Local resident submissions to the District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 43 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.

Ward, Lucy

Subject: FW: Boundary changes Blidworth & Rainworth

From: John A [ Sent: 21 December 2013 19:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes Blidworth & Rainworth

I do not agree with your proposals? The siting of present boundaries differentiating Rainworth from Blidworth are historical, geographical and demographically relevant. Your proposals lump part of Rainworth with Blidworth, not a move that will be popular with both groups. That is why I am considering both wards, as changes in one would affect the other.

You might consider putting together the part of Rainworth with the NSDC part. But I am not desperate for this to happen, I am happy with things as they are

Proposed housing changes will boost population in both areas. So change would have to be undone in the future.

Having attended both Parish Council meetings I am convinced the Parish Councillors have local expertise and that the issues associated with each rely on this local knowledge so as to determine parish council positions on specific and very local issues.

Your proposals do not reflect the interests and identities of our local communities. These are best served by leaving things as they are.

I have no suggestions for new ward/division names; these are not merited.

My proposals possibly does not mean each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters but I do not think this is an issue.

John Allen

1 Ward, Lucy

From: Sent: 30 December 2013 20:34 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Re Rainworth Boundaries

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Why can't people leave our village alone??? I moved to Rainworth 11 years ago. If I had wanted to live in Blidworth or Bilsthorpe I would have bought a house there. These changes are ludicrous. We want our whole village to have a community, not to be divided up just to suite someone else's agenda!!! I knew nothing of this until just before Christmas, so well publicized to RESIDENTS of OUR VILLAGE it has not been. Leave us a lone to live in our village. These changes are insane!!!!!

Mrs Alison Bailey

Sent from Samsung tablet

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Barbara Barratt

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: As a res dent of Wellow for the past 59 years, I have seen what the effect of putting small villages in the same ward as large urban areas has had on the smaller communities. has grown to such an extent that t is now classed as a town, so my fear is that the problems we encountered in the past can only be exaggerated. At present we have a District Councillor who was born and brought up in a rural community and who understands the needs of the small villages and supports them accordingly. I fully support the views of Wellow Parish Council in this matter and hope that you will take both their and our views into account when making your final decisions on what is a very important matter for our village.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2746 30/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2746 30/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: keith bradley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: The village of Wellow Should be in Sutton on Trent ward in order to preserve ts rural dentity

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2778 06/01/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2778 06/01/2014 Ward, Lucy

From: nicholas brownley Sent: 06 January 2014 16:00 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Comments regarding Boundary proposals in Rainworth

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

In reference to the proposals for Rainworth.

I strongly oppose the proposals.

I am writing as a resident of Rainworth Village living on one of the streets to be lost to Blidworth. Our village is already divided by having a sizeable area under Council. I feel by further dividing Rainworth we would lose our sense of community and an ability to stand strong together on local issues. We want to retain an identifiable village, as Edwinstowe and Southwell have. We have good electorate numbers to be a 2 member ward, so where is the necessity to split the village further. We have Schools, Doctors, Dentist, shops and three District Councillors.

Fortunately a small number of residents stumbled across the information concerning the boundary proposals and have endeavoured to pass the information on to other residents. This was in December 2013 with the deadline for comments to be in by 6th January 2014. Taking out the busy festive period, this did not leave much time Residents that became aware of the proposals were not in favour of them, and signed a petition to show there feelings.

I feel it was also unfair that as a village we did not receive any information regarding these proposals through our doors. I read a small piece in our local newspaper, but even this did not outline what is proposed.

We do not have community links to the other villages mentioned . I do not feel we would benefit at all from this.

Rainworth would certainly not have clear identifiable boundaries.

None of the proposals would make it any easier for Councils to deliver an effective and convenient local Government as our representatives will more than likely be residents of other villages with no community links to ours. We need representatives with passion and understanding of our community, not one 20 something miles away.

It is my proposal that Rainworth be a 2 member ward.

Kind regards,

Samantha Brownley.

