Local residents S submissions to the electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames beginning with S.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. City of

Personal Details:

Name: Ann Salmon

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Nam

Comment text:

Kingswood should be kingswood not north Carr we don't want to be added to north .Were KINGSWOOD and we don't want to be anything else.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Paul Salvidge, Hull Resident, to Local Boundary Commission - March 2017

SUMMARY OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRAFT PLAN A summary of my main concern is that the LGBCE seems indifferent to maintaining the completeness of identifiable communities in Hull such as Bransholme, Sutton, Sutton Park, , Road, the Groves....and others. I have not discussed every one of them, below, but the pattern you have applied is clear: you have ripped through some communities, when you should draw boundaries through them. You have also failed to take the opportunity to bring other communities together as a whole. Also, you verge on being disrespectful to established Hull communities because you are erasing their names...and thus their identity. I think, at the heart of this, is the lack of effort going out and finding what the public thinks....you prefer to put a message out on Twitter and class it as "job done" when it is unlikely to reach the public.

2 Paul Salvidge, Hull Resident, to Local Boundary Commission - March 2017

1 Carr Wards: Retain the Bransholme and Sutton Names. 1.1 The loss of the Bransholme and Sutton names in the LGBCE has an "out of towner" feel to it. I am a former Bransholme resident. Bransholme, Sutton Park and Sutton areas are real communities who have a local identity and connection. The same stands for Kingswood. Whilst, quite rightly, you have kept the Kingswood name you have trashed the erased the identity of Bransholme, Sutton and Sutton Park. 1.2 Whilst councillors, for their area committees, have awareness of the Carr name I think you will find that local residents have little knowledge of it.....and for those that do they have greater affinity to the Bransholme and Sutton names. 1.3 Suggestion: Any final plan should retain the names "Bransholme" and "Sutton" even if you have to create a combination 2 Boothferry Ward. 2.1 A cursory reader of your Draft Proposal (§62) could be forgiven for thinking that the only change to Boothferry would be the loss of Sorrell Drive. A closer reading shows that you are following the Lib Dem proposal although the details of the rationale are not stated and a reader would have to go on a paper chase.

2.2 You effectively rip another community in two: the Groves area of Boothferry. Whilst I can imagine the electoral advantages for the Liberal Democratic Party of diluting a large council area, which from my knowledge of the people there, tend to vote UKIP or Labour in this marginal ward - which could easily become a three way battle.

2.3 Suggestion: That you reverse the changes in this area as they seem quite pointless in the absence of the rationale - unless I locate what the Liberal Democrats have stated and assume that you are using their words?

Paul Salvidge, Hull Resident, to Local Boundary Commission - March 2017 3 Recommendation: Call a Pause to the Process Lack of participation or the selective exclusion of some political parties.

3.1 I register my concern at the apparent lack of participation of some political parties in the exercise. Also, the inclusion of particular political parties and the apparent exclusion of others. This is especially so when you have, on the face of it, favoured certain parties to the exclusion of others. Thus:

3.2 In your FOI reply to me, reference 26069/17, the LGBCE has clarified the nature of the consultations : a) You held meetings with Council group leaders in July 2015 i.e. the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democratic Parties. b) You held meetings with senior officers in May 2016 c) You gave briefings to all of the above and to each of the groups on the Council (being the Labour Party, the Liberal Democratic Party, the Conservative Party) in June 2016...... and apparently, "all councillors." At this meeting, "members had the opportunity to ask questions on the review." 3.3 Whilst I would not suggest that you acted out of political bias the heart of my concern is that some parties, through the benefit of these meetings and briefings, gained an advantage and hence it is no surprise that they responded and you went on to adopt some of their suggestions. Other parties, like UKIP in Hull and some smaller parties, like the Green Party and First, appear not to have been involved in the consultation....although, if they were, I would be happy to be corrected.

Did you invite councillors who were not part of a group like the single UKIP councillor at the time? Did you invite representatives of other political parties not on the council? That would have been more fair and probably given you further insight and options.

4 Paul Salvidge, Hull Resident, to Local Boundary Commission - March 2017

2. Lack of meaningful public participation 3.4 Between 23 August 2016 to 25 October you communicated to the public using 250 posters, a website, Facebook, Twitter and some press releases. However, you have not indicated that you afforded the same courtesy to the general public, through public meetings, that you gave to some political parties in your closed meetings with them. 3.5 Whilst I realise the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 gives you quite a wide (or even narrow) remit as to who consult - the fact that you went through a number of steps to attract public comment suggests that you recognise that without public support your proposals lack legitimacy. 3.6 Unfortunately, your efforts were clearly ineffective at soliciting a public response because you received just TWO submissions from the public/residents (Draft Recommendations, Appendix C.) 3.7 Yet, even after this disappointing response, in your second consultation you followed the same steps as above except you issued 100 less posters - but with the addition of radio interviews 3.8 When a Gipsyville resident did try to help you - your response was curt and dismissive. You wrote: "A local resident also proposed a Gypsyville ward but no evidence was supplied in relation to community identity to support this and it would also have had very poor electoral equality as a two-member ward." [Draft Consultation §61] 3.9 The resident does not have the resources that you have; nor the support nor briefings that you provided to political parties. Surely, if you were genuinely seeking public participation, it was incumbent upon you to give the resident some guidance....after all, it was a voice from an actual member of the public.

