Councillor Submissions to the Hull City Council Electoral Review

Councillor submissions to the Hull City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from councillors.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Abbott John (Councillor) Sent: 02 March 2017 15:37 To: reviews Subject: Consultation on Kingston upon Hull ward boundaries Attachments: Bricknell.pdf; Newland.pdf

The Hull to Scarborough railway line intersects Labour’s version of Wyke ward and if you want to pass from one part of their proposed ward to the other, you need to cross either a footbridge over the railway line or the County Road North flyover. That railway line was the Bricknell ward boundary from 2002 to date and the Newland ward boundary for many years before that. The commission has in the past recognised it as a natural boundary, and still does, but mere details like that were clearly as nothing compared with Labour’s political aspirations.

Certain parts of Hull have seen considerable amounts of new build in recent years, but neither Bricknell ward nor the Newland Avenue area has seen much of that for the simple reason that there is not enough spare land there to allow for much of it. It is also clear, for reasons I will come to later, that elements of their proposals, and of the current map derived from them, suffer from fairly

Certain former school and Council land near the Cottingham boundary has received planning permission for new houses and a care home, but that’s about it, and even if one assumes three adults per house now under construction, the number of extra electors resulting is hardly likely to make much of a difference to the size of the ward. (Details of the planning applications under which these buildings are going up can be found on the planning page of the Council website.)

It therefore follows that, if the Commission currently accepts a two member ward, then under the new boundaries, internal population shifts, and even such trends as increasing use of houses for multiple occupation, are unlikely to affect the member‐to‐elector ratio significantly enough to make the current boundaries untenable.

If, therefore, it is proposed nevertheless to alter the boundaries to make a three member ward on the basis that one size should fit all, it would be difficult to sustain the proposed boundaries on a basis of commonality of interest. To take the demographic argument first, most of the “new” streets to be added to the proposed Wyke ward are what used in less inclusive times to be called back‐to‐back housing, grouped around two major roads with considerable numbers of shops, eateries, hostelries and nightclubs on them. This retail and recreational offer is likely to continue to develop on the current lines ‐ by way of an example, two Newland Avenue drinking establishments recently amended their licences to stay open even later. This contrasts with Bricknell Ward as‐is, where retail provision comprises small branches of Tesco and Sainsburys, three quiet pubs, three or four takeaways, a chemists, a cycle shop and one or two others, and where according to the last census data there were no shared dwellings. (There are a few student houses now and there always have been.) Thus there is a gaping chasm between the identity of the typical resident of the proposed new polling districts and those of the residents of the existing Bricknell Ward, where there is a council estate but where very large proportions of the properties have been sold under Right to Buy.

Parents in both the proposed halves of the ward send their children to different schools ‐ Bricknell or Appleton Primary School and Kelvin Secondary School in Bricknell Ward and Sidmouth or Pearson Primary School and Sirius Academy North for secondary education in Newland Ward. This would put pressure on the councillors for the new ward to prioritise one educational offer over the other in terms of problems such as school parking which crop up from time to time. Indeed the risk of being accused of favouritism if the councillors for the new ward spent money on Newland Avenue that should have been, or might be thought should have been, spent on Bricknell Avenue (or vice versa) is so considerable that one wonders why anybody would feel confident enough to chance doing it. Deciding not to implement course of action X in part‐of‐ward Y because part‐of‐ward Z won’t like it is not a good starting point for 1 taking sound decisions and ,as applied to the proposed Wyke ward, is contrary to that part of the Commission’s remit that relates to promoting effective and convenient local government. The Office of National Statistics categorise Newland as “student communities” on the basis of census data and Bricknell as “industrial hinterlands: industrial areas.” This hardly coincides with the Commission’s own stated aim of ward boundaries that reflect community interests and identities. I attach for information the Council’s own segmentation data which should enable you to compare and contrast Bricknell and Newland wards’ demographic data in sufficient detail to satisfy yourselves as to whether a demographic mismatch does or does not exist. Census data for Bricknell and Newland wards in respect of housing types is as follows:‐

Bricknell Newland Unshared dwelling 100% 99.87% Shared dwelling: Two household 0% 0.08% spaces Shared dwelling: Three or more 0% 0.06% household spaces Household spaces with at least one 97.34% 94.15% usual resident Household spaces with no usual 2.66% 5.85% residents Whole house or bungalow: Detached 8.26% 4.69% Whole house or bungalow: Semi- 36.44% 11.39% detached Whole house or bungalow: Terraced 46.71% 62.94% (including end-terrace) Flat, maisonette or apartment: Purpose-built block of flats or 7.38% 11.19% tenement Flat, maisonette or apartment: Part of a converted or shared house (including 0.42% 7.08% bed-sits) Flat, maisonette or apartment: In 0.79% 2.27% commercial building Caravan or other mobile or temporary 0% 0.44% structure

In short, then, by the principles the Commission says it adheres to, Wyke Ward is such a proposal as brings to mind the famous passage about two nations from Disraeli’s “Sybil” ‐ “Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.” The two halves of the proposed ward have so little commonality of interest that the only explanation for bringing the two together that makes sense is one which would expose the LGBCE to malicious suggestions that this process directly and incontrovertibly alters the political components of the council by reducing it from three Groups to two. One can accept that Labour might think that is a good idea. One begs leave to doubt whether the Commission ought to think that it is. Far better, I would contend, to leave well alone.

2 This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All transmissions may be subjected to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

3 University 2011 Segments OA_2011_Hull&EastRiding segment A B C D E F G Newland H I J K L

Bricknell M

Derringham

Avenue

Boothferry

Myton

Newington 2011 Segments

University OA_2011_Hull&EastRiding segment Beverley Holderness A B C D Bricknell E F G H I J K L M

Newland

Drypool

Avenue

Myton

Please find attached file on my objections to the boundary changes.

Kind regards Cllr Chambers

This transmission is intended for the named addressee(s) only. Unless you are the named addressee (or authorised to receive it for the addressee) you may not copy or use it, or disclose it to anyone else. If you have received this transmission in error please notify the sender immediately. All transmissions may be subjected to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with relevant legislation.

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

1 Dear sir or madam,

I’m writing as one of the ward councillors for Drypool ward in Hull. I have been a councillor for the area since 2009. I have lived in the ward for most of my life – and for the last thirty years in the area known as Garden Village.

I am very concerned by the proposals by the Boundary Commission to alter the boundaries of Drypool ward. The proposals would remove most of Garden Village out of Drypool ward and into Holderness ward. I feel this would be a poor decision on community and identity grounds. The residents of Garden Village share many amenities and services with residents in the other parts of Drypool ward (including schools, shops and services). I want to highlight some of these links to you below, that would be split by the proposed changes, in the hope that you will reconsider your proposals.

