Local resident submissions to the electoral review (H-P)

This PDF document contains 45 submissions by 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.

-----Original Message----- > From: Dominic Haney > Sent: 16 September 2009 10:52 > To: Reviews@ > Subject: Boundary review, > > Hello, > > I have viewed the proposed boundary changes to the Consett North and > Consett South electoral divisions for Durham County Council and feel > that the proposals are not the best way to represent local people. > > Consett has no particular attachment to the Grove and Moorside, so I > feel it would be best to keep these separate. There is sufficient > links between Moorside and the Grove to warrant making that its own > electoral divsion electing one councillor. > > It would also be sensible for the Consett ward to include streets to > the south east of Front Street, and maybe even Templetown. > > I hope you find these suggestions useful. > > Thanks, > > Dominic Haney. > > >

Ghita Harbour

Sunday, 29th November 2009

The Boundary Committee for (Durham Review) Trevelyan House 30 Great Peter Street London, SW1P 2HW

Dear Sirs

NEW ELECTORAL DIVISIONS – Teesdale, County Durham

In regard to the above subject, I write to support the proposals made by Durham County Council to have three wards in Teesdale, each served by two councillors.

The proposal is ideal in that it reflects community links and identities and would create wards similar in character. A river boundary does not reflect how people live and work in Teesdale. Communities on both sides of the river share doctors, shops, schools, clubs, sports activities and, very importantly, police cover.

I should be grateful if you would make note of these comments when making your final decision.

Yours faithfully

Ghita Harbour

From: Shauna Harrison Sent: 15 October 2009 14:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: teesdale boundaries

Dear Sir, I have lived in Forest in Teesdale where I ran the High Force Hotel, then moved to Newbiggin and now living in Mickleton. I am still in business in Middleton in Teesdale where I run a Coffee Shop (and still have regular contact with local people from both sides of the river) so I reckon I know both sides of the Tees pretty well! I support the Councils proposal of an East/West split of the dale at with two member wards. It will group together the communities like those I have mentioned above which are of similar character and also have very similar issues. That will enable our Cllrs to represent us very effectively. During 2007/2008 there was a Public Campaign led by Cllr Richard Bell to get the Upper Dale a decent emergency ambulance service and he was able to speak with authority to represent the interest of these settlements on Both sides of the river and Cllr Bell got a result. If we follow your proposal it would split very similar communities such as /, /Forest and Middleton/Mickleton. All of these villages look upon Middleton as the Service Centre to the Upper Dale for example Doctors, Fire Service, Banks, Post Office, Schools, Shops etc. and I feel it would be harder to get GOOD representation by our Cllrs as they would be split by the River. Your proposal for a single member ward to cover all the area south of the River is far far too big an area of sparse poulation for one Cllr alone to service effectively. Those persons calling for a SOUTH OF RIVER WARD really want to be in but I would hope this review is how we may be best arranged for COUNTY DURHAM!

Yours faithfully

Shauna Harrison

From: carstew Sent: 23 September 2009 11:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: Durham Review

I have just read the proposal for a South Tees Division, and I would comment briefly as follows:

My wife and I have lived in for nearly 30 years and have never heard of some of the villages in the proposed Division.Others we know by name only. We strongly take the view that Startforth is, for most purposes, a suburb of Barnard Castle. And that a councillor representing Barnard Castle and Startforth is most likely to be able to identify with our needs. The other villages are not physically close to Barnard Castle, and perhaps have common needs. We don't feel qualified to comment on the rest of the proposed Division.

Stewart and Carole Hatton.

From: Paul Haworth Sent: 27 November 2009 12:55 To: Reviews@ Subject: Durham review:Witton le Wear

Dear Sir,

I note that in the revised boundary changes for Durham Witton le Wear has been moved from Weardale to join Howden le Wear and Hunwick.

