Local resident submissions to the City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains 39 submissions with surnames I-Z.

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

Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

Local Boundary Commission for Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: TERENCE ILES

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am concerned to learn of a proposed change to the Horfield ward of Bristol by extending to include either or areas. Both Southmead and Lockleaze areas are former council estates and any extension to the existing ward may well result in a change of party being elected. The reason to include Southmead is due to Southmead Hospital being classed as part of Southmead. As a Horfied resident of 45 years, living next door to the hospital, the name of the hospital dates back to its days as a former workhouse and has never been part of the Southmead estate. Although the new hospital has retained its name this was agreed by the population of Bristol and in fact the new buiding is now known as the Brunel Building. I am also concerned that any change may well have an impact on the local schools as this may well mean boundary changes for pupil selection. At the moment I am more than satisfied with one councillor who is working well for the Horfield ward and will be extremely disappointed if changes are imposed.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3928 29/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Steve Jackson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in being Eastville but our ward is Lockleaze. We are right on the edge of the Lockleaze, Stapleton and Eastville wards. Our current ward of Lockleaze seems to get lots of focus at the hear of Lockleaze and there seems to be very few issues being discussed that range down towards the corner of the ward. THis gives me a feeling of not understanding whether my vote really has the ;local impact that I would want from it, no matter whether issues are lodged for my surrounding area.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3638 29/07/2014 From: To: Cc: Subject: FW: Warding arrangements: and Brenty Date: 24 September 2014 16:06:25

-----Original Message----- From: Darien Jay [ Sent: 24 September 2014 15:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Warding arrangements: Henbury and Brenty

To whom it may concern

It has recently come to my attention that the electoral wards are under review, and there is a strong likelihood that the Henbury ward map will be redrawn. I would like to request that the evaluation panel rules to include the Charlton Mead area of (currently in Southmead ward) into a new Henbury and Brentry ward (i.e. incorporating the whole of Henbury and Brentry villages).

I understand that there may be other considerations such as dividing Southmead and apportioning half of it to Henbury. I have nothing against the people of Southmead but have no desire whatsoever to share a ward with them; whereas Henbury shares a number of community events, schools and other facilities with Brentry, the same cannot be said of Southmead. I already have the misfortune of sharing a BS10 postcode with Southmead, which has caused my insurance premiums to skyrocket since moving to Henbury. The 2 villages simply have nothing in common.

I hope that my opinions are considered when the panel makes their decision, and that common sense previals.

Regards

Darien Jay Resident of Henbury

Sent from my iPad From: To: Subject: FW: Boundary Changes Date: 03 October 2014 14:08:52

From: Siobhan Kennedy-Hall [mailto: ] Sent: 03 October 2014 10:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Changes

Dear Sir,

I would like to take this opportunity as a resident of Sea Mills to comment on the proposed boundary changes.

I propose that Sea Mills be included into the Ward by expanding to the North, thereby including the Sea Mills community.

Sea Mills and Stoke Bishop are interdependent communities that share several amenities including the Sea Mills railway station, which is located in Stoke Bishop under the current boundary. Stoke Bishop Residents use the Post Office in Sea Mills whilst residents from Sea Mills use shops and various other amenities in Stoke Bishop. The two communities also share leisure facilities located in Stoke Lodge as well as the Mill House pub which is situated on the border.

Both communities share educational facilities, for example the Stoke Bishop Primary school is used by both sets of residents.

The proposal to include Sea Mills into the Stoke Bishop Ward, if agreed, would not be the first time that these communities have been merged together as was the case before boundary changes were made in the 1990’s, and I hope to see the two communities combined again.

Yours Faithfully,

Siobhan Kennedy-Hall

______

This e-mail and any attachments may be confidential or legally privileged. If you have received this e-mail in error or are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the e-mail. Any unauthorised copying, distribution or use of the information in this e-mail or any attachments is strictly prohibited.

