sign in sign up
<<
Home , Acton Turville, Easter Compton, Little Badminton, Rudgeway, Tockington

8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal

South

Personal Details:

Name: John Ottewell E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We see this as a good opportunity to rectify long standing issues with local representation in our very local area. We live at This is currently part of Emmersons Green. However, this council prov des us w th no services and their decisions do not take us into account, nor do they usually have much impact on us. By contrast decisions taken by Downend and Bromley Heath Parish Councils do affect us. We urge you to consider moving the boundary so that the homes on the Badminton Road from the River Leap (Leap Bridge) into Downend are in future all included in Downend and Bromley Heath Parish Council and the new and Downend ward at the South Glos level

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10246 1/1 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Alan Pearson E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

With a particular interest in closing the and schism this plan is very welcome. The proposals outlined here are much approved and have been a long time coming..

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10289 1/1

Starkie, Emily

From: NJP Sent: 02 October 2017 18:51 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Commission Proposals

I note that South Glos Council intends to reduce the number of councillors from 70 to 61, and make changes to the boundaries of and .

The draft proposal transfers my road, The Valls, to being represented by a Stoke Gifford councillor. This is towards a district from which this area is separated by a major road, and to which there is no direct access. On geographical grounds, there is no sense in changing the boundaries in this manner.

The Valls and adjacent roads have always been a part of Bradley Stoke since 1988, and for at least 20 years, no significant changes in population have taken place in the surrounding area With the future expansion of Stoke Gifford towards the M4 / M32, and the resulting increase in population of that area, there is no sense in spreading the boundaries to encroach on Bradley Stoke.. Representation by a councillor who does not live in this area is not a logical decision.

Nigel Pitts

1 9/12/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Jennifer Powell E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We very much object to being in the and Bradley Stoke Constituency because the village of is in a conservation area and as such we live in a rural area where as Filton and Bradley Stoke are classed as built up urban areas - ie. we have nothing in common w th that constituency whatsoever. We should be linked into the Thornbury and constituency wh ch is mainly a rural area/constituency. We are closely linked to and because of our adjoining boundary and together with the parish of Almondsbury is north of the M5 motorway and therefore geographically we should be in the Thornbury and Yate Constiuency.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10395 1/1

Starkie, Emily

From: Graham Reynolds Sent: 14 October 2017 13:38 To: reviews Subject: BOUNDARY COMMISSION PROPOSALS

Importance: High

To the Review Officer,

Dear Sir /Madam,

I wish to make comment on a letter my wife and I received regarding the Boundary Commission Proposals.

Reducing costs by reducing councillors to save tax payers money is a correct thing to do. However, surely this saving would be negated by changing boundaries for wards, as there would be some cost to actually carrying this proposal through no doubt.

My wife and I have lived in Bradley Stoke for 29 years now and to my knowledge councillors have increased and decreased as appropriate during this time but NO change of boundary has been talked about ever. Let me say that I absolutely fail to understand why the boundaries need to change now? I cannot see any significant benefit for us at all, simply wanting to “balance the wards* in my opinion will NOT be beneficial at all, well not for us anyway. If it is not broken why fix it?

It is not only confusing, it shows scant regard for the actual boundary of Bradley Stoke as a town. To my understanding this means that whilst my address will still be in Bradley Stoke, should we have any queries or problems concerning refuse collections or potholes as an example we will have to make a Stoke Gifford councillor aware, who does not even live in our town. What a farce!!!

To be frank we are and have always been part of Bradley Stoke and the fact that our address would not change just does not make any sense. Should this proposed change go ahead my wife and will NOT be prepared to walk to a voting place in Stoke Gifford to cast our vote, so at least 2 votes lost for someone. If other people have the same idea then this “ balancing the wards” idea WILL fail. We like Bradley Stoke and want to be part of that community NOT Stoke Gifford.

Finally, I would like to say that we were informed of this proposal by Bradley Stoke councillors and NOT Stoke Gifford councillors. I wonder why that was? I may be wrong be it would appear that it is Stoke Gifford that would be benefit in some way so it was in their interest NOT to tell us.

I await your comments with interest.