Garden Village was built by Reckitts (a big local employer) over 100 years ago, for the benefit of their workers. Reckitt and Benckiser (as the company is now known) still has its main factory off Holderness Road and Dansom Lane – in the heart of Drypool ward, a stone’s throw from Garden Village. The company still has very strong links with the Garden Village community – many people who live in Garden Village still work for the company and the company provides financial support to the Garden Village Clubhouse on Elm Avenue.

When Garden Village was built Reckitts opened a library within the village on Beech Avenue. This library was well used and popular with residents in the area. It was not only the library for Garden Village, but also served people in other streets in Drypool ward (including Buckingham, Mersey, Severn and Berkshire Streets). The library was relocated in recent years to The Mount Retail Park on Holderness Road, at the heart of the Drypool ward and is still used by residents in Garden Village – and known as our local library.

Garden Village’s local primary schools have always been Mersey and Buckingham Primaries. I myself attended Mersey Street Primary School. The vast majority of children in Garden Village attend one of these two schools – alongside children from the neighbouring streets to the west of Garden Village in Drypool ward. The schools have always played a big part in the life of Garden Village. As an example, at the centenary celebrations for Garden Village a few years ago it was children from Buckingham and Mersey Primary Schools who took part in the competition to design a Garden Village Centenary logo, which is now displayed at the four entrances into Garden Village and on the Clubhouse.

Garden Village is a long established conservation area in Hull, due to its unique character. There is a residents association (the Garden Village Society), which represents the area and works to protect this character. The proposed new boundary line splits this conservation area into two. This would make it much more difficult to monitor and protect the area’s character. It is not a natural boundary. The much clearer boundary is the eastern edge of the conservation area, where the current ward boundary sits, between Laburnum Avenue and Westcott Street.

There are many small shops situated on streets around Garden Village, that lie in the current Drypool ward, which are the go to shops for the vast majority of the residents. These include the parade on Endymion Street, the corner shop on Buckingham Street and the shops on Holderness Road near Jalland Street. These are all within easy walking distance for residents in Garden Village. In addition to this the main local supermarket for residents in Garden Village is ASDA at The Mount Retail Park (in the middle of Drypool ward). There has recently been a new retail development built on Holderness Road opposite The Mount. Garden Village is deemed to be so much a part of the community that this development serves that the Garden Village Society were specifically invited to comment on the proposals.

Garden Village is well linked by public transport to the rest of Drypool ward and the amenities within it. Both the number 9 and number 50 bus services connect Garden Village with Mount Pleasant, the shops on Holderness Road, The Mount Retail Park and other streets within the ward. These buses are well used by many in the area – not just in Garden Village, but the wider Drypool ward. In recent years the future of these services has been put in doubt. They have been saved partly because they serve communities within the same ward – and we as local councillors have been able to ensure that residents were properly consulted.

The ten foot between Laburnum and Westcott are clear boundaries that people locally identify with. If any change has to be made to the Drypool ward boundary with Holderness ward then the most sensible solution would be to move Pavilion Close and the Liberty Green developments into Holderness ward. These are relatively new developments, which face onto Chamberlain Road and have weaker links to the rest of Drypool ward than Garden Village does. As evidence of this, the funding the council received from the Liberty Green development has been allocated to amenities within the current Holderness ward, rather than Drypool ward.

In summary implementing the proposed changes to the Drypool ward boundary with Holderness ward would, I feel, create an boundary that local people do not identify with. By removing most of Garden Village from Drypool ward and replacing it with streets to the north side of Chamberlain Road would make the ward overall much more fragmented. Those streets (including Rockford and Lorraine) are a whole different community that has little to link it with the rest of Drypool ward. There are no bus routes connecting it, it does not share the same local shops or facilities and their children attend a different primary school (whose own catchment area would be split by the proposals).

For all these reasons I feel strongly that you should not move Garden Village into Holderness ward. The large scale change that has been proposed to the established and effective ward boundaries is simply unnecessary, as both Drypool and Holderness wards fall within the quote size without any changes.

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Councillor Maria Coward Sent: 03 March 2017 19:01 To: reviews Subject: boothferry/pickering ward Hull

Dear Review officer

I am writing regarding th recent review of the Hull Boundaries. I am currently the Boothferry ward councillor and I live in the pickering ward Hull

I ask that the proposed new boundaries remain the same to what has been suggested as wat has been suggested makes perfect sense for the residents in both these areas. kindest regards

-- Cllr Maria Coward Boothferry Ward West Hull & Hessle Lib Dems

Please allow up to 48 hours for a reply

1 Subject: Hull City Council – Response to Consultation on Draft Recommendations

To whom it may concern,

I’m writing as one of the councillors for the Holderness ward in Hull about the proposed changes to the boundaries of the ward.

I am pleased that you have decided to keep the majority of Holderness ward intact. The streets that make up this ward share many facilities – including bus routes, leisure facilities and, of course, East Park.

However, the southern boundary with Drypool ward that has been proposed cuts a number of communities into two. Whilst I recognise you need to make the numbers add up so that each ward is of equal size, I feel strongly that it can be done in a better way here than has been proposed.

Your proposal mentions that the Kathleen Road area is being moved into Drypool ward. I understand that you’ve taken this from Labour’s proposal but they’ve actually got this wrong, Kathleen Road is already in Drypool. I wouldn’t want to see an unnecessary change made due to an error in their original plans.

The streets that are actually proposed to move from Holderness into Drypool are Lorraine Street, Mayville, Rockford, Lamorna and Brendon Avenues – on the north side of Chamberlain Road (referred to below as “the five streets”). This is an unwelcome change which would see communities divided and unclear boundaries established.

By moving these five streets from Holderness to Drypool you a putting the boundary line right through the middle of the Stoneferry community. These five streets share many facilities with the other streets that make up Stoneferry (Glebe Road, Leads Road and Foredyke Avenue to name a few).

People on the five streets shop at the same local shops as people on Leads, Glebe and Foredyke – both on Chamberlain Road and on the corner of Summergangs Road. So much so that we fought to get a new footpath that better connects these streets to the shops, across Rockford Playing Fields.

There are several leisure facilities in the area that people on the five streets use and share with other streets to the north of Chamberlain Road. These include the Rockford Playing Fields (between Rockford, Glenwood, Hathersage and Lindengate) and the Pelican Park facilities.