Tradebe Environmental Services Ltd is registered in England No. 03873993 and is part of TRADEBE. Registered office: Whittle Close, Engineer Park, Sandycroft, Deeside, Flintshire, CH5 2QE VAT Reg No: GB918 340 722

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Melanie Kershaw

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: New Redland ward

2: New Cotham ward

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

Map Features:

Annotation 2: New Cotham ward

Annotation 3: New Redland ward

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3796 16/09/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Hugh Loxton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I believe that the Bishopston ward boudary should be extended to include the whole area bordered by Cromwell Road to the south and Gloucester Road to the west. This area is currently split between the ward and the Redland ward, but in character it shares more with Bishopston and most locals would describe themselves as living in Bishopston or St Andrews.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3586 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Penelope Jane Miller

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

I live in Cabot Ward, which currently has a +31.42% variance from the average ward size of 9,302 - Cabot is the largest ward in Bristol. The increase in the number of dwellings between 2012/13 and 2016/17 is predicted to be 686. However, as more than 800 dwellings are currently being built within a half-mile radius of our home and will all be within Cabot Ward, I suggest that prediction is overly conservative. I propose that Redcliffe (currently within Cabot) is nominated as an entirely separate Ward. This would reduce the size of Cabot and thereby give the voters of Cabot a more equal value to their votes, and a more reasonable workload to our two Cabot councillors. Redcliffe has an established community and is a member of Bristol's Neighbourhood Planning Network. I have been unable to find out the number of dwellings within Redcliffe but assume that one councillor representing Redcliffe Ward would be sufficient.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3840 24/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Thomas Mitchell

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: Proposed Bristol/Horfield Boundary

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

Map Features:

Annotation 3: Proposed Bristol/Horfield Boundary

Comment text:

The Horfield Common south of Wellington Hill including Ardagh and Wellington Hill (Mast Hall) playing field comprises a closely knit community of residents who are united in their enthusiasm for the preservation and maintenance of the Horfield common. This green area provides a valuable shard space for all the residents of Bishopston, Horfield and wider areas of Bristol; however, there exists a particularly strong bond and identity between those residents that live on the roads immediately surrounding this space. The current Horfield/Bishopston boundary separates a small number of residents living south west of Church Road (on the proposed new boundary) from the other residents encircling this space. Ardagh and the Wellington Hill playing field is surrounded by a connected community with a shared interest which is not reflected in the current boundary. Moving the Horfield/Bishopston boundary to Wellington Hill and Church Road as shown above would reflect the connection that already exists between those living close to this shared space.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3589 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Tim Mizen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: This section of "Cothem" is architecturally and spritually part of Kingsdown...merge it with Cabot ward

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: This section of "Cothem" is architecturally and

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3600 25/07/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: C Morris

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My postcode is - this is in the Bishopston area and I would like to remain in that area. The inner areas of Redland, Cllifton, Bishopston, Ashley, SCotham are clearly defined by major roads/historical boundaries. Please leave them as they are.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3583 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Mott

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Reduce WOT, make it one councillor and increase Southmead to be covered by 3 councillors.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Reduce WOT, make it one councillor and increase

Annotation 2: Alternative to Annotation 1, expand WOT into

Annotation 3: Take this current 'Southmead' area into Henbury

Comment text:

The ward of Westbury on Trym is very unbalanced and the area to the right of my line, where socioeconomically disadvantaged and vulnerable constituents are much more likely to live, is cut off from "Westbury Village" and in terms of psychogeography is certainly not a part of Westbury on Trym. Furthermore there is no polling station anywhere near this part of the ward, so that the people with least far to travel to cast a vote are those who are already socially advantaged. This is common knowledge. There is apparently no agreed system for measuring councillor workload but in terms of surgeries I suggest that the casework load on councillors in this ward may well be around a fifth of the caseload in an area such as Southmead or Lockleaze. I am sure this could be investigated by questioning the respective councillors. (I suspect the same is true for Stoke Bishop). Therefore I suggest that WOT can easily be represented by one councillor and Southmead should be a larger ward with three councillors. Alternatively (Annotations 2 and 3) I recommend expanding the WOT area into Henbury so that there is a fairer caseload for councillors, and then taking some of Southmead ward into Henbury to reduce the workload on the Southmead councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3762 08/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Mott

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: Take th area in the rema better of what c and provid casel

2: Alternative to Annotation 1, expand WOT into Henbury to give a fair caseload based on citizen need to WOT councillors, and take some of current Southmead into new Henbury.

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

1: Reduce WOT, make it one councillor Map Features:

Annotation 1: Reduce WOT, make it one councillor and increase

Annotation 2: Alternative to Annotation 1, expand WOT into

Annotation 3: Take this current 'Southmead' area into Henbury

Comment text:

The ward of Westbury on Trym is very unbalanced and the area to the right of my line, where socioeconomically disadvantaged and vulnerable constituents are much more likely to live, is cut off from "Westbury Village" and in terms of psychogeography is certainly not a part of Westbury on Trym. Furthermore there is no polling station anywhere near this part of the ward, so that the people with least far to travel to cast a vote are those who are already socially advantaged. This is common knowledge. There is apparently no agreed system for measuring councillor workload but in terms of surgeries I suggest that the casework load on councillors in this ward may well be around a fifth of the caseload in an area such as Southmead or Lockleaze. I am sure this could be investigated by questioning the respective councillors. (I suspect the same is true for Stoke Bishop). Therefore I suggest that WOT can easily be represented by one councillor and Southmead should be a larger ward with three councillors. Alternatively (Annotations 2 and 3) I recommend expanding the WOT area into Henbury so that there is a fairer caseload for councillors, and then taking some of Southmead ward into Henbury to reduce the workload on the Southmead councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3762 08/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Helen Mott

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: Take this current 'Southmead' area into Henbury so that the remaining Southmead Ward better reflects the reality of what constitutes Southmead and provides a more manageable caseload for councillors

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Reduce WOT, make it one councillor and increase

Annotation 2: Alternative to Annotation 1, expand WOT into

Annotation 3: Take this current 'Southmead' area into Henbury

Comment text:

The ward of Westbury on Trym is very unbalanced and the area to the right of my line, where socioeconomically disadvantaged and vulnerable constituents are much more likely to live, is cut off from "Westbury Village" and in terms of psychogeography is certainly not a part of Westbury on Trym. Furthermore there is no polling station anywhere near this part of the ward, so that the people with least far to travel to cast a vote are those who are already socially advantaged. This is common knowledge. There is apparently no agreed system for measuring councillor workload but in terms of surgeries I suggest that the casework load on councillors in this ward may well be around a fifth of the caseload in an area such as Southmead or Lockleaze. I am sure this could be investigated by questioning the respective councillors. (I suspect the same is true for Stoke Bishop). Therefore I suggest that WOT can easily be represented by one councillor and Southmead should be a larger ward with three councillors. Alternatively (Annotations 2 and 3) I recommend expanding the WOT area into Henbury so that there is a fairer caseload for councillors, and then taking some of Southmead ward into Henbury to reduce the workload on the Southmead councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3762 08/09/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: SUSAN O'CONNELL

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in East Redcliffe (the part of Redcliffe East of Redcliffe Hill). This currently forms part of the Lawrence Hill Ward. However, it is way out on a limb in relation to the rest of Lawrence Hill - the ward is a very odd shape - and is frequently overlooked. Most people are even surprised to hear that any part of Redcliffe is in Lawrence Hill. This hampers community links, funding opportunities, and providing services and amenities to the people of East Redcliffe. I firmly believe that Redcliffe East should join up with Redcliffe West and that they should be in the same ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3613 28/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Toby O'Connor Morse

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Proposed boundary change between Redland and Ashley

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Proposed boundary change between Redland and

Comment text:

The current division splits the distinct area of St Andrews (the area of BS6 east of Gloucester Road) between Ashley and Redland wards. In terms of demographics and needs, the area of BS6 currently assigned to Ashley has more in common with the rest of St Andrews than it does with areas such as Montpelier and . The natural boundary between St Andrews and Montpelier - both in terms of type of housing and in terms of physical landscape - is Cromwell Road. Moving the Redland/Ashley boundary to follow Cromwell Road and its extension along Chesterfield Road (as marked on map) would therefore create a more natural division. It would also ensure that St Andrews Park - a much used and appreciated community resource - fell firmly within the remit of one set of councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3623 28/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Ben Osborne

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: City of Bristol expanded boundary

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: City of Bristol expanded boundary

Comment text:

