Local resident submissions to the Poole Borough Council electoral review This PDF document contains 28 submissions with surnames L- R. 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. From: Peter Lambert Sent: 19 June 2014 01:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundry Consultation Dear Sir Madam I have read the draft proposals from the Boundary Commissioner in respect to Creekmoor and Broadstone in Poole, Dorset and I fully support the Boundary Commissioner’s proposals as the least disruptive of the options, with minimal change to the local community that ensures the close community feel of Creekmoor is maintained. Regards Peter Lambert Kingsley, Paul From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 06 May 2014 09:27 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundary changes to Broadstone Categories: Poole, Submission From: Simon Lander Sent: 02 May 2014 21:31 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes to Broadstone Dear sirs, We are writing regarding the boundary changes to the Broadstone Area. As a resident of we are firmly against any changes to our boundary , we moved here 3 years ago to bring our family up within the Broadstone area, due to the area being very well respected & having great schools , we paid around £250,000 for a house which if it wasn't within this boundary and was in the creekmoor boundary the same size property would have been around £20‐ 30,000 less. We like living in the Broadstone community and are very happy here & our child is going to one of the Broadstone Schools, we are somewhat confused as to why these changes have been put forward or are going to be put forward as we can see that this would not gain anything from this but would cause a lot of bad feeling amongst the Broadstone residents. We hope we have put our views across & strongly hope this does not go ahead. Regards Mr & Mrs Lander 1 Kingsley, Paul From: A Lewis Sent: 24 June 2014 15:01 To: Reviews@ Subject: Poole Review Re Broadstone / Creekmoor Boundary changes Dear Sirs You will already have received a letter signed by me as Chairman of Broadstone Conservatives. This letter is my personal submission and has no political associations. NEED TO CHANGE?? As the figures in Broadstone are so close to the Borough average, there should not be any automatic reason to change this Ward, just because Creekmoor is outside the required limits. I know you will have had a lot of submissions from people in the affected roads, expressing very strongly their desire to stay as a part of Broadstone. This is quite understandable and I would ask you to look again to see if Twin Oaks Close, Ribble Close and Lytham Road can stay unchanged. Surely the fewer people who are upset the better. FUTURE POPULATION FIGURES The figures which you quote at appendix A show that the population is expected to increase in Broadstone by 294 by the year 2019. With the restrictions in planning currently in place due to the proximity of Nature Reserves, I do not believe that there is scope for that much development. Creekmoor has much more scope for infill, and the projected figure of plus 262 is more likely to be achieved. Please also bear in mind the recently opened retirement apartments in Sopers Lane which I believe has accommodation for 80 residents. 3 WARDS ?? Although the idea of three Wards was not in your proposal, this issue has been kept alive by the Liberal Democrat Party publishing that " we will re‐examine our earlier proposals so see if the numbers can be more evenly balanced ". As they have asked to be allowed to submit a late proposal, they are expected to raise the issue at tonight's, full Council Meeting. In conclusion, it is such a shame that so much bad feeling has been stirred up because of these changes, and I can why all concerned feel so strongly. Having said that it is by far better than taking many more houses out of Creekmoor, then creating 2 separate Broadstone Wards. Yours sincerely Mr E.A. Lewis 1 Kingsley, Paul From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 23 June 2014 09:19 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Proposed Boundary changes to Lytham Road. Categories: Poole, Submission From: Gerald Lewis Sent: 22 June 2014 10:51 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fwd: Proposed Boundary changes to Lytham Road. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Gerald Lewis Date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:49 PM Subject: Proposed Boundary changes to To: Dear Sir or Madam, or who it conserns. My wife and I are very much against the proposed changes, to our boundry. We both moved last year in to one property after we got married in July, we moved to "Broadstone", I myself moved from Creekmoor, there is no doubt in our minds, that Broadstone, is far more attractive than Creekmoor, property wise and therefor, more sort after, therefor, comes at a higher price. When we were looking for a property, the price difference between Creekmoor and Broadstone, was substantial, thus it WILL affect our lives when we want to sell. Yours Truly Gerry & Jenny Lewis 1 From: David Linzner Sent: 19 June 2014 10:13 To: Reviews@; Subject: Boundary proposals Dear Sir Madam I have read with interest the draft proposals from the Boundary Commissioner regarding Creekmoor and Broadstone in Poole and I fully support the Boundary Commissioners proposals as it creates minimum disruption and change to the community and ensures that the unique close community of Creekmoor stays intact. David Linzner Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Poole Personal Details: Name: George Llewellyn E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: N/A Comment text: It would appear that the Cowslip Road area remains in Broadstone If this is the case I think that it is a correct finding. It it important that Cowslip Road remains in Broadstone as outlined in my original email. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3255 17/04/2014 Kingsley, Paul From: Brian Lloyd Sent: 23 June 2014 11:49 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: Borough of Poole electoral review Categories: Poole, Submission Dear Mr Kingsley, It is a pity that your colleague Alison Evison did NOT inform residents in Poole that she would be going on maternity leave until the last minute. Her name has been widely circulated recently in Poole, has the person to write to with their views on the BC proposals on the electoral review for the BOP, and she has obviously been aware for a considerable time that she would be having maternity leave, so why leave it to the last minute to advise residents of Poole of this fact! I strongly object to the proposals of the BC for all electors in the the Twin Oaks Close, Lytham Road. Ribble Close, York Road, Nos 97 to 133 York Road, York Close, Woods Edge, Edwina Drive and the north side of Chetwode Way to be summarily transferred to Creekmoor Ward. particularly when you have been informed that they object strongly to this proposal. The BC proposals fail to comply with Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009 in that it fails to consider, 1) It does not reflect the identities and interests of local communities,in this case Broadstone, and in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties The boundaries are not easily identifiable and electors in the roads identified above, instead of being a 10 minute walk from the centre of Broadstone, will under the BC proposals be 3/4 times this distance from the centre of Creekmoor, were they have no interest nor ties All the ties of these electors are with Broadstone, the library, the shops, the schools, the PO, the local churches, the pubs the local shops, doctors surgeries, the British Legion the Memorial Hall, the Sports Centre, the banks and building societies etc,etc. 2) It does not secure effective and convenient local government for the Broadstone electors who are being moved to the Creekmoor Ward against their will. In the 2011 local elections, Broadstone electors registered 12,997 votes to elect 3 councillors, compared with Creekmoor were their electors registered 6,819 votes for 3 councillors. Does the BC really think that moving a few hundred electors from Broadstone, against their will, to Creekmoor is going to make any difference? The most likely result will be that those electors forcibly removed from Broadstone, will refuse to vote in the Creekmoor Ward since there is NO LINK with any facilities in Creekmoor Still the bureaucrats in the BC will be happy, the number of electors per councillors will be closer than it is now. The BC would be better employed getting electors to vote rather than ensuring there is an equal number of electors per councillor. How can the BC claim that "each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s', when electors choose NOT TO VOTE. In the 2011 local elections, it required 4332 votes from their electors to elect of 3 councillors and in Creekmoor 2273 votes for each of their 3 councillors. Is this what the BC claims that "each electors vote being worth the same as another"? This is what happens when all the BC considers is elector numbers per ward, and not the other important parts of the Local Democracy, Economic 1 From: To: Subject: Boundary Changes - Poole, Dorset Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2014 10:19:56 +0100 Dear Alison Evison, I am writing to you regarding the proposed changes to the boundaries within the Borough of Poole.