W i n d s o r a n d M a i d e n h e a d...Windsor and Maidenhead Personal Details: Name: david melvilleE-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name: Comment text: As a resident of Bolton Avenue

4/12/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/12626 1/1

Windsor and Maidenhead

Personal Details:

Name: Christine MacKay

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Salamandra Design & Digital Ltd

Comment text:

Salamandra Design & Digital Ltd, is a business that started in Windsor and has grown and moved tobigger premises in Eton, and we are involved in the Eton Community Association. We believe thatEton should remain part of the Windsor district, for the strong historic, business and touristreasons. They are already intertwined in so many way including the rail station naming - as thenearest rail stations to Eton. Linking Eton to other sectors that have no heritage affiliation makesno sense to us as a business and for visitors to the area - business and tourism. Cheers, ChristineMacKay CEO/Producer - Salamandra.uk

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Marion Mackenzie

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

To whoever it may concern I am writing in support of the current proposal of the Boundarycommission to combine Eton & Eton Wick with Windsor Castle Within and part of West Windsor. Thisproposal fully meets the needs and expectations of our community and retains our criticalconnection with Windsor, which has existed for hundreds of years and which is as vibrant andcritical today. Residents, businesses and visitors alike rightly consider Windsor & Eton as integratedTowns in very many ways. Thank you for recognising this. Marion Mackenzie Resident

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Michael Mazour

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of The Boltons area of Windsor, I much prefer we stay united with the urban Windsorarea. Central Windsor's concerns are our concerns. Making us part of the Old Windsor wards makesno sense, as we do not have the same concerns, do not use the same facilities and services, anddon't generally use one another's transport links. Neither Windsor nor Old Windsor would be wellserved by the proposed boundary change for the Boltons.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: david melville

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

As a resident of Bolton Avenue I object to my area being part of Old Windsor in the new ward proposals. We are an integral part of Windsor town Old Windsor is at least 2 miles away - we use none of their facilities and apart from driving through it to get to the M25 have little contact.It therefore seems perverse to be represented by councillors who will have conflicting prorities

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: claire milne

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The proposal to divide up Windsor in this way will divide the community and I strongly object to it. Allocating the Boltons area of Urban Windsor to Old Windsor is particularly innappropriate and goes directly against the Boundary Commissions expressed aims of reflecting community interests and identities. This will divide the Boltons area from the rest of the Windsor community and it will not promote effective and convenient local government. Windsor and Old Windsor have completely separate identities and interests. Old Windsor is divided from Windsor Boltons Area by several miles of thinly inhabited parkland and this area of Windsor has virtually NO relationship with it. It does not share economic links, or community links. ALL of the Boltons area of Windsor uses economic and social facilities in adjoining parts of Windsor, such as the town centre, and not Old Windsor. The issues and concerns of this area of Windsor are completely different from those of Old Windsor. Old Windsor is parished, Windsor is not. The parish boundary will split this proposed ward in two. This proposal appears to be a deliberate attempt to frustrate any future attempts by local people to set up a town council in Windsor to improve local governance. This extreme reduction in the number of Councillors will also make it harder for remaining councillors to do their job.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Keith Morton

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We the undersigned strongly object to the transfer of Park Ward into either Old Windsor or Ascot asthe range of local services we need are in Windsor it self. We support the Borough Councilsproposal to place The Boltons, including Wood Close with Clewer East rather than Old Windsor aswe have a natural geographical and service affinity with Clewer East. Keith and Sally Morton,

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Hannah Murphy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Keep Windsor great park part of the old Windsor parish and not part of Sunninghill parish.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Lawrence O’Sullivan

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree with the proposals by the LGBC and support the alternative proposal by Old Windsor Parish Council. As we don’t want to lose been part of great park and crimp hill and how this will fragment our community. Thanks (me as me !)

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Parkinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Hello. I live in Bolton Road in Windsor, under the new proposals I would become part of the OldWindsor ward. We are part of Windsor, we use the facilities of urban Windsor none from OldWindsor. If you look at the map above we fall in the grey area depicting Windsor not Old Windsor.Also the move of the Great Park to Ascot just to equalise numbers is preposterous. The peopleshould be served in the location which provides its public services and has a vested interest in itsoutcome.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Valerie Pike

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree that the second option of my original proposal (one large ward) would have hinderedeffective and convenient local government nor for that matter, dilute the accountability ofCouncillors to the electorate. On the contrary, it would have forced Councillors to focus on theissues not just in their ‘smaller’ spheres of influence but the ‘wider’ sphere of the knock-on effecton neighbouring wards. If anything, the dilution of joint-up thinking is more likely to surface whenneighbouring wards are split up and protectionism rears its ugly head – the 'not in my back yard'syndrome. If it is absolutely necessary that 2 wards are still required in the south of the Borough,then the following is my amended proposal – Sunningdale and Sunninghill Ward as one and thesecond ward, Ascot & Cheapside incorporating South Ascot, North Ascot, Ascot East and Cheapside.The numbers would stack up not much differently from LGBCE proposal.This would really fall in linewith the statutory criteria of electoral equality, community identity and interests and effective andconvenient local government. I mention this in light of the following: Proposed developments – NewMedical centre at Ben Lynwood on Rise Road is on the border of Sunningdale and SunninghillSunningdale Park (280 houses and Private Care Home)– is on the border of Sunningdale andSunninghill Silwood Park (Imperial College) – is on the border of Sunningdale and Sunninghill. Trainstation – Sunningdale train station services the Sunnings as it is one stop nearer into London whilstthe only other train station in South Ascot should service the rest of Ascot and Cheapside andshould not be in the same ward where the only other train station is located. Neighbouring Boroughdevelopment of Longcross and its impact on the infrastructure in and around the Sunnings(Sunningdale and Sunninghill) The Charters Secondary school in Sunningdale is already the focus ofstate secondary school placements in the Sunnings. The current Charters Leisure Centre and thenewly proposed Oakwood Leisure Centre located in Sunningdale is the focus of leisure activities inthe Sunnings. Local facilities – like Recycling, refuse collection, street-care should be moreefficiently monitored by coupling the Sunnings into one ward. I cannot stress enough the need forthe Sunnings to work together especially because of the major developments that are beingconsidered as we speak.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Stephen Pilgrim

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Having reviewed the recommendations regarding changes to the Old Windsor boundaries, I have tosay I'm not impressed. Sure it might make the numbers look better, but I think it fails to meet theother key criteria of reflecting community identity and providing effective and convenient localgovernment. On the former point, it seems breaks up a well run and well represented area, addingin parts of Windsor with little or no synergy (The Boltons.....and I'm not sure what they might sayon the matter) at the same time taking away iconic parts of the Ward such as Bears Rails Park, theformer village workhouse and, later, maternity hospital, and much of the Great Park. I'm sure theresidents of Bears Rails will be pleased to know that they are now around 8 miles by road, and whoknows how much time, from Ascot. Currently they are a 5 minute walk to the centre of the village.Creating such a geographically large Ascot ward, I would have to question just how effectively thesecond criteria can be met. In summary, I reject the current proposal as unnecessary andineffective in meeting the most important criteria.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Nick Pledge

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I live in Bolton Crescent, Windsor and find the proposal to carve my small part of the urban area of Windsor off and add it to Old Windsor which is remote in distance, character, community and economic terms absolutely absurd. It’s a completely artificial construct designed to satisfy not residents but politicians. We live here and we do not want to be falsely and artificially carved off of the town that we’ve lived in for 20 years. There is absolutely nothing that makes the area I live in relevant to councillors in Old Windsor and we will therefore not be properly represented. This goes against your stated aims to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and it does not promote effective and convenient local government. I’d actually like to see the argument for both of these aims that you have presumably drawn up otherwise how could you make such a proposal. Please send it to me because I can find no rational or detailed explanation that would even pass a gcse on this website. I look forward to receiving it from you. Thank you. Nick Pledge