Yours sincerely

Graham Reynolds Resident of

1

10/25/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Kenneth Robertson E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The current South Glos boundaries work well and give good representation to the populat on of Almondsbury, Hallen and - all largely rural communities and separate from the urban and commercial development in the Cribbs Causway area; as this area develops then it will need proper representation, but to put the areas together means that the views of a largely urban population will overwhelm the rural communities. As this development is in its infancy the ward boundaries should not be altered at present!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10758 1/1 10/17/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: S Robertson E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Univers ty?!!???! I am not happy to be associated with the name University. Chiswick Village has been built as commun ty village with a support structure that is slowly growing. There are already significant problems w th univers ty students parking in inconsiderate ways and any further associatation with the name or the uni will devalue the properties in the village

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10717 1/1 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Wendy Roberts E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I very much support Almondsbury being w thin the Severn Vale Ward because it is most attached by ribbon development and influenced by the A38 corridor and I believe a very attractive gateway to the Severn Vale. Meanwhile Easter Compton sits more naturally w th Pilning in the Severn Levels and shares more concerns w th Pilning on Severnside development. That leaves the village of Over on Over Lane which I believe should remain with Almondsbury as iOver Lane influences both communities and Over is on the edge of the escarpment too.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10316 1/1 10/17/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Cat Rogers E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live on I feel very disappointed that you class this entire area as “university”. There are many many families, couples and professionals that live in this area and it is only further adding to a terrible problem w th students tocalm the area university. Please do not name t this!!!?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10707 1/1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Dee Shanks E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I currently live in the South Bradley Stoke parish in South Glos. The B4057 acts as a 'natural' boundary between Bradley Stoke South and Stoke Gifford and t is not at all clear why this needs to be redefined such that the area between the B4057 and Bailey's Court Road would now move to be part of the Stoke Gifford Parish. It would in effect leave the Baileys court area 'cut off' and ignored by both Bradley Stoke South and Stoke Gifford due to the very busy road separating it from the rest of Stoke Gifford. This would have consequences for the up-keep of facilities and streets. The Bailey's Court area is very much a part of Bradley Stoke and not Stoke Gifford, from wh ch t is distinct. I also note that the proposed change does not run the full length of the of B4057, w th the end nearest the Roundabout and M4 still remaining part of South Bradley Stoke - such that you will have neighbours on the same street being under separate parishes - this is just silly and unnecessary. The B4057 is the sensible place for the boundary to be drawn. Also, the area between the Old Rd (B4427) and Great Stoke Way is under housing development - why is this being moved to Winterbourne Parish, rather than staying with Stoke Gifford?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10861 1/1 South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Sharp

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

To whom it may concern, I would like to express my concerns about your proposal to lump in with Staple Hill. Although I live in ward and within Emersons Green Town Council, I can say with confidence that Mangotsfield has far more in common with Emersons Green than it does with Staple Hill. I note that you are already proposing a 3 member Emersons Green ward and so, in light of that, I would like to see Mangotsfield as its own separate 1 member ward. Before Emersons Green Town Council was created, the parish was called Mangotsfield Rural, reflecting the fact that this area is very much a ‘Greater Mangotsfield’ and has a lot of shared history, services and family ties. Mangotsfield very much looks towards Emersons Green and vice versa - indeed Mangotsfield’s services are on the eastern side of the community closer to Emersons Green, such as the local centre on St James Street, with its car park, public toilets, war memorial and Mangotsfield Secondary School a stone’s throw away. As well as these services providing for Mangotsfield, there is also benefit for Emersons Green residents. As a community both Mangotsfield and Emersons Green come together for the annual Mangotsfield Festival which is held at Cleve Rugby Club which is right on the Emersons Green/Mangotsfield boundary. All of this shows that Mangotsfield has far less in common with Staple Hill, which is why a single member Mangotsfield ward would be preferable to lumping it in with Staple Hill in a large 3 member ward. Best wishes,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 10/23/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Elizabeth Shepherd E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: resident

Comment text:

