Local resident submissions to the Cherwell District Council electoral review

Transcription

1 Local resident submissions to the Council electoral review This PDF document contains submissions from local residents. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks. Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll through the document.

2 Page 1 of 1 18/12/2014 bill burles Organisation I would rather south newington was part of west oxford not cherwell. Quite frankly i dont see why we need a district council at all.

3 Page 1 of 1 10/02/2015 Janet Doherty Organisation Member of the public When I moved to Bicester 20 plus years Caversfield stood way out from Bicester. I moved to Caversfield over 15 years ago. I loved the fact there was no pub, no shop and that it was rural and unspoilt. But over the years we have been subjected to more and more planning applications all around us. All of them would have swallowed Caversfield up. It is bad enough the post office will not allow Caversfield to be included in our addresses. Now by just becoming North Bicester our identity will be totally lost and it is only a matter of time before Caversfield is lost to development and our village with it. If you do have to rename at least include Caversfield in the name so we are not forgotten, Please let us keep our identity. Thank you Jan Doherty

4 Page 1 of 1 04/02/2015 John Haywood Organisation I can see the point in all wards having 3 Councillors and therefore the rural wards being made larger but think the idea of enlarging and thus reducing the number of wards in banbury itself is a big mistake. It is particularly regrettable that one of the oldest wards, representing a distinct geographical and historic area such as Neithrop will lose any separate identity. If it must be enlarged in order to fit your model why not Banbury Neithrop and Castle rather than Banbury Cross and Castle?

5 Page 1 of 1 04/02/2015 Joan Himpson Organisation I understand the new boundaries but as a resident of Caversfield am perturbed that the name does not reflect our separate entity as a village. Could the word 'Caversfield' not be included in the name? Joan Himpson

6 Page 1 of 1 13/01/2015 IVOR HOWSE Organisation HOUSE HOLDER there should be no more than two councillors in any boundary and they should be non political like parish councillors then you would get the best people for the job

7 Ward, Lucy From: Egan, Helen Sent: 12 February :58 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Caversfield North Bicester Boundary Merger Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Categories: Follow up Flagged In progress Hi Lucy, Please see submission for Cherwell. Helen Original Message From: JUDITH KLEINMAN Sent: 11 February :47 To: Subject: Caversfield North Bicester Boundary Merger Dear Sir/Madam, In principle I am not against boundary changes HOWEVER I do think that Caversfield should be named as it is not part of Bicester and that should be made clear. I think it should be called Caversfield and North Bicester Ward. Thank you for your time. yours sincerely, judy kleinman 1

8 Page 1 of 2 16/02/2015 Daniel Messer Organisation N/A Feature Annotations 1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward? Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward? Annotation 2: Annotation 3: Annotation 4: Annotation 5: Annotation 6: Large Rural Wards Issues. Large Rural Ward Issues Ward re-name suggestion Ward re-name suggestion Ward re-name Suggestion Re: Draft recommendations on the new electoral (Ward) arrangements for Council I wish to offer some suggestions in relation to the above consultation. Number of Councillors: I see the proposal is to reduce the council to an authority with 48 councillors, based in arrangements of 16 x three member Wards. I presume the plan is to implement an arrangement of election by thirds at the Local Elections each year. Given that there are some large wards now being proposed, perhaps consideration to having 24 x two councillor Wards would allow greater community association, with half the councillors standing for reelected each year. I can appreciate this may not be supported by the political group in control of the council! Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: (see Annotation 1) I have an issue with the area in Banbury around Longelandes Way and smaller 1970s estate cul-de-sac roads such as Woodfield, Portway, Windrush that come off it. This area of town is proposed to be included within the new Banbury Cross and Castle Ward. I would suggest that this area would be more suited to be included within either the proposed Banbury Hardwick or the proposed Banbury Ruscote Wards. This is because the style of housing, use of facilities and general community association of the area match these areas of town more that they do with more central areas of Banbury that are included within the rest of the proposed Banbury Cross and Castle Ward.Large Rural Wards Issues. (see Annotations 2 and 3) I appreciate the difficulties in finding suitable electoral equality in terms of conformity of voting numbers per councillors, plus the aim of reducing the number of total councillors. I however have especially got concern over the arrangement proposed of the Launton & Otmoor and Fringford & Heyfords proposed rural Wards. I would suggest that perhaps these are on the limits of what could be deemed as being too large to be effective? I would suggest that it would be difficult to facilitate community interests and identities across such large areas of the district. Also there could be issue over how councillors would be able to spread themselves effectively across the settlements in these Wards, especially if there were a mix of elected councillors from different political parties. Of the two Ward boundary proposals, the Launton and Otmoor Ward would concern me most. Would the people of Launton, situated up to the east of Bicester, have the same interests, community association and issues as people in somewhere to the west of the proposed Ward boundary, like Shipton-on-Cherwell, which is just outside Kidlington in a central belt of the Cherwell district? In light of the above, although still large geographical coverages, I would like to suggest more appropriate arrangements of the areas would perhaps be: Heyfords with Otmoor and Fringford with Launton?Pairing Heyfords and Otmoor* would have a central Oxfordshire feel, with the included area situated mainly to the west of M40 and also to the east of the A4260 (which is the main road North/South from Banbury to Oxford). The A34 also runs through this area with various junctions and access roads into surrounding parishes. I would suggest that geographic association of these areas have more in common especially the association with using facilities within Kidlington and Oxford. Pairing Fringford and Launton** to the North East and South East of Bicester, would create and arrangement to the East of M40 and be closely associated to Bicester facilities, plus have good interlinking local transport provided by the A4421 and A41. (*Suggested Parishes: Ardley, Bletchingdon, Charlton-on-Otmoor, Chesterton, Fencott and Murcott, Hampton Gay and Poyle, Horton-cum-Studley, Islip, Kirtlington, Lower Heyford, Merton, Middleton Stoney, Noke, Oddington, Shipton-on-Cherwell and Thrupp, Upper Heyford, Wendlebury, Weston on the Green.) (**Suggested Parishes: - Arncott, Blackthorn, Bucknell, Cottisford, Finmere, Fringford, Godington, Hardwick and Tusmore, Hethe, Launton, Mixbury, Newton Purcell and Shelswell, Piddlington, Stratton Audley, Stoke Lyne.) Names of Wards: (see Annotations 4, 5 and 6) I have the following comments on the names for some of the proposed

9 Page 2 of 2 16/02/2015 wards: Proposed Deddington In light of other proposed Ward names (e.g. Adderbury, Bloxham and Bodicote and Cropredy, Sibfords and Wroxton ) perhaps the Deddington Ward name should be re-named to become: Deddington, Hook Norton and The Astons?Proposed Bicester North Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester North and Caversfield, to indicate that the parish/settlement of Caversfield is part of the Ward. Proposed Bicester South Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester South and Ambrosden, again to indicate that the parish/settlement of Ambrosden is part of Ward.----I hope the above suggestions and comments are of use and will be taken into account when making future recommendations and the ultimate decisions. Regards Mr D T Messer Broughton Road Banbury

10 Page 1 of 2 16/02/2015 Daniel Messer Organisation N/A Feature Annotations 6: Ward re-name Suggestion 3: Large Rural Ward Issues 4: Ward re-name suggestion 5: Ward re-name suggestion 2: Large Rural Wards Issues. Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: area perhaps should be moved to another proposed ward? Annotation 2: Annotation 3: Annotation 4: Annotation 5: Annotation 6: Large Rural Wards Issues. Large Rural Ward Issues Ward re-name suggestion Ward re-name suggestion Ward re-name Suggestion Re: Draft recommendations on the new electoral (Ward) arrangements for Council I wish to offer some suggestions in relation to the above consultation. Number of Councillors: I see the proposal is to reduce the council to an authority with 48 councillors, based in arrangements of 16 x three member Wards. I presume the plan is to implement an arrangement of election by thirds at the Local Elections each year. Given that there are some large wards now being proposed, perhaps consideration to having 24 x two councillor Wards would allow greater community association, with half the councillors standing for reelected each year. I can appreciate this may not be supported by the political group in control of the council! Proposed Banbury Ward Issue: (see Annotation 1) I have an issue with the area in Banbury around Longelandes Way and smaller 1970s estate cul-de-sac roads such as Woodfield, Portway, Windrush that come off it. This area of town is proposed to be included within the new Banbury Cross and Castle Ward. I would suggest that this area would be more suited to be included within either the proposed Banbury Hardwick or the proposed Banbury Ruscote Wards. This is because the style of housing, use of facilities and general community association of the area match these areas of town more that they do with more central areas of Banbury that are included within the rest of the proposed Banbury Cross and Castle Ward.Large Rural Wards Issues. (see Annotations 2 and 3) I appreciate the difficulties in finding suitable electoral equality in terms of conformity of voting numbers per councillors, plus the aim of reducing the number of total councillors. I however have especially got concern over the arrangement proposed of the Launton & Otmoor and Fringford & Heyfords proposed rural Wards. I would suggest that perhaps these are on the limits of what could be deemed as being too large to be effective? I would suggest that it would be difficult to facilitate community interests and identities across such large areas of the district. Also there could be issue over how councillors would be able to spread themselves effectively across the settlements in these Wards, especially if there were a mix of elected councillors from different political parties. Of the two Ward boundary proposals, the Launton and Otmoor Ward would concern me most. Would the people of Launton, situated up to the east of Bicester, have the same interests, community association and issues as people in somewhere to the west of the proposed Ward boundary, like Shipton-on-Cherwell, which is just outside Kidlington in a central belt of the Cherwell district? In light of the above, although still large geographical coverages, I would like to suggest more appropriate arrangements of the areas would perhaps be: Heyfords with Otmoor and Fringford with Launton?Pairing Heyfords and Otmoor* would have a central Oxfordshire feel, with the included area situated mainly to the west of M40 and also to the east of the A4260 (which is the main road North/South from Banbury to Oxford). The A34 also runs through this area with various junctions and access roads into surrounding parishes. I would suggest that geographic association of these areas have more in common especially the association with using facilities within Kidlington and Oxford. Pairing Fringford and Launton** to the North East and South East of Bicester, would create and arrangement to the East of M40 and be closely associated to Bicester facilities, plus have good interlinking local transport provided by the A4421 and A41. (*Suggested Parishes: Ardley, Bletchingdon, Charlton-on-Otmoor, Chesterton, Fencott and Murcott, Hampton Gay and Poyle, Horton-cum-Studley, Islip, Kirtlington, Lower Heyford, Merton, Middleton Stoney, Noke, Oddington, Shipton-on-Cherwell and Thrupp, Upper Heyford, Wendlebury, Weston on the Green.) (**Suggested Parishes: - Arncott, Blackthorn, Bucknell, Cottisford, Finmere, Fringford, Godington, Hardwick and Tusmore, Hethe, Launton, Mixbury, Newton Purcell and Shelswell, Piddlington, Stratton Audley, Stoke Lyne.) Names of Wards: (see Annotations 4, 5 and 6) I have the following comments on the names for some of the proposed

11 Page 2 of 2 16/02/2015 wards: Proposed Deddington In light of other proposed Ward names (e.g. Adderbury, Bloxham and Bodicote and Cropredy, Sibfords and Wroxton ) perhaps the Deddington Ward name should be re-named to become: Deddington, Hook Norton and The Astons?Proposed Bicester North Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester North and Caversfield, to indicate that the parish/settlement of Caversfield is part of the Ward. Proposed Bicester South Would suggest that perhaps this should be called Bicester South and Ambrosden, again to indicate that the parish/settlement of Ambrosden is part of Ward.----I hope the above suggestions and comments are of use and will be taken into account when making future recommendations and the ultimate decisions. Regards Mr D T Messer Broughton Road Banbury

12 Ward, Lucy From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February :18 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: District Council Boundary Changes Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Categories: Follow up Flagged In progress From: JOHN NEVILL [mailto: Sent: 10 February :15 To: Cc: c Subject: District Council Boundary Changes I understand there is a proposal to merge Caversfield with North Bicester to create a new District Council Ward. Whilst I have no objection in principle, I strongly believe that Caversfield should not lose its identity within the title. My reason for this is that it was a close run thing at the South Lodge development appeal last year when the appellant's counsel made a strong, albeit unfounded, case that Caversfield was part of Bicester. We understand that the developer may well submit a revised development proposal and we should not give them any opportunity to make such a claim. Caversfield & N Bicester (or vice versa) would be fine. Best Regards John Nevill 1

13 Right-click here to download pictures. To help protect your privacy, Outlook prevented auto matic downlo ad o f this picture from the Internet. Ward, Lucy From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 10 February :02 To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Merging of wards in Bicester Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Categories: Follow up Flagged In progress From: Sent: 10 February :47 To: Reviews@ Subject: Merging of wards in Bicester Good morning I understand that it is the intention of the LGBC to merge North Bicester ward with Caversfield. Whilst I have no objection to this, I would ask that the new ward be known as Caversfield and North Bicester thus retaining some form of separate identity for Caversfield. As residents, we have fought to keep Caversfield a separate entity from Bicester for some time. It has its own character and rural feel and we object to it being swallowed up by the sprawling mass that is rapidly becoming Bicester New Town. Gaynor Thorpe Caversfield Resident This has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. 1