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Cattle

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: As a small rural village (populat on a l ttle over 400 people), Wellow shares many common characteristics and issues with other similar settlements to the east that are very much Newark focussed and collectively form a distinct band of the District that has a very strong agricultural emphasis and a dispersed, low dens ty population. At the same time, like many of these other villages to the east, Wellow has a well preserved individual identity, with substantial Conservat on Area coverage reflecting its unique settlement form and open spaces, a small commun ty w th limited local serv ces and a clear and up to date local planning framework that post dates the National Planning Policy Framework and dentifies no specif c growth objectives. In reviewing the boundaries, t is imperative that the interests and indiv dual ident ty of Wellow are appropriately reflected and that the arrangements ensure that Wellow is represented by a councillor that understands these interests and characteristics, and the issues faced by Wellow as a small rural commun ty. Inclusion within Ollerton Ward would not achieve this due to the very different urban attributes of Ollerton, that has a substantial, high density population which is set to increase further through several large scale residential development s tes allocated in the July 2013 Newark and Sherwood Site Allocations and Development Management DPD (Local Plan). W thin the proposed Ollerton and Boughton wards, allocated sites amount to 537 new dwellings. This would represent a significantly greater population than that of Wellow, whereas in comparison, there is only one allocated s te for just 37 dwellings in the proposed Sutton on Trent ward to the east. Ollerton has a strong and well established Town Council with clear pr or ties focussed on physical, social and economic regeneration to help overcome the legacy of the former mining industry within a high density settlement. Ollerton marks the eastern edge of the Coalfield whilst both in physical landscape and socio-economic terms, the village of Wellow marks very much the beginning of the rural/agricultural band of the Distr ct that stretches eastwards to the market town of Newark. Because of the significant imbalance in the scale of communities involved, electoral representat on within ‘Ollerton Ward’ would understandably be dominated by the needs and priorities of the substantial former mining community, and there is an extremely strong likelihood that the distinctly different issues facing Wellow would not be recognised and understood, and that they would become marginalised and attributed insufficient weight. There is also the added risk that, when combined w th the significant growth plans for Ollerton, this lack of recognit on for the distinct interests of Wellow would, over time, result in ts indiv dual identity being eroded and potentially lost to the excessive domination of the much larger settlement to the west. There is only one main bus route serving Wellow, the ‘No: 32 to Newark’. A former service from Wellow to Mansfield via Ollerton and other coalfield settlements to the west ceased operation approximately 15 years ago due to underuse and lack of financial viabil ty, further illustrating the heavy eastward/Newark focus of Wellow and its disconnect with communities to the west, including Ollerton. Organising fair, effective and meaningful electoral representation for any settlement is not something that can be achieved through a simple mathemat cal exercise involving the sharing out of an equivalent number of voters, but instead requires the spatial distribut on and make up of settlements that form the electorate to be looked at and factored into the process. A small village whose issues are not understood and/or are significantly outweighed by those of a much larger and overly dominant neighbouring settlement is extremely unlikely to

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2783 06/01/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

receive effective, fair and meaningful representation. Future plans for housing growth must also surely be cons dered when assessing the ‘electoral share’ as there is only planned growth of 37 dwellings in the Sutton on Trent ward over the next 15 years whereas in contrast, within Ollerton and Boughton 537 new dwellings are planned. The quantitative effect of including Wellow in the proposed Sutton on Trent Ward would therefore be more than offset by planned population growth in the Ollerton and Boughton Wards. In view of the above, if there is to be a revis on of electoral boundaries broadly along the lines shown in the current consultat on, then to ensure fair, effective and meaningful electoral representation for the distinct interests and dentity of the commun ty of Wellow, then Wellow Parish must be included w thin the proposed Sutton on Trent Ward that is characterised by villages of similar scale and with issues akin to those of Wellow, that along with Wellow lie within a clearly defined rural area of the District.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2783 06/01/2014

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: kate cumberpatch

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: i object strongly to the proposal to include the rural village of wellow in the Ollerton ward. the needs and issues of the village are very different to those managed by ollerton town council and i believe that this will mean that money and other resources will be targeted at the larger conurbation of ollerton. i firmly believe that wellow should be represented by a councillor who represents villages and settlements that are similar. wellow has been part of the ollerton ward in the past and so there is strong ev dence that my and others' concerns are based on fact and not conjecture. i fervently hope that the proposal will be recons dered and thrown out as it will not meet the needs of the rural communities e ther in terms of representat on or funding.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2726 18/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2726 18/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

Subject: FW: Newark & Sherwood LGBCE draft recommendations - comments

From: Philip Dales Sent: 06 January 2014 22:29 To: Reviews@ Subject: Newark & Sherwood LGBCE draft recommendations - comments

Dear Sirs,

After reading the LGBCE review of the Newark area, I have a number of comments I wish to submit for consideration.

Dealing firstly with the issue of the "village" of Coddington and the 95, looking at the proposed scheme I find that the idea of joining Balderton with Coddington simply wrong.

While I agree that the overall concept of these changes as a whole is to create a more proportional representation and weighting of each ward and thus the electoral quality, the report also attempts to reflect the community identities, further it also attempts to make more easily identifiable boundaries.

In this particular proposed ward more than any other of the report I feel that the second and third elements have been forgotten in preference to the proportionality.

Coddington "village" for want of a better description is separated from Balderton, not just by a large swathe of farm land and the major barrier of the A1, but by nature and character. Coddington has retained its small village nature due to its separation from Newark by the A1. This is used in the report as a reason to keep it separate from the Beacon ward, notwithstanding the Beacon ward issue.

Balderton is a more urban area that has become more of a suburb of Newark itself, with no real visible or noticeable separation from Newark Town. Coddington still retains that separation from Newark and therefore the character and people show different more rural character, with farming & country pursuits still a major part of daily life. I think it more pertinent to consider other similar places, one could look across the airfield to Winthorpe to find much closer similarities and identities than those with Balderton. Coddington and Winthorpe have considerable cross village links, both historic and current be it the Cricket Club, the junior football, Coddington Cricket is played in Winthorpe, and those wishing to join cubs & scouts are as likely to join Coddington than Collingham, people from Coddington are just as likely to be found in the pubs in Winthorpe than those of Coddington . At times their close association can be a point of consternation as Winthorpe can appear swamped by "outsiders" from all over, particularly because of its school, but Coddington in particular appears at times to be taking over the village, but ultimately their nature and character, are considerably better suited, their demands and needs are much more similar to those in Balderton. Therefore I personally propose that the Collingham south (for want of a better description) be at the very least expanded to include the Coddington 95.

Although this is still not perfect as again Collingham, is a very big village with different needs and wants to Winthorpe, Langham, Holme and Coddington, as are those villages north of Collingham. I don't have a perfect solution to this issue, but would prefer to see separation of Winthorpe, Coddington, Holme, Langford, Brough

1 and Barnby in the Willows, into their own ward, but recognise that this may fail the equality points. However, this ward could stretch from the base of Collingham, choosing the railway crossing as the Northern Boundary and the A1 as the southern boundary the remains of the boundary would be the same as those proposed. This would facilitate the collection of villages being placed together and separated out from the more urban developments of Balderton and the "lumping in with" the much larger village with all its own facilities, i.e. Collingham.

Then Collingham itself making up one whole ward to itself, with the outlying villages of Scarle and Besthorpe through to A57 becoming a third ward. As again these villages have very different needs and wants from those of the more urban, Devon and Beacon wards but also from those of Collingham which is fairly self- sufficient.Based on the figures on your own document Collingham can justify its own ward and representation. Those outlying villages have very different identities from Collingham, again where farming and country living produce very different needs and ways of life.

Moving on to Castle and Devon, I think that this should remain as a two member ward. The river Devon and Park do not act as a barrier. They unite those around them, bringing Hawton Road and its tributaries to the west with Farndon Road. They also share primary schools again uniting the people of those areas. Further the current system of the Magnus ward and its confines have very little association with the Hawtonville estate which stands on its own and I believe should continue to do so, as the Magus ward area has a much stronger link to the town centre. Therefore the Castle ward should be increased to take these elements within it, with the boundary being Hawton Road, Boundary Road, using the back of gardens as suggested, but including the Lime Grove in the Castle ward rather than the Devon ward.

