local resident submissions to the gloucester city council

Local resident submissions to the Gloucester City Council electoral review

This PDF document contains submissions from local residents with surnames A-H.

Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between

bookmarks.

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Theresa Allen

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of , Quedgeley I wish to protest about being moved to Kingsway Ward. We are an established part of Quedgeley, Gloucester. completely inappropriate. Putting the parts of the exsiting Quedgeley into Kingsway would mean that we wouldn't be represented correctly, the needs of Old Quedgeley are completely different to the new and up and coming Kingsway.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Page 1 of 1Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

03/03/2015https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4957

Annotation 1: Use Abbeymead Avenue as boundary

Annotation 2: Use Lobleys Drive as boundary

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Mr Argent

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

. We are well served by local services, the majority of which are located in Hucclecote, for example Hucclecote library, the playing fields (King George V Playing Fields), the community centre, dentist, doctors, shops, banks etc. Most of the primary school aged children in our street go to Dinglewell School, which is also in Hucclecote. With this in mind, it makes sense for the voters within our street to have the democratic right to have their say on these vital services that they actually use daily. Whilst we appreciate the need to adjust the boundaries, the current proposals would mean that local residents would loose the right to vote on the community services and issues that actually effect them. Surely the point of local ward boundaries is to ensure that people have the chance to vote on the public services that effect them? Perhaps a more suitable proposal, which we have tried to annotate on the online map would be to utilise Abbeymead Avenue and Lobleys Drive (the two main distrubutor roads in the area) as the boundary between Hucclecote and Abbeymead wards. This would allow some adjustment to the boundary, be clear concise boundaries formed by established main roads, but importantly ensure that the various constituents within the wards could still vote on the issues that actually effect them.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: Use Abbeymead Avenue as boundary

2: Use Lobleys Drive as boundary

Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013.



Annotation 1:

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Lawrence and Alison Arnall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

Changes to Gloucester Abbey Ward We have looked at the proposed changes to the Abbey Ward, Gloucester, which include splitting Abbey Ward into the Abbeydale and Abbeymead Wards, and have discovered to our surprise that our house has been placed in the Abbeymead rather than the Abbeydale Ward. We consider the proposal to be very unsatisfactory for the following reasons –• The only way out of The Chase is onto Bittern Avenue, Abbeydale. Bittern Avenue is in the new Abbeydale Ward.• We have lived in Abbeydale for 25 years. We strongly feel part of Abbeydale community. We have always used the Abbeydale shops and facilities. Our children have grown up in Abbeydale, attended Heron School, Abbeydale and went to activities at Abbeydale Community Centre. Our Royal Mail postal address is Abbeydale. Please would you consider amending the new Abbeydale Ward boundary so it includes The Chase, The Malverns and the north side of Bittern Avenue. This would then allow current Abbeydale residents, who have no direct road access to Abbeymead, to be placed in the Abbeydale Ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1:




Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Heather Arnold

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

Why is Church Drive added to Kingsway? Church Drive is in the middle of Quedgeley. Kingsway is a new estate, over the A38. Field Court Schools are in the heart of Quedgeley, not on the outskirts. Please rethink.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Annotation 1: Quedgeley/Kingsway border

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Davina Ball

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

I believe the boarder for the Kingsway/Quedgeley ward should be the A38. You currently have Quedgeley parish council offices and Quedgeley community centre in the new Kingsway ward. The A38 is a natural boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: Quedgeley/Kingsway border




Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Natalie Boots

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We have just moved into our first home in Quedgeley (church drive) and we strongly oppose to being a part of Kingsway. Both me and my partner have lived in Quedgeley all of our lives, my partner plays for quedgeley wanderers football club. The A38 is a obvious divide for quedgeley and Kingsway. We have quedgeley church, quedgeley doctors & dentists, quedgeley fryer all in a short distance from our home and feel we are a main part of quedgeley and do not wish to be a part of Kingsway. We also would like our future children to go to a quedgeley school as we have 2 within a very short walking distance and therefore if my children would need to go to a Kingsway school it would be a car journey which wouldn't help with traffic build up around schools.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Susan Buckland

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: My Family

Comment text:

We (my husband and me ) have lived in for nearly 30 years and our daughter all her life , she's 22. We do not want to be moved to Kingsway ward. We are happy being in Quedgeley. Quedgeley as a village has been in existence for a lot longer than Kingway. In deed it did not exist when we first moved to Church Drive Quedgeley. As far as we can remember when it was first developed the powers that be wanted it to have a separate identity. We are completely opposed to the new boundary proposals. There is no good reason for it, apart from the fact that somebody must be making some money from it , if the change took place.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Laura Bullivant

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Utterly ridiculous - use the existing boundary of the A38 - why class the Old Thatch which has been a part of Quedgeley since the 1300's as Kingsway, Church Drive was also one of the first estates in quedgeley why move it now.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Porter, Johanna

From: Elaine Cocks Sent: 08 March 2015 15:21To: Reviews@Cc:Subject: Proposed changes to ward boundaries in Abbeydale

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

For the attention of the Review Officer: It has been brought to my attention that two new wards will be created in Abbeydale and Abbeymead in 2016. I live at The Malverns, Abbeydale, Gloucester; and I understand that my property will be in the Abbeymead ward under the new proposals. I am writing to ask that you reconsider this and place my home in the Abbeydale ward. We live in Abbeydale and consequently any decisions made by Abbeydale councillors will directly affect us. Your proposals will mean that I am unable to use my democratic right to vote for Councillors serving the area where I live. As nice as Abbeymead is, we don’t actually live there and I am struggling to find a reason as to why I would vote for a candidate to represent that area. On occasion I will go to Abbeymead to the Dentist or to the Turmot Hoer, but otherwise I very rarely even drive through Abbeymead. It therefore does not make any sense as to why it is appropriate that I would have a say on who is elected to serve there. This arrangement would also be unfair on the voters in Abbeymead in that people in neighbouring Abbeydale can vote for their council representation. What level of commitment will the Abbeymead councillors have for the Abbeydale residents in their ward? I suspect that my interests and that of our neighbours may be overlooked. I fail to see that councillors that I have to vote for would have the desire or time to look after my interests when I live in a different estate to their ward. If my interests are served by the Abbeydale Councillors then surely I have the right to vote in their election. If there is an issue in the Abbeydale area requiring the help of a local councillor – the Abbeydale councillors may not be able to help as we are not in their ward. The Abbeymead councillors may not be able to assist as the problem is within the Abbeydale ward. This could create an impossible situation and also is extremely inefficient. I am astonished that in this day and age my right to exercise my vote for my local council representation is being taken away from me. Is it legal that you can withdraw my right to vote for Councillors in the area in which I live? Your proposals will leave us and our neighbours in a “no man’s land” with reduced support on a local level. You are also denying us the right to vote for who we would like to represent us on the council in the area of the city in which we live. Therefore, I strongly object to being placed in the Abbeymead ward. I look forward to hearing that you have placed my property under the Abbeydale ward as this is where I live. Kind regards Elaine Cocks.

Annotation 1: GP surgery, chemist, family centre infant and junior schools

Annotation 2: Longlevens GP surgery

Annotation 3: Longlevens chemist

Annotation 4: Plock court playing fields. allotments and site of derilect school

Annotation 5: Longlevens junior school

Annotation 6:

Annotation 7: Green line - route of road to longlevens from part of longlevens in blue

Annotation 9:

Annotation 10:

area I want reinstated into Kingsholm ward

Annotation 11:

kingsholm and woottom ward

Annotation 12:

Longford ward in Tewkesbury

Annotation 13:

longlevens prior to 2000 boundary change

Annotation 14:

kingsholm rugby club

Annotation 15:

no 94 bus route - every 10 mins

Annotation 16:

area retained in kingsholm following 2000 boundary review

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: susan collier

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

The area in blue, annotation 10, was added to Longlevens in 2000. Previously it was in Kingsholm. The 2000 review decreed that the homes linking to the left of Tewkesbury Road were to be retained in Kingsholm because of the natural link of Tewkesbury road to Kingsholm. However the2000 review decreed that the

1: GP surgery, chemist, family centre infant and junior schools

2: Longlevens GP surgery

6:

7: Green line - route of road to longlevens from part of

longlevens in blue9:

10: area I want reinstated into Kingsholm ward

11: kingsholm and woottom ward

12: Longford ward in Tewkesbury

13: longlevens prior to 2000 boundary change

14: kingsholm rugby club15: no 94 bus route - every 10

mins

16: area retained in kingsholm following 2000 boundary review

3: Longlevens chemist4: Plock court playing fields.

allotments and site of derilect school

5: Longlevens junior school




homes leading of the right of Tewkesbury road, annotation 10, were added to Longlevens purely to balance the ratio of electors to councillors, despite many objections as cited in the 2000 review report. I am requesting that the area in annotation 10 be reinstated to Kingsholm and Wotton for the following reasons: STRONG CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE BOUNDARIES The map used in all of the consultation paperwork for the 2000 and current review do not reflect the actual isolation of annotation 10 from annotation 13. The northern bypass is used as a clear boundary marker but for the residents in area annotation 10 to get to Longlevens annotation 13 they have to travel alone the green line travelling though Longford. The land in annotation 10 is separated from annotation 13 by annotation 4 being a vast playing field that floods, an allotment, Debenhams sports field, the university of Gloucester ground and a school site which is now closed. This annotation 4 is the natural boundary. The map above reflects this. It is not safe to travel from area 10 to area13 at night by foot, in view of the vast area of open green space, and there is only 3 buses connecting the two areas between the hours of 1840 and 2210.It is a 15 minute bus ride and often the buses do not turn up or run early or late. Looking at the map you can see how isolated we are in area 10 from area 13. Residents in area 13 do not identify with our problems in area 10 of speeding, potholes, blocked drains, flooding, travellers illegally parking in Plock Court resulting in rat infestation nearby homes, motorists parking on pavements on rugby match days or when there are events at Plock Court playing fields which are considerable i.e race for life, sporting tournaments and activities at the Tennis centre, as they are separated from this area 10 by the vastness of Plock Court playing fields and the parish of Longford. REFLECTING COMMUNITY INTERESTS AND IDENTITIES. Area 10 has a postal address of Longford. it takes 5 - 10 minutes to walk to the GP surgery chemist, family centre, infant and junior schools, shops, hairdressers, butchers in kingsholm. To go to the city of Gloucester to shop, work and socialise residents in area 10 have to travel through Kingsholm. They are affected by Kingsholm issues of traffic, parking, vandalism, crime, anti social behaviour, street lighting, pot holes etc. all of which are council issues. There is a Kngsholm and Wotton residents association which incorporates the residents of area 10 as they appreciate the close proximity and the shared problems particulary traffic speeding and Kingsholm Rugby match day parking issues. Residents in area 10 have no cause to travel to Longlevens as if they work in Cheltenham they can go on to the northern bypass which skirts around Longlevens. The homes in area 10 were predominantly constructed in 1984 except for the main Tewkesbury Road and Escourt Road, and as stated have a postal address of Longford. The homes are minutes away to walk to Kingsholm and five minutes on to the city centre. To go to the GP surgery, schools and chemist in Longlevens area 13 you have to travel along the A38 Tewkesbury road and travel through Longford. For elderly and disabled and people without cars it is a 15 minute bus ride and go to the GP surgery, schools and chemist in Longlevens area 13 you have to travel along the A38 Tewkesbury road and travel through Longford. For elderly and disabled and people without cars it is a 15 minute bus ride and then a 10 - 15 minute walk. The 97/98 bus route is every half an hour and at night only runs at 19,40, 21.30 and 2310. There is a hourly bus service on a Sunday, of which the last bus is 1700. The road I live in has 27 houses and only 5 of these homes has two cars. Despite an half hour service the bus often runs late or early, and if you have mobility walking aids, wheelchairs or shopping trolleys or infant buggies it is not always possible to board a bus. letter of complaint to Stagecoach attached. How then can residents in area 13 use the facilities in area 13 when access is not guaranteed. How can you go to WI meeting or community activity if there is no bus service. There is therefore no good links across the ward from area 10 to 13. Area 13 is serviced by a number 94 bus service which runs every 10 minutes and every 20 minutes at night. For residents to access the no 94 service they would have an half hour walk along Escourt Road plus the time to travel to their homes. The homes in area 13 were built as housing estates in the 1930s to 1950s consisting of of Oxstalls, Brooklands Park, The little Normans which have the shops, pubs, community centres etc at their heart. Later Greyhound Gardens was built, but it is an extension of the existing established housing estate of Brooklands Park, The area 15 is truly established, and we at area 10 were added to this established ward simply to satisfy the elector/councillor ratio. I personally have raised many issues with my 3 councillors over many years and real day to day problems exist. We in area 10 have had no satisfactory flood alleviation work like in area 13, A consultation in our area was not properly adhered to because the council and the Environmental Agency had already decided the outcome, being a wetlands park. We have repeatedly suffered the inconvenience of buses being diverted because of flooded roads, or being soaked because of blocked drains and surface water on pavements, making them inaccessible, meaning we have to go step out on to a main busy road with no speed restrictions. Event organisers at events at Plock Court have been told by the council not to meet with us, as we will only complain, regarding issues of noise, antisocial behaviour and motorists blocking pavements etc. We have ongoing problems with travellers and the council are proposing to build a fence. We would prefer a barrier for safety reasons, but were not even consulted. In view of the outcome of the 2000 review most residents see no point in taking part in the consultation. It is not the number that object but the reasons as to why a persons object that should be considered, and properly debated. After all it is blatantly obvious that the reasons I have listed above affects the majority of people in area 10. Compared to the number of the electorate in area 13 who clearly have common problems, we are few in number and feel isolated and unrepresented and not supported. I believe that the councillors in Kingsholm and Wotton would represent us better as we can relate and unite with the common issues facing their electorate and visa versa, seeing that we predominantly use the amenities and facilities in Kingshom it makes sense that we have a say on any proposals affecting these commonly used facilities etc. the maps used in all of the proposal documents do not reflect the true

Uploaded Documents:

Download



Operational manager Stagecoach Clarence Street Gloucester 17 February 2015 Dear Sir I write to officially complain about the 97/98 bus service between Gloucester and Cheltenham. I have written previously following an incident where my granddaughter and myself were injured as we fell down the stairs, because the driver failed to observe that we were trying to leave the bus. Unfortunately this is still a reoccurring problem. It does not help that on the 97/98 route, in particular, that there is no consistency with drivers. At one time we had regular drivers do a morning or afternoon shift. Now every journey it is a different driver. This is causing continuing problems, as regular drivers were familiar with the route, and on going road works etc. and got to know where passengers alighted, and allowed time for elderly and passengers with young children to safely get off. I have previously written in respect of my self and grand daughter falling down the stairs causing injury to us both. I still on occasions have to rely on passengers shouting out that we are still on the stairs as the bus has set off. Often this results in the bus driver braking suddenly which exasperates the problem. We are told not to stand till the bus stops, obviously for our own safety, but drivers have to allow time for young children and older less mobile passengers to alight safely. This 97/98 bus service needs urgent review. We are informed that this service is not financially viable, as it is mainly used by those with bus passes, but the service is woefully inadequate and not fit for purpose. As many of the passengers are elderly they have walking aids and shopping trolleys which take up a lot of space. Often it is difficult to park them all safely to avoid obstruction and with the service only every half hour the buses are usually full. It is becoming increasingly problematic if a wheelchair or children's pushchair also needs space. Surely on health and safety issues and not discriminating against the elderly, infirm or disabled this service should be run every 10 - 15 minutes in line with most other city bus services. This morning I caught the 0940 bus from Gloucester to Cheltenham. It stopped at practically every stop and was almost full. The bus picked up 5 buggies. Luckily there were no elderly passengers needing to get on with walking aids. When I alighted at The Promenade 3 of these buggies had been haphazardly placed on the parcel shelf and were obstructing the gangway. This service needs to cater for the elderly and passengers with children. All of the children went upstairs, whilst the bus was in motion, and the motion of the bus was making them unsteady on their feet. All the parents commented that they could not manage a child. a folded buggy and shopping whilst the bus was moving. The bus was running 15 minutes late because of parents having to collapse buggies. There is insufficent storage for childrens' buggies and elderly passengers walking aids. Clearly people, as I have personally experienced in the past on numerous occasions, are, or should be left at bus stops, to ensure health and safety rules are not breached, for the safety of all passengers. This route is fast becoming a case of first on is catered for with no consideration for elderly or young children left behind. Waiting an extra half an hour does not guarantee the next bus can cater for you.If buses were more frequent this would ease the pressure for par of buggies and mobility aids. Yours sincerely

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Ann doughty

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident

Comment text:

I support the City Council's original proposal of three 2 member wards in the Quedgeley ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Charles doughty

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Resident

Comment text:

I support the City Council's original proposal of three 2 member wards for the Quedgeley ward.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Porter, Johanna

From: Judith Drummond Sent: 07 March 2015 13:27To: Reviews@Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucester: Draft Recommendations

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

Review Officer (Gloucester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76-86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Dear Sir/Madam, Electoral Boundary Review Gloucester City Council Quedgeley Ward Draft Recommendations I refer to the current electoral review for the City of Gloucester and the proposals for the Quedgeley Ward. These are my own comments and are sent in addition to the submissions already put forward by my Husband, Kenneth Drummond. I would comment as follows:- It is patently obvious to anyone who lives in Quedgeley and anybody who looks at a map that Church Drive and the Kingsway area are two entirely separate areas. I have never been to Kingsway and I have lived in Church Drive since 1979! You cannot drive directly to Kingsway from here. In fact it is a long way around to get there - that was the point of the new southern bypass to avoid having to traverse the B4008 which runs along the top Church Drive to achieve a more direct route into Gloucester City. It carved Quedgeley in two in fact! To walk to Kingsway you have to cross 2 busy roads - one with 2 lanes, the B4008 and then you have to cross an even busier road, (the A38 Southern Bypass) with 4 lanes of fast moving traffic and several feeder roads branching off the main 4 lanes! It is dual carriageway and therefore vehicles are travelling at high speeds. So that's 6 lanes of traffic - geographically this proposal doesn't make sense. Pedestrian access to Kingsway is a very real problem, especially for the elderly or infirm and people with small children because if they ever did need to go there on foot it is a fairly daunting prospect. Kingsway has their own brand new community centre - my community centre is no more than 200 yards from my house. Funnily enough it is proposed that our older community centre in School Lane, Quedgeley will also fall within the Kingsway electoral ward - so that will mean in essence, Kingsway, on paper at least, will have two community centres! Additionally, between the B4008 and the A38 bypass there is a large strip of land which runs north to south - the entire length of Quedgeley - consisting of housing, shopping centre and industrial units. All of these are significant barriers. Yours sincerely Mrs Judith Drummond Sent from my iPad

1

Porter, Johanna

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 06 March 2015 08:40To: Porter, JohannaSubject: FW: Electoral Review of Gloucester: Draft Recommendations

‐‐‐‐‐Original Message‐‐‐‐‐ From: Judith Drummond [ Sent: 05 March 2015 20:32 To: Reviews@ Subject: Electoral Review of Gloucester: Draft Recommendations Review Officer (Gloucester) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76‐86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Dear Sir/Madam, Electoral Boundary Review Gloucester City Council Quedgeley Ward Draft Recommendations I refer to the current electoral review for the City of Gloucester and the proposals for the Quedgeley Ward. I would comment as follows: Quedgeley is the only Parish within the City of Gloucester which has its own Parish Council. Unlike many other suburbs within the City, it has retained a distinct character of its own. This is reinforced by the physical and social infrastructure which serves the Parish. Physically, Quedgeley is separated from the remainder of the City of Gloucester by Daniels Brook there is only one access point to Quedgeley from the City, which is at Cole Avenue traffic lights. This creates a very real psychological barrier in that one is always conscious of entering and leaving Quedgeley in a way that one is not conscious of entering and leaving other areas of the City. This separation strengthens Quedgeley 's identity. Further, Quedgeley is situated at the greatest distance from the historic core of Gloucester, this adds to the sense of isolation and brings the community together. Socially, Quedgeley has inherited from the past the network of local organisations and facilities which provided the framework of the former village community. The rapid rate of development in later years created stresses and strains within this framework but it has survived and developed and plays an important role in facilitating the integration within the community of the residents of the new estates. As this process continues it is therefore important that every opportunity should be taken to strengthen Quedgeley's separate identity and sense of place and to reinforce the social infrastructure which holds the local community together. The Councillors who represent Quedgeley on the City Council have an important part to play in this. If both City and Parish Councils are to fulfill their respective rolls effectively, there needs to be a high degree of liaison between them. This is most likely to be achieved if the City Councillors themselves identify with Quedgeley. If, however, the City Councillors are also representing other areas where there is no Parish Council, they are less likely to form an effective partnership with the Quedgeley Parish Council ‐ and Quedgeley's long term interests will be adversely affected as a result.

2

The review of the electoral ward boundaries for the City of Gloucester should therefore accept as a fundamental principal that in Quedgeley the boundaries of the electoral wards should follow the Parish boundaries if at all possible. The adoption of this principle would require a number of amendments to the current proposals. Copeland Park the strip of land between the A38 and Daniels Brook was designed in accordance with Government guidelines and was required to discourage the use of the private motor car and encourage the use of public transport, cycle paths and pedestrian footpaths linking to the development at Kingsway. These are now provided and operating. Residents of Copeland Park have far easier and convenient access to Kingsway than the residents of Church Drive. In respect of Copeland Park, it is arguable that it may enjoy a greater community of interest with the Grange Ward as it is the only part of Quedgeley not accessed by the Cole Avenue traffic lights but by the Greenhill Drive roundabout instead. Leaving it in the Grange Ward would help to maintain electoral numbers in that ward. However, the residents of Copeland Park will be paying Council Tax to the Quedgeley Parish Council and the area is and will continue to form part of an electoral ward for the Quedgeley Parish Council ‐ potentially very confusing if City and Parish elections coincide and residents are required to vote in two different places! In any event, links with Quedgeley and Kingsway should be maintained and strengthened. On balance, therefore, it is preferable that this area should always be included in a Quedgeley Ward and for the Kingsway Ward to have two City Councillors to represent them. As for the proposal for Church Drive to be electorally part of the Kingsway Ward, I would contend that Church Drive should stay as it is as Church Drive is yards from the church, community centre, Village Hall, Parish Council Offices, the local health campus, library and the district shopping centre. Church Drive is such an integral part of the community it is considered to be the heart of the community as the rest of Quedgeley has expanded around Church Drive. In fact, such is the civic pride and duty of Church Drive residents, many have been the driving force for the running of ,or setting up of community organisations I.e. Quedgeley Community Trust, Quedgeley Village Hall Trust, Quedgeley Parish Council, Quedgeley Community Centre, Quedgeley Social Club, Wine Club, Short Mat Bowls Club, Quedgeley Area Conservation Association and Quedgeley News. A 50 plus page Parish Magazine edited published and delivered to over 8,000 households and local business within the Parish of Quedgeley. The proposal to electorally place Church Drive into the Kingsway ward makes no sense as residents will no longer have the Democratic right to determine who represents them on the local issues that affects them. Being part of the Kingsway ward may confuse, even discourage rather than encourage residents to go out and vote as residents of both Kingsway and Church Drive have no affinity with each other. The likelihood is that the residents of Church Drive won't bother to go out and vote. Physically Church Drive will remain in its existing locality but will no longer have the democratic right to determine who represents them and on the issues that affects them, therefore, there is a danger the residents won't bother to vote.Does this make sense? As we too suffer from the nationwide problem of low turn outs for local elections, this would exacerbate local problems and be counter productive. Especially when there is such a wide gap between Kingsway and Church Drive and is not easy for residents to get to Kingsway on foot or by car. These proposals do not reflect the Commissioners own recommendations that Wards should reflect the interests and identities of local communities. That Ward plans are based on natural boundaries I.e. main roads, rivers, railways and canals and that they are sensible and easy to identify. I propose that Church Drive stays in its present ward and that ward has two City Ward Councillors For all the above reasons, I propose that the Parish of Quedgeley is divided into three separate wards comprising of Quedgeley Fieldcourt, Quedgeley Severnvale and Quedgeley Kingsway with each ward having two City Councillors and the ward boundary for Quedgeley Kingsway should be the A38. Yours sincerely, Mr K G Drummond

Annotation 1: The boundary should be the A38.

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Dean Eaketts

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Me PLC

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

Even though I am not part of either ward Quedgeley or Kingsway I think that the Boundary off the two wards should be the A38 and should have always been. Please consider this at the next meeting.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: The boundary should be the A38.




1

Porter, Johanna

From: Egan, HelenSent: 05 March 2015 16:35To: Porter, JohannaSubject: FW: Gloucester City Council Boundary Review

Hi Jo, Please see submission below for Gloucester. Helen From: celia fawl [ Sent: 05 March 2015 15:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Gloucester City Council Boundary Review I am a resident of Church Drive, Quedgeley, Gloucester. I have strong reservations about the Boundary Commission's proposal that Church Drive is transferred to a new Kingsway ward. Whist recognising that Kingsway forms part of the parish of Quedgeley, there is no natural synergy between the Church Drive and Kingsway areas, which are divided by a major road. I consider that this road should become the ward boundary. This would result in Kingsway having its own dedicated councillors who could concentrate on the needs of the community of a relatively new large scale development. I therefore support the proposal put forward by Gloucester City Council that Kingsway should have a separate ward with 2 councillors and that Quedgeley Field Court and Severnvale also have 2 councillors each. Celia Fawl

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Laura Fawlk

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am currently a resident of church drive and am appalled at the proposed change of ward. Church drive is one if not the first area of quedgeley to be built upon to form the residential area it is today. 35 years ago opposite quedgeley church - church drive was formed and then caused more and more development to come to quedgeley this being one of the oldest parts of quedgeley from where quedgeley began. Kingsway since development began has had a dividing boundary of the bypass which has never been a issue and I feel would be a much more appropriate and in keeping with the village of quedgeley. If the boundary was to change quedgeley would be left with no parish council offices, loss of a community center, loss of shops and a number of listed buildings. Kingsway in the last few years has developed quickly and well creating their own community centre shops and facilities. If this change were to go ahead quedgeley would be left with a scout hut and a tescos. There are some listed buildings which I would like to know how many years have formed part of the original quedgeley, if these were to change to kingsway ward would loose all of their history and significance. Kingsway is a ever expanding area of gloucester now and I do not feel taking ianything past the bypass to form part of kingsway will loose the essence of quedgeley.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Ben Gidley

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

There have been local newspaper comments that the kingsway ward should not extend under the A38 - I would like to say I see no issue with that and this is a perfectly sensible boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Kathryn Green

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I vehemently object to the proposed boundary changes which would include Church Drive (Quedgeley) into the Kingsway Ward. I have lived in Quedgeley since 1976. I live in Church Drive. Quedgeley Church is at the end of my road: I can see it from my window and I can hear the church bells when they chime. I feel strongly that I live in the Quedgeley Ward, and I wish to remain in the Quedgeley Ward. I don't know why anyone would consider this to be an appropriate change. I feel sure that no local residents proposed it. Before this is taken any further, every home in Church Drive should be canvassed and given the opportunity to air their opinion.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Colin Griffiths

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am not happy with the proposed boundary change, and for our address to be included in the Kingsway Ward. Our address is Church Drive, within 50 meters of Quedgeley Church. I have lived in Quedgeley for the last 35 years, long before Kingsway was given the controversal go ahead. I would have thought the ideal boundry would be along the A38 as that is where the Kingsway planing permision was granted. I support the City Council's original proposal of three 2-member wards and apose the Boundry Commisions sugestion that part of Quedgeley should be transfered to the new Kingsway ward

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Pamela Griffiths

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the City Council's original proposal of three 2-member wards. I have lived in Quedgeley for 38 years and am firmly against being dragged into Kingsway!!! If I wanted to live in Kingsway I would move there, it's on the other side of the A38 and is a place of its own. it's not really joined to Quedgeley at all, no more than Tuffley is!!! The boundary line should be the A38, it's a clear natural dividing line!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Sam Griffiths

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I've been a resident of Church Drive for over twenty years and I think it should remain a part of the Quedgeley Ward. Regarding the border between Quedgeley and Kingsway, I believe it should either be along the A38 or the Bristol Road.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Sonia Griffiths

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have lived in Quedgeley since 1991 if I had wanted to live in Kingsway I would move house. I am shocked and saddened that people with no appreciation of the locality of Church drive would recommend that we be affliated with Kingsway which is a fairly new development no where near Quedgeley as it is nearer to Tuffley. The Quedgeley area has been here for years I have also lived in Quedgeley since 1980 when I bought my first house in

Quedgeley. I expect most of the Church drive residents feel the same and as for not including St. James Church if you are going annex Church drive why leave the church out. Every facility I use is in Quedgeley Doctors 3 min walk, Dentist 3 minute walk, tesco 3 minute walk way. The community centre 7 minute walk, the village hall 8 minute walk etc. Voting at the village hall. If the Commission cannot figure this out well that does not say much for being local. Stick with the A38 and do not upset residents in 230 houses in Church Drive, Quedgeley. As per usual the little people who have to vote to elect people to represent them and their best interests do not get a say in things as all these decisions about our area are made by faceless people elsewhere in the Country. Just reminding the Commission that there is a general election coming up soon I wonder who I should vote for?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Annotation 1: The boundary should be here or along A38

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Shannon Haigh

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

I live in Church Drive in Quedgeley and do not want the boundary to be moved so that we become part of Kingsway. The most obvious place for the boundary to go is along the A38 (either the dual carriage way which splits Quedgeley from Kingsway or the Bristol Road). I don't understand why that triangle is being proposed, jutting out into Quedgeley. I support the City Council's original proposal of three 2-member wards. Thank you.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: The boundary should be here or along A38




Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Jacqueline Hall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Submission to the Boundary Commission Ward Boundaries –Quedgeley I have carefully considered the draft boundary proposals by the Boundary Commission. I would like to make the following comments in relation to the Quedgeley/ Kingsway ward proposals. I note from the consultation map Church Drive, Naas Lane will be removed from the existing Quedgeley ward boundary and moved into Kingsway. As a former City and County Councillor and resident of Quedgeley I am fully aware of the complexities surrounding boundaries. However, given Church Drive is directly opposite the church of Saint James’, at the very hub of the community I do feel that altering the district boundary to incorporate this within the Kingsway ward is a step too far. Church Drive was one of the first developments to be erected in Quedgeley over 30 years ago. It is very much part of the established nucleus of Quedgeley. Naas Lane and Needham Avenue go back further than the 30 years and historically have always been linked to Quedgeley. Both Church Drive and Naas Lane retain a Quedgeley post code and their postal addresses remain ‘Quedgeley’. By contrast, Kingsway’s development is very much in its infancy, new yet thriving. But the two have very little in common. If the boundary commission’s proposals are agreed Church Drive will be represented by a Councillor from Kingsway, but inconsistency will arise since they will still be represented on the County Council by the representative from Quedgeley. Having served on both City and County Councils for the area of Quedgeley the current proposals submitted by the boundary commission seem to me to be bizarre. The new area would prove to be very diverse in its needs. I believe in terms of electorate, the numbers would stack if Church Drive, Naas Lane and Needham Avenue were retained within the Quedgeley boundary. I believe to remove Church Drive and Naas Lane from the Quedgeley Ward would be short sighted. I do hope the boundary commission review their proposals on this issue.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: bob hewson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in church drive, which is in quedgeley. I have lived in my house for 20 years, kingsway was RAF Quedgeley when i moved in. and now some faceless bureaurocrats have decided i live in kingsway!!! and they wonder way people have become less and less engaged with politics. These ideas come from people with no regard or empathy for the residents they effect. Oh and one more thing there appears to be a dualcarridge betwwen Quedgeley & Kingsway!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Annotation 1: A38 Border between Quedgeley Fieldcourt Ward and Kingsway Ward

Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Karen Hughes

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

Having reviewed the proposals my husband and I feel very strongly that the A38 is a natural border for the Quedgeley Fieldcourt Ward and the Kingsway Ward. The boundary of the A38 is a clear and obvious one that exists between the village of Quedgeley and the new Kingsway development - it is a busy raised dual carriageway that causes a very definite physical and visual barrier between the wards. Church Drive, which your proposal has included in the Kingsway ward, is one of the older parts of Quedgeley and is named because it is situated next to Quedgeley Church which is the natural heart of Quedgeley. If this road was to be included in the Kingsway Ward as is your proposal it would no longer be attached to the Church in the same way (the Church staying in the Quedgeley Fieldcourt Ward) and would thus render the name Church Drive meaningless. Kingsway is a very recent development which will keep expanding and we feel that all of the land to the right of the A38 is sufficient for this expansion and, again, this main road makes a strong recognisable boundary line. This is also the conclusion of our locally elected Council (the City Council and others) who know this area and appreciate the history and background. The Kingsway development is a new and distinct modern village which has a different character to Quedgeley and certainly has a different history. The fact that Kingsway has its own shops, school and will soon have its own Drs surgery further confirms that it is a separate entity to Quedgeley Fieldcourt. In conclusion we fully support the proposal submitted by our elected representatives of three wards being Quedgeley Fieldcourt which runs to the A38, Quedgeley Severnvale and Kingsway which is the other side of the A38. We feel this more correctly represents our area and residents.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: A38 Border between Quedgeley Fieldcourt Ward and Kingsway

Ward




Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Sarah humphreys

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing to deeply object to part of the Quedgeley fieldcourt ward being added to a kingsway ward, I live in Quedgeley NOT Kingsway, I am part of Quedgeley parish and where I live is covered by the Quedgeley parish council, the A38 should be the boundary in this occasion and not moving a hunk of Quedgeley over to Kingsway to satisfy numbers. The part of Quedgeley proposed to move is just beside the community centre where voting takes place and I for one will not be going to kingsway to vote when I usually just nip around the corner. This was trialled a few years ago and a large proportion of the Quedgeley residents moved either turned up in the wrong place or didn't bother to vote, us included so they changed it back, i will not drag my children to kingsway as it is too far on foot for us and I know many others in the area feel the same. Do not put the long standing town of Quedgeley in with the new town of kingsway, we are different and not the same. I object to the boundary proposal changes for my home.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



Gloucester District

Personal Details:

Name: Michael Hunt

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The A38 is a natural western boundary to the proposed Kingsway ward, yet you've ignored this and included most of the oldest parts of Quedgeley in your proposed Kingsway ward by ignoring this boundary and creating a totally artificial one. This proposed ward boundary makes no sense. I support the creation of a Kingsway ward, but the Western boundary for the ward must be the A38. Everything to the west of the A38 is not Kingsway, it it Quedgeley. Kingsway lies to the East of the A38. I strongly suggest that you revisit the proposed boundary for the Kingsway ward, and perhaps visit the area - its bloomng obvious that the dual carriageway A38 seperates Kingsway from Quedgeley!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

