Local Residents H-Q submissions to the Lincolnshire County Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames H-Q. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: Ashleigh Hadlow E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I am against the splitting of the Cranwell wards. Cranwell and RAF Cranwell are on community and so do not require two separate councillors. As a resident of the RAF Cranwell end of the ward it seriously concerns me that there would even be the consideration of splitting the wards.I feel that having a separate councillor to that of cranwell village is not in my best interests in the long run. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7060 28/01/2016 Mayers, Mishka From: Mrs Jane E Hansford Sent: 27 January 2016 15:31 To: reviews Subject: Proposed division of Cranwell into two separate constituencies Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I wish to register my objection to this proposal. Anyone who knows Cranwell would know that as a village with not much more than 1,000 dwellings (and this includes MOD properties) the proposal cannot be justified. Jane Hansford 1 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: P Hart E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: It makes no sense for the village to be split, with a third of it coming under another town's duristriction. The representatives of Bourne will have no relevance to the people of Deeping compared to a representative from their own village. The Deeping people in the new catchment will not be represented at all and the representative will not have any impact on those people because their focus will rightly be on being of service to the people of Bourne. It would be for sensible to group all the Deepings under one representative, rather than pedantically counting heads to make it even. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7322 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: Martin Hay E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Please do not divide a village the size of Welton. Many issues requiring local government decision affect the whole village and its infrastructure, so it must be treated as one unit in one authority. The proposed dividing line is quite unacceptable and impractical. I have had experience in Cambridgeshire over 11 years in local government and saw a number of examples in larger villages where councillors. council officers and members of the public were confused by what was effectively dual representation. I also had experience of seeing a parish boundary moved for good, modern logical reasons and it was onerous on officers and councillors time to eventually achieve.. This makes me suggest that it is extremely important now to get the boundary dividing lines right now and the new proposals are quite unsuitable to deliver efficient local government services.. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7240 03/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: James Hogg E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: This proposal deprives Dunholme of any voice (as well as Welton) and takes no account of the development in housing already approved for both villages. An arbitrary division of the sort proposed takes no account of realities on the ground, local needs for representation and the overwhelming need for proper local representation.It provides a lesser voice to Dunholme just when it is expanding in tandem with Welton and both need more say in future. Lumping these townships in with others deprives both built and rural areas of proper representation Councillors should stand for well established areas on the ground, not to suit some arbitrary number. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7446 09/02/2016 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 Lincolnshire County Personal Details: Name: Marie Holmes E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Na Comment text: Hi we do not agree that the boundary should be separated. Splitting will not only break the small community up, I believe that this will just create confusion and probably add cost.... It really is a ridiculous idea..... Why is the question ...... Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/7131 03/02/2016 Mayers, Mishka From: Percy Hunt Sent: 26 January 2016 14:45 To: reviews Cc: Peter Williams Subject: Parish of Boothby Pagnell > Proposed local boundary changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Sir, As a result of the proposals Boothby Pagnell would move from Glenside to Colsterworth Rural. I propose that it stays within Glenside or the proposed Upper Glens ward. Currently Boothby is one of seven parishes within North Beltisloe benefice and therefore works with the other parishes of Braceby, Ingoldsby, Lenton, Old Somerby (which includes the Humby villages), Ropsley and Sapperton. All these parishes would be in the proposed Upper Glens ward. Additionally Boothby is one of the parishes covered by The Legend a bi‐monthly community magazine that is distributed to Ingoldsby, Lenton with Hanby, Kelsby and Osgodby. All these parishes would be in the proposed Upper Glens ward. As the rural communities and the links between them grow ever more fragile I think it important that Boothby Pagnell remains in a ward where it has some links rather than into a ward where it has no links. I do not have the time or resources to do the full “balancing” argument that is suggested but suspect that the transfer of ~150 souls would be within the sensitivities of the draft proposal. Many thanks, Percy __________________________________ R m m This email has been sent from a virus-free computer protected by Avast. www.avast.com 1 Mayers, Mishka From: Clive Ingall Sent: 07 February 2016 16:58 To: reviews Subject: local Government Boundry Commision (LGBC)draft recommendations Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Sent from my iPad Lincolnshire County Council Review. I think it is absolutely wrong that the village of Heighington should be be split in to two wards And having two separate electoral divisions heighington should be kept as one ward Heighington should be in with the ward with our neighbours Branston without doubt Two separate wards will be detrimental to the running of our local council Whoever thought this plan up has no idea regarding the the local layout of the area signed. Clive Ingall Muriel Ingall 9 Daniel Crescent 1 Mayers, Mishka From: Alex Ireland Sent: 29 January 2016 13:17 To: reviews Subject: Boundary commission splitting Cranwell Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I am writing to object to the splitting of East and west cranwell into two separate electoral constituencies. We are one community and the permanent residents of Cranwell that are living close to the military houses need the continuity of being fully linked to Cranwell Village. Many attend St Andrews Church, the village social club and are active members of the community. It is madness to consider splitting our village. Yours faithfully, Alexander Ireland Sent from my iPad Sent from Outlook 1 Mayers, Mishka From: Rebecca Ireland Sent: 29 January 2016 13:14 To: reviews Subject: Boundary commission splitting Cranwell Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I am writing to object to the splitting of East and west cranwell into two separate electoral constituencies. We are one community and the permanent residents of Cranwell that are living close to the military houses need the continuity of being fully linked to Cranwell Village. Many attend St Andrews Church, the village social club and are active members of the community. It is madness to consider splitting our village. Yours faithfully, Rebecca Ireland Sent from my iPad 1 Mayers, Mishka From: Tracy LE Sent: 15 January 2016 12:51 To: reviews Subject: electorial changes to LCC Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged I am slightly concerned with the boundary changes regarding Sibsey and Stickney. At present they are covered by the Boston and Skegness MP , Matt Warman. They are also grouped together as the Distract seat. The new LCC county councillor boundary change would mean that the area would be covered by the Coningsby area county councillor. I would think that as most people shop in Boston , as it is only a few miles away and have a district councillor that serve the area , they should stay under the Boston Skegness zone. They also access the Doctors surgery and William Lovell academy , located in Stickney. Tracy Lamy‐Edwards Stickney Parish councillor. 1 increase further, I believe it could have a significant impact on his ability to potentially carry out his duties effectively for so many proposed constituents. I fully support South Holland District Council (SHDC) but also feel that its views have not been taken into account and I am not surprised that SHDC are prepared to raise a judicial review against the Boundary Committee with regard to this matter. This has gone on for almost 10 years, all at a cost to me, the taxpayer. In summary, I feel pragmatically that this is nothing more that a purely political stunt which will only prove costly to the taxpayer, with no benefit at all to areas where it actually matters to the local people.