I would also like to point out one more oddity within the proposals, Fernwood and Farndon being co-joined in the way proposed seems on first glance almost farcical. Two areas so physically separated by such distance, two major roads of the A1 and A46, and the river Devon, and that is not considering the massive difference between the people. My observation here is more to ask whether any other solution could be considered. Fernwood is very much self sufficient, and separate from all its surroundings. I ask what is the overall population expectation for this area, and whether could it not be considered a ward of its own?

I think I have covered most items, but I am sure there is always more one could say on these matters, clearly I have not referred to facts and figures. These comments are put forward as a layman and a member of the public. The opinions are my own and have been formulated from being a resident in Newark over just over ten years, most of that in Winthorpe and more recently in Coddington. I work in Newark town centre and have retail members of the public from all walks of life as clients, who I usually visit at their homes are a part of my business practice.

Best wishes,

Philip Dales

2

3 Ward, Lucy

From: Percy Entwistle Sent: 20 December 2013 22:44 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: Newark & Sherwood Boundaries Revision

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Rainworth / Blidworth / Bilsthorpe / Rufford / Eakring / Wellow area

I refer to your proposals and to the proposed amendment from NSDC

 The villages of Wellow and Eakring have no community links with Rainworth and should remain as it is with Greater Ollerton where the communities identify with each other

 Rufford Parish, although a part of the current Rainworth Ward has few links with Rainworth and should be considered to be part of Greater Ollerton

 Rainworth North and Rainworth South, Bilsthorpe and Blidworth are similar communities and could be considered for combination

 There has been much animated discussion as to the loss of the Blidworth name

May I suggest

 Rufford, Wellow and Eakring combine into a greater Ollerton

 Rainworth divides along Southwell Road so that all streets to the South plus St Peters Drive, St Judes Way, Curzon Ave and Bevan Way (the cul‐de ‐sacs off Southwell Road) and the Thoresby Road estate join with the Parishes of Blidworth and Lindhurst to form a new Blidworth & South Rainworth Ward with 3 Councillors

 The remainder of Rainworth becomes part of the Rainworth North and Bilsthorpe Ward also with 3 Councillors

 A combined Blidworth, Rainworth and Bilsthorpe Ward with 6 members would keep similar communities together, would avoid splitting Rainworth and may well be the best alternative. Blidworth, Rainworth and Bilsthorpe are all former mining villages with similar needs and are linked by public service transport

--

Percy Entwistle,

1

Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 December 2013 09:26 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Proposed dissolution of Muskham Ward in Newark and Sherwood District Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: The Freemans Sent: 12 December 2013 15:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed dissolution of Muskham Ward in Newark and Sherwood District Council

Dear Government Boundary Commission for England,

I am writing to protest at the proposed boundary change in Newark and Sherwood. Dissolving the Muskham Ward will mean that the village in which we live, will join Caunton. Caunton is a very pleasant village but is further from us and we do not have the same relationship with Caunton as has been built up over generations with Muskham.

Currently Bathley benefits from a very close union with our neighbours in Muskham. Children eattend th school, toddler group and playground and Brownies and Cubs. Residents attend the History Club, and the WI . There are too may tho name! The village inhabitants of Bathley, which does not have a village hall holds many events in the Village Hall in . Parishioners attend the church there. They are our neighbours and indeed most Sundays many of us walk the short distance to their pub to enjoy sitting by The Trent.

It is clear that Bathley is united with Muskham and has been for many years. We have developed a close working relationship. We work together for the good of our local community and geographical area.

Please do not destroy a community that works!

Sally and Simon Freeman

1

Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 November 2013 15:52 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Commission's Consultation on new Boundaries in Newark Notts.

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: SANDRA GILL Sent: 21 November 2013 14:30 To: Reviews@ Cc: Parish Council; HOWARDCLACK(1); CarolHibbert; LesFrancis; MarcusWiddison; RoyPollard; Susan Saddington Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission's Consultation on new Boundaries in Newark Notts.

Dear Sirs, In August as part of the Electoral review by Newark and Sherwood District Council of Boundaries we wrote to you expressing our concerns regarding these proposal imparticular the deletion of the Muskham Ward with existing Parishes added to other Wards. As Parishioners of South Muskham and Little Carlton my wife and I listed our concerns regarding the original plans to split the very long standing alliance between the , South Muskham and Little Carlton, Cromwell and Bathley Parishes. We advised that as we are geographically connected we had shared so many common services and interests such as:-

 Churches,  Community Centres.  Muskham Primary School,  Football Teams,  Local History Group,  Brownies.  W.I.  Toddlers Group.  Lunch club.  Plus many other activities.

In addition we had worked closely on Planning issues which affect our Region of the Countryside including:-

 Local Mineral Plans involving a joint fighting group against Gravel Extraction Proposals.  A unified approach to Local Road Weight Restrictions that protects Villages from HGV's.  A unified approach to the explosion of Wind Turbines applications in the area.  Flood defences against threats from the Trent and other local tributes.  Traffic issues that affect the A1, A616 and A617 all of which pass though the current Muskham Ward and impact on all our Parishes.  Rail issues in connection with the main London to Scotland line that passes through most of the current Muskham Ward.

The other villages detailed in the District Councils original draft proposals were up to 15 miles away and currently did not have nor were ever likely to have, any transport links or social interaction with our Parish.

1

Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 December 2013 10:02 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Boundary change

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Brian Gilroy Sent: 09 December 2013 18:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary change

South Muskham and North Muskham must stay together churches and schools are as one Please leave boundaries alone Thanks

Sent from my iPhone

1 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 20 November 2013 09:03 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: The Proposed Changes to Muskham & Bathley Wards In Newark & Sherwood

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: John Gray Sent: 20 November 2013 08:43 To: Reviews@ Cc: Sue Saddington Subject: The Proposed Changes to Muskham & Bathley Wards In Newark & Sherwood

Given that some changes in our area's ward structure seem certain to happen, I am writing to support the Boundary Commission recommendation that South Muskham, North Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell join Caunton and Norwell and become one ward rather than, as originally proposed by NSDC, being split up in a manner that simply doesn't reflect the social geography of our area.

In particular South Muskham, North Muskham & Bathley form a natural cluster ‐ with residents' children predominantly attending the school in North Muskham, substantial sharing of community centre, church facilities and bus services, and with shared issues of planning concern that add up to a clear community identity. The original NSDC proposal did not reflect this, or indeed the evident natural geographical boundaries of the higher ground and Trent‐influenced travel routes.

John Gray

1 Fuller, Heather

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 22 November 2013 14:58 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW:

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

From: ad, H Sent: 22 November 2013 14:03 To: Reviews@ Cc: Sue Saddington Subject:

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing regarding the changes in the areas ward structure which are being consulted on at present.

As Head Teacher of Muskham Primary School I am in support of maintaining the cluster of North Muskham, South Muskham and Bathley as we have pupils who attend the school from our local villages and many families who access services in the Muskham Ward.

The school, churches and Muskham Rural Community Centre are focal points for both local residents and families who live in the surrounding villages. Splitting these up would not reflect the social geography and activities which take place for the benefit of all those accessing these. This inlcudes transportation services which many access and use on a regular basis.

Our school bus service operates for children from North and Sound Muskham, Bathley and Cromwell and is used by families across the school.

Beyond the actual buildings and facilities they offer the school has been involved with local projects with South Muskham Art Group, reading groups, churches and wildlife areas all which support pupils in the Muskham Ward. There is a strong community identity and we work closely with local providers and facilities to offer children and families the best possible opportunities within their locality.

I hope these factors are taken into consideration and would ask that the final decision on boundaries reflects the way in which our current communities operate in conjunction with one another, thus retaining the Muskham Ward.

