Borough Councillor Submissions to the Lancashire County Council Electoral Review
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
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.