Local Residents H-Q submissions to the County Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames H-Q.

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

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ashleigh Hadlow

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am against the splitting of the wards. Cranwell and RAF Cranwell are on community and so do not require two separate councillors. As a resident of the RAF Cranwell end of the ward it seriously concerns me that there would even be the consideration of splitting the wards.I feel that having a separate councillor to that of cranwell village is not in my best interests in the long run.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7060 28/01/2016 Mayers, Mishka

From: Mrs Jane E Hansford Sent: 27 January 2016 15:31 To: reviews Subject: Proposed division of Cranwell into two separate constituencies

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I wish to register my objection to this proposal. Anyone who knows Cranwell would know that as a village with not much more than 1,000 dwellings (and this includes MOD properties) the proposal cannot be justified. Jane Hansford

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: P Hart

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It makes no sense for the village to be split, with a third of it coming under another town's duristriction. The representatives of Bourne will have no relevance to the people of Deeping compared to a representative from their own village. The Deeping people in the new catchment will not be represented at all and the representative will not have any impact on those people because their focus will rightly be on being of service to the people of Bourne. It would be for sensible to group all under one representative, rather than pedantically counting heads to make it even.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7322 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Martin Hay

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Please do not divide a village the size of Welton. Many issues requiring local government decision affect the whole village and its infrastructure, so it must be treated as one unit in one authority. The proposed dividing line is quite unacceptable and impractical. I have had experience in Cambridgeshire over 11 years in local government and saw a number of examples in larger villages where councillors. council officers and members of the public were confused by what was effectively dual representation. I also had experience of seeing a parish boundary moved for good, modern logical reasons and it was onerous on officers and councillors time to eventually achieve.. This makes me suggest that it is extremely important now to get the boundary dividing lines right now and the new proposals are quite unsuitable to deliver efficient local government services..

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7240 03/02/2016

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: James Hogg

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This proposal deprives of any voice (as well as Welton) and takes no account of the development in housing already approved for both villages. An arbitrary division of the sort proposed takes no account of realities on the ground, local needs for representation and the overwhelming need for proper local representation.It provides a lesser voice to Dunholme just when it is expanding in tandem with Welton and both need more say in future. Lumping these townships in with others deprives both built and rural areas of proper representation Councillors should stand for well established areas on the ground, not to suit some arbitrary number.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7446 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Marie Holmes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Na

Comment text:

Hi we do not agree that the boundary should be separated. Splitting will not only break the small community up, I believe that this will just create confusion and probably add cost.... It really is a ridiculous idea..... Why is the question ......

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7131 03/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka

From: Percy Hunt Sent: 26 January 2016 14:45 To: reviews Cc: Peter Williams Subject: Parish of > Proposed local boundary changes

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sir,

As a result of the proposals Boothby Pagnell would move from Glenside to Rural. I propose that it stays within Glenside or the proposed Upper Glens ward. Currently Boothby is one of seven parishes within North Beltisloe benefice and therefore works with the other parishes of , , Lenton, Old (which includes the Humby villages), and Sapperton. All these parishes would be in the proposed Upper Glens ward. Additionally Boothby is one of the parishes covered by The Legend a bi‐monthly community magazine that is distributed to Ingoldsby, Lenton with Hanby, Kelsby and Osgodby. All these parishes would be in the proposed Upper Glens ward. As the rural communities and the links between them grow ever more fragile I think it important that Boothby Pagnell remains in a ward where it has some links rather than into a ward where it has no links. I do not have the time or resources to do the full “balancing” argument that is suggested but suspect that the transfer of ~150 souls would be within the sensitivities of the draft proposal. Many thanks,

Percy ______

R

m m This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast.

www.avast.com

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Clive Ingall Sent: 07 February 2016 16:58 To: reviews Subject: local Government Boundry Commision (LGBC)draft recommendations

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Sent from my iPad Lincolnshire County Council Review. I think it is absolutely wrong that the village of Heighington should be be split in to two wards And having two separate electoral divisions heighington should be kept as one ward

Heighington should be in with the ward with our neighbours Branston without doubt

Two separate wards will be detrimental to the running of our local council

Whoever thought this plan up has no idea regarding the the local layout of the area signed. Clive Ingall

Muriel Ingall

9 Daniel Crescent

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Alex Ireland Sent: 29 January 2016 13:17 To: reviews Subject: Boundary commission splitting Cranwell

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I am writing to object to the splitting of East and west cranwell into two separate electoral constituencies. We are one community and the permanent residents of Cranwell that are living close to the military houses need the continuity of being fully linked to Cranwell Village. Many attend St Andrews Church, the village social club and are active members of the community. It is madness to consider splitting our village.