Regards,

Cath Greatwood Head Teacher Muskham Primary School

1

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

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2582 22/11/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: on behalf of Sylvia Higgins Sent: 18 December 2013 22:44 To: Ward, Lucy

Why don't you tell people what rainworth really want. I will tell you, they want blidworth and that will leave us with one member instead of two. Leave blidworth alone, we have more history in this village than rainworth. I and many others would not vote for anyone in rainworth, so back off. I strongly object to the proposals that have been put forward. I have lived in blidworth for sixty years and I certainly don't want to become a member of rainworth. At least we have a member here that will fight for us not like rainworth.

1

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Ruth Marshall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: We do not support the idea that the Devon Ward should be extended to include Hawton Road towards the North, covering areas such as the Riverside, Woodlands Close Valley Prospect, Parkway, Fairway, Marlborough Close etc. This estate has no infinity, community connections with the neighbouring Hawtonville Estate whose needs, if the proposals go ahead, will dominate our hopes, need and requirements. We are a separate community, we use different primary schools, community centre and leisure facilities. We believe that we should remain within the Castle commun ty with whom we share the same hopes and needs.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2798 07/01/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2798 07/01/2014 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Mrs. Anne Marsh

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: I DO NOT agree with Edwinstowe being pushed into 1 group with Clipstone. WE are a TOURIST village. Clipstone is not!! The differences are too much to make it a viable system. Especially as Clipstone would have 2 representatives and Edwinstowe only 1 not good enough we both should have equal representation, to make everything correct. I have lived here for over 52 years am fed w th Councils that DO NOT know the area saying what is good for us all. We have been left until last on nearly everything that needs either mending or clearing or building. it would be even better if we were included in Road safety jobs also.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2669 22/11/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2669 22/11/2013

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

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2735 30/12/2013

Ward, Lucy

From: John Pearce Sent: 14 December 2013 16:55 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: STRONGLY OPPOSED

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Lucy,

I am writing to voice my opinion as a lifelong Rainworth resident that I and all of my family are strongly opposed to the plans that are currently in motion for splitting the parish of Rainworth into 3 wards, it is bad enough that we are currently split into 2 wards so if anything Rainworth should be brought back to 1 ward if anything.

Thank you.

1

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

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2729 30/12/2013

2 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 January 2014 09:16 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Proposed Changes to Muskham and Bathley Wards In Newark & Sherwood

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Bill Pointer Sent: 05 January 2014 15:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Changes to Muskham and Bathley Wards In Newark & Sherwood

On the assumption that there will be inevitable changes to the local ward structure, I write to support the Boundary Commission's recommendation that South Muskham, North Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell join with Caunton and Norwell to become one ward rather than being split up in a way that does not actually reflect the social structure of the communities involved as proposed by Newark and Sherwood District Council.

In particular South Muskham, North Muskham and Bathley form a related dependency with shared amentities, interests and concerns (e.g. planning issues, including the local Mineral Extraction Plan etc). On a social level, young children from these areas mainly attend the North Muskham Primary School, there is substantial sharing of the North Muskham Community Centre, local church facilities and bus services. In summary, creation of the above ward would maintain and encourage an existing and well-defined community spirit and identity. This key consideration is certainly not reflected in the original NSDC proposal.

William E Pointer and

Elizabeth Pointer

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Yvonne Purdy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Rainworth is already divided between two District Councils these proposals will see the village div ded into three county districts. . One of which is w th Bilsthorpe the residents of Rainworth have no social or geographical connection to Bilsthorpe. Rainworth is in close proximity to Blidworth and has a similar diversity of properties if Rainworth, in The Newark and Sherwood District, is to join w th any village it should be Bl dworth.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2731 30/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2731 30/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: Christina Squires

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: Things would be best as they are now and have been for many years no point in change the boundaries at all

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2713 12/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2713 12/12/2013 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 January 2014 09:20 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Proposed Changes to Muskham & Bathley Wards in Newark and Sherwood

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: TERENCE TEMPORAL Sent: 04 January 2014 08:10 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Changes to Muskham & Bathley Wards in Newark and Sherwood

Dear Sir or Madam

Given that some changes in our area's ward structure seem certain to happen, I am writing to support the Boundary Commission recommendation that Sourth Muskham, North Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell join Caunton and Norwell and become one ward rather than, as originally proposed by NSDC, being split up in a manner that simply doesn't reflect on the social geography of our area.

We have lived in North Muskham 41 years and we have always supported events which arise in either South Muskham, North Muskham or Bathley as we have always considered it our community. Our children went to North Muskham primary school and although they are in their thirtys now are still friends which the children they went to school with from South Muskham and Bathley. This group of villages as a community has worked together for all these years happily supporting each other so what would it achieve to change it.

We trust you will take these comments into consideration when you make your decision on Monday 6th January.

Ann and Ted Temporal North Muskham

1 Ward, Lucy

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 12 November 2013 14:16 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Muskham wards

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Pam Thompson Sent: 12 November 2013 10:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Muskham wards

Hello

I would just like to comment on the new proposals for the Muskham wards.

The original suggestion made to the Boundary Commission by NSDC was that South Muskham, Kelham, Averham and Staythorpe join Rolleston and Fiskerton, that Bathley joins the Caunton Ward and North Muskham joins the Sutton on Trent Ward and the name of Muskham Ward disappears.

Parish Councils and residents wrote to the Boundary Commission to say that the three viillages - South Muskham, North Muskham and Bathley should , as history shows, remain together.

The Boundary Commission has listened and now their draft recommendations are that South Muskham, North Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell join Caunton and Norwell and become one ward.

As a South Muskham resident, this new submission makes absolute sense to me. It seemed crazy that North and South Muskham and Bathley should be split up when there is alot of interaction between the three villages. They share facilities and events and are in close proximity to each other.

I would like to add my support to the new draft recommendations that the three villages should remain together and, together with Cromwell, Caunton and Norwell form a new ward as all these villages are in close proximity to each other.

Pam Thompson

1

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

Newark and Sherwood District

Personal Details:

Name: sandra wh tworth

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

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

Map Features:

Comment text: As a res dent of Rainworth for the last 48 years I have always been aware that the village has been divided into 2 council wards, Masfield and Newark and Sherwood District Councils. Today I learn that there is a proposal to change this and split Rainworth further. I cannot understand why the Boundry Commission feels the need to do this, what is the purpose? and who would benif t?. It seems to me that t is purely pol t cal and not in the best interest of the residents of Rainworth. I therefore would like to register my object ons to this proposal until the Res dents of Rainworth are fully informed and given the chance to peruse all proposed plans and dec de whether the plans are benifical to the village. As our Parish Council has decided not to make this informat on know, we the Residents of Rainworth feel we have not been given a voice in this discuss on. I would suggest that all proposed plans be sent out to every household to enable the Res dents to understand the implications of these act ons.

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2734 30/12/2013 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2734 30/12/2013 Fuller, Heather

Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Commission's Consultation on new Boundaries in Newark Notts.

From: Marcus Widdison Sent: 22 November 2013 11:12 To: Reviews@ Cc:

Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission's Consultation on new Boundaries in Newark Notts.

Dear sir or madam

As residents of the South Muskham and Little Carlton parish, I have previously written to highlight my / our household concerns with regards to the proposed Muskham Ward boundary changes.

It was fantastic news to see that our views were taken into account and a resulting revised draft produced whereas the Parishes of South Muskham, North Muskham, Bathley, Cromwell all remain as one group to be joined by neighbouring Parishes of Caunton and Norwell to become one Ward.

Geographically this fully supported draft proposal will support services and interests such as:-

 Churches,  Community Centres.  Muskham Primary School,  Football Teams,  Local History Group,  Brownies.  W.I.  Toddlers Group.  Lunch club.  Plus many other activities.

I hereby re‐confirm full support for the draft recommendation above.

Kind regards,

Marcus Widdison

1

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

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk//node/print/informed-representation/2752 02/01/2014