local residentsubmissions to the hertfordshire council ... · 1 morrison, william from: fuller,...

Local resident submissions to the Hertfordshire 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.

Hertfordshire County

Personal Details:

Name: John O'Connor

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I agree with the proposals: In Watford, the Commission have proposed 'No Change' and The

recommendations from the Commission make roughly equal areas and also respect our local

communities.The communities of Abbots Langley, Croxley Green and South Oxhey each keep

their own County Councillor under the Commission's proposals. Carpenders Park and Oxhey Hall

remain together in a separate Division and not joined to South Oxhey. Chorleywood and the

more rural bits of Three Rivers, including Sarratt, Hunton Bridge and Bedmond, are linked in a

Division to be named Three Rivers Rural. And the size and importance of Rickmansworth as the

main town in the District is shown in the creation of two Divisions centred there.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

Page 1 of 1Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

21/10/2014https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/4095

Annotation 1: New eastern boundary for Dacorum

Annotation 2: Site for new homes, schools etc. as extension to


Personal Details:

Name: Brian Parker

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Feature Annotations

Map Features:

Comment text:

A joint Green Belt boundary review by Dacorum, St Albans and Welwyn/Hatfield has identified land between Hemel and the M1 as suitable for major new

development, which is also promoted by the LEP. As this is obviously a natural extension to Hemel, it makes sense to revise the boundary between the two

Districts to sit on the M1, from the junction of old M10 northwards until it then runs north-westwards with the line of pylons: this will maintain the valuable

green 'gap' between Hemel and St Albans and also between Hemel and Redbourn.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1: New eastern boundary for Dacorum

2: Site for new homes, schools etc. as extension to east

of Hemel Hempstead as proposed by LEP

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



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 October 2014 08:46To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary Review Proposals - Loudwater

Follow Up Flag: Follow upFlag Status: Flagged

-----Original Message----- From: Suresh Patel Sent: 14 October 2014 20:05 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Review Proposals - Loudwater Dear Sir, We understand that there is a proposal that Loudwater is removed from the Three Rivers Rural Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. As residents of Loudwater, we would like to register our strong disapproval to Loudwater becoming part of the Croxley County Division. Loudwater has traditionally been part of Chorleywood and should continue to remain so. Please note various points as follows why we should not be joined with Croxley:- 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the area and community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE Primary School and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley, and Loudwater has always had a much closer relationship with Chorleywood. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. Please acknowledge receipt. Regards

2

Suresh & Jyotsana Patel

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 October 2014 08:46To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Local Government Boundary changes


From: Alay Patel Sent: 14 October 2014 23:16 To: Reviews@ Subject: RE: Local Government Boundary changes Dear Review Officer I understand the Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. My existing Division will be reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. I am against this proposal and must register my disapproval on the following grounds. 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. I sincerely hope the Commission will reconsider its proposal. Regards Alay Patel


Personal Details:

Name: David Penn

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

With regard to Watford, I must place an objection to the proposed name changes. I say

proposed, but the language of the draft document does not seem to suggest that the

commission is giving locals any say. The names on the map have already been changed and the

relevent paragraph in the draft uses language that confirms that the change has already taken

place as far as the commission is concerned (see below). This is unacceptable. '126 We are,

however, adopting different names for some of Watford’s divisions, in order to make the

division names more reflective of their communities. Callowland Leggatts will be named North

Watford, Central Oxhey will be named Central Watford & Oxhey, and Vicarage Holywell will be

named West Watford.' My objection is fourfold. The first is that using the new bland names

North Watford, Central Watford and South Watford in no way 'reflects the communities'. In

particular, the names Callowland Leggatts and Vicarage Holywell are both historic and extremely

well known locally. The uniqueness of these names and the areas they represent are understood

by those who live in Watford and have much more meaning than the dull alternatives. My

second objection is that the double-barrelled names clearly reflect the relationship between

council and county boundaries. As it stands, it is clear from the name that the county ward is

composed of the two council wards whose names they bear. It makes no sense to break this

link so that it is no longer obvious that West Watford is actually the wards Holywell and

Vicarage. My third and most vociferous objection is that there has been no drive or request

from local people for any change of name whatsoever. That fact alone means that there should

not even be a proposal of change if there is no will for it from the local people. In truth, this

appears to be a change driven by a centralised bureaucracy who prefer using uninspiring words

like North, Central and West because it is easier for them to understand. It might well explain

why it has been done already without any consultation. I therefore think it reasonable to expect

the names on the new map to be reversed and the wording of the document to be altered to

make it clear that the name change is only a proposal as at the moment it gives the clear

impression that the document is not a consultation. My last objection is that knowledge of these

changes is hard to find. I only became aware of this by accident through the commission's

failure to get North and West Watford in the right order (I should point out that there would be

no mix up with clearly different names such as Vicarage Holywell / Callowland Leggatts) and a

news story appeared in the local newspaper. In summary, a remote commission should not be

interfering in local history and renaming local boundaries without an initial and significant

request from local people. They certainly should not then adopt the change and only report it

by tucking notification of the change away on page 21 of a 46 page document whose existence

is unknown by virtually all who live in the town.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Anthony Peters

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

By combining Eastbury with South Oxhey you are creating a little enclave with other adjacent

areas wrapping around it like a rainbow. It doesn't make sense geographically or on a socio-

demographic basis. Why can't Eastbury be left with Moor Park and South Oxhey combine with

Carpender's Park and Oxhey Hall?

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: William Keith Peutherer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Dear Sir, I am a resident of Hunton Bridge which lies within the Watford constituency area

although it is also a part of Three Rivers District Council. I have examined your draft proposals

for boundary changes to see how they would affect both Watford and Three Rivers District

Council. I approve of the proposals. Yours faithfully, W Keith Peutherer

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 October 2014 08:46To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Loudwater


From: Sent: 14 October 2014 19:40 To: Reviews@ Subject: Loudwater We strongly object to the proposed plan to put Loudwater into the Croxley district as opposed to Chorleywood. We are nearer to Chorleywood, we use Chorleywood station, we know the Chorleywood shops, and our way of life coincides much more with the residents of Chorleywood than with the residents of Croxley. Peter and Davida Phillips

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 September 2014 10:59To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Proposed new County Council boundaries


From: elaine phillips Sent: 15 September 2014 10:56 To: Reviews@ Subject: Fwd: Proposed new County Council boundaries To whom it may concern, As a resident of Turnford I feel very strongly against changing the boundaries, I moved here 8 years ago and have seen nothing but change. It seems to me that the borough is trying to upset very hard to upset us all. Leave it be unless there are hugh benefits to all residents and give us Wormley and Turnford the chance to decide what we do with the big lotto funds. Regards Elaine

Turnford

----Original message---- From : [email protected] Date : 11/09/2014 - 21:50 (BST) To : [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Subject : Proposed new County Council boundaries

Dear Members,

There is a proposal to re draw our boundaries, splitting Wormley and Turnford, which is the existing ward. It is proposed that Wormley be joined with Hoddesdon South, a very large area, in which Wormley would very much be the underdog. Turnford would be joined to Flamstead End, a vast area, most of which is countryside. Wormley & Turnford have nothing in common with their proposed new partners. The big lotto, was awarded to Wormley & Turnford, because they are classified as deprived areas. The proposed new boundaries can be seen at:- www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk.

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 October 2014 08:46To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Objection to Local boundary changes


From: Nicholas Pipping Sent: 14 October 2014 22:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: Objection to Local boundary changes I was concerned to hear of the proposal to incorporate Loudwater in to the Croxley County Division and strongly object. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley.Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. I very much hope that Loudwater will remain part of the Chorleywood Parish and District, Regards Nicholas Pipping

This email is intended for the designated recipient(s) only and may be confidential, proprietary or protected by privilege. Unauthorised reading, distribution or other use of this communication is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient or if you believe you have received this email in error please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your computer system without reading, saving, copying or using it in any manner. We do not warrant or guarantee in any way that this communication is free from viruses or other malicious software. Any liability for actual or alleged loss, damage or injury arising from the receipt of this communication is expressly disclaimed.

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 29 October 2014 09:21To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary Change Loudwater


From: Fiona Poole Sent: 28 October 2014 16:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Change Loudwater As a Loudwater resident I wish to oppose the boundary change suggested…………. This is definitely a more rural neighbourhood and should be part of Chorleywood Regards Fiona Poole


Personal Details:

Name: Carol Prowse

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I think that the current boundaries and names of wards and divisions are far better than these

draft proposals and I don't think there should be any change, unless there is a large and unfair

difference in the size of a ward or division that a councillor or councillors are required to

represent. The general public are used to being represented by parish councillors, district

councillors and county councillors who have areas that match and co-exist. this means that the

same polling stations are used for all elections, this means that the general public become

familiar with who represents them and where. It also means that broadly speaking residents

with the same issues about traffic congestion, road surfaces and local facilities such as libraries

and youth clubs are able to talk to the same councillor/s and ask for help. Under the draft

proposals a person living in Puddingstone Drive in Highfield would have to consult a county

councillor representing London Colney about the state of the road outside the house. How could

that councillor prioritise spending his or her time, or highways budget, given that that person

would also be representing residents in London Colney who would have similar issues but

nothing in common with residents who live in Highfield. At present residents in London Colney

are represented by the same councillors who represent Colney Heath. Both these areas are

villages with their own needs for public transport, upkeep of roads and other issues, and they

have more in common than London Colney would with the residents in Highfield, or any area

north of the A414 which acts as a natural boundary.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From:Sent: 15 October 2014 16:11To: Reviews@Subject: Boundary changes

To whom it may concern: I understand that the Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. I live in Loudwater and our existing Division is being reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. I am most concerned about this proposal as Loudwater has traditionally been part of Chorleywood. Furthermore: 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater is inherently a rural area and should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. In short we identify most with Chorleywood and not Croxley Green In summary I object to the proposal. Regards David Ramroop

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 15 October 2014 08:45To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Proposed realignment of Boundarues - Loudwater Rickmansworth with Croxley

Green


-----Original Message----- From: Cora Lynn Rathbone Sent: 15 October 2014 07:32 To: Reviews@ Cc: Subject: Proposed realignment of Boundarues - Loudwater Rickmansworth with Croxley Green Dear Sir/Madam My husband and I have lived in Loudwater since 1996. We worship at Christ Church (since 2001) and before that (1996-2001) at St Andrews - both of Chorlewood. We object to the new proposed boundaries which would include Loudwater with Croxley Green for the following reasons: 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. Please ensure this email comes to the attention of the deciding authorities. Thank you Cora Lynn Heimer Rathbone (and John James Rathbone);

Sent from my iPad

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 09 October 2014 09:26To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Proposals to change Electoral Boundaries


From: brianand margaret redding Sent: 08 October 2014 20:27 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposals to change Electoral Boundaries Proposal to create a new South Oxhey and Eastbury Division. We would strongly oppose the Draft Recommendations that parts of our neighbourhood would be split from each other and allocated into two new county divisions. It is proposed to allocate two parts of Eastbury into separate divisions, which would unnecessarily sever our long standing community identity and also put the area into a minority electoral position. There does not appear to be any logical purpose to this. Eastbury has never had any shared links with South Oxhey, which is a considerable distance away. South Oxhey and Eastbury are communities in their own right, with schools, shops, churches, and all necessary facilities in each area, and residents rarely if ever travel between the two communities. There is no bus route or train connection. At present the Oxhey Park Electoral Division includes Eastbury, Moor Park and Rickmansworth, which are closely allied, and the residents use facilities in these areas, including the Metropolitan railway, which does not go through South Oxhey. It would seem logical that Carpenders Park, whose boundaries are adjacent to South Oxhey, and whose two communities share a railway line at Carpenders Park, would be the most suitable community to be allied to South Oxhey. The residents share use of the shops, library, schools, leisure facilities etc. and have an already established community. We trust that you will consult our Residents Association to take account of the views of our neighbourhood, and also those of the other local areas affected by this proposal. Brian and Margaret Redding, Eastbury Residents

1

Morrison, William

From: Charlie Reed Sent: 15 October 2014 17:02To: Reviews@Subject: Review Office Local Government Boundary changes Loudwater and Chorleywood

HERTS

REVIEW OFFICER

Dear Sir/ Madam I see that the Local Government Boundary Commission is reviewing the boundaries prior to the County Council elections in 2017. Our existing Division will be reorganised and renamed Three Rivers Rural Division. However the proposal is that Loudwater is removed from this Division and becomes part of the Croxley County Division. Firstly we have no affinity with Croxley Green and it is rarely used for shopping or any other purposes by Loudwater residents, their choice would be Chorleywood. Any children from Loudwater using state schools all tend to use COE primary and Clement Danes in Chorleywood, So already their choices do not over burden Croxley Green schools. Below are some highlighted points as to why we should be allowed to stay part of the Three Rivers Rural division. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. Finally Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields and the Green Regards Charles and Andrea Reed

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 03 November 2014 09:02To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Local Government Boundary Changes - Objection in Three Rivers/Croxley,

Hertfordshire


From: Jason Richards Sent: 02 November 2014 16:39 To: Reviews@ Cc: Jason Richards Subject: Local Government Boundary Changes - Objection in Three Rivers/Croxley, Hertfordshire Dear Sir or Madam, It has come to my attention that there is an intention to adjust the boundaries in our local area. Currently living in Three Rivers, Hertfordshire, I have been notified that our local rural community of Loudwater will become part of the Croxley division. This is very concerning for a large number of reasons:

Loudwater has always traditionally been linked to Chorleywood and has never had any ties with the Croxley area.

We are extremely proud to be associated with Chorleywood, an area with superb schooling, amenities, beautiful outdoor areas and close community. We have no such relationship with Croxley. Even if there was to be a boundary change, we would continue to use the amenities of Chorleywood. Economically, the decision would be silly.

Loudwater is a conservation area and our position within Chorleywood has always ensured that the area remains unspoilt. In contrast, Croxley continues to grow in size as a plethora of housing developments continue to expand what we would regard as a more urbanised area. Loudwater, like many other areas in Chorleywood, consists predominantly of country/single-track roads.

Loudwater is not geographically in Croxley. Loudwater is wedged in between Chorleywood and Rickmansworth. By geographical location, Loudwater is in Chorleywood. The boundary for Croxley sits well outside Loudwater and there are a large number of fields dividing these two extremely different communities.

Council taxes for the Chorleywood area are more than those of Croxley. We would prefer to pay more and fund our local amenities in Chorleywood, rather than pay less to fund amenities in Croxley which we do not even use.

Ultimately, a boundary change makes no sense geographically, socially, environmentally or economically.

For these reasons and like the majority of Loudwater residents, it is my very strong conclusion that this boundary change would be of negative consequence to all areas involved. Thank you for reviewing this matter.

2

Kind regards, Jason Richards


Personal Details:

Name: Peter Robbins

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

This is change for the sake of change, and achieves nothing. Why take the ;large sprawling

Division appropriately named North Hertfordshire Rural, make it even larger, and rename it

'Royston West & Rural'? Royston has no relevance to those of us living in villages near to

Letchworth and Hitchin. A ludicrous exercise conducted by civil servants, following in the

footsteps of Mortimer Durand whose crass stupidity in drawing up the boundary between

Afghanistan and (what was then) India has led to wars and disruption ever since.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 29 October 2014 09:21To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary Commision changes Hertfordshire, St Albans


From: Sent: 28 October 2014 22:14 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary Commision changes Hertfordshire, St Albans I wish to give my views on the proposed boundary changes as put forward by the Boundary Commission for England. The first matter which comes to mind is that at the Hearing before a Government Inspector to determine the status of Napsbury Fields in April 2010 it was accepted that South Cunningham was a recognised neighbourhood. This proposal splits the neighbourhood and parcels the southern end on to London Colney. Secondly the A414 trunk road forms a natural barrier on the south side of St Albans, and as a consequence, the Cunningham Ward. In the proposals the new ward (or neighbourhood) is split into two disparate and disjointed parts. The two areas have no common or natural centre, no common purpose nor interests. Thirdly. For many years St Albans City and District Council has fought to maintain the Green Belt around the City free from unwarranted development whilst still agreeing a good number of new builds every year on brown field sites or as fill‐in between existing buildings. The joining of part of Cunningham to London Colney could well destroy the existing natural buffer of Green Belt land, thereby causing the coalescing of the two townships. Finally. It seems that the proposals have merely been put together to create equal numbers of voters in each parcel regardless of history, of current cohesion or of the constitution of the neighbourhood communities all of which will be destroyed. The fact that one has a Parish Council, the other not, suggests that the Parish net will soon envelop the previously un‐Parished area with an attendant increase in Council Tax due to the Parish Precept. I am not in favour of these proposals. ~They can only lead to the demise of a currently cohesive and pleasant neighbourhood. D J Rush

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 12 September 2014 16:12To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Turnford Wormley boundery


From: Irene Saward Sent: 12 September 2014 07:33 To: Reviews@ Subject: Turnford Wormley boundery I wish to express my concern that the boundary be changed and to request that things remain as they are. Sincerely Irene Saward


Personal Details:

Name: Bill S

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Private

Comment text:

I would like to lend my voice to these ideas and think that they are entirely appropriate. I

support the views.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 17 October 2014 08:43To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary changes - Loudwater Rickmansworth Herts


From: Alan Schofield Sent: 16 October 2014 15:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes - Loudwater Rickmansworth Herts The Review Officer I would like to lodge my objection to proposed boundary changes as they affect Loudwater, Rickmansworth. The area should not in my view be joined with Croxley for the following reasons:

1. Loudwater has always been part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is represented as part of Chorleywood both at Parish and District level.

2. Loudwater should be part of the Rural Division of Chorleywood as this would better represent the nature of the community. The issues of Croxley in the County Division are totally different to those in Loudwater.

3. Most resident’s children go to schools in Chorleywood. None to my knowledge attend schools in Croxley.

4. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley Alan Schofield


Personal Details:

Name: Ann Jennifer Senior

E-mail: [email protected]

Postcode: WD17 3TU

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the recommendations of the Boundary Commission.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 29 October 2014 16:12To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Local Government Boundary changes.


From: Sent: 29 October 2014 16:00 To: Reviews@ Subject: Local Government Boundary changes. In connection with the proposal that Loudwater is removed from the Three Rivers Rural Division and become part of the Croxley County Division, we wish to register our disapproval for the following reasons:- 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented at both Parish and Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the communityrather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents would use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields. Roy and Oliffe Shearer

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 24 October 2014 08:50To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary change,


-----Original Message----- From: Sent: 23 October 2014 14:03 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary change, Hi, We live in Loudwater We are rather concerned that in the proposed boundary changes , Loudwater may be moved into Coxley Green. We strongly oppose to this proposition. Traditionally we have more connection and use of services in Chorleywood., We hope you will reconsider and keep Loudwater in the Chorleywood Nanjit Nita Siani Sent from my iPad

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 24 October 2014 08:51To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: LOUDWATER


From: Sent: 23 October 2014 15:36 To: Reviews@ Subject: LOUDWATER I wish to object most strongly with the proposal to remove Loudwater from the existing Division to become part of Croxley County Division. Loudwater has always had a strong and suitable connection with Chorleywood - the rural nature is most closely connected. We shop in Chorleywood, we do not shop in Croxley. The children in this area go to school in the Chorleywood area, not Croxley. Our connections are most obviously with Chorleywood - we are quite separate from Croxley and we shall continue to object most strongly to any continued intention to move Loudwater to Croxley County Division. L. P. Slifkin


Personal Details:

Name: Carole Smith

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Think the current proposals are ok

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: M S

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Eastbury should fall under Rickmansworth East. It makes no sense to have the Rickmansworth

area surrounding around Eastbury?!!!

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Sent: 02 November 2014 22:37 To: Reviews@ Subject: Hertfordshire County Council boundaries in Stevenage

Dear Local Government Boundary Commission My name is Heather Snell. I understand that you are at present consulting on changes to boundaries to Herts County Council divisions. I wish to make some comments in support of leaving the boundaries as at present and object to the proposed changes. As a resident of Stevenage for more than 25 years I have found that Stevenage residents have a strong attachment to our Local Neighbourhoods . I live in St Nicholas and do not want to be linked with another area. This is not only my thought but also that of my neighbours and my own family. We have the ideal situation at present two Borough Council Wards now make up a County Division, this is simple and is understood by most of the voters. It would cause confusion and is , in my opinion, unnecessary. Most people do not understand the difference between Borough and County Councils and so having straight forward boundaries which relate to each other and do not divide communities in Stevenage is crucial. Stevenage was built to encompass small distinct villages as part of a wider town. These villages ( neighbouhoods) have their own shops, schools and community centres. These areas in Stevenage in themselves have natural barriers which for the most part the current Borough and County system adheres to. Your current proposals destroy these natural linkages and that is why I'm supportive of the submission by Stevenage Liberal Democrats. Their submission meets the Commission's requirements for all divisions to have an electorate within 10% of the county average electorate and keeps workable and familiar boundaries relating to both the Borough and County Council ward area. I have attached a map of their proposals and I very much hope you will support them. These proposals were put together by people that live and work in Stevenage. We know our area and believe that these plans should be acceptable to the Commission.

2

It would be most appreciated if you could please give serious consideration to this submission which offers a more effective and workable solution than the current proposals by the Commission. I would like to thank you in advance for your assistance on this matter. With kind regards. Heather Snell


Personal Details:

Name: Paul spencer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The Watford area should stay as it is.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: alan springall

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I support the new boundary changes in Watford

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded



1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 12 September 2014 16:13To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Boundary changes.


From: JOHN STAPLEYSent: 12 September 2014 08:52 To: Reviews@ Subject: Boundary changes. I am strongly opposed to the new boundary proposed changes.The existing Wormley/Turnford grouping combines 2 similar wards with very similar strengths & weaknesses. Susan Stapley.

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 03 November 2014 15:25To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Proposed New South Oxhey and Eastbury County Division


From: alan Sent: 03 November 2014 15:25 To: Reviews@ Subject: Proposed New South Oxhey and Eastbury County Division I write with reference the above consultation. I live in I am totally against any change to join Eastbury with South Oxhey. Reasons being: Community identities are totally different, there are extremely few facilities that are shared between the two areas. The Oxhey Park Choir for instance excluded residents from Eastbury. I do not ever go to South Oxhey, ( nor as far as I know do any of my neighbours). My doctor, bank, library, post office, shops and our facilities used are in Northwood/Moor Park. Oxhey Woods creates a natural boundary between the two areas. I would not wish to vote in South Oxhey, where if the changes were implemented Eastbury Residents would be only 25% of the electorate and take second place in any future spending decisions, which will be dominated by South Oxhey issues, this in itself having a negative effect on Eastbury property values and facilities. With regard to public travel, this is again from Northwood/Moor Park. Overall, I feel it would be a total disaster for Eastbury residents if such an electoral boundary change were to be implemented. Thank you. Alan Stern

1

Morrison, William

From: Christine Sterry Sent: 15 October 2014 22:51To: Reviews@Subject: Boundaries

As a resident of the gated estate in Loudwater I wish to register my strong opposition to any proposal to remove Loudwater from the Chorleywood rural division to be included in the Croxley Green NON rural division for the following reasons. 1. Loudwater is part of the parished area of Chorleywood and is therefore represented both at Parish and District Council level as part of Chorleywood. 2. Loudwater should be part of a Rural Division as this would represent the nature of the community rather than becoming part of a County Division where issues are not typical of our environment. 3. Many children attend Christ Church CofE primary school and Clement Danes Secondary School rather than schools in Croxley. 4. Residents here use Chorleywood for shopping and amenities rather than Croxley. 5. Loudwater has never had any relationship with Croxley and indeed the two are very separate areas divided by fields and countryside not part of a highly populated housing estate.

1

Morrison, William

From: Fuller, HeatherSent: 29 October 2014 09:23To: Morrison, WilliamSubject: FW: Stevenage Boundary Changes


-----Original Message----- From: Sheila Stowe Sent: 27 October 2014 16:35 To: Reviews@ Subject: Stevenage Boundary Changes I wish to record that I am in favour of the proposed boundary change along Gresley Way as it will ensure the residents who will be affected by this change will be covered by the Stevenage councillor rather than the Walkern councillor as at present. Yours faithfully Sheila Stowe Sent from my iPad