It is disappointing that this proposed change is taking place after links have been established over the past two years between Witton le Wear Parish Council and other councils in the valley via the Weardale Association. Tha AAP has also been established and there has been pleasing progress in a short time.It will be difficult and disruptive, and somewhat disheartening,for Parish Councillors to have to 'start again' establishing links and presumably joining a new AAP.

Why were these changes not timed to coincide with the change from the Districts to the Unitary Authority? Why disrupt a system which is just starting?

People I have spoken to think it makes much more sense for Witton le Wear to stay with Weardale. Pupils from the local primary school go and people feel they have more in common with other towns and villages in the valley, and that they appreciate Witton's needs.

Mr. P.Haworth

From: hayes Sent: 07 December 2009 13:46 To: Reviews@ Subject: stage three boundary review

Dear Sirs,

I am strongly in favour or a one member division on the lines drawn up by North Lodge Parish Council in their stage three submission.

I believe that inclusion of A* and C* areas with the North Lodge area is logical and provides a compact and cohesive division.

Jim Hayes

From: alan hayton Sent: 07 December 2009 20:45 To: Reviews@ Subject: Projected Boundary Review

As residents of Durham City who have lived here all our lives and who have family members who have lived in County Durham and in particular Durham City we feel that a point of substantial importance (the student population residing within the City) should be taken into account when considering any proposed boundary recommendations. Within the draft proposals, reference is made to the student population and it is acknowledged that fluctuating numbers can create difficulties in trying to ensure that population numbers within the boundaries are fair. "The Council recognise that projections for the Durham City area are particularly difficult to estimate due to the large student population and potential fluctuations in registration. However, on the basis of the information provided we are content to accept the Council’s electorate projections as the best estimate that can be made at this time and these form the basis of the draft recommendations." For many decades student numbers within Durham City have actually created an unfair bias against permanent residents. The very nature of student life means that the student population tends to be transient. Due to this transient life style many of the students living in Durham City are residents for relatively short periods but over time they have had a marked influence on how Durham City is represented even though they do not live here permanently.

What we would like to be considered is this: Is there any possibility that a system could be devised which would allocate the student numbers equitably between several areas and by doing this spread the long term impact throughout the area instead of concentrating them in one. At present there appears to be something in the region in excess of 18.000 students attending Durham University alone, and of this number 15,000+ are based in and around the City, the other 3,000 (or so) are based at the Stockton site. It is appreciated that to develop a system which removes the student 'bias' creates potential administrative difficulties but permanent residents (who now feel marginalised in their own City) would have the opportunity to feel that they have some real input into the political system because at the moment, due to the large student numbers attending Durham University feel that their views are ignored. With the dissolution of the City of Durham Council there is no longer any 'local' representation. At present there is controversy over which (if any) form of local representation should be created and there is division between a Town council or a Parish council. Prior to the New Unitary Authority taking control, the former City Council held a survey in order to gauge public support for a Town council - which the council favoured. It was claimed that this survey showed that the residents of Durham City supported the creation of a Town Council. However, this survey did not present the three options available to residents which would have include the option of a Parish council. Also, it did not ask for any form of identification eg name, address, post code etc. which meant that there was no independent scrutiny of the results. A second survey was presented to the residents of the City (by the local MP). More information was presented which included 3 possible options which included a Town or Parish council. Names and address's also had to be to be provided. This survey also showed a massive vote in favour but for a Parish council. Due to this discrepancy would it not be advisable for the New Unitary Authority of County Durham to initiate a new survey, properly administered, costed and independently scrutinised in order to gain a more accurate of record of the views of the residents of Durham City? In conclusion we would ask that the Boundary Commission look at the setting up of new boundaries within the City of Durham which are more closely aligned with the views of the permanent residents of Durham City. In order to accomplish this the creation of individual parishes, overseen by Parish Councils would possibly be the more democratic way of restoring public confidence in the political system. As we are led to believe, parishes could be created which would cater for the needs of the student population and enable them to look at the best way of promoting and protecting their individual needs but it would also allow the permanent residents of Durham City to make decisions about issues which directly effect them and their community.

Thank you,

Alan & Norma Hayton (Whinney Hill Community Group) ELVET, Durham City

From: Colin Hayton Sent: 22 November 2009 16:46 To: Jessica Metheringham Cc: Subject: Electoral Boundary Review

Fm. Colin Hayton, ex Cllr. Wear Valley District Council for Stanley - Ward and now member of the Hilltop Villages Partnership among others. Dear Ms. Metherington, I have recently been informed that Durham County are to propose that Billy Row and Roddymoor are to be included in a Crook Ward and Stanley and Sunniside included in the Tow Law Ward. Roddymoor has always been in the Crook Ward though it is only a few hundred yards from Billy Row which is virtually joined to Stanley at its upper end. In point of fact, a major part of Billy Row is the Stanley Way Council Housing Estate which was built some years ago to accommodate residents from Stanley when their council property was demolished in the Sixties and Seventies. Many of them still regard themselves as Stanley residents to this day. Both they and Billy Row have always been an important part of the Hilltop Villages Partnership and to separate them electorally will probably weaken their link with the rest of the body which will be in a different constituency. This association is a very strong and important sub Area Action Partnership which should be taken into consideration if Community Consultation is to mean anything. Representatively, I also feel that Roddymoor should also be included in this constituency as it is so close to Billy Row and shares every facility and service with it including shops, social facilities, transport links, medical services etc while being at least half mile away from Crook in every respect. Yours Faithfully

Colin Hayton

From: Malcolm Henderson Sent: 04 December 2009 14:49 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed Boundary Changes.

Dear Sirs,

After a presentation and discussion by Richard Bell at our last Parish Meeting may I confirm my prefered acceptance of DCCs proposal of 2 wards - Barnard Castle East + Barnard Castle West. This proposal seems to be the only sensible and logical way forward as it retains the distinct character of both upper and lower Teesdale.

Yours sincerely,

Malcolm Henderson. Parish Councillor Winston Parish.

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 30 October 2009 13:42 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Robert Herbert

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : I strongly support the proposal to create a separate South Tees constituency within the new Durham County Council. The proposed constituency mirrors almost exactly the boundary of the former Startforth Rural District Council which ran this area prior to reorganisation in the 1970's. When drawing up the Startforth Village Plan the Parish Council undertook a survey of residents in 2008 and found that they felt strongly that Startforth was a community separate and distinct from Barnard Castle with its own issues and needs and that they did not regard themselves as part of Barnard Castle. Your proposals would give us a councillor who could speak up for the small villages and residents south of the Tees rather than having two councillors covering a much greater area as at present. With the present Barnard Castle West constituency due to weight of numbers there is a preoccupation with issues affecting Barnard Castle and Middleton in Teesdale. The villages in the pro posed new area are linked by the road which follows the south bank of the Tees and the Anglican Diocese of Ripon and Leeds has recently reorganised such that all the villages are now within a single Benefice. Before the 1970's this area had its own council and during the era of Teesdale District Council all the district council boundaries followed the . The increase in councillor numbers with the new unitary authority gives an ideal opportunity to have a separate South Tees councillor to represent this distinct and unique area.

Attachment : No file uploaded

From: Michael Heywood Sent: 28 October 2009 14:48 To: Reviews@ Subject: Durham County Council - the former Startforth Rural District Council area of the North Riding of Yorkshirer until recently incorporated into the Teesdale District Council area of Count Durham

I have seen on the wbsite a copy of a letter from Mr W Salvin asking that consideration be given to establishing a ward comprising those parts of the North Riding of Yorkshire which were transferred to Durham County Council - i.e., the former Startforth Rural District Council and all that part south of theiver Tees.

1. I have not seen any discussion about the possibility that this area could be transferred back to North Yorkshire and become a discrete ward of Richmond District Council for local government purposes and part of Richmondshire electoral division. I submit this possibility ought to be considered - for precisely the same historical and geographical reasons put forward by Mr Salvin in his plea to keep the settlements in this area as a single entity. Why has this possibility not been put up for discussion and the views of the inhabitants of this area canvassed on the point?