On reviewing the proposed alterations of the ward boundaries for Downend, Bromley Heath and Frenchay, I was surprised to see the recommendation that part of Frenchay should be put into the current Downend & Bromley Heath ward. The geograph cal area of Downend & Bromley Heath Parish Council covers the settlements of Downend which includes the Aintree Drive area and Bromley Heath. Surely a more logical arrangement would be for Downend & Bromley Heath to become a 2 member ward and retain the current parish boundary, particularly as the river Frome forms a natural boundary between the settlements of Downend and Bromley Heath with that of Frenchay. The geograph cal area of Winterbourne Parish Council currently covers the settlements of Frenchay, , Winterbourne Down and Winterbourne. Again, a more logical arrangement would be for this ward to become a 3 member ward. I believe my arrangements will lead to more seamless working between both local authorities – the District Council and the two Parish Councils involved, whilst still retaining the recommended number of district councillors. The comment regarding the A4174 ring road forming a “significant barrier” between the Frenchay area and Winterbourne could equally apply to the river Frome being a "barrier” between Frenchay and Downend.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10740 1/1 South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Adrian Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of I would like to see our village remain within the Sodbury Vale Ward. The village has always had a long association with our neighbouring villages of Badminton, , and . The village has strong ties with the Badminton Estate and I believe this will be harder to maintain should we be within the Boyd Valley Ward. The Primary School at Acton Turville has always had strong links with Tormarton and is the closest school to the Village. The secondary school closest to the village is Chipping Sodbury and this link is again important to Tormarton residents.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 10/9/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Steer E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am concerned if the arrangements for voting for individual councillors were to change. I have not been able to determine if this is the case, If we continue to elect one councillor, then I am satisfied. If, however the three pos tions are pooled and, let us say, each of the three main parties puts forward a cand date, it is extremely likely that the party having even a very slight majority support would gain all of the seats, whereas, at the moment, one party holds one seat and another two seats. If the 'constituencies' are individual, t is even possible that it could be one each from each party, better representing the views of all the electorate. To pool the seats having, say, 3 seats and 9 candidates, is anti-representative, and anti-democrat c. It is an unwise move to do something that even looks like gerrymandering.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10649 1/1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Henrietta Stokes E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Huckley way and want to stay in bradley and not Stoke Gifford ward. It is lud crous to live in one area be governed by another they will not have our interests at heart

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10881 1/1 8/30/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Holly Stowell E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think the ward of 'univers ty' is an awful change. The people who live in cheswick would not choose to be lumped in w th the university at the forfeit of our own identity! As much as the university was here first, t and many of ts students are now a part of the Cheswick community! As lead of the Cheswick committee we know that our relatively new community is very proud of our identity and our commun ty spirit which very much involves the students, but most of them come and go. Please reconsider the university to ward to be the Chesw ck ward, we deserve our own identity.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10242 1/1 South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: EA Straw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Alveston and should remain together. The residents of Rudgeway use the church, shops, schools and other amenities. We don't use those in or Elberton. The community is with Alveston and should remain so. I don't believe councillors looking after a large area such as Severn Vale would have the best interests of a small village like Rudgeway in their minds.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded Starkie, Emily

From: Sent: 04 November 2017 13:27 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Changes in ,

To Whom It May Concern:

I have just heard that there is proposal to change the boundary of Patchway Ward, South Gloucestershire, which effectively means that the road in which I live will be subsumed into a proposed new ward called 'Charlton and Cribbs'. This new ward will be predominantly new build houses on the airfield at Filton, Bristol.

This proposal which has been made in secret, without any consultation with residents of the affected roads in Patchway Ward, will result in further disadvantage to the long suffering householders in this area. To be absolutely clear, I object most vehemently to this change to the boundary, which traditionally ran along the airfield boundary. It will disadvantage those residents who live in the affected area, and can serve no useful purpose except to make easier the life of some bureaucrat, or benefit the gerrymandering aims of the proposer.

As a resident of Patchway for forty years, I am fed up to the back teeth with changes to this area made by people who do not live here. I am a resident of Patchway, and intend to remain so. Please reject this proposal outright.

Best regard

Bruce Thompson

1

11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Sian Tyers E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Having examined the boundaries I find that I am part of New Cheltenham ward. I am happy with the proposals as the ward contains St Stephens school which is a focus for many of the families in my area. Lees Hill playing field is also a green space within my ward that I use frequently. New Cheltenham road forms a natural boundary and seems a suitable place for this ward to finish in the south

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10884 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: Susan Vining Sent: 05 November 2017 16:40 To: reviews Subject: subject Where do I think I live

Dear Review Officer (South Glos)

I am appalled at the current proposals from Local Government of Patchway being split in two! Why I ask is this so I have lived in Patchway since I was a very young child, I was schooled in Patchway, married in Patchway, bought our first house in Patchway, brought up three children who were also schooled in Patchway, we moved into our present house in Callicroft Rd. 28 years ago in 1989 because we wanted to live in PATCHWAY! It seems we are being forced out of Patchway. In 1937 Callicoft Rd. was in the parish of Almondsbury and the county of Gloucester however we have been traditionally part of PATCHWAY since 1953 so please leave us to be in PATCHWAY WARD!!

