Councillor submissions to the Nottinghamshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from Councillors. 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. completing the task rather than the thoughtful, considered manner which should prevail. This "easy way out" approach does not affect Brinsley alone. The proposals for Eastwood and Brinsley Division, Nuthall and North Broxtowe Divisions, and Kimberley and Giltbrook seem to be based upon the same mathematical approach, linking communities who have little, if any, compatibilty of needs and community cohesion. i would request that other alternatives are considered which accommodate the compatibility of communities as a priority. Brinsley Parish Council would, I am certain, be willing to be a partner in those considerations. The eventually finalised proposals will affect communities for many years to come. I implore you to make every attemp to make those affects as positive as possible, rather than tying communioties with vastly contracting problems and living styles together in the name of statistics and average voter numbers. Best Regards Colin Barson Brinsley Parish Councillor 2 Kingsley, Paul From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 08:57 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: review Categories: Notts, Submission ‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Brown, Mick Sent: 09 February 2015 12:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: review Sirs, I would like to place on record my dismay at the proposals mooted regarding changes to the seat known as Beauvale‐ (Greasley with Brinsley) . I understand that these proposals suggest the removal of this seat altogether, and share it out between Eastwood and Kimberley. Greasley and Brinsley are Rural Communities, equally with their own Rural Identities. The Towns of Kimberley and Eastwood, being Urban, have completely differing identities and we would not enjoy the coalescence suggested. Therefore I would hope that serious consideration be given to preserving the Identity of Greasley, which appears to be losing that Identity‐ref Borough Review recently. Local electors have no wish to be part of either Urban Town and are asking if this is part of a plan to expunge Greasley ‐ Parish, Borough and County seats altogether. Than you Yours Truly M.Brown Broxtowe Borough Council and Greasley Parish Council DISCLAIMER: This email and any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient be advised that you have received this email in error and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error please contact the IT Service Desk at Broxtowe Borough Council on [email protected] or telephone 0115 917 3194. Senders and recipients of email should be aware that, under current legislation, the contents may be monitored and will be retained. The contents of the email may have to be disclosed in response to a request. This disclaimer confirms that this email message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses. 1 As Ward Councillor for the Greasley Ward I write in response to the Nottinghamshire County Council proposals for new divisional boundaries. We are a part of the Parish of Greasley and serve rural / semi rural communities. Under the current boundaries we are in the Beauvale Division. Surely any re drawing of boundaries should be more than number crunching but should reflect the needs and wishes of communities. The current proposals for a Kimberley and Giltbrook Division just does not make sense. There is little or no affinity between the settlements of Giltbrook and Newthorpe with Kimberley and indeed there is an area of Green belt land preventing total coalescence between the two areas. The remainder of our ward would go into the proposed Nuthall and North Broxtowe . We strongly oppose the name of this Division as the term North Broxtowe refers to an area encompassing the whole of the North of the Borough of Broxtowe. As with the Newthorpe and Giltbrook areas this is currently part of the Beauvale Division. The name Beauvale comes from both the brook which runs through this area and the Carthusian Priory of Beauvale. If we have to accept the recommendation we strongly oppose the new name and suggest an alternative of Beauvale and Nuthall. This exercise appears to be a numerical breakdown linking communities who have little if any affinity between each other. However as Borough Councillors we would also request that you look at the following alternatives: Eastwood division including:ESM 1 ; ESM 2;ESM 3; EHT1;EHT2 and GRE2. These areas are co terminus and streets such as Braemar Avenue are actually closer to Eastwood than Greasley as there is no direct link to this area without going through Eastwood. Beauvale and Brinsley Division: EHA1;EHA2; GRE5; GRE1; GRE4;GRE3;WNW1 and BRY1 Nuthall and Kimberley division: KIM1; KIM2; KIM3;KIM4;KIM5;KIM6;NES4;NES2 . Not only do these act as co terminus, they link similar communities and make a more logical division. Kingsley, Paul From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February 2015 08:59 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Nottinghamshire County Council Divisional Review Categories: Notts, Submission From: John Handley Sent: 08 February 2015 20:44 To: Reviews@ Subject: Nottinghamshire County Council Divisional Review Dear sir I would like to express my concerns about the proposals that Nottinghamshire are considering for the reorganising of the divisional boundaries. I need to be up front and honest that I am the county councillor for the Beauvale ward which is the division that is being split into three and joined with areas. I would like to say that local councillors come and go at elections but the actual changes to the divisions will be here for some time. These changes will have a great effect on the areas for a long time to come and it is important we get it right this time. The current proposals do not take into account the varying needs of the areas under consideration. Brinsley is a village in my division which is very proud of its rural village status and it is being linked with the urban district of Eastwood with whom they have no links. They are about to develop their neighbourhood plan and it would make more sense if they were linked with Greasley which is a similar rural area with similar needs and there are number of well established links. These links are covered in the current arrangements of the Beauvale division and I am sure with some minor adjustments to the electorate the variance that there is could be addressed. I trust that this will be a review that takes into account the needs of the residents and not just a numerial exercise. Yours sincerely John Handley Nottinghamshire county Councillor Beauvale Division. 1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Nottinghamshire County Personal Details: Name: Stan Heptinstall E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: County Councillor on Nottinghamshire CC Comment text: Dear Commissioners I am one of the two existing county councillors for Bramcote and Stapleford. If it were possible, I would really prefer the area to be split into two with say Bramcote and Stapleford SE borough wards serving as one division and the rest of Stapleford as a separate county division. This is how it used to be years ago before a previous review. The reason is that a smaller area/population is manageable by a single councillor but a larger area/population is less easy to manage. This suggestion is based on my own long (since 1997) experience of working with both systems. Many thanks for considering this. Stan Heptinstall Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4165 30/10/2014 Kingsley, Paul From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 13 February 2015 08:51 To: Kingsley, Paul Subject: FW: Boundary Review for Nottinghamshire Categories: Notts, Submission From: Philip Owen Sent: 12 February 2015 17:38 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review for Nottinghamshire Proposals for New County Divisions for Nottinghamshire I appreciate that the closing dates for comments was Monday 9th February but I wanted to wait until the County Council had approved their suggestions which didn’t take place until Wednesday 11th, so that I was able to comment on them. I am currently the County Councillor for the existing Division of Nuthall and I am confining my comments to the Broxtowe area and in particular the way in which it affects my current division. I fully support the proposals put forward by the County Council for the Broaxtowe area and in particular support the suggestions as it affects my current division. I am pleased that the proposed name includes the large settlement of Nuthall and the rest of the name of Broxtowe North is appropriate. It is a sensible approach to remove the current Borough Council ward NES3 as this is out on a limb with no direct road connection to the rest of the division and this would sit more appropriately in Broxtowe Central. It is highly sensible to include the Borough Council wards of GRE1 and GRE5. These two Borough Council wards fit in nicely with the rest of the division. There is considerable community interest in terms of highway connections between the whole of that part of the new division along the B600. Issues arising with the highway infrastructure apply to the whole length of this part of the division, currently I only deal with a part of the infrastructure despite it having a mjor impact on the rest of my current division.