Local resident submissions to the Borough Council electoral review.

This PDF document contains 44 submissions from local residents.

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.

et

N

20 June 2011

Dear Review Officer,

Re - Hartlepool Boundary Review

Having looked at your draft proposal and the submissions from other individuals, representatives and organisations I wish to make the following observations. In order to draw attention to my areas of concern I have taken quotes from your proposal, highlighted significant points and on these I offer my opinion.

‘General analysis

Having considered the submissions received during Stage One, we have developed proposals which are based broadly on those of the Council. The Council’s proposals would provide good electoral equality and a clear warding pattern using man-made and natural boundaries. The Council’s proposals were also supported by evidence of community identity. Where we have moved away from the Council’s proposals, we have sought to use clearer ward boundaries that will result in good communication links across each ward.’ I believe there is a ‘clear warding pattern’ for all proposed wards except Heritage? There are ‘manmade’ and ‘natural’ boundaries between the area I live on the Headland and the other end of the proposed Heritage ward. i.e. the dual carriageway and the Victoria Dock. There is no supported community identity between the areas in the proposed Heritage ward. The Headland and Central Estate have no ‘community connection’ with the marina area and certainly no ‘community connection’ with Stranton/Burbank area. I can get to the marina area by bus during the day but would have to walk, along a dual carriageway for two miles to get there after 6.00pm. Likewise there are no communication links between the Headland and Stranton unless I get two buses during the day or walk up to four miles.

‘What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comments on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for Hartlepool Borough Council contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 20 June 2011. Any received after this date may not be taken into account’. I apologise for not putting my submission in sooner or taking the opportunity to get more involved at an earlier stage. This was not due to any apathy on my part just a belief that such an important undertaking as this review would surely reflect ‘real’ wards. I hope my comments will still be considered as I believe they do offer some insight into our community.

‘What is an electoral review?

4. The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5. Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and convenient local government – are set out in legislation1 and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk.’ Again I must reiterate that there is no single community within the ‘Heritage’ ward as it is made up of three very separate areas, each of which has its own community and some have links with areas from which they are now being split. There is nothing ‘convenient’ about the ‘Heritage’ ward and I must point out again that to traverse the ward would take several bus journeys or a very expensive taxi. I would not be able to attend a ward surgery in the south of ‘Heritage’ ward if it were in the evening.

‘2. Analysis and draft recommendations

10. Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Hartlepool Borough Council, we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries, ward names, and parish or town council electoral arrangements. I believe the majority or people of the Headland and Central Estate would wish any new ward to remain St Hilda’s ward. St Hilda’s is Hartlepool, built here many centuries ago where the ward was once Hartlepool as a borough in its own right. Lots of people are talking about this identity issue and I believe there has been a very well supported petition circulated confirming that ‘St Hilda’s’ should remain.

‘11. As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Hartlepool is to achieve a level of electoral fairness – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009, with the need to:  secure effective and convenient local government  provide for equality of representation  reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular 1. the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable 2. the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

12. Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.’ It appears to me that St Hilda’s ward and parts of Stranton ward are being ‘sacrificed’ so that the rest of the wards can be seen to be ‘within strong, clear identifiable boundaries’. I believe that we, residents of the Headland, have no ‘local ties’ with Stranton ward; we may at some point have ties with the marina area if the ‘shelved’ plans for Kafiga Landing ever resume.

‘General analysis

38. Having considered the authority-wide schemes received during Stage One, we consider that overall, the proposals submitted by the Council and the Labour Party provide for strong, easily identifiable boundaries. Where we have moved away from either of these schemes, the change has been based on evidence of community links and identity, the consideration of direct road links, or in order to improve electoral equality. Where residents have provided evidence of community identity, we have sought to reflect this wherever possible. Again I must point out that this is not the case with the ‘Heritage’ ward. St Hilda’s ward has always had close links with areas in the north of the town – families tend to either stay on the Headland or move to areas at this end of town e.g. Brus, King Oswy, Clavering and Hart Station.

The northern urban area and the harbour

59. We have developed proposals for this area which are based on the submissions from the Council and from the Labour Party; they submitted almost identical schemes, with the Labour Party’s proposals providing for slightly better electoral equality. The Independent Group’s submission did not provide for good electoral equality, and we considered that the Mayor’s submission did not use strong boundaries. If the Labour Party’s proposal provided better electoral equality in this area, I do not understand why part of Stranton ward has been included? The Mayor’s submission does appear to have ‘strong boundaries’ to me, especially those relating to the north of the town. I grew up in Brus ward but my family originate from ‘Old’ Hartlepool, now known as the Headland and from local knowledge I fully understand the Mayor’s thinking behind his boundary ideas.

The harbour-side

60. The existing wards in this area are the three-member St Hilda’s and Stranton wards, which are projected to have variances of 7% fewer and 11% more electors than the average respectively by 2016. 61. Our draft recommendation is for a three-member Heritage ward combining the new harbour-side developments with Headland parish. This ward has strong boundaries and would have a variance of 2% more electors than the average by 2016. This ward is adopted from the Council’s proposals. 62. The Mayor suggested putting the harbour-side developments in East ward with . We considered that the Mayor’s scheme had adverse knock-on effects in the area to the north and that the harbour-side developments (which are ongoing) have little in common with Seaton Carew. The Furness, Cameron & Belk Street Residents Association and the Dent and Derwent Residents’ Association suggested that the southern part of the Council’s proposed Heritage ward be placed in Victoria, citing the locations of existing services and community relations, despite the area being divided by a dual carriageway. However, having toured this area, we consider the Council’s proposal to be the most appropriate pattern for this area. The draft ‘Heritage’ ward may appear to have ‘strong boundaries’ to you but to locals it has very strong boundaries within it. Your draft proposal clearly points out that you believe a dual carriageway divides a community (the marina area and proposed Victoria) and yet the length of that same dual carriageway, plus another equally as long, divide the current St Hilda’s ward from Stranton ward.

I understand the need for review and would ask the commission to reconsider the draft proposal. There is a much greater ‘community’ identity between the Headland and north Hartlepool and would ask the commission to look again at the Mayor’s submission or a variation closer to it.

Many thanks

From: Stephen Allison Sent: 10 May 2011 10:17 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review - Hartlepool Unitary Authority

The Review Officer (Hartlepool) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs,

I write to comment upon the quite ludicrous proposals being considered for the boundary changes in Hartlepool Unitary Authority. These changes totally fly in the face of the Boundary Commission’s policy of recognising local communities and have been drawn up almost exclusively as a blatantly political act of gerrymandering to emasculate any opposition to the control of the local authority by the Labour Party.

The most glaring example is the creation of “Heritage Ward” This new ward combines the ancient , currently St.Hilda Ward, with the Ward of Stranton. The justification for this apparently being the spurious link that both wards are centered round the dock area.

Anyone with any appreciation of the history of the ancient Borough of Hartlepool and the Victorian New Town of West Hartlepool would know that these two areas are in no way a natural local community, indeed they are the opposite of this.

Because of the recommended reduction in the number of councilors it is obvious that there must either be fewer councilors per ward or retain the current three member wards but with fewer wards. The preferred option of many local people would be to reduce the number of councilors to two per ward while retaining the current ward boundaries. The council could then also move to elections by halves rather than thirds, with the obvious saving in costs for running elections.

If moving to two member wards is rejected then the “natural” place to extend St.Hilda Ward is north and west into the current Brus Ward rather than south into Stranton. The Brus Ward already contains many overspill residents of St.Hilda Ward and is a much more logical extension of St.Hilda Ward.

The current changes are allowing the Boundary Commission be used by the Hartlepool Labour Group to consolidate their grip on the local authority. It is not a co- incidence that the changes they recommend, which your commission has accepted almost without question, will result in the creation of labour strongholds in areas where the local populations have so far rejected the Labour Party in favor of Independent or third party representation.

I urge the Boundary Commission to review their decision.

Yours sincerely,

Stephen Allison

From: Luke Armstrong Sent: 07 April 2011 22:59 To: Bowell, Marcus Subject: Hartlepool Election Review

Overall I am in support of the proposed changes to the ward boundaries for Council elections for Hartlepool Borough Council. However the names that have been chosen for some wards, are in my view extremely un descriptive of the areas that they are to serve. A number of changes that would allow the wards to mean more to the electors that are in the wards, I believe would be as follows.

Warren Grange = Hart Warren Middleton = Grange West = Park and Villages South = Fens East = Seaton Carew Manor House =

With the remainder being left as you have decided.

De Bruce Jesmond Heritage Victoria Foggy Furze

Regards

Luke Armstrong

5th June 2011

Dear Sir/Madam

Re: Name and boundary change of Burn Valley Ward

I write to demonstrate my objections to the proposed changes of the current Burn Valley Ward.

As former secretary of the Burn Valley North Residents Association and committed supporter I believe that the proposed change to ‘Middleton’, will be a huge mistake. I have supported the residents association since it was first established and fully understand the passion that this group has for their area. The ‘Burn Valley’ has had dramatic influences on peoples’ lives and many people are proud to be part of this area, history and community spirit.

Since leaving the area, I am still actively involved in the good work local residents of this Ward do. I am also Vice Chair of the Burn Valley Rejuvenation Consortium which has worked closely with residents in the area, helping to attract further funding for local improvements, in particular the refurbishments of the lower and upper Burn Valley Gardens – which everyone will agree, has been invaluable not only locally but to the whole town and an additional attraction for visitors.

I urge the council to reconsider their proposal and enable the Burn Valley to continue with its identity.

Yours faithfully

Ms Donna Bailey

Vice Chair – Burn Valley Rejuvenation Consortium

Former Secretary -Burn Valley North Residents Association

From: Alan Bower Sent: 17 May 2011 11:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundasrty changes in Hartlepool.

Sir, I am a tenant of a house in the Saint Hilda ward in Hartlepool. I see that it is intended to join this ward with the Stranton ward. Why? The wards are not adjacent being sepetrated by Hartlepool Docks. An appropriate addition to the Saint Hilda ward would be the Brus ward which joins the North West end of the ward. An appropriate addition to the Stranton ward would be Dyke House ward as this attaches to the west of the Hartlepool Docks, Alternatively Grange ward, Brinkburn ward and ward all join on to Stranton ward in the town area. I am Alan Bower,

From: Barbara Butcher Sent: 05 June 2011 21:14 To: Stuart Drummond Subject: Ward name changes

I have heard that this week at the council meeting you are proposing to change the names of 2 wards in Hartlepool one of which is the Burn Valley Ward. I understand that the proposed new name will be Middleton. As a resident of Burn Valley I would like the name to remain as I think a change will be wrong. To a great many people in Hartlepool, including myself, Middleton, which was a village in its own right, has now been overtaken by the Hartlepool Marina development and quite a distance from this area. The Burn Valley Gardens runs through the middle of the ward and will still be a pivotal reference point for the new ward and its boudaries. We also have various organisations which use the name i.e. Burn Valley North Residents Assoc, Burn Valley Bowling Club, Burn Valley roundabout, Burn Valley Stores etc. The new ward, in my view, should retain the Burn Valley name to reinforce and keep promoting the identity of the community and carry on giving pride to the area.

Mrs Barbara Butcher

From: Sent: 17 May 2011 15:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Commision

Dear Sir/Madam

I strongly object to the proposal for St Hildas Ward boundary change. St Hildas ward is the home of the Royal Ancient Borough of Hartlepool and to join the ward with part of Stranton Ward is wrong. The residents of the ward are aghast at the proposal. Hartlepool lost out in 1967, when West Hartlepool started calling it the Headland after the amalgamation of the two towns and here we go again losing our only identity with this proposal. The most common sense would be to join St Hildas with part of the Brus Ward, which was part of Hartlepool, thus keeping our Heritage intact. The name for the propsosed Ward is an insult to the residents of the ancient Borough as the Marina has no Heritage attached to it, if this propasal goes through, which I beleive it will as the Labour Party want it, why cant we keep our name as St Hildas Ward or Heortness Ward.

J Cambridge

From: Fred Corbett Sent: 04 April 2011 08:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Re. Review of Boundary Changes in Hartlepool

Dear Sir / Madam

I would like to bring to your attention several points i feel are relevant in the "proposed" boundary changes to the Borough of Hartlepool.

There will be several "Rural Wards" that will become inter grated with the inner wards of the town, i thought the intent was for those rural wards to maintain there own identity & this may prove difficult if the proposed changes are implemented.

Changes in other wards will bring abut a situation that may make it decidedly more difficult for Independent Council Candidates to become elected in Local Elections, which will be to the detriment of the democratic process.

I do however think the proposed reduction in councillors from 47 to 33 is a step forward in cutting costs in local government.

Best Regards

Fred Corbett

From: Fred Corbett [mailto:] Sent: 25 May 2011 08:55 To: Reviews@ Subject: Re Boundary Changes in Hartlepool

Dear Sir

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that some of the proposed changes to the Wards within Hartlepool are going against some basic principles of the local communities.

Expanding some of the wards ie. St Hilda's, to include some of the Stranton ward is going against the express opinions of residents of both the existing wards, St Hilda's has for instance long been accepted as a part of the "Old Town" of Hartlepool & as such has a totally different identity to any other ward in The Borough.

Similarly Seaton Carew & Greatham Wards are seperate entities, in the way the different communities view issues that occur within the wards & within the town.

To the differing communities within Hartlepool there doesn`t seem to be much wrong with the basic "Layout of the Boundaries as they stand at the present time, certainly some of the changes proposed are a worth considering, but, not to the extent that your department seems to think necessary.

I would hope you consider the opinions expressed in this email.

Regards

Fred Corbett

From: Sonia Dobbie Sent: 03 June 2011 16:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: New Ward Boundaries

I appreciate that the people looking at the changes of the boundaries are only dealing with the number of people represented by three councillors but you are not taking into consideration the ties that rural areas have with one another. Hart and Elwick have been working in conjunction for many years, not just lately. We have been sharing a Vicar for a number of years (well over 50!) and we have two schools (one in each village) that now share one Head, Governors etc. We have a close affinity to Hart and to link us up with the top of the town is wrong. Hart belongs with our group of Hart, Elwick and - we all share a Parish magazine as well!! I worked at the Cerebos Factory at Greatham and Greatham was well removed from our cluster and had more in common with the Fens area of Hartlepool. If you wish to limit our Ward, why can we not have only 2 councillors rather than 3 and give Greatham and the Fens 2 councillors as well. Why is it that you always seem to be changing things rather than letting us all get on with our lives. It was exactly the same when you redrew the Counties and decided that Hartlepool should be in Cleveland - that was a farce in that loads of money was spent in Middlesbrough and very little in Hartlepool. Eventually Cleveland was broken up again and Hartlepool became a unitary authority but many people would have preferred us to go back to Durham County where we had been for many centuries. Please look at it from a different viewpoint - the people are more important than these boundaries and we should all be considered not just pushed hither and thither to fit the figures!!!

I do hope your present suggestions have not been 'set in stone' and are still up for consultation rather than the high-handed way of just telling us when it is a fait accompli!

Mrs. S. Dobbie,

From: Kate Erskine Sent: 23 May 2011 15:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed changes to Hartlepool ward boundaries

Sirs

Regarding proposed changes to ward boundaries in Hartlepool I would like to make the following statement.

It is suggested that boundaries reflect cultural links - as a resident of the of the Marina (a vibrant area with multiple visitor attractions) I consider that it would be appropriate to join forces with the Headland area (a historic area with an affinity for tourists), rather than remain in the current ward or attempt to join inappropriate locations together.

The thriving area of the Marina is currently in Stranton ward, which is primarily industrial with areas of severe social deprivation...this results in Marina residents' objectives potentially differing from parts of Stranton ward. I understand that there are proposals to add the Headland to this already incongruous mix.

I would ask that these factors be considered.

Regards

K. Erskine

ID: Time: Apr 17th 2011 at 10:58am Name: tim fleming Address 1:

Email Address:

Area your submission refers to: Hartlepool Organisation you belong to: parish/town council

Your feedback: regarding the merger of the st hilda's ward and the stranton ward. I believe that this idea is flawed as historically, stranton was the birth place of west hartlepool, and st hilda's was the original town of hartlepool, both sets of people are different, its a four mile journey with only dock land between them. to some people this would seem to be politically motivated, a form of gerrymandering, so that the labour dominant stranton cold outvote the st hilda's ward. you do not have views of the headland parish council or any of the ward councillors.and the fact at the last elections a labour councillor was elected simply because he had the same name as a standing ward councillor, obviously his election papers did not have his picture on and this led to a certain amount of confusion. it would make more sense to merge st hilda's ward with the brus ward as historically as the town grew it developed outwards with people moving from st hilda's to the brus. yours tim fleming head of the parish council and town councillor. ID: Time: Apr 7th 2011 at 7:58pm Name: john graham Address:

Area your submission refers to: Hartlepool

Organisation you belong to: member of the public

Feedback: Sir, while i agree that the number of Councillors should be reduced i'm rather afraid that the elected Councillors could be predominately from one political party and this would be a retrograde step and this would render this whole exercise futile because in Hartlepool the council has for years been dominated by the labour party

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 10 May 2011 20:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: Time of Submission: May 10th 2011 at 7:46pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: V Grasby Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Hartlepool refers to: Organisation you parish/town council belong to: Your feedback: The proposed changes to the boundary of St Hilda's ward is patently a political move. Stranton ward, with which St Hida's is being merged, historically returns Labour councillor's, whereas St Hilds's ward returns independent councillors. There is no historical connection between the two wards and in fact, because of the geographical location of St Hilda's, there is huge distance between the boundaries of the wards. St Hilda's ward has been populated for 1500 years and is an historical site. Stranton on the other hand is mainly made up of industrial estates. There is no "Heritage" at all in Stranton ward. File upload:

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 June 2011 07:21 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Review Editor,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Online submissions form (#183) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/current-consultations/online- submissions-form Submission ID: Time of Submission: Jun 14th 2011 at 6:21am IP Address:

Form Answers

Name: Jenny Hillier Address 1: Address 2: Address 3: Postcode: Email Address: Area your submission Hartlepool refers to: Organisation you member of the public belong to: Your feedback: To whom it may concern :

Objection to change of name of Burn Valley Ward�

The location of the Burn Valley area is already well established in the public consciousness. To rename the ward as "Middleton" will only cause needless confusion. Some people will, no doubt, associate it with the old settlement of Middleton, in the former docks area of the town; whilst others will relate it to Middleton Grange Shopping Centre.

Renaming the ward is completely unnecessary, and may well incur some degree of avoidable expense ~ and this at a time when the Council’s finances are sorely pressed.

Let us stick with "Burn Valley", which is already widely known to be in the centre ("middle") of the town.

Yours sincerely,

Jenny Hillier

From: Joanne Horton Sent: 05 April 2011 13:20 To: Reviews@ Subject: HARTLEPOOL COUNCILLORS REVIEW

Dear Sir,

Finally, some sense is being restored. I fully support the recommendations of reducing the number of Hartlepool councillors, I can't believe why such a small town like Hartlepool needs 40 especially at a cost to me and other taxpayers. Unfortunately, the problem with Hartlepool is that only 1/3 of the population actually pay council tax but hopefully that 1/3 can make a difference.

I would like to offer my support and hope that the outcome will be a good one. Maybe Hartlepool council will realise that they have been spending our money very unwisely and will realise that they now have to be accountable and explain why they have been paying so many councillors a salary (which doesn't include laptops, mobile phone contracts and expenses) for doing not very much work at all.

The problem with Hartlepool council is that they keep nominating councillors to be Heads of committees that they actually know nothing about i.e. one councillor has been nominated as Head of a review into what health care is needed in Hartlepool. Surely this should be run by a Healthcare Official i.e. a nurse or Doctor!

I will await the outcome of your review and hope that it will be a useful one.

Yours faithfully

Mrs J Horton

The Review Manager (Hartlepool) Paul Mitchinson Local Government Boundary Commission Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 19th June 2011

Dear Sir/Madam

Electoral Review - Hartlepool

I would like to express my concerns about the Electoral Review proposals put forward by the Boundary Commission. I have followed the progress of the consultation to date and have been broadly supportive of the principles put forward in the first two rounds of consultation. As such I had no particular concerns about the process until I read your press release of 29th March. I was extremely disappointed, indeed staggered to read, and I quote “If a local authority elects by thirds (namely: holds elections in three out of every four years as in Hartlepool), the Commission is obliged, by law, to try and devise a pattern of three-member wards across the whole borough.”

This factor is absolutely crucial, as being obliged to have three-member wards directly dictates that a proposal to reduce the number of Councillors by 33% automatically leads to a 33% decrease in the number of wards and an increase in ward size of 50%. This, in my view, is a fundamental flaw as it forces the creation of “Super Wards” that have in excess of 6000 voters per ward. The achievement of shared values, aspirations and community identity in super wards of 6000+ voters is, in my view, an impossible task.

What staggers me is that I read no indication of this absolutely crucial factor in any of your literature for Stages 1 and 2 of the consultation. I had no idea during Stages 1 and 2 that the process of boundary review was limited in this way. Even retrospectively I have only found one reference to it - in the Stage 2 consultation response from Hartlepool Borough Council. The volume of consultation responses to Stages 1 and 2 calling for a reduction in Councillor numbers by one third and a ward pattern based upon the current one but with two Councillors per ward leads me to believe that I am not alone in this reaction.

Ironically, it also seems strange to refer to such a law with reference to this Electoral Review in a town that has elections by thirds and has two wards that do not have three Councillors. Hartlepool has had elections by thirds for a long time. Elwick and Greatham do not have three Councillors. Presumably it is a new law, applicable to only this Review.

I would also like say that reducing the number of councillors by one third to save money but retaining elections by thirds is a bizarre state of affairs. Local elections often attract turnouts as low as 20% to 25% of the electorate. Failing to even discuss, let alone reduce the need to pay for a hugely expensive election machine every single year instead of coming in line with other more sensible Authorities and having all out elections once every four years (even every two years saves 50% of the cost of elections) is reprehensible.

It may be that a powerful faction of the Council have manoeuvred a Council vote for elections by thirds, and it may be that such a vote legitimises hiding behind this previously unmentioned Law, in order to deliver the pre defined 11 super wards but I feel that it is the responsibility of the Commission to challenge the current status quo if it feels it to be inappropriate. I feel very let down, if not deceived by the failure of the Commission to clearly identify this limitation to the options under consideration prior to Stage 1 of the consultation. I also feel that the limitation is artificial, inappropriate and in place for party political gain. I feel that elections by thirds are inappropriate and I call upon the Boundary Commission to review and challenge this factor.

My own view on ward size is that the larger the ward is, the more impossible it is to achieve community identity and common values and aspirations within the ward. Restricting the choice of ward pattern to eleven wards with three members per ward thereby increasing each ward by 50% makes the retention of community identity impossible all across Hartlepool. Some of the outcomes of this restricted methodology (Heritage and West Wards) are nothing short of bizarre, but in fairness, the job is impossible in all areas. An excess of 6000 voters is more of a mini town than a ward. I think that the Commission are wrong to exclude the possibility of one and/or two member wards and were wrong in failing to highlight that this restricting factor was in place prior to stage 1 of the consultation. If it had been, I would have been in a position to express these views at Stage 1 rather than at Stage 3, when the decisions have been made and the only arguments left are about the names.

Despite failing to submit consultation about Councillor numbers at Stages 1 and 2, I feel it appropriate to record my original thoughts when posed the question of Councillor numbers. I thought “Why on earth are three Councillors per ward required? After all, as a resident of Hartlepool I have only one MP to represent my views in Parliament and as a resident of the Greatham Ward, I have only one Councillor to represent my views in Council” (despite it apparently being law to have three, where the Council has elections by thirds). Greatham Ward has been represented excellently by one Councillor who is local, accessible and as luck would have it, very hard working. One Councillor per ward seems perfectly adequate to me. The important thing is the accessibility and visibility of my Councillor in my area.

In my view, smaller wards with fewer Councillors are clearly more appropriate, in order for the ward to have community identity and to enable the ward councillor to represent the ward in a logical and consistent manner and in accordance with the wishes of the electorate. It could be that the odd ward or two needs to be larger whilst others need to be smaller. The important issues are community identity and electoral equality. To compromise either for the sake of hiding behind a previously unmentioned law that is clearly ignored in the current arrangements is unacceptable to me.

Given the views that I have expressed above, it seems pointless to argue the detail of what I feel to be a fundamentally flawed process. In general terms however, I would comment that my community identity is clear. I live in South Fens, my community is the Fens Estate and I feel that I should be in the Fens Ward.

South Fens was built in the Parish of Greatham and for electoral equality purposes is part of the Greatham Ward. This is not ideal, but has logic as it is within Greatham Parish boundaries. It has proven to be an acceptable compromise in the absence of a more appropriate pattern. Similarly, to make up numbers, the “I” block of Owton Manor has been added to the Fens ward. This is a much more difficult fit.

Consequently, the separation of South Fens from Greatham Village, enabling Greatham Village and the other Villages to combine to form a “Rural” Ward seems logical to me. Also, separating the “I” block from Fens and returning it to Owton Manor makes perfect sense. The precise boundaries should therefore be defined somewhere between their current position and the above noted ideal depending upon the requirements of electoral equality. I believe that this approach would require two councillors in order to achieve electoral equality.

Indeed I believe that this is, as like as not, the most appropriate compromise for all of the other wards in the town, and if so, my view is that it should lead to a pattern of 16 two member wards with boundaries based broadly on existing, but with minor tweaks to cater for electoral equality.

Finally, I would like to reiterate my initial feeling when reading your press release of 29th March. I feel angry, but most of all extremely let down that an august body of people such as the Boundary Commission could wait until Stage 3 of a consultation process before clarifying that the entire process had been stitched up before it had even started.

Regards

Paul Mitchinson

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 14 June 2011 21:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Contact us Email,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: Time of Submission: Jun 14th 2011 at 8:04pm IP Address:

Form Answers

Your name: Peter Morris Your email: I am: a member of the public Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: Sir, I have been informed that following the review of boundary changes in Hartlepool it is intended to re-name the Burn Valley Ward as "Middleton Ward". Should the propsed boundary changes be implemented I wish to object to the re-naming of this ward.

The historical Middleton area of Hartlepool is more than a mile outside the proposed boundaries and associated with the old west dock area of the town which will actually be within the proposed Jackson Ward. Any change to the name from Burn Valley Ward would cause confusion as well as being historically inaccurate. The area currently recognised as the Burn Valley Ward has only the Burn Valley Gardens, which are a public Victorian Leisure Gardens set up along the New Burn as an area for the whole of the community to enjoy, for a recognise focal point within the Ward. Currently, not only residents of the Burn Valley Ward but everyone within Hartlepool can enjoy the wooded walks, areas of lawn for picnics and playing of games together with numerous specific habitats for native flora and fauna. The area is recognised as the Burn Valley Area throughout the town and as such the utilising the name of the Burn Valley to label the ward would allow instant recognition as to the accurate location of the ward to townspeople. I request that the Ward within the new ward boundaries is known as The Burn Valley Ward.

-----Original Message----- From: jonathan purnell Sent: 29 May 2011 14:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: hart villages exclusion from the ward boundary

Why are we in Hart in the Warren Grange ward when we share a Vicar and the two schools are confederated? If the individuals responsible for drawing up the boundaries had consulted with the villagers this problem would not have arisen, why do these people lack foresight? Jonathan Purnell

From: phillip riley Sent: 13 June 2011 12:41 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed name change - Fens Ward Hartlepool

To the review manager (Hartlepool)

Dear Sir,

What is this bureaucratic nonsense, how on earth in a supposedly democratic society can a majority of non Fens/South Fens resident councillors run rough-shod over the people who represent us, to me it smacks of a "NOT IN MY BACKYARD" mentality, unless of course the plans to implement more "super wards" across the town also naming them whatever suits at the time.

In my opinion the proposal of our elected councillors to retain the familiar and long-known identity sounds very acceptable to me and in this case "to kill two birds with one stone" (the merger of the wards and to celebrate the queens jubilee) is not favourable to me and others I have spoken to in my vicinity.

FENS WARD RESIDENT

Mr P Riley

-----Original Message----- From: R Smith Sent: 06 May 2011 12:07 To: Reviews@ Subject: Hartlepool - proposed South Ward

Hello I live on the Fens Estate, Hartlepool and I am extremely concerned at the proposals for my area. Based on the unnecessary 'election by thirds' philosophy, the Fens would become a part of a large South Ward including the Rossmere Estate. This would in no way reflect a natural community with similar values and aspirations, neither would it be a clearly defined geographical area and it would not aid effective and convenient local government. It would be of great benefit to the interests and influences of the local Labour Party, this is as obvious as it is unfair. The common sense proposal for the Fens would be for it to stay as it is but with the transfer of the 'I' Block to what is now the Owton Ward, and to transfer in the South Fens from the Greatham Ward. These moves are included in the present proposals and would be welcomed by the vast majority of residents. The big mistake would be to lump us in with Rossmere, it does not make any sense at all (excepting for Labour Party hopes). The revised Fens (not South) Ward I am suggesting (as it is less the 'I' Block plus South Fens), could be well served by two Councillors to suit the overall reduction in the number of Councillors from 47 to 33. Similar common sense adjustments around the town could see Wards served by one, two or three Councillors, according to the number of electors and still adding up to a total of 33. There is no need at all to revolve the whole thing around three Councillors per ward. Elsewhere it would make real sense to create a rural ward including all the villages from north to south and the farmland right over to the western boundary. Lumping any villages in with West Park or other parts of the town 'proper' only serves the pointless idea of three Councillors to every ward. Another benefit of abandoning the idea of three Councillors per ward is that there would ne no need for elections every year. All out elections once every four years would be sensible and cost effective Finally, my ideas seem to coincide with the views of the vast majority of residents who contributed to the original consultation, those contributions seem to be have been largely disregarded. Robert Smith

From: gillian smith Sent: 15 June 2011 19:15 To: Reviews@ Subject: HARTLEPOOL-PROPOSED SOUTH WARD

Hello,

I am a resident of the Fens Estate and wish to express my concern and opposition to the proposed boundary changes for this area.

Max Caller in letters to the Hartlepool Mail urging people to respond to the proposals states that "the Commission will redraw ward boundaries that 'GUARANTEE' electoral equality and aim to ensure that wards reflect local communities". The proposal for the Fens to become part of a 'super ward' linked with a large part of the present Rossmere Ward most definitely does not do this. They are two distinct communities and always have been with very different values and aspirations. The present proposals are clearly designed to ensure that the ruling Labour Party gains ever more control of the town and not for the benefit of it's inhabitants.

The issue that should have been tackled first is the costly and unnecessary 'Election by thirds', but the electorate were not consulted on this issue!! No matter how many objections you receive to the proposals they will go ahead creating 11 very large wards with 3 councillors (probably all Labour apart from 1). This will create totally unmanageable wards which will in no way reflect community identity.

The Council in its "Evidence and rationale that the proposals meet the 3 statutory criteria" states "that the proposed South ward has a good range of local facilities including Rossmere Park with play facilities and tea room, Friends of Rossmere Park, skatepark, Surestart etc. etc". It also goes on to state that the proposed South Ward would give Fens residents increased access to these facilities. What they don't go on to say is, HOW!! They are there now if we want them but they are all located in the ROSSMERE WARD which attracts huge amounts of Government money!! Fens does not!!!

A much more sensible solution would be to have 16 wards with 2 councillors per ward, largely based on the present boundaries, thus reducing the councillors from 47 to 32. The Fens Ward should take in the South Fens (presently in Greatham Ward) and lose the 'I' block to the Owton Ward as presently proposed. This would then create a ward with clearly defined boundaries and shared values and aspirations, with an electorate of 4400 (2200 per councillor). Greatham Village should join with the other rural villages in the Elwick Ward. The existing wards have been known to the Hartlepool electorate for many years and reflect the identity and interests of the local community. The new proposals do not.

Finally, the Council in its wisdom has decided to rename the proposed new South Ward, JUBILEE Ward. This is totally ludicrous. The name is meaningless and bears no relevance whatsoever to local identity. At the recent Council meeting a perfectly reasonable alternative of Fens/Rossmere Ward in the absence of anything better, was suggested but the Chairman of the meeting refused to allow it to be proposed, allowing only the 'Jubilee Ward' proposal, which was accepted. This is not DEMOCRACY by anybodies standards. The Council in their report to the meeting admitted that it had found it difficult to come up with a name that suited both areas. Does this not tell you that they shouldn't have considered joining the two areas together in the first place?!!

If you do nothing else about these ridiculous proposals, please do not allow the 'JUBILEE' name to be accepted.

Gillian Smith Fens Estate Hartlepool

To Jubilee or not to Jubilee, that is the question. As a member of the public and a resident of the Fens Estate I attended an extraordinary meeting of Hartlepool Council on 9th June, when most of the elected members voted to call the proposed new super ward for the south area of the town the ‘Jubilee Ward’. If the new super ward comes about it will comprise most of the present Fens Ward plus South Fens (currently within the Greatham Ward) and a significant proportion of what is currently the Rossmere Ward.

The proposal was voted through despite the protests of all four Councillors that represent the Fens area. Cllr. Geoff Lilley (South Fens), Cllr.’s Alison Lilley, Stephen Gibbon and Arthur Preece (Fens Ward) all spoke of the number of complaints that they had received regarding the proposed name and voiced their opposition to it. Cllr. Christopher Akers-Belcher (Rossmere Ward) indicated that Rossmere Residents would be happy with ‘Jubilee Ward’, adding that it had been difficult to think of a name which suited both the Fens and Rossmere communities.

Cllr.’s Gibbon and Preece suggested that the new ward would retain much more local identity if named the ‘Fens and Rossmere Ward’. However, Chairman, Cllr. Carl Richardson did not allow this suggestion to be proposed, instead allowing the proposal from Cllr. Christopher Simmons to name the ward ‘Jubilee’ to be voted upon. The Councillors for the Fens Estate had suggested a sensible alternative and they voted against the name ‘Jubilee’.

It seemed to me bizarre, unfair and contrived that the majority of Councillors, most of whom have nothing to do with either the Fens or Rossmere areas voted in favour of ‘Jubilee’. I can only presume that their better judgement was overtaken by a herd instinct to toe the party line. This seemed to apply equally to both the Labour and Conservative Groups. The nonsensical result of this apparent political voting does no credit to Hartlepool or the image of Local Government. There will certainly be little Jubilation about it on the Fens.

If you are concerned about this further erosion of local community identity please get in touch with your local Councillors, Cllr. Carl Richardson who chaired the meeting and Mayor Drummond for good measure. To quote MP Iain Wright in his Mail column (Thursday 9th June) ‘Hartlepool is very much a collection of villages, with a strong sense of community in each one’. How true, I only wish that those who speak for our town had remembered this when deciding to create super wards as a way of reducing Councillor numbers. There was a perfectly logical and achievable alternative of basically keeping the present ward structure with some rationalisation and having only two Councillors per ward instead of three. Then we wouldn’t need to be discussing daft, meaningless names for monster wards which lump together areas with quite different needs and problems. Robert Smith Fens Estate Hartlepool

From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 30 March 2011 06:57 To: Reviews@ Subject: Custom Form Submission Received

- Custom Form Submission Notification

Custom Form Submission Received

Contact us Email,

A new custom form submission has been received. The details of the form submission are as follows:

Submission Information

Custom Form: Contact us (#212) Form URL: http://www.lgbce.org.uk/about-us/contact-us Submission ID: Time of Submission: Mar 30th 2011 at 5:56am IP Address:

Form Answers

Your name: Thomas William Stewart Your email: I am: a representative of a community/residents' group Comment/enquiry relating to a current review type: Comments: Althought I am in Australia at this moment on holiday I am keeping up to date with every thing. When the council asked last year what we want to happen in Hartlepool with the council I wrote in and said that we could cut one counillor from every ward as I cannot see why we have 3 councillors to every ward. I live in the Rossmere ward were I am Chair of the Rossmere Residents Group (Section A East) and I am also Chair of the Rossmere Action Plan Group (NAP). I do work with the councilors in the ward but to say that we need 3 of them I just dont think we do. I also think we should have another vote on, should we have a elected Mayor and his cabnet which would save Hartlepool pounds over all and as for the Chief Exg we

could also let him go This communication is from LGBCE (http://www.lgbce.org.uk) - Sent to Contact us Email

From: Joyce Thubron Sent: 08 May 2011 16:22 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes in Hartlepool

I wish to register my deepest concern at these changes whereby the Headland - originally Hartlepool and an entirely separate town from West Hartlepool - has had its distinctive character submerged and distorted by its slow integration into areas with which it has little in common. The only result of this expedient money-saving measure can be to further change and force into oblivion an area which is entirey different on amost every level to those with which it will be merged.

Regards Joyce Thubron

Review Officer (Hartlepool) Layden House, 76‐86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG

Dear Sirs Electoral Review of Hartlepool

As a resident of Greatham near Hartlepool, I am pleased that it has been proposed to include Greatham in a ward with other rural parishes but I do not understand what West Park has in common with Greatham to be included in the same ward. The only reason for this and the exclusion of the parish of Hart is the numbers game of balancing the electorate.

There is some contradiction in including Greatham but not South fens therefore requiring the warding of the parish, yet excluding Hart in order not to ward that parish. Again this is a red herring; the reason is purely the balancing of numbers.

The result of the extreme pre‐eminence of balancing numbers and the election by thirds is the creation of wards that fail entirely to recognise communities. The sometimes ludicrous names that are being proposed because they cannot be matched to communities clearly demonstrate this. The most ridiculous to date is Jubilee Ward for the forced merger of Fens and Rossmere areas.

Clearly for effective and convenient governance there needs to be a move away from the election by thirds that would allow smaller, better functioning wards which can be related to community identity. In order not to put the horse before the cart this should be done as part of this review or the review postponed. The people of Hartlepool are not being well served if their council insists on retaining election by thirds. I fear it is more based on party politics than representation of community.

The upheaval that seems to be associated with trying to reorganise from the current 17 wards down to the required 11 wards to provide 33 councillors, 3 to a ward could be alleviated by looking at 2 councillors per ward based on adjusting existing wards. This would create a council of 34 councillors. Hartlepool Council would be required to change from the current election in thirds to halves. With a reduced number of councillors a reduction in the number of elections seems to make sense and could save on the expense of having elections in three years out of four. This would fit with ward of the rural parishes with 2 councillors particularly well.

I would also make a personal plea NOT to divide the Parish of Greatham between two Borough wards if this would ward the Parish Council. There has been very little interest from South Fens to serve on the Parish CounciI, if there had been they could dominate the Parish Council. In the election in May seven residents of the village stood for election to the Parish Council compared to two from South Fens. Only one from South Fens was elected despite the larger electorate. . A quality parish council cannot be built on a significantly co‐opted council. I can only see this leading to the break up of the Parish. The village electorate would then face at least a doubling of the precept to maintain the parish council just as it is since all the facilities are historically located within the village.

While sorting out the ward boundaries please bring the factory site south of Greatham village into the same ward as the village. It is currently in Seaton Carew ward but can only be reached through the Greatham village. Anything that happens to this area therefore directly affects Greatham, our ward councillor already therefore takes a keen interest. It really makes no sense for this area to be in Seaton Carew ward. Doing this will not have any effect on the number of electors but would make more sense of the wards.

Yours faithfully

Brian R. Walker

From: Michael Ward Sent: 17 June 2011 22:55 To: Metheringham-Owlett, Jessica Subject: Response to LGBC recommendations for Hartlepool

6.6.11. Jessica Metheringham-Owlett, Review Officer(Hartlepool), LGBCE, Layden House 76-86 Tummill St. London

Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Hartlepool Borough Council

I am disappointed that it was not made very clear at the start of the review that the number of councillors would have to be in multiples of three because Hartlepool votes by thirds. In the letter from the LGBC to Paul Walker no mention was made about any pre-conditions. “The Commission” will initially consult on the appropriate council size for the authority.” I attended the meeting in the Civic Centre for Parish Councillors and again no mention was made that the number of councillors would have to fit in with the voting by thirds system. There then followed a period on the proposed electoral arrangements – the number, boundaries and names of wards. Once the decision was made to reduce the number of councillors to 33 and to uphold the current electoral system of voting by thirds then this automatically created the need for 11 larger wards These decisions by the LGBC have made it very difficult for individual electors and resident organisations to put the case for the wards to largely remain as they are currently but with movements of much smaller areas which will have minimal impact on community identity but will still create a more equal number of electors per councillor. Speaking to individuals and attending various resident meetings, most residents are resigned to the recommendations as proposed going ahead and see putting forward alternatives.as a waste of time. The Borough Council (dominated by the majority political party) and the main political parties in general are quite happy to see the introduction of these larger wards with three councillors each as they see it as an advantage to them. It will make it much more difficult for independent councillors to be elected. Local democracy will definitely be the poorer. However, I think it is still worth putting forward comments and suggestions and these are listed below:-

I am pleased that the South Fens (Electoral District HB) is to be merged with the rest of the Fens Estate. This is something that I suggested in my earlier submission in November 2010. I realise that this would mean that Greatham Parish Council would be warded for the next Parish Council elections but this would ensure the South Fens part of Greatham Parish would have a strong voice on the Parish Council, something that has never happened since the housing development was completed on South Fens in the early 80’s. Currently there is only one representative from the South Fens area on the Parish Council despite more than half the electors living the area. However I am very disappointed that the LGBC is recommending 11 “super Wards with 3 councillors each. I am opposed to the creation of these larger wards and maintaining the current 3 councillors per ward for the following reasons:  Three councillors per ward would make it difficult for them to be known by and be accountable to the electorate.  Local democracy would be eroded because independent councillors will find it very difficult to get elected. Hartlepool currently has a large number of independent councillors who concentrate on local issues and what can be done locally by the council. These independent councillors do not have the backing of political organisations nor can they call upon large numbers of volunteers for help and support, particularly at election time. This would mean only candidates from the national political parties would have any real chance of being elected thus reducing political choice for the electorate.  Few of the new wards are based on community identity. Max Caller stated that the LGBC “will be looking for evidence of strong community ties and areas that should be included in the same wards.” He also wanted to ensure that council wards genuinely reflect local communities. Most of these proposed new wards join communities that have very little or indeed no ties with one another. The individual nature of many of the communities in Hartlepool was highlighted by the town’s MP, Ian Wright, in his weekly column in the Hartlepool Mail (9th June, 2011). Ian described Hartlepool as “ …very much a collection of villages, with a strong sense of identity and community in each one….People are fiercely proud of Hartlepool…But actually people also identify with their very local area, whether it is West View, the Headland, Owton Manor or living on the Fens”  Fens and Rossmere have nothing in common with one another. So much so that suggestions for a name for the new ward have been difficult to come up with. Should you decide to recommend the introduction of these larger wards, I would like you to use the name of Fens/Rossmere for the Fens/Rossmere ward.  “Elections by thirds” is an outdated and expensive system. The reduction in the number of councillors was supported by a majority of residents because they saw the present number of councillors as a waste of money, money which could be spent on vital services. To continue voting in thirds is also a waste of money because of the annual elections and is not providing the savings envisaged by the reduction in the number of councillors. I would urge the commission to keep the existing ward boundaries roughly as they are and reduce the number of councillors to 2 per ward – 16 wards and 32 councillors in total. This was the view of the majority of the members of the public, organisations and residents associations who responded to the previous consultation as shown on the LGBC website.  The existing Wards have been known to the Hartlepool electorate for many years and do more easily reflect the identity and interests of the local community. The boundaries are easily identifiable and do not break any local ties. Only some minor rationalisation may be needed. The 16 wards can be achieved by merging the South Fens part of Greatham Ward with the Fens and Greatham Village with the other villages in Elwick Ward  The equality of representation is also possible. The average electorate for each of the 32 Councillors would be 2230 – a total of 4460 for each Ward. Allowing for differences of +/- 10% adjustments would need to be made to only Dyke House and Foggy Furze by adding some electors from an adjacent ward and Seaton and Hart Ward would need to lose some electors to adjacent wards. Elwick Ward would be below the average ward size but I think this is justified considering the huge area that this rural ward covers compared to all the other 15 Wards.  The overall functioning of the council would not be affected as the 32 councillors is only one less than in the Commission’s proposals but the 2 councillors for smaller wards would lead to greater democracy and accountability. To summarise, I totally disagree with the proposal to create 11 “super” wards with three councillors per ward. Many of these wards join communities which have nothing in common with one another. The biggest impact, should the proposals go ahead, will be on local democracy. It will be difficult for the ordinary man/woman in the street to put themselves forward as a local councillor without the financial backing and support afforded by the major political parties. Hartlepool, with its tradition of independent councillors will be much the poorer.I therefore urge you to reject the 11 wards with 3 councillors for each ward recommendation in favour of16 wards with 2councillors each solution.

Yours sincerely,

Michael Ward

From: dorothy williamson Sent: 11 June 2011 19:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: proposed boundary and name change for fens ward in hartlepool the fens estate was built in 1960 and my husband and i moved in new march 1960 and still live there. it has always been known as the fens estate and electorally as the fens ward. everyone knows this part of town when being directed either by bus,onfoot or by car. a new name with no connection to the fens estate will be most confusing for all AND NOT ACCEPTABLE to the residents least of all my husband and me. the proposal was made by councillors who have no connection to the said ward and it was not generally known to the fens residents. it appears to have been kept very quiet to facilitate change without knowledge or fuss or objection by the residents.why change to something which will be totally confusing that has been known by it's current loingstanding name for the past FIFTY ONE years!!! my husband and i object most strongly to this proposal. signed harry and dorothy williamson