Local Residents submissions to the North Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 22 submissions from Local Residents.

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

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 12:12 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Review -

Hi Mark,

Please see a submission below for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: ALAN PORTER Sent: 25 March 2014 17:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Local Government Boundary Review - Backwell

Sirs,

We have been provided with a copy of the letter intended to be sent to you by Backwell Residents Association (BRA).

We wholeheartedly agree with the contents of that letter. Backwell has a great deal in common with Winford, Flax Bourton and Barrow Gurney. Therefore it makes sense to combine these villages in a two member ward.

Backwell has little if anything in common with Wraxall and Gordano.

Frankly we consider the loss of identity, whilst important, to be less important than the commonality shared by Backwell, Winford, Flax Bourton and Barrow Gurney. Common factors are :-

1. The effectiveness and well being of the A370 and A38. Both suffer if either has a significant problem. 2. The airport and it's surrounding areas. 3. Stancombe Quarry and it's potential growth. 4. The juxtaposition of the villages, served by common roads and services.

Such a combination would justify a two member ward which would enable the two elected councillors to better represent the common interests of the community. Therefore we favour the drawing of ward boundaries as set out in Map A.

Sincerly,

Alan and Lorraine Porter

159 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:18 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: letter as posted Attachments: Ward Change Objection Letter.docx

From: Dr. Hugh Pratt Sent: 03 April 2014 11:42 To: Reviews@ Subject: letter as posted

Dear Sir/Madam

Please accept as attached

Yours sincerely,

Dr. Hugh Pratt

85

3 April 2014

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

North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes.

Dear Sir/Madam

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

The Wraxall & Failand Parish is a long established and cohesive community with no community relations with proposed ward changes. The ward boundaries proposed do not reflect the geography of the area or the local communities.

The original proposal that associated Wraxall & Failand with referred to as ‘Map A’ is a much better but not ideal solution. Please listen to your voters.

Yours Sincerely,

Dr. Hugh Pratt.

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 25 March 2014 13:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Council Boundary Review

From: Samantha Probert Sent: 25 March 2014 11:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Council Boundary Review

To whom it may concern,

Winford Ward Boudary Change

We are writing to register our deep concerns regarding the proposed boundary changes for Winford Ward as part of North Somerset Councils reorganisation process and urge the Council to reconsider their decision. It is our strong belief that by combining the existing Winford Ward with part of the Long Ashton parish, we will not be fairly represented in the Town Hall at Weston-Super-Mare and concerns facing our small rural communities will not be truly considered.

The new amalgamation will result in a clear imbalance in voter numbers between the parishes - Long Ashton having a significanly higher number. As such, it is more than likely that both councillors representing the new proposed "Long Ashton Ward" will reside in Long Ashton. Winford, Regil and Felton are rural "Green Belt" villages facing very different issues in comparison to the community of Long Ashton. Our priorities differ dramatically. We do not believe councillors based in Long Ashton would necessarily appreciate our needs in many areas such as flooding, rural land management or the impact of Airport on our small villages.

To date communities of the current Winford Ward have had to battle long and hard to ensure North Somerset Council recognises the pressing needs of our parishes and a fair balance of investment is achieved. Located on the edge of the North Somerset District, it is often felt we are overlooked and disconnected from Weston-Super-Mare and decision makers. For example, since 2012 the village of Winford has demanded better road safety and improvements against the increasing volume of traffic passing through the area. Yet even with the support of a local district councillor, a petition and countless requests for action, there is still no agreed propsal, funding and timetable of work signed off. The lack of communication and sense of urgency from North Somerset Council on this one important matter leaves the community feeling isolated and let down. We desparately need to keep our local representative.

It is our understanding that originally the boundary change was set to incorporate Winford Ward with two further parishes - Flax Bourton and Barrow Gurney. We feel this would be a far more acceptable proposal since both are small communities, in close proximity, with many of the same concerns as ourselves. We hope you realise how important a local voice is for our communities and will reconsider your decision so that our rural parishes are better served and continue to thrive in difficult times.

Thank you for taking the time to consider our points

Yours faithfully

Mr Ross Probert & Mrs Samantha Probert

166 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 April 2014 09:49 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Leigh Woods - North Somerset Ward Boundary Changes

From: Angela Probyn Sent: 02 April 2014 09:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Leigh Woods - North Somerset Ward Boundary Changes

I wish to SUPPORT the changes as suggested on Map B on your website for Leigh Woods to become part of Pill and Easton in Gordano Ward. Leigh Woods is affected by the A369 corridor and the Suspension bridge rather than Long Ashton which is cut off from Leigh Woods by Ashton Court. We have much more in common with Abbots Leigh and Pill. Yours Angela Probyn

117 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:10 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Boundary Ward Reviews

Hi Mark,

Please see below sub for NS.

Helen

From: Jean Pullin Sent: 07 April 2014 01:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Boundary Ward Reviews

Dear Sirs,

I wish to object strongly to the proposals outlined for Long Ashton ward in Map B.

The current position works well and it would seem the only reason given for change is numerical.

For local government to be effective communities need to be in tune with one another. The strong ties which exist between Long Ashton, Wraxall and Failand illustrate this. Putting Long Ashton with Winford and Dundry would not. Interaction would be difficult since the ward would be divided by a major road, the A38, and no sense of community could be achieved with the three villages having no common concerns.

I urge the Commission to adopt Map A.

Yours faithfully,

Mrs. J. Pullin

23 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 April 2014 16:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Local Government Boundary Commission Proposals

From: Janet Pulman [ Sent: 02 April 2014 15:43 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Commission Proposals

Dear Sir/Madam

We wish to object most strongly to the proposal to include Dundry in a new ward with Long Ashton. This would certainly not be in the interests of Dundry in any way as the two parishes are very different in many ways.

Dundry has no links with Long Ashton at all as two busy main roads separate the two parishes.

We need to be included in a ward with parishes of a similar size to our own such as Winford as we are currently.

We have always enjoyed very good representation by our excellent ward councillors over many years as they have taken personal interest in our parish. We are unlikely to get such a personal touch should we be linked with Long Ashton!

We hope this matter will be solved for the benefit of Dundry and not Long Ashton.

Yours faithfully,

Keith & Janet Pulman

77

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:09 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Ward boundaries

Hi Mark,

Please see below sub for NS.

Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ant And Con Sent: 06 April 2014 22:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Ward boundaries

Dear Sir or Madam,

Ward boundaries for 2015

We wish to register our view that the seven parish ward including Brockley is undesirable as the three distict councillors would be less likely to make proper connection with parish councils and parishioners and we favour the single member Wrington ward, which includes Brockley parish. This projected ward is of a much more manageable scale. Yours faithfully, Conny and Antony Ridge ( Brockley parish )

Sent from my iPad

24 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 11:04 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: New ward boundaries

Hi Mark,

Please see the sub below for NS.

Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Julian and Liza Ridge Sent: 06 April 2014 21:54 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: New ward boundaries

I wish to state my preference for Brockley to be included in the one councillor ward with Wrington, Cleeve and Butcombe. I do not believe that the alternative proposal comprising nine parishes with three councillors would allow proper representation of parishioners interests. Brockley has common boundaries with Wrington and Cleeve and is therefore likely to need representation on issues common to these parishes and will be able to form a closer relationship with a dedicated councillor. Dr Julian H P Ridge

Sent from my iPad Julian Ridge

29 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 10 March 2014 10:51 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Leigh Woods North Somerset

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Peter Rilett Sent: 10 March 2014 09:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: Leigh Woods North Somerset

I wish to support the revised proposals for our area of North Somerset.

I wish to be part of the 2 member Pill and Easton in Gordano ward as I feel this would best serve our local connections which lie along the A369, as our previous representations have stated.

Leigh Woods, about 270 households, would like to stay part of the Easton in Gordano ward as Leigh Woods is primarily affected by the A369 and the Clifton Suspension Bridge, concerns more closely allied with Abbots Leigh, Portbury and Easton in Gordano than Long Ashton.

Long Ashton is focused on a different arterial route from Bristol and has no common issues or community activities with Leigh Woods.

I have lived here for thirty years. We share much with Abbots Leigh and Pill and therefore should be in the same ward.

Peter Rilett

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 March 2014 10:53 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes Attachments: 11 Jubilee Drive.docx

From: G Roberts Sent: 21 March 2014 10:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

Dear Sir

Please see attched letter concerning Ward boundary changes

Mr G Roberst

178 Drive ailand merset 8 3XD

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

Re: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

Dear Sirs,

I understand that it is proposed that Failand should become part of the Pill & Easton- in-Gordano Ward, as depicted in Map ‘B’.

This I feel will result in Failand being represented by councillors who will not have a full understanding, or empathy, with the needs of Failand.

The present situation, Map ‘A’ that associates Failand with Wraxall & Long Ashton is, in my opinion, a much more favourable situation with Failand already being served by two District Councillors who understand the needs of Failand.

I therefore propose that Map ‘A’ should be accepted as the best solution for Failand, and Map ‘B’ should be rejected.

Yours Faithfully

Mr G Roberts

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 02 April 2014 11:10 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards,

Helen

From: Susan Robshaw Sent: 31 March 2014 17:03 To: Reviews@ Cc: David Robshaw Subject: North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

From:

To

The Review Officer (North Somerset) Local Government B9undary Commission for England Layden House 78‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs

North Somerset Proposed Ward Boundary Changes

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

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

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

Historically Wraxall & Failand have been linked with Nailsea and Long Ashton and the boundaries are clearly defined and well established. There is a shared sense of community with nearby areas, which includes churches, pubs and schools, village halls and the North Somerset show ground and Tyntesfield National Trust property.

Sustainable development within the Green Belt is a key common issue. Recently, Long Ashton and Wraxall & Failand parishes jointly opposed development to the east of Failand in the Long Ashton parish. The appeal by developers was subsequently dismissed by the Planning Inspector.

In conclusion, we urge you to revert to Map A.

Yours faithfully

David and Susan Robshaw

103 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 March 2014 13:14 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Council Boundary Review

From: Alan & Mary Rodgman Sent: 13 March 2014 12:15 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Council Boundary Review

Dear Sir,

Re: North Somerset Council Boundary Review - Winford Ward

We would like to object to the most recent proposal affecting Winford ward, namely making a two member Long Ashton ward to include Barrow Gurney; Dundry; Regil, Felton & Winford; and Long Ashton.

Reasons:

1) Long Ashton is a small town compared with the other Green Belt villages. It is urban in nature, quite different to the rest of the proposed ward. Winford's direct links to Long Ashton is blocked by two busy 'A' roads and a railway line. As Long Ashton is by far the largest part of the proposed two member ward, councillors would tend to come from there and Long Ashton would be their primary focus. Councillors from Long Ashton would have different priorities and concepts to village based councillors. Rural communities have substantially different needs to urban areas.

2) Long Ashton doesn't have an international airport whereas the other three parishes either have an airport or are closely affected by it. Issues such as aircraft noise levels and airport traffic could get neglected.

3) Long Ashton doesn't have 108 acres of Felton Common to manage nor a busy Community Composting Site.

4) Councillors attendance at Parish Council meetings would become more difficult and attention to local issues in a rural area with single track roads, pothole and drainage problems might well not receive much attention.

5) Dundry and Winford civil parishes are at the extreme edge of North Somerset and strenuous efforts have to be made to gain the attention and support of North Somerset Officers to ensure we get our fair share of spending.

We realise that the remit of LGBCE is to reduce the number of councillors from 61 to 50. The initial proposal to group the existing Winford and Dundry ward with the additional civil parishes of Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton was much better and we feel this would be the best option. An alternative would be have Long Ashton as a separate ward with one councillor and Winford, Dundry and Barrow Gurney as a separate ward with one councillor, possibly with the addition of Butcombe.

Yours sincerely,

Alan & Mary Rodgman, 215

216 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 March 2014 09:17 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Leigh Woods

From: Roya Rosengren Sent: 12 March 2014 22:12 To: Reviews@ Subject: Leigh Woods

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

Mr & Mrs Roaengren

219 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 April 2014 10:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Revised draft proposal for Pill and Easton in Gordano, North Somerset

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Colin Ross Sent: 07 April 2014 00:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Revised draft proposal for Pill and Easton in Gordano, North Somerset

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England.

Changes to draft proposal for the wards of Easton in Gordano and Pill, North Somerset District.

I write in support of the Commission’s revised ward boundary proposal for Pill, Easton in Gordano and adjacent villages and the proposed return to two councillor representation for the area.

The decision to jettison the initial proposal which split Pill from Easton in Gordano and lumped the latter, bizarrely, with completely unconnected Tickenham is welcome.

It is worth restating that the local Community Resource Centre database holds details of over 60 community based associations, clubs and activities which draw participants from the population of Pill, Easton in Gordano and the surrounding area.

Along with the shared ties of Pill and Easton the new configuration also acknowledges the need to serve the common political interests of other communities along the A369 in such issues as such as bus and transport, schools and medical services and planning pressures arising from the proximity of Bristol and the Portbury Dock.

The provision of two ward councillors should enhance the possibility of proper representation of the area’s interests within North Somerset’s current executive structure, ‐ a democratic element sadly lacking of late.

For all these reasons the new proposed two councillor ward is warmly welcomed.

Other North Somerset communities are faced with uncomfortable ward proposals but it would be as well to recognise that their situation derives, in the main, from the top down approach adopted by the Commission and the local political partisanship that underlies the arbitrary decision to separate the representation of district towns from their adjacent rural settlements.

Many of these settlements, particularly around Clevedon, for example, are little more than a farm or school playing field away from a town on which they are almost completely dependent. Political separation in the circumstances is fatuous.

The division of representation between semi‐urban and rural areas should have been dealt with far more flexibly. The incoherence of some of the rural ward proposals appears to emanate almost entirely from the decision to separate towns and villages in other district areas from their rural hinterlands, ‐ come what may. This cannot be sensible practice with the reduced number of councillors available overall and given the spatial distribution of the district’s population.

13 The confusion would perhaps have been avoided if the Commission had embarked, in the first place, on a ‘bottom up’ assessment of the legitimate needs of the district’s communities rather than overly basing its initial proposals on the partial ideas put forward by an incumbent governing party.

Colin Ross

14 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 09:56 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: N Somerset proposed boundary changes

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: Sue Routley Sent: 05 April 2014 13:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: N Somerset proposed boundary changes

There are clearly many aspects to the proposals which in my opinion are detrimental to the area of Failand and Wraxall which should be taken in to consideration.

The parish boundary has existed for almost 200 years. and Somerset police use the same boundary for their beat along with the two churches in this area.

The geography of the area lends itself to the obvious boundaries – the Long Ashton Ridge, the River valley of and the railway line and M5 all run East to West.

The main road links also run East to West. I have listed just a few here.

The Parish of Wraxall & Failand enjoys a good working relationship with it’s adjacent Parish Councils especially Long Ashton from which it receives great support.

The proposed ward boundary changes in no way reflect the geography of the area or the local communities. I implore you to reinstate the area referred to as ‘Map A’ as the only way forward in this matter.

Mrs S Routley

51