The proposed boundary also cuts the catchment area for Stoneferry Primary School into two. The majority of the children from the five streets attend Stoneferry Primary, which is at the heart of the Stoneferry community. They do not attend schools to the south of Chamberlain Road. This is a very busy main road at school opening and closing times.

In moving the five streets from Holderness ward into Drypool ward you are proposing to move most of Garden Village from Drypool ward into Holderness ward. Garden Village is a very distinct community, with its own conservation area – which again is cut into two by your proposals.

Garden Village would be very much “out on a limb” in the proposed new Holderness ward. There is little to link Garden Village to the rest of the proposed ward, in terms of shared facilities. There are no roads that connect it fully to the rest of the proposed ward without travelling into the proposed new Drypool ward anyway. Similarly, the five streets are not well linked to the rest of the proposed new Drypool ward, either by roads or by public transport.

It is quite clear that the current boundary between Drypool and Holderness wards (between Laburnum Avenue and Westcott Street) works better as an identifiable boundary between communities. Leaving the boundary in the area it is would work better in terms of the two wards being the right size.

My strong preference would also be to leave the border where it is down Chamberlain Road – this avoids unnecessary change and both wards fall within the quota. However, if you feel very strongly that you have to even up the electorates between the two wards further, then including Liberty Green and Pavilion Close, off the south side of Chamberlain Road in Holderness ward, would be a more effective way of doing it than taking Garden Village away from its natural community.

Please reconsider your proposals and try to keep to the current boundary between Drypool and Holderness wards. It would have no impact on the numbers in any other ward, but would ensure that clearly defined communities are not unnecessarily divided. It would also make for more efficient and effective representation of the area as it would lead to less unnecessary change.

Thank you,

Cllr Jackie Dad

As a councillor for the Drypool ward on Hull City Council I am writing to give my feedback on the proposed changes to the council ward boundaries.

Whilst the proposed boundaries to the west, south and east of Drypool ward make sense (the Rivers Hull and Humber and Newbridge Road are all natural community boundaries) the proposed northern boundary does not make community sense.

The place where the boundary has been drawn between Drypool and Holderness wards cuts the Garden Village Conservation Area into two. It divides the Church of England parish of Drypool. It cuts the primary school catchments of Stoneferry, Mersey and Buckingham Primary Schools across two wards and fails to take into account where people in the area go to the shops, use facilities or where is connected by public transport.

Garden Village was built by the Reckitts family for the workers at their factory. Its housing style is different to that of other streets around it, which is one of the main reasons it first became a conservation area. If the boundary is drawn where it has been proposed then the planning conservation area will be divided. I sit on the Council’s Planning Committee and am aware of numerous planning issues specific to Garden Village. It is not in the interests of Garden Village, or the residents who live there and the Garden Village Society to be split between two wards in this way. The interests of the community are much more likely to be protected if it remains entirely within Drypool ward, rather than being split.

The Church of England parish of Drypool is a long and established church in our community. I live on Victoria Dock, at the other end of the current Drypool ward to Garden Village. Victoria Dock and Garden Village are the sites of the two main churches of the Drypool Parish (Victoria Dock Village Hall and St Columba’s on Laburnum Avenue). The church does a lot of good work within the Drypool ward, drawing parishioners from across the area. To move St Columba’s and much of Garden Village into another ward would unnecessarily divide up the parish.

Because of links like the church and local primary schools, Garden Village has much more to do, and much more in common, with the streets off Holderness Road that are in Drypool ward. Most children in Garden Village go to Mersey Primary School, which also serves streets including Mersey, Derwent, Severn, Durham, Endymion and Alaska Streets. Again, it is not in the interests of the school community to be split across two wards in this way. There is a similar issue for Stoneferry Primary School in Holderness ward, whose catchment would also be divided by the proposed changes.

I have been involved in trying to support more library provision in the Holderness Road area, after cut backs to our local library service. Residents from Victoria Dock, Garden Village and the streets off Holderness Road inbetween, all use the council’s library at The Mount Retail Park. We’ve had to fight hard to keep this facility. This fight has been helped enormously by the fact that the vast majority of the users live within the Drypool ward.

If the majority of Garden Village is moved into a different ward then residents there will not be able to as easily voice concerns about the facilities they use, like the library. By moving the ward boundaries they would be living in a different ward, that is on a different Council Area Committee to the council facilities they use. This would hamper their ability to raise issues with the relevant Area Team and councillors. Another good example of this problem is the local bus services. The 9 and 50 services both connect Garden Village with the Holderness Road shopping area in Drypool ward. When they have been threatened in the past residents have been able to raise their concerns with

1 the relevant Area Team and bus groups that cover the whole of the ward. Splitting off Garden Village risks diluting the community’s voice to argue to protect its local services and facilities.

For the reasons stated above I feel this proposed change fails to properly reflect community identity or the interests of the local community. It does not draw a strong boundary, nor does it reflect where people in the affected area travel to work, go to school, shop or which facilities they use.

A much better solution would be to leave the boundary between Drypool and Holderness wards running between Laburnum Avenue and Westcott Street, whilst retaining the streets off Chamberlain Road in Holderness ward. This would leave both wards within the quota for the number of electors, avoid an unnecessary change and ensure identifiable communities can be more effectively represented.

Yours sincerely,

Cllr Diana Hatcher

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of myself and my two Ward colleagues Cllrs. Mancey and Jones to object to the proposal contained in your recent draft Boundary Review report to create a new Ward of Beverley & Sculcoates which will incorporate a significant segment of the existing Myton Ward, which we currently represent, namely the Fountain Road estate, to the east of Beverley Road and the west of the River Hull.

Having represented this area for almost thirty years and living in the Ward for the whole of that time, I believe I have as good an appreciation of its demographics and geographic features as anyone is likely to and certainly greater than that produced by speedy perusal of a map or a quick drive around the area concerned. Your rationale seems to be that Beverley Road is in itself, along its length from the city centre to the northern city boundary a connecting factor linking communities and giving them a common identity. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Fountain Road estate, since its creation in the late 1960/70's following extensive slum clearance projects, has essentially turned its back on the road and most shopping, leisure and cultural activity focuses on the connection south to the city centre across Freetown Way. From many parts of the estate this distance is walkable in five to fifteen minutes and Freetown Way does not provide a barrier of any significance, being crossable at many points. In contrast, it is only possible to access Beverley Road from the estate at a couple of points, Brunswick Avenue and Fountain Road itself, at either extremity of the estate. One of the reasons for the decline of business activity along this stretch of Beverley Road has been this isolation from its adjoining community and whilst our recent efforts via the Heritage Lottery funding we have acquired to reverse this decline are aimed at addressing this problem, our efforts have by no means yet borne fruit.

