7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I do not agree that Tattenham Way should be in the Nork area. The name of the road suggests in itself that it should be part of Tattenhams. The shops at Tattenham Corner are the most convenient for the residents of Tattenham Way. If we move into the Nork area, hopefully our postcode will change too, to bring us in line with the surrounding roads. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13444 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: resident of subrosa drive Comment text: I would like Subrosa Drive to be part of Merstham as this, along with my neighbours, is where I consider myself to be and local concerns are connected with Merstham and not Redhill. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13470 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: The new proposal does not reflect community interests and identities such as village events and groups. It doesn’t include areas where local people go for shops and leisure facilities. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13473 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Please save Woodmansterne. Woodmansterne is a lovely little village & it needs to be left that way. It is a lovely little community, with the school, church, pub & village shops. Stop meddling & leave things be. The council need to act on proper issues Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13475 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13479 2/2 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I disagree with the proposal to split the Woodmansterne ward resulting in the removal of the Woodmansterne Village name from the electoral wards. Woodmansterne is a very old village, mentioned in the Doomsday Book and has its own sports teams and village traditions (e.g. cricket, football, lacrosse & hockey teams and The Village May Queen celebrations). It will be wrong and unfair to erase Woodmansterne from the electoral system and there does not appear to be any clear advantage in doing so. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13481 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have lived in Woodmansterne village for 8 years, . I moved here as it was a community that cared. we attend St. Peter’s church, the divide in the middle of Chipstead Way would mean we are not part of the St. Peter’s church area or the school. We attend the schools summer fetes and village may queen that we are so proud of. This would be taken away from my end of Chipstead way and the community feeling would be lost. Chipstead way is the backbone of Woodmansterne and dividing the road would create a split community. If a boundary is to be in place I think the end of Chipstead way and rectory lane is more appropriate and would not leave a community without an identity. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13490 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: As part of the local group, building a community in Meadvale, the new boundaries cut off the the west end of Meadvale from the centre of Meadvale (Old oak pub and swing common), Suggest that the western end is extended further towards Reigate School and include Arbutus Road, Arbutus Close and Willow Road as a minimum. Also the boundary appears to go straight down Arbutus Road dividing one side from the other side whilst in other places it uses backgardens to divide wards which is more sensible. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13492 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have lived in Woodmansterne for about 40 years, . The village has always been very close to my heart and I am proud of the roots that I have grown up in. I find this proposal to eradicate our village name ludicrous and think this is bureaucracy god mad. The boundaries have been in place for 1000 of years and I fail to see why the need to even up the amount of voters is more important than us losing our identity. As voters do we not have the right to choose were we live and we all chose to live in Woodmansterne. To find communities such as ours are rare these days, we pride ourselves on being a village, we all look out for each other and help each other when needed. To lose our identity just so some politician can have a few more votes does seem the most ludicrous thing I have ever heard. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13493 1/1 7/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Comment text: I am writing this e-mail to say I think it is despicable to change the Boundary regarding Woodmansterne village. I have lived in Woodmansterne for 35years plus and do not understand why they want to change the bounderies. Please could they explain the reason behind these changes, are they residents of Woodmansterne? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/13497 1/1 Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I don't agree with the boundary changes and have no wish to lose the village identity of Meadvale. We have a strong community here, with our community events, scout and guide groups, and successful nurseries, and I think that identity should be promoted not removed. I would prefer to see a sign showing the village name when people enter so everyone knows they are in Meadvale. Cutting the village of Meadvale in half is unhelpful and unnecessary, particularly when the divide runs down the middle of a road (east/west Arbutus Road). If the boundaries must change then the village should be encompassed whole, and either grouped with Woodhatch & South Park, which in my view makes more sense since the majority of secondary school children in Meadvale will attend Reigate School (and Meadvale is closer to Reigate town centre than Redhill in any case), or with Earlswood Common - but in either case, the village name and identity of Meadvale should be preserved. I also don't believe that cutting Reigate itself in half is helpful either, and calling one proposed ward St Mary's and Redhill common when it doesn't even cover St Mary's Church seem bizarre. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I have sent an email already which focused on the stupidity of the suggested boundary but I now wish to add a bit more. The boundary has for some reason cut houses from Meadvale in Redhill Surrey, not the whole road, not a side, not the end but just 6 houses. These houses from Meadvale in Redhill surrey are to for some reason to be joined up with a neighbouring village in a neighbouring town (Woodhatch in Reigate) Am I to understand that if I have a problem that effects me in my village (and town) that I should expect a councillor for a neighbouring town that has no other interest in my village to deal with my concerns. One politician deals with 99.9% of our village needs and another politician deals with the 0.01 %, does this make sense to you (Or anyone else) Am I still able to vote on things related to my village / town or am I only allowed to vote on a village / town I don't live or have an interest in? Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District Personal Details: Name: E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Sorry if this question seems ridiculous but it looks as if the Meadvale boundary of Copse road RH1 6NW excludes 6 of the houses within that road the boundary doesn't cut the road off half way or more intelligently at the end of the road, it cuts out a chunk so all the houses on one side of the road are in Meadvale and the other is too bar these 6 houses. Are we to get a new postcode to put us in the Reigate area or are we going to keep our Redhill postcode but be in a different ward to our neighbours.