It would be very interesting to know how many of the persons involved in bringing about this recommendation actually live in PATCHWAY not , Bradley Stoke, , Filton, Almondsbury or even Severn Beach but PATCHWAY!!! The people of PATCHWAY showed their solidarity when campaigning against the closure of our local Bypass I'm sure they will show solidarity in the fight to keep traditional PATCHWAY within PATCHWAY ward and not loose its identity!!!!!!!

I feel and want to continue to be part of PATCHWAY ‐ I strongly object to the draft recommendation to move residents of Ashford, Callicroft, Hazeldene and Southsea Roads into Charlton and Cribbs Ward!!!!!! Mrs Sue Vining

1 9/4/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: CJ Walker E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live w thin the proposed "University" ward. This is an area that includes the large and expanding Cheswick area as well as the Stoke Park community. My preference would be "Chesw ck and Stoke Park" or possibly "Cheswick and UWE". A transient population cohort ought not to define a ward. Please do not use the t tle "Univers ty" to describe a growing community of permanent South Gloucestershire residents.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10297 1/1 Starkie, Emily

From: Keith Walker Sent: 03 November 2017 23:33 To: reviews Subject: Boundary Review from Local Government Boundary commission

I wish to say that I am totally against the commission's draft recommendations to split the Patchway Ward into two(2) separate wards consisting of " Coniston Patchway" ward and " Charlton and Cribbs" ward. Many people, groups and organisations, affiliated partners, South Glos(SG) and Patchway Town Council, housing authorities and resident groups, to name a few, have worked tirelessly to maintain the integrity of Patchway as an entity all of it's own. As a "Priority Neighborhood" there are ongoing meetings and discussions with many interested parties, South Glos Council being one of them. There are ongoing discussions related to what is called the" Patchway Vision" which aims to develop and improve the whole of Patchway and which is incorporated in SG council's "Core Strategy". I also am of the opinion that any split could possibly affect any future funding for Patchway.

We all know the the saying " IF IT AIN'T BROKE DON'T FIX IT".

We in Patchway have a slogan which states"Patchway a great place to live". I implore the commission to look at and support any other ward review submissions which aims to keep Patchway together as one ward. PATCHWAY IS BEST SERVED OURWAY.

Thanking you in anticipation. Keith Walker

1 8/31/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Edward Walters E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Hi, I would like to comment on the proposed "University" ward in South Gloucestershire. Whilst I have no issues with the ward boundaries, I do take issue with the proposed name. "University" does not reflect the area's electorate, surely a more suitable name could be found, one which will not cause confusion due to there being two univers ties in the Greater Bristol metropolitan area? Maybe "Stoke Park and Cheswick", this represents the population areas of the ward as well as the historic parkland within the ward? It is in keeping with the names of other wards which are based around the names of population centres as well? Kind Regards Edward Walters

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10265 1/1

11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Jenny Watts E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think it is ridiculous that the area of Bradley Stoke above the B4057 is going to be included in the Stoke Gifford ward. I live in Bradley Stoke, my children will go to school in Bradley Stoke, I shop in Bradley Stoke. I never go to Stoke Gifford. Why would the councillors there have any interest in my road: Robbins Close which is in Bradley Stoke. Where will the polling station be? If t is in Stoke Gifford then I won't be able to vote. I can currently walk to my Bradley Stoke polling station. If it's in Stoke Gifford then I won't be able to vote. Traffic is horrif c there. I'm not taking my children and sitting in traffic.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10857 1/1 10/19/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: John Wells E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of Tormarton village I feel that Tormarton is very strongly linked to the other villages in the and therefore I would much prefer to be part of the Sodbury Vale Ward and not the Boyd Valley Ward. Much land and property in the parish of Tormarton is owned by the Badminton Estate and the local farmers and farm workers have much in common w th their counterparts in Acton Turville and Badminton. To separate Tormarton form the other Cotswold villages would pose a threat to the cohes on of our community. Another consideration is that many Tormarton children attend the Trinity school in Acton Turville, which is also attended by many children who live in Badminton and Acton Turville. Many of the friends of Tormarton children therefore live in the other Cotswolds villages. In addition, the intake of the Pumpkins Pre-school Nursery in Tormarton comprises 50-70% of children who live in the Cotswold villages and approximately 80% of these children go to Trinity Acton Turville School when they reach school age. Thus, for the reasons explained above I strongly support Tormarton being in the same ward as the other Cotswold villages, as it is in the current Cotswold Edge Ward. I trust that you will take these facts into consideration when you make your final decision about which ward the Tormarton Parish is placed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10730 1/1 South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Janet Wells

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

REVISION OF WARD BOUNDARY AFFECTING THE RESIDENTS OF TORMARTON A major consideration of this electoral review is to reflect the community interests and identities of the local residents. Placing Tormarton in the Boyd Valley Ward and not in the Sodbury Vale Ward together with the villages of Acton Turville, Badminton and , would be detrimental to the interests of the Tormarton residents, especially the children who are of school age. Most children who live in Tormarton go to Trinity CE Primary School in Acton Turville and this school is closely associated with the schools in , Hawkesbury Upton, Horton and , which are all situated in the proposed Sodbury Vale Ward. These schools have formed a Cluster Group called the Cotswold Alliance whereby they work together to manage common problems, one being the difficulties that arise from reduced Local Authority funding. From a practical standpoint it would be more effective if Tormarton is represented by a local councillor who has a good knowledge of the schools in the area and one that Tormarton children attend. Historically, Tormarton is closely aligned to Acton Turville and Badminton by the Badminton Estate, which is a major land owner and important employer in the area. The local farming community therefore has much in common with the other Estate tenants in West Littleton, Badminton and Acton Turville. No such ties exist between the villages of Tormarton, and . For the above reasons I feel strongly that Tormarton should be part of the Sodbury Vale Ward, along with Hawkesbury Upton, Badminton and Acton Turville and not be placed in the Boyd Valley Ward with which it has little in common both in the present and historically.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded 9/29/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Whitfield E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Having campaigned over the years about the growing unbalanced coverage provided by Area Forums, SSCGs and now Commun ty Engagement Forums , I am most impressed by the very promising logic behind these proposals. It is to be hoped, if adopted, Police Beat allocations could match these proposed community groups. I have lived in the Severn Ward for over 50 years, ran the campaign to implement traff c calming on the B4461 (Alveston to ) and served on the SGC/A&S Police Commun ty Speed Watch Steering Comm ttee. When there were very local SSCGs broadly w thin Ward areas it was not too difficult to get the needs of smaller villages heard and issues addressed. Fairly local Area Forums usually had a major community dominating the act on at meetings, in my case Thornbury. The Police also used to, very conveniently, also have beat allocation broadly following Ward boundaries. Then t all changed, SSCGs and Area Forums were abolished & replaced by CEFs - Severn Ward was annexed to a Thornbury & Alveston Group and any chance of small villages having an audible voice was lost. Previously A&S Police had merged Thornbury, Severn and Severnside (Easter Compton, Pilning & Severn Beach) Wards, which again meant that concerns of smaller village were again drowned out by much larger communities. The Severn Vale proposal appears to gather together a good number of quite similar smaller communities in the North West of the SGC area without being overshadowed by e ther Thornbury or Pilning & Severn Beach. Thus, there would be a new opportun ty for the concerns of smaller communities to be properly heard by off cials not dominated by need to represent concerns for larger communities. The major benefits of this new boundary allocat on will only be delivered if SGC & A&S Police redefine their organisational boundaries and meetings structure to acknowledge and support these new boundary allocat ons. However, for the smaller communities that could form the Severn Vale Area, this a most promising development wh ch I hope will be implemented soon.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10531 1/1 11/3/2017 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Suzanne Williams E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Mangotsfield but very near Staple Hill so it makes sense to put these together in a ward. Staple Hill is where we go shopping and we use Page park at least three times a week. I think this props ed change makes sense as Mangotsfield and Staple Hill are a natural community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10879 1/1

9/13/2017 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

South Gloucestershire

Personal Details:

Name: Derek Wilcox E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Why? If it ain't broke don't fix it !! When we were in Avon, all was well. What a complete waste of money. Spend it on road maintenance, revision of traffic management etc al

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/10407 1/1