carlsson-hyslop, dans3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/reviews/east midlands... · 2018-03-16 · 1...

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan

From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 17:25To: reviewsSubject: FW: Boundary Commission review of Nottingham

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273

From: Taylor, Ben [mailt Sent: 22 January 2018 17:25 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Boundary Commission review of Nottingham Dear Sir Boundary Commission review of Nottingham I am emailing you as a resident of Mapperley ward in Nottingham. I understand that the Boundary Commission’s proposal for Mapperley ward is that it should remain a multi‐member ward (with three councillors). I am fully supportive of this proposal. It seems to me that the current arrangements work well, allowing for case work to distributed among the councillors, and for cover to be provided when one or other of them perhaps isn't available. Between them, three councillors can offer the ward a wide range of experience and skills, giving residents more diverse representation. Given this, to have broken the ward up into smaller, single‐member units would have been unwelcome, especially given the strong local sense of identity felt in the area. However, I understand that the Boundary Commission is also proposing that other parts of the city are broken up into single‐member wards. I have to say that I don't understand the logic of this. I fear that, to have some wards with single members and others with multi members looks incoherent, and it undermines the advantages of multi‐member wards I have identified above. It’s thus not clear to me why you would want to reconfigure the boundaries in this way. I hope that these comments can be considered as feedback on the Boundary Commission proposals. Yours faithfully Ben Taylor DISCLAIMER: This email is intended solely for the addressee. It may contain private and confidential information. If you are not the intended addressee, please take no action based on it nor show a copy to anyone. In this case, please reply to this email to highlight the error. Opinions and information in this email that do not relate to the official business of Nottingham Trent University shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by the University. Nottingham Trent University has taken steps to ensure that this email and any attachments are virus‐free, but we do advise that the recipient should check that the email and its attachments are actually virus free. This is in keeping with good computing practice.

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 09:54To: reviewsSubject: FW: Mapperley Boundary


From: namaste [mailto Sent: 21 January 2018 16:02 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Mapperley Boundary Dear Sir, It is right to keep Mapperley together. The area has a strong identity with the community throughout being connected culturally by the central Mapperley Park. A conversation area and one of Nottingham’s most distinctive areas. I love the ‘Mapperley Top’ area with its shops, cafes and restaurants, etc. This community should be kept together. Yours, Marcel V. Taylor

City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Patricia Thomas

Organisation Name: New Meadows Tenants and Residents Association

Comment text:

I have lived in the Meadows for 30 years and seen much change- flood defences built, .tram tracks laid, houses demolishedand now some new ones being built. I have chaired several groups- Meadows Partnership Trust for several years and now chair of New Meadows Tenants and Residents Association. My observations are- 1. Throughout those years residents from all parts of the Meadows have worked together when facing these challenges. 2. The area is a definite defined area- bounded by the river, two main roads east and west and the city to the north: we know we are "Meadows People".3 . Your visit seems to have been very superficial and outdated- the Old houses have new houses to west and east- it is not all Edwardian houses. New houses are being built in several areas of the Meadows, and so the division is not as you portray. Dividing us seems totally unnecessary- the population numbers are not such that we need that division- in fact we will end up with 2 small wards- Why bother changing this ? And yes, we do like having two ward councillors who bring different talents to work with us. I strongly disagree with your proposal to divide the Meadows. We have recently worked on a Meadows Memories project now in book form and what is reflected in that is a strong sense of pride in being a Meadows Resident. This unnecessary division saddens me : there is enough division in the world without creating new ones. As the MP said "There is more that unites us than divides us " Please don't add another division. Respectfully yours Pat Thomas

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

SUMMARY OF AN ALTERNATIVE MORE APPROPRIATE BOUNDARY IN NOTTINGHAM THAT RELATE TO LENTON As prepared by my friend who has had more time to dig into the numbers but aligns much more closely with my views about what makes sense to me given my understanding of the natural boundaries and characteristics of this area. Whilst it would make more sense to me to maintain the city as a single councillor discrete area, and to include the ‘Lenton Triangle’ and ‘Lenton Village’ (i.e. the Heron Drive Estate area) as part of Lenton (not Radford), i.e. run the boundary between Lenton and Radford down Ilkeston Road rather than Derby Road as this is where the natural boundary is, I would still concur with my friend that even to include the City, with the Park, Lenton and Dunkirk would make more sense that the currently proposed boundaries and ensure there is more convenient and effective local government and also provides a good electoral equality. These comments relate to the current wards Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey , Wollaton West, Dunkirk and Lenton, and Radford and Park. And follows an examination of the polling district data on your website. Combining Dunkirk and Lenton ward with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey does not make sense! The areas do not share a common identity and a combined area would not result in effective and convenient local government. I also strongly disagree that the Park Estate should be a single-member ward. Wollaton West and Wollaton East/ Lenton Abbey The simple solution to Wollaton West and Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey is to combine them into 2 2-councillor wards. Both wards share the same characteristics:

Suburban, low-density housing built post-1920 access to good schools – all children in catchment for Fernwood

Secondary School thriving local shops wide open green tranquil spaces. low crime rate. Easy access to Wollaton Park and mostly situated around the 4 sides

of the Park. Same Area Committee 7 for decision making and consultation with

public One of the key arguments for keeping these wards together rather than combining with wards with few or no similarities is the Council’s Area Committee system. Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey and Wollaton West are in the same Area Committee, known as Area 7. The Committee section is for making decisions, discussing issues common to both wards and making residents representatives aware of new initiatives and changes.

Combining both the Wollaton Wards and splitting roughly equally into 2 2-councillor wards would result in the following:

Ward Polling District Electoral Forecast Wollaton West WOWA, WOWB, WOWC,

WOWD, WOWE 11,222

Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey

WLAA, WLAB, WLAC, WLAD, WLAE

4,771

TOTAL FOR BOTH WOLLATON WARDS

15,993

AVERAGE FOR 2 2-councillor WARDS

7,996

Variance for 2 2-councillor wards

+ 4.1%

This variance of +4.1% would provide very good electoral equality. Dunkirk and Lenton Dunkirk and Lenton is combined in the Area Committee 4 with the Park Estate, and other polling districts in Radford and Arboretum ward. Issues which this area committee discusses frequently include night-time noise, fly tipping and dirty streets and houses in multiple occupation. The postal code of NG7 is characterised by being close to the City Centre and containing large, older housing stock which in many cases is owned by private landlords and rented to multiple occupants. These issues have nothing in common with Wollaton or Lenton Abbey. Other issues which Dunkirk and Lenton ward has in common with the Park Estate but not with Wollaton East and Lenton Abbey are:

The two areas both have strong residents associations (The Nottingham Park Residents Association www.parknews.co.uk) and the Lenton Drives and Neighbours Residents Association. Both residents associations take part in the same charity fundraising for the Lenton Centre, a volunteer-run community and leisure/swimming centre.

Children who live in the Park Estate and who attend state school will generally attend Edna G Olds Academy in Lenton or Dunkirk Primary.

There are two public rights of way linking the Park Estate with Lenton. One of those joining Park Road with Lenton Road was officially recognised at a public enquiry by an inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 20/11/2013 (Ref FPS/Q3060/7/1).

The two areas also share the same concerns about planning and how to resist conversion of family houses into houses of multiple occupancy (HMO) .Since around 2000, both communities have been substantially altered by the boom in private rented accommodation. The Park Estate is estimated to have at least one third of properties privately rented,

whilst Dunkirk and Lenton is around 50%. The transience of populations in private rented accommodation undermines the cohesion and sustainability of the communities and should be addressed by joint measures.

The two communities also share night-time noise concerns caused by house parties in converted HMOs. The past 2 years has seen combined campaigning by both communities to ask for more resources to fight noise and ASB at night-time. Both communities are concerned with the licencing of sales of alcohol which can affect ASB issues. There is a Community Trigger in progress at the moment to look at noise and low-level ASB and attended by residents in Lenton and the Park Estate who have been affected by the problems.

The communities also have conservation areas in common. The Park Estate is one large conservation area which was designated in 1987 whilst Lenton contains 2 conservation areas: New Lenton (designated 1976) and Old Lenton (designated 1978).

Geographically there are other strong ties: both communities are boarded by the Derby Road (an ancient track, now a major arterial route) on one side and the Nottingham Canal (constructed 1790s) on the other. Both areas are urban with strong identities. The Park Estate has its own company to take care of the streets and gas lighting, Lenton has its own independent cinema and volunteer-run historic swimming pool. A more sensible proposal is to join Dunkirk/Lenton, The Park Estate and the City Centre into a 3-councillor ward as such: 2016 2023 DUNA 2,647 2,909 DUNB 1,602 1,605 DUNC 852 855 RPAF 2,878 3,296 BRIB 2333 3423 10,312 12,088 This would result in a variance of +4.9% and provide an excellent electoral equality and join together polling districts which are set to see unprecedented increases in electors and changes to their demographics over the coming 6 years. Local councillors will be able to concentrate expertise on licencing, transient populations and ASB. Regards, CARL TOWNER.

1


From: Dave Trimble Sent: 10 January 2018 18:49To: reviewsSubject: Local Government Boundary Commission England - Nottingham

To Whom it May Concern, I write to you in response to your proposals for the Nottingham Local Government Boundary Review and in particular your proposal to split Bridge Ward into 3 single member wards, as well as the issue of single member wards in general which I do not support. As a Meadows resident I find it unfathomable to understand why anyone would consider splitting the Meadows up, it is an entity in its own right with its very own identity, wherever you live in the Meadows. There is some logic for the Meadows being separate from the city centre. So if the city centre is not to to be encompassed with a 3 member Meadows ward, then the city centre should be paired with another close by part of the city and not be a single member ward. In 1067 William the Conqueror chose the high rocky promontory to build Nottingham Castle as a strategic position overlooking the “Meadows” towards the River Trent as the key {national} crossing on the route from London to York. Those Meadows subsequently grew up with the railways to become the Meadows we know now, becoming an important area of both private and social housing. Today it is an excellent excellent example of a modern multi cultural community that works incredibly well with a wide range of communities living harmoniously together. There are many good examples of this in the Meadows which has been a distinct and thriving community for almost 100 years. The shopping centre at the Bridgeway Centre is used by many local residents particularly the Cooperative and other local independent shops such as the butchers and others. The Queens Walk Community Centre has been used for many years for local groups to meet. Local parks and in particular the Victoria Embankment are important recreation and sports space for the whole of the Meadows. All local schools enrol children from the Meadows and partners such as the police and health treat the Meadows as an entity in its own right, as they should. All of these are fabulous examples of a modern multi culture community working very well together. Two other excellent examples of that are the award winning Arkwright Meadows Community Gardens, which was set up and continues to be run by local people of The Meadows. It is an oasis within the inner city and brings together the diverse local community, as residents from all areas and backgrounds to meet together, buy vegetables, attend and run events, take part in activities, volunteer and just spend time in these beautiful well used gardens. Also the Meadows Library has a wide and diverse base of active library card holders. Please note the diversity base below. Attendance to conversation classes at the Library enable people to speak English and they are steady growing as well as twice weekly Homework Club sessions which are being run attended by children from families where English is not the first language spoken in the home. It is very well attended and around 80% of the children are from an ethnic minority background Breakdown of active library cards by ethnicity, it is presently; White British 20% Pakistani 7% India 6% African 7% Caribbean 3% Bangladeshi 2%

2

Chinese 0.5% Mixed Others; Irish, Eastern European, Arabian 0.5% Ethnicity Not Disclosed 54%

I would now like to address the issues of the single member wards being proposed for which I do not support. Multi member wars are very important for attendance at local advice surgeries, regular local issues meetings, consultations events, residents meetings and attendance on local ward walks. Also the area can be represented on double or treble the amount of decision making committees. So in conclusion, I would support a 3 member ward with the whole of the Meadows area and the city centre. But most of all I think it would criminal to split the Meadows up and at the very least it should be a 2 member ward celebrating the modern diverse community that it is. If the Boundary Commission do recognise this, you could build on the pride that is already evident in the area and even do what it says on the tin and name it the Meadows Ward. This I believe would further build on and enhance this community, that has successfully made the transition from open meadows to a white British residential and manufacturing area onto the harmonious, modern and diverse community that works very well today. There are absolutely no natural or major boundaries in the Meadows, please don’t invent an artificial one. Dave Trimble,

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 16:46To: reviewsSubject: FW: Multi-member Wards

Dan Carlsson-Hyslop Review Officer LGBCE 0330 500 1273 -----Original Message----- From: Isabel Turnbull [mailt Sent: 22 January 2018 16:45 To: Carlsson-Hyslop, Dan <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Multi-member Wards Hello Dan, I have already submitted a response in regards to the Mapperley Ward and wish to comment on the proposal for the Arboretum Ward to be a single member ward and Hyson Green to be a two member ward. I believe that these two should be merged to create one multi member ward for all the benefits that this brings. Also due to the transport links between the two and also the shared space of the Forrest Recreation Ground this makes sense. It is important that these areas are given the resources that they need and not neglected. I hope that multi member wards are implemented across Nottingham. Yours sincerely Isabel Turnbull

Hello, I’d just like to comment upon your proposals for Clifton which I think is completely ridiculous, for example your suggested Clifton North ward is an enormous mess. It takes in very different areas such as Wilford, Silverdale, Clifton Village, Clifton Grove and then a large part of Clifton Estate. It’s a huge ward with an electorate of over 12 thousand and, I believe, would become the largest ward in the city by 2023.

It doesn’t make sense to me as I feel a more sensible option would be to create a ward based on the Clifton Estate, thus making more compact wards with similar communities in them.

James Wagstaffe

Resident of the Clifton Estate

1

Carlsson-Hyslop, DanFrom: Sarah GammageSent: 07 January 2018 10:38To: reviewsSubject: Ward BoundaryReview in Nottingham

Dear Sirs, As a Park resident I would be very unhappy at the proposed change to the way the Park Estate is represented to having a small ward centred on the Park Estate represented by one councillor. The Park Estate is unique but I do not feel that having one councillor would best reflect our interests or those of the surrounding areas. Currently we have access to 3 councillors as part of Radford and Park. One of our councillors was not functioning for a long time but we still had two people left to represent our interests. I know that there are regular ward rounds with councillors and anyone locally who wishes to attend. No system is perfect, but with one councillor I feel we would be seriously disadvantaged even if that person were effective. If not - and this can happen all too often - we would be hardly represented at all. I know the proposal will have a superficial appeal for some in the Park bit it will actually weaken our influence on committees which are fundamental to how we are represented. Also I do not feel happy about the atmosphere of exclusiveness that this would foster. Having a Radford and Park ward fosters a concern for a wider diversity of interests and neighbourliness. If there has to be change I would support a proposal for doubling the influence and voting rights on council committees for our area, as well as recognising that the Castle is a focal point for us residents in the Park. sincerely Sarah Waites long time Park resident

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 23 January 2018 09:28To: reviewsSubject: FW: Nottingham boundary review


From: Tomasina Wallman [mailto Sent: 22 January 2018 23:11 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Nottingham boundary review Hello, Though it would have been better to have had no proposed changes to Dunkirk and Lenton ward I accept that the electoral imbalance means something has to change and believe there are enough links between my Dunkirk, Lenton and Lenton Abbey to justify your proposals to merge the area in one three member ward. The presence of University Park Campus is a particularly clear focal point that links these areas. In Dunkirk, the housing is mostly occupied by students who primarily attend lectures on University Park Campus. Facilities such as The Student Union which has a bar, cafes, restaurants and shops also means that University Park Campus is a primary location for the social life of many students living in Dunkirk as. Settled residents living in Lenton Abbey also look to University Park campus as Highfield Park has a playground next the Lakeside Arts Theatre which many families with young children from the area use. Dunkirk and Lenton and Lenton Abbey are also well linked by the Orange Line 36 bus route which goes regularly down Derby Road and onto Woodside Road in Lenton Abbey and passes Broadgate Park and other accommodation near the West Entrance of University Park Campus. This is particularly convenient for students living in this area who have lectures on Jubilee Campus and provides further justification for the decision to merge these two wards in your boundary proposals. Please take these thoughts into consideration. Best wishes, Tomasina Wallman

1


From: pamela watsonSent: 10 January 2018 09:54To: reviewsSubject: Nottingham City Council Wards

I am writing with regard to the proposed boundary changes for Nottingham City. My own ward Wollaton West has three councillors and I am pleased to note that no changes are suggested to this arrangement and the boundaries are to stay the same. I am however dismayed to see proposals for other areas in the city where small one councillor wards have been proposed. This seems to be a very bad idea. At a time where it is difficult to recruit new councillors I think this would be something of a deterrent to anyone coming to local government for the first time. The advantage of multi‐member wards is that there can be some level of cooperation and support among councillors ‐ even if/when they belong to different political parties. If you wish to promote diversity among local government representatives this is certainly not the way to do it. Yours faithfully Pamela Watson

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 09:54To: reviewsSubject: FW: Potential change of wards in Nottingham


From: Ruth and Paul Watts [ Sent: 21 January 2018 15:04 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Potential change of wards in Nottingham

To the Boundary Commission, Review Officer (Nottingham)

LGBC, 14th Floor Mill bank Tower

London SW1P 4QP

21.01.17

I believe there is a possibility of dividing some of the wards in

Nottingham City (and may be my own ward Mapperley) into smaller parts each

with one councillor. This would be a great shame in my view as larger wards

2

with a variety of housing & socio-economic areas provide us residents with a better vision of the city as a whole rather than smaller inclusive areas. Currently I live in Mapperley Park which is served by a residents'

association but it is rather an exclusive group. Most of the participating residents have considerably more

money than the average Nottingham citizen as proved by house size

etc. While I value this association I want our ward sizes to be much larger

so it helps us to relate to a good variety of suburbs and residents.

Our three councillors work well together, supporting each other so they can play to their expertises and occasionally when one is unable to work due to illness or other personal matters. It is really important that we can campaign across the area rather than arguing only for the residential area around our immediate property. It is impressive to see how well the three councillors are still able to support small areas as part of their work such as additional leaf collection in Mapperley Park, refurbishing the Wells Community Centre and parking issues around Ransom Road.

Previously I lived in Arboretum ward and my parents in Wollaton. The same comments about potential divisiveness applies to those areas too. I look forward to hearing the outcome and hope the decision favours maintaining the wards of Nottingham with several councillors as I believe most of us who choose to live in the city do so because we value living a in a diverse community.

Best wishes

Ruth Watts

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 17:21To: reviewsSubject: FW: Boundary Review Submission- Mapperly


From: Jack Whitcher [mailto Sent: 22 January 2018 17:09 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Boundary Review Submission‐ Mapperly

Dear Boundary Commission, I am a resident in Mapperley and I would like to comment that I think it’s positive you have chosen to keep us a three councillor ward. I think Mapperley is a very strong local area and that the boundaries are strong. However, I am worried about the use of single‐member wards in Nottingham South. To me it looks like these areas have been carved up for no positive reason. Why have you split up the Meadows when it’s such a cohesive unit? Whilst I am happy regarding the very minor change you made to Mapperley I think in order to ensure good governance across the whole of Nottingham the wards should be 2 or 3 member only, let’s not have voices lost. Kind regards, Jack Whitcher

1


From: Christopher WhittakerSent: 15 January 2018 12:29To: reviewsSubject: On Proposed Changes to Radford & Park Boundary, Nottingham.

Good afternoon, As a resident for most of my life in either Radford or Lenton I feel several things have been neglected in the proposed changes that have an adverse effect of community cohesion. Lenton/Radford are demographic s made up of predominantly working class/student/ young professionals, whereas the park is considerably more affluent (probably one for the most affluent parts of the whole county) ‐ a ‘gated community’ an area without any social housing, rent prices considerably higher than its surroundings. Separating the park into its own entity, severing its ties to local communities, or the city, would be a step backwards for cohesion. At the moment we elect councillors to represent a diverse constituency: I grew up in Lenton, did my paper‐round for newsagents on Ilkeston road and delivered broadsheets to the Park – it seemed like another world to my own (and in many ways it is.) Such vast differences, just streets away from each other, are striking ‐ however these changes would divide that diversity into crudely drawn new boundaries that feel like they are dividing up ‘lower income’ wards in order to facilitate a new ‘higher income’ ward to have its own, sole representative. We use shared transport routes, Derby Road, and shared supermarkets, libraries, the health centre. And the diversity of the current ward is a cause for celebration and brings the ear together. These proposals seem to treat the diversity as an ‘inconvenience’ to the Park residents? This will not improve cohesion. If separating the Park from Radford, surely pairing it up with the proposed ‘City’ ward would provide some balance and diversity, rather than the current proposal? On the name: The proposed changes will split Radford from The Park and merge parts of Lenton with Radford to accommodate this, and then further divide Radford into Hyson Green, Arboretum and Radford etc. The changes do not seem to understand the ‘Lenton’ part of the changes; it has its own identity, shared services with Radford etc ‐ so the ward name ‘Radford’ would not be appropriate. Thank you. Christopher Whittaker Sent from my iPhone

1


From: Carlsson-Hyslop, DanSent: 22 January 2018 09:54To: reviewsSubject: FW: Boundary changes


From: joanne wilson [mailto Sent: 22 January 2018 09:03 To: Carlsson‐Hyslop, Dan <Dan.Carlsson‐[email protected]> Subject: Boundary changes

I am writing to express my disagreement with the alterations being made to parts of Nottingham City. Our current boundaries have been used for well over a decade and I see no reason to alter the status quo. Why would you want to create such a confusion of wards in Nottingham South which vary from single-member to multi-member wards? It creates a mess to govern over and will add unnecessary difficulties for local councillors and residents! Why can’t the boundaries be kept as they were? If it aint broke why fiddle with it? If you are forced to make certain changes you could at least keep seats multi-member. It feels bizarre that you would want to lessen the choice people locally have with their councillors. It really isn’t great for that ward or for Nottingham in general. Yours in bewilderment Joanne Wilson

City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name:

E-mail:

Postcode:

Michael Wisbey

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The park Nottingham should be a separate ward withits own seat as it is a completely different community to Radford

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

City of Nottingham

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Wisbey

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The park Nottingham should be a separate ward withits own seat as it is a completely different community to Radford

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded