Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains local resident submissions with surnames Q-R.

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

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Philip Quartly

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposal to extend the Henleaze ward to encompass the old Westbury-on-Trym (WoT) village will, I feel, cause the loss of the ancient identity of WoT. As a resident of this part of WoT I feel I must write to you to bring this to your attention. Both Henleaze and WoT have active community societies and on hearing of these proposals they have got together to consider alternatives that will better suit our communities. They have concluded by recommending that the two wards be combined.into a partnership ward sharing three councillors. I support this proposal and hope that you might give it serious consideration. Yours sincerely, Mr and Mrs PA Quartly,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4541 02/02/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:34 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Merge Westbury on Trym into henleaze - no thank you!

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Beryl Ray Sent: 15 February 2015 11:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: Merge Westbury on Trym into henleaze ‐ no thank you!

I wish to object strongly to this merge having lived here for 44 year. My Grandmother and family lived here from the 1930s, they always loved the feeling of community and village life. My parents married in Westbury Parish Church, would that eventually be renamed or claimed as a poor cousin of Henleaze Parish Church? I now have 3 Grandchildren living in the area and feel it is imperative to keep some of our older traditions and values for the next generation who are already growing up in a world that is changing so rapidly and everyone need some sense of pride and history to look back on surely ‐ or is everyone so cynical now that nothing is as important as the voting system and local councillors?

Sent from my iPad

1 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 27 January 2015 15:48 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Westbury on Trym

From: Sally Clarke Sent: 27 January 2015 15:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Westbury on Trym

This email is to support the Westbury on Trym Society’s request for a partnership ward with Henleaze combining the two present wards into one and sharing 3 councillors between us. Hopefully this will preserve our historical identity and preserve the integrity of the whole village.

I have lived in Westbury Village for over 30 years and would hate to see it cut in half by your boundary suggestions.

Kind Regards

Sally Rayner

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Liz Read

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Seems very strange to have Troopers Hill Field in a different ward from Troopers Hill. I'd add the Field to the Troopers Hill ward and delete the part to the west of Strawberry Hill. I'd also iron out the blip between Troopers Hill Field and Malvern Rd. Whatever it's historical reason was, there is no reason for it now.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4321 16/12/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: PETER reddcliff

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have only just seen a poster on a lamppost detailing these proposals. Surely with an issue as important as this, the council should have at least had the courtesy to write to all the residents it will affect, or was it a deliberate act as the council did not want people to know about the changes?, a very underhand way of conducting business. As a result of which, we have not had the time to contact people and carry out further research. The deeds on my property (built in 1930) say Henleaze, yet you simply want to dump us in . You have already lumped us in with BS10 , when it should have been BS9, now you want to take it a step further. Also, as this will wipe thousands off the property prices in this area, I assume a reduction in Council tax will follow?? We strongly oppose this change and will do all we can to stop it from happening. Surely you hasve better things to do with your time, bearing in mind that we pay your wages. If I wanted to live in Southmead, I would have bought a house there! Yours angrily, Peter and Suzanne Reddcliff

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4901 17/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: neil redman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I We support the idea of a partnership ward with Henleaze combining the two current wards into one and sharing 3 councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4573 03/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Douglas Reid

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I strongly disagree with the proposals to move Belmont Rd BS6 5AT into an expanded Ward including . It makes no sense whatsoever given the Demographic of the area Doug Reid

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4406 12/01/2015

Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 04 February 2015 16:04 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW:

From: Pat Ricketts Sent: 04 February 2015 15:58 To: Reviews@ Subject:

WE feel that any changes should ensure that the historical village of westbury‐on‐trym Bristol should be in the ward which has the name of Westbury‐on‐trym. We support the idea of “partnership ward with Henleaze”as suggested at the public meeting last week. This would combine the two present wards into one and share 3 councillors between us. Mr. B ricketts and mrs p. Ricketts.

