Borough Councillor Submissions to the Lancashire County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains submissions from Borough Councillors
Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
As a former Mayor of Hyndburn I wish to object to the Boundary Commission's suggestions to create a Two‐Member Division for Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton‐le‐Moors and Altham as this would be totally unwieldy and the electorate in all these townships would not relate to it. I wish to put forward recommendations which will retain four of the Individual Electoral Divisions for the Borough of Hyndburn ‐ Accrington North, Accrington West & Oswaldtwistle Central, Accrington South and Oswaldtwistle ‐ as recommended by the Boundary Commission but I wish to list below a practical alternative to the proposed Two‐Member Division described above.
The justification for this is to preserve and improve community identity and electoral quality as well as maintaining the existing strong community, social and economic identities within the respective Divisions, especially within the townships of Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton‐le‐Moors and Altham. The proposal avoids the need to have a two‐member Division which would totally undermine community identity by amalgamating communities in too large of an area.
The two Divisions proposed in this Amendment would comprise the following Polling Districts ‐
Rishton & Overton ‐ MA, MB, MC, XA, XB, XC which would give us 10,223 Electorate within a 7.8 % variance
Netherton, Clayton & Altham ‐ YA, YB, LA, LB, ZA, ZB2, ZC, ZD which provides us with 10,089 Electorate within a 9.0% variance
I have attached a map highlighting the six Electoral Divisions for Hyndburn.
Overton & Rishton are highlighted in orange. Netherton, Clayton & Altham are highlighted in green.
I look forward to your serious consideration of the measures I have outlined above.
Judith H. Addison, Former Mayor of Hyndburn ______
1
Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Naeem Ashraf
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
i WISH TO SUPPORT THE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR PENDLE DIVISIONS AS AGREED AT THE MEETING OF PENDLE BOROUGH COUNCIL ON 17 DECEMBER 2015
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6534 08/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Neil Butterworth
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Cllr
Comment text:
I support the creation of a two member Pendle Rural County Council division.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6685 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Rosemary Carroll
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Earby Ward Councillors
Comment text:
Dear LGBCE, All three Pendle Borough Council Earby Ward Councillors – Cllr Morris Horsfield, Cllr Mike Goulthorp and I - strongly support your draft recommendation to include the whole of the Earby Ward in a new two-member “Pendle Rural” Lancashire County Council division. We strongly feel that different all the parts of West Craven should be kept together and to create a “Barnoldswick and Earby” division, which would contain no transport links between the two towns within the division, would be wrong. I think you were right to reject this proposal when it was first put forwards to you by the County Council, when you drew up your draft recommendations and I feel you should reject it again. West Craven is part of Pendle, but historically the area was part of Yorkshire until 1974. All the towns and villages in West Craven (Barnoldswick, Earby, Sough, Kelbrook, Salterforth and Bracewell and Brogden) therefore share local interests and identities and the area shouldn’t be split. The whole area is covered by the West Craven area Committee of Pendle Borough Council, three Borough Council Wards (Coates, Craven and Earby), the same local newspaper (the Barnoldswick and Earby Times) and local High School (West Craven High). It is therefore far preferable to keep all these areas together, by adding in other surrounding rural areas along the Lancashire/Yorkshire border, rather than to split the area up. All the areas along the border share the same local hospital provision, the same cross boarder issues with things like buses, gritting and ambulances. I feel your draft recommendation delivers electoral equality, reflects community interests and identities and will promote effective and convenient local government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6680 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Sarah Cockburn-Price
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Councillor
Comment text:
I support your draft proposals to create a two-member "Pendle Rural" division and for this to include the Boulsworth ward I represent. When this was discussed at Pendle Borough Council on 17th December 2015, I accidentally voted the wrong way in favour of the Labour/Lib Dem motion for a "Barnoldswick and Earby" division. I do not support this proposition. I feel the creation of a two member Pendle Rural division is the best way to ensure electoral equality, protect community identity and provide effective local government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6678 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Tommy Cooney
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Councillor
Comment text:
I support the creation of a two member Pendle Rural division as proposed and the revised boundaries proposed for Nelson East and Pendle Central.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6697 12/01/2016
I am contacting you to express my support for the current proposal that has been put forward by the Local Government Boundary Commission concerning the area of Hyndburn.
In particular the polling district of Accrington North. The main improvement in the new boundary proposals is that the former urban district council of Church, pre 1974, had been split between two Lancashire County Council seats. These new proposals see the former district council footprint placed within Accrington North. I feel this will help the local County Councillor to better serve these residents and will also give greater clarity to residents who will now have a councillor wholly.
As the borough council polling districts of Huncoat, Milnshaw and Church are linked in many ways, communication, employment and policing I feel this a sensible alteration to help allow the County Councillor to work for these residents. I also think Accrington North residents will have a more affective representative at County Hall
Thank you
Paul Cox
Milnshaw Ward
1
I support your draft recommendation to create a two-member “Pendle Rural” County Council division.
I thank you for taking the time to consider my points.
Yours sincerely,
Councillor Lyle Davy Pendle Borough Councillor for Coates Ward Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Bernard Dawson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Local Councillor
Comment text:
I very much support the proposals for Hyndburn. The proposals recognise natural communities which is important in my view whilst at the same time achieve the required number of electors in each division. I particulaly welcome the proposal for Accrington South and Accrington North were both divisions have largely kept there natural boundaries.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6427 22/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Gareth Dowling
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am concerned by one particular aspect of the new divisions. The boundary between Ormskirk and West Lancashire East run down the middle of a road, with the odds in Ormskirk and the evens in West Lancashire East. I feel this split does not respect the characteristics of the divisions. West Lancashire East as proposed covers many rural areas and villages, whilst Ormskirk as proposed covers the built-up urban area of Ormskirk Town. To take one side of Wigan Road and give it to the real division does not make sense, nor does it make sense to give up the estates on that side of the road to the rural division, including School House Green and Hall Brow Close. At the very least, the roads listed here should be included in the Ormskirk division reflecting their urban setting.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6279 08/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Margaret Foxley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Borough Councillor
Comment text:
I support the inclusion of the Boulsworth Ward (where I am proud to represent on Pendle Borough Council) in the proposed 'Pendle Rural' County Council division. I know this proposal also has the support of my two ward colleagues - Cllr Sarah Cockburn-Price and Cllr Paul White. Boulsworth is the largest ward in Pendle, with some addresses which are still Yorkshire addresses, as they are farms accessed from over the border. The area has increasingly large number of people living in it who work in Yorkshire commuting into areas like Keighley. Therefore cross border issues are as big an issue for Boulsworth residents as they are for West Craven residents. The majority of 'Pendle Rural' residents have a clear shared interest in terms of local health care. This is because the majority of residents go for treatment at Airedale Hospital, which is over the border into Yorkshire. This is due to its close proximity, but makes these areas different from other parts of Pendle, where a majority of residents would opt for treatment at Burnley or Blackburn hospitals. I am also pleased that the rural nature of the new division will be reflected in its name.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6683 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Margaret France
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Chorley Borough Council
Comment text:
As Ward Councillor for Wheelton and Withnell Ward, Chorley Borough Council, I wish to object to the proposed changes, specifically to the creation of Wheelton with Hoghton division. If these changes go ahead, my ward will lose connection at County level with Rivington and Heath Charnock, but gain connection with Hoghton and Clayton Brook. Now the current situation puts us with similar villages, ie traditional Lancashire Mill Villages. Clayton Brook was largely created by town planners in the 1970s as part of the 'Central Lancashire Town " concept. We have little in common with culture and traditions. Hoghton , however shares many similarities. Clayton Brook is an area with some pockets of deprivation , and if paired with the relatively affluent areas, might actually struggle to achieve the funding it currently receives . There are no common bus routes , school places, and no historical links whatsoever with Clayton Brook. I would ask you to reconsider this option with regard to Clayton Brook - Hoghton I can accept , or White Coppice and Heapey , as they are all linked by the A674 and local bus routes.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6667 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Mike Goulthorp
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Sirs, As one of the local councillors in Earby and a local resident, I am writing to support your draft recommendations for the creation of a Pendle Rural two member seat. By now you should have received numerous letters from local residents urging you to stick to your draft proposals and keep all of West Craven together. I fully support this motion and I believe it would be misguided and illogical to divide a proud and close community. I have also enclosed a few letters I have received from local residents supporting keeping West Craven together. Yours sincerely, Mike Goulthorp
Uploaded Documents:
Download
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6677 11/01/2016
Dear Sir/Madam
Would you please note that in relation to the current review of Lancashire County Council Ward Boundaries, I SUPPORT the proposals approved and submitted by Lancashire County Council and Pendle Borough Council for two single member seats covering West Craven. regards
Ken Hartley
-- Cllr. Ken Hartley Barnoldswick Town Councillor and Member of Pendle Borough Council for Craven Ward Stakeholder Governor Airedale NHS Foundation Trust
1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Morris Horsfield
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Borough Councillor (Earby Ward)
Comment text:
The people of the Earby ward and I support your draft recommendation for the creation of a Pendle Rural division. Please listen to the residents of Earby, Kelbrook, Salterforth and Sough. You should have received over 500 letters from residents signed by over 800 people supporting your proposal for Pendle Rural and opposing the proposal to create a Barnoldswick and Earby division. These letters have all been collected since Christmas at a time when Earby was badly affected by flooding and residents had far more pressing issues on their mind. A Barnoldswick and Earby division wouldn't work. West Craven shouldn't be split up. Please listen to residents.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6577 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Noel McEvoy
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Councillor
Comment text:
As the local Ward Councillor I support the inclusion of Blacko (BE polling district) in a new two- member "Pendle Rural" division and the inclusion of Higherford (BD polling district) in the new Pendle Hill Division. I do however hope that changes can be made to the proposed Pendle Hill division. The changes I would like to see are for polling districts BM, BN, BO (Bradley Ward) to be moved from ‘Pendle Hill’ into ‘Brierfield and Nelson West’ and that polling districts BS, BT, RC, RA1 & RA2 (Brierfield and Reedley Wards) are moved from ‘Brierfield and Nelson West’ into ‘Pendle Hill’. I am happy with the proposed "Pendle Rural" division as proposed.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6684 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Jonathan Nixon
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Horsfield Ward Councillor (Pendle Borough)
Comment text:
I support your draft recommendation to include part of my ward (Horsfield) in a new two- member "Pendle Rural" division and part of it in the revised "Pendle Central" division. Horsfield is in the current Pendle East division, represented by County Councillor Paul White, which actually stretches from East to West right across Pendle. The division works ok, but I think the proposals to create a two-member "Pendle Rural" division which unites all the parts of Pendle along the Yorkshire border is a much better way of reflecting local interests. I also think for the central parts of Horsfield, which are Colne Town Centre, to be put into the Pendle Central County Council division makes a lot of sense. I feel your proposal also works as it keeps all parts of West Craven together. Historically the area was within the county boundaries of Yorkshire and was administered as part of the West Riding of Yorkshire until 1974. All the towns and villages in West Craven (Barnoldswick, Earby, Sough, Kelbrook, Salterforth and Bracewell and Brogden) therefore share local interests and identities and the area shouldn’t be split between divisions. I feel your draft recommendation delivers electoral equality, reflects community interests and identities and will promote effective and convenient local government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6679 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Tim Okane
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Hyndburn Borough Council
Comment text:
I write in support of the LGBCE draft proposal published November 2015. I am ward councillor for Clayton Le Moors and agree that having Great Harwood, Rishton and Clayton Le Moors as a two councillor division is the best solution available. Splitting the five wards would only lead to confusing the electorate who are quite parochial in nature. I outlined the importance of maintaining township identity in my submission to the Parliamentary Boundary Commission review in 2012. Councillor Tim OKane, ward councillor for Clayton Le Moors ward.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6509 08/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Bernadette Parkinson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Dear Sir/Madam, I have looked at your draft recommendations regarding new divisional boundaries for Lancashire County Council. Being a District Councillor on Hyndburn Borough Council for the Ward of Netherton, Great Harwood. I wish primarily to give my views on the draft recommendations for the creation of the division of Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton Le Moors. I note that presently Great Harwood has a variance above 20% and so must be addressed on equality reasons, I am pleased you have listened to the submission from Lancashire County Council and decided to keep Great Harwood intact within one County Division and also not dividing other townships north of Accrington and the man made boundary of the M65 which separates Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton Le Moors from the rest of the conurbation of Accrington. Great Harwood and Rishton are separated by green belt and are not connected to the greater conurbation of Accrington and Clayton Le Moors by the M65. These three towns are interlinked in education, policing, health, shopping provision separate to the conurbation of Accrington and have good transport links between each other with the major secondary school in Rishton serving Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton Le Moors being moved from Great Harwood some decades previously. Policing operates from the Police Station in Great Harwood covering the three towns, public transport is good between the three towns and all three have strong community identies but with all three coming together has one with Churches together, Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton Le Moors & Altham food bank, to name but a few of the community groups shared by the three towns together. I actually work in Great Harwood and believe bringing the three towns together and putting Altham Parish back with Clayton Le Moors where it naturally and historically belongs is a positive in representative terms. I see no problems in size of the Divison created seeing the size of other Divisons across Lancashire proposed and especially with better links between each Town with also good road and public transport links, plus being elected to a two member Ward I see no problem with a two member County Division. So I simply end by giving my full support to your draft Lancashire County Council divisional boundary recommendations for Hyndburn especially covering the towns of Great Harwood, Rishton, Clayton Le Moors and the Parish of Altham. Regards Cllr Bernadette Parkinson
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6429 22/12/2015 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Mohammad Sakib
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I wish to support the revised proposals for Pendle district as proposed by both Lancashire County Council and Pendle Borough Councils at their meetings on 17 December 2015
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6528 08/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Graham Waugh
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Pendle Councillor
Comment text:
I support your proposal to include the ward I represent, Foulridge Ward (polling districts FD1 and FD2) into a new Pendle Rural County Council division. This also has the support of Foulridge Parish Council and our County Councillor, Paul White. I believe they have both made their own submissions in support of the your recommendations. I feel this is the best way to deliver good electoral equality, good community identity and effective and convenient local government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6681 11/01/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1
Lancashire County
Personal Details:
Name: Nadeem Younis
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
i WISH TO SUPPORT THE REVISED PROPOSALS FOR PENDLE DIVISIONS AS AGREED AT THE MEETING OF PENDLE BOROUGH COUNCIL ON 17 DECEMBER 2015
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/6530 08/01/2016