northern boundary of Lea & Larches should run all the way along the railway line and its South Eastern boundary brought Westwards to run down Larches Lane and thus increase the Ashton Ward.

The Ingol & Cottam Northern boundary should run along Hoyles Lane for at least the Southern side

I feel the above would “even” out a disparate area shown on your map page 18.

Yours Faithfully,

Barry Haughey

1

10/30/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Gareth Hill E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why on earth is Frenchwood being removed from ts natural geograph c pos tion with and being joined w th Fishwick? There is no real logic to joining Frenchwood to Fishw ck, part cularly as the communities are div ded by an area of industrial units. I'm particularly uncomfortable that the more affluent area of Fishw ck around Tudor Avenue is being shifted to Ribbleton this move makes no sense at all, given that the area includes Fishw ck Golf Club. As a resident of the Boulevard area, I feel part of the C ty Centre very much like Broadgate which is proposed to be included in the City Centre. The proposed Frenchwood and Fishwick ward feels like an attempt to create and even more ethnic minority major ty area, as the highest ethnic minority part of the present Town (City) Centre ie Frenchwood is being moved. We should be ensuring diverse wards not designing new wards which appear to group majority ethnic minor ty areas together. Fishwick should stay as t is, Frenchwood should be included in the City Centre. The University area should not be City Centre but included in Moor Park instead.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10796 1/1 Hinds, Alex

From: Antony Hindle Sent: 29 August 2017 09:17 To: reviews Subject: Preston Council Ward boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Political gerrymandering to favour the Conservative Party. Blatantly biased and disgraceful anti-democratic ploy to damage the prospects of the Labour Party.

A Hindle

Sent from my iPhone

1 9/1/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: John Hough E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am apposed to the joining of Cottam and Ingol. They are entirely different demographics with no similarities in the areas at all. I feel it will be to difficult a task for a local councillor to act in favour of both areas. I would propose the current Cottam and Lea ward remains as although a small difference in demographics exists t is still significiantly less than the 'chalk and cheese' of Ingol and Cottam

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10272 1/1 9/29/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: bernard kellett E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly object to the changes to Lea and Cottam ward ,this area has a clear dentity and is working well under the recent pressures of the New city development which have been forced upon this ward.There is a clear local ident ty currently and this should not be destroyed Apart from political resons I see no benifit to the local community, if there is an need to balance the electorate surly some minor adjustments can be made instead of greatly increase the size and divers ty of needs

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10532 1/1 9/21/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Lawrence E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

The boundaries seem logical and sensible but I would comment that the name of the new Tulketh ward is misleading; it does not contain much of the Tulketh area wh ch lies to the south around Tulketh Road and Tulketh Brow, both in different proposed wards. A more sensible name would be Cadley and Ingol East which describe what it actually is.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10453 1/1 Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Nigel Lister

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree with the placement of Bank Parade, Preston within the Fishwick and Frenchwood. Bank Parade consists of some of the oldest and most notable properties in Preston. It boundaries and has an entrance into the park at the bottom. The park is split by the boundary change and therefore issues surrounding the park will inevitably get lost in the inevitable its not my ward argument and things will never be resolved. You hav placed areas within the City Centre Ward that are further away from the City Centre than Bank Parade. The boundary should be drawn at Frenchwood St or Oxford St and encompass the whole park into the City centre along with Bank Parade.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Margaret Lodge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Ms

Comment text:

I support the proposed boundary changes for the Preston wards and I am particularly pleased to see the railway line being proposed as one of the edges for the Greyfriars ward; this makes complete sense. I support the proposals in their entirety with one proviso regarding the name of the proposed new Tulketh ward; as someone who has lived in Fulwood all my life, I think the area covered by the new ward is more Cadley than Tulketh and it should be named Cadley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Vanessa Morris E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Goosnargh seems to be in trouble again. It looks like you are splitting the small village in half. This makes no sense at all. county council d d this to us with the school boundaries when we were removed from the catchment area for Broughton a High. No we have no choice

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10306 1/1 Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Newsham