This entire shaded area should be the city boundary. I find it ludicrous that one third of Bristol's urban area lies under a different local authority. The city limits should be expanded to the entire contiguous urban area in order for Bristol to achieve its potential and cement its position as the economic/social/cultural centre for the south west. I grew up in , just the wrong side of the boundary, and I do not know anybody, anybody at all, who describes themselves as being from .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3602 28/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Doreen Packer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I'd appreciate Beckington Road being linked in the same ward as Wingfield road. They are similar houses and historically were developed in the same era. This road is currently cut off from Bristol's council services as the 2 coucillors responsible for my road don't have any interest outside of . I have been requesting improvements to bus stops that service the road but neither bus stop is in Filwood so I have no voting power on this and other matters. What I want is for my local elected reps to be able to speak and take action on my behalf and for my benefit. This should be taken as a minimum standard but has not been my experience.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3675 11/08/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: BEN RAINS

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I LIVE ON . THIS STREET - INDEED ALL OF TEMPLE - SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN CABOT. THE FOCUS OF TEMPLE IS AROUND VICTORIA STREET AND TOWARDS THE OLD CITY, AND TEMPLE QUAY AREAS. THE REST OF LAWRENCE HILL IS SEPARATE FROM CABOT AND TEMPLE AND ITS FOCUS IS AWAY FROM THE CENTRE. I WOULD EXTEND CABOT TO TEMPLE MEADS BUT REMOVE THE SPIKE ISLAND AREA.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3591 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Chris Rod

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Horfield and am happy with the current boundaries and see no reason for them to change.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3580 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Jeremy Routledge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Jeremy Routledge

Comment text:

Living on the edge of Windmill Hill ward in the city of Bristol, at , we feel much more part of Totterdown than we do Knowle. I want to register our desire to stay in the Windmill Hill ward and Totterdown district.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3590 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Roger Shepherd

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

It's hard to make suggestions about the boundaries without understanding the population split and density. I would be useful to have tools which gave the population within a new boundary Notwithstanding that, some of the current wards feel unnatural. Cabot is really weird - it spans the city centre which doesn't feel right to me - the centre (course of the Frome) would seem like a good boundary. If that were done, then Cotham would move south, capturing Kingsdown (so maybe the ward should be Cotham and Kingsdown), followed southward by Redland which could retain its northern boundary but lose (certainly) everything to the east of Gloucester Road, and (maybe) some of the area to the north-west of Cranbrook Road. Of course, this assumes the number of wards remains the same - it's not clear why this should be the case. There are two changes possible - firstly, to reduce the number of seats per ward - I don't understand why we have multimember wards - and secondly to reduce the number of councillors. Fewer councillors should increase the responsibility per councillor and encourage more people to become councillors.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3619 28/07/2014

Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Antony Skelding

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Sir/Madame. I recently attended the Henbury and Brentry Neighbourhood Forum where I learnt about proposed boundary changes for Bristol City including our own ward. I wish to say that I think that the ward which I understand needs to increase in number of residents should include the rest of Brentry i.e. the Charlton Mead estate. Henbury and Brentry are linked through schools (both Primary and Secondary) and the existing Community Council and Neighbourhood Forum and are a single community. The upper Brentry area of Charlton Mead is the natural choice for expansion of the Henbury and Brentry Ward to meet its number targets in the up and coming boundary changes. Yours faithfully, Antony Skelding (Brentry Resident)

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3868 24/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Emily Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident

Comment text:

Hello, I live in the Filwood Park ward of Bristol. Currently this includes Winggfield road Beckington road and walk and part of Redcatch Road, these roads should be contained in Knowle ward as the residents there feel more part of the knowle area and not the Filwood Park area. Also I believe the boundary between knowle and Filwood Park naturally lies along Salcombe Road. The people on the South of Salcombe Road are more part of the Filwood community using many of the facilities schools, drs shops etc in Filwood. They are also quite often looked at as cast offs from Knowle who have a general opinion that their area is better as the area is more deprived as is most of Filwood. I would also like to say on the and wards where I work that residents in those wards are split incorrectly and more naturally residents from Headley Park and Bedminster down go together as communities and Hartcliffe, Withywood and Highridge go more closely together. This would be achieved by an east west divide along Whitchurch Lane rather than along Queens Road in Withywwod and through Headley Park. I also think that Windmill Hill naturally identifies with parts of Bedminster which currently is designated as Southville Ward. I hope this is helpful.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3770 10/09/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Gavin Spittlehouse

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Do you really need the ward boundaries to be drawn along roads? The effect for example is that I live in Bishopston and my neighbours on the opposite side of Berkeley Road live in Redland. Could the boundary run along the back off my garden instead?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3601 25/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Kit Stone

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Proposed Southville

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Proposed Southville

Comment text:

The current 'Southville' is very large and includes some industrial and large retail areas that do not typically represent the area (typically those in their 20s and 30s, young families, with a high proportion living in flats or shared houses). Re-drawn, the smaller 'Southville' aims to represent and replicate true 'Southville' from the oldest part near Dean Lane up to Raleigh Road.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3653 31/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Jill Swailes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Whatever you do we do not need 70 Councillors. All services we need are being cut and we have Councillors who are very poor value for money. 35 would be more than enough.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3564 23/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Robert Szalai

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

In think the council should do the work and actually propose a ward map, so that one can comment on it. For example I see that Bishopston is larger in electorate than Redland, so there should be some change on their boundary. The calculation is simple: divide the whole electorate with the number of words and aim to change the boundaries so that each ward has equal number of electors. You can try to produce the new map with the least number of changes to the current map to achieve the same ward sizes. I also think that it is best to avoid situations where the two sides of the same street are in different wards, just like Sefton Park Road in Ashley/Bishopston.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3673 11/08/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Tim Temple

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

MY postcode is . I associate with Westbury-on-Trym

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3579 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rob Umphray

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My comments are relatively straightforward. Different wards have different profiles, Bishopston for example, has a massive concentration of people in a small area, So do other wards including Ashley and Cabot. Whilst I can understand that having an equal number of the electorate in each ward may seem a good idea nothing could be further from the truth. In my view cities and people don't behave like that. People congregate where their friends and familes are, where they like to go out and spend time and where they feel happy and where they have a voice. Due to the density of some wards people would lose the ability to influence the area in which they live because they could be moved to another ward with different priorities. In most Bristol Wards there is currently a good mix of households, backgrounds and income levels. Moving the boundaries would affect this and could create enclaves which I feel would be a very undemocratic thing to do. Please leave the boundaries as they are. There is currently no need to change them although I appreciate that this may change over time.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3701 13/08/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Rasa Vedias

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

2:4:

3: 1: Put Vicar Bedminster

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Put Vicarage Road into Bedminster

Annotation 2:

Annotation 3:

Annotation 4:

Comment text:

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3585 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Julien Weston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part of Easton than Lawrence Hill. Easton is also too big - create a split and make new Lower and Upper Easton wards perhaps ...

8: The area to the south of this line (south of the Railway Path at this point) is currently part of Easton. It would be far better included5: in Lawrence Hill. The railway path forms the natural boundary here, not the active railway line!

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Hardly anybody lives South of the line of The

Annotation 3: To the West of this line, the Victoria Street

Annotation 4: Southville as a community is to the West of this

Annotation 5:

Annotation 7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part

Annotation 8: The area to the south of this line (south of the

Comment text:

Lawrence Hill ward is far too large and too diverse in terms of the communities it includes. I believe that these two facts seriously reduce the fair and democratic representation of its residents. It is the poorest ward economically in Bristol (one of the poorest in the country in fact) and has been used to "dump" diverse communities together. Communities in the area have been effectively separated by intensive road building, including the Old Market underpass, the M32, Easton Way and Lawrence Hill roundabout. I know this ward very well - I live, work and socialize in it. I´ve also stood for election in local elections twice (2002 / 2005ish - Bristolian Party). I see everyday how poorly the ward operates democratically due to it´s size and makeup. People currently included in the various "lumps" of Lawrence Hill ward have little in common and certainly don´t travel much throughout the entire ward. It would be better names as "Lawrence Hill land Barton Hill" as that is the true cohesive community the name suggests. Here are my proposals: 1. The St Philips area, south of the Feeder Canal, is a very sparsely populated industrial area. It would be better hived off and included in East, as this would reduce the physical size of the existing ward without necessarily affecting the electorate count. The St Philips area nowadays has more connections to than it does to Barton Hill, which is spearated by the natural boundary of the Feeder Canal. 2. To the west, there is no sense in Lawrence Hill ward extending past Temple Way / Old Market. The Victoria Street area would be better off as part of Cabot Ward, which encompasses the rest of the City Centre. Old Market has been isolated by the construction of the Temple Way underpass and roundabout as has been recognised since the 1970s. It now has it´s own community, part of Lawrence Hill. To include Victoria Street, Castle Park etc. simply makes no sense. 3. Redcliffe - This is the most serous problem with Lawrence Hill ward. Redcliffe is a totally separate community from Lawrence Hill and is even geographically distant. The people of Redcliffe visit Bedminster rather than anywhere in Lawrence Hill! The Redcliffe section of the ward should be transferred to a modified Bedminster ward (see next point). 4. Current Southville ward extends too far east. East Street is very much a part of Bedminster, not Southville and anywhere East of East Street towards Temple Meads has no relationship to Southville whatsoever! Answer: restrict Southville to the Western side of Dean Lane, extend Bedminster to include all of East Street and the eastern area towards Temple Meads and include Redcliffe in Bedminster. 5. Easton: The boundaries of Easton and Lawrence Hil are too confused and not representative of how the two communites view each other. The current boundary is focused on the Bristol - South Wales active railway line, whereas the actual community boundary is better defined by the closed railway line that forms the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. Generally, to the North of the Railway Path is Easton and to the South, Lawrence Hill.This would make a much larger Easton ward, which could potentially be split in tow to give Upper and Lower Easton wards, with the boundary as existing along the active railway line.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3593 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Julien Weston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

1: Hardly anybody lives South of the line of The Feeder. Lawrence Hill is already way too big, so St Philips South of the Feeder should be merged into Brislington East, where st of this line, it will actually have more treet area has relevance. on with Lawrence ided by dual rom Old Market nce the 1960s. art of the city tter off included Cabot.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Hardly anybody lives South of the line of The

Annotation 3: To the West of this line, the Victoria Street

Annotation 4: Southville as a community is to the West of this

Annotation 5:

Annotation 7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part

Annotation 8: The area to the south of this line (south of the

Comment text:

Lawrence Hill ward is far too large and too diverse in terms of the communities it includes. I believe that these two facts seriously reduce the fair and democratic representation of its residents. It is the poorest ward economically in Bristol (one of the poorest in the country in fact) and has been used to "dump" diverse communities together. Communities in the area have been effectively separated by intensive road building, including the Old Market underpass, the M32, Easton Way and Lawrence Hill roundabout. I know this ward very well - I live, work and socialize in it. I´ve also stood for election in local elections twice (2002 / 2005ish - Bristolian Party). I see everyday how poorly the ward operates democratically due to it´s size and makeup. People currently included in the various "lumps" of Lawrence Hill ward have little in common and certainly don´t travel much throughout the entire ward. It would be better names as "Lawrence Hill land Barton Hill" as that is the true cohesive community the name suggests. Here are my proposals: 1. The St Philips area, south of the Feeder Canal, is a very sparsely populated industrial area. It would be better hived off and included in Brislington East, as this would reduce the physical size of the existing ward without necessarily affecting the electorate count. The St Philips area nowadays has more connections to Brislington East than it does to Barton Hill, which is spearated by the natural boundary of the Feeder Canal. 2. To the west, there is no sense in Lawrence Hill ward extending past Temple Way / Old Market. The Victoria Street area would be better off as part of Cabot Ward, which encompasses the rest of the City Centre. Old Market has been isolated by the construction of the Temple Way underpass and roundabout as has been recognised since the 1970s. It now has it´s own community, part of Lawrence Hill. To include Victoria Street, Castle Park etc. simply makes no sense. 3. Redcliffe - This is the most serous problem with Lawrence Hill ward. Redcliffe is a totally separate community from Lawrence Hill and is even geographically distant. The people of Redcliffe visit Bedminster rather than anywhere in Lawrence Hill! The Redcliffe section of the ward should be transferred to a modified Bedminster ward (see next point). 4. Current Southville ward extends too far east. East Street is very much a part of Bedminster, not Southville and anywhere East of East Street towards Temple Meads has no relationship to Southville whatsoever! Answer: restrict Southville to the Western side of Dean Lane, extend Bedminster to include all of East Street and the eastern area towards Temple Meads and include Redcliffe in Bedminster. 5. Easton: The boundaries of Easton and Lawrence Hil are too confused and not representative of how the two communites view each other. The current boundary is focused on the Bristol - South Wales active railway line, whereas the actual community boundary is better defined by the closed railway line that forms the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. Generally, to the North of the Railway Path is Easton and to the South, Lawrence Hill.This would make a much larger Easton ward, which could potentially be split in tow to give Upper and Lower Easton wards, with the boundary as existing along the active railway line.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3593 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Julien Weston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

3: To the West of this line, the Victoria Street area has nothing in common with Lawrence Hill. It is divided by dual carriageways from Old Market and has been since the 1960s. This central part of the city would be far better off included within Cabot.

4: Southville as a community is to the West of this line. Redcliffe and York Road area have nothing in common with Southville. Redcliffe and to the East of my line through the existing Southville ward should be part of Bedminster ward, extended North.

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Hardly anybody lives South of the line of The

Annotation 3: To the West of this line, the Victoria Street

Annotation 4: Southville as a community is to the West of this

Annotation 5:

Annotation 7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part

Annotation 8: The area to the south of this line (south of the

Comment text:

Lawrence Hill ward is far too large and too diverse in terms of the communities it includes. I believe that these two facts seriously reduce the fair and democratic representation of its residents. It is the poorest ward economically in Bristol (one of the poorest in the country in fact) and has been used to "dump" diverse communities together. Communities in the area have been effectively separated by intensive road building, including the Old Market underpass, the M32, Easton Way and Lawrence Hill roundabout. I know this ward very well - I live, work and socialize in it. I´ve also stood for election in local elections twice (2002 / 2005ish - Bristolian Party). I see everyday how poorly the ward operates democratically due to it´s size and makeup. People currently included in the various "lumps" of Lawrence Hill ward have little in common and certainly don´t travel much throughout the entire ward. It would be better names as "Lawrence Hill land Barton Hill" as that is the true cohesive community the name suggests. Here are my proposals: 1. The St Philips area, south of the Feeder Canal, is a very sparsely populated industrial area. It would be better hived off and included in Brislington East, as this would reduce the physical size of the existing ward without necessarily affecting the electorate count. The St Philips area nowadays has more connections to Brislington East than it does to Barton Hill, which is spearated by the natural boundary of the Feeder Canal. 2. To the west, there is no sense in Lawrence Hill ward extending past Temple Way / Old Market. The Victoria Street area would be better off as part of Cabot Ward, which encompasses the rest of the City Centre. Old Market has been isolated by the construction of the Temple Way underpass and roundabout as has been recognised since the 1970s. It now has it´s own community, part of Lawrence Hill. To include Victoria Street, Castle Park etc. simply makes no sense. 3. Redcliffe - This is the most serous problem with Lawrence Hill ward. Redcliffe is a totally separate community from Lawrence Hill and is even geographically distant. The people of Redcliffe visit Bedminster rather than anywhere in Lawrence Hill! The Redcliffe section of the ward should be transferred to a modified Bedminster ward (see next point). 4. Current Southville ward extends too far east. East Street is very much a part of Bedminster, not Southville and anywhere East of East Street towards Temple Meads has no relationship to Southville whatsoever! Answer: restrict Southville to the Western side of Dean Lane, extend Bedminster to include all of East Street and the eastern area towards Temple Meads and include Redcliffe in Bedminster. 5. Easton: The boundaries of Easton and Lawrence Hil are too confused and not representative of how the two communites view each other. The current boundary is focused on the Bristol - South Wales active railway line, whereas the actual community boundary is better defined by the closed railway line that forms the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. Generally, to the North of the Railway Path is Easton and to the South, Lawrence Hill.This would make a much larger Easton ward, which could potentially be split in tow to give Upper and Lower Easton wards, with the boundary as existing along the active railway line.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3593 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Julien Weston

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part of Easton than Lawrence Hill. Easton is also too big - create a split and make new Lower and Upper Easton wards perhaps ...

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

Map Features:

Annotation 1: Hardly anybody lives South of the line of The

Annotation 3: To the West of this line, the Victoria Street

Annotation 4: Southville as a community is to the West of this

Annotation 5:

Annotation 7: This area, containing Easton Way, is more a part

Annotation 8: The area to the south of this line (south of the

Comment text:

Lawrence Hill ward is far too large and too diverse in terms of the communities it includes. I believe that these two facts seriously reduce the fair and democratic representation of its residents. It is the poorest ward economically in Bristol (one of the poorest in the country in fact) and has been used to "dump" diverse communities together. Communities in the area have been effectively separated by intensive road building, including the Old Market underpass, the M32, Easton Way and Lawrence Hill roundabout. I know this ward very well - I live, work and socialize in it. I´ve also stood for election in local elections twice (2002 / 2005ish - Bristolian Party). I see everyday how poorly the ward operates democratically due to it´s size and makeup. People currently included in the various "lumps" of Lawrence Hill ward have little in common and certainly don´t travel much throughout the entire ward. It would be better names as "Lawrence Hill land Barton Hill" as that is the true cohesive community the name suggests. Here are my proposals: 1. The St Philips area, south of the Feeder Canal, is a very sparsely populated industrial area. It would be better hived off and included in Brislington East, as this would reduce the physical size of the existing ward without necessarily affecting the electorate count. The St Philips area nowadays has more connections to Brislington East than it does to Barton Hill, which is spearated by the natural boundary of the Feeder Canal. 2. To the west, there is no sense in Lawrence Hill ward extending past Temple Way / Old Market. The Victoria Street area would be better off as part of Cabot Ward, which encompasses the rest of the City Centre. Old Market has been isolated by the construction of the Temple Way underpass and roundabout as has been recognised since the 1970s. It now has it´s own community, part of Lawrence Hill. To include Victoria Street, Castle Park etc. simply makes no sense. 3. Redcliffe - This is the most serous problem with Lawrence Hill ward. Redcliffe is a totally separate community from Lawrence Hill and is even geographically distant. The people of Redcliffe visit Bedminster rather than anywhere in Lawrence Hill! The Redcliffe section of the ward should be transferred to a modified Bedminster ward (see next point). 4. Current Southville ward extends too far east. East Street is very much a part of Bedminster, not Southville and anywhere East of East Street towards Temple Meads has no relationship to Southville whatsoever! Answer: restrict Southville to the Western side of Dean Lane, extend Bedminster to include all of East Street and the eastern area towards Temple Meads and include Redcliffe in Bedminster. 5. Easton: The boundaries of Easton and Lawrence Hil are too confused and not representative of how the two communites view each other. The current boundary is focused on the Bristol - South Wales active railway line, whereas the actual community boundary is better defined by the closed railway line that forms the Bristol to Bath Railway Path. Generally, to the North of the Railway Path is Easton and to the South, Lawrence Hill.This would make a much larger Easton ward, which could potentially be split in tow to give Upper and Lower Easton wards, with the boundary as existing along the active railway line.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3593 24/07/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Zanna Wheeler

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Neighbourhood Watch Co-ordinator + Residents Group Organiser

Comment text:

I live in . I LIKE being in the Cotham Ward, but as a Street Representative would find it really helpful if our POSTAL ADDRESS were 'Cotham', not 'Redland'! This occurs because our road USED to be in Redland. When it comes to explaining to our residents that we 'are' part of Cotham Ward, and therefore should attend Cotham Neighbourhood Forum and Partnership meetings, not everybody 'gets it'. This confusion can be used as an excuse 'not to get involved', frankly; 'not to bother'. I think it VERY confusing that currently the boundaries (especially Clifton) appear to me to dodge across Whiteladies Road and back, which I find very unhelpful, creating confusion for residents. Real clarity is imperative I feel, and it's certainly not clearly nor simply defined at the moment!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3700 12/08/2014 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1

City of Bristol

Personal Details:

Name: Graham Wilkie

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

With a democratically elected mayor, I don't see the need for 70 councillors to serve the city. Their infuence has been diluted and decison making mostly falls to the Mayor and his delegated assistants and officers. With the advent of online petitions and and other easy to use channels, the route of local councillor to get something done in Bristol or to have your voice heard is becoming less of a useful option. Council services have alos been asked to reduce expeniditure across the board and our adminstration should follow suit. 70 councillors and an elected mayor is an overly burdensome model and seems out of kilter with streamlning that is happening elsewhere. 1 councillor per ward should be able to do the job.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3575 24/07/2014