sign in sign up
<<
Home , Congresbury, Dundry, Long Ashton, Wrington

Local Residents submissions to the North District Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 2 0 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: 10 March 2014 09:45 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: ward re-allocation

Morning Mark,

Please see below a submission for .

Regards, Helen

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Susan Johnson Sent: 08 March 2014 18:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Winford ward re‐allocation

I am writing to make my complaint about the proposal to abolish Winford ward and amalgamate with . Would councillors from Long Ashton know what problems and concerns we have in Winford, would they know about airport concerns, airport traffic, local problems, I don't think so. We wish to keep our own councillor who knows what goes on in our village, who knows our concerns and problems, not someone who lives miles away and does not have a clue about village concerns, Regards, Adrian and Susan Johnson.

Sent from my iPad

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 March 2014 15:24 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Changes to to form Churchill/

From: JOHN JOLLY Sent: 18 March 2014 14:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Changes to Congresbury to form Churchill/Wrington

I am writing to object to the proposal to create a new ward called Churchill/Wrington by combining 9 .

I fully support the efforts of North Somerset Council in reducing their costs whilst still maintaining services and I also support the original proposal of combining Congresbury and under one councillor. However, I feel that by combining 9 parishes with three councillor will lead to an even greater lack of interest in local government and disagreement and therefore inaction between the 3 elected councillors.

John Jolly

195

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 24 March 2014 11:39 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary Changes

From: Councillor Jones Sent: 21 March 2014 12:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Changes

I wish to lodge my objection to the creation of a “Super Ward” called Churchill/Wrington. As someone who lives in Hewish, Puxton the proposed super ward is just not on and will be unworkable. Can you tell me how each of the nominations for councillor will manage to campaign across the whole ward? Once elected, which of the councillors will i approach with concerns regarding my Parish? If one elected councillor disagrees with the other two councillors regarding an issue in the community, how would that be progressed? Very badly thought out. I would suggest that you revert to the original proposal of Congresbury/Puxton

Yours sincerely

Peter Jones,

171 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 09:44 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Winford Ward Attachments: objection letter.doc

Hi Mark,

Please see below submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: Ted and/or Anne Jones Sent: 04 April 2014 17:21 To: Reviews@ Subject: Winford Ward

For the Attention of the REVIEW OFFICER (North Somerset), Local Government Boundary Commission

Please find attached an objection letter re the proposal to abolish Winford Ward and amalgamate it with Long Ashton.

Ted and Anne Jones

62

3rd April 2014

We are writing to object to the proposal to abolish our Winford Ward and amalgamate it with Long Ashton.

We do not want to be grouped in with Long Ashton voters, nor do we have any desire to be represented by councillors based several miles away in the urbanised town of Long Ashton on the grounds that they would have very different priorities and concepts to our knowledgeable village based councillors.

Long Ashton is a small town compared with our rural 'green belt' villages which inevitably means our priorities differ greatly.

We would envisage a situation where rural communities would be represented by someone who has no concept of the issues, concerns and worries of people living in such a community because how would someone practically living in have any idea what life is like in a small community where there are none of the facilities that a much larger area have?

Surely our representative should have first hand knowledge of living in a similar area, thereby having empathy with the people they are representing.

Our local Parish Council Councillors play a very important part in our communities with their first hand knowledge of our local problems with airport traffic, illegal parking, fly tipping, potholes, etc etc.

We would therefore urge you to reconsider the proposal as we would strongly object to seeing our small communities ignored because our representative has no knowledge of our issues.

Furthermore it would be unthinkable for us to lose our identity and to see the progress that has been made in the last 7 years disappear into thin air.

Ted and Anne Jones

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 09:58 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset - Submission regarding further limited consultation Attachments: Boundary recommendation for rural N Somerset to LGBCE - final.pdf

Hi Mark,

Please see North Somerset submission below.

Helen

From: Andy Jopp Sent: 05 April 2014 15:50 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset - Submission regarding further limited consultation

Dear Sir,

Please find attached my submission on the further limited consultation on the rural areas of North Somerset Council.

Yours sincerely, Andrew Jopp

49 Submission on North Somerset warding arrangements in the rural area Introduction

This further consultation period for the rural areas of North Somerset has been necessary due to the great difficulty in putting together the reduced number of wards in a way that recognises not only the equality of elector numbers, but also the communities of interest that exist in the area.

It is made more difficult by the small number of large villages in the area, some of which have a number of electors which exceed the average number of electors required per councillor. This problem in particular leads to the consideration of multi-member wards, or the division of the parish in some arbitrary manner. Whilst these sorts of divisions are acceptable in large urban areas, the community of interest which exists in villages (even larger ones) makes this division less acceptable.

I believe it is important wherever possible to retain whole parishes within wards. Any exceptions to this principle should have regard to obvious geographic divisions or lack of community links within the parishes.

This submission is focused mainly on the case for retaining the Pill & Easton-in- Gordano ward as indicated in the LGBCE proposed Map B. The case of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano

Pill & Easton-in-Gordano is a parish which has existed for several centuries. It was formerly known as Easton-in-Gordano Parish, but was renamed in 2011 to reflect that it included Pill which has the largest population. Both parts of the parish have maritime links and there are a large number of community organisations which operate across the whole area of the parish.

The parish is divided into 2 parish wards, but this is largely due to the fact that the parish has been split between 2 district council wards since 1999. There is no obvious geographic or community interest reason for this arbitrary split.

The electorate for the parish as at December 2011 was 3899 and is projected to be 3911 by December 2018. From Table A below it can be seen that were the parish to become a single member ward in it’s own right it would currently exceed the average (based on 50 councillors) by a massive 22%. This would reduce to an oversize of 15% by 2018 on current projections. This would cause an immediate excessive democratic deficit which remains significant during the projection period.

The original proposal, now known as Map A, showed the parish being split between 2 wards. Pill would be paired with and Easton-in- Gordano would be linked to parishes right down the Gordano Valley to the outskirts of and Clevedon. A large number of objections were made to this by residents of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano and from Abbots Leigh and Leigh Woods.

The latest proposal, known as Map B, shows a ward represented by 2 councillors which contains the whole of the parish of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano, together with Portbury, Failand (from Wraxall & Failand Parish), Abbots Leigh and Leigh Woods (from Long Ashton Parish). Based on 50 councillors this would be only 7% oversize on 2011 figures, falling to less than 2% on the projected 2018 figures.

I know that both Pill & Easton-in-Gordano Parish Council and Abbots Leigh Parish Council have already expressed their support for the Map B proposal. Also, the Leigh Woods Society which seeks to represent the views of Leigh Woods residents have expressed a desire to remain in a ward with Abbots Leigh and not Long Ashton.

There are a number of common interests between the residents in the proposed Map B area:-

Pill & Easton and Portbury share common links through the Church of Benefice. The rector of Easton, St. George covers Pill, Christchurch and Portbury, St. Mary

Pill & Easton and Portbury parishes both cover areas of the Royal Portbury Dock and the Gordano Service Area

The railway branch line from Bristol to Portishead which it is proposed will reopen to passenger traffic within the next 5 years and the A369 run through the parishes of Pill & Easton, Portbury and Abbots Leigh (also through Leigh Woods) St Katherine’s School (Secondary) is in Abbots Leigh (on the border with Pill & Easton) and is attended by the majority of children from Pill & Easton

The River from the Royal Portbury Docks into Bristol borders the parishes of Pill & Easton, Portbury and Abbots Leigh (also Leigh Woods)

Residents from both Portbury and Abbots Leigh use the community facilities within Pill & Easton-in-Gordano

Although Failand has less in common with the other parishes it is clearly a separate community within the parish of Wraxall & Failand. Geographically it is on the top of the Tickenham Ridge spreading down the side of the ridge which overlooks the parishes of Portbury and Pill & Easton-in-Gordano. It is separated from the village of Wraxall by Tower Hill with Wraxall in the next valley adjacent to Flax Bourton and Nailsea.

Leigh Woods is part of the parish of Long Ashton, but it is separated from the rest of Long Ashton by the extensive grounds surrounding mansion. The community there has much more in common with Abbots Leigh than it does with Long Ashton.

I know that an issue has been raised regarding the possibility of having district councillors represent a parish in which they do not live. There is nothing unusual about this, indeed the current councillor representing Abbots Leigh and Easton-in-Gordano lives in Clevedon. The rules for being able to stand in an election for North Somerset are merely that you must live within North Somerset, although I’m sure if you live too far from the ward concerned you would find it more difficult to get elected.

Other rural areas

As far as the southern part of the area now under consultation is concerned I can see no justification for altering the suggested pattern of wards proposed in Map A. The creation of a large 3 member ward called Churchill & Wrington seems to offer no advantages over the originally proposed 3 single member wards, although I can see that some of the parishes thrown together in these single member wards have little in common. It would also seem sensible to create Backwell as a single member ward.

I understand that there are some difficulties creating the remaining wards in the northern part of the area, given the suggested Pill & Easton-in-Gordano ward, but the proposal in Map B would appear workable. Summary

In summary I would suggest :-

As Map A

Yatton ward (2 members) – to include the parishes of , Kenn and

Congresbury & Puxton ward (1 member) – to include the parishes of Congresbury and Puxton

Blagdon & Churchill ward (1 member) – to include the parishes of Churchill, Burrington and

Wrington ward (1 member) – to include the parishes of Wrington, , Cleeve and Brockley

Backwell ward (1 member) – just containing the parish of Backwell

As Map B

Long Ashton ward (2 members) – to include the parishes of Long Ashton (minus Leigh Woods), , Dundry and Winford

Pill & Easton-in-Gordano ward (2 members) – to include the Parish of Pill & Easton-in-Gordano, Portbury, Abbots Leigh, Failand (from Wraxall & Failand Parish) and Leigh Woods (from Long Ashton Parish)

Slight variance from Map B

Gordano & Wraxall ward (1 member) – to include the parishes of Walton-in- Gordano, Weston-in-Gordano, Clapton-in-Gordano, Tickenham, Wraxall (from Wraxall & Failand Parish) and Flax Bourton. Table A

Ward Cllrs. Electorate Elec. Per Cllr. Variance Electorate Elec. Per Cllr. Variance 2011 2011 from 2018 2018 from Avge. 2011 Avge. 2018 Backwell 1 3672 3672.0 15% 3684 3684.0 8% Gordano & Wraxall 1 3263 3263.0 -2% 3311 3311.0 2% Long Ashton & Winford 2 6255 3127.5 -2% 7065 3532.5 4% Pill & 2 6551 3275.5 2% 6623 3311.5 2% Map B2 Map of the proposed warding pattern proposed in this submission Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 08 April 2014 10:26 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Custom Form Submission Received Attachments: boundary-consultation.pdf

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 April 2014 15:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183)

Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online-submissions-form Submission ID: 2038 Time of Submission: Apr 7th 2014 at 2:34pm

Form Answers

Name: Melloney Kaye Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode:

Email Address: Area your submission North Somerset refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: Please see attached document regarding proposed Churchill/Wrington ward File upload: Boundary consultation.pdf, PDF (application/pdf), 61.10kB

This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Review Editor

8 PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES NORTH SOMERSET CHURCHILL/WRINGTON WARD

I note with some concern the proposal to have a ward which includes Congresbury, Puxton, Cleeve, Brockley, Wrington, Churchill, Butcombe, Burrington & Blagdon.

The Commission aims to have a pattern of wards which delivers:

“Electoral Equality, Community Identity and Effective and Convenient Local Government”. This includes for “community identity” transport links, community groups, facilities, interests and identifiable boundaries.

Transport links: Although a resident of Blagdon, the communities of Blagdon, Burrington & Butcombe are effectively isolated from all the other communities in this proposed ward as there is only one bus per week to Weston super Mare and none to any of the other villages in the proposed ward. Any person in Blagdon requiring transport as far as the Churchill GP surgery has to avail themselves of the local Blagdon Helpline transport which is manned by volunteer car drivers. Wrington Vale Medical practice have themselves acknowledged the exclusion of this village from mainstream transport services by organizing a weekly delivery of repeat prescriptions to the Village Luncheon Club.

Children attending Churchill Academy have to be provided with school transport.

Community Groups: Blagdon is a sufficiently large village to have a number of clubs and societies which are attended by villagers only and there are even sufficient Scouts and Guides to have their own groups within the village, thereby not having to attend the much larger groups at Wrington.

The North Somerset Council's own grouping of primary schools into 'clusters' has Wrington and Congresbury as 'Churchill North' with Blagdon being included in 'Churchill South' with its more natural grouping around Churchill Village itself.

St Andrew's C of E Church, Blagdon is not part of the Locking Deanery but looks East towards the Deanery. Catholics who attend Sacred Heart, Chew Magna are part of the Bristol South Deanery.

Facilities: Amongst its shops, Blagdon has a well patronized village shop and post office and a Butchers. I would suggest that, for those who do not avail themselves of online grocery shopping, a trip no further than the Budgen's service station at Churchill would suffice. Likewise, for those with transport, there is the Sports Centre at Churchill.

Interests: There is a community concern for each other and for that which we have in the Village: a healthy PTA and a vibrant primary school; a Luncheon Club for Over 60's; a Blagdon village minibus; a hard-working Parish Council (with no vacancies); a Village web-site; a Blagdon 'Helpline' (supra). Blagdon is within the A.O.N.B. Unlike most of the proposed ward.

Natural Boundaries: The obvious 'natural' boundary is the A38. Indeed, some of us are often left wondering if North Somerset Council remembers that we exist as part of North Somerset when we see all the facilities that are offered or being improved upon west of A38. Even the recent innovation of a new bus service A2 which links Yatton, Claverham, Congresbury, Langford, , Backwell and Nailsea excludes any village this side!

The only regular bus service at two-hourly intervals goes into Bristol via villages to the East within B.A.N.E.S and takes 1½ hours and only runs during the day.

[See more at: http://www.n-somerset.gov.uk/News/Pages/New-bus-service-fills-the- missing-link-for-employers-and-staff.aspx#sthash.5BFbHzQe.dpuf]

Conclusion:

I strongly urge that the idea of the Churchill & Blagdon ward be reinstituted. When there is an active Council member, this configuration has worked well. I do not have anything in common with Congresbury, indeed the only time I visit this area is en route (by car) to .

Wrington have their own village identity which does not sit well with Blagdon. Indeed, in recent times, when the Wrington Vale Medical practice were consulting on the site of a new unified practice location, it was Wrington that provoked a long, and at times acrimonious, resistance to this innovative move; insisting on their 'own' surgery.

I am concerned that if a 'super-ward' were to be imposed, even with 3 members to represent it, yet again Blagdon would be forgotten or subsumed into the larger population demands of Congresbury and Wrington.

Melloney R. Kaye Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 11:10 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Dundry Village in North Somerset

From: Maggie Keast Sent: 26 March 2014 11:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Dundry Village in North Somerset

I am writing to protest about the latest proposals by the Local Boundary Commission (LGBC) for a change in North Somerset Council ward boundaries which would put Dundry, Winford and Barrow Gurney parishes in a two councillor ward with Long Ashton (Map B). I understand the intention of proposed boundary changes is to reduce the number of wards in North Somerset and agree more efficiency and cuts backs may be deemed necessary. The first proposals by the LGBC included grouping Winford, Dundry, Barrow Gurney and Flax Bourton parishes into a single councillor ward (Map A). This was, in my opinion, a satisfactory grouping, the new proposed grouping (Map B) is not for the following reasons.

Dundry is a rural community very different in character from Long Ashton, which is a large village/small town and we have no historic links with Long Ashton. We are on the border of Bristol and BANES and have to fight for recognition from North Somerset, we do not want to have to fight for recognition from Long Aston as well. Most of our parish children, along with other small parishes such as Winford, go to school in BANES and our GP’s surgery is also only a couple of miles away but also in BANES. Our contact with North Somerset is therefore mainly about refuse collection and highways.

Our issues are very different to Long Ashton, one of which is with the airport, which does not create the same impact on them. If we are to have two councillors from this new (Map B) ward they are more likely to both come from the Long Ashton area as they have a larger number of electors. I feel we would be swallowed up and have no representation for our community. I appreciate councillors are voted in and would be supposed to represent all constituents but fear this would not be the case.

I would ask that you revert to the original proposal (Map A).

M N Keast

141

Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 14 March 2014 10:36 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset.

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Peter Kelly Sent: 14 March 2014 10:07 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset.

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 . In summary, the geographic position of Leigh Woods is entirely different to that of Long Ashton and the problems each is likely to have are quite different which makes our union a misfit. Peter and Anne Kelly.

207 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 08 April 2014 11:12 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Long Ashton ward

Hi Mark,

Please see the below submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: Judy Kiernan Sent: 07 April 2014 17:59 To: Reviews@ Subject: Long Ashton ward

I am sending a message to pass on my concerns about having Winford Parish linked directly with Long Ashton.

Most people locally here have been quite satisfied with Winford and Dundry PC being linked as the 2 PCs have similar interests and issues being both similar rural communities with villages hamlets and outlying residences. I accept there may be some administrative benefits in making the wards larger however Long Ashton is now viewed by many as an outlying area of Bristol . It has grown rapidly within the last 20 years with increased housing and associated facilities so I worry that the issues faced by the much small area and population of truly rural parishes such as Winford PC would be dwarfed by the much higher priorities of a town with an increasing population and its proximity to Bristol as the city expands outwards. I do not feel that a link to the Long Ashton ward will be beneficial to the current rural wards as I feel that our specific issues are likely to be viewed as less valid when compared with the needs of an expanding town.

JM Kiernan

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

4 Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 March 2014 08:32 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Winford Ward reallocation

From: Eleanor Sent: 02 March 2014 19:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Winford Ward reallocation

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing an email to raise my concerns regarding the proposed Winford Ward reallocation in North Somerset, to be merged with Long Ashton.

Winford and surrounding villages/hamlets are very much rural communities and have different priorities compared to the much larger Long Ashton, which is right on the periphery to Bristol. These rural communities are part of the , which is not part of Long Ashton, which itself is considered part of Bristol by many locals.

Historically we've had great relations with local Councillors, who understand the Valley's concerns and needs. I am not sure that having a Councillor in the Long Ashton Area would benefit us? In addition, I'm not sure of the rationale for why our ward requires reallocation.

As someone who has grown up in a large town, I previously had very little interest or dealings with the local Councillors (there was little promotion and it was very impersonal). Since moving to the Chew Valley in 2007, it has become obvious that we have a very active Council team, and our local Councillor is a great support to the community.

Kind regards

Eleanor Nash

1 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 10:42 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Counil Ward Boundaries Attachments: 2014.04.01 Boundary Changes.docx

Hi Mark,

Please see below submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: R KING Sent: 06 April 2014 10:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Counil Ward Boundaries

Dear Sir/Madam

I attach a letter expressing my views on the proposed local boundary changes for your kind attention.

Yours faithfully

Richard King

47 Mr R King & Mrs C King

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

1 April 2104

Dear Sirs,

ELECTORAL REVIEW OF NORTH SOMERSET: OBJECTION TO REVISED PROPOSAL (MAP B)

We write to express our concern and dis-satisfaction with the proposed boundary changes to the North Somerset Area, specifically the proposed amendment to the current position whereby Wraxall and Failand Parish Council is represented at District level by Long Ashton District Councillors.

The initial draft recommendation (Map A) was strongly supported by both the parishes of Long Ashton and Wraxall & Failand. To split the Parish Council between two separate wards for the sake of electoral equality (Map B) without taking into consideration the heritage of the area is totally unacceptable.

The amended plan (Map B) tears at the heart of a long established historic community, whereas Map A reflects to a greater extent the boundary, believed to have remained unchanged since 1818, and previous to that the ecclesiastical parish from the 15th century.

Wraxall and Failand is a predominantly rural area, with the ecclesiastical parish of ‘Wraxall with Failand’ being comprised of two churches: All Saints at Wraxall and St Bartholomew’s in Lower Failand.

The Parish Council holds meetings alternately at The Cross Tree Centre in Wraxall and in Failand Village Hall.

The Parish lunches are held monthly at Failand Village Hall, with many parishioners from Wraxall attending.

The Gordano parishes share common characteristics and border the town of Portishead, but have little in common with Wraxall.

The geographic make-up of the area is such that Wraxall is not within easy reach of a number of the Gordano parishes, and the areas are not linked in any way by public transport.

We request that the recommendations are reconsidered, with Map A being the preferred way forward.

Yours sincerely

Richard King Mrs Celia King

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 March 2014 11:07 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Boundaries in North Somerset.

From: Robin Lambert Sent: 26 March 2014 11:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundaries in North Somerset.

Dear Sirs. I am a resident of Backwell, and have lived in the area of Backwell & Nailsea for over 35 years, for most of that time as a General Practitioner in the local Practice. I have therefore a good knowledge of the locality and the needs of the people. I understand that there has been a proposal to create a new Ward to be called Gordano & Wraxall, and that Backwell would be included in that Ward. This is clearly a ridiculous suggestion, as Backwell has no synergy with the Gordano Valley nor Wraxall. The alternative suggestion of linking Backwell with Flax Bourton, Barrow Gurney and Winford is clearly advantageous to all of these villages, and I would urge the Boundary Commission to go down this route. Yours Faithfully, Robin G. Lambert.

142 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 09:51 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset Boundary Review Attachments: 5.4.14 Letter Boundary Change.docx

Hi Mark,

Please see submission below for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: MARTIN LANG Sent: 05 April 2014 09:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset Boundary Review

Review Officer (North Somerset) Boundary Review Consultation Churchill Wrington Ward

Please find attached my input into the revised consultation on the North Somerset Boundary Consultation.

Martin Lang

54

4th April 2014 Review Officer (North Somerset) LGBCE Layden House 76‐86 Turmill Street London EC1M5LG

Dear Sir/Madam

I refer to the North Somerset Boundary Review consultation, in particular the revised proposal of a “Churchill/Wrington” three‐councillor ward. I was very disappointed that the original proposal of a Congresbury Puxton single councillor ward has now been changed in favour of a nine parish, three‐councillor ward, a proposal that I have been unable to find any justification or support contained in the initial consultation correspondence. To the contrary there was consensus, from experience of the Yatton ward that a three councillor ward was undesirable, even with the close proximity of the parishes contained in that ward. The original proposal of a Congresbury Puxton Ward I fully support as there are many associations with schools,churches and Roma families. My fear is that much of the good work carried out between these organisations and families will be either watered down or cease in the future. The main aim of your review is to enhance communities and not introduce a structure which will possibly alienate certain communities/ parishes.

The other issue I have is that Congresbury has been well represented by a minority party councillor, which one may even say an independent. Although you do not look at party politics in your deliberation the final proposal should not be detrimental to any person standing for election, which will happen with a three councillor mega‐ward where an independent would need to campaign across nine wards. A totally undemocratic position.

I am sure that you will receive a large number of replies to this new draft proposal and will see the strong feeling of reverting back to the original proposal of a Congresbury Puxton single councillor ward.

Yours faithfully

Mr Martin and Mrs Jennifer Lang

Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 April 2014 09:04 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset ward boundaries Attachments: Ward changes 14.doc

From: Sent: 04 April 2014 09:02 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset ward boundaries

Dear Sirs

Please find attached my letter of objection to Map B

Yours faithfully

Martin J Law

69

3rd April 2014

Dear Sirs

Re: Electoral Review of North Somerset

I am unhappy with the draft proposals to split Wraxall and Failand in any impending ward changes. Map B, in my opinion, is unworkable and my preference would be for Map A.

There is a long history of affinity between Wraxall and Failand which needs to be kept alive to benefit the respective communities.

From the public meeting I attended it is clear that local democracy would be affected if Map B were implemented. Wraxall and Failand work closely with Long Ashton and should both remain part of a ward which contains all three areas.. Geographically, Map B makes no sense whatsoever. The Wraxall and Failand Parish Council benefit from the long local experience of 2 District Councillors who have a keen interest in all parts of the Parish. The implementation of Map B would result in 4 District Councillors, none representing BOTH Wraxall and Failand, potentially attending the Parish Council monthly meetings. In addition to not having sound local knowledge, they would have many more Parish Council meetings to attend in an enlarged ward and it is very doubtful they could serve the local communities adequately. I urge the commission to implement Map A to maintain good local democracy.

Yours sincerely

Martin J Law Cooper, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 April 2014 09:13 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Dundry, North Somerset

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Vivien Lawson Sent: 01 April 2014 23:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: Dundry, North Somerset

Dear Sir/Madam,

PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES ‐ DUNDRY

I understand that there has been discussion of creating a ward which would include Dundry and Winford alongside Long Ashton. I am completely opposed to this: Dundry, Winford and and Barrow Gurney are small villages with a rural character. Dundry and Winford are right on the edge of North Somerset, on the boundary with BaNES. We have very few services in our own villages and negligible public transport. Many of the services we do have (all secondary schooling, some primary schooling, GPs, clinics, bus ‘services’) are provided by and in BaNES, in Chew Magna and , so it is important to us that a good working relationship with BaNES is maintained. We have no connections whatever with Long Ashton. Long Ashton is a very much larger commuter village ‐ almost twice the size of all the other villages together. Because of its size it has shops, , schools, library, regular public transport etc., all within North Somerset. Because of the imbalance in population it is likely that both the proposed councillors would come from Long Ashton. The consequence would be that Long Ashton’s very different needs would likely be prioritised over the needs of the smaller villages. We might not (technically) be disenfranchised but we would almost certainly be unrepresented. Please do not group us together!

Yours faithfully,

Vivien Lawson

120 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 07 April 2014 10:53 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Felton Parish

Hi Mark,

Please see the below submission for North Somerset.

Helen

From: Mie and Sally Sent: 06 April 2014 14:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: Felton Parish

We understand that as part of the recent Council reviews it is proposed that Felton and Winford villages become part of the Long Ashton Parish Council.

We would like to respond to this by objecting to this proposal.

a. North of the A38 is more of an Urban area, when we are typically Rural, as part of the Mendips and Chew Valley. b. Areas of Long Ashton do not have the same concerns as us, i.e. Bristol Airport and the problems this causes to the residents of Felton, Lulsgate and surrounding area. c. Felton Common is a unique piece of history, conservation and has its own needs which are apart from any usual urban requirements. d. The villages of Winford and Felton enjoy a good relationship with the Chew Valley areas, to become part of Long Ashton will eventually mean that we become part of the Bristol sprawl and have no voice of our own for the unique quality of the area. We presently have a good relationship with our Parish Councillors and would like to continue this relationship, if this becomes part of the bigger picture we will lose this and find that we never see the people who run our community. We would like to suggest that if something has to change we become part of the Wrington ward. It also appears to us that only facts and figures are taken into consideration when looking at this change and not the originality, needs of our environment in Felton and Winford.

Yours Sincerley

Michael and Sally Lee (Mr and Mrs) Felton Residents

39 Cooper, Mark

From: Egan, Helen Sent: 26 March 2014 11:31 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: North Somerset review - Failand

Hi Mark,

Please see below a submission for North Somerset.

Regards, Helen

From: Simon Lee Sent: 24 March 2014 12:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: North Somerset review - Failand

Dear Sirs

It has been brought to our attention that you are seeking to change our ward boundaries, for reasons which are entirely unclear, or at least, appear pointless.

Wraxall and Failand, the existing ward, must stay as they are. There is no reason for change, other than to seek to justify your own existence. The villages are closely linked geographically, by transport links, roads and services, primarily the Churches and school of both villages are shared.

This community of Wraxall and Failand is reliant on Long Ashton, being the next village along the main A370 road from Bristol. This community shares its Doctors surgery and pharmacy, small high street shops and supermarket, and its library.

This community has virtually no links with Pill and Easton-in-Gordano, a motorway commuter village, which by geography and road is far distant from here. The people of Wraxall and Failand do not use pill / Gordano for anything. They use Long Ashton, and Nailsea.

If you ask anyone form Wraxall and Failand where they are going to on any given day, they will almost all say Bristol via the A370, Long Ashton or Nailsea. We can guarantee you that hardly anyone will say Pill and Easton-in-Gordano.

Please keep things as they are, there is no reason for change, and certainly nothing which applies to the actual people who would then be subject to your arbitrary decisions. Have any of those involved in the decision making process even been here, spent any time here, or talked to the people who live here?

Please come and talk to us!

Regards,

Mr & Mrs Lee

160