Local resident submissions to the Hertfordshire Council electoral review This PDF document contains 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. D-I Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Martin Davies E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I support all the boundary proposals in this review. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4164 03/11/2014 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 03 November 2014 09:04 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council - Consultation response Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Day, Sally Sent: 02 November 2014 09:18 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response To whom it may concern, Electoral Review of Hertfordshire County Council – Consultation response I am writing to endorse the proposal that Croxley Green is retained as one ward for the county council elections, with a small addition, so that it keeps its local identity and it will be effective and convenient for local government. Croxley Green has many committed and active community groups which support the environment, sport and leisure and the Residents’ Association is a major sponsor of many local initiatives, including the joint community plan which is being written. The community is a cohesive unit for local government and therefore should have representation at county level to reflect local issues. I urge the review to keep Croxley Green together. Yours sincerely Sally Day 1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Peter Dean E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I support the proposal made by the boundary commission. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4082 16/10/2014 Morrison, William From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 07 October 2014 16:28 To: Morrison, William Subject: FW: New South Oxhey & Eastbury County Division Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged -----Original Message----- From: Anindita Doig Sent: 07 October 2014 15:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: New South Oxhey & Eastbury County Division Dear Sir / Madam I am writing in relation to the proposal for a new county division for South Oxhey & Eastbury. We moved to this area in August 2014, and therefore don't have any existing attachment to boundaries or divisions. However, in getting to know this area and understand the way people, traffic and activity flow, we have some general views: 1. The current country border between Herts and Hillingdon cuts rights through Northwood. For instance, the main shopping and amenity area around Northwood tube station on Green Lane, falls within Hillingdon, but a large minority / possibly the majority of users live in Herts. Hillingdon offers a discount for parking, but as a Herts resident I don't qualify. 2. Watford Road should be a great dividing line between east and west, but it is not. Instead it's an arterial north / south road along which everyone who lives or works around here travels, but there is plenty of communication between its east and west sides. As a result, residents from Moor Park head south to Northwood - the big Waitrose and the banks and other amenities are a great draw. They do not go to Carpenders Park which also has a small high street. 3. The more natural boundary is the Oxhey Nature Reserve, which does cleave this area between the users of central Northwood, and Carpenders Park / South Oxhey who do not. 4. We believe that dividing areas along levels of deprivation is a callous and wrong way to divide an area. That said, when slicing up an area, the different groups who make up the population do need to be taken into consideration so a permanent numerically-disadvantaged community does not consistently have its needs marginalised. The residents of Moor Park & Eastbury might be seen as affluent, but they are also disproportionately elderly retirees. We have met 5 of our new neighbours: we are the only family with small children, everyone else is 70+. 1 5. Creating a new Moor Park & Eastbury division is the most sensitive division and takes best account of community needs and identities, as well as reflecting the reality on the ground of people's lives, the flows of people, traffic and commerce. Kind regards Roger & Anindita Doig 2 Morrison, William From: Dolan Family <[email protected]> Sent: 15 October 2014 10:30 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary Changes Begin forwarded message: From: Dolan Family Subject: Fwd: Local Government Boundary Changes Date: 15 October 2014 10:26:14 BST To: [email protected] Sir/Madam, I have just received the email below and am very concerned at the proposal that Loudwater becomes part of Croxley County Division for all of the reasons outlined below. We have lived in this area for 20 years and have four children who have all attended Chorleywood schools (Christ Church and St Clement Danes). Our GP practice is in Chorleywood and we use many other amenities in the village but never in Croxley. We cherish the rural nature of our small enclave and do not see any logical reason for becoming part of the Croxley urban division. Your faithfully Dr Elizabeth Dolan Begin forwarded message: From: LRA <[email protected]> Subject: Local Government Boundary Changes Date: 14 October 2014 18:54:42 BST To: LRA e mail <[email protected]> Reply-To: LRA <[email protected]> Dear Resident The Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. Our existing Division will be reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. Our County Councillor, Chris Hayward, is most concerned about this proposal as Loudwater has traditionally been part of Chorleywood. If you object to this, please contact the Boundary Commission to register your disapproval. It would be advantageous to note various points why we should not be joined with Croxley. The following are suggestions you may wish to include, although they are not exhaustive points. 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level 1 as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. If you wish to object, please act by 3rd November. You can either e-mail to : [email protected] or send in writing to : Review Officer, Hertfordshire Review, The Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Layden House, 76-86 Turnmill Street, London EC1M 5LG Thank you for your support Kind regards Heather Kenison Chairman, LRA 2 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Hertfordshire County Personal Details: Name: Nicholas Edlin E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: N/A Comment text: I wish to object in the strongest terms to the proposal to move the Parish of Aldbury into the Bridgewater Division of Hertfordshire County Council. The description of a County Councillor may be simply distilled as “a person elected to represent the views and interests of their electorate”. In order to fulfil this obligation they need to be connected at all levels with their constituents and therefore the needs, wants and aspirations of the settlements within their division. Thus it is essential that there is a connection and cohesion between those settlements. Aldbury and Tring are inextricably linked. Residents of the Parish turn to the town of Tring for all services; Secondary school Doctors Dentists Banking Food and retail shopping Equally important is the fact that Tring Main Line Railway Station is actually situated within the Parish of Aldbury. In addition matters relating to the A41 (which is in close proximity to both Aldbury and Tring) should not be overlooked. Thus there is an overwhelming need to retain the existing Tring Division in order to provide the Parish of Aldbury with a County Councillor, and therefore a voice, which is best placed to represent us. Conversely there is little if any connection with the settlements within the existing Bridgewater Division which is exacerbated by the physical barrier of the Ashridge Forest. With the greatest respect to any Elected Member for the Bridgewater Division, they will not be able to adequately represent the electorate of the Parish. In fact it is not inconceivable that at times, the wishes of the Parish may be contrary to the remainder of that division and that Member feels that they must to side with the majority. We are already faced with a Parliamentary Constituency which is a disparate grouping of disconnected settlements (resulting from need to create constituencies with “equal” numbers of voters) and thus an MP with divided loyalties. I do not believe that the present proposals will assist us with retaining a representative “voice” at least at County level. I trust that the foregoing illustrates that the removal of Parish from the Tring Division will deprive us of a County Councillor who is able to truly represent our interests.