Paul Salvidge, Hull Resident, to Local Boundary Commission - March 2017 4 Suggestions. 4.1 The consultation, on the face of it, is quite indifferent to local communities in Hull. The only people properly consulted were the Liberal Democratic, Conservative and Labour Party groups on Hull city Council. 4.2 I suggest, that you pause the process and take surveys from residents in large centres and also consult other political parties. It is clear that your methods of communication did not reach the public and if the response is greater this time it is more because they have seen how local communities are not, in my opinion, being treated with the respect for their history and identity.

Thank you,

Paul

Paul Salvidge

------Forwarded message ------From: Gill Scott Date: 19 January 2017 at 00:01 Subject: New electoral arrangements for Hull City Council To: [email protected]

Dear Madam/Sir,

Having seen your proposals for the new ward boundaries In Hull I feel that I must pass some grave concerns that I have on to you. I was a long time resident in Beverley ward (I am now in Avenues) and for many years have been a trustee of a charity based in St Andrews ward, Scrapstore, so they are both communities that I know well and have been part of. You state that your statutory criteria must reflect community interests and identities, yet in your new boundary proposals for both Beverley & and Newington & St Andrews this seems diametrically opposite to what has been drawn up. Your proposal for Beverley Road contains what is actually three distinct communities with three distinct sets of interests and it is quite clear that the needs of the residents in, for instance, Fountain Road, have nothing in common with those in the area north of Clough Road. Speaking as a former resident I can tell you that the area of the ward between Clough Road and Sculcoates Lane has far more in common with Newland ward than the areas either north or south of it. As for the historic fishing district and community of Hessle Road, you have destroyed this with a totally arbitrary division down The Boulevard, the street which housed the captains at the heart of the fishing industry. If ever there was a community with a distinct identity that needed to be preserved it is one with the unique values of Hessle Road. Under your proposals many of these residents will suddenly find themselves part of Myton ward and wondering why they are suddenly no longer part of the area that has been theirs for generations.

Yours sincerely Gill Scott

1

The changes you want to make to the ward boundaries in Garden Village do not make any sense.

My house on one side of James Reckitt Avenue is being split from the other side into a different ward. But we are all Garden Village!

Behind the other side of James Reckitt Avenue is a play area on Brackley Park. We had to fight to get the funding to build this, for everyone in our community. That was possible because we are all in the same ward and our councillors helped.

We all use it to walk our dogs and take our children and grandchildren there. We have very few green spaces round here and we've fought to protect that. It is the heart of our community, but your plans will divide us into two.

I think we should be left as we are - in . That is where Garden Village belongs. Please think again before dividing us.

Thank you

S Simpson

1

I wish to object to your proposed changes to the ward boundary between Drypool and Holderness wards in Hull.

I live in Garden Village and believe it has much more in common with other streets in Drypool ward than Holderness ward.

Your proposed boundary is not a natural boundary. It cuts through the middle of Garden Village. Garden Village is a clear community, a conservation area and has its own residents association.

We use the same shops, along Holderness Road ‐ like ASDA, Herons, etc. My doctor is on Morrill Street (again, in Drypool ward). We share the same library at The Mount and the community centre on Balfour Street.

This change is not needed. The current boundary between Laburnum Avenue/Westcott Street is a clear, identifiable boundary that has been in place for many years.

I do not see the need in altering it.

Thank you.

Mr Smith

1

Good afternoon,

I have seen the proposed new boundaries for Hull and fully support the new Beverley and Sculcoates ward.

Being a central corridor along Beverley Road is ideal, with great bus service links for residents.

The extended ward will also gives the ward councillors the opportunity to sort some of the worst traffic junction areas on this main road, in particular the Queens Road junction.

Thank you for the action you have taken.

June Smith

1 Good morning,

I live in the current Beverley Ward and have had site of your proposals to extend and rename the ward, which I wholeheartedly support.

Not extending over the and using Beverley Road as a boundary line are right.

Regards and thanks.

Jonathan Smith (using father's email address)

1

City of Kingston upon Hull

Personal Details:

Name: Mark Snowden

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

You say in section 41 of your draft recommendations main report-final V2, that you propose to create a two member kingswood Ward with Kesteven Way as its south-eastern boundary. Why can't the Wawne Road be used as it's eastern boundary. My family and I have lived on Kingswood since 1994, we took occupancy on the very first phase of the build. The retail and leisure park is our focal point for the Kingswood community. Please provide feedback to my eamil, . I look forward to your comments. Kind regards Mark Snowd

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

I oppose the plan to divide Kingswood down Kesteven Way with everything to the East joining a new ward with North Bransholme. Kingswood should remain together in the same ward along the boundaries specified in the Kingswood Area Action Plan.

Claire Stanley

1 I am writing to state that the following individuals (as well as many others I’m sure) DO NOT WANT ANY CHANGE to the existing Bricknell Ward Boundary:‐

Mrs Jacqueline Steadman Mr. Roger Steadman Mr. Robert Steadman

Mrs. Judith Sheppard Mr. Paul Sheppard

I have tried to add our names to the petition at https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/keep‐proper‐ representation‐for‐bricknell, but could not find said petition – please note that we would be on the petition if found.

Many thanks.

Kind regards,

Mrs. Jacqueline Steadman

This email has been scanned by BullGuard antivirus protection. For more info visit www.bullguard.com

1

City of Kingston upon Hull

Personal Details:

Name: Dawn Sutton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name

Comment text:

I bought my house 18 years ago to live on kingswood which was in a boundary with north brand hole but when kingswood expanded I would never of expected that the boundary would change to make half of kingswood linked with bra whole and the newer houses be in thier own little click. If it hadnt been for the ffirst houses to be build and people buying them there wouldn't be the Kings parks are

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded