Parish and Town councils submissions to the Lichfield District Council electoral review This PDF document contains 10 submissions from Parish and Town councils. 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. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lichfield District Personal Details: Name: Samantha LaPlanche E-mail: [email protected] Postcode: Organisation Name: Armitage with Handsacre Parish Council Comment text: We, as a Parish Council are unhappy that our District Ward will be a District Ward shared with another Parish with different demographics. This will also stretch the workload of the 3 existing Councillors and feel that we will not be able to represent well and efficiently. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/3500 01/07/2014 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 21 July 2014 14:10 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Electoral Review of Lichfield: Draft Recommendations From: HELEN ELLIOTT Sent: 21 July 2014 14:04 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fw: Electoral Review of Lichfield: Draft Recommendations CLIFTON CAMPVILLE WITH THORPE CONSTANTINE PARISH COUNCIL Clerk: Helen Elliott Dear Mr Cooper, With reference to your letter dated 13th May 2014. The draft recommendations for Lichfield District Council proposes Mease valley becoming a single member ward, which would include Clifton Campville, Edingale, Harlaston and Wigginton. It is predicted that by 2019 this ward will have 6 percent more electors than average, which is within the stated limits of +\- 10 percent. We would have 1985 electors per councillor. This seems acceptable. However, the Parish Council are aware of potential development within the Mease Valley. If 500 houses were built, this would probably be about an extra 1000 or so electors going into the Mease Valley. We would then have a huge number over the average number of electors per councillor. Whilst the review seems to take into account other potential large developments. It seems to have ignored any development in the Mease Valley. In summary the Parish Council has concerns that if in the future any development goes ahead then there could be over 1000 extra electors for this single member ward. Yours sincerely 1 Helen Elliott Parish Clerk Clifton Campville with Thorpe Constantine Parish Council 2 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 18 June 2014 09:18 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Lichfield From: Margaret Jones [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 17 June 2014 17:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Lichfield Dear Sirs Elford Parish Council wishes to comment on the draft recommendations for Lichfield District Council as follows: Although the Parish Council is in agreement with reducing the number of ward Councillors, it does not agree with Elford being moved into the Whittington and Streethay ward. Traditionally Elford has had strong links with the Mease Valley and it wishes to remain part of this ward. It is part of a group of churches which share a rector and identity with Edingale, Harlaston, Clifton Campville and Thorpe Constantine. The existing two Councillors live in the Mease Valley and have a strong identity with it. Elford would prefer to be part of the Mease Valley Ward, even if the number of Councillors was reduced to one, as we have little contact with one of our Ward Councillors. The bus route which serves Elford travels from Tamworth via Wigginton, Edingale, Harlaston, Clifton Campville, so local people identify with this village network. All of these villages tend to travel to Tamworth for shopping more frequently than to Lichfield, as it is nearer, and served by better roads. Elford has few links with Whittington and none with Streethay. Yours faithfully Mrs M Jones Clerk to Elford Parish Council 1 Cooper, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 23 June 2014 14:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: hammerwich From: clerk [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 21 June 2014 21:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: hammerwich The Parish Council for Hammerwich is unhappy at being linked with Wall Parish. Historically Wall has much more in common with Shenstone than Hammerwich and Cllrs would like to see wards that are co-terminus with district boundaries ie Pool Ward will be reabsorbed into Hammerwich Parish. Regards Viv Evans Clerk 1 Cooper, Mark From: Egan, Helen Sent: 11 July 2014 09:20 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Consultation on boundary changes in Lichfield District Hi Mark, Please see sub below for Lichfield. Regards, Helen From: Ian Colclough Sent: 11 July 2014 09:13 To: Reviews@ Subject: Consultation on boundary changes in Lichfield District Dear Sirs, I email on behalf of my two parishes, namely Kings Bromley and Curborough with Elmhurst. Both appear to be affected by your proposal to alter ward boundaries in the area. My Councillors are concerned that you are aware of the implications on these two rural parishes. Your proposal would imply that they are included in a ward with Longdon which also includes Armitage / Handsacre. The latter is in effect a predominantly urban area. I am sure you will be aware that there are many issues unique to rural areas that do not apply to an urban area. Perhaps when you make your final decision on the boundaries you will kindly bear this fact in mind. We look forward to hearing from you in the near future. Please would you acknowledge this email Thank you Regards -- Ian Colclough Clerk to the Parishes (Mon to Fri 9am to 5pm) If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachments immediately. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information, if you are not the intended recipient any reliance 1 on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for viruses but the contents of an attachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. We do not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this e-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. E-mail transmission cannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free. This e-mail is not intended nor should it be taken to create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. Any views or opinions expressed within this e-mail or attachment are solely those of the sender and do not necessarily represent those of the Parish Council unless otherwise specifically stated. If verification is required, please request a hard copy version. We are not bound by or liable for any opinion, contract or offer to contract expressed in any e-mail. 2 Lichfield City Council City Council Offices, Donegal House, Bore Street, Lichfield, WS13 6LU Town Clerk: Peter Young, B.A. Switchboard: (01543) 250011 The Review Officer (Lichfield) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Fax: (01543) 258441 Layden House Email: 76-86 Turnmill Street London Ask For: EC1M 5LG 23 July 2014 Dear Sirs Lichfield District Review – Draft warding proposals At its meeting on 22 July, Lichfield City Coun cil gave further conside ration to the LGBCE’s draft warding arrangements. I t noted that the LGBCE was proposing 6 district wa rds for the City area with the same names as currently but with amend ed ward boundaries. It also noted that Lichfield District Council in its agreed response will not be requesting any amendment to those ward boundaries within the city area. Lichfield City Council a ccepts those proposed 6 district wards for the city area. However, in doing so it would wish to strongly re-emph asise the statements made in o ur earlier submissions, namely th at the city and district ward boundaries should be coter minous. It therefore asks that the LGBCE in its final reco mmendations also appli es these sa me 6 ward boundaries to the City Council. It would ask tha t this is done by mathematically allocating the current 28 members to the new w ards so as to provide t he most eq ual electoral balance. Using the 2019 electoral projections, we calculate that this would produce the following: Lichfield City Council Total 6 wards (same as for LDC) City Stowe St. John's 28 LCC members Boley Park Chadsmead Curborough Leomansley 2019 Projected Electorate 3,681 3,631 3,568 5 ,572 5 ,739 5 ,364 27,555 Number of LCC members 4 4 4 5 6 5 28 Electors per LCC member 920 908 892 1,114 957 1,073 984 % variation from LCC average -6.5% -7.8% -9.4% 13.2% -2.8% 9.0% 0.0% F:\__FILES\COUNCIL\ELECTORAL\LDC Review 2013\LGBCE LCC response 23-07-14.doc We believe that this p roposal is much simpler, is far more workable and pract ical, an d provides a much better electoral b alance than LGBCE’s c urrent 9 ward proposal f or the City Council. That proposal would have wards with different boundaries to the district wards, have wards ranging from 1 t o 6 me mbers and size r anging from 299 to 5,739 electors; and would have extre me electoral imbalance ranging from - 70% to +21% from the average. Further reasons wh y we object to the LG BCE’s nine-ward proposal were se t out in our previous submission of 3 July, 2014. I would be grateful if t hese representations are taken int o consideration and imple mented in the LGBCE’s final recommendations.