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Proposed changes to Preston City Council ward boundaries. I agree entirely with the need to reduce the number of councillors, and to standardise the proposed sixteen wards with 3 councillors each. I can see the general geographic logic behind the proposed new ward of Tulketh- which will encompass a wide demographic variety. However, I have lived in Cadley for over 25 years and have never considered myself to be resident in Tulketh - neither, I suspect have the residents of Ingol or of Greyfriars. We are Cadley or Ingol or Greyfriars - we may even be Fulwood - but we are not Tulketh which is an area to the south and west (lying mainly in the proposed ward of Ashton). The existing Tulketh ward was presumably named after at its centre. That existing Tulketh ward is to lose the area south of Blackpool Rd under the proposals. It seems bizarre to give the name of this 'rump' ward to the proposed much larger ward stretching to the north. At the centre of the proposed Tulketh ward lies Cadley - a well defined geographical area, known under that name since the 13th centrury. Surely that would be a better name for this proposed new ward?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Representations on the draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Preston City Council

Lorraine Norris Electoral Registration Officer & Returning Officer

Having studied the draft recommendations there are a number of suggested amendments detailed below that I believe will improve community interests and identities and also achieve effective and convenient local government whilst at the same time retaining electoral equality.

City Centre and Fishwick & Frenchwood

The draft recommendations transfer the residential area between Ashleigh Street and Primrose Hill to the Fishwick & Frenchwood ward; however I believe that this area should be included within the City Centre ward.

The electorate identify with the City Centre in respect of local facilities and communities and there are also good transport links to the shops and other amenities situated within the City Centre ward.

Having recently undertaken a visit to the area and driven around all the streets no issues were identified in respect of road access for the areas concerned.

The electoral equality would improve from ‐3% to ‐0.5% for City Centre and from 2% to 0% for Fishwick & Frenchwood.

The electors in this area are within the Preston City division and the retention of these properties in the City Centre ward would also result in the boundary being conterminous with the Preston City electoral division boundary which would provide for effective and convenient local government.

Secondly, the draft recommendations move the boundary to the rear of the properties on the north side of James Street and Selbourne Street resulting in these properties falling within the Fishwick & Frenchwood ward.

It is noted that that these properties face south towards Frenchwood rather than north towards the city centre, however this scenario occurs on a far greater scale in other areas. The recommendation does not address the interest and identities of the electors and the affected electorate associate with the City ward for shopping and local facilities which are served by good transport links.

In addition, this proposed boundary is not easily identifiable which would not assist in the provision of effective and convenient local government and therefore it is proposed that these properties be allocated to the City Centre ward.

Greyfriars

The draft recommendations propose to use the West Coast Main Line for the western boundary of the ward, however this would isolate the residents of the seventy‐five retirement flats at Hollybank on Boys Lane. The main transport link and location of local facilities are situated on the eastern side of the railway line and can only be accessed along Boys Lane. The current polling district boundary addresses the access needs of the residents at Hollybank however using the railway line as the boundary would result in Hollybank being situated within Tulketh ward and therefore severing their links to local amenities.

For the reasons given it is requested that the Hollybank retirement flats be included within the Greyfriars ward. This proposal would better reflect the community interests and identities of the electorate and would not impact on electoral equality.

10/11/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Anas Patel E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Sirs I do not support your proposals for Preston, for the following reasons: Improve electoral equality by equalising the number of electors each councillor represents - your proposals do not reflect this objective as proportionately the rural areas should not have 3 Cllrs each. Even taking into future increases there is a disproportionate advantage to more affluent areas of Preston. Provide for effective and convenient local government - I do not see how this objective is met, rather the reverse is true. There will be fewer Cllrs proportionately therefore it will be less democrat cally effective. Reflect community ident ty - the wards of Frenchwood (town centre) and Fishwick are very different distinct communities with little or no interaction between them. Indeed both areas are separated by the A59 (London Road). I do not agree with your proposals on reducing Ward Numbers, reducing Cllrs numbers and the merging of town centre and Fishw ck wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10673 1/1 Hinds, Alex

From: [email protected] on behalf of Liam Pennington

Sent: 29 August 2017 19:13 To: reviews Subject: Preston (Response)

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear The Review Officer (Preston)

RE: Draft Proposals for Preston City Council

Please find my response to the recently published draft proposals for new ward boundaries to Preston City Council.

I support all the recommended wards, with some reservations,. However I note that the Commission has shown that each recommended ward has an acceptable electorate and variance percentage which makes altering the wards difficult without causing knock‐on effects to neighbouring wards.

This is most clearly obvious with the proposed "Tulketh". This is not a coherent ward, it is more of a federation of separate parts. It would be better had the Commission considered alternative pairings for the entirety of Ingol or Cadley, or the Lane Ends 'village' running along Blackpool Road, but as I say above, it is clear that the proposed "Tulketh" is neighboured by wards with acceptable electorates, making alternative configurations difficult to create.

If the Commission confirms "Tulketh" as its Final recommendation, I would like to suggest that, given that the ward consists of separate elements with little or no direct road connection between them, that an alternative name must be given to it.

I recommend an alternative name for two main reasons. Whilst the Tulketh factory chimney can be seen from many parts across the city, it most certainly cannot be seen from Dovedale Avenue in Ingol, or from Boys Lane in southern Fulwood, or from Wychnor in northern Fulwood. The name "Tulketh" might mean something to the residents of the current ward, but it certainly does not mean something to the residents of your proposed successor.

I also note that the Tulketh factory is in the very southern part of your proposed ward. Were it in the middle ‐ as it is now ‐ the name would make sense. It is not a credible name for an admittedly incoherent composition.

As the larger of the areas within the ward are Cadley (an existing ward name) and the communities to the north, I recommend the name "Cadley and Wychnor". This would work as the proposal is closer to a successor to Cadley than it is a successor to Tulketh.

I am a resident of the existing University ward. I would be inside your proposed Moor Park ward. I would like to recommend, as I have in earlier communications, the name "".

It is grossly unfair for the people of Plungington to be, once again, denied a name of a ward which covers the entire area of that name. In the context of a review which adds "Cottam" and "Fishwick" to the ward map, it seems illogical to exclude "Plungington".

As you can see in the Moor Park area, Plungington is the name of the main road through the community, the centre of which is a Plungington community centre on Brook Street. The name "Moor Park" is known only in the context of administrative organisation. "Plungington" is known as the name of the local area, is used as a representative label for a specific community, and is commonly used by both charitable organisations and local government administrations.

1

I know that, in previous reviews local counicllors have suggested "Plungington" be added to ward names, and these suggestions have not been accepted. I hope the Commission can look again at the issue.

In summary, I recommend that "Tulketh" is given the name "Cadley and Wychnor", and that "Moor Park" is changed to "Plungington".

I wish the Commission the best of luck in its endeavours

Yours faithfully

Liam Pennington

2 9/19/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Mark Robertson E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This proposal has is purely to benefit the Labour council and has no benefits whatsoever to the existing wards and their communities. I reject this proposal very strongly. It must NOT go ahead.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10443 1/1 Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Bill Shannon

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I welcome the reduction in the number of wards, and number of councillors - and am broadly supportive of the proposed new boundaries. My only real objection is to the proposed name if Tulketh for one of the new wards. It is a historical nonsense to give this name to a proposed ward whose boundaries do not overlap at any point with the historical Tulketh. It would make far more sense to call this ward Cadley. See the attached document Bill Shannon, PhD, FSA, Honorary Alderman of the City of Preston, former Councillor for Ingol Ward

Uploaded Documents:

Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download document? file=draft%2F1505314362 2017+Draft+Recommendations+comments.docx) Draft Recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Preston City Council

I am fully supportive of the need to reduce the number of councillors, and of the recommendation to have 16 wards, each with three councillors. I am broadly supportive of the proposed new boundaries.

However, as a historian, I would like to request that the Commission rethinks the name of the proposed Tulketh ward, for the following reasons.

The name Tulketh is first recorded in the 12th century, but goes back much further, to a time before the Anglo-Saxons arrived, when the locals spoke a form of Welsh. The name is the equivalent of the Welsh twll (hole) and coed (wood) (Ekwall 1922). Before Preston existed, there were probably fortified sites on both sides of the Ribble, at Tulketh and at Penwortham (also a British name). The successor on the site, Tulketh Hall, was occupied in the 12th century by Cistercian monks before their removal to Furness Abbey. The Hall was demolished in 1960, but is commemorated today by Tulketh Crescent – which is nowhere near the proposed new Tulketh ward, being within the proposed Ashton ward.

In the middle ages, the western boundary of the borough of Preston with Tulketh was defined by a dyke or ditch which ran roughly where Tulketh Brow runs today, with Tulketh lying to the west and south. No part of the old district of Tulketh lies within the proposed new ward of that name.

The confusion may have come about from the naming of Tulketh Mill, which opened in 1905. Located on Blackpool Road/Balcarres Road, not that far from Tulketh Brow, it is just within the proposed new ward – but it is not within ‘historic’ Tulketh, as it is on the wrong side of the brow. Whilst it might have made some sense when the new wards were created in 1974, to give the name Tulketh to the immediate vicinity of the mill, it makes no sense at all now to extend that name to the new ward.

If one goes back to the boundaries of the historic Civil Parishes, before Preston’s great expansion in the 1950s, it will be seen that the proposed new Tulketh ward straddles five former (parts of) local authority areas. A small part of the south west corner was in the old division of Ashton prior to its take-over by Preston Borough in 1934. A slightly larger part in the south east was in the Borough of Preston, north of Blackpool Road. The central part was the Cadley part of Fulwood Urban District, while the north west part was within the old Civil Parish division of Ingol. Finally, the north east was an isolated part of Broughton Civil Parish, which like Ashton and Ingol was until 1974 part of . As Ashton and Ingol are already named as (parts of) new wards, and as Broughton retains its own identity within , it is proposed that the new ward be named after the historic place that forms the centre of the ward, namely Cadley. The place-name Cadley is first recorded in the 13th century for the western end of the Royal Forest of Fulwood, and prior to the 19th century was the only part of the former forest where there was any settlement (including a mill). As a result, it always had its own separate identity from Fulwood. The name has been used for a ward within Preston Borough/City Council since 1974, and it seems perverse not to call the proposed new ward by this name.

One would not wish to impute political motives to those who came up with these names, but it may well be significant that the ruling party on Preston City Council has long held the current Tulketh ward – including the Leader’s seat – while the current Cadley ward has long been held by one of the opposition parties. Such matters should have no bearing on the naming of wards. The name Tulketh for these boundaries is a historical nonsense – while the name Cadley makes eminent historical sense, and would preserve a historical name for an important suburb – and allow its extension to one of the key growth areas for house- building within the city.

William D Shannon, PhD, FSA

12 September 2017 10/30/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Colin Sinnott E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The boundaries are only a way for a corrupt Tory Government to cling to power. They should be charged. With corruption.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10797 1/1 8/29/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: David Speakman E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Ingol ward does not need three Councillors, nor does it need the truly dreadful Ingol and Tanterton Neighbourhood Council (ITNC). To extend Ingol into other wards is totally wrong. One Councillor could quite easily carry out the day to day running of the Ingol ward even with its extension. The ITNC are totally out of touch and have no dea what so ever about the ward they already represent, a 50+% rise in the precept shows this when people are just about managing , public sector pay rises are capped at 1% and people on benefits get nothing. There is also a school of thought that the Ingol ward is a 'rotten borough' because the LibDems are given an easy ride by the other polit cal parties, in exchange for voting alliances w thin City Hall, I honestly do not know any one who is happy with LibDems but they always get in, not for any other reason than the Tories and Labour never target this ward. This leads to poor Councillors safe in the knowledge that no matter how poor their performance they will be voted in next time. In Ingol particularly moving the boundaries WONT make any difference to democracy or bring about better Councillor performance or accountabil ty, and if I was in the ward that Ingol takes on at the moment I would be very concerned. What needs doing is two Ingol PCC Councillors need to be stood down and the posts removed for good, and ITNC needs to be totally closed down for good. At least this way the 'buck' will stop with one person, and some accountabil ty and performance mon toring can be done by the electorate. PCC will also save monies by loosing two Councillors allowances.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10226 1/1

11/1/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Jacqueline Taylor E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: -

Comment text:

These proposals will take into account the growth in the population to the north of the city. The new boundarys will have approximately the same amount of voters and therefore will be more democrat c. I am definitely in favour of these proposals being adopted as they reflect the changes in population growth in new areas of the c ty.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10814 1/1

9/7/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Rowena Whalley E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Abbott Croft should remain in Preston rural north ward and is part of the same road as other areas here, designated as rural north. We are classed as rural by the bus companies, as we don't even have a suitable service into Preston. Being part of an old, established area of Fulwood, we should remain with that. Presumably this new boundary is due to all these extra homes being built that are taking away all our green spaces and making our local roads a nightmare with roadworks. It is Not Tulketh!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10365 1/1 Hinds, Alex

From: Sent: 01 November 2017 10:14 To: reviews

Hi

Looking at the wards.

There is a ward near Moor park area of preston without a ward name.

Also, why has the St Georges ward lost its name?

The only reference in ward names relating to history, culture, religion, identity as a ward within electoral England and its been changed.

Why?

Neil

1 9/6/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Wood E-mail: Postcode: PR3 2BX Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Although and Whittingham are techn cally two separate villages, in real ty and historically the residents consider them to be one, namely 'Goosnargh and Whittingham'. The proposed boundaries split the village in to two. Surely, for the village to be represented effectively and fairly it should not be spl t in to two wards. Kind regards, Paul Wood

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10355 1/1 Hinds, Alex

From: clare woolhouse Sent: 01 September 2017 13:02 To: reviews Subject: Submission rejected

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear sir/madam, I have tried to make a comment about the boundary changes on your web page. I do not want to create an account, so entered my details on the form, but when I try to submit it it just keeps saying my account doesn't exist.

Is there a way to submit my comments without creating an account?

FYI here are my comments: I'm not sure if I am reading the maps correctly, but it seems that three wards ‐ University, and the Town Centre are being merged into one ward, it would seem to me, as a resident of University ward, that the needs of students and resident in our ward and maybe Riversway are likely to be different to the needs of those living in the town centre and the businesses there. While I feel it is important that each Ward has a similar number of residents and therefore voters within it, so that each vote in the area is roughly equivalent, I would like to know how our representatives will be supported to manage the balance of supporting the differing needs of a larger, and thus more diverse community? While I understand the need for making financial savings, I am particularly concerned that increasing the side of wards at the same time as cutting the numbers of councillors will increase the work load of the councillors which may impact on the level of support they are able to provide to residents. Having been in regular contact in recent months with Carl Crompton regarding a planning application in our area, I was most impressed by his dedication, support and hard work, I would be most disappointed if this was made harder for him and the other councillors due to the proposed changes.

Dr Clare Woolhouse

Local resident.

1

10/11/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Tal Yakub E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposals of reducing the number of Cllrs in Preston is a retrograde step for democracy in Preston. Already Cllrs who do not receive a salary are having to balance employment, family life, Council meetings and responding to constituents queries. By reducing the number of Cllrs this will introduce an add tional burden on Cllrs which will only be passed on to Cont tuents by Cllrs have little choice but cutting short time for constituents. In particular Town Centre and Fishwick wards have significant challenges and merits additional Cllrs and not a reduct on. For the reasons set out above I do not support :- (1) The proposed boundary changes in Predton. (2) The reduction in Cllrs numbers in Preston. (3) The merger of the Town Centre and Fishwick constituencies.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10671 1/1 9/13/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Preston District

Personal Details:

Name: Maz Young E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

With all the cutbacks LCC are having to make where is the money coming from for this. It's a total waste of funding in thesed frugal times.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10410 1/1