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

1

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Roake

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

4: Remove boundary between proposed new Ward boundaries and combine them into one new Ward having 3 Councillors. Suggest the name be2: Henleaze Redraw boundaryand Westbury to better reflecton Trymthe community Ward. of interest (Westbury on Trym)

3: Redraw boundary to better reflect the community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

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

Map Features:

Annotation 2: Redraw boundary to better reflect the community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

Annotation 3: Redraw boundary to better reflect the community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

Annotation 4: Remove boundary between proposed new Ward boundaries and combine them into one new Ward having 3 Councillors. Suggest the name be Henleaze and Westbury on Trym Ward.

Comment text:

There is a very long unbroken history to the 'village' of Westbury on Trym, going back to the 10th Century. The inhabitants still have a very strong association with that name and it's geographical position, even though it is now part of suburban Bristol. To remove the 'village' center from it's Ward name is to say the least rather tactless and inflammatory. It seems as if the objective has been to reduce the combined total of Ward Councillors in the current areas of Westbury on Trym anf Henleaze from 4 to 3, which I have no fundamental issues with. May I propose a compromise namely combine the new Wards and call it:- Henleaze and Westbury on Trym ward, with 3 Councillors ? There is a precedent in your proposals in the adjacent Ward ( and Sea Mills). I have also added two minor boundary amendments (2 and 3) to better reflect the community of interest in places that are stable and unlikely to be the subject of additional population growth.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4396 12/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Roake

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

4: Remove boundary between proposed new Ward boundaries and combine them2: Redrawinto one boundary new Ward to havingbetter reflect3 Councillors. the community Suggest of theinterest name be(Westbury Henleaze3: Redraw onand boundaryTrym) Westbury to better reflecton Trym the Ward. community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

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

Map Features:

Annotation 2: Redraw boundary to better reflect the community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

Annotation 3: Redraw boundary to better reflect the community of interest (Westbury on Trym)

Annotation 4: Remove boundary between proposed new Ward boundaries and combine them into one new Ward having 3 Councillors. Suggest the name be Henleaze and Westbury on Trym Ward.

Comment text:

There is a very long unbroken history to the 'village' of Westbury on Trym, going back to the 10th Century. The inhabitants still have a very strong association with that name and it's geographical position, even though it is now part of suburban Bristol. To remove the 'village' center from it's Ward name is to say the least rather tactless and inflammatory. It seems as if the objective has been to reduce the combined total of Ward Councillors in the current areas of Westbury on Trym anf Henleaze from 4 to 3, which I have no fundamental issues with. May I propose a compromise namely combine the new Wards and call it:- Henleaze and Westbury on Trym ward, with 3 Councillors ? There is a precedent in your proposals in the adjacent Ward (Avonmouth and Sea Mills). I have also added two minor boundary amendments (2 and 3) to better reflect the community of interest in places that are stable and unlikely to be the subject of additional population growth.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4396 12/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Roake

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Remove boundary to amalgamate the two proposed Wards

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Remove boundary to amalgamate the two proposed Wards

Comment text:

The 'village' of Westbury on Trym has been in existence for over 900 years and still serves as the focal point for the wider community in all geographical directions away from the (ancient) village centre. For a very long time the village has naturally been part of the Ward of the same name. I feel it is somewhat tactless and insensitive to propose to remove this prevailing situation. Many consider it to be rather inflammatory. The main objective seems to be to reduce the existing total number of Councillors for the current combined area of coverage by one to a new total of three. May I recommend that the two Wards are merged to cover the proposed new Wards with 3 Councillors and for the new merged ward to be called Henleaze and Westbury on Trym Ward? I believe this amendment to the proposal will remove the objections and retain the central role that the 'Village' of Westbury on Trym continues to play to the wider community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4402 12/01/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 16 February 2015 10:32 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Bristol Ward Boundaries Review - Boundary between Ward and Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward

From: John Roberts Sent: 15 February 2015 18:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Bristol Ward Boundaries Review - Boundary between Stoke Bishop Ward and Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward

Mark Pascoe Review Officer (Bristol) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

Bristol Ward Boundaries Review - Boundary between Stoke Bishop Ward and Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward

Dear Mr. Pascoe,

I agree that Sea Mills should be located within Stoke Bishop Ward. However, it should be the whole of Sea Mills, not just a part of it.

The currently proposed boundary, along Sylvan Way, would locate roughly two-thirds of Sea Mills within Stoke Bishop Ward, and the other third of Sea Mills, together with Coombe Dingle, within Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward.

Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle together are an "island" of development which is separated from other built up areas by wide green spaces.

Together, Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle, have more common interests and identity with each other than with any other nearby place.

I live in Sea Mills. We are all very proud of our Garden Suburb, our Conservation Area, and our friendly, village- like community of neighbours and friends.

It is completely wrong that Sea Mills, including our Garden Suburb, our Conservation Area and our community, would be divided into two parts and between two very different wards by the proposed ward boundary along Sylvan Way. 1 Dividing Sea Mills would put Sea Mills Library, Sea Mills Community Centre, High Grove Church and some of our allotments into one ward, whilst Sea Mills Square, Sea Mills Medical Centre, St Edyth’s Church, Sea Mills Primary School, Sea Mills Post Office, and our other allotments would be in a completely different ward.

It would be undemocratic and extremely bad for local democracy for decisions concerning the whole of Sea Mills, or the whole of Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle, to be split between two entirely different wards.

I ask you to please redraw the boundary between Stoke Bishop Ward and Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward so that Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle are both within Stoke Bishop. At the very least, the boundary should be redrawn to include the whole of Sea Mills Conservation Area within Stoke Bishop Ward.

However, I agree that Sea Mills should be within Stoke Bishop Ward rather than the new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward. We are much closer, in terms of distance, to Stoke Bishop than to any of the places within Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Ward. Sea Mills Station is already located within Stoke Bishop. The Trym Valley open space is used, shared and enjoyed by residents from both Sea Mills and Stoke Bishop.

Yours sincerely,

John Roberts

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: maita robinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Ashley Ward which is one of the most populated and diverse in Bristol and am active in the community. I think that it would make sense to divide the ward in two; St Paul's, Lower Montpelier, and Stokes Croft into one ward with one councillor and then St Andrews, Upper Montpelier, St Werburgh's, and surrounds into another ward with two councillors. I believe the division of population numbers would support this change. From my observation over time, I think that St Paul's and attached areas need to have their own representation as they have very different issues than the rest of the ward and many residents have said that they feel disenfranchised and don't have a voice with the City Council. If things stay the same...even with an extra councillor, there is no guarantee that St Paul's people will find engaging with local government any easier or any more satisfactory. At the moment they feel unheard. It would make perfect sense to divide Ashley ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4373 05/01/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 29 January 2015 16:58 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Boundary Commission Review

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Moises Rocha Sent: 29 January 2015 16:39 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Commission Review

Dear Sir/Madam, I object strongly to the proposal to split up the majority of Westbury from it,s village.What a ridiculous idea, obviously made by someone who does not understand or know the area at all. I have lived in the area many years and I assure you that most of us from the park side of Westbury go there for a multitude of thing: the doctors,the shops, cubs and scouts etc,the village hall,transport links i.e as one cannot park at Southmead now I go there to get the bus to the hospital. I also go to Henleaze a lot too as I live in The Dell and am pretty much equidistant to both. I think you also forget the history of the area. It would be far more sensible to have a 3‐member ward of Westbury and Henleaze. Yours in hope of a sensible decision, Moises Rocha Sent from my iPad

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Linda Rockliffe

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The boundaries proposed for Westbury on Trym and Henleaze do not make sense. The centre of Westbury on Trym village will be placed in the Henleaze ward. It makes more sense to retain the village as it has been for over 1000 years and merge the two together having 3 councillors between them. This then preserves the identity of the village and of Henleaze yet fulfils the requirements to lose 2 councillors. Please do not destroy the village

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4497 28/01/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Patricia Rodway

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I would like the proposed wards Westbury on Trym and Henleaze to be joined together under the name of Westbury on Trym and Henleaze making a three counsellor ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4899 17/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Rogers

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We live in and we are part of the Cliftonwood community. I am against any proposal to combine Hotwells with the new Harbourside ward. We have worked together with the Cliftonwood community for several years and this new proposal would destroy our community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4751 12/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: David Rogers

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think we should keep Hotwells with Cliftonwood as one joined area. They are naturally together whereas the other side of the harbour is very distinct. We have also built up a Hotwells and Cliftonwood community over many years that works very well together.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4718 10/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Rolston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Sir / Madam As a resident of Westbury-on-Trym I am concerned with the proposal to incorporate the historic centre of Wesbury-on Trym into the ward of Henleaze. I support the idea of forming a partnership ward of Westbury and Henleaze : combining the 2 presnt wards into one and sharing 3 councilors. It would be a shame if the Ward of Westbury no longer had the historic centre of Westbury-on-Trym within its boundary. Yours faithfully, Dr S Rolston

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4555 02/02/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 09:01 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Westbury and Henleaze wards in Bristol

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Ken Rennoldson Sent: 06 February 2015 17:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Westbury and Henleaze wards in Bristol

Dear Sir/Madam,

Looking at the proposed changes for the above wards I would like to support the proposal of the Westbury‐on‐Trym Society for a combined ward with Henleaze that would return 3 councillors.

Where it is possible I do think that traditional areas should be preserved in the electoral boundaries and I think in case it can be.

Yours faithfully,

Ken Rennoldson

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Colin Rose

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Hotwells. I believe the electoral review aims to equalise the population size of wards. At first sight this seems like a sensibly democratic proposal. However, although people may be resident in wards, they actually live in communities and a councillor's role is to represent a community rather than a set numerical proportion of the city's population. In the past Bristol has suffered the harmful consequences of party-line bickering masquerading as political debate in the council chamber. This tendency can only be exacerbated if you take away a councillor's sense of obligation to a defined community with its own character and specific needs. At present the Hotwells and Cliftonwood ward corresponds to a long established parish and set of neighbourhoods with shared interests and concerns. The proposed "Clifton West" and "" ward boundaries may make sense to a statistician but they are nonsense to those of us who have raised our children here.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4670 09/02/2015

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Lucy Rothwell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I wish to comment on the proposed new boundary for Westbury-on-Trym ward. The proposed new boundary transfers the centre of Westbury-on-Trym village to the adjacent Henleaze ward. Westbury-on-Trym is a historic part of Bristol and I feel very strongly that this would destroy the sense of community and identity in this area, leaving Westbury-on-Trym ward with no focal point or community facilities. In recent years we have seen an increase in the number of community events held in Westbury-on-Trym which have been very well supported. In addition to the traditional annual village fair in May, there is now a Christmas Fair and very successful annual Fireworks Display in Canford Park, as well as regular markets. I support the alternative proposal being put forward by the Westbury-on-Trym Society that the two wards of Westbury- on-Trym and Henleaze should be combined into a single ward, sharing 3 councillors. There are strong ties between the residents of both these communities with many of our children going to the same secondary schools, and parents from Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym campaigned together to get the new . Many residents of both areas use the shopping and leisure facilities in both Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym, including the local Orpheus cinema in Henleaze. There is also an existing Neighbourhood Partnership (NP3) which encompasses Henleaze, Westbury-on-Trym and Stoke Bishop.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4894 17/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Alison Rouncefield

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Recognising the importance of shared2: Recognising community theinterests importance i agreeof sharedthat this community area should interests move intoi agree the thatSouthmead this area ward should move into the Southmead ward 3: This area represents the heart of Westbury on Trym, it contains our village amenities - shops, restaurants, medical centre, church and primary school and as such links those living within with wider WOT ward.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Recognising the importance of shared community interests i agree that this area should move into the Southmead ward

Annotation 2: Recognising the importance of shared community interests i agree that this area should move into the Southmead ward

Annotation 3: This area represents the heart of Westbury on Trym, it contains our village amenities - shops, restaurants, medical centre, church and primary school and as such links those living within with wider WOT ward.

Comment text:

The WOT area is dominated by the village and the amenities (doctors, shops, schools, church, etc.) based around the high street and canford lane. Communities work together and orientate as communities because of geographical reasons and from services which bind them - schools, medical surgeries, faith meeting places. To remove the heart of the village from the ward which takes it name could have a detrimental effect on how residents views about their village are considered. A serious concern is how the views of local residents will be taken into account if there are two separate councillors serving the residential WOT and the village centre of WOT. As a resident we feel, rightly that we have some ownership of our village centre and are keen to ensure that our voice is heard in the development of our village, I am not sure how effective this would be if the area is served by two different councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4324 16/12/2014 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 February 2015 08:46 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Re. review of boundaries Bristol

Importance: High

From: Alison Rouse Sent: 05 February 2015 12:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: Re. review of boundaries Bristol Importance: High

It was not very clear via your website, how to respond to any concerns about proposed boundary changes. (this may be perhaps as I am using an older browser). However I woudl be grateful if you could pass on my comments to the relevant parties.

I was unaware of the planned changes to divide Stapleton between Eastville and . The sense of local identity of this area (I live in Brinkworthy Road) is very strong and relates to the historiacl Parish Boundaries and sense of Stapleton as a village area. The identity and concerns of residents in this area of Stapleton are very different to the concerns of residents of Fishponds, and it doesn't make any sense to remove what is actually a small section of Stapleton village and place in another ward, thus splitting the community and meaning that any local concerns are potentially diluted and may not be represented.

I am sure there is another way of looking at the boundary changes, taking into account numbers, but which does not split an area which has a very cohesive identity.

Yours faithfully,

Alison Rouse

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Phillip and Dawn Rushen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We feel the proposed Ashly Ward will be too large (isn't the point of the proposals to make changes to reflect the increases poulation in such areas in the first place?). Our strong preference would be to have a greater number of smaller, single member wards, to better represent the local poulation. In this instance, a St Andrews and Montpeliier Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4854 16/02/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Frances Russell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am a resident of Cliftonwood in Clifton ward in Bristol. The proposal to create a Hotwells and Harbourside Ward will divide the historic neighbourhood of Hotwells between the new wards of Clifton West and Hotwells & Harbourside as well as dividing Cliftonwood from Hotwells. The community of Cliftonwood and Hotwells, is clearly recognised as a single entity by residents and defined by the parish boundary. The new boundary proposals will divide this established community rather than reflect community identity. Voters in Hotwells & Cliftonwood are currently represented by two Councillors. The proposed Hotwells & Harbourside ward will have only one. The rights of this community to lobby for changes through the City Council will be diluted with only one Councillor rather than two working on their behalf. This represents a reduction in electoral equality relative to other 2 or 3 Councillor wards, not an improvement. Personally, I feel that the residents of Cliftonwood and Hotwells, and the issues of this area, have little in common with those of Clifton. I am concerned that if Cliftonwood becomes part of Clifton for this purpose, then the issues that affect Cliftonwood will be overlooked as the focus will tend to be on issues surrounding Clifton village and we will be forgotten about. I would prefer to remain represented by someone who has the interests of Cliftonwood and Hotwells at heart, not Clifton. WE ARE NOT PART OF CLIFTON!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4729 11/02/2015 Pascoe, Mark

From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 17 February 2015 10:24 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Henleaze Lake area neighbourhood ward changes

