Mayers, Mishka. Sent from Mail for Windows 10. Sent: 21 March :57 To: reviews Subject: Ward Boundary Changes

Transcription

1

2 Mayers, Mishka From: Del Alderton Sent: 21 March :57 To: reviews Subject: Ward Boundary Changes Dear Sirs, we support the decision to keep the eastern Brent ward boundary to run down the middle of Gore Road. Regards, Mr. D.I. Alderton and Mrs. G. Alderton Sent from Mail for Windows 10 1

3

4 4/3/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Dartford District Personal Details: Name: Ian ARMITT Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: I can understand the rationale behind the splitting of the current Bean & Darenth Ward and do not object to each of the proposed Wards of Darenth and Bean & Village Park being represented by one Councillor but am disappointed that swathes of land with historical links with Darenth have been omitted from the new Darenth Ward. I would strongly urge that the Ward for Darenth be redrawn so that it encompasses the following areas - Ladies Wood, Darenth Woods and the site of the former Mabledon Hospital. This could be easily achieved by redrawing the northern boundary to run adjacent to the A2 and the western boundary northerly from its proposed start to run adjacent to Lords Wood until it meets with my proposed extension of the northern boundary. The effect of so doing brings coveted land back into Darenth Ward but also has minimal, if any, on the numbers of electorate. I am disappointed that most of the hamlet of Green Street Green now falls into the adjacent Ward but understand that this achieves the required numerical outcome. I trust that my submission will be given serious consideration Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 1/1

5

6

7 4/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Dartford District Personal Details: Name: Janet Blacklock Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: My parents moved to Hawley in and my mother still lives there. I ve lived there for 53 years in two periods, and 86-current and went to two schools in Wilmington. I have never been aware of any connectivity between Hawley and Wilmington, even before construction of the A2. I am concerned that the hard and successful work of many years by the people of Hawley and Sutton-at-Hone to unite these two villages, and the resulting harmony we have, will be destroyed. We have a variety of facilities, many of which have been joint ventures in getting off the ground. HASARA (Hawley and Sutton-At- Hone Active Retirement Assosciation), Church clubs & activities, children s clubs, etc. Both villages are served by a church, library and a few shops in Sutton-at- Hone and a pub in Hawley. The major roads and farmland between Hawley and Wilmington will do nothing to help Hawley be positively absorbed. There are no such barriers between Hawley & Sutton-at-Hone. I believe Hawley will be viewed as an unwanted appendage by Wilmington that they will probably come to resent, with Hawley ending up in a no-man s land between Wilmington and Sutton-at-Hone and thus being poorly served. Although ecumenical boundaries are not the same as ward boundaries I feel regard should be paid to them. Our parish of Sutton-at-Hone and Hawley is very inclusive and the parish council works hard for both villages as one. Re finances - Council Tax for Kent County Council, Dartford Borough Council & Parish Councils. Currently Dartford Borough Ward works with the Parish Council - they cover the same areas. After any change there is potential for conflict as the new ward will be covered by two Parish Councils. I can see no positive reason for this boundary change for the people of Hawley. Please look at the impact such a change will mean to the residents of Hawley, not just at the numbers, statistics and pounds sterling you have before you. In essence Hawley and Sutton-at-Hone is one community & should be left as such. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 1/1

8

9

10

11 As a resident of Sutton at Hone, and as Chair of HASARA (Hawley And Sutton Active Retirement Association), I wish to express my strong disagreement to the proposed changes to Ward boundaries in Dartford. As our names implies, the connection between our two communities is strong and long lasting and was formed to provide a valuable outlet for the mature members of both parishes. Although our club will continue whatever the result of the consultation, it must be said that the lack of information concerning the proposed changes has caused anger and dismay to many of our aged members who find it difficult to understand why things that seem to work very well have to be changed for the sake of progress. As the well known phrase goes, if it aint broke don t fix it!!

12

13

14

15 Mayers, Mishka From: stephen de winton Sent: 04 April :11 To: reviews Subject: Re: Local Government Review Dear Ms Porter, Thanks. As you kindly suggested, here follow my comments on the proposed boundary review, with relation to the proposed removal of Hawley to Wilmington ward. I am Stephen de Winton, Sutton-at-Hone resident and former Parish Councillor, Parish Council Chair I am entirely opposed to removing Hawley from the Sutton-at-Hone and Hawley Ward and putting it with Wilmington. This may be logical in terms of population numbers, but it entirely goes against long-established history and breaks up the historic parish. Where is the evidence that Hawley residents have more affinity with Wilmington? The ecclesiastical and civil parish is of historic significance and it seems to me an act of unnecessary bureaucratic interference with history and tradition to break it up. In particular, it does seem to me incomprehensible that a border is created at the M25 crossing of Hawley Road, thus leaving Royal Road and part of Hawley Road in Sutton-at-Hone Ward. The whole proposal is deeply flawed and should be abandoned. Stephen de Winton > On 4 Apr 2018, at 09:48, reviews <reviews@lgbce.org.uk> wrote: > > Dear Stephen, > > Sorry you are having trouble with our consultation portal. If it would be easier please feel free to your submission through to this address and I can pass it on to the relevant review officer. > > Kind Regards, > Lucy Porter > > - > Lucy Porter > Review Assistant > LGBCE > 14th Floor Millbank Tower > London SW1P 4QP > > > > > 1

16 > How are we doing? Click here to give us your views. > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: stephen de winton > Sent: 03 April :37 > To: reviews > Subject: Local Government Review > > Dear Sir/Madam > > I am trying to submit comments re the Boundary Review. I have made the comment, given my details and pressed submit. It will not permit this. I have tried downloading the document without success. Please advise. > > Stephen de Winton 2

17 Mayers, Mishka From: Sally Dolman Sent: 21 March :17 To: reviews Subject: Consultation on Proposed Boundary Changes in Dartford Local Government Boundary Commission Consultation on proposed changes to Dartford, Sutton at Hone and Hawley ward. Comments from Sally Dolman, resident homeowner in Hawley. Taking account of the LGBC s three main criteria for the proposed electoral boundary changes, I consider the changes proposed for the Hawley area to be misguided. By considering the M25 to be a natural boundary as it appears on the map as a reason for joining Hawley with Wilmington appears to me to be an exercise on paper. It does not feel to me living in Hawley that our community has any connection with Wilmington. The links between Hawley and Sutton at Hone are long standing and deeply rooted historical connections with well established community facilities, assets and activities, which also include GP surgery, library and local shops all within walking distance. Whereas there are no such links with Wilmington and we are separated by fields and the non pavemented Shirehall Road. Access to Sutton at home community is much easier and closer via Hawley Main Road. The consultation document suggests that changes to the Parish boundary will follow. I feel that Hawley will be considerably isolated from the new Parish if this should happen, as our links with Sutton at Hone are nearer and much stronger than with Wilmington. While the aim of the LGBC is electoral equality, the pattern of the new boundary would not reflect the interest and identity of our local community. The forecast increase of Hawley voters to the new Wilmington ward would leave the Sutton at Hone ward even smaller than it is now. How would that provide the effective and convenient local government intended? Not to mention the cost of unnecessary change to the organisations involved? I am aware change can be difficult to accept but this would appear to be change and unnecessary disruption for change sake. Sally Dolman 1

18

19

20 Dartford District Personal Details: Name: Royston Eade Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Yes I agree with boundary changes Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

21

22

23

24

25

26 4/5/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Dartford District Personal Details: Name: Ian Gowers Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: Hawley and Sutton at Hone have been 'part and parcel' since forever, certainly since the Domesday book. So what has happened lately to bring this come to pass about. Does our ancient history, now, according to the beaurocrats, have no meaning? Surely all the twin villages' history is written in stone, with centuries of connection. Why even think about such a major historical change. I for one object, as will many others in our parish. Suggest you all forget about it and leave things alone. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded 1/1

27

28 Mayers, Mishka From: Joshua Grills Sent: 08 April :23 To: reviews Subject: Dartford s Boundary Changes: My Ideas Dear Sir/ Madam, I am writing with regards to the ongoing boundary consultation in Dartford, in particular concerning two areas I feel strongly on. As a resident of Dartford, and specifically Greenhithe, I feel that Knockhall should have it s own, dedicated councillor on Dartford Borough Council. While Knockhall is geographically a part of Greenhithe, it has a categorically different community of it s own, with separate community facilities. In terms of the boundary, there are distinct boundaries on each and every side of the ward, as proposed in both the Labour Group and Council submissions to the initial stage of proposals. The existing community is already represented separately to the other area of Greenhithe to the North (both areas of Greenhithe Village and Ingress Park) on a parish level and in the Council s response to the recommendations under Parish Electoral Arrangements on page 20, it suggests the separation of Knockhall and Greenhithe, reflecting the differing communities in these areas. Having attended one of the Dartford Borough Council meetings for the initial consultation period in which the Council s submission was approved, I felt there was clear consensus in favour of this idea from both the Labour Group and the Conservative Group on the Council, subsequently reflected in the two initial submissions from the Labour Group and the Council submission. In addition, I disagree with the stance of the Borough Council s submission in both stages of the consultation and the stance included in the draft recommendations published with regards to the Town ward. As described within the Labour Group submission there are three distinct parts of this area, and there are evidently clear boundaries between the three areas: Burnham This ward would take the current North West part of Town ward and create a dedicated one member ward to represent the area. The name is clearly taken from Burnham Road which runs through the middle; I believe this would be a unifying name for the whole community which would be located within the ward. This area is distinct from both the Southern part of the existing Town ward which I agree should form Dartford Central and the North East area Burroughs. Burroughs The Burroughs ward would consist of the area North of Dartford Train Station and to the West of Temple Hill. The area is also home to the Northern Gateway development with 728 one, two and three bedroom apartments currently being developed. This will create a unique community which will differ from that of Burnham and Dartford Central and I think the area we will see in 5 years time deserves its own ward much like the larger Ebbsfleet development which (under the draft proposals) will have its own three member ward. The name Burroughs is after Silas Burroughs, one of the founders of the Wellcome Pharmaceutical Factory formed in Burroughs belief in Philanthropy also led to the formation of Livingstone Hospital in the proposed Brent ward. Burroughs Drive is also named after Silas Burroughs and runs through the proposed ward. Dartford Central The area of Dartford Central will encompass the heart of Dartford in the Town Centre, Dartford Station and the Civic Centre and the roads surrounding them. The boundary is evident in the rail line that stretches across the North of the community and the name Dartford Central would only be logical in a ward which includes the Central Hub of the Borough. In addition, developments are planned for this area, including the New Co Op site. The future plans for this area are available at and I would invite the Commission to look at these proposals and observe the unique community that is, and will further be Dartford Central. With regards to other areas in the consultation, I generally agree with the proposals and I would suggest to the Boundary Commission that the existing proposals (excluding those of Town and Knockhall) be retained. This is in agreement with Dartford Borough Council s views on the proposed warding arrangements and I would think this is a shared view on those interested in this consultation. 1

29 Thank you for taking your time to read my personal ideas on the boundary changes, I hope you they aid the Commission in creating the final recommendations. Kind Regards, Joshua Grills 2

30