Steve Parish Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 After reading the population figures you've given Paul it does seem a bit pointless to dispense with the Hatton / Stretton / Walton ward, couldn't they just enlarge the ward a little? I'm not sure of the exact boundaries but would suspect that some areas on the edge wouldn't object to being absorbed into that ward. ( just out of interest - where exactly are the proposed 149 development sites?). Whatever, if your present ward does get absorbed by Appleton then your voters will be in 'Appleton'. I don't think it's you who will ultimately lose your seat at the Town Hall. They could enlarge it easily. Take in Lower Walton over the Ship Canal, rather than tack it onto Bewsey & Whitecross ward, which is a bizarre suggestion from the commission. As Paul points out, it's historically part of Walton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P J Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Whatever, if your present ward does get absorbed by Appleton then your voters will be in 'Appleton'. I don't think it's you who will ultimately lose your seat at the Town Hall. Well if Ms. Wheelers comments in the article are anything to go by she is a bit thick. She refers to the Bridgewater canal as a natural boundary, psssst Judith, canals are man made Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sha Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 Yes Steve, it does seem bizarre to tack Lower Walton onto Bewsey and Whitecross. I really believe that there should be electoral equality with regard to population numbers per ward / councillor, but if the boundaries need to be redefined to ensure this it should be done in such a way which least detracts from the original wards natural traditional identity. As Paul says, Hatton Stretton and Walton ward does have a very distinct identity. And Yes PJ, you got it! After being trounced out of her previous ward and shipped across the town for a safer seat in Appleton Ms Wheeler must be sitting pretty uncomfortably right now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Kennedy Posted September 5, 2015 Report Share Posted September 5, 2015 After reading the population figures you've given Paul it does seem a bit pointless to dispense with the Hatton / Stretton / Walton ward, couldn't they just enlarge the ward a little? I'm not sure of the exact boundaries but would suspect that some areas on the edge wouldn't object to being absorbed into that ward. ( just out of interest - where exactly are the proposed 149 development sites?). Whatever, if your present ward does get absorbed by Appleton then your voters will be in 'Appleton'. I don't think it's you who will ultimately lose your seat at the Town Hall. Predominantly in the Pewterspear Green area, and the former Ship Inn land. The others tend to be single plots. The WBC proposal did put Lower Walton north of the canal in to H,S & W Ward, along with some homes in the London Road and Pewterspear Green Road of Appleton. But my argument is that the Ward as it is now meets the criteria and will continue to do so in 2020. Anyway the LGBCE have received and acknowledge my submission, guess others will send in their submissions and the LGBCE will make their final decision, which should be published in early December. So for me it is just a matter of waiting and getting on with life....and que sera, sera as Doris Day sang. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary Posted December 1, 2015 Author Report Share Posted December 1, 2015 So much for democracy and listening to local people and elected members! http://www.warrington-worldwide.co.uk/2015/12/01/local-views-ignored-in-warrington-boundaries-carve-up/ What now for Paul Kennedy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.