Importance: High

From: nicholas russell Sent: 16 February 2015 16:25 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Henleaze Lake area neighbourhood ward changes Importance: High

Nicholas Russell

to: Review officer (Bristol) LGBCE Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M5LG

Dear sir/madame, I am writing with regards to the proposed ward changes within the Henleaze Lake neighbourhood area. I would like to voice my disapproval of this proposal for a number of reasons:

1. It seems that our area has been selected to be changed so that it can be brought into the social economic class of 'socially deprived' (as worded by the elected local Conservative MP Charlotte Leslie and MEP Ashley Fox (see below) which is generally associated with the Southmead area . I would like to make you, Mr Fox and Miss Leslie aware that the area about which I speak is not socially deprived. If you care to look on the local council website, out of a total of approximately 528 homes local to the lake (Lake Road, Delvin Road, Tuffley Road, Cranham Road, Glenwood Road, Vintrey, Lakewood Road & Lakewood Crescent), not including other

1 roads in the proposal, only 8 are council properties and the remainder are privately owned by working professionals, retirees or rented off a private landlord. Included in the number are two care homes which I am aware are privately owned. On the internet property website Zoopla, it is noted that properties range from £300,000 to £500,000, hardly socially deprived. We, as a very close community are therefore utterly insulted to be categorized into the inaccurate 'socially deprived' criteria and would like this to be corrected. In my opinion it would seem that Mr Fox & Miss Leslie who live in the safe future wards of Henleaze & Westbury on Trym seem to be feathering their own nests and have a 'I don’t care attitude' to other affected residents and constituents. I will therefore not be voting for any conservative MP in the next or future elections if this ward change goes ahead and am sure that they have already lost the vote of many residents within this affected area.

2. As homeowners, we are all very concerned that the value of our properties will be drastically reduced if we are to be banded into the Southmead ward as that area is regarded as a socially deprived council area. We have had assurance from Miss Leslie and other councillors that this change should not affect house prices but there is no guarantee to this and common sense would tell us that the opposite is far more likely to be the case. When we and other residents of our community purchased our properties, we did so knowing that our future homes were in either the Henleaze or Westbury on Trym area. What we are now concerned about is future prospective purchasers, since estate agents will clearly now regard this area as Southmead thus reducing the value of our homes.

3. Henleaze Swimming Lake, a local attraction has been an established swimming club for nearly 100 years and also falls into this new ward change. If this ward change therefore goes ahead, will the swimming club/lake therefore have to change its name to Southmead Lake?! I assure you that this would be another entirely different dispute altogether.

4. It appears to me that looking at the new ward boundaries, the boundaries have been divided so that the roads containing more ‘affluent’ properties have been included into the Henleaze ward (I refer to the streets Pinewood Close & Cote Lea Park and the estate of Holmwood Gardens) and the adjacent roads with less affluent properties have been included into the Southmead ward (Clover Ground, Home Ground, Comb Paddock). This will create boundaries of a very obscure shape with unfair logic having been applied to the way they have been selected. It seems crystal clear that the ward changes are intentionally benefitting more affluent properties regardless of their true location.

A fair solution:

To ensure the boundary changes are fair, may I suggest the following: Move the Southmead ward boundary from within Eastfield Road/Southmead Road and extend it to the outside boundary of Southmead Road, Doncaster Road and the outside edge of Badocks Woods, therefore encompassing all roads/area within that boundary into the Henleaze/Westbury ward. If you require further clarification please feel free to email me.

I am sure there are a great number of other points and reasons that could be put forward by myself and other people to make the council see sense and I would gladly follow up this email with face to face discussions in order to underline these important points within this email.

Thank you in advance for taking the time to read this email.

Sincerely, Mr Nicholas Russell and Ms Louise Smith

2

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

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Peter Ryalls

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposal to split Hotwells into two Wards, because each ward will have only one councillor thus reducing representation of residents from two to one councillor.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4641 06/02/2015