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

LGBR CONSULTATION I am concerned that my Response is not attributed to me but appears to be attributed to Valerie Pike. My Response is listed between Pike and Slater. I also note that you have failed to identify another respondent, who has made a lengthy and detailed response. He can only be identified as “Andrew” as there is an email from yourselves to him. You state that you have reviewed the boundaries of three Parishes but I can find no reference to these newly drawn boundaries, so am unable to comment on these proposed changes. I thus have concerned at the integrity of this process for the above reasons and also that the RBWM, despite requests, refuse to make their recommendations easily available to residents. A working group has made recommendations but, to the best of my knowledge, with no reference to seeking residents’ views. How therefore can their proposal be said to represent residents’ views? To the best of my knowledge there have been no meetings to which the public have been invited. In Windsor, where the changes are most significant the Windsor Councillors appear to have made no effort to inform the public, explain the changes, and seek their views. This leaves me most concerned about the process. The RBWM submitted (26 July 2017) a proposal that the number of Councillors would be reduced to 43 (+ or – 1). It is now apparent that they did not think through the implications of this number and how it would work out in practice when new Ward boundaries were to be drawn. Your Proposal is that there be 42 Councillors. This number has resulted in some illogical Ward boundaries splitting communities which have existed for many decades. I therefore ask you to review again the total number of Councillors increasing by a few to enable a more logical Ward Boundary arrangement. I live in Windsor and will thus my comments relate to the area in which I live. The proposal for Windsor is flawed.

You clearly state that this Review has three aims – to achieve approx the same number of voters per councillor – to reflect local communities – to promote effective government. During the consultation process you have given no indication that one aim takes precedence over another and thus I have assumed each has equal weighting. However the proposal gives a far greater weighting to “evening up” numbers than it does to the other two aims. For example, in order to even up the numbers you are proposing to take a section of Windsor and add it to Old Windsor, and you have aligned Eton to larger parts of Windsor. (see below for more detail of why this is flawed).

You have failed to address the anomaly of the different boundary for the Bray Parish and the West Windsor Wards (Clewer South and Clewer North). As mentioned above you state you have reviewed the Parish boundaries but I can find record of this on your website. This

would be an ideal opportunity to address such anomalies. After all the Bray Ward is a “countryside Ward” whilst Windsor is a “town”.

You state in para 67 that you have placed houses south of the Winkfield Road into Clewer East as they are geographically closer to Windsor than Old Windsor Village – a sensible decision,. However you then do not apply the same logic to the South-East part of Windsor Town which you “hive off” into Old Windsor. Combermere Baracks serves the town centre and has no relationship with Old Windsor. Windsor Football Club is “hived off” to Old Windsor. The towns of Old Windsor and Windsor are different with different histories physically separated. This South-East part of Windsor should REMAIN in a Windsor Ward, not be cast off to the Old Windsor Ward. You have achieved one aim, at a significant cost to the other two aims.

Re your proposal for the enlarged Eton and Castle Ward. I can only conclude that you are unaware that the bridge link between Eton and Windsor is pedestrian only. Councillors who wish to access either side of this Ward would have a long car journey. I do not accept that such Councillors can easily walk over the bridge as this dismisses the possibility that a physically disabled individual may wish to stand as a Councillor. Eton has its own distinct and different character to Windsor Town. They each have different problems and issues and the proposal makes no recognition of this fact.

You have agreed that the LEGOLAND Estate sits within one Windsor Ward. However the Map you supply does not indicate this change. So I do not know which is correct, your words or the map. The map I would suggest, needs to be amended accordingly. I have obtained from LEGOLAND a map of their Estate and this clearly shows the boundary and I would urge you to amend your map accordingly.

You have not acknowledge my point 3 in your comments and I fear you have overlooked the few isolated dwellings currently sitting in the Bray Ward but only accessible via the existing Park Ward. There is no logic in placing the LEGOLAND Estate in the Bray Ward, whilst leaving these houses “marooned” in Bray Ward. I would respectfully ask you to look at this again. Such dwellings are noted in the LEGOLAND map and you will see that the only access such residents have is via St Leonards Hill and thus it makes no sense to isolate these dwellings further by leaving them within the Bray Ward.

In conclusion I would recommend you relook at the Windsor Ward boundaries, accepting an increase of 1/2 councillors. As the detailed information relating to number of electors is not available to me I cannot be precise on exactly where the boundaries would fall but give an indication. I leave it to you to balance out achieving all three aims. I propose the following.

An Eton Ward which does not include Windsor (ie does not cross the Thames) with only 2 councillors

Create four Windsor Wards to include the South East tip of Windsor to comprise 8/9 Councillors, ie

Park – a Ward with very similar boundaries to the existing Park Ward (ie to include South East Windsor ) 2 councillors. My argument is this has worked for years and “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”.

Windsor Central/Town – similar boundaries to current Windsor Without with 2 councillors

Two Wards dividing Windsor west to east along the Dedworth Road to include those Windsor residents who currently reside in the Bray Ward and to also include those future residents as indicated in the BLP, ie move the Windsor Ward boundaries to the West. This will obviously increase the number of the electorate in the “West Windsor Ward” whilst reducing the number within the Bray Ward. Depending on the numbers of the electorate one may be allocated 2 councillors and the other 3.

My recommendation would, I believe result in an additional 2 or perhaps 3 councillors over and above your Proposal. Helen Price


Personal Details:

Name: michelle rankin

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I do not agree with the proposals by the LGBC and support the alternative proposal by Old Windsor Parish Council. Windsor great park has always been a part of our community and loosing this area will fragment our community.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Roy Reeves

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposal to move Windsor Great Park from Old Windsor Parish to Ascot andSunninghill. The links with Old Windsor are much stronger including:- Transport to St Peeters middelschool. The doctors surgery. Many residents in the Great Park retire to The Crown Estate retirementflats in Old Windsor: This move would disrupt the natural community links of residents in the village

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Roy Reeves

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Further to my submishion on the Old Windsor proposals. Please add that Ascot gate is now closed to most residents of the Great Park and visitors, causing a 2 mile detour. This further cuts those living in Windsor Great Park off from Ascot. Mr Roy Reeves.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Dr R Rivaz

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I am writing in support of the current proposal of the Boundary commission to combine Eton & Eton Wick with Windsor Castle within and additional areas of Windsor. This proposal fully meets the needs and expectations of our community and retains our critical connection with Windsor, which has existed for hundreds of years and which is as vibrant and critical today. Residents, businesses and visitors alike rightly consider Windsor & Eton as integrated Towns in very many ways. Thank you for recognising this.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Cherrie Robinson

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Mrs

Comment text:

What a Ridiculous idea to have Windsor Great Park under Ascot & Sunninghill Boundary!! We have always been within the Old Windsor Boundary and should remain so. The worst part of this proposed boundary shift is that it is to make up numbers!! WE ARE PEOPLE NOT A COMMODITY!!! I strongly oppose this boundary proposition and I urge everyone within Old Windsor and Windsor Great Park to do the same. NUMBERS!!!! Absolutely Ridiculous Cherrie Robinson WGP

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: James Shand

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Feedback provided in attached document

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: margaret shepherd

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

ELECTORAL WARD BOUNDARY REVIEW Bolton Avenue, Crescent and Road are to become part of OldWindsor. I object in the strongest possible terms. We are part of urban Windsor. Our links are withurban Windsor. We have nothing in common with Old Windsor. We will be separated by The LongWalk and Windsor Great Park. The Bolton's will be such a small part of Old Windsor we won't beworth considering when decisions are made. No thank you .

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Adam Sherman

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I see no need to change the boundaries. We have a great sense of community in the Boltons andenjoy being part of Windsor. I would be very upset if these boundaries change our current position.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Christopher Simon

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Regarding the proposed changes to the boundaries of Old Windsor: these have absolutely no regard to the geographical features and natural connections within the current boundaries of Old Windsor. What is the rationale for separating the Old Windsor cemetery from the village? What is the rationale for attaching a part of New Windsor town to a rural village? Why put into separate wards the primary and middle schools attended by Old Windsor children? I could go on and on but I think that the point is made. What is being proposed is only driven by a wish to achieve a numerical solution plucked from the air and with no regard for the populations affected.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Neil Spurling

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Old Windsor ward boundary review I would like to object to the proposal to remove Great Park from Old Windsor to Ascot, for the following reasons:- The Great Park is an integral part of Old Windsor and has been historically, this would fragment the community. Many Great Park employees move to Old Windsor when they retire. Many children go to complementary first and middle schools in the Great Park and Old Windsor, where transport is provided from the Great Park to Old Windsor. The doctors surgery based in Old Windsor and Englefield Green is used by the vast majority of residents of the Great Park. Old Windsor cemetery and the houses at Bears Rails Gate are within walking distance of Old Windsor. Ascot gate in the Great Park is now closed to those living in the majority of the Park, meaning a two mile detour to get to Ascot, much further than to Old Windsor: Yours sincerely Neil Spurling

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Geoff Steer

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

Totally disagree with the Windsor urban area of the Boltons (ward 'castle without') being included with Old Windsor. Old Windsor is very separate from our area and we have no connection with it for shopping schools or anything. I cannot believe that an Old Windsor councillor will have much interest in such a remote enclave and would certainly have his/her Old Windsor interests as a priority. My wife and I are very interested in what is happening in Windsor proper and discussions with our local councillor keeps us up-to-date with developments that can be within half a mile from our home but in another ward. Geoff Steer 2a Bolton Avenue Windsor SL4 3 JB [email protected]

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Chris Stevens

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/A

Comment text:

I can't see any argument for having 15 fewer councillors. It appears to be a move to have full-time paid councillors who will be even more removed from the electorate. And, of course, they will be more expensive than the current set-up. Three councillors to cover us in Windsor town centre AND Eton? What have we got in common with Eton? It will make the council more remote and allow pubs to be raped by property developers increasing loneliness as people have fewer places to meet and socialise...and they will continue not to build the council houses we desperately need.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Sally Stevens

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I fee that larger wards will make it harder for councillors - who are local volunteers after all - to be able to serve all their residents is their spare time. I think having councillors who have families and careers is an asset because they are up-to-date, without taking anything away from councillors who are retired. I think this will be a step towards having to provide even higher allowances for councillors, leading to having professional politicians at local authority level. Also, in the ward I would be in - Eton & Castle - for example, the issues for local residents will be very different and wide-ranging in these very different communities so I fail to see how a 'local' councillor would be able to represent me fully.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Michelle Taylor

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

My daughter is buried in crimp hill cemetery. It has to be one of the most beautiful cemeteries I’veseen and we were lucky to live in OW so she could sleep there forever. We love visiting her andpopping into the great park afterwards. My husband and I plan to join her when we die. It means alot to us to keep that cemetery in our village.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: William Trebinski

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I have been an Old Windsor resident for 25 years. I consider the proposal to create a rift in the community by arbitrarily creating new boundaries to be an affront to the community and a blatant attempt at political manipulation motivated by electoral tactics.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1

Ashby, JonathanFrom: Marian Troughton Sent: 04 May 2018 11:20To: reviewsSubject: Old Windsor Ward Boundary review

I would like to object to the proposal to remove Windsor Great Park from Old Windsor to Ascot, for the following reasons:-

The Great Park is an integral part of Old Windsor and has been historically, this would fragment the community.

Many Great Park employees are housed in Old Windsor on retirement. Many children go to complementary first and middle schools in the Great Park and Old

Windsor where transport is provided from the Park to Old Windsor. Access to the nearest source of secondary school education is in Windsor.

The G.P practice based in Old Windsor and Englefield Green is where the majority of Park residents are registered.

Old Windsor cemetery is on the Park boundary at Bears Rails. The houses at Bears Rails are within walking distance of the amenities in Old Windsor. Ascot Gate in the Great Park is now closed to those living in the majority of the Park meaning

a two mile detour to get to Ascot, much further than to Old Windsor.. Changing the boundary to remove the Great Park from Windsor would disrupt the lives of residents and cause distress and hardship to many Crown Estate workers living in an isolated community with no previous connection to the Ascot area Marian Troughton Old Windsor


Personal Details:

Name: Jonathan Tweedy

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

The boundary review is entirely predicated on the RBWM Local Plan being fully adoptedand the planned 100% OAN Housing being delivered which won’t be delivered for decades so for many wards in Maidenhead, for example, the population will have too many borough councillors. The proposal to combine Old Windsor and Wraysbury is entirely unworkable as is removal of The Great Park. Residents of the Great Park see themselves as Old Windsor people, send their children to Old Windsor schools and use Old Windsor community services, they are also buried in Old Windsor cemetery. Indeed, the Great Park has been connected to Old Windsor since Saxon times and staff working for the Crown retire to Old Windsor at Tile Place. The Parish Council and the local Councillors work seamlessly with a huge amount of support leading to such innovations as the community support worker meeting the needs of elderly residents in the Parish. Old Windsor has had no connection to Wraysbury since the 60s with the small matter of the River Thames in the way, it is a 40 minute drive and no connecting bus service exists therefore residents do not use any other services other than their own. I would like to see the entire Great Park brought into the Old Windsor boundary as this makes numerical sense with resident count and administrative purposes.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: James and Margaret Waite

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

We wish to object strongly to the proposal to detach the area around our home from the Windsor urban district and instead to include it within Old Windsor. This part of Windsor, often called "The Boltons" after the common street names, is an integral part of the Windsor urban community. Windsor is a close-knit community which occupies a relatively small footprint. There is a strong community spirit throughout the town and the residents of The Boltons identify closely with it as much as the residents of every other part of the town. The interests we share include the use of Windsor's schools and the proposal would detach us from our local representatives whenever decision-making is required. Old Windsor has its own first and middle schools at King's Court and St Peters with which no doubt its representatives are familiar but they cannot be expected to become involved effectively in the quite different educational arrangements within Windsor town. Furthermore Trevelyan Middle School lies within The Boltons. It is centrally placed for most of the town and is attended by pupils from throughout the town. Few if any Old Windsor pupils attend it. It makes no community sense at all to place The Boltons in a rural ward whose representatives cannot be expected to identify with Trevelyan or to engage in its issues when they would mostly affect pupils represented by other urban wards and the representatives are already fully occupied in looking after the Old Windsor middle school. Windsor is an urban community and issues which arise in the town affect us all. Old Windsor is an entirely different rural community, physically some distance away, with a different set of issues with which there is no overlap at all. Our district is separated from Old Windsor by a large tract of Crown agricultural land to which there is no public access. We simply have little occasion to interact with the residents of Old Windsor and they have equally little need to interact with us. Many Old Windsor residents work on the Crown Estate, especially in the Great Park with which it has historically been closely associated for many hundred years. Theirs is an entirely different community. This proposal seems calculated to break up communities for no good purpose at all. It involves severing Old Windsor from the Great Park even though many of its inhabitants work there, and attaching the Great Park to Ascot and Sunninghill, several miles away with which the Great Park has no community association whatever - even though the resident population within the Great Park is small. We are told that parts of the Windsor urban community need to be detached in order to even up local representation, and yet the proposal involves retaining Eton and Dorney within the Windsor urban district. Eton is not a part of the Windsor urban community and has as little community connection with Windsor as Old Windsor does. Eton lies on the far side of the River Thames, has a strong local community largely involved in running Eton College and including it within Windsor if Windsor needs to be downsized is as damaging to community cohesion as detaching The Boltons from Windsor would be. Dorney is still further away and the local road layout is such that travel between Dorney and Windsor is a major undertaking, difficult at the best of times and effectively impossible during rush hours. If anything its residents identify more strongly with Maidenhead and the Burnham area of Slough to which it is physically close. There are also issue of local democracy. Old Windsor also has its rural Parish Council. Windsor has no Parish Council and under this proposal The Boltons would be under-represented in matters dealt with in Old Windsor at Parish Council level. This is a thoroughly unfortunate proposal which seems to pay no attention whatever to maintaining

local community cohesion - and instead would go a long way to destroying it. We hope it will be rejected.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded




Personal Details:

Name: Andre Walker

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: 1983

Comment text:

Dear Sirs, At the last minute, I have become aware of plans to merge Windsor with Eton. I cannotunderstand why myself and my neighbours were unaware of this but can I nonetheless say thatthere ought to be a Windsor Castle Ward and an Eton Ward as two separate things. No sane personwould suggest that Eton and Windsor are the same community, and I am stunned this has comeup. Below are some important points I hope you will take into account: Eton and Windsor arehistorically very distinct and separate. They are not just separate communities but separate towns.There were not historically even part of the same county. They continue to have very differentfunctions as towns, with the school in Eton and the Castle in Windsor. Eton is rural in large partswith only a small town centre. Windsor is entirely urban, the centre of a large town, with formalroyal gardens. Both Windsor and Eton continue to have distinct and active local communityorganisations (such as the