Yours faithfully,

Alexander Ireland

Sent from my iPad

Sent from Outlook

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Rebecca Ireland Sent: 29 January 2016 13:14 To: reviews Subject: Boundary commission splitting Cranwell

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

I am writing to object to the splitting of East and west cranwell into two separate electoral constituencies. We are one community and the permanent residents of Cranwell that are living close to the military houses need the continuity of being fully linked to Cranwell Village. Many attend St Andrews Church, the village social club and are active members of the community. It is madness to consider splitting our village.

Yours faithfully,

Rebecca Ireland

Sent from my iPad

1

Mayers, Mishka

From: Tracy LE Sent: 15 January 2016 12:51 To: reviews Subject: electorial changes to LCC

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

I am slightly concerned with the boundary changes regarding and Stickney. At present they are covered by the Boston and MP , Matt Warman. They are also grouped together as the Distract seat. The new LCC county councillor boundary change would mean that the area would be covered by the area county councillor. I would think that as most people shop in Boston , as it is only a few miles away and have a district councillor that serve the area , they should stay under the Boston Skegness zone. They also access the Doctors surgery and William Lovell academy , located in Stickney.

Tracy Lamy‐Edwards Stickney Parish councillor.

1 increase further, I believe it could have a significant impact on his ability to potentially carry out his duties effectively for so many proposed constituents.

I fully support South Holland District Council (SHDC) but also feel that its views have not been taken into account and I am not surprised that SHDC are prepared to raise a judicial review against the Boundary Committee with regard to this matter. This has gone on for almost 10 years, all at a cost to me, the taxpayer.

In summary, I feel pragmatically that this is nothing more that a purely political stunt which will only prove costly to the taxpayer, with no benefit at all to areas where it actually matters to the local people. I therefore have no intention of supporting such pointless changes.

As the old adage goes “if it’s not broken, then don’t fix it”.

I welcome your response at the earliest opportunity.

Yours Truly,

Richard Langley-Stevens MBE

Resident of the Drove area

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

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Imogen Lemon

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

it would appear that you are proposing that we move into a larger ward of and . This does not make sense as we are about to have the Lincoln Eastern Bypass built, physically separating us (with the severance of Hawthorn road) from the villages to the east. It would be more logical to use this road as the boundary placing us within the nearby Lincoln ward. Our local area of Carlton estate and Hawthorn Road west is already split across two city/district councils and three different local council wards. The proposals appear to be relocating us to villages to the east which we have very little contact with and we will therefore lose our local neighbourhood identity. Just recently when we took a view to support the Bypass plans the nearby villages were strongly against the plans and their local councillors chose to support their case, in no way recognising our views and case of support. They saw us as very much separate and instinct from them. We would not feel that their councillor could really represent us if we were placed with these villages.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6307 22/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Paul Maiden

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have heard some half arsed, completely nonsensical ideas having spent more than 26 years in the RAF but this is beyond belief. , to implement this boundary change would only serve to further disassociate the village from its namesake airbase. I would not be the least surprised to find that this motion to move the boundary is an underhanded move by a consortium of developers to enable them to present their plans to a "more friendly" planning office, i.e. one that has been bought off, had financial promises made to develop some seemingly community beneficial folly or coerced in some other way. Furthermore, splitting the village from the camp could lead to a two tier village with more funding coming from one authority than the other.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6849 1/21/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Florence Matson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

1. In view of the forthcoming Central Lincolnshire Plan for more housing in the area, is it worth carrying out these changes now? With such drastic reductions to Government funding in the country & our area, where we are losing many services, I feel the changes should be put on hold & the money put to better use. 2. I cannot see why Branston has been removed from the new division name & replaced by ; Branston has the biggest population by far of the included settlements. 3. The new divisions are as illogical as the existing ones being as the prime aim is to even out the population on current & future estimates, wasting a lot of time & money in the process.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7664 10/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Niel McGill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

By wrongly assuming that there are no civilian properties in the area of RAF College Cranwell they have split the Parish in two. There are in fact approx 250 civilian houses in that area that are part on the Cranwell Parish and have a strong affiliation with Cranwell village. Rather than having 2 District councillors for my Parish I want to have one councillor that will cover all the Parish assets (the village school resides in the RAF College area. Please see the attached proposed map. RAF College Cranwell they have split the Cranwell t one. that will cover all the Parish assets. Please see the attached proposed map.

Uploaded Documents:

Download

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7061 28/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Frances McNeill

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: -

Comment text:

having looked at the proposed boundary demarcation lines, I cannot for the life of me understand why Welton, Dunholme and cannot be in the same area. Cutting Welton in half seems folly. What have folk in these villages in common with folk say in Upton? Surely Nettleham is a more likely bedfellow? It is right to split from Nettleham. Best practice surely would be to avoid having numerous district councilors relating to one county councilor. Each county council ward should comprise the wards allotted to four district councilors and this would be much simpler and easier for everyone to understand.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6472 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: RJ MELDRUM-HALL

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am happy with the planned division

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6719 13/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: colin Metcalfe

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that the number of electors is NOT a particularly valid primary criteria for local government boundaries. 8000 voters in a compact urban area will all have similar needs and will generally have pretty consistent services provided. 8000 voters spread over a much larger geographical area (up to 8-10 times) will have much more diverse needs dependent on where in that area they reside and have a wider variation of of services available to them. This almost certainly will lead to greater demands on a councillor's time in the larger geographical constituencies to deal with this diversity. On top of that some of the large potential housing developments around the county will effectively invalidate the number based criteria. Boundaries based on current disparity of services available (including access to them) should be the primary factor possibly based on distance from major service locations (e.g major towns). Doing this would probably also reduce the rather erratic and wiggly boundaries currently proposed which seems to conflict with the idea of easily recognisable boundary features .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6790 1/18/2016

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Stuart Morris

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why has Heighington lost it's identity? You are merging a larger village into two smaller ones but the name disappears. With the size of Heighington and Branston I would have thought their names would give a stronger identity to the boundary than two minor settlements of Potterhanworth and Coleby. Also the "limb" that sticks out in the boundary to include Coleby just isolates that area from it's neighbours and they have more links to that area than they do with Heighington and Branston. I know this is to do with numbers so pull in Bardney at the expense of Coleby. Do not allow two villages with primary and secondary schools within their boundaries disappear in name.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6714 13/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Robin Narborough

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As is the case with most government descisions they are undertaken who knows nothing about the communities affected, we are a close knit community of four villages, , , Heighington and Branston, hence the fact that we are united in a group called "The Four Parishes" With this structure in place we share many services which saves us all money from having four separate services. We have a group church organisation whereby one minister looks after more than one parish, this is just one of the examples of our close bond, along with sharing the cost of items like the dog warden etc. No one who just looks at numbers from a distance has a clue to local structure or needs and benefits. To split Heighington in any way will destroy the whole concept of our "Four Parishes" ethos. We should not tolerate these "remote decisions" that attempt to fragment our way of life. The local planners must totally oppose any changes which affect our "Four Parishes" network and structure. When it comes to elections, local issues like this could affect the way parishoners cast their vote. I hope that all concerned locally give this matter series consideration to local needs and structure. If we lose part of Heighington then the whole community will be destroyed!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7213 03/02/2016

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Nicklin

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposed boundary between Nettleham and Ancholme Cliff cuts the village of Welton in two which in my opinion is a backward and illogical step. Currently Welton ha difficulty in getting fair representation in the District given its geographic proximity to Lincoln and the seat of WLDC in Gainsborough. WLDC seems to focus on Gainsborough and , however given the population of Welton and its neighbour Dunholme, there should in my view be a greater investment in the local infrastructure than is currently the case. In the case of the proposed LCC boundaries this would exacerbate the situation with Welton divided and left on the periphery of both proposed areas. It would be like splitting Gainsborough in two with one half going to Doncaster and the other going to thereby removing any local real influence. I can see no logic in any change other than to reduce in a small way the costs of LCC, however I believe the current system is cost effective Democracy. One alternative, which I was unable to draw on the map and save, is to take the boundary at the North most part of Lane and extend it North to then West along Cliff Road to the A15 then South down the A15 to its junction with Cliff Road at RAF . If one did not need to follow the roads the boundary at the North end of Hackthorn Lane could just be extended West until it meets the A15. I strongly oppose the current proposal for Welton and see it as undemocratic and contrary to fairness and natural justice. It would split a cohesive community in two and cause confusion over democratic representation and ask the commission to reconsider the arbitrary proposal of the LCC.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7157 03/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka

From: Rebecca Sent: 02 February 2016 04:24 To: reviews Subject: Proposed County Division Changes which divide Heathcliffe Villages Lincolnshire

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Mrs Jeanie Norris

Dear Sir/Madam

Today I have read your proposal for the above shown boundary provision. I need to say that my main concern is that “someone” in there enabled position has suggested divisions as a “paper exercise” other than local knowledge of the areas involved.

I can only speak for my own village area which is currently aligned with and works very well. Waddington and Bracebridge Heath have a great affinity to one another geographically along the cliff edge, which is on the A607 road linking Lincoln to .

I have resided in Waddington since the 1970’s , I –We as a family chose Waddington for its village environment you extended the boundaries previously to incorporate areas of Brant Road and now you wish to extend to parts of .

North Hykeham is now a small town in its own right and has lost its village status many years ago. It could be boundaried solely without any problems.

I strongly object to these divisions as locally for the residents involved to date the current arrangements work very well.

Yours sincerely

Mrs Jeanie Norris

1 Mayers, Mishka

From: Hilary Packham Sent: 10 February 2016 21:52 To: reviews Subject: / and South Lincolnshire

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Re: The Deepings and South Lincolnshire

The problem: The proposed boundary changes split the historic town of Market Deeping in a way that will inhibit effective and cohesive representation of its inhabitants.

The solution: Redraw the boundaries in a way that retains coterminosity of boundaries as well as the historic and contemporary identities of both the town of Market Deeping and the village of Deeping St James.

The problem in detail: Market Deeping Town Council responded to the original Boundary Review consultation, back in July 2015, to state their firm view that Market Deeping and Deeping St James wish to retain their own identities and Councils . Unfortunately, the draft divisions appear to overlooked this aspiration in order to maintain a system of wards of consistent size. This has resulted in the draft boundaries splitting representation of the town of Market Deeping in a way which leaves most electors, and even the town hall, in a ward called Deeping St James. This draft divisions would likely lead to confusion and resentment among local people. It is also understood that the Boundary commission requires contiguous wards. The ancient settlements of Market Deeping and Deeping St James have always been identifiable as two separate parishes and communities. The parishes are similar in size. Most people living in the two areas are well aware of the boundary either by involvement in local community activities, council precept payments and/or folklore e.g. the award‐winning eponymous ‘Boundary fish‐shop’ marks the point at which the parishes split.

The solution in detail: In order to meet the aspirations of the LGBCE towards evenly sized wards it is suggested the Deeping St James ward be extended North to include the parish of Langtoft as well as large but sparsely populated area of Market Deeping Parish. Meanwhile, the existing Division of Market and should be extended West to include the surrounding villages (, , Bracebridge, , , Uffington, Wilsthorpe and West Deeping). Inhabitants of all these villages would probably regard Market Deeping as their closest town for shopping, sport, community services etc. For example, all but one of the villages fall within the catchment of the Deepings Medical Practice which is the main GP practice in the area. The solution appreciates the need for contiguous wards and this is why part of Market Deeping parish has been ‘surrendered’ to the Deeping St James Division. It is recognised that this will result in ‘warding’ of the Town Council and the proposed boundary has been drawn to accommodate sufficient electors (100+) to elect at least one town councillor. This solution not only satisfies issues of local identity and representation. It also largely retains a coterminosity with existing district, ward and parish boundaries. Hilary Packham,

Sent from my iPad

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Simon Payne

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Nettleham ward in this consultation now includes Nettleham and Dunholme and only PART of Welton. Welton does not fall into two parts as it is one village. Welton Village should be represented by one County Councillor. It makes no sense from a local point of view to have a village cut in two. Also the name of the ward is important. Why call it Nettleham (population 3,437 -2011 census) and not Welton (population 4327 - 2011 census) - calling it by the smaller village makes little sense. Maybe the best name for a ward that takes in the three villages would be Welton, Nettleham and Dunholme? I hope you can take these views into account as there is a need for these changes to make sense locally.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6440 04/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Mitch Pegg

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have no doubt that the reduction in the number of councillors within (what is referred to as 'Lincolnshire County' (see below)) is to save money. That being the case, why is the number not being cut further? Calling the area Lincolnshire County is laughable when some of the largest areas of the County are excluded (, Scunthorpe and ). Why not bring these areas into the 'County' and save further money? My own area is proposed to be renamed and the Cotes. Why not keep Louth Marsh as the new area makes up most of the Current area and any changes in name can only add to the cost.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6759 1/18/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

Lincolnshire County

Personal Details:

Name: Ashley Perraton-Williams

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Ridiculous that and become part of . The areas are not similar and it's a long way from Scotter to Brandy Wharf.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6318 22/12/2015 Mayers, Mishka

From: Geoff Quince Sent: 04 February 2016 13:06 To: reviews Subject: Electoral review of Lincolnshire. South Holland

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed

Dear Sir, I would like raise concerns for your review of the ward on the following points: 1. Any equalising of numbers will be a temporary I'd due to the developments underway and proposed for Spalding. 2. Spalding and Crowland are separate identities and even historical enemies. 3. The change ewould creat a Spalding bias, and therefore create an ineffective representation for Crowland residents. Therefore the review fails to meet its objectives for this ward and needs to be reconsidered and not railroaded through.

Regards Geoff Quince Crowland

Sent from my iPhone

1