The estate, unlike others in Myton, South Spring Bank, and Thornton the largest examples but also the smaller, more isolated pockets of social housing to the west of Beverley Road in its southern extremity, has retained a largely white British, working class character, with many families multi‐generational, living close to each other and with a presence in the area since before the slum clearance programmes, prior to which the area had been largely one of inward, frequently Irish immigration. This is in sharp contrast the the area immediately north, Sculcoates proper to the north of Station Road and the former railway line. The railway line was always a barrier between these two parts of the city and despite having been taken up almost fifty years ago, this very clearly remains the case. North of the railway line a pattern of Victorian/Edwardian streets and housing remains, largely due to the fact that these were once of higher quality than the slum dwellings further south. Now some of the worst housing conditions in the city are to be found here, with a predominance of private landlords and eastern European migrants and lower rental student accommodation compared with that closer to the University. The contrast with the higher quality of accommodation and environment provided by the mainly Council‐owned social housing of Fountain Road is quite stark and there is almost no connectivity between the two areas, either socially, or in terms of patterns of activity such as shopping or work patterns.

The contrast with the northern stretch of Beverley Road is even more stark as we enter what is in effect, in terms of Hull demographics within its tight external boundary, suburbia. This is very much a middle class/professional area with some student accommodation in its extreme southern portion next to Cottingham Road but otherwise a significantly wealthier neighbourhood than Fountain Road, with higher car ownership, significantly greater incomes and generally looking for shopping and leisure to the newer opportunities provided around Kingswood and further afield even beyond the city boundaries to adjoining Beverley.

In effect you are trying to cobble together a totally artificial Ward with no social or geographic connections between its three very markedly different portions, joined merely by the fact that an A‐road passes through them all. 1

Whilst it would be perfectly possible to recompose the Myton Ward, since it is composed of four reasonably distinct communities, self‐contained to some extent but linked by proximity to the city centre, in fact they do have a great deal in common socio‐economically and demographically, with a predominance of social housing, largely owned by the City Council and a commonality of interest because of that. If any area of the Ward is more aberrant it is actually the Victorian Streets of North Spring Bank, to the west of Freehold Street which are characterised by owner occupation, private landlordism and an increasing predominance of houses in multiple occupation housing many new migrants in a similar way to Sculcoates north of Station Road. The further west one proceeds along North Spring Bank, the greater the equivalence to the housing found in the southern portion of Avenue Ward, with the exception of the one street of fairly new social housing, Council‐owned in Middleton Street. It would actually make much more sense, given their similarities to carve these streets out of Myton, if the Commission felt its population had to be reduced.

In summary, we object strongly to your proposal to remove the Fountain Road estate from Myton Ward, it makes no sense in terms of the area's community connections and it makes the remaining Myton Ward less coherent. The proposal to make up Myton's numbers by the addition of a few streets on the eastern end of Hessle Road equally makes no sense, those streets having a totally different character to the Thornton Estate and being separated from it by the very significant barrier of Rawlings Way.

Regards Councillor Colin Inglis Myton Ward Councillor Hull City Council

Your Ref: My Ref: KM/LH Local Government Boundary Commission Tel: for England Fax: 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Email: Millbank Date: 30 January 2017 London SW1P 4QP

Dear Boundary Commission,

I am a local Councillor for the Beverley Ward in Hull and have been since 2008.

I have looked at your draft Ward Boundaries for my Ward and wanted to let you know my views on your proposals as a Councillor for that area.

I support your proposed Beverley & Sculcoates Ward – I think Beverley Road is a clear and simple boundary that is well understood by local people. You can get up and down it really easily – there are loads of bus services along the route. It also makes the numbers balance well to even out the number of voters per Councillor.

People living the full length of Beverley Road have a shared interest in what goes on all the way up and down it. People at the top end are always asking me about things like Beverley Road Baths and empty shops further down Beverley Road. We have a bus service, the No:21, that runs around the Fountain Road estate and the Trafalgar/Mizzen Road Estate, so people on those two estates have a shared service.

I really do think there should NOT be any Wards that cross the river Hull. It is a big natural and community boundary in Hull. You have done the right thing with that, even if it means having a mix of two and three Councillor Wards.

You have also done the right thing not to mix bits of the current Beverley Ward with Orchard Park. People in Beverley Ward feel very strongly that they are a different area and Beverley Road is a big dividing line.

Please keep this Beverley & Sculcoates Ward in your final proposals, as I believe it works well for this area.

Cont.

Hull City Council, The Guildhall, Alfred Gelder Street, Hull HU1 2AA www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 However, I am concerned about the fact that people living on Downfield Avenue, Tudor Drive and The Queensway are being put in with Orchard Park. People living around Tesco in this area feel very strongly that they are in a different community from Orchard Park. It would make much more sense to put these people in with University Ward, along with people living off the other big roads that open onto Beverley Road like Inglemire Lane and Endike Lane.

The other Councillor for Beverley Ward and I have spent years working hard to get a new park created off Endike Lane and for a “Green Corridor” to be opened up along the eastern side of Beverley and Barmston Drain when the school was built on part of the Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields. The new park off Endike Lane and the footpaths etc. were put in to make up for the green space lost when the school was built. The people on Tudor Drive and The Queensway lost out most in terms of green space – so it makes sense that they are put in the same Ward as the “green corridor” was created for them.

In summary:-  In your final proposals, please keep the Beverley and Sculcoates Ward as you proposed it in January 2017;  Please put Tudor Drive, The Queensway and Downfield Avenue in with the Princess Elizabeth Playing Fields and University Ward – please do not put them in Orchard Park.

With best wishes

CLLR KAREN MATHIESON LIBERAL DEMOCRAT COUNCILLOR, BEVERLEY WARD cc Councillor D McCobb – Beverley Ward

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Payne Cheryl (Councillor) Sent: 03 March 2017 14:40 To: reviews Subject: Hull Boundary Review

Importance: High

Dear Review Officer for Hull

I am writing to you as one of the Councillors for Derringham Ward, I also happen to live in the Ward on .

I’ve looked at the draft recommendations, published on 10 January 2017 and I wanted you to know that I support them.

I support the proposal for Derringham Ward. I think the proposed Ward would be good for local communities and has sensible clear boundaries. However, there is a real divide between the proposed Derringham and Wyke Wards, with the railway line separating them.

It makes sense that the whole of Wold Road is in one Ward. The expansion into Boothferry Ward is the only obvious answer to getting better electoral equality.

The community north and south of County Road share a lot of things in common, they both go to Fred Moore Library, use the same buses and shop at the local parade of shops.

I know many people in my area would agree with the proposed Derringham Ward.

More generally, I also agree with you that the River Hull is a divide between communities.

In summary, please keep the Derringham Ward as you proposed on 10 January 2017.

Kind regards

Cheryl Payne Councillor – Derringham Ward

Tel Nos: 613631/615098/07983639154

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

Your Ref: My Ref: MR/BCR Tel: Fax: Email:

Date: 3rd March 2017 Review Officer – Kingston upon Hull Local Government Boundary Commission for England 14th Floor, Millbank Tower Millbank London

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing in response to the proposals presented for the new ward arrangements for Hull City Council, as presented in January 2017. There are a number of comments I have to make, both in support of the proposals and where I would be seeking small changes to the proposals.

Firstly, I support the position reached by the LGBCE that the river Hull is a boundary that should not be crossed for any ward, at any point in the city. The city of Hull has always had clear division between east and west Hull. This should be taken into account when it comes to the wards for the council.

Having come to that position, I recognise that this necessitates the need for a limited number of two member wards. Accepting that, I do believe they should be kept to the absolute minimum. The proposal to have only three in the city is, therefore, sensible.

I have been a councillor for the Newland Ward since it as first created back at the 2002 election. As you will be aware the ward covers both the streets either side of Newland Avenue, north of the railway line, as well as areas to the east of Beverley Road. Throughout this time it has always been clear that the areas either side of Beverley Road are different communities.

The issues, interests and demographics of the population either side of Beverley Road are very different from one another. When producing newsletters for the ward, I have often produced different versions for either side of Beverley Road, as the casework and issues in the Sculcoates Lane area, for example, is off little relevance or interest to residents living in the streets off Newland Avenue.

The two halves of the ward have different community and resident groups. There is a long established ‘Newland Residents Group’, that covers the streets off Newland Avenue. There has also in the past been a group specifically for the Sculcoates area, on

Hull City Council, The Guildhall, Alfred Gelder Street, Hull HU1 2AA www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 the east side of Beverley Road. In recent months a residents group covering the streets north of Ryde Street, east of Beverley Road and south of Clough Road, has also been established.

Given the above, I believe the decision to include the Newland Avenue community within a new Wyke Ward, coupled with the decision to include the streets to the east of Beverley Road in a new Beverley and Sculcoates Ward, is a sensible one.

I recognise that the Commission feel that Cottingham Road is a dividing line. Given this, it is logical to put the streets off Newland Avenue in the proposed Wyke Ward. This decision also re-unites Goddard Avenue into one ward, after it was split between Newland and Bricknell wards in the previous review. The recently built Scholars Drive development off Cottingham Road, at the edge of Newland Ward, is similar in nature to parts of the neighbouring Newland Park, in Bricknell Ward, being modelled at the time on the neighbouring street. Again these communities would be united by the proposed Wyke Ward.

Like many people in the Newland Avenue area, I first moved to Hull as a student. Apart from during my first year, in 2000, I have for the whole of that period lived within what would become the new Wyke Ward. As a student I lived on Alexandra Road, off Newland Avenue and, since graduating, have lived in both the Goddard Avenue and Chanterlands Avenue North areas.

For many graduates of Hull University this is quite a common path to take. There is a natural movement of people within the proposed ward, with many people moving from the Newland Avenue area to the more suburban streets to the immediate west off Bricknell Avenue and Chanterlands Avenue North.

Many residents of the current Bricknell Ward visit Newland Avenue on a regular basis. It is one of the main shopping and leisure areas in this part of Hull and a popular destination for people across the HU5 area. Before the last boundary review much of the Newland Avenue area was included in the same ward as the current Bricknell Ward. I also believe there are residents in the Bricknell area who have taken a keen interest in the Newland Avenue area. As an example, the Facebook page, “Newland Avenue:Its Rubbish”, while dedicated to the Newland Avenue area, was established by a Bricknell resident. Likewise, Newland Park clearly links in with Newland Avenue, given a common history, and would be sensible to see the two areas contained within the one ward.

As with the proposed Wyke Ward (which is similar to the old Newland Ward of pre 2002) the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates Ward is not dissimilar to the previous Beverley Ward that existed before the last boundary review. That ward worked well for the communities to the east Beverley Road, who are united by their local shops, bus services and playing fields – such as Oak Road, which is used by residents on both sides of Clough Road.

The Fountain Road area, currently in Myton Ward, has much in common with the Sculcoates area of the current Newland Ward. In my time as a local councillor for Sculcoates I have picked up many issues relating to both communities, particularly around flytipping and security on the old railway line, which is now a cycle path (the is the current Newland/Myton boundary). The housing type on streets like May, Suffolk and Vermont is similar to that of Pendrill and St Hilda’s further to the south. Uniting all of these streets into one ward makes sense.

It is also evident, from the consultation we have carried out in the Fountain Road area, that there is significant support from residents for the proposal. Most of the respondents believe that the area has more in common with Beverley Road than with the city centre area. I would agree with this view. In keeping with the arguments in favour of the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates Ward, using Beverley Road as a boundary, I feel a similar change could also be made to the proposed University Ward. The existing proposal sees the Downfield Avenue and Tudor Drive areas becoming part of the Orchard Park Ward. I believe a more sensible arrangement would be to see this area, using Barmston Drain as a border as far as Inglemire Lane, included in a University Ward. The Tudor Drive area looks more to the south and the Princess Elizabeth playing fields than it does to the Orchard Park estate. This would also lead to Orchard Park Ward being better focused on the Orchard Park and North Hull Estates.

I support the proposals for Avenue Ward, presenting little change to the current ward. There is clear support from both the local community and political groups for the ward. It has clearly identifiable community interests, many of which use local points of interest, such as Pearson Park, Pearson Avenue and Chanterlands Avenue. There is little argument in favour of making changes to this ward, so I was pleased to see the proposal that came forward.

I would like to make a comment on the Kingswood area as I believe there are improvements that can be made here to the current proposals. The Kingswood area is a clearly identifiable and growing community. It would be sensible if this was reflected in the warding arrangement for the council. I do believe this is possible, making moderate changes to the proposed Kingswood, North Carr and West Carr wards. This would also meet the approval I believe of the local community, many of whom were concerned to see the proposal to split Kingswood.

A three member ward covering the whole of the Kingswood Area Action Plan area should be possible, if the two member ward in that area becomes the West Carr Ward – which would also give that ward a stronger focus around the Sutton Park community.

I also believe there should be minor changes made to the proposals relating to the Holderness and Drypool wards. These relate principally to the Garden Village and Stoneferry communities, which have been unnaturally split by the proposals. Garden Village is a distinct community that has always been a part of the Drypool area and the Drypool Ward. It has a conservation area, which on the proposed boundaries has been split between the two wards. It has much more in common with the rest of Drypool Ward than it does with Holderness Ward. Residents in Garden Village use the shops and facilities within Drypool Ward and they are also better connected to the rest of that ward by bus routes. It would be sensible to leave Garden Village within Drypool Ward, which I believe would meet with strong support from residents in the area.

Likewise, the Stoneferry community has been split between Holderness Ward and Drypool Ward. This community sits much better wholly within Holderness Ward – and this could be done, along a boundary similar to the existing one, without either ward being far away from the required quota.

In the west of the city, I believe the proposals concerning Pickering, Boothferry and Derringham are sensible. These areas contain clearly identifiable communities and the small changes proposed to the existing wards by the Commission are in line with these. With the intention of limiting the number of two member wards to the minimum, the proposals in Pickering, Boothferry and Derrigham are sensible. This includes the decision to unite the Gipsyville estate within one ward, which is a sensible one. That community has much more in common with the other communities in Pickering Ward than with those in any other ward, sharing local parks, shops and bus routes.

In summary, I broadly support the position adopted by the LGBCE in relation to Hull. The River Hull is clearly a community boundary and recognising that leads to the requirement for some two member wards. I would urge the LGBCE to retain the proposed Beverley & Sculcoates and Wyke wards. I would ask them to consider making amendments to their proposed Drypool and Holderness boundary; the Kingswood, West Carr and North Carr boundaries, and; the University and Orchard Park boundary.

Yours sincerely,

COUNCILLOR MIKE ROSS LEADER OF LIBERAL DEMOCRAT GROUP HULL CITY COUNCIL

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Gill Janine Sent: 06 March 2017 17:07 To: reviews Subject: FW: Boundary Review - Ward Boundary Proposals for Hull

Importance: High

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

From: Gill Janine Sent: 06 March 2017 17:03 To: '[email protected]' Subject: Boundary Review - Ward Boundary Proposals for Hull Importance: High

Dear Review Panel

We as ward councillors for St Andrew’s Ward are writing to strongly object to the proposed Newington and St Andrew’s Ward re-warding as this proposal would split Hull’s Hessle Road, a much favoured community. This proposal has caused a genuine upset in this community amongst traders, residents and former fishermen and their families. The boundary will split the roads where memorial “bethel boards” are being fitted in May 2017 listing Hull’s dead fishermen. It would also split the areas where there is presently the country’s first Section222 for a prohibition prostitution zone that has been a roaring success and we would not wish to undermine this initiative. Hessle Road flyover to flyover has to be seen as an entity and we would support this ward as part of a docklands ward along with the Thornton Estate and the Marina.

As a former Councillor for the Myton Ward we also strongly oppose the Beverley and Sculcoates ward which cuts Fountain Road estate away from Myton and joins it with the suburban parts of Beverley Road. There are no linkages between these areas and we again urge the Boundary Commission to revisit this Ward Boundary as Fountain Road Estate should be in a Ward with Spring Bank, a ward which recognises the emerging bame diversity that is found in this part of Hull.

Thank you for your consideration.

Councillor Daren Hale Councillor Nadine Fudge

Janine Gill Members’ Support Officer Town Clerk’s Service 1 Resources Directorate Hull City Council Room 55 The Guildhall Alfred Gelder Street KINGSTON UPON HULL HU1 2AA

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

Your Ref: My Ref: CT/LH Local Government Boundary Commission Tel: for England 14th Floor Millbank Tower Fax: Millbank Email: LONDON Date: 27 February 2017 SW1P 4QP

Dear Sir or Madam

Re: Consultation on Local Government Boundaries for Hull

I am writing as a Councillor for Pickering ward in Hull, to support the proposed new Ward boundaries in West Hull.

In particular, for Pickering Ward I believe it is important to keep Boothferry Estate together in the west of the Ward. Although the estate is split by Boothferry Road, there is a sense of community between the two areas, not just with the name, but also by the common use of Sirius Academy and Pickering Park. Keeping Rokeby Park also within that area makes sense as people living there use the local shops on Sibelius Road (part of Boothferry Estate), and Boothferry Estate and the Rokeby Park area join together via Quilter Avenue and Newsham Garth.

In the East of the Ward I support the proposal to join Gipsyville together in the new Pickering Ward. People who live in Gipsyville see themselves as one community, whereas at the moment this community is split down the middle. The main community centre for the area is Gipsyville Multipurpose Centre and library (run by PANDA - the Pickering and Newington Development Association), which serves both sides of Gipsyville, and when I talk to people about the area most people do not see why the estate is currently split between the two Wards. There are also strong links between this area and other parts of the Ward. For example, many people living on Summergroves or the southern end of Pickering Road use Gipsyville library, and the Oaks Medical Centre not only serves Gipsyville, but also Boothferry Estate and areas between, as there are no other local GP surgeries.

Moving the Shires streets from the current Pickering Ward to the new Newington and St Andrews Ward also makes sense. The type of housing is similar to the predominant housing in Newington and St Andrews, along with the associated issues that go along with them. For example, there are a lot of private rented properties with high turnover of tenants; there are problems with fly-tipping in tenfoots along the straight terraces of housing and so this area seems a better fit with the houses in Newington and St Andrews. Certainly it seems much more beneficial to bring the 2 sides of Gipsyville together in one Ward where the housing type is similar, and the estate is seen as one community.

Hull City Council, The Guildhall, Alfred Gelder Street, Hull HU1 2AA www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 The centre of the wider local community that covers the whole of the proposed Pickering Ward is Pickering Park (which also means that keeping the name Pickering Ward is very appropriate). Pickering Park is used by people from the whole Ward including Summergroves, Boothferry Estate, the Pickering Road area and Gipsyville. An example of this is the Friends of Pickering Park Group, which has members living on Gipsyville, Hessle Road, Pickering Road and Boothferry estate. It is also next door to Sirius Academy, which is the school that the vast majority of school pupils in the Ward attend.

Moving Peter Pan Park/Costello Playing Fields, including Costello View, into Boothferry Ward also makes sense. Boothferry Councillors have traditionally used their Local Ward Budget to fund improvements to that Park as it is used by so many people from Boothferry Ward. Part of the park is in the conservation area that includes the Anlaby Park area, and so linking it back together in Boothferry Ward makes sense.

As well as being the Councillor for Pickering Ward for eight years, I also served as Chair of West Area Committee for 4 years and stood in the general election for West Hull in 2015, and so I know the wider west Hull area well.

For the wider west Hull area, it is good to see that the proposals maintain the clear separation along the Hull to Cottingham railway line between Derringham Ward and the new Wyke Ward. The communities on either side of this line are distinct, and driving over the flyover at County Road North very much feels like you are driving from one distinct area to another.

On the basis that Derringham Ward needs to grow, and there are not many ways it can due to the city boundary, and the border along the railway line, extending Derringham along Wold Road makes a lot of sense, given that most of Wold Road is already in Derringham Ward.

Extending Boothferry Ward by including Parkfield, Springfield, Northfield and Wold Carr Roads is also logical, this area of housing is much more similar to the neighbouring Roslyn and Meadowbank Roads which are already in Boothferry Ward, than the roads to the south of Anlaby Road such as Hawthorne Avenue. The houses in Boothferry Ward and to the north of Anlaby Road are more suburban, for example with front gardens or parking areas, in comparison to the more inner-city style terraces on Plane Street or Glencoe Street.

Yours sincerely

COUNCILLOR CLAIRE THOMAS LIBERAL DEMOCRAT COUNCILLOR, PICKERING WARD

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Claire Thomas Sent: 04 March 2017 19:02 To: reviews Subject: Consultation response for Hull local boundary changes

I have already sent you a response for the area I represent in my role at as a Councillor for Pickering ward, however I wanted to also send some comments about the area that I live, on Goddard Avenue

My feeling is that the proposed Wyke ward is a good proposal, as it maintains the community that is Newland Avenue, at the same time as bringing it together with the area to the West- Chanterlands Avenue- which to me feels like part of the same community.

Living on Goddard Avenue, it feels an awkward split to have each half of the road in different wards at the moment. Residents across the span of Goddard Avenue use the shops, bars and restaurants on Newland Avenue- it is the natural shopping centre for people to use. Indeed, the Newland Avenue area is a popular shopping area for people across the Eastern side of the current Bricknell ward.

In addition, the proposed Wyke ward encompasses a large part of the University community. When I first moved to my current address it was when I studied, then worked at the University, and I chose this area because of its proximity to the University and because of the University community living in the area.

The boundaries of the proposed ward are, I feel, very clear. Cottingham Road is a clear boundary, and one recognised by many as a dividing point and marker. Beverley Road is also a clear dividing point, and one of the best known roads in the city so a clear boundary line. The railway line to the south is also a clear dividing line, and makes a good. recognisable boundary.

A final point on the proposed Beverley and Sculcoates ward. I work at a premises based on Beverley Rd, near the Fountain Rd estate. This area certainly feels a part of the Beverley Rd community, looking north towards the Sculcoates area rather than a part of the City Centre. People are more likely to walk north if they want to pop to a shop than to walk into the city centre. Therefore I support the proposal for this ward too.

Yours, Claire Thomas

-- Claire Thomas Lib Dem Councillor, Pickering Ward

1 I wish to raise my concerns about the proposed changes to the ward boundaries in Hull, between Drypool and Holderness wards.

I am one of the local councillors for the current Holderness ward. I grew up in the area and feel I have a good grasp of the communities in the area and where the boundaries between communities are that people identify with.

Your proposals involve keeping the majority of the Holderness ward intact. I agree with you that the River Hull is a very clear boundary and wards should not cross it – I can’t think of anywhere in Hull where there is a natural community that crosses over the river. I also agree that the Ings Road and Holderness Road boundaries make sense. These are clear main roads that separate the communities in Holderness ward from distinct communities on the other side of those roads – like the Ings and Preston Road estates.

My concerns though are related to the southern boundary of the proposed ward, which have been redrawn behind Rockford Avenue, down the middle of James Reckitt Avenue and through various “tenfoots” around Mersey Primary School. These are not clear community boundaries – infact they divide in half two very distinct east Hull communities.

One of those is Garden Village, currently in Drypool ward. This community is a conservation area, with very distinct issues and identities. It has its own bus routes connecting it to the rest of Drypool ward and the shops within it. It looks very much to the southwest, sharing schools like Mersey and Buckingham Primaries with other parts of Drypool ward. It shares little in common with the communities in Holderness ward. The proposed boundary cuts the Garden Village conservation area into two, splitting it across both wards. Whilst not a councillor for that community, I can see that doing this could have a detrimental impact on how well the council is able to represent that community. I feel it is better left in Drypool ward in its entirety.

The other community divided by the proposals is one I know more about, which is the Stoneferry community, having represented it as one of their councillors.

The Stoneferry community is made up of a number of streets that run alongside Chamberlain Road, Stoneferry Road and Leads Road. Your proposals would see the streets off Chamberlain Road and a couple of Stoneferry Road moved into Drypool ward. As with the division of Garden Village I feel this would make it much more difficult for this community to be well represented by the council.

Stoneferry Primary School is the focal point for the Stoneferry community. It’s catchment area covers the streets to both the north and south of it. It is the only real public building in the area and is well used, not just by pupils, but by residents from all over the Chamberlain Road and Stonefery Road areas. We hold resident meetings in the school for residents from Lorraine Street, Mayville Avenue and the Rockford Avenue area, as well as for those on Lindengate, Glebe Road and Foredyke Avenue. The boundary line proposed cuts that whole area, including the school catchment area, in two ‐ with the boundary line drawn right next to Stoneferry Primary.

A wider Stoneferry Residents Group, covering all of Leads Road, Stoneferry Road and Chamberlain Road streets, is currently in the process of being set up. This is as a result of the shared issues faced by residents in all of these streets. They are all similar housing types, suffer from shared issues around deprivation, flytipping and crime around the cycle paths.

All these streets share the same few local green spaces (like Rockford Fields and the areas around the Foredyke cycle track). Drawing the line where it has been proposed divides this green space away from Rockford Avenue and the other avenues off Chamberlain Road – and the residents who live there and use these facilities.

There are huge issues on Stoneferry Road, between Chamberlain Road to the south and Sutton Road to the north, with congestion and poor air quality. Currently this whole area is within the Holderness ward and, as a result, we and the community have been able to effectively lobby the Council to press for funding for a major traffic scheme to try and alleviate the problems. It is vital, if this is to succeed, that this whole community can speak as one voice, but your proposals would divide it and make this more difficult.

Looking at your overall plans I believe that a small change can be made to the Drypool/Holderness ward boundary, that keeps Stoneferry united in Holderness ward and Garden Village united within Drypool ward. This can be done without having an impact on any of the other proposed wards – whilst at the same time ensuring that these two communities are not divided unnecessarily.

I hope you will take on board my thoughts and reconsider. I feel it is my duty as a local councillor for the Stoneferry area to make you aware of this issue and hope that it can be rectified for the benefit of the community I represent.

Councillor Linda Tock, Holderness ward, Hull City Council

This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses.

Website: www.hullcc.gov.uk Tel: 01482 300 300 Text Phone: 01482 300 349

2 or Madam,

I am writing regarding the draft ward recommendations for Hull City Council – and in-particular those concerning the proposed Drypool and Holderness wards.

I have lived in the current Drypool ward for many years – and have served as one of its local councillors. My home is in the Garden Village community, which on the draft recommendations has been split between the proposed Drypool and Holderness wards.

I support the decision of the Boundary Commission to leave the western and eastern boundaries of the Drypool ward as they are. The western boundary is the River Hull, which is a very strong dividing line for communities in the City – between west and east Hull. The eastern boundary of the ward, along Newbridge Road, is also a clear community divide, between the communities facing onto Holderness Road and those further east that look more towards Southcoates Lane and Preston Road.

However, I do not support the LGBCE’s proposal for the northern boundary between the Drypool and Holderness wards. My principal concern is that it divides Garden Village, a long-standing community with a very clear identity, into two.

Garden Village has very strong links with the current Drypool ward. I would like to see proposals brought forward that would see the boundary in the Garden Village area stay where it is. This would see Garden Village remain as one within Drypool ward.

I feel the draft recommendations of the 10 January 2017 fail to consider many critical factors, such as: a weak boundary, community identity, community groups, facilities, local interests, identifiable boundaries and transport links.

The proposed boundary between Drypool and Holderness wards runs down the centre of James Reckitt Avenue in Garden Village, as well as down several back “tenfoots” between Chestnut Grove, Derwent Street, Durham Street and Beech Avenue. This is not a clear community boundary. These streets are all very much part of the same community of Garden Village. Many of the houses on these streets were built as part of the original community by Reckitts. I know from my casework as a local councillor that the issues that impact on residents in these streets are strongly linked.

Given its historical and cultural identity, Garden Village is a Hull City Council conservation area. There is also a resident association – the Garden Village Society – which covers and represents the residents of the conservation area. The proposed boundary line of the draft recommendations divides that conservation area into two.

The vast majority of residents in Garden Village, myself included, use community facilities along the Holderness Road Shopping area – to the south west of Garden Village and within Drypool ward. These include the main local supermarket (ASDA), which is located at The Mount Retail Park, at the end of the shopping parade between Garden Village and Mount Pleasant.

When Garden Village’s local library was closed ten years ago, it was relocated to the same building as ASDA in Mount Pleasant. The library is a well-used community facility and used by many Garden Village residents (demonstrated by over 200 residents in Garden Village signing a petition recently against its reduced opening hours).

The Morrill Street Health Centre, on Morrill Street, off Holderness Road, is the main surgery for most people in Garden Village. The Balfour Community Centre, off Holderness Road, in Drypool ward is used regularly by residents from Garden Village – it has also been used in for resident meetings and consultations.

The nearest small convenience shops for many in Garden Village, other than those on Holderness Road, are located on Buckingham Street and Endymion Street in Drypool ward. On the draft recommendations, the facilities described above would end up in a different ward to most of the Garden Village community. Garden Village is not linked well with similar facilities in the proposed Holderness ward, either by public transport or by road links, whereas the facilities in the current Drypool ward are within walking distance.

The public transport links for Garden Village face southwest into the city centre and, therefore, through the rest of the current Drypool ward. The vast majority of residents in Garden Village travel in this direction to work, as well as to use community facilities.

Garden Village is strongly bound to the rest of the current Drypool ward by the legacy of Reckitts (later Reckitt and Benckiser) and the Reckitt family. Garden Village was originally built by James Reckitt, to house the workers from his nearby factory off Dansom Lane (located in Drypool ward). Many of my neighbours in Garden Village either work at Reckitts, or live in houses their parents or grandparents first moved into when they worked at Reckitts. The Clubhouse on Elm Avenue in Garden Village is still supported by Reckitt and Benckiser and is used on a regular basis by groups and residents from all over the current Drypool ward. The draft recommendations place the majority of Garden Village in Holderness ward and thereby separate it from Reckitts.

2 As a former school governor at Mersey Primary School, on the boundary of the proposed Drypool and Holderness wards, I know first-hand how much of a centre of the community this school is. It draws children from both Garden Village and the streets to its south west. The school, along with Buckingham Primary, has regularly used the Clubhouse on Elm Avenue for events. Again, the proposal to place most of Garden Village in Holderness ward, would divide this community.

There are many other community facilities that unite Garden Village with other parts of the current Drypool ward. These include the Church of England Parish of Drypool, which has churches at either end of the current ward (in Garden Village and Victoria Dock) and serves the community between them. The draft recommendations place the main church of the parish (St Columba’s on Laburnum Avenue) outside of Drypool ward and, as a result, in a different ward to the vast majority of the Drypool Church Parish.

The community to the north side of Chamberlain Road, which on the draft proposals would be moved into Drypool ward from Holderness ward, does not have strong community ties with the rest of Drypool ward. It is not possible to get from it to the rest of the proposed Drypool ward on public transport without travelling through Garden Village or the proposed Holderness ward. I know, from my work as a local councillor, that the issues in the Rockford and Lorraine Street areas to the north of Chamberlain Road are completely different to those faced by residents in the current Drypool ward – these include security issues around the Lamorna allotments and the maintenance of the Rockford playing fields, which are not facilities used by many residents in the current Drypool ward.

The streets to the north of Chamberlain Road (Brendon, Lamorna, Rockford, etc) are also served by the same primary school (Stoneferry Primary School) as streets including Foredyke Avenue and Glebe Road, which remain in the proposed Holderness ward. The proposed boundary splits that community and school catchment into two.

In summary, I firmly believe that Garden Village is a community and shouldn’t be split from the current Drypool ward. There is currently a very clear and identifiable boundary between the wards, running between Laburnum Avenue and Westcott Street, which should not be altered.

I hope you will consider all the points I have raised when coming to a decision about the boundary of the proposed Drypool and Holderness ward.

Yours sincerely,

Adam -- Councillor Adam Williams Drypool Ward, Hull City Council Email: