sign in sign up
<<
Home , Drypool, Sculcoates, Stoneferry

Local residents B submissions to the electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames beginning with B.

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

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Stephen Baker Sent: 01 March 2017 13:01 To: reviews Subject: Hull Boundary Review

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Review Officer,

My name is Stephen Baker and I now live at .

Between 2002 and 2010 I was a City Councillor for Holderness Ward and between 2010 and 2014 I was a councillor for Boothferry Ward. During that time (and for many years previously) I lived at off Holderness Road in East Hull. I have looked at your proposed revised ward boundaries and I wanted to give you feedback about these areas.

Holderness Ward

Where current wards fall within your electoral quota without needing major amendments, and there is no compelling need to change, then you should leave them as they are.

I don’t think the inclusion of Garden Village and the removal of parts of is a necessary change. In fact, it ends up splitting more communities than the current boundaries do.

I understand why you’ve decided to move the Tweekdykes area into Sutton and I can see the logic with that – people living off Tweendykes Lane do consider themselves to live in Sutton. Sutton Road makes a cleaner and more obvious natural boundary than the middle of Tweendykes, which is a residential street.

However the proposed changes to Stoneferry and Garden Village are unnecessary – and also not right for the communities in that area.

1 After serving 8 years as a councillor for this area, I know that the Stoneferry community consists of the newly built Lindengate Avenue estate, Leads Road and the streets off Leads Road (e.g. Glebe Road, Foredyke Avenue etc), then Mayville and Lorraine Street off Chamberlain Road and Stoneferry Road. Your proposal splits this area between the two wards, whereas it is all currently in Holderness.

I can see from reading the information on your website that you’ve taken this proposal from the Labour Party’s submission. However this submission is quite clearly factually wrong. It talks about moving the “Kathleen Road area” from Holderness into . In fact, the Kathleen Road area is already in Drypool, and always has been! By taking this suggestion you’ve ended up splitting the Stoneferry community up, rather than putting it back together.

Your draft proposals create a really messy and hard to understand boundary line between Drypool and Holderness. Derwent Street is half in Garden Village, and half not in Garden Village. The network of terraced streets around Barnsley Street and Buckingham Street interconnects with the Garden Village at Derwent Street / Lilac Avenue / Buckingham Street. It is very difficult to put a boundary In contrast, there is no direct connection between Westcott Street and Laburnum Avenue – which is what makes behind the houses on Laburnum Avenue such a good boundary.

Most kids in Garden Village go to Mersey Primary, not Westcott Primary – I should know as I used to live just a few doors away from Westcott Primary. Moving Garden Village would mean Garden Village kids aren’t in the same ward as their main primary school.

Finally – and critically! – the draft proposals split the Garden Village Conservation Area between the two wards. This doesn’t make any sense at all. The Council’s planning policies describe the boundaries of Garden Village in terms of the Conservation Area. All of that area should be in Drypool.

I think you should retain all of Stoneferry in Holderness, and all of Garden Village in Drypool. Garden Village is part of the historic Drypool parish; it was built by Reckitts and the Reckitts factory is in Drypool. Many people who work for Reckitts still live in the Garden Village and the company plans an important part of community life there. Keeping it in Drypool makes more sense than an unnecessary change. Keep the boundary lines between the two wards as they are now.

If you really have to make changes between the two wards to even out the electorates, then you could sensibly move the new Barratts development at Liberty Green (Simpson Crescent etc), Pavilion Close and the Chamberlain Business Centre industrial park from Drypool into Holderness, as then everyone whose access is off Chamberlain Road will be in the same ward. This would make a lot more sense on community grounds than making unnecessary massive changes around Garden Village.

Boothferry Ward

2

Having looked at the proposals, I support your proposed Boothferry Ward. It makes the minimum necessary changes with a small movement from Bootherry to Derringham and then Newington to Boothferry. The streets proposed to move into Boothferry from Newington make sense as Woldcarr Road, Parkfield Drive etc are exactly the same housing type as Roslyn Road, Cardigan Road and Meadowbank Road. The Derringham Bank estate is at the moment split between the two wards on the current boundaries and still will be, so there is no negative impact on communities there, and a positive one for people in the Woldcarr/Parkfield area who will be in the same ward as people with a shared interest around the cycle path and the Riley Way development. Once you get to Alliance Avenue the housing is of a much older and city centre type so the back of Alliance Avenue makes a good and logical boundary.

Thanks for taking the time to consider my feedback, which can best be summarised as:-

 Amend your plan to keep Stoneferry in Holderness and Garden Village in Drypool;  Keep Boothferry ward as you have proposed it .

Many thanks,

Stephen Baker

3 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Helen Barton Sent: 04 March 2017 12:33 To: reviews Subject: Kingston upon Hull Boundary Review

I refer to the Boundary review for the Kingston upon Hull area and having seen a map showing the proposals I felt obliged to object. The proposed Beverly and ward would appear to have no logic whatsoever in its creation, unless of course the proposers were seeking an entry in the Guiness Book of Records for the creation of the most disunited community ever!

Having lived in both the northern and southern extremes of this extremely elongated ward I can state categorically that it in no way forms a community, which I understood was one of the criteria behind the boundary changes. As a student I rented a flat in the southern part of the proposed ward and later my husband and I owned a house in Beverly High Road. The two areas and the communities within them could not have been more different.

Notwithstanding the ridiculous geographical length of the proposed ward, the needs and wishes of the communities at each end are very different and any councillor elected to represent the ward would be placed in the invidious position of being unable to provide satisfactory service to both groups of constituents.

The only other point I would make is that the proposed changes would split an area that is very much a community i.e Road. This, like the proposal for Beverly and Sculcoates would seem at variance with the stated wish to create wards representing existing communities.

I trust the above points will be taken into consideration before final decisions are made.

Helen Barton

Sent from my BlackBerry® PlayBook™ www.blackberry.com

1 Dear sir,

As a resident of the existing Beverley Ward I have read that under the Local Government Boundary Commission for proposals I will live in the proposed Beverley & Sculcoates ward. I agree with the proposal for a Beverley & Sculcoates ward as being the best solution for the area in which I have lived for 70 years. I would be disappointed if a revised ward crosses the river as it’s a big community divide in Hull and the Boundary Commission have got it right by not proposing any cross-river wards. Using Beverley Road as a boundary makes complete sense as there is little shared community interest between people living to the east of Beverley Road and Orchard Park/North Hull and personally I would not want to see the area between Beverley Road and the put in a ward that includes Orchard Park or North Hull. With the excellent transport links the full length of the proposed Beverley & Sculcoates ward means it would work well as a ward. As the proposed Beverley & Sculcoates ward is very similar to the existing Beverley ward there is a historical precedent for a ward roughly this shape/length, and this currently work well for the local residents.

Kind regards

John E Beadle

Sent from my iPad

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Abigail Bell Sent: 06 March 2017 12:10 To: reviews Subject: Proposals for Hull

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Boundary Commission for England

I recently dropped you a letter in my capacity as a Hull City Councillor about the area I represent on the Council. However, I also wanted to send you my thoughts on the areas of the city where I live and where I’ve lived over the twenty years I’ve lived in the city.

I first came to the city as a student, loved the area and stayed. Over those twenty years I’ve lived (in date order!) in the following places (for your info I’ve included in brackets which ward they’re currently in and where they fall under your draft proposals):-

(currently Beverley, proposed Beverley & Sculcoates) (currently and proposed Avenue ward) (currently and proposed Myton ward) currently Newland ward, proposed Wyke ward) (currently Bricknell ward, proposed Wyke ward) (currently and proposed Avenue ward)

As you can see, most of this is in the Princes Avenue / Newland Avenue / Cottingham Road / Beverley Road area, so I know this part of the city very well. I now live at Hull, in the Avenues.

Having looked at your plans for this, I support what you’ve done with Avenue, Beverley & Sculcoates, Myton and Wyke wards.

Beverley & Sculcoates makes sense because people up and down Beverley Road are interested in what happens along it and there’s good bus routes in and out of town. I always thought that the Fountain Road area would be better included with a Beverley Road ward, rather than the city centre and the Thornton/Hessle Road area to the west. Myton always seemed like a patchwork ward of bits around the city centre and I think it’s got much more coherence and focus as you’ve proposed it, as it’s the city centre and major arterial roads leading west (e.g. Hessle Road, Road, Spring Bank), not going both north and west as it is at the moment. The bottom end of Beverley Road belongs much more with wards facing towards the north west of the city, so for me this works.

The Wyke ward has good strong boundaries – the railway line to the south which is a very clear boundary, as is Beverley Road and Cottingham Road. It means there isn’t a split in the middle of Goddard Avenue anymore. As a Lib Dem obviously I’m familiar with our group’s initial proposal, and I still have a lot of sympathy with the two-member University ward we initially proposed as it basically brings together everyone in the university community in one ward, from the academics in Newland Park to student halls on the campus, student houses on Cranbrook / Auckland Aves and students and recent graduates off Newland Ave. However if you’re not prepared to consider this and think Cottingham Road shouldn’t be crossed then the Wyke ward you’ve proposed would work well.

1

Finally, I support your proposal for Avenue ward – it makes sense to leave it as it is because the railway lines to the west, north and south make very clear natural boundaries, as does Beverley Road at the other side. The Avenues are a real community with a strong sense of identity, we have APPRA as our residents association which also covers Pearson Park, so it wouldn’t make any sense at all not to stick with the ward basically as it is, i.e. your proposals as they currently are.

Thanks for taking the time to read my personal views on this – on balance I think your ward boundaries for this part of Hull are as good as you’re going to get them, balancing the need to draw lines with a real sense of community identity with the need to make the numbers add up properly.

Best wishes,

Abi Bell

2 Sir, I object in the strongest terms to the proposed boundary changes for Kingswood, Hull to be included as part of a notorious council estate, when Kingswood is a desirable private estate. This will result in devaluing our homes, a break up of the Kingswood community and all the hard work we have put into it. I agree with the LibDems and their suggestions of the boundaries Thankyou Mr Dennis Bell

Sent from my iPad

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Roy Benfell Sent: 01 March 2017 11:39 To: reviews Subject: Proposed change to Drypool Ward, Hull City Council

Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged

As a long term resident of Garden Village in Hull I am very concerned about plans to change the council ward boundaries in this area.

I have lived in Garden Village for many years and have been involved with the Garden Village Society. Garden Village has always been a part of Drypool Ward and I believe it should remain there.

We're in the parish of Drypool and many people in our community across the Drypool Ward area attend St Columbas on Laburnum Avenue. We all use the shops in Drypool Ward on Holderness Road. We have a bus service that still connects us along Holderness Road to ASDA and into town.

By making the proposed changes much of Garden Village would be removed from the community we have always been part of. The conservation area would also be split between two wards. I feel very strongly that this is the wrong decision and not in the best interests of our community.

We identify as part of Drypool and always have done. We have many links with the rest of Drypool Ward. I feel this change can be easily avoided.

I hope you will reconsider and leave Garden Village in Drypool Ward.

Kind regards,

Mr R Benfell

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Sent: 28 February 2017 15:52 To: reviews Subject: Proposed alteration of Bricknell Ward in Kingston upon Hull

Sir/Madam We write to oppose any proposed changes to Bricknell Ward. The ward already has many local issues typical of an urban area. Our interactions with local councillors on matters of great importance to us have hitherto been straightforward if nothing else. We worry that increasing the size of the ward, and thereby the workload on representatives, would make constituents like ourselves more remote and therefore less likely to achieve successful outcomes to our concerns. Best regards, Adrian and Julie Berry.

1

Hi,

I live in the Chamberlain Road area of Hull and am concerned about where the proposed new ward boundary has been drawn in our area.

Our community is very much part of the "Stoneferry" area. Children in Rockford, Lamorna and Brendan Avenues attend Stoneferry Primary School on Stoneferrry Road. The boundary line that has been proposed cuts our area off from the other streets in Stoneferry (like Lindengate and Foredyke) where Stoneferry Primary pupils also live.

We use many of the same shops as people in the Lindengate area. We share the same parks - like Rockford Fields - that is in the heart of our community.

There is very little to connect us to the rest of the Drypool ward you are proposing. You can not get a bus from where we live to ASDA on Holderness Road, or the other shops in Drypool ward. We are much better linked to Morrisons, further up the other way, with regular services linking us with Summergangs Road, Lambwath Road and other streets in Holderness ward.

At the moment our community is all in one ward, which means we can speak with a united voice on getting improvements to things in our area (like Rockford Fields), but the new boundary splits Stoneferry between two wards. I do not feel this will help us to get the Council to deliver improvements in our community - we need to be able to speak as one voice. Splitting Stoneferry will be bad for our community.

I hope you will change your minds and leave us in Holderness ward where we belong.

T Bone,

1

I am against the proposed boundary changes involving Bricknell and Newland wards in Kingston upon Hull

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Pete Brewer Sent: 03 March 2017 13:44 To: reviews Subject: Boundary changes

To whom it may concern,

I’ve been invited to sign a petition the local Conservative party is running about the council ward boundaries and I’m shocked.

Ward boundaries should be about equal numbers and good communities. They shouldn’t be based on whether one party or the other thinks they can win or not.

I believe the Conservatives are only running this petition because they think they won’t win on the new boundaries and that shouldn’t be how this is decided.

I hope you ignore this politically motivated petition and stick with the current proposals.

Yours,

Peter Brewer

Sent from my iPhone

Get Outlook for iOS

1 Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Jane Brown Sent: 02 March 2017 14:32 To: reviews Subject: Bricknell Ward

Dear Commissioners,

I wish to oppose the creation of a proposed Wyke Ward in your review and argue for the retention of Bricknell Ward on its current or similar boundaries. As a resident of the Bricknell area I am very concerned that our distinct community on the edge of Hull could be abolished as part of your proposals. The proposed Wyke Ward would link Bricknell with a part of the City it is very different to and with which it shares little in common. This would be to the detriment of both communities in that proposed new Ward.

Bricknell is a distinct area and one which can be easily defined and which shares a similar profile across the ward. There is no reason to abolish this ward and City governance has not suffered by having a Council made up of a mix of two and three member wards. In fact it has ensured representation of Hull's distinct local communities in a way that your proposals would not.

Jane Brown

1 Good evening,

I am emailing in regards to the proposed boundary changes for Kingswood in Hull. I was very disappointed to hear that the Boundary Commission were considering dividing the area of Kingswood.

I have lived in the area since August 2012 and while I enjoying living in the area, there has been at times a sense of divide between the original Kingswood development, and the newer development by Kingswood Parks with the Kingswood Parks developments being perceived as receiving preferential development. I fear that this potential ward boundary change will further deepen the divide and reverse a lot of the hard work undertaken by the current ward councillors and residents association.

I feel that if the original Kingswood development was moved into a new West Carr ward, it will stagnate due to the high possibility that it will be governed by Councillors of the current East Ward who rightly fight tooth and nail for their area, although this is often to the detriment of Kingswood (such as the opposition of the View development).

I support the proposal published over the weekend by the Kingswood Neighbourhood Resident Association that keeps all areas, currently classified as Kingswood, united as one unified ward based on the boundaries in the 2016 Area Action Plan and strongly oppose diving the area currently known as Kingswood into Kingswood and West Carr.

I hope you will take my comments into consideration.

Thanks

Nicholas Brown

1

Attn Review Officer,

I am emailing you with regards to the proposed boundary changes to Kingswood Hull.

I have lived on Kingswood since since 1997, and was promised the earth when purchasing my property as this area was the "new" and "up and coming" area of the city. I was told back then that there was going to be a new school and link road which has now materialised in the last couple of years, and the school has been built on the more up to date and what seems to be the flagship side of Kingswood.

I feel like the original side of Kingswood, around Kesteven Way has been forgotten about, and now with the proposed splitting of Kingswood boundaries we will be overlooked even more. We are the original Kingswood so why should we be grouped together with Bransholme!! I want to be part of the Kingswood community but your proposal will split and divide Kingswood. I am also concerned that our house prices will be reduced. Kingswood should be a whole community, not for the council to split the "flagship" area from the "Bransholme" side which is what we will become, and this is from someone who's parents live on Bransholme and I was brought up there to. We bought a house on Kingswood and want to be recognised as such, sharing the same councillors and services as the Kingswood community as a whole.

Regards Joanne Butler

Sent from my iPhone

1