Local organisation submissions to the Bristol City Council electoral review

Transcription

1 Local organisation submissions to the Bristol City Council electoral review This PDF document contains all local organisation submissions. Some versions of Adobe allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.

2

3

4 Submission to the Local Government Boundaries Commission by the Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Neighbourhood Partnership 15 February 2015 Nick Clark (Chair) Neighbourhood Partnership status This submission on the proposed City of Bristol ward boundary changes is made by the Bishopston, Cotham and Redland Neighbourhood Partnership. We are one of 14 Neighbourhood Partnerships within the City of Bristol, and cover the three current electoral wards of Bishopston, Cotham and Redland. The membership of the Partnership includes all Bristol City Councillors from these wards as well as representatives of local community groups and advocates for local topics of concern. This submission is made independently from that of any political party. As part of the devolution of local authority powers to a local level, we have responsibility for a small devolved budget from Bristol City Council but also for decisions on matters such as minor road schemes, management of parks and street scene, including local services, amenities, appearance and accessibility. We were not made aware of the current boundary consultation until shortly before the initial submission deadline. We have also not been given access to computer software to allow us to measure the effects of different boundary choices on electoral representation. We wish more had been done at an earlier stage to involve Neighbourhood Partnerships in providing their contributions to the current boundary changes. We therefore make the following submission, in reaction to the new boundary proposals, primarily on matters of principle. We give concrete examples of how we believe these principles have been met, or could be better met, in the current proposals. Boundaries and local government efficiency Relevant to the need to deliver effective and convenient local government Principle 1: The effectiveness and convenience of our local government responsibilities are improved when major amenities, such as local centres and parks are not split across Neighbourhood Partnership boundaries. We understand that the grouping of wards into Neighbourhood Partnership areas is not part of the LGBC remit, but if ward boundaries are drawn through the middle of local centres and parks, it exacerbates the problem; even more so when a boundary divides one side of a shopping street from the other along its length. The Bristol Development Framework identifies town, district and local centres as concentrations of services and community facilities. In our area, the 'town centres' are Whiteladies Road and Gloucester Road. With the current ward boundaries, Whiteladies Road is split along its length between two Neighbourhood Partnerships, leading to divided responsibilities and so less effective action. On the other hand, both sides of Gloucester Road are either within the Bishopston or Redland wards (and still within a single Partnership) so can be more efficiently administered. With the proposed boundaries, both sides of Whiteladies Road will largely be within a single ward, and so more effective to administer. However, Gloucester Road will be split, along much of the length of the road, between three wards (Bishopston, Redland, Ashley & Stokes Croft). This would make it unlikely it could be managed within the same Neighbourhood Partnership, leading to less 1

5 coherence and less effective administration for this local centre. A similar, but smaller, problem exists along Coldharbour Road, which will remain split along its length between Redland and Henleaze wards (currently in different Neighbourhood Partnerships). Concerning the major local parks under the proposed changes, we are pleased to note that Redland Green and St Andrews Park remain coherent and Cotham Gardens remains in Cotham. However it would be better not to split Horfield Common[1] (currently across three different wards) and, given its name, it might be more appropriate if was all in Horfield ward. Boundaries and community identity Relevant to the need to consider identifiable boundaries which are either natural or constructed Principle 2: Use natural barriers as boundaries whenever possible, such as railway lines, allotments and green spaces. The proposed boundary between Cotham and Redland has been better aligned with the railway line near Redland Station, though this could have been extended all the way to Clifton Down to better match the traditional boundary between Cotham and Redland. The traditional area of St Andrews should be recognised by using the railway line as its south boundary as far as Ashley Hill. St Andrews as a community is much more closely associated with Gloucester Road and Bishopston than it is with Montpelier or the proposed Ashley & Stokes Croft ward because of this physical barrier. It should be a separate one-councillor ward or be included in Bishopston or Redland wards. Boundaries and the naming of wards Relevant to the need to reflect community interests and identities Principle 3: Traditional area names should not be applied to new wards when they stray far beyond their original well-understood areas. If the boundaries of the wards remain largely as in the current proposals, the ward names become misleading for residents who are familiar with the traditional area names such as shown in the road and building names and the existing names used on maps of the area. The proposed Clifton East ward extends across Whiteladies Road into part of the area well known as Redland. We suggest instead it is called the Whiteladies Ward reflecting its position astride Whiteladies Road. The proposed Redland ward extends as far as Bishop Road, traditionally the centre of Bishopston. We suggest instead it is called the Bishopston South & Redland Ward and the proposed Bishopston ward is called the Bishopston North Ward (though if, as suggested above, it included St Andrews, it could be the Bishopston North & St Andrews Ward). Examples of traditional area names can be seen on maps produced for other purposes by local community groups such as Window Wanderland[2] (Bishopston area) or Sustainable Redland[3] (combined Redland and Cotham area). [1] Friends of Horfield Common [2] Window Wanderland map [3] SustainableRedlland map 2

6 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2 16/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Rose Boswell Postcode: Organisation Name: The Bishopston Society Comment text: Please see attached document from The Bishopston Society - I am not sure if it has been attached so copy below as too late to contact you as closing date is tomorrow - Sunday 15th 14th February 2015 The Review Officer LGBCE Layden House c/ Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Dear Sir/Madam Re: Proposed boundary Changes to the Bishopston, Redland and Ashley &Stokes Croft wards, Bristol The Bishopston Society is a membership-based amenity organization whose aims are to promote the wellbeing of the local community and to highlight issues which are deemed as a threat to it. In agreement with our sister organization in Redland our west boundary is Cranbrook Rd, and loosely the eastern boundary runs around Ashley Down Rd down to The Arches on Gloucester Rd, thus including much of St Andrews around St Andrews Park. We feel that the proposed changes do not correspond to how many people see the Bishopston area, and indeed do not meet the Commission s own standards:. Reflect community interests and identities. To consider identifiable boundaries which are either natural or constructed. Help the Council deliver effective and convenient local government To take the first two points, the proposed Bishopston ward contains very little of what we locals regardas Bishopston, and with most of Horfield Common the ward now includes what Horfield might consider as its own. In many people s eyes the core of Bishopston runs from Ashley Down Rd to The Arches on Cheltenham Rd/ Gloucester Rd with a half mile hinterland to the east and west. The Gloucester Rd is the backbone, with most of its customers from both sides of the road doing their shopping on foot. This area includes schools, churches, shops, health facilities, small businesses and the new library, with major bus routes running along the Gloucester Rd - it is a coherent community. However the proposals put most of this area into Redland and Ashley/Stokes Croft wards. The current configuration has caused much confusion in the past. For example, residents living south of Berkeley Rd are in Redland ward whereas they see themselves as identifying with Bishopston. This confusion is salient given the Council s wish to devolve services down to electoral ward level through the Neighborhood Partnership structure. The new proposals merely increase this confusion of identity, byencroaching Redland ward yet further into Bishopston, and pushing Bishopston ward further into HorfieldIdeally this opportunity to change boundaries should address the longstanding mismatch between electoral wards and local conceptions, rather than making it worse. One line of thinking would be to take the residents' picture of Bishopston outlined above as a starting point, with a southern boundary of the ward at the Severn Beach railway line, and with the streets on both sides of the Gloucester Road down to the Arches included in the Bishopston ward. Likewise, those areas/amenities with Ashley in their name, including the proposed Ashley railway station, could be included in the Ashley&Stokes Croft ward. Our idea of a remodelled Bishopston ward may bring it over the 10,000 limit for 2 councillor representation; we do not have a particular view on one-, two- or three-councillor wards as we are more concerned with wards having meaning to residents and their elected representative(s). Incidentally, it is a shame that the map provided does not provide an opportunity to plot preferred boundaries. This would have been a valuable addition to the consultation process. On a point of detail in the proposals as presented, we view the proposed boundary between the proposed Redland and Bishopston wards to be unduly complicated. Were the proposed boundaries to be retained, our preferred option would be to make Bishop Rd in its entirety the boundary from Gloucester Rd to Kellaway Avenue; we would want Bishop Rd

7 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2 16/02/2015 school, considered to be a Bishopston school, to be within the Bishopston ward, and indeed the boundary to run along the gardens on the south side, so the road on both sides is in Bishopston ward. If the Commission decides to leave the proposed configuration largely unchanged, or indeed to keep to the current boundaries, then we emphatically recommend renaming the wards: Bishopston ward: to Bishopston North Redland ward: to Bishopston South and Redland.This would at least acknowledge the extent of the Bishopston community. To address the third of the Commission's standards above, we are concerned that the current proposals place Gloucester Rd under three electoral wards, rather than two, as currently is the case. This would enormously complicate the Council s management and support of this highly regarded local and national economic resource - it is one of the country s most thriving shopping streets. A remodelling of the Bishopston ward as suggested above would place the Gloucester Rd under one ward. If this is not possible, then we recommend that a majority of two wards (Bishopston and Redland) should cover both sides of the Gloucester Rd. To ensure this, we suggest the following changes to the current proposals: The part of the Gloucester Rd in Redland ward shared with Ashley /Stokes Croft should be in Redland ward on both sides of the road ie the boundary to run along the east back gardens on North Rd. The part of the Gloucester Rd from Berkeley Rd/Somerville Rd to Bishop Rd shared with Bishopston ward, should be entirely in Bishopston ward ie the boundary to run along the back gardens on the west side of properties on the Gloucester Rd. We are unhappy with the idea of a major asset as the Gloucester Rd being split in the middle so that opposite sides of the road are in different wards. The two major green spaces in this densely populated part of Bristol ie Horfield Common and St Andrews Park, should not be split between wards, as again this would enormously complicate the Council s management and support. Under the current arrangements Horfield Common is split between three wards which has made it very difficult for local residents to achieve long-overdue improvements to this space. It is to their credit that they have persevered to create an enhanced community resource. So we welcome that the new proposals confirms that St Andrews Park will not be split and Horfield Common is now split between only two wards our preference is that Horfield Common is placed into just one ward. The Bishopston Society does not have a view in which ward either should fall, though it notes that for consistency, there is an argument that Horfield Common should be in Horfield ward. Both open spaces have catchment areas extending into several of the surrounding wards. We hope that you will re-consider the proposed boundaries in the light of our concerns and especially note our proposed changes regarding names. Yours faithfully Rose Boswell Secretary of the Bishopston Society copied to Councillors Fi Hance, Martin Fodor, Daniella Radice and Tim Malnick for information Uploaded Documents: Download

8 The Review Officer LGBCE Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 14 th February 2015 Dear Sir/Madam Re: Proposed boundary Changes to the Bishopston, Redland and Ashley &Stokes Croft wards, Bristol The Bishopston Society is a membership-based amenity organization whose aims are to promote the wellbeing of the local community and to highlight issues which are deemed as a threat to it. In agreement with our sister organization in Redland our west boundary is Cranbrook Rd, and loosely the eastern boundary runs around Ashley Down Rd down to The Arches on Gloucester Rd, thus including much of St Andrews around St Andrews Park. We feel that the proposed changes do not correspond to how many people see the Bishopston area, and indeed do not meet the Commission s own standards:.reflect community interests and identities.to consider identifiable boundaries which are either natural or constructed.help the Council deliver effective and convenient local government To take the first two points, the proposed Bishopston ward contains very little of what we locals regardas Bishopston, and with most of Horfield Common the ward now includes what Horfield might consider as its own. In many people s eyes the core of Bishopston runs from Ashley Down Rd to The Arches on Cheltenham Rd/ Gloucester Rd with a half mile hinterland to the east and west. The Gloucester Rd is the backbone, with most of its customers from both sides of the road doing their shopping on foot. This area includes schools, churches, shops, health facilities, small businesses and the new library, with major bus routes running along the Gloucester Rd - it is a coherent community. However the proposals put most of this area into Redland and Ashley/Stokes Croft wards. The current configuration has caused much confusion in the past. For example, residents living south of Berkeley Rd are in Redland ward whereas they see themselves as identifying with Bishopston. This confusion is salient given the Council s wish to devolve services down to electoral ward level through the Neighborhood Partnership structure. The new proposals merely increase this confusion of identity, byencroaching Redland ward yet further into Bishopston, and pushing Bishopston ward further into HorfieldIdeally this opportunity to change boundaries should address the longstanding mismatch between electoral wards and local conceptions, rather than making it worse. One line of thinking would be to take the residents' picture of Bishopston outlined above as a starting point, with a southern boundary of the ward at the Severn Beach railway line, and with the streets on both sides of the Gloucester Road down to the Arches included in the Bishopston ward. Likewise, those areas/amenities with Ashley in their name, including the proposed Ashley railway station, could be included in the Ashley&Stokes Croft ward. Our idea of a remodelled Working for Bishopston's heritage and its future' For further information look on our website:

9 Bishopston ward may bring it over the 10,000 limit for 2 councillor representation; we do not have a particular view on one-, two- or three-councillor wards as we are more concerned with wards having meaning to residents and their elected representative(s). Incidentally, it is a shame that the map provided does not provide an opportunity to plot preferred boundaries. This would have been a valuable addition to the consultation process. On a point of detail in the proposals as presented, we view the proposed boundary between the proposed Redland and Bishopston wards to be unduly complicated. Were the proposed boundaries to be retained, our preferred option would be to make Bishop Rd in its entirety the boundary from Gloucester Rd to Kellaway Avenue; we would want Bishop Rd school, considered to be a Bishopston school, to be within the Bishopston ward, and indeed the boundary to run along the gardens on the south side, so the road on both sides is in Bishopston ward. If the Commission decides to leave the proposed configuration largely unchanged, or indeed to keep to the current boundaries, then we emphatically recommend renaming the wards: Bishopston ward: to Bishopston North Redland ward: to Bishopston South and Redland. This would at least acknowledge the extent of the Bishopston community. To address the third of the Commission's standards above, we are concerned that the current proposals place Gloucester Rd under three electoral wards, rather than two, as currently is the case. This would enormously complicate the Council s management and support of this highly regarded local and national economic resource - it is one of the country s most thriving shopping streets. A remodelling of the Bishopston ward as suggested above would place the Gloucester Rd under one ward. If this is not possible, then we recommend that a majority of two wards (Bishopston and Redland) should cover both sides of the Gloucester Rd. To ensure this, we suggest the following changes to the current proposals: The part of the Gloucester Rd in Redland ward shared with Ashley /Stokes Croft should be in Redland ward on both sides of the road ie the boundary to run along the east back gardens on North Rd. The part of the Gloucester Rd from Berkeley Rd/Somerville Rd to Bishop Rd shared with Bishopston ward, should be entirely in Bishopston ward ie the boundary to run along the back gardens on the west side of properties on the Gloucester Rd. We are unhappy with the idea of a major asset as the Gloucester Rd being split in the middle so that opposite sides of the road are in different wards. The two major green spaces in this densely populated part of Bristol ie Horfield Common and St Andrews Park, should not be split between wards, as again this would enormously complicate the Council s management and support. Under the current arrangements Horfield Common is split between three wards which has made it very difficult for local residents to achieve long-overdue improvements to this space. It is to their credit that they have persevered to create an enhanced community resource. So we welcome that the new proposals confirms that St Andrews Park will not be split and Horfield Common is now split between only two wards our preference is that Horfield Common is placed into just one ward. The Bishopston Society does not have a view in which ward either should fall, though it Working for Bishopston's heritage and its future' For further information look on our website:

10 notes that for consistency, there is an argument that Horfield Common should be in Horfield ward. Both open spaces have catchment areas extending into several of the surrounding wards. We hope that you will re-consider the proposed boundaries in the light of our concerns and especially note our proposed changes regarding names. Yours faithfully Rose Boswell Secretary of the Bishopston Society copied to Councillors Fi Hance, Martin Fodor, Daniella Radice and Tim Malnick for information Working for Bishopston's heritage and its future' For further information look on our website:

11 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 12/01/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: robert farmer Postcode: Organisation Name: BS10 PARKS AND PLANNING GROUP [TREASURER] Comment text: My main concern relates to the naming of the current Henbury ward. This should include the name Brentry as agreed by locality consultations which have taken place and supported by the neighbourhood partnership. It would be good to have a councillor specifically for Brentry as it is a community in its own right and needs more recognision and specific representation. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

12 Pascoe, Mark From: Patrick Clarke Sent: 10 February :34 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: Boundary changes Westbury on Trym, Bristol Follow Up Flag: Flag Status: Follow up Flagged Dear. Sirs I am writing on behalf of Canford Bowling Club which is based in Westbury on Trym, in response to the Local Boundary Commission proposal for re drawing the ward boundaries at Westbury on Trym and Henleaze. Whilst we appreciate the need for fair representation,we feel that this is not the best solution and that some further consideration must be given to the voters of Westbury on Trym. As it stands, many residents of Westbury on Trym will no longer have any direct representation in matters concerning their Village. Surely this can not be right. The proposal put forward by the Westbury on Trym Society for a partnership ward with Henleaze, combining the two present wards into one and sharing three Councillors, must we feel be a fairer compromise. We therefore add our support to this proposal, which we feel will provide a more equitable solution to what is a difficult dilemma Yours Faithfully Patrick Clarke (President Canford Bowling Club) 1

13 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 16/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Richard Curtis Postcode: Organisation Name: Church Road Action Group Feature Annotations 1: Area to the south of line is ENB and ENC to ne added to St George West to create 2 councillor ward Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Area to the south of line is ENB and ENC to ne added to St George West to create 2 councillor ward Comment text: Please see uploaded document below Uploaded Documents: Download

14 I have been asked to write to you concerning the proposed changes to the electoral wards in Bristol. I represent two local groups in the Redfield and St. George areas of Bristol, and it is on behalf of both of those groups that I write. Both groups are concerned with the A420 Church Road which runs through the centre of Redfield and the Western part of St. George, from Lawrence Hill railway Station to the St George Fountain fork junction with the A431. My earlier submission asked for consideration to be given to forming a I councillor ward of Redfield, based on the electorate of Easton B and Easton C being of the approximate numbers relevant to that required. This suggestion not having been adopted, I have been asked to make an alternative suggestion to you, that is that these two polling districts ENB and ENC are combined with the new St. George West ward, to make a 2 councillor St. George West ward. The reasons for this are mainly that the A420 Church Road is one of Bristol's main local shopping centres, being designated as the Church Road Town Centre in the Bristol local plan, and if it was all in the same ward it would make more sense when dealing with Bristol City Council on specific issues related to the Town Centre than at present, as we are obliged to consult with councillors from different wards for different sections of the Town Centre, at one point the ward boundary runs along the centre of the A420, which means dealing with different councillors for opposite sides of the road. Historically all of this area was part of the St. George parish of Gloucestershire until the city's boundaries were extended in the 19 th century. People in ENB and ENC find that because of the issues in the ENA area of the ward the councillors have little time to spend on issues within ENB and ENC, and as a consequence feel under represented, and the demographics of ENB and ENC are more similar to those in St. George than ENA. I have also been asked to comment on the proposed change to the eastern boundary of Lawrence Hill ward in that this will mean that many of the people who live in the area of the city known as Lawrence Hill, will no longer be in Lawrence Hill ward, the former boundary being the boundary between Redfield and Lawrence Hill. They have also commented that it is thought that there the increase in population of the Lawrence Hill ward has not been reflected in the numbers of current and future electors, probably due to a reluctance to register, and that this could give rise to a serious anomaly in the future. Richard Curtis, Chair, Church Road Action Group. Director, Church Road Town Team.

15 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 03/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Richard Irwin Postcode: Organisation Name: Fishponds Neighbourhood Partnership Comment text: I agree 100% with the prosed changes to Frome Vale ward in Stapleton. People living in that area off Park Road, Stapleton are moreso Frome Vale people than they are Eastville Ward people. It's a very sensible idea and helps to define the future of ward meetings. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

16 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 02/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Alan Aburrow Postcode: Organisation Name: Friends of Badock's Wood Feature Annotations 2: Bowness Gardens 1: Proposed minor change to the Southmead Ward boundary Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Annotation 2: Proposed minor change to the Southmead Ward boundary Bowness Gardens Comment text: If the Southmead boundary is to remain as currently proposed, then the opportunity should be taken to include the whole of the curtilage of Badock s Wood and its associated Local Nature Reserve (LNR) into the Southmead Ward and not leave a small proportion in the new Henleaze Ward. The whole of the area marked on the map as "Bowness Gardens" also comes within the current curtilage of Badock's Wood. Such a change will make no difference to the head-count in either Ward, as there are no residents in Badock s Wood. However, for the allocation of the Council s scarce Parks and Green Spaces resources, this would result in the whole of Badock s Wood being treated as a single entity and not spread over two Wards for administrative purposes. I voice this opinion as the Past Chairman of the Friends of Badock s Wood ( where difficulty with the allocation of Council resources has been a perennial problem with the current Ward boundary running through the middle of Badock s Wood. The accompanying uploaded document contains a map of Badock's Wood, copied from a Friends of Badock's Wood publicity leaflet. This illustrates the total area covered by the Wood, all of which is Council-owned. Uploaded Documents: Download

17

18 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 17/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Michael Blundell Postcode: Organisation Name: Friends of Canford Park Feature Annotations 1: Falcondale Road - remove boundary 2: Falcondale Road - remove boundary 3: Falcondale Road - remove boundary 6: Boundary WoT - Henleaze remove 4: 7: 5: 8: Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Annotation 2: Annotation 3: Falcondale Road - remove boundary Falcondale Road - remove boundary Falcondale Road - remove boundary Annotation 4: Annotation 5: Annotation 6: Boundary WoT - Henleaze remove Annotation 7: Annotation 8: Annotation 9: Annotation 10: Comment text: In 1909 Canford Park was created by Bristol City Council to meet the requirements of the Bristol Corporation Act This Act required the City Council to lay out a piece of Canford Farm (hence Canford Park) as a recreation ground when the village of Westbury on Trym was taken into the City. Since its creation Canford Park has been part of the village. Canford Lane runs down from the war memorial in the centre of the village to the entrance of Canford Park. There is a natural flow from the village down to Canford Park. Falcondale Road is not a boundary. The Queen Victoria Jubilee Fountain in Canford Park used to be where the war memorial in the middle of the village is now. People from the village walk and play in the Park. The life of Canford Park is intertwined with that of the Village. People need to remember that much of the housing in the village is terraced and Canford Park is the nearest public green space. The Friends of Canford Park is strongly opposed to separating Canford Park from its village. To reflect community interest and identity the Commission should make Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze a single ward with three councillors. The proposed boundary separating the village from its park should be abandoned. The Council will be better able to deliver effective local government if Canford Park were to be included in a three member ward which encompasses the village. The Park serves those in Westbury-on-Trym village with an open public green space as much as those in the neighbouring housing. Including the Park in the same ward as its village would ensure greater input by residents into their park and better management as a consequence. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

19 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 17/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Michael Blundell Postcode: Organisation Name: Friends of Canford Park Feature Annotations 4: 7: 5: 8: 9: 10: Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 1: Annotation 2: Annotation 3: Falcondale Road - remove boundary Falcondale Road - remove boundary Falcondale Road - remove boundary Annotation 4: Annotation 5: Annotation 6: Boundary WoT - Henleaze remove Annotation 7: Annotation 8: Annotation 9: Annotation 10: Comment text: In 1909 Canford Park was created by Bristol City Council to meet the requirements of the Bristol Corporation Act This Act required the City Council to lay out a piece of Canford Farm (hence Canford Park) as a recreation ground when the village of Westbury on Trym was taken into the City. Since its creation Canford Park has been part of the village. Canford Lane runs down from the war memorial in the centre of the village to the entrance of Canford Park. There is a natural flow from the village down to Canford Park. Falcondale Road is not a boundary. The Queen Victoria Jubilee Fountain in Canford Park used to be where the war memorial in the middle of the village is now. People from the village walk and play in the Park. The life of Canford Park is intertwined with that of the Village. People need to remember that much of the housing in the village is terraced and Canford Park is the nearest public green space. The Friends of Canford Park is strongly opposed to separating Canford Park from its village. To reflect community interest and identity the Commission should make Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze a single ward with three councillors. The proposed boundary separating the village from its park should be abandoned. The Council will be better able to deliver effective local government if Canford Park were to be included in a three member ward which encompasses the village. The Park serves those in Westbury-on-Trym village with an open public green space as much as those in the neighbouring housing. Including the Park in the same ward as its village would ensure greater input by residents into their park and better management as a consequence. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

20 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 16/12/2014 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Helen Moody Postcode: Organisation Name: The Friends of Marksbury Road Library Feature Annotations 4: This is the Malago Vale area as appears in our local plan, previously in two wards, but under your proposals now in three. Contains Ordnance Survey data Crown copyright and database rights Map Features: Annotation 4: This is the Malago Vale area as appears in our local plan, previously in two wards, but under your proposals now in three. Comment text: Malago Vale is on the edge of an area of social deprivation in the city, presently in 2 wards and 2 neighbourhood partnerships, and has struggled to find an identity and find someone to work with to establish a vision for the future. Over the last 5 years some members of the community have forged links with community colleagues in the Greater Bedminster Neighbourhood Partnership and are going ahead with schemes to regenerate the area. The future is not certain, but the relationship is supportive and has helped bring confidence to active groups in the area. Your proposals puts this area into 3 wards, not including Bedminster, with which we have strongest links with at present, and 2 neighbourhood partnerships, but again not the one we are working with at present. The focal points for Windmill Hill, Filwood and Bishopsworth wards are as distant from Malago Vale as Bedminster, and the proposals place the most vocal and active members of the community into 3 different wards and 2 different NPs. The changes proposed will set us back at least three years as we attempt to create new relationships and have to work out how to work with the wards, councillors and NPs. There will be no cohesion and we risk losing all the ground we have made in the recent past. Your boundary lines pay no attention to how this fragile community bonds together and will leave it more isolated than at present. Please leave us with Bedminster and Windmill Hill. Uploaded Documents: Download

21 Malago Vale Local Area Plan Our vision In 2025 we d like to say: The Malago Vale area of Bristol (known as the Marksbury Road Area until 2015) is a safe, lively and popular area of the City in which to live. The local infrastructure supports a diverse and multigenerational population that actively engages with local amenities and enjoys the clean and green streets, parks and public areas. Does that sound good to you?

22 This plan looks at how we might achieve it. It notes down the vision that community members or organisers and officials have for of each of the main features of the area for about It sets down the milestones (short, medium and/or long term) that we can try to reach, and who should be involved in getting there. It has been written by representatives from the Marksbury Area Community Association (MACA), the Friends of Marksbury Road Library (FMRL) and the Governors of Parson Street School. The main section headings are: 1. Local Services and amenities 2. Green Spaces 3. Roads and Transport 4. Development Potential 5. The Authors Once we have your ideas we will work together and work with the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership and with Bristol City Council to complete the plan and draw up priorities for when resource opportunities arise. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 2 of 14

23 1. Local Services and amenities By 2025:- Malago Learning Partnership (currently a collaborative partnership of 8 local schools, including Parson Street Primary and Victoria Park Primary Schools) The Malago Learning Partnership (MLP) is an integrated and vibrant part of the local community, providing high quality education for local children, enabling them to realise their individual potential, have healthy and active lifestyles and be well balanced members of society. The Partnership works closely with parents/carers and the local community to promote and increase awareness of the immediate and wider environment. In addition, the Partnership continues to develop and strengthen links with local groups and organisations, such as the library, community gardens, churches, local sports providers, etc and provides facilities at the Schools for these organisations to use. The Partnership also provides opportunities for pre, after-school and holiday activities for their children. Perseverance, collaboration, respect, high expectations and celebration are at the heart of the Partnership. Stakeholders: (MLP) Parson Street and Victoria Park Primary Schools, their Governing Bodies and Parent and Teachers Associations. BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continue to raise and sustain attainment and achievement of all pupils. Medium term: OFSTED - "Outstanding" rating. Possible expansion of the Partnership membership. Long Term: Continue to evolve in order to provide the best quality education and opportunities and reflect the needs of the local community. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 3 of 14

24 Library In 2025 Malago Vale (Marksbury Road) Library is not just a local library with all the usual book borrowing and computer facilities that the local council library service provides, but also a lively and thriving local community hub used by local groups outside opening hours offering events for all ages. Sited at the heart of the area, demand for usage is so high that an additional small room has been built on the back of the building to increase available space and a public toilet has been installed inside. Stakeholders: The Friends of Marksbury Road Library (FMRL), BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Fund raising and events organized by FMRL improve library usage and lettings out of hours, diverse activities are offered. Links with The Greater Bedminster Community Partnership are used to access local funding to improve its environs. Medium Term: Rename the library Malago Vale Library. FMRL work with BCC to support and enhance the library service in the area. Long term: Build an extension on the building in response to usage Question What sort of services, activities and events would you like to see at the Library? Light industry and commercial By 2015 local employment has been encouraged, reducing the need to commute and balancing the neighbourhood. Stakeholders: Employers, Residents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continued dialogue between the stakeholders to ensure planning applications consider local employment needs Medium Term: Long Term: Small shops and public houses There is a diverse range of shops and public houses. They sell a range of produce that not only serve the food and drinks markets but also support healthy living and local traders. Stakeholders: Traders, Residents, BCC Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 4 of 14

25 How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continued dialogue between the stakeholders to ensure planning applications consider community needs Medium Term: If necessary, a cumulative impact area agreement is obtained to control licensed premises. Long Term: Question What sort of shops or local businesses would you like to set up in the area? Can you think of any ways we can encourage and support them? Methodist Church We continue to serve God faithfully as a local church, following the teaching of the bible - particularly the new testament, and to reach out to the community with the gospel message about the Lord Jesus Christ. Stakeholders: The church congregation, elders and trustees. How and when we ll get there: Long Term: to maintain our building and its surroundings in as respectable a condition as possible Elderly persons dwellings Residents feel part of the wider community and their needs are not overlooked. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Medium Term: Long Term: Question Can you help us by letting us know who we can talk to about elderly persons dwellings? Oasis Academy Oasis Academy s vision is to create a new academy based on the belief that all pupils, regardless of background or ability, should be able to fulfill their potential as they develop aspirations, self-belief, justice and respect for their community and one another Stakeholders: Parents, Residents, School managers How and when we ll get there: Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 5 of 14

26 Short term: The first children attend the new school in 2015 Medium Term: The building works have been completed and all classes are full. New GP surgery on Marksbury Road By 2025 the surgery is welcoming and well used space incorporating both up to date traditional medicine and also alternative therapies.. Stakeholders: Residents, Doctors How and when we ll get there: Short term: Building work starts Medium Term: Surgery complete and fully operational We donʼt know when the surgery will be built. Question What sort of services would you like the surgery to offer? By 2025:- 2. Green Spaces Allotments The Enterprise Allotment site is popular and fully tenanted comprising of 13 full plots with some split into smaller areas. BCC manage the site and endeavour to use as many green and organic principles as practical and the tenants are encouraged to do the same. The land is protected by law and there is no intention to use it for any other purpose. Despite the minimal resources at the disposal of the BCC Allotments team, funds are allocated in a sustainable way wherever possible. Stakeholders: Tenants, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short: Working with the allotment representative to ensure plots are tenanted and regularly tended. To encourage people to apply for allotments and maintain a waiting list, ensuring the continued protection of the site. Medium to Long: We would like to continue and build on the success of Enterprise being a well-used and popular site. Nearby (on the edge of the Malago Vale area) there is another allotment site Vale Lane, that is currently used as grazing land and small holdings. Medium to long term the allotment office would like to see this land, or some of this land being used by a group to grow food for the wider community. Groups such as The Severn Project and The Knowle West Community Garden have made wonderful productive use of some similar land in nearby areas and we would like to see a similar social enterprise project in Bedminster. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 6 of 14

27 Question Would you like to be involved in a Vale Lane community allotment group? The Northern Slopes and Malago Greenway including Pigeonhouse Stream The Northern Slopes and Malago Greenway are the green lungs of the south of the City. They are recognised as a valuable asset to the physical, mental and social health of Bristolians. Stakeholders: Northern Slopes Initiative, City Council, Residents How and when we ll get there: Short to medium term: to ensure we receive Local Nature Reserve (LNR) status. To work with BCC and their agents, using the Northern Slopes management plan, to ensure the they are maintained and managed for the benefit of people and wildlife. To continue to promote the Northern Slopes for use by locals and the people of Bristol and beyond, and encourage use by focus groups eg Green Gym; Forest school, Bushcraft and school curriculum projects. Be recognised as an exemplar site in Green City Long term: to work with our partners to safeguard the Northern Slopes for future generations as a large natural urban space for the benefit of people and wildlife. Children's play areas, formal and informal By 2025 there are facilities for all ages, fostering socialising between the age groups. Children of all ages have access to informal play sites and make use of playing out opportunities. They are encouraged to discover and respect Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 7 of 14

28 nature. The play equipment installed in Malago Vale Park 2013 is well used and maintained. Stakeholders: Parents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Play equipment well maintained. Local environmental groups encouraged to work with young people in the area. Medium Term: Residents encouraged to plan opportunities for children to play out in the streets Long Term: Individuals with a concern for the continued provision of play areas and equipment are encouraged to come forward and be a voice in the community. Question Would you like to set up a support group for Malago Vale Park childrenʼs play area? How else can we improve the play area? Community Garden By 2015, using the recommendations of the Avon Wildlife report, the Garden provides space for childrens off-street informal play and raised beds for growing food. It provides an enhanced and maintained wildlife habitat; a place for neighbours to socialise; to plant fruit, nuts and berries for foraging by people and wildlife; and insect-friendly and sensory planting. The Garden is an example of community cohesion and shows how humans and the natural world inter-relate. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Volunteer groups, teenage trainees and local residents have cleared rubbish, brambles and trees, levelled the ground, built raised beds including one for Parson St School, planted orchards and opened up the secret garden. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 8 of 14

29 Medium to Long Term: A large enthusiastic group will maintain all the aims of the Garden. The site will provide food from the communal herb bed, raised beds, orchards and wild areas, with benefit to people and wildlife. It will be recognised by various food growing initiatives, Parks The Parks are clean and well maintained, encouraging adults to use them regularly, promoting a healthy lifestyle and interaction with other users. Dog walkers are supported by the provision of dog waste bins. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Adequate dog waste bins provided to make the Parks a pleasant place to walk and play. Long Term: Individuals with a concern for the care and maintenance of Parks are encouraged to come forward and be a voice in the community. Question Would you like to set up a support group for Malago Vale Park? How else can we improve the space? Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 9 of 14

30 3. Roads and Transport By 2025:- Residential Streets Local streets are clean. The majority is wide, well maintained and leafy and provide occasional seating, allowing residents of all ages not only to get out and about but also take a rest when necessary. Front Gardens are cheerful and free of rubbish and residents are aware and supportive of the Bedminster Front Garden Awards. Drivers are considerate, and rarely block pavements when parking. Stakeholders: Residents, BCC. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Work with BCC to improve street cleaning. Continue to participate in the Bedminster Front Garden Awards Medium Term: Provision of seating. Explore opportunities to make some streets traffic free. Long Term: Encourage walking groups to work with the Police and GBCP to challenge inconsiderate motorists. Bartlett s Road Bridge This bridge is a well-used vital link between Malago Vale area and the rest of Bedminster. A partnership between the community and Network Rail has allowed the bridge to be made more visually attractive and is an artistic feature and welcoming entrance to the area. It is also more accessible to people with disabilities and parents with prams and buggies. Stakeholders: MACA, FMRL, Network Rail, Way Out West, HML Andertons, Residents. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continue to talk to stakeholders, cost up ideas for minor improvements. Medium Term: When resources become available, work with major stakeholders to undertake major refurbishment and make the bridge more welcoming. Long Term: Investigate solutions to accessibility issues for wheelchair users and carers with wheelchairs etc. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 10 of 14

31 Question How can we make this a more pleasant bridge to walk over? Parson Street Railway station The station is bright, welcoming and safe. It is also more accessible to people with disabilities and parents with prams and buggies. Stakeholders: Residents, Network Rail, the volunteer who tends the flower beds, Way Out West. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Medium Term: Develop a working relationship with Network Rail. Long Term: Question Do you know who tends the flower beds at the station? What other improvements to the platforms could we ask for? Bus routes Buses are regular and allow easy access to the rest of Bedminster and the City Centre Stakeholders: Residents, First Bus How and when we ll get there: Short: Monitor and comment on any service changes Medium: Long: Work with First Bus to provide a service that aids the daily commute and shopping needs. Rail Service In 2025 the frequent connection to Bristol Temple Meads allows residents to travel to and from work and to enjoy wider ranging trips at weekends. The improved service links more easily with bus timetables. Stakeholders: Residents, First Great Western. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Encourage local usage to ensure the future viability of the station Medium Term: Long Term: Use opportunities to promote carbon reduction benefits of rail travel. Cycle Routes Cycle routes are well maintained and signposted. People of all ages are supported and encouraged to take to a bike for the first time. Stakeholders: Cyclists, Residents, BCC Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 11 of 14

32 How and when we ll get there: Short term: Ensure that improvements to routes within the area are considered within discussions about spending recent funding allocations awarded to the City Council. Safer cycling groups are encouraged into the schools and to promote themselves at public fora. Medium Term: Long Term: Roads Priority is given to pedestrian friendly streets and there are plenty of safe road crossing points and junctions. The road and pavement surfaces are maintained well allowing for smooth access for buggies, cycles and mobility scooters as well as motor vehicles. Stakeholders: Residents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Discussions with BCC about solutions to traffic calming and control including a 20mph limit around our schools. Medium Term: Long Term: Take concerns about the condition of pavements and roads to BCC via the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 12 of 14

33 4. Development Potential By 2025?:- Potential Development sites - Torpoint and Kingswear - Gas works - Bedminster Road Garage - George Taylor Yard - Bristol Boys Club Question - What would you like to see in each of these locations? More green spaces? More play areas? More affordable homes? Local business opportunities? Let us know. 5. The Authors MACA (Marksbury Area Community Association) By 2025 MACA will be a representative and active group working to enhance the interests of this forgotten area of Bedminster. As a member group of GBCP, MACA will strive to make the area a desirable place to live, where people are healthy and happy, and have a range of local amenities and services. Members will be involved in Planning issues to ensure we live in a wellbalanced community where we can contentedly live, learn, work and play. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Be involved in consultations and delivery of local initiatives eg the new Marksbury Rd School; future of Marksbury Rd Library; giving the locality identity of Malago Vale to enhance a sense of community; support Parson St School ; and promote the Community Garden and Front Garden Awards. Also to ensure our children have open spaces and places to play and exercise. Medium to Long term: Ensure all green and open space are conserved and enhanced for the physical, mental and social health of our residents. Ensure any Developments are of a high quality and are an advantageous fit in the local community; all housing sites should include premises for work and leisure. We will seek agreeable ways to change the focus of the area away from the dominance of traffic, eg traffic slowing initiatives of raised planters, trees and more street furniture. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 13 of 14

34 FMRL (Friends of Marksbury Road Library) See Marksbury Road Library for our vision Governors of Parson Street School See Malago Learning Partnership for our vision Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 14 of 14

35 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 16/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Susan Acton-Campbell f Postcode: Organisation Name: Friends of Troopers Hill Comment text: Comment on the Electoral review of Bristol on behalf of Friends of Troopers Hill This comment relates to the ward boundary changes affecting the existing wards of St George East and St George West which currently comprise the St George Neighbourhood Partnership area. We are a volunteer conservation group, Friends of Troopers Hill, with over 400 names on our free mailing list, mainly of residents in St George East and St George West. We carry out practical conservation work, raise funds and organise community events on Troopers Hill Local Nature Reserve, Troopers Hill Field and Troopers Hill Woods. These areas are split across the existing wards of St George East and St George West. Under the new proposals they would be split across the wards of St George Troopers Hill and St George Central. The review was discussed at our meeting on 22nd January. We are in favour of the proposals for the new boundaries because: a) They spread numbers of voters across wards more evenly. This seems a fairer arrangement than the present where some wards have more residents than another but, for example, only receive exactly the same amount of funding from Wellbeing grants from their Neighbourhood Partnership. b) They keep the population surrounding the site of Troopers Hill and Troopers Hill Field within the same ward as that site. So residents of Troopers Hill Rd and Green Down will remain in the same ward, St George Troopers Hill, as the green space, Troopers Hill they live next to. So will residents of Summerhill Terrace, Malvern Rd, Queens Rd and Jubilee Rd, in the proposed St George Central ward, who live close to Troopers Hill Field. They will then be able to continue to use their local councillors to promote their interests where necessary. c) They will keep opportunities open for grant funding. There are differences in the statistics on the level of health and wealth between the two current wards. This sometimes means that grant funding is available to benefit the ward with more health issues and less resources. The new wards, St George Troopers Hill and St George Central are likely to continue to have those differences. d) There will only be one councillor for the new ward of St George Troopers Hill although the new St George Central will have two councillors. In the opinion of our group working with 3 councillors will be as easy, if not easier, as working with 4. e) There will be a total of 4 councillors, no different to the current arrangement, within the St George Neighbourhood Partnership area, which includes the proposed wards of St George West, St George Central and St George Troopers Hill. While two of the wards will only have a single councillor (St George West and St George Troopers Hill) we do not see that as a difficulty and would expect councillors to work together and support each other across a neighbourhood partnership so if issues of work or party commitments or health issues conflicted with serving their constituents then other councillors would work together to cover the gap. f) The new boundaries more accurately reflect the community that live within them. In particular, the area bounded by St George Troopers Hill contains a community with many interdependencies and common interests. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

36 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 26/01/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Trevor Hilliar Postcode: Organisation Name: Hengrove Neighbourhood Partnership Comment text: Having attended a Boundaries Commission meeting at Bristol City Hall recently, I would like to suggest that the boundary between Hengrove and Stockwood, be relocated from the middle of the A37 Wells Road to the more natural boundary of the Old Whitchurch Railway Path. The boundary Commission representative said that boundaries should be based on neighbourhood amenities, health centres, shops, libraries, schools, churches, transport, etc. The residents currently living between the A37 and the old railway path have little or no affiliation with the ward of Stockwood, all the facilities they use are in the heart of Hengrove Ward, it has also divided the church parish boundaries and Neighbourhood Partnership logistics. There is no direct bus service between these wards, and in fact the only connecting roads are West Town Lane on the north boundary, or Staunton Lane to the south, which is in the County of Banes.(Somerset) Keeping the current ward boundary seems to go against the Boundary Commissions own policies. Hoping logic will prevail. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

37

38 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 09/12/2014 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Alan Aburrow Postcode: Organisation Name: Henleaze, Stoke Bishop & Westbury-on-Trym Neighbourhood Partnership Comment text: To quote Victor Meldrew - I cannot believe it! Are you seriously proposing to remove Westbury Village from the current Westbury Ward and dump it in the redefined Henleaze Ward? Please, please, relook at the proposed boundaries and trade a bit of the bottom end of the new Westbury Ward with an adjacent bit of Henleaze or Stoke Bishop Wards so that Westbury Village remains at the heart of the new Westbury Ward. As Westbury village dates back to c800ad, then surely this historic link with the Westbury Ward should be retained in perpetuity? Also, please consider putting the whole of Badock s Wood/Bowness Gardens in either Westbury, Henleaze or Southmead Wards. It will make no difference whatsoever to the electoral headcount as it is all parkland/open space but is considered as a single entity for parks maintenance and fundingpurposes. As an aside, why does a huge part of the Bristol Channel have to be included in the Avonmouth & Lawrence Weston Ward? Nobody lives there! Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

39 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 2 11/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Liz Dunn Postcode: Organisation Name: Highbury Residents Association Comment text: Comments from Highbury Residents Association on proposed new ward boundaries Highbury Residents Association covers the residential streets of Tyndalls Park Mews, Highbury Villas, Osborne Villas and the west side of the top of St Michael s Hill, all currently in Cabot Ward. We are part of the residential area at the top of St Michael s Hill, centred on the shops, with High Kingsdown on one side and us on the other. In the proposals, we find that this residential area is divided along an apparently arbitrary line which wiggles between and through shops and houses on the east side of St Michael s Hill. It even cuts through a block of flats! This proposal puts our residents in Central Ward. This would mean that two sets of local councillors would be representing the interests of a single residential/commercial area. We feel strongly that our interests are firmly aligned with those of our neighbouring residential area in Cotham. We do not identify with Central area. Ideally this part of the Cabot Ward would remain unchanged. The proposal divides the Kingsdown community into three, by chopping off the western and southern bits of Kingsdown. Kingsdown, centred on Kingsdown parade, has always been tightly linked to St Michaels Hill - St Michaels Hill is the local shopping area for Kingsdown. The Highbury and High Kingsdown Residents Associations have long cooperated with their joint interests in St Michaels, and this would divide them. If changes are to be made, we ask that the proposed boundary is re-drawn as the blue line on the map below, so that we are in the same ward Cotham as High Kingsdown. We estimate that this would add less than 100 households to the Cotham area. This is a small number of voters, especially when considering that the majority of these households are student tenancies, not permanent residents. We have considered your criteria: Boundaries should reflect the identity and interests of local communities : Aligning us with Cotham, a residential area like ours, reflects our identity and interests far more than those of Central area. We believe that our interests as residents would be totally swamped by the huge range of other issues in Central ward with its commercial, retail, transport and entertainment concerns. Also, we are not part of the University precinct and do not wish to be seen as such. Boundaries should reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links : Highbury Residents Association has strong links and interests in common with High Kingsdown Residents Association and the traders who work (and often also live) at the top of St Michael s Hill. We have worked together to promote Bristol in Bloom in our area. We link with High Kingsdown Residents Association, attending each other s meetings and liaising on issues of mutual concern. For example, the two Associations have worked together on a project (the Highbury Place scheme) to improve the top of St Michael s Hill, initiated with a Neighbourhood Well Being grant in Community identity: We have many issues in common with Cotham residents, particularly those associated with living in an area close to the University with a high student population in streets which also house families and other permanent residents. As we said above, we do not identify with the issues important to the central city area of Bristol. Identifiable boundaries: in our proposed new boundary, all roads within the blue boundary are residential, whereas those to the north, west and south are University property, part of the University precinct. Our roads are NOT part of the University precinct (although sometimes marked as such on maps). We urge you to re-draw the boundary along the lines we propose in the map below. Liz Dunn On behalf of Highbury Residents Association 11 February 2015

40 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 2 of 2 11/02/2015 Uploaded Documents: Download

41 Comments from Highbury Residents Association on proposed new ward boundaries Highbury Residents Association covers the residential streets of Tyndalls Park Mews, Highbury Villas, Osborne Villas and the west side of the top of St Michael s Hill, all currently in Cabot Ward. We are part of the residential area at the top of St Michael s Hill, centred on the shops, with High Kingsdown on one side and us on the other. In the proposals, we find that this residential area is divided along an apparently arbitrary line which wiggles between and through shops and houses on the east side of St Michael s Hill. It even cuts through a block of flats! This proposal puts our residents in Central Ward. This would mean that two sets of local councillors would be representing the interests of a single residential/commercial area. We feel strongly that our interests are firmly aligned with those of our neighbouring residential area in Cotham. We do not identify with Central area. Ideally this part of the Cabot Ward would remain unchanged. The proposal divides the Kingsdown community into three, by chopping off the western and southern bits of Kingsdown. Kingsdown, centred on Kingsdown parade, has always been tightly linked to St Michaels Hill - St Michaels Hill is the local shopping area for Kingsdown. The Highbury and High Kingsdown Residents Associations have long cooperated with their joint interests in St Michaels, and this would divide them. If changes are to be made, we ask that the proposed boundary is re-drawn as the blue line on the map below, so that we are in the same ward Cotham as High Kingsdown. We estimate that this would add less than 100 households to the Cotham area. This is a small number of voters, especially when considering that the majority of these households are student tenancies, not permanent residents. We have considered your criteria: Boundaries should reflect the identity and interests of local communities : Aligning us with Cotham, a residential area like ours, reflects our identity and interests far more than those of Central area. We believe that our interests as residents would be totally swamped by the huge range of other issues in Central ward with its commercial, retail, transport and entertainment concerns. Also, we are not part of the University precinct and do not wish to be seen as such. Boundaries should reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links : Highbury Residents Association has strong links and interests in common with High Kingsdown Residents Association and the traders who work (and often also live) at the top of St Michael s Hill. We have worked together to promote Bristol in Bloom in our area. We link with High Kingsdown Residents Association, attending each other s meetings and liaising on issues of mutual concern. For example, the two Associations have worked together on a project (the Highbury Place scheme) to improve the top of St Michael s Hill, initiated with a Neighbourhood Well Being grant in Community identity: We have many issues in common with Cotham residents, particularly those associated with

42 living in an area close to the University with a high student population in streets which also house families and other permanent residents. As we said above, we do not identify with the issues important to the central city area of Bristol. Identifiable boundaries: in our proposed new boundary, all roads within the blue boundary are residential, whereas those to the north, west and south are University property, part of the University precinct. Our roads are NOT part of the University precinct (although sometimes marked as such on maps). We urge you to re-draw the boundary along the lines we propose in the map below. Liz Dunn On behalf of Highbury Residents Association 11 February 2015

43 9 February 2015 The Review Officer (Bristol) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG Local Government Boundary Commission for England Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze Dear Sir/Madam, The Parish Church Council at its last meeting considered the proposal of the boundary changes envisaged for the wards Westbury on Trym and Henleaze and have asked me on their behalf to submit the views of the PCC to the commission. The proposal that we have looked at has significant weaknesses whilst understanding the overall objectives of the commission. Here are some of the reasons: 1. Westbury on Trym is the ancient parish church of the area and even predates Bristol and is focussed on the medieval parish in the heart of the village. In this proposal that ancient centre will we moved out of its current ward into Henleaze ward which makes no sense at all of the community as it is. Westbury on Trym has a strong centre and identity, arguably more so than Henleaze. 2. This proposal will have the effect of divorcing the name of the village from its historic centre in the City Council context. 3. In terms of the social cohesion of Westbury on Trym, many people still very warmly of the the village and see themselves as part of the local community. Removing that connection of the name of the village from the name of the ward just makes no sense and will confuse many. 4. We believe our proposal will answer all the objectives set out in the boundary commission. The PCC has come up with an alternative proposal and we hope it will be well received. It is this: That there be a three councillor ward called Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze Ward. This will allay all the misgiving of the proposal as it stands currently for the two wards. Thanks you for giving us the opportunity to input the views of the parish church council. Yours faithfully, Revd André Hart Vicar of Westbury-on-Trym

44 Pascoe, Mark From: Fuller, Heather Sent: 02 February :13 To: Pascoe, Mark Subject: FW: Draft recommendations for new ward boundaries for Bristol City Council From: Hotwells & Cliftonwood Sent: 31 January :30 To: Subject: Draft recommendations for new ward boundaries for Bristol City Council Dear Sir/Madam, The Committee of the Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association has given consideration to the proposals made by the Boundary Commission for Bristol. As an association representing local communities in Bristol, we consider it is our primary duty to enable our communities to respond to your proposals and we will actively encourage them to do that. However, we have identified some areas where, as a committee, we consider that your proposals do not match your own aims. Improving electoral equality Reflecting Community identity Providing for effective and convenient Local Government We consider that your proposals fail the first two of the above. Firstly, all voters in Bristol currently have the chance to vote for two Councillors. Not only can they vote for two, they have the opportunity to lobby two and perhaps get support from two of their own Councillors for a particular plan or project. They have two Councillors to fight their corner for the resolution of problems within the ward and they have the chance for greater influence over two votes in Council. Your proposals suggest that some voters will have the opportunity to vote for three Councillors while others can vote for two and some can vote for just one. We fail totally to see how this improves electoral equality. In fact we are firmly of the view that it does just the opposite. We believe that all voters should have the opportunity to vote for an equal number of Councillors, and we therefore urge you make this a reality in your revised proposals. 1

45 Moreover, even after the proposed changes have been implemented, it appears that Clifton West Ward would still have a significant excess population (7%) and the new Central ward a 6% deficit. Even allowing for projected population changes, this makes little improvement in electoral quality for these areas. Secondly your proposal to create a Hotwells and Harbourside Ward will divide the historic neighbourhood of Hotwells in two, as well as Cliftonwood from Hotwells. The community of Cliftonwood and Hotwells, is clearly recognised as a single entity by residents and defined by the parish boundary. This Association has, for nearly forty years, tried to maintain and develop the Community of Hotwells and Cliftonwood. In this we have been assisted by the fact that a large proportion of the parish and indeed all the area that is first associated with these names has been contained within one ward boundary. There is another well- known and supported organisation in the area, The Clifton and Hotwells Improvement Society (CHIS). This organisation s interests are currently within one ward and would with your proposal be split between two. We therefore see your boundary proposals as dividing the community rather than reflecting community identity. On the other hand, the incorporation of an area to the East of Jacobs Wells Road, extending to Clifton Triangle and Park Row into the proposed Hotwells & Harbourside ward has no connection in terms of community identity, either with Hotwells or Harbourside. This is properly part of the Central City core. Overall, these proposals do not reflect the strong existing neighbourhood identities of the area and do not produce a result in terms of electoral equality that justifies the upheaval and confusion they will cause; not just to organisations like ours that attempt to represent the interests of residents but also the Neighbourhood Partnership structure set up by Bristol City Council. This is beginning to establish itself as an improved system for making local government more responsive and accountable. From our perspective, the proposed changes represent a threat to effective local government that will undermine the work that Council officers and community representatives have undertaken together, in making these new systems work. Yours Dennis Gornall (Chairman), Brenda McLennan, James Smith and Rachel Mcnally - of Cliftonwood Ray Smith, Mike Timmins and Anna Wilson - of Hotwells -- Hotwells and Cliftonwood Community Association 2

46

47 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 17/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Julia Tutton Postcode: Organisation Name: MACA (Marksbury Area Community Association) Comment text: Bulleted comments received from MACA (Marksbury Area Community Association) members. Our area is in BS3 and is, and always has been, in the postal area of Bedminster.... *Your boundary lines pay no attention to how this fragile community bonds together and will leave it more isolated *It looks awful, I like living in Bedminster, it has an identity and a history - don't even know what Filwood is? *I feel part of Bedminster ward and act for Bedmister people, and we are part of Bedminster *Lifestyle: The proposals take little account of how we operate. *We have nothing in common with people in Knowle West. *There is no public transport connection with them (Filwood ward) *Makes no sense - what's the logic? *Keep us all in Bedminster ward as we are now *Our Local Area Plan has initiatives all over our community Uploaded Documents: Download

48 Malago Vale Local Area Plan Our vision In 2025 we d like to say: The Malago Vale area of Bristol (known as the Marksbury Road Area until 2015) is a safe, lively and popular area of the City in which to live. The local infrastructure supports a diverse and multigenerational population that actively engages with local amenities and enjoys the clean and green streets, parks and public areas. Does that sound good to you?

49 This plan looks at how we might achieve it. It notes down the vision that community members or organisers and officials have for of each of the main features of the area for about It sets down the milestones (short, medium and/or long term) that we can try to reach, and who should be involved in getting there. It has been written by representatives from the Marksbury Area Community Association (MACA), the Friends of Marksbury Road Library (FMRL) and the Governors of Parson Street School. The main section headings are: 1. Local Services and amenities 2. Green Spaces 3. Roads and Transport 4. Development Potential 5. The Authors Once we have your ideas we will work together and work with the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership and with Bristol City Council to complete the plan and draw up priorities for when resource opportunities arise. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 2 of 14

50 1. Local Services and amenities By 2025:- Malago Learning Partnership (currently a collaborative partnership of 8 local schools, including Parson Street Primary and Victoria Park Primary Schools) The Malago Learning Partnership (MLP) is an integrated and vibrant part of the local community, providing high quality education for local children, enabling them to realise their individual potential, have healthy and active lifestyles and be well balanced members of society. The Partnership works closely with parents/carers and the local community to promote and increase awareness of the immediate and wider environment. In addition, the Partnership continues to develop and strengthen links with local groups and organisations, such as the library, community gardens, churches, local sports providers, etc and provides facilities at the Schools for these organisations to use. The Partnership also provides opportunities for pre, after-school and holiday activities for their children. Perseverance, collaboration, respect, high expectations and celebration are at the heart of the Partnership. Stakeholders: (MLP) Parson Street and Victoria Park Primary Schools, their Governing Bodies and Parent and Teachers Associations. BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continue to raise and sustain attainment and achievement of all pupils. Medium term: OFSTED - "Outstanding" rating. Possible expansion of the Partnership membership. Long Term: Continue to evolve in order to provide the best quality education and opportunities and reflect the needs of the local community. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 3 of 14

51 Library In 2025 Malago Vale (Marksbury Road) Library is not just a local library with all the usual book borrowing and computer facilities that the local council library service provides, but also a lively and thriving local community hub used by local groups outside opening hours offering events for all ages. Sited at the heart of the area, demand for usage is so high that an additional small room has been built on the back of the building to increase available space and a public toilet has been installed inside. Stakeholders: The Friends of Marksbury Road Library (FMRL), BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Fund raising and events organized by FMRL improve library usage and lettings out of hours, diverse activities are offered. Links with The Greater Bedminster Community Partnership are used to access local funding to improve its environs. Medium Term: Rename the library Malago Vale Library. FMRL work with BCC to support and enhance the library service in the area. Long term: Build an extension on the building in response to usage Question What sort of services, activities and events would you like to see at the Library? Light industry and commercial By 2015 local employment has been encouraged, reducing the need to commute and balancing the neighbourhood. Stakeholders: Employers, Residents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continued dialogue between the stakeholders to ensure planning applications consider local employment needs Medium Term: Long Term: Small shops and public houses There is a diverse range of shops and public houses. They sell a range of produce that not only serve the food and drinks markets but also support healthy living and local traders. Stakeholders: Traders, Residents, BCC Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 4 of 14

52 How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continued dialogue between the stakeholders to ensure planning applications consider community needs Medium Term: If necessary, a cumulative impact area agreement is obtained to control licensed premises. Long Term: Question What sort of shops or local businesses would you like to set up in the area? Can you think of any ways we can encourage and support them? Methodist Church We continue to serve God faithfully as a local church, following the teaching of the bible - particularly the new testament, and to reach out to the community with the gospel message about the Lord Jesus Christ. Stakeholders: The church congregation, elders and trustees. How and when we ll get there: Long Term: to maintain our building and its surroundings in as respectable a condition as possible Elderly persons dwellings Residents feel part of the wider community and their needs are not overlooked. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Medium Term: Long Term: Question Can you help us by letting us know who we can talk to about elderly persons dwellings? Oasis Academy Oasis Academy s vision is to create a new academy based on the belief that all pupils, regardless of background or ability, should be able to fulfill their potential as they develop aspirations, self-belief, justice and respect for their community and one another Stakeholders: Parents, Residents, School managers How and when we ll get there: Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 5 of 14

53 Short term: The first children attend the new school in 2015 Medium Term: The building works have been completed and all classes are full. New GP surgery on Marksbury Road By 2025 the surgery is welcoming and well used space incorporating both up to date traditional medicine and also alternative therapies.. Stakeholders: Residents, Doctors How and when we ll get there: Short term: Building work starts Medium Term: Surgery complete and fully operational We donʼt know when the surgery will be built. Question What sort of services would you like the surgery to offer? By 2025:- 2. Green Spaces Allotments The Enterprise Allotment site is popular and fully tenanted comprising of 13 full plots with some split into smaller areas. BCC manage the site and endeavour to use as many green and organic principles as practical and the tenants are encouraged to do the same. The land is protected by law and there is no intention to use it for any other purpose. Despite the minimal resources at the disposal of the BCC Allotments team, funds are allocated in a sustainable way wherever possible. Stakeholders: Tenants, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short: Working with the allotment representative to ensure plots are tenanted and regularly tended. To encourage people to apply for allotments and maintain a waiting list, ensuring the continued protection of the site. Medium to Long: We would like to continue and build on the success of Enterprise being a well-used and popular site. Nearby (on the edge of the Malago Vale area) there is another allotment site Vale Lane, that is currently used as grazing land and small holdings. Medium to long term the allotment office would like to see this land, or some of this land being used by a group to grow food for the wider community. Groups such as The Severn Project and The Knowle West Community Garden have made wonderful productive use of some similar land in nearby areas and we would like to see a similar social enterprise project in Bedminster. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 6 of 14

54 Question Would you like to be involved in a Vale Lane community allotment group? The Northern Slopes and Malago Greenway including Pigeonhouse Stream The Northern Slopes and Malago Greenway are the green lungs of the south of the City. They are recognised as a valuable asset to the physical, mental and social health of Bristolians. Stakeholders: Northern Slopes Initiative, City Council, Residents How and when we ll get there: Short to medium term: to ensure we receive Local Nature Reserve (LNR) status. To work with BCC and their agents, using the Northern Slopes management plan, to ensure the they are maintained and managed for the benefit of people and wildlife. To continue to promote the Northern Slopes for use by locals and the people of Bristol and beyond, and encourage use by focus groups eg Green Gym; Forest school, Bushcraft and school curriculum projects. Be recognised as an exemplar site in Green City Long term: to work with our partners to safeguard the Northern Slopes for future generations as a large natural urban space for the benefit of people and wildlife. Children's play areas, formal and informal By 2025 there are facilities for all ages, fostering socialising between the age groups. Children of all ages have access to informal play sites and make use of playing out opportunities. They are encouraged to discover and respect Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 7 of 14

55 nature. The play equipment installed in Malago Vale Park 2013 is well used and maintained. Stakeholders: Parents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Play equipment well maintained. Local environmental groups encouraged to work with young people in the area. Medium Term: Residents encouraged to plan opportunities for children to play out in the streets Long Term: Individuals with a concern for the continued provision of play areas and equipment are encouraged to come forward and be a voice in the community. Question Would you like to set up a support group for Malago Vale Park childrenʼs play area? How else can we improve the play area? Community Garden By 2015, using the recommendations of the Avon Wildlife report, the Garden provides space for childrens off-street informal play and raised beds for growing food. It provides an enhanced and maintained wildlife habitat; a place for neighbours to socialise; to plant fruit, nuts and berries for foraging by people and wildlife; and insect-friendly and sensory planting. The Garden is an example of community cohesion and shows how humans and the natural world inter-relate. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Volunteer groups, teenage trainees and local residents have cleared rubbish, brambles and trees, levelled the ground, built raised beds including one for Parson St School, planted orchards and opened up the secret garden. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 8 of 14

56 Medium to Long Term: A large enthusiastic group will maintain all the aims of the Garden. The site will provide food from the communal herb bed, raised beds, orchards and wild areas, with benefit to people and wildlife. It will be recognised by various food growing initiatives, Parks The Parks are clean and well maintained, encouraging adults to use them regularly, promoting a healthy lifestyle and interaction with other users. Dog walkers are supported by the provision of dog waste bins. Stakeholders: Residents How and when we ll get there: Short term: Adequate dog waste bins provided to make the Parks a pleasant place to walk and play. Long Term: Individuals with a concern for the care and maintenance of Parks are encouraged to come forward and be a voice in the community. Question Would you like to set up a support group for Malago Vale Park? How else can we improve the space? Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 9 of 14

57 3. Roads and Transport By 2025:- Residential Streets Local streets are clean. The majority is wide, well maintained and leafy and provide occasional seating, allowing residents of all ages not only to get out and about but also take a rest when necessary. Front Gardens are cheerful and free of rubbish and residents are aware and supportive of the Bedminster Front Garden Awards. Drivers are considerate, and rarely block pavements when parking. Stakeholders: Residents, BCC. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Work with BCC to improve street cleaning. Continue to participate in the Bedminster Front Garden Awards Medium Term: Provision of seating. Explore opportunities to make some streets traffic free. Long Term: Encourage walking groups to work with the Police and GBCP to challenge inconsiderate motorists. Bartlett s Road Bridge This bridge is a well-used vital link between Malago Vale area and the rest of Bedminster. A partnership between the community and Network Rail has allowed the bridge to be made more visually attractive and is an artistic feature and welcoming entrance to the area. It is also more accessible to people with disabilities and parents with prams and buggies. Stakeholders: MACA, FMRL, Network Rail, Way Out West, HML Andertons, Residents. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Continue to talk to stakeholders, cost up ideas for minor improvements. Medium Term: When resources become available, work with major stakeholders to undertake major refurbishment and make the bridge more welcoming. Long Term: Investigate solutions to accessibility issues for wheelchair users and carers with wheelchairs etc. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 10 of 14

58 Question How can we make this a more pleasant bridge to walk over? Parson Street Railway station The station is bright, welcoming and safe. It is also more accessible to people with disabilities and parents with prams and buggies. Stakeholders: Residents, Network Rail, the volunteer who tends the flower beds, Way Out West. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Medium Term: Develop a working relationship with Network Rail. Long Term: Question Do you know who tends the flower beds at the station? What other improvements to the platforms could we ask for? Bus routes Buses are regular and allow easy access to the rest of Bedminster and the City Centre Stakeholders: Residents, First Bus How and when we ll get there: Short: Monitor and comment on any service changes Medium: Long: Work with First Bus to provide a service that aids the daily commute and shopping needs. Rail Service In 2025 the frequent connection to Bristol Temple Meads allows residents to travel to and from work and to enjoy wider ranging trips at weekends. The improved service links more easily with bus timetables. Stakeholders: Residents, First Great Western. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Encourage local usage to ensure the future viability of the station Medium Term: Long Term: Use opportunities to promote carbon reduction benefits of rail travel. Cycle Routes Cycle routes are well maintained and signposted. People of all ages are supported and encouraged to take to a bike for the first time. Stakeholders: Cyclists, Residents, BCC Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 11 of 14

59 How and when we ll get there: Short term: Ensure that improvements to routes within the area are considered within discussions about spending recent funding allocations awarded to the City Council. Safer cycling groups are encouraged into the schools and to promote themselves at public fora. Medium Term: Long Term: Roads Priority is given to pedestrian friendly streets and there are plenty of safe road crossing points and junctions. The road and pavement surfaces are maintained well allowing for smooth access for buggies, cycles and mobility scooters as well as motor vehicles. Stakeholders: Residents, BCC How and when we ll get there: Short term: Discussions with BCC about solutions to traffic calming and control including a 20mph limit around our schools. Medium Term: Long Term: Take concerns about the condition of pavements and roads to BCC via the Greater Bedminster Community Partnership. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 12 of 14

60 4. Development Potential By 2025?:- Potential Development sites - Torpoint and Kingswear - Gas works - Bedminster Road Garage - George Taylor Yard - Bristol Boys Club Question - What would you like to see in each of these locations? More green spaces? More play areas? More affordable homes? Local business opportunities? Let us know. 5. The Authors MACA (Marksbury Area Community Association) By 2025 MACA will be a representative and active group working to enhance the interests of this forgotten area of Bedminster. As a member group of GBCP, MACA will strive to make the area a desirable place to live, where people are healthy and happy, and have a range of local amenities and services. Members will be involved in Planning issues to ensure we live in a wellbalanced community where we can contentedly live, learn, work and play. How and when we ll get there: Short term: Be involved in consultations and delivery of local initiatives eg the new Marksbury Rd School; future of Marksbury Rd Library; giving the locality identity of Malago Vale to enhance a sense of community; support Parson St School ; and promote the Community Garden and Front Garden Awards. Also to ensure our children have open spaces and places to play and exercise. Medium to Long term: Ensure all green and open space are conserved and enhanced for the physical, mental and social health of our residents. Ensure any Developments are of a high quality and are an advantageous fit in the local community; all housing sites should include premises for work and leisure. We will seek agreeable ways to change the focus of the area away from the dominance of traffic, eg traffic slowing initiatives of raised planters, trees and more street furniture. Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 13 of 14

61 FMRL (Friends of Marksbury Road Library) See Marksbury Road Library for our vision Governors of Parson Street School See Malago Learning Partnership for our vision Malago Vale Local Area Plan Page 14 of 14

62 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 05/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Clive Stevens Postcode: Organisation Name: Redland and Cotham Amenities Society - Tree Division Comment text: Dear Electoral Commission Regarding the proposed ward boundary changes for Redland, Cotham and Bishopston. I would like to draw you attention to some weaknesses in your proposal. These are: 1) The map shows the splitting of the region of Redland into 3 wards now (incl. Clifton East). This will mean more effort is required from the volunteers in the Redland and Cotham Amenities Society to engage with all the necessary Councillors, Forums and NPs. Consequently I predict less engagement with NPs as it will all require too much effort (including organising tree planting within the RCAS area west of Hampton Road). Additionally it will put extra workload on Councillors as they try to keep up with Community Groups. I see this as an example of reducing community identity which is quite the opposite of what the NP leaders and apparently the Electoral Commission wish to achieve. 2) I see much of Bishopston is in the Redland ward, in fact the majority of Redland ward would consist of Bishopston (the place not the ward of course, even the EC map shows the name Bishopston in the new Redland ward). In fact I submit that the name Redland would not be representative of the ward. Perhaps calling it Bishopston South would be more accurate? Additionally this split would I imagine further increase the workload on the Bishopston Society as they would be totally split across 2 wards and will need to explain the residents west of Berkeley Road that although they are in Redland they should join the Bishopston Society. 3) I see Cotham ward now includes part of Stokes Croft and Kingsdown. I can t see how splitting the Stokes Croft region further (It is already Ashley and Cabot) will help them with their Community Identity and access to Council support. 4) I see benefits from having main roads within one ward or at least one neighbourhood partnership. Gloucester Rd and Cotham Hill have benefited from this and I feel Whiteladies Rd has suffered. But the boundary should just run behind the shops not all the way to the next main road. I urge you to completely redraw your proposal with these points in mind - please. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

63

64 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 13/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Patricia Smith Postcode: Organisation Name: Richmond Area Residents' Association Comment text: Please find attached a submission from the Richmond Area Residents' Association, which is a community group at present within the Clifton East Ward. The core of our submission is for our area to be retained within the Clifton East Ward, and not (as in the present recommendations) be moved into Clifton West or any other ward. Our full reasons are given in the submission. Kind regards Patricia Smith, RARA Secretary Uploaded Documents: Download

65 Richmond Area Residents Association The Review Officer (Bristol) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG 13th February, 2015 Dear Sir or Madam RESPONSE TO DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CITY OF BRISTOL The Richmond Area Residents Association (RARA) represents residents of a community within Clifton East ward comprising Buckingham Place, Frederick Place, Gordon Road, Meridian Place, Park Place, Richmond Hill, Richmond Hill Avenue and Wetherell Place (the Area). The LGBCE draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for Bristol City Council would move the RARA Area from Clifton East into Clifton West, the latter essentially comprising the current Clifton ward. At the Association s AGM held on 9th February 2015, members voted unanimously for the motion RARA members agree that the RARA Area should remain within Clifton East ward. As Secretary to the Association, I am therefore submitting evidence explaining why our Area should remain within Clifton East. In doing so, I make reference to advice provided in the Summary Report dated December 2014, and specifically the notes on a good pattern of wards. 1. A good pattern of wards should provide good electoral equality, with each councilor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. The proposed Clifton West ward has an electorate of 9918, compared with 8685 for the proposed Clifton East. The forecast electorates (within 5 years of the review) are and 9354 respectively. Therefore the proposals would result in Clifton West having 1,233 (14.2%) more constituents than Clifton East now, and 1088 (11.6%) more in As both wards would have two councillors, this means that Clifton West would have more voters per councillor than Clifton East, and Clifton West constituents would be under-represented. Richmond Area Residents Association 1

66 On this basis, retaining the RARA Area in Clifton East, rather than moving it into Clifton West, would support electoral equality. 2. A good pattern of wards should reflect community interests and identities and links. The RARA area has a strong community identity with other parts of the Clifton East ward, sharing shopping, leisure, cultural, transport and other facilities along the Queens Road/Whiteladies Road corridor, which is well served with bus routes. Please see Map 1. The common issues and concerns we face as residents include: - studentification, notably a high concentration of privately rented student accommodation. The University of Bristol Students Union is within the RARA area and a major new University reception and study area has just been granted planning consent in Queens Road. - the urban night-time economy and the problems of noise, nuisance and anti-social behaviour around large licensed premises in Queens Road and Whiteladies Road. This is driven by well-funded national and regional food and drink brands, high-capacity nightclubs and late-night bars. These issues do not impact on the Clifton (West) ward, which is centred on Clifton Village and characterized by local independent traders, visitor attractions and smaller cafes, restaurants and bars. Property values are generally higher than in Clifton East, resulting in less student accommodation. RARA has strong connections with other community groups in Clifton East, notably the adjacent Oakfield Residents Association (ORA). Please see Map 2. We share information, regularly attend each others meetings and will often work together in responding to planning or licensing applications that affect our whole area. We also work jointly to connect with our student population: RARA and ORA collaborate with the University of Bristol and UWE to host a welcome event for students moving into private accommodation in our area. 3. A good pattern of wards should be based on strong, identifiable boundaries (a) Notwithstanding the principal thrust of this representation, which is that our Area should remain within Clifton East ward, as that is where our community of interest lies, the present proposal for a boundary along Richmond Hill is in any case inappropriate. This is a narrow, one-way street, and should not under any circumstances be split by a boundary. (b) We note also that the recommendations exclude from Clifton East an area bounded to the east by Pembroke Road, to the south by Queens Road, to the west by Victoria Square/Lansdown Road and to the north by Clifton Park. Neither Queens Road nor Pembroke Road forms a natural boundary here, and there is good reason for this area also to be retained within Clifton East. Indeed, we have been discussing with ORA how residents within this area might be included in one or other of our community groups. Richmond Area Residents Association 2

67 A more natural boundary line dividing Clifton into East and West wards would be along the east side of Victoria Square and Lansdown Road, up towards College Road; most residents would consider that the identifiable Clifton Village area lies to the west of this line. 4. A good pattern of wards should help the council deliver effective and convenient government If the RARA Area were severed from Clifton East, we would lose longstanding, strong relationships with ward councillors who understand the issues we face and have represented us very effectively in the past. We do not believe that our interests can be so effectively represented by councillors from Clifton West or indeed any other adjacent ward. It would be much more convenient and efficient for areas and communities with common issues to work together within the same ward. We very much hope that you will consider this submission and that the final ward boundaries will reflect its principal points. Kind regards Dr Patricia Smith Secretary, Richmond Area Residents Association Richmond Area Residents Association 3

68 MAP 1 CLIFTON & CLIFTON EAST WARD BOUNDARIES - EXISTING CLIFTON EAST CLIFTON RARA AREA CLIFTON VILLAGE WHITELADIES ROAD QUEEN'S ROAD Richmond Area Residents' Association

69 MAP 2 COMMUNITY GROUPS WITHIN CLIFTON EAST WARD CLIFTON DOWN COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION OAKFIELD RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION RICHMOND AREA RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION Richmond Area Residents' Association

70 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 13/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: David Thomas Postcode: Organisation Name: Shirehampton Community Action Forum Comment text: Comments on Local Government Boundary Commission proposals for Bristol Wards 1. These comments relate to the LGBCE proposals for the existing Avonmouth Ward of Bristol City Council. They are made on behalf of the Trustees of Shirehampton Community Action Forum (SCAF). 2. SCAF is a small, grass-roots community organisation working in Shirehampton. The Forum and action groups have created strong and effective working partnerships. These have involved BCC, statutory agencies, community groups, voluntary sector organisations, schools, churches and our local Councillors. We work extensively in the areas of Community Safety, Youth Support, Planning & Development, Play Areas and the Environment. 3. Our Full Forum has not had a meeting in the timescale dictated by this consultation. However, the Trustees of SCAF have met, and agreed we should respond. 4. The current Avonmouth Ward consists of the 2 distinct village communities of Avonmouth and Shirehampton, and a small part of Lawrence Weston, whose boundary with Shirehampton is not well-defined. 5. Shirehampton is the natural centre of the two existing wards of Avonmouth and Kingsweston, used by residents of both wards for shopping and local services. It is the population centre of the proposed new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward. It is very disappointing that the name of Shirehampton, a thriving local community, does not appear in the name of any proposed new ward. 6. Appendix A of the draft proposals shows that the population of the proposed Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward is 12% higher than the city average for 2013, and is predicted to be 9% higher than average in With the proposed 3 councillors this would require 5178 electors per councillor for the proposed new ward, compared with a city average of 4607, and as few as 3720 for the most over-represented ward. This is a serious disenfranchisement of people living in a ward that contains areas further from the city centre than anywhere else. In national politics geographical distance from the political centre has sometimes been a justification for increased representation, rather than increased disenfranchisement. 7. At present all the City wards have 2 councillors. From time to time, money devolved to bodies such as Neighbourhood Partnerships has sometimes been distributed on an equal basis per ward. The new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward will have electors on the 2013 figures. The smallest proposed ward, Hotwells and Harbourside, (a very central area) will have only 4319 electors. We are very concerned that future funders will on occasions overlook the differences in population and distribute certain funds on a crude per ward basis, in which case we would lose out very substantially. Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

71 SAVE SEA MILLS GARDEN SUBURB Chairman: David Trivitt Mark Pascoe Review Officer (Bristol) Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG By to: 9 th February 2015 RESPONSE TO ELECTORAL REVIEW OF BRISTOL: DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS: PROPOSED NEW BOUNDARY BETWEEN AVONMOUTH AND LAWRENCE WESTON WARD AND STOKE BISHOP WARD Dear Mr. Pascoe, Our comments relate to the proposed new boundary that runs through Sea Mills along Sylvan Way, Bristol BS9, which would separate the new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward from Stoke Bishop ward. Summary Our view is that the new electoral ward boundary separating the new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward from Stoke Bishop ward that has been proposed to run along Sylvan Way, Bristol BS9, should be changed to one that encloses the WHOLE of Sea Mills within Stoke Bishop ward rather than splitting Sea Mills between two different wards. We detail the reasons for our view below, and recommend two possible alternatives for where the revised boundary should run, namely, and this would be our first preference, along the northern boundary of Sea Mills Conservation Area, or, alternatively, along the middle of Westbury Lane. However, we believe that there is a strong case for not separating Coombe Dingle as a whole from Sea Mills. We believe that the best possible alternative would be to alter the proposed boundary to include both the whole of Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle within Stoke Bishop ward. We set out our reasons for recommending these alternatives below. 1. Who we are Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb is a group of local residents formed in 2006 to protect the character and appearance of Sea Mills Conservation Area. We have produced newsletters, organised petitions, and written numerous letters, statements and documents to fulfil this purpose. Our most important work to date has been working in conjunction with Bristol City Council to produce Sea Mills Conservation Area Character Appraisal and Management Proposals (published in January 2011). Please refer to a copy of this at:-

72 We refer to this document below under the shorter title of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal. 2. Sea Mills Garden Suburb Sea Mills Garden Suburb was built in the 1920s and early 1930s as part of the national post-ww1 housing scheme. The development of Sea Mills followed the principles and traditions of the garden cities and suburbs movement. (See pages of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal.) The Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal, describes the Garden Suburb as Bristol s finest example of planned post-wwi municipal housing (paragraph 4.1, page 5). In 1937, John Betjeman described Sea Mills as a magic estate, having a surprising beauty showing off in the evening sunlight; and vistas of trees and fields and pleasant cottages that that magic estate has managed to create (paragraph 5.34, page 15 of Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal). 3. The Northern Boundary of Sea Mills Garden Suburb The northern boundary of Sea Mills Garden Suburb runs along Westbury Lane. Please see the original plans for the Garden Suburb on pages 14 and 95 of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal, as well as the aerial view on page 15. As you can see from the plans, the boundaries of the Garden Suburb encompass both Sylvan Way (along which the new ward boundary is proposed to run) and the whole area of houses, buildings and streets that lies between Sylvan Way and Westbury Lane. If the new ward boundary were to run along Sylvan Way, then this whole area, which encompasses approximately 30% of the Garden Suburb, would lie within the Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward, whilst the other 70% of the Garden Suburb would lie within Stoke Bishop ward. 4. Sea Mills Conservation Area Paragraphs to (page 2) of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal describe the location and boundaries of the Conservation Area. See also Map 1: Sea Mills Conservation Area in Local Context on page 4. The boundaries of Sea Mills Conservation Area are slightly broader than that of Sea Mills Garden Suburb. Sea Mills Conservation Area includes the Trym Valley to the east; part of the course of the River Avon to the south-west; and an area of important buildings located on the opposite side of the Trym Valley to the immediate south. This latter area includes Sea Mills Station, which is, in fact, located within Stoke Bishop, although historically, prior to 1920, when the area adjacent to the station was still mostly farmland, this part of Stoke Bishop was also known as Sea Mills. 5. The Northern Boundary of Sea Mills Conservation Area. The northern boundary of Sea Mills Conservation Area encloses all those properties that lie along the north side of Westbury Lane. The Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal states that the northern boundary of the Conservation Area encloses a mix of high quality townscape that provides an important setting area for the Garden Suburb (paragraph 3.1.3, page 2). 6. The Community of Sea Mills Sea Mills is topographically isolated from most nearby places by zones of green space and river valleys. It is separated from Shirehampton by the Shirehampton Golf Course; from Lawrence Weston by the woodland and hill of the Kingsweston Ridge; and from Stoke Bishop by the Trym Valley.

73 Our nearest neighbours live in Coombe Dingle, immediately to the north of Sea Mills beyond Westbury Lane. Sea Mills is a closely-knit, friendly community which, due to its relative isolation from other areas, has a village feel to it. It is centred around Sea Mills Square where the local shops are. It has its own community newspaper, the Community Voice. There are several local groups, such as Sea Mills Together, Sea Mills Art Club, Sea Mills Boys and Girls Club, Sea Mills Garden Club, and, of course, our own group Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb. It has its own Recreation Ground, Post Office, allotments, churches, Library and Community Centre. Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal states that:- Sea Mills Garden Suburb was designed as a sustainable, self-contained community. Its allotments, extra gardens, recreational areas, library, shops, schools and churches are all fundamental elements of its character (paragraph 4.4, page 5). However, both Sea Mills Library, Sea Mills Community Centre and one of our churches lie within the area between Sylvan Way and Westbury Lane which the proposed new ward boundary would place within the Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward, whilst the rest of Sea Mills would be within Stoke Bishop ward. 7. Boundary Commission Criterion: Interests and Identities of Local Communities In your circular letter (9th December 2014), you state that the Boundary Commission will weigh each submission against the criteria the Commission must follow when drawing up electoral arrangements. One of these stated criteria is:- That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. As you can see from the above, if the ward boundary were to be located along Sylvan Way, as proposed, it would split Sea Mills between two different electoral wards. This would neither reflect the identity of our local community as a whole nor its interests. Consequently, this particular criterion would not be met if the ward boundary were to be located along Sylvan Way. 8. Boundary Commission Criterion: Effective and Convenient Local Government A second stated criterion in your circular letter is:- That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. Bristol, as you probably know, is divided into a number of Neighbourhood Partnerships. Many local decisions are discussed and made at Neighbourhood Partnership meetings. The boundaries of these Neighbourhood Partnerships follow ward boundaries. Decisions at Neighbourhood Partnership meetings are made by local ward councillors. Currently, our local Neighbourhood Partnership is an amalgamation of two wards, namely, Avonmouth ward and Kingsweston ward. Currently, the whole of Sea Mills lies within Kingsweston ward, and, consequently, the whole of Sea Mills lies within the Avonmouth and Kingsweston Neighbourhood Partnership. Each separate place within the Neighbourhood Partnership has four local resident representatives to represent their locality. For example, Sea Mills, Shirehampton, Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston each have four local resident representatives. Although no decision on the future boundaries of the Neighbourhood Partnerships will be made until after the final decision on the electoral ward boundary changes is made, it is reasonable to assume that the boundary of the Neighbourhood Partnership areas will be altered to follow the line of the new ward boundaries.

74 It is also reasonable to assume that it is highly unlikely that Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward together with Stoke Bishop ward would form a single Neighbourhood Partnership due to the sheer distance that there would be between one end of such a large Neighbourhood Partnership area and the other. Consequently, it is extremely likely that, if the ward boundary were to be, as proposed, located along Sylvan Way, then that part of Sea Mills that lies between Sylvan Way and Westbury Lane would be in a different Neighbourhood Partnership to the rest of Sea Mills. The consequence of this would be that:- Issues affecting the part of Sea Mills between Sylvan Way and Westbury Lane would be dealt with by a new Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Partnership, whereas issues affecting the rest Sea Mills would be dealt with by Stoke Bishop Neighbourhood Partnership. With regard to issues affecting the WHOLE of Sea Mills, it would be necessary for residents to make representations to and attend meetings of BOTH Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston Neighbourhood Partnership and Stoke Bishop Neighbourhood Partnership. In other words, for issues that affect Sea Mills as a WHOLE, representations would have to be made to two separate Neighbourhood Partnerships, five different ward councillors, and via Neighbourhood Partnership local resident representatives from both of the two parts of Sea Mills. Consequently, if the ward boundary were to be drawn, as proposed, along Sylvan Way, then this criterion would fail as the electoral arrangements would fail to provide for effective and convenient local government for Sea Mills. 9. Alternatives to the Proposed Boundary along Sylvan Way In our view, there are two possible alternative boundaries which would be preferable to the proposed boundary along Sylvan Way. In our order of preference, these are:- A. The proposed boundary should be redrawn so that it follows the northern boundary of the Conservation Area, enclosing the houses and buildings on the north side of Westbury Lane. See Map 1: Sea Mills Conservation Area in Local Context on page 4 of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal. This would enclose BOTH the whole of Sea Mills Garden Suburb and the whole of Sea Mills Conservation Area within Stoke Bishop ward. B. The proposed boundary should be redrawn so that it runs along the middle of Westbury Lane. This is our least favoured of the two options for the following reasons:- It would mean that a small part of Sea Mills Conservation Area (that part on the north side of Westbury Lane) would be in a different ward to the rest of the Conservation Area. Issues with regard to Westbury Lane itself, such as the placement of pedestrian crossings, speed of traffic, etc., are common to residents living on both sides of the road. (Indeed, a campaigning group called Westbury Lane United Neighbours recently opposed a planning application which affected residents on both sides of the road.) People living on both sides of Westbury Lane have friends living on the opposite side. A ward boundary should not divide people with common interests and friends. 10. Coombe Dingle Our nearest neighbours live in Coombe Dingle, immediately to the north of Sea Mills, beyond Westbury Lane. Please see Map 1: Sea Mills Conservation Area in Local Context on page 4 of the Sea Mills Conservation Area Appraisal. Many issues that affect Sea Mills also affect Coombe Dingle. For example, a current issue common to both is the lack of formal green space for the use of older and elderly people in both the northern part of Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle.

75 Our community newspaper, the Community Voice, is delivered to all residents in BOTH Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle. Children from both Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle attend Sea Mills Junior School. Coombe Dingle residents use the Sea Mills shops, Post Office, Library, churches, Recreation Ground, and join the same local groups. Sea Mills and Coombe Dingle are closer to and have more links in common with each other than with any other nearby residential areas. In our view, placing Coombe Dingle in a different ward to Sea Mills would also breach the two Boundary Commission criteria mentioned above, for similar reasons. Consequently, we believe that the best possible solution would be to redraw the propsed new ward boundary to include both Sea Mills and the whole of Coombe Dingle within Stoke Bishop ward. 11. Conclusion In our view, the proposal to run the new electoral ward boundary along Sylvan Way is flawed for the reasons we have detailed above. In our view, it should be redrawn in accordance with one of the two alternative options we have suggested under section 9 above. Our preference is for option A, namely, that the new ward boundary, separating Avonmouth and Lawrence Weston ward from Stoke Bishop ward, should run along the northern boundary of Sea Mills Conservation Area. However, the best possible solution, in our view, would be to include both Sea Mills and the whole of Coombe Dingle within Stoke Bishop ward. Yours sincerely, David Trivitt, Chair, on behalf of Save Sea Mills Garden Suburb

76 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 09/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: Suzanne Audrey Postcode: Organisation Name: TRESA (Totterdown Residents Environmental & Social Action) Comment text: On the whole the proposal for the Windmill Hill boundary is good. At a local level it does feel as if Sydenham Road and Clyde Road are part of Totterdown because of the style of housing and the residents natural 'affinity' with Totterdown. Furthermore the shops between these roads form part of the local Totterdown shopping area. However, if it is not possible to include these in Windmill Hill we believe that the current proposal is acceptable in retaining Totterdown as an area within Windmill Hill ward. Suzanne Audrey Chair of TRESA (Totterdown Residents Environmental & Social Action) Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

77 Local Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal Page 1 of 1 09/02/2015 City of Bristol Personal Details: Name: RICHARD DEVEEUX Postcode: Organisation Name: WESTBURY ON TRYM BUSINESS ASSOCIATION Comment text: What runs between the village of Westbury on Trym and Stoke Lane is Falcondale Road. It is easy to understand why this may appear to be a natural line on a map to adopt as a boundary for new wards. The reality is different. There is a distinct and palpable wholeness to Westbury on Trym ; the two elements of it do not feel in the slightest separated by Falcondale Road. The ward boundaries need to reflect the long-established local reality. Our members regard the present proposals are very unattractive. The sentiment is that they are ridiculous and, certainly, there is great surprise that proposals have emerged in their present form. Our members in the Stoke Lane area do not wish to be cast adrift of the village of Westbury on Trym and our members in the village that we do not wish to be artificially distanced from Stoke Lane. After consultation with our members, it is clear to WOTBA that there is a natural and very acceptable alternative which we believe would reflect the local realities, would be widely acceptable and would not result in the absurdity I have described above. We believe the best solution, by far, rests in the creation of a single ward having 3 Councillors and called Westbury on Trym and Henleaze. Our own local soundings suggest this solution would be widely welcomed across the whole of the area concerned. We believe it is essential to the interests of our members, in both the village of Westbury on Trym and in the Stoke Lane area, that they are represented in in City Hall by Councillors whose ward includes Westbury on Trym as part of their title. We understand there will be several instances across the city of 3 Councillor wards. We are used to being part of a 2 Councillor ward and there seems an inherent strength in have wards with more than one Councillor in that they provide a depth of cover. The present proposal involves the creation of a single Councillor ward. It appears the Boundary Commission s present recommendation was finely balanced. On behalf of WOTBA I should be grateful if it would reconsider its present proposal and substitute for it an arrangement that sees the creation of a 3 Councillor Ward called Westbury on Trym and Henleaze. My personal observation is that there is a clear and strong local preference for this. Richard Devereux Chairman Westbury on Trym Business Association Uploaded Documents: None Uploaded

78

79 The Westbury-on-Trym Society Proud of our past. shaping our future Dear Sir/Madam I am writing as the Chairman of the Westbury on Trym Society, to put the case for a revision of your proposal to change the warding arrangements for Westbury on Trym and Henleaze, as part of your ward boundary review for local government elections and representation in the City of Bristol. The first section deals with: The division of our existing ward and village into two parts as the result of a suggested new boundary and the consequential adverse effects on our well established community, its interests and loyalties The potential loss of identity of Westbury-on-Trym village and its 1200 year history, by its absorption into a comparatively new suburb of Bristol The second section: Puts the case for our proposal for an alternative arrangement:- That the whole of the existing Westbury ward be joined with Henleaze in what I have termed A Partnership ward having 3 Councillors to serve the total area as is being proposed for four other 3 Councillor ward arrangements in other parts of the City. In doing this I would like to comment on behalf of residents in Westbury-on-Trym, that there has been much concern expressed at different meetings and encounters about the short time scale allowed for consultation. I personally was not informed of this potential change by anyone, still less by any official communication and only received notice of it in the week before Christmas as a result of our Neighbourhood Partnership officer informing local representatives on that committee. There has been therefore a great deal of activity in the six weeks of this year, to convene democratic consultations and to inform residents as soon as possible of what they should look at and how they can send in comments. How on earth is the average busy citizen supposed to know about these revisions unless either an official communication is sent out by the commission to every household or a requirement to do so is laid on the Local Authority itself? Registered Charity Number Page 1 of 3

80 The Westbury-on-Trym Society Proud of our past. shaping our future Much has been written and spoken lately in regard to Localism and the recent Parliamentary Bill to facilitate this; it does not seem to be working in practice at all! We at the bottom end of Society are only too ready to practise democratic functions and to involve as many citizens as we can in consultations, but we are constantly frustrated in this by the apparent disdain of officialdom to allow it! However the Westbury-on-Trym Society, as an independent voice for the Westbury community has been in existence since 1971 and with experience gathered over the years, has managed to reach nearly all the residents of our village ward, to inform them of what has been proposed, where they can read about it and what they can do to try to remedy the matter. A large meeting convened in January, to consult representatives of local organisations, schools and churches examined your proposals and looked in detail at possible alternatives. The conclusion was that the best solution to suggest was that of an enlarged ward that would include the whole of Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze, because the two areas while having separate identities, have much in common in shared services, activities and communications. This way we believe that we can preserve the full identity of our historic Westbury village and prevent the total isolation of one part of it, by making that part into a small single Councillor ward without a heart or connection to anything else. The suggested alternative has met with approval all round in our local discussions. I feel I should also say on behalf of the community that we try to serve, that the proposition as you have made it, drawing a dividing line across Westbury by using Falcondale Road as a boundary and absorbing the old village into Henleaze- its very much younger sister- was greeted with outrage by all who heard of it and universal condemnation! Then we set about a campaign to see what could be done to persuade the commission to re draw the lines and allow us to keep our whole community under one name and identity and with the mutual support and interdependence that we have been accustomed to for several hundred years! My own background is that I have been a resident of Westbury for two thirds of my life and have been involved in community campaigns and social activity for all of that time, together with my family who grew up here. I have also had the honour of standing for parliament for this constituency twice and I do know the community intimately as a result. Yours Sincerely Hilary Long: Chairman for the Westbury-on-Trym Society Registered Charity Number Page 2 of 3

81 The Westbury-on-Trym Society Proud of our past. shaping our future Registered Charity Number Page 3 of 3

82 First Section Local Government Boundary Commission Proposals REASONS WHY WE REJECT THE PROPOSED PLAN TO SEPARATE WESTBURY-ON-TRYM INTO TWO PARTS AND ABSORB THE OLDEST PART INTO HENLEAZE WARD AND OUR SUBMISSION FOR AN ATERNATIVE WARD ARRANGEMENT That will: Reflect existing community interests and identity as the commission says it wishes to do be based on a strong and easily identifiable boundary as required will enable effective and convenient local government and equal representation for the residents of that area 1 THE PROPOSAL TO CREATE A NEW WARD CALLED WESTBURY-ON-TRYM AS PART OF THE WHOLE ORIGINAL WARD OF THAT TITLE-arguments against: -The drawing of a boundary line down the middle of Falcondale and Westbury Roads is a crude and obvious remedy that serves only to divorce one part of Westbury from its other interdependent half. -The application of the name to that smaller and more modern half of Westbury, destroys the historical identity of the original village, leaving it as a constituent part of Henleaze, which it never was, having begun its life in the 8 th century as the first settlement in this part of the Bristol area with a charter from King Offa for the founding of a religious house and church. -The isolation of that part of Westbury with single Councillor to represent the residents is most unsatisfactory in practical terms because: -Councillors need support from a partner representative at all times in case of- illness, absence on business, holidays, legal problems with ward matters or residents, incompatibility of views with people they represent and disengagement with the local government process for any reason -A community of interest already exists with the other part of Westbury in terms of use of schools, health services, shopping and financial services, traffic and cross highway transport links to the main village as well as main road problems to the M5 and Cribbs Causeway commercial centres. Any problems would have to be handled by two separate ward representatives, necessitating inter ward consultations and time wasting, when the ward as it stands has a perfectly simple and efficient system for attempting to deal with service difficulties that crop up- especially in educational, planning and traffic matters. Residents in both halves of Westbury are already dealing with many parking problems because of commuters into Bristol and share the same difficulties with main roads into the City, which will become more and more congested as the fringe of the City is developed for housing on a large scale in the next 20 years. They will need to act together to get remedies. We do not think therefore that the proposal for a single councillor only to represent that part of Westbury would therefore satisfy your legal requirements for effective and convenient local government. -The people of Westbury-on-Trym who live on the Canford Park side of the village use and contribute to all of the services and functions of the whole village and are dependent in many ways on the older part. They do not have an independent existence just because a main road was put through in the

83 1930 s! They are not a separate entity at all, as might appear to someone looking at a map but not knowing either the history of the area or the involvement of the whole community in mutual interests. Their children come to Westbury School and all of them to churches and social activities in and around the village as well as daily shopping and banking. - Historically Stoke Lane and Canford Lane (both Saxon names in origin) led out of the original village of Westbury as trajectories towards the Avon (and Roman foundations are to be found there when Sea Mills was a port (Abonae) for goods coming into the West of England from the empire, so the old tracks may be even older than we think!) and to Shirehampton and Stoke Bishop - also very old settlements. Small hamlets grew up along them in past centuries that were part of Westbury s original parish and still are in the case of this modern part of Westbury. The whole area has been strongly integrated for hundreds of years and there is no case for splitting it up into pieces now! - Falcondale Road is a very recent construct, put in to serve heavier traffic as the car became a family possession in the 1930s. It was put as a by-pass to the original village and the Westbury Turnpike Road-which led through to Passage Road and on to the Welsh Passages across the R Severn-hence the name. - Falcondale Road is the main artery that runs through Westbury-on-Trym and both sides feed off itit unites our village rather than dividing it as you propose. - Canford Park on that side of Falcondale Road is used and valued by everyone in the area. It is approaching its centenary since it was founded for Westbury villagers in 1916 on land from Canford Farm that lay in one corner of the present Park. The Westbury Society functions for all the residents of Westbury and has recently been responsible for getting improvements there with local authority grants for railings and new play equipment. A new gateway will be under construction this month to unite the two parts of the village as it will face up Canford Lane towards the War Memorial. The Society has been trying to achieve this for 20 years and is about to, just as you propose to separate us! -Westbury Business Association has existed in several forms over the years. Its newest organisation includes owners of the businesses on both sides of the arterial Falcondale Road. They now all play a part in its activities, which include contributing towards floral decorations in the form of hanging baskets and tubs of flowers in the summer and bulbs in the spring- all organized by members of the Westbury Society. Westbury as a whole has won trophies for ten successive years for its excellence in this part of our community activities and it is one that unites all parts of the village in pride of achievement. Residents too, on both sides of the Main Rd contribute to the street collection of money towards the flowers. The Business community has also run Christmas fairs in recent years with both halves of the community contributing. If therefore one part of Westbury becomes a separate ward as is proposed, it will destroy the integrity of a whole community that functions extremely well and which gives great pride to all who live here. Therefore your proposal will NOT reflect community interests and identities if carried out. 2 THE PROPOSAL TO ABSORB THE HISTORIC VILLAGE OF WESTBURY ON TRYM INTO HENLEAZE WARD-IN THE PROCESS LOSING ITS NAME arguments against: Here follows a list of some of its best known history and features which amply justify the outrage among Westbury people when confronted with the suggestion that their village should lose its name and be taken in as part of Henleaze.

84 The origins of Westbury go back to the 8 th Century and its connections with Saxon Mercia and King Offa Founded at first as a religious settlement, it later drew Monks from Fleury in France who played an important part in the foundation of the Catholic Church in Britain It is older than Bristol, is mentioned in Domesday and the Parish eventually formed part of the Bishopric of Worcester-right up until the 19 th C when it was carved into 12 individual parishes across this area Two Bishops of Worcester tried to turn Westbury Church into a Cathedral at the southern end of the diocese, but eventually were overtaken by Bristol s Augustines. It was remodelled by Bishop Carpenter in the 15 th C with this in mind. He is buried in his beloved Westbury The famous College (remains of) was founded to train canons and prebends for the English Church in the middle ages. It covered a large area now covered by housing. Some famous names are associated with it, including Wycliffe the rising star of the Reformation and William Canynge, builder of St Mary Redcliffe Church and twice Lord Mayor of Bristol, who later became its Dean Prince Rupert, nephew of Charles I and dashing hero of the 17thC Civil War used it as his HQ before his onslaught to capture the City of Bristol, then burned most of it down! Ralph Sadleir, civil servant of Henry VIII and Thomas Cromwell was well rewarded for his services by gaining the whole of the manor and College of Westbury in the Dissolution of , though it is not recorded if he ever lived here- he just lived off the rents and passed the estate to his family, until they sold it all in parcels after the Civil War The wider village has still many large houses established in the 18 th and 19 th centuries and on whose estates many of our roads are now built. It also had its own Poor House-demolished a few years after the Poor Law Reform Act of The first school was established in 1820 and the building still exists The famous Lake poets and the Wedgwoods are briefly associated with residence in Westbury Henry Ames of the well-known Bristol banking family, gave the village its beautiful Victorian gothic Village Concert Hall in his will. Westbury acquired its own Mens s club at the end of the 19thC-part of a nationwide movement Canford Park was founded in the early 20 th C to provide healthy activity for villagers of Westbury We have our own War Memorial for soldiers of two world wars and an annual cenotaph service. The memorial replaced the drinking fountain subscribed by Westbury people to mark the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Victoria and now in Canford Park. Westbury has a strong and sturdy, well integrated community with families whose ancestors go back for generations in the area. The various groups of houses in both Westbury and Henleaze reflect the field patterns of its rural community that existed right up to the Second World War. (see enclosed map) A Conservation area was declared for its older area in The Westbury-on-Trym Society has very recently been working with officers from the museum and heritage department of the City to record its architectural assets and views and enlarge the conservation area beyond the present limits. A report is available online from the City website-westbury was used as a case study to be followed by other parts of the City in the future

85 WE THEREFORE WISH TO PRESERVE THE NAME AND IDENTITY OF WESTBURY AND ITS RIGHTFULL HERITAGE, ATTACHED TO THE VILLAGE ITSELF. Our proposition to facilitate this follows: We would like Westbury-on-Trym to become part of a larger ward that includes both the whole of Westbury and the whole of Henleaze in a combined ward, represented by 3 Councillors. This possibility has been discussed with the trustees of the Henleaze Society and they were sympathetic to our problem and because part of Westbury would become part of Henleaze, under your present proposal, they were not averse to the whole of our village ward being conjoined too. What they were not in favour of was our ward taking part of theirs in order to increase our number of voters. This would be at their expense and then they too would be made into a single Councillor ward, which as explained above neither we nor they think is a good idea. This logic also applies to our suggesting we have some voters from Southmead or Stoke Bishop wards to increase our head count by widening our boundaries-that would render those two wards as weak in numbers too and would be as unacceptable to them as it is to us. However, we have had special representations from residents who live at the far end of Eastfield Road between the junction with Eastfield and the junction with Southmead Road, and along the border of Southmead Road between Lake Road and Glenwood Road up to the roundabout junction with Wellington Hill West: They are in an isolated corner of Westbury and have no regular communications or integration with Southmead to the north. They identify strongly with all aspects of life in Westbury on Trym and all their activities, visits, classes, schooling and shopping expeditions are within the communities of Westbury and Henleaze. They would very much like to remain part of our combined community if the numbers would allow for that small portion to be retained within our larger ward and the boundary could be drawn to the rear of their properties to allow for this. This will affect a very small number of households and have a minimum effect on voter numbers. We have considered four basic options by looking at voter totals in the different wards; we realize that because of our central position in north Bristol we are subject to pressure on all sides and therefore our preferred solution in order to keep our whole village ward and community intact and our name centred on the original village of Westbury, is the proposal for: A PARTNERSHIP WARD WITH HENLEAZE TO BE SERVED BY THREE COUNCILLORS FOR THE WHOLE AREA SERVING AN APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF 15,043 (forecast) VOTERS IN TOTAL, BREAKING DOWN TO 5,014 PER COUNCILLOR (being an excess of 412 over the general target of 4,602 per Cllr) This will meet the requirements for good electoral equality and will still be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. And to be called the ward of: WESTBURY-ON-TRYM AND HENLEAZE in light of the seniority of Westbury by age and foundation, but to be regarded as a partnership of equals. I sincerely hope that the commission will be able to give serious consideration to this proposal which is backed by the majority of Westbury residents and Businesses whom we have been able to contact and consult. Hilary Long Chairman pp: The Westbury-on-Trym Society February 11 th 2015

86

87 Second Section REASONS WHY WESTBURY ON TRYM AND HENLEAZE WARDS CAN SUCCESSFULLY ENTER INTO ONE SINGLE PARTNERSHIP WARD WITH 3 COUNCILLORS SERVING THE WHOLE AREA The purpose of the following commentary is to demonstrate that our proposition for a larger shared ward will: Reflect community interests and identities and includes evidence of community links Help the Council deliver effective and convenient local government in the hands of 3 Councillors HISTORICAL AND GEOGRAPHICAL LINKS between the two wards of Westbury-on-Trym and Henleaze Westbury-on-Trym, as stated, was the original centre for the whole area that is now North Bristol, from the early Middle Ages onwards. As part of the Bishopric of Worcester, it was at the heart of a huge parish area stretching from what is now Brentry as far as the River Avon, on towards Bristol City itself, across to what is now Cotham and back up to Horfield, Southmead and Pen Park. As this area developed its hamlets, quarries and light industries, in amongst the more isolated farming communities, more people moved out of Bristol to cleaner air and rural surroundings. During the eighteenth century, this transfer of population resulted in the growth of first larger houses and villas, alongside the Turnpike road out of Bristol, through Westbury and on to the Welsh Passages; then later, in the building of many smaller homes for servants and agricultural workers employed on the estates. Finally the suburban growth began in earnest with grander Victorian family homes such as are found in Henleaze, followed by terraces and semi-detached homes common to both wards, when first trams and then bus routes arrived in the early part of the twentieth century, to connect families to the City for daily work. The patterns of development were completed by random infill of open land with typical pre and post Second World War suburban homes, mostly semi-detached, but with some roads of more prestigious detached properties. These characteristic landscapes are to be found in both Henleaze and Westbury-on-Trym and consequently present day inhabitants share a similarly wide spectrum of income and lifestyle variations, as well as many leisure pursuits and aspirations to create an efficient and pleasant environment for all who live in the area. The only great difference is that while Westbury started its life 1200 years ago, Henleaze developed from a small outcrop or hamlet north of the village, where there was a connecting lane to large estates and Redland House and is thus largely a suburban construct of the middle twentieth century. It was dependent on Westbury village for trade and subsistence until the post war years. Nevertheless, it has developed its own particular essence in more recent decades and the residents there feel a great sense of pride in their own environment, High Street shops, schools and social connections and have worked hard to develop a sense of place for Henleaze as a suburb in its own right. There is a large area lying now officially in the Henleaze ward, which is on farm and estate land that was part of Westbury originally it includes for example Eastfield and Eastfield Road: once Westbury s Eastfield farm, Priory Avenue and Priory Court Road, consisting of 1930 s houses built on the estate of The Priory a gothic fantasy, once one of Westbury s grander properties and Quarry Park, now the pride and joy of Henleaze after recent and sustained efforts to make it pleasant and functional for all ages, situated in one of the quarries from which many of Westbury s

88 cottages were built. Residents in this hinterland think of themselves as part of both wards depending on what they are doing at any one time! Churchill Homes, having purchased the other part of the quarry land and about to construct 33 flats there for elderly people, approached both the Henleaze and Westbury residents Societies when seeking comments on their development plans, because they were recommending shopping areas and nearby facilities in both wards as equally accessible points for their potential residents. SOCIAL GEOGRAPHY The above point highlights another characteristic common to both wards: there is a higher age range majority in both Westbury and Henleaze and although it is changing gradually as the older population move on, there is still a very great amount of inter ward social activity in the churches, clubs and leisure activities that appeals to this older age group. Having said this, there has recently been an increase in the number of nurseries and mother and toddler groups of varying kinds, where younger parents from both wards travel across formal boundaries for the facilities and hours they prefer or need. Well established community use of the beautiful Victorian gothic Westbury Village Hall, at the end of Eastfield Road, continues, as it serves both Westbury and Henleaze residents for their weddings, parties, dance classes and badminton matches, while similar activities now take place in the newly built, modern hall of the United Reform Church in Henleaze-a special favourite for Neighbourhood meetings, choir rehearsals and fitness classes - used by ladies from both wards! Matches take place regularly between the Bowling clubs of Henleaze and Canford Park in Westbury, while Westbury Village Hall attracts many people in the area for Badminton. The Henleaze and Westbury area provides a unique variety of local churches and chapels, covering all styles of Christian worship. There is the original 15 th century Parish Church of Westbury ( High Anglican with origins in Saxon England), St Peter s Anglican Church in Henleaze, a Roman Catholic Church shared by Henleaze and Westbury, Methodist Foundations in both wards, a modern Baptist Church and two alternative organisations in the Community Church and the River of Life Chapel. All of these have healthy congregations and are used by people from surrounding areas as well as by members from both wards. The churches themselves combine in the Westbury Council of Churches to hold joint activities. Here follows a list of shared social needs and other facilities, which give Henleaze and Westbury a range of common activities and interests that are often the substance of representations by Councillors and which fit with your requirement that effective local government must be possible in a 3 member ward. HEALTH: Westbury on Trym has a large Primary Health Care Centre, at the rear of the Car Park which is used by people from both wards with a range of medical services in addition to the normal Doctors appointments Situated officially in Westbury on Trym and facing Henleaze ward is St Monica s Nursing home for the elderly (built by the Wills cigarette family) and its associated sheltered apartments and new complex of modern flats. Many residents from both wards now live there or have reserved accommodation for later. EDUCATION: The Westbury and Henleaze wards are rich in educational provision, serving each other and the rest of Bristol with a variety of State maintained and Independent Schools:

89 Badminton School for Girls (Ind. 19 th C) is next door to St Monica s, lies in Westbury but faces Henleaze and has both local and international pupils. Recent discussions on plans to build a sports hall involved representatives from both the Westbury and Henleaze residents Societies. The Redmaids School for Girls (Ind. Orig. 17 th C) is housed in one of Westbury s oldest 18thC estate houses, is officially in Henleaze ward but faces Westbury Road! It also has both local and wider area students. Recent consultations to enlarge the juniors dept. involved both Henleaze and Westbury Society representatives for discussions about traffic and access roads. Parents in the two wards have the choice of four Primary Schools, two in Westbury and two in Henleaze and the intake of all of them is a mixture according to selection. (Elmlea, Westbury Academy, Henleaze and Westbury Park). A further local authority backed school will shortly open in what was the Ursuline Convent School on Westbury Road and will be open to children from ages 4 to seniors as the E Act Academy, while pupils from all the junior schools in this larger neighbourhood have the option to take up places in a newly founded Free school for secondary education and is now drawing them from both wards. SHOPPING AND LEISURE: The two wards have complementary shopping facilities and showrooms Henleaze having more specialist shops and Westbury providing all four main Banks and a Main Post Office with the much needed social security, passport and currency facilities, as well as a variety of cafes and restaurants for evening use. These are also used by commuters who work in the many offices now situated in local properties. There is a great deal of inter mingling in matters of shopping between residents of the two areas especially for food and day to day services: one ward would be lost without the other. TRANSPORT LINKS: Henleaze and Westbury share two main routes into Bristol: one from the M5 down through Westbury-on-Trym, being Passage Road which becomes in turn Falcondale road, then Westbury Road. Buses on this route serve both wards. The other is the main Henleaze Road which continues the route from the A 38 main highway into Bristol-again used by many local residents from both wards taking buses down into the Broadmead shopping district of Bristol City centre. The two wards will suffer the extreme effects of mass building projects on the fringes of Bristol during the next 20 years, when these two routes into the City from the M5 and the Northern industrial estates will be horrendously congested-even more so than now. A great degree of cooperation will be needed between politicians serving these areas in their efforts to gain some amelioration. A combined single ward would no doubt assist in forth-coming negotiations for a light railway to avert disaster! THE NEW NEIGHBOURHOOD PARTNERSHIPS: As a result of restructuring in local government under provisions of the recent Localism Bill, Bristol has been divided into sectors to be represented by Neighbourhood Partnerships. As the lowest tier of local administration, various sub-committees can now decide on priorities in such matters as preservation and improvement of the environment, leisure facilities for the older and youngest citizens, transport and highway problems. (Whether they are allowed the freedom and capabilities to be really effective is quite another matter). However in the last five years since their inception, Westbury-on-Trym, Henleaze and Stoke Bishop Wards have been thrust into one block and as a result have now had a great deal of experience in co-operation, when trying to get things done by Bristol City Council - quite a feat in itself! The bonus has been that we have got to know our neighbours a great deal better, being in sympathy with each other s problems and thus we already have a very good basis on which to build for future co-operation with Henleaze if we occupy one electoral space! Hilary Long- February 11 th 2015

90

91

92