2. If, for whatever reason, this cannot be done and the area has to remain part of County Durham - and in that event I would like to know the full reasons for that - then I would like to add my support to Mr Salvin's proposal that it should be a discrete ward.

Michael Heywood

(The above is the correct postal address, but the property is presently in County Durham.)

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 01 December 2009 19:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : David Hall

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : There is no need for the current Sherburn District to change. It is a two councillor ward which includes , , sherburn village, sherburn hill, ludworth, and . It should remain as this - 3 councillors is completely unnecessary now and would be in the future. Haswell can merge with other localities which are more its natural and historic communities.

Belmont/Carville should become a one councillor ward. It is more naturally set towards the City and is distinct in character and community from the nearest villages with which it has no easy links in any case. It makes sense for neighbouring Gilesgate to merge with the communities towards the city centre. Belmont cannot merge with this Gilesgate proposal because it would be come too big (and due to the natural break provided by the motorway between these areas), but this would cause no problem if, as stated, Belmont/Carville remained its own community with one coucillor. Two would be fine but seems like overkill and the current two councillors do not have enough work to share as it is, the second one being merely a backup. Gilesgate or nearby village cllrs could be backups if required, e.g. for sickness etc. on top of contacting the council directly of course. It also has a very active parish council and its councillors are often more active than the County Councillors.

Please do not change Sherburn district. Please keep Belmont/Carville as it is but with one Councillor. Please merge Gilesgate with the City localities. Please retian Haswell's links with its local/natural communities in the Haswell area.

Attachment : No file uploaded

From: Peter Hughes Sent: 28 November 2009 11:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: County Durham Electoral Review - Opinion on the boundary proposals for Teesdale

Dear Sir / Madam,

On Wednesday the 25th of November I attended an open meeting of Rokeby and Brignall Parish Council, where Councillor Richard Bell outlined the proposals currently on the table for the revision of the electoral wards in Teesdale. He also pointed out that individuals have the right to submit their own comments on the proposals.

I am a resident of Brignall and should like to express my support for the current Boundary Commission proposal of a single member ward south of the River Tees.

My recommendation is based on the following: 1) Co Durham "South of the Tees" has been, and always will be, an entity in the eyes of the many inhabitants who still feel themselves to be exiled Yorkshire men and women. 2) The Church of England has already grouped the parishes of Brignall, , , Startforth, Rokeby, , Romaldkirk and Laithkirk into one single Benefice "South of the Tees", with one Minister. 3) The terrain "South of the Tees", is almost exclusively devoted to upland farming, with only a tiny area of arable land on the fringes. Upland farmers have of necessity a strong bond with each other. 4) The natural features of the Pennines and the River Tees form a boundary to the proposed ward. 5) All the parishes in the proposed ward are strung out along the B6277, the main communication link through Teesdale "South of the Tees". 6) The communal problems such as employment and access to services are common throughout the communities in the proposed ward.

In summary, the area "South of the Tees", is in all important respects homogeneous, what would be gained from re-shaping it?

I do not know how many other people who attended the meeting will take the time to write to you but, for the record, my opinion was shared with all except one of those present.

I hope that the above points will assist you in reaching a fair and equitable decision.

Regards,

Peter Hughes.

From: Mickleton Service Station Sent: 20 November 2009 16:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Barnard Castle - Teesdale

Dear sir/madam

I very much support Durham County Councils proposals with regard to the boundary review for Barnard Castle in County Durham. Teesdale has for too many years been split in two when the county boundary followed the river Tees. I am involved with local communities as chairman of Teesdale Village Halls Consortium on both south and north of the Tees west of Barnard Castle including Cotherstone, Romaldkirk, Eggleston, Mickleton and Middleton-in- Teesdale, and I would much prefer the west / east split that Durham County Council have proposed.

David Hutchinson

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 25 October 2009 12:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Jimmy Jamieson

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : political group/organisation

Your feedback : Ushaw Moor & New BLP endorse the committee's recomendation to form a two member ward with Ushaw Moor and .

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 81598 Time of Submission : 25 Oct 2009 12:31 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 12 October 2009 14:53 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Martin Jones

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : parish/town council

Your feedback : I feel that eight town councillors within the Ward of Spennymoor Town Council is far too many. the Spennymoor Parish Ward should be divided into two peices with four councillors in each.

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 80891 Time of Submission : 12 Oct 2009 2:53 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 03 December 2009 17:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Michael Kidd

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : “Having been consulted by a North Lodge Parish councillor regarding the various proposals to include the North Lodge ward in a three-member, two-member or one –member electoral division, within the Chester-le-Street area, I am firmly in favour of a one-member division on the lines drawn up by North Lodge Parish Council in its Stage Three submission, or as near to that as can be arranged by the Boundary Committee during Stage Four. Such a one-member division gives the strong community identity desired and would make the working relationship between electors and county councillor most realistically manageable. This would also support more effective local government than is the case at the moment.â€

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 83047 Time of Submission : 03 Dec 2009 5:02 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 03 December 2009 17:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Sally Kidd

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : I am 18 years old and am a new voter. I have been consulted by the North Lodge Parish councillor about electoral divisions within the Chester-Le-Street area and after some thought I am in favour of a one-member division.

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 83049 Time of Submission : 03 Dec 2009 5:30 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 20 October 2009 16:25 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Mr Llewellyn

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : I was sorry to read that you had not decided to accept principle of single member wars but have gone for a mixture of single, dual and multi member wards .you had an opportunity to increase accountability with single member wards

As far as the maps for BLACKHILL AND BENIELDSIDE ward the proposal for an inset jutting into Benfield side ward and being part of consett north I cannot see the logical as the Durham rd, st Andrews gnds and st Marys street takes out the centre of the area which is st Marys church to which many people in the area attended and consider it to be the heart of the village. Putting it into Benfield side will only increase the variance slightly

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 81357 Time of Submission : 20 Oct 2009 4:24 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

08 Dec 09

Re: Boundary Committee review of County Council Divisions in Barnard Castle

Dear Sir,

Regarding your proposed Barnard Castle Divisions:

From a town perspective this proposal splits the town in a most unsatisfactory fashion. The proposed North Division boundary uses small residential roads which do not form obvious boundaries and which split residential roads like Green Lane and Victoria Road into separate Electoral Divisions. This proposed boundary, following as it does residential rather than main roads is rather obscure and will not be easily understood by the electorate, Council Officers and others.

Your proposal also splits the big infrastructure sites of the town: GSK, Sports Centre, Teesdale Secondary School, Green lane Primary school- from the users or those affected by these operations, who will largely live in the Bd Castle South ED. It does not make for effective local government if a Cllr’s responsibilities are split like this.

Further while Harmire Road does connect with Middleton, the properties in Dale Road to Victoria Road area have no connection with the dale west of Bd Castle. The salient to include Stainton & Streatlam north east of the town is clearly there to make up numbers only, as there is no connection with the dale west of Bd Castle.

Overall this is an odd and contrived looking ED, which splits the town unsatisfactorily, taking a ‘bite’ out of the north east of it and lumping it in an otherwise mainly rural ED with which it has little connectivity. Looking west up the dale, the proposed ED splits very similar communities as is discussed in the sections on the DCC’s proposals.

For these reasons I do not support this option.

It is unfortunate that the town has to be split into County divisions, but if it does the DCC proposal of using the Road/Bede Road/Galgate/Market Place/Newgate as the boundary at least splits the town using big roads, which do act as natural breaks in the town anyway, and has a logic to it. A similar division has worked well after all for a number of years.

I therefore support the DCC option of an east/west split at Barnard Castle into 2*2 member divisions.

Yours Sincerely, John Lowdon -----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 28 October 2009 13:08 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Adam Malpass

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : member of the public

Your feedback : blah

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 81756 Time of Submission : 28 Oct 2009 1:08 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5

From: Christine Mason Sent: 04 December 2009 20:47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary review of the Durham County Council Wards

Dear Sir,

I would like to comment on your review of the boundaries of the Durham County Council wards.

I am a long standing resident in Middleton-in-Teesdale, and have been an active member of the local churches for many years, and therefore, make frequent contact with the local people.

I am not in favour of your proposed "south of the river" ward. If we follow your proposal it is certain to split very similar communities such as Romaldkirk/Eggleston, Holwick/Forest and Mickleton/Middleton. These communities look to Middleton as the service centre of the Upper Dale, for such amenities as shops, Banks, Doctors, Schools, the Fire service and Police etc. It would be harder to get effective representation by our Councillors, as they would be divided by the river. Your proposed single member ward to cover all the areas south of the River Tees is surely not a viable option, as it would be too big an area, and of sparse population, for one Councillor to cover effectively, especially with a lot of Parish Councils.

I do support the Council's proposal of an East/West split of the Dale at Barnard Castle, with two member wards. It groups together communities, like those mentioned above, which are of a similar character and which have the same issues. That would enable our Councillors to represent us effectively. For instance, during 2007/2008 there was a public campaign to improve the emergency ambulance service in the Upper Dales. Our Councillor was able to speak with authority and represented the interests of the communities on both sides of the river, and he got a positive result.

The council's option also more fairly shares out the area, electorate and Parish Councils of Teesdale.

Yours faithfully

Miss C.A.Mason

-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 03 December 2009 19:34 To: info_inbox Subject: Website comments - boundaries

Your name* : joyce mccreath Your email* : Your telephone number : I am : a member of the public Comment/enquiry type: : boundaries Comments* : I wish to express my concerns about the proposed boundary changes that will affect Parish. I feel strongly that there is no South Hetton community link with Sherburn.

if the presently constituted Shotton County Division is not acceptable to the Commission then could they perhaps consider a single member division comprising of South Hetton and Haswell, with the Haswell Plough Ward becoming part of a single member Shotton Division.

From: Stephen McDonald Sent: 07 December 2009 20:54 To: Reviews@ Subject: Consett North Boundry Review

I appreciate that this is a late addition to the review, however I did not get to hear about the plans until late.

I write to object strongly to your counter-proposal to that put forward by the county council after comprehensive local discussion.

The counter-proposal fails to meet the principles the Boundary committee seeks to apply.

The Communities of The Grove and Moorside are completely separate from Consett, much more related socially and geographically with Castleside than Consett. They are in fact contiguous with Castleside and share Church, community and leisure facilities with Castleside. They have a clear band of open land all around them. If the Boundary Committee were looking for a counter- proposal which created an additional member for the area by means of representing a discrete area they would do much better to look at creating a single member ward from that because it fits the test on grounds of both community and boundary.

Three member wards are not the model chosen for the county. They may occasionally be necessary, but in this case they most certainly are not, and the device should not be used to yoke together different convenience for no better reason than ease of number juggling.

The proposal of the county recognises existing communities, and actually improves the situation for the sub-community of Blackhill by uniting it's small shopping and community central area which is currently divided down Durham Road. Recent environmental improvements in this small area have shown the current absurdity as they have have been subject to decision by four councillors from three different parties - a necessary complication in city centres but seldom in a hamlet! By moving the boundary East to what is known locally as the "Carriageway" - the line of the former railway - a coherent boundary is available. This is not obvious on a map, but is more obvious from a satellite picture, because it is a clear green strip. Using this this boundary provides a clear Western Boundary to Consett North Division. The boundary is already recognised by the Consett and Blackhill conservation area, largely marking the boundary of the old Victorian/Edwardian town from the post-war development.

Thus the county proposal matches the requirement to fit in with communities and clear boundaries.

The Counter proposal does not. It includes a community which has acres of rough space between itself and Consett, but leaves an entirely arbitrary line between Moorside (current Consett South Division, proposed to be thrown in with Consett North Division) and Castleside (currently lumped in with Lanchester though it has no roads, bus services, church or community links other than having formerly been in Lanchester Rural District Council). The county proposal is more rational and logical, therefore, than the counter-proposal of the Boundary comittee

Yours,

Stephen McDonald

From: Leo Noble Sent: 01 October 2009 13:24 To: Reviews@ Subject: Views

I refer to the County Durham Electoral Review findings document.

In particular paras 113, 118-120 referring to Kirk Merrington being within the parish.

Recently I had occasion to contact my local councillor, I assumed I was within the Spennymoor Ward. I was surprised to be told that Kirk Merrington was in the Chilton ward part of Ferryhill.

I was quite amazed by this as I feel no link with either Chilton of Ferryhill.

The village facilities are part of Spennymoor Town Council, not Ferryhill Town Council.

A simple acid test is where do the vast majority of villagers shop - Spennymoor.

I therefore wish to lodge my objection to the proposed bounday change

Yours

Leo Noble

From: Brenda Noble-Nesbitt Sent: 08 December 2009 20:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Durham Review

Please see my feedback to the Boundary Committee below. This was submitted using the online system yesterday but I think that it has not been received at the Boundary Committee, there having been no automatic receipt message received so far.

Name: Mrs B Noble-Nesbitt

Email address:

Area your submission refers to: Durham

Organisation you belong to: Member of the Public

It is refreshing to have proposals from the Boundary Committee that are clear and available for consultation. However it is noted that the Boundary Committee “…developed proposals which are broadly based on those of the Council” and that this same Durham County Council declared that it had not consulted with its electorate at large, or even with Parish Councils, before submitting its first proposals to the Boundary Committee. This lack of consultation is a serious shortfall, especially in consideration of the Boundary Committee’s “Electoral Reviews Technical Guidance”, published in February 2008, which states in paragraph 8.8 on page 24 that: “…county councils are reminded of the importance of consulting the parish and town councils and parish meetings in their area, and to encourage their active participation”. It follows that the Boundary Committee’s proposals may not have had a solid enough basis provided to them by the county council as the starting point for those proposals. My experience in conversations with more than twenty friends and acquaintances who are electors from a number of widely dispersed areas of County Durham - such as Durham City, Lumley, North Lodge and Ouston, for example - bears this out in terms of something fairly fundamental as regards one-member, two-member and three-member electoral divisions: without exception, one-member divisions have always been the choice and only two out of over twenty asked had previous knowledge that the boundary review was being carried out! There are fairly obvious questions to be asked about procedures in future reviews, even if it is too late to do anything, at this stage, fundamentally more democratic about the Durham boundary review.

As far as my own area of North Lodge is concerned, I fully support the North Lodge Parish Council (NLPC) proposal, and its reasons, for a one-member electoral division based on polling divisions AP, AR,C* and A* (see the NLPC proposal for the definitions of C* and A*). My support also goes for the naming of this new division as “Chester-le-Street North Lodge”. This division has the further advantage that it uses a parish as an appropriate basis for a new division, something which the Boundary Committee has said it tries to do, according to paragraph 1.9 on page 2 of its own aforementioned Technical Guidance. The same is not really true of the Boundary Committee’s own recommendation so far and equally untrue about what the differing submissions that the Durham County Council and the Conservative group appear to be suggesting now, according to recent Durham County Council minutes.

Name: Mr. C Noble-Nesbitt

Street address 1:

Street address 2:

Postal town:

Postcode:

Email address:

Area your submission refers to: Durham

Organisation you belong to: other (please specify in your submission)

Your feedback: As an elector on the Durham County Council electoral register (North Lodge polling district-parished, known as AP), my comments on the Boundary Committee's initial recommendation are as follows, in complete accord with the North Lodge Parish Council (NLPC) current submission: (a)The three-member electoral division (ED) suggested as "Chester-le-Street North and East" is far too diverse in nature and just simply out of line with the wish to have one-member divisions so evident among all of the electors, across this wide area, that I have discussed this matter with. (b)The new three-member ED suggested, of around 9000 electors, is not closely based around the only parish in it, namely that of North Lodge, whereas NLPC's submission proposes that three one- member EDs are used instead, including the use of the parish as a basis for a "Chester- le-Street North Lodge" ED with the successful use of the parish (around 1800 electors) as a basis for a new division, an expressed aim of the Boundary Committee in its Technical Guidance paper on electoral reviews. (c)There are no negative knock-on effects in the NLPC proposal because electoral equality is not compromised, strong easily identifiable boundaries are evident for each of the three new one-member EDs and differing community issues are taken account of. (d)The three-member ED proposed to include North Lodge would have an inherent lack of fairness for any independent candidate seeking to compete with party machines at election time. This effect does not seem to be taken into account and yet it has been cogently written about nationally.

From: Kathy Pagella Sent: 04 December 2009 16:02 To: Reviews@ Subject:

To whom it may concern:

I wish to register that my husband and I wish to support the DCC proposal for Teesdale that there are 2 member wards (Barnard Castle East to Barnard Castle West). The reason being is to keep the upper dale together with it's unique character, and also, the lower dale.

Please can you acknowledge receipt of this email and keep me updated.

Regards,

Kathy and John Pagella Teesdale Residents

From: Pattison, Helen Sent: 01 December 2009 12:06 To: Reviews@ Subject: FW: Boundary Changes

I agree that DCC's proposals were acceptable - two X two member wards (Barnard Castle East BCE) to Barnard Castle West (BCW) which split the dale east-west at Barnard Castle.The reason being to keep the upper dale together with its distinct character and the lower dale similarly.

Regards

Helen Pattison Vice chairman Winston Parish Council.

-----Original Message----- From: Reviews@ Sent: 23 September 2009 22:26 To: Reviews@ Subject: EC website: Online submission

Form summary:

Name : Rev. Keith Pearce

Postal address :

Email address :

Area your submission refers to : Durham

Organisation you belong to : resident/community organisation

Your feedback : Dear Sirs,

I note your draft recommendation for making the River tees the boundary between council wards, and the County Council’s desire for the wards to be split east/west at Barnard Castle. I note also your using the Anglican Diocese of Ripon & Leeds as evidence of community links to support your preference.

I would like to comment as a Methodist Superintendent Minister. The Barnard Castle & Teesdale Circuit covers the dale on both sides of the river. As it happens we now only have one chapel on the south side at Cotherstone (Boldron is no longer active), but in the past there were chapels at such places as Bowes, Barningham, Newsham, Dalton, and futher up in etc., so historically the circuit (or circuits as it was) has covered the whole dale. I guess this is because for several centuries the hills have been perceived as a more significant natural boundary than the river and Methodism arrived here in the mid-1700's. In more ancient times the river was seen as more significant and I guess the (Anglican) Dioceses were formed on that basis.

As regards trying to work with other churches, Churches Together in Barnard Castle (CTIBC) and Upper Teesdale Churches Together (UTCT) both find it a bit frustrating that the river is the boundary between the two Dioceses. As I see it, Upper Teesdale and Lower Teesdale would be a more sensible split, with Barnard Castle being the focus for the lower dale and Middleton the focus for the upper dale.

My experience of community links is that the river does not constitute such a significant barrier as is often assumed and would ask that consideration be given to my suggestion.

Yours sincerely,

Keith Pearce

Attachment : No file uploaded

Form Information

Site Name : Electoral Commission Site Id : 42 Page Standard Name : Consultations and current reviews Page Standard Id : 42911 Page Custom Form Name : Online submissions Page Custom Form Id : 55756 Url : http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/boundary- reviews/open-consultations/online-submissions Submission Id : 80306 Time of Submission : 23 Sep 2009 10:26 pm Submission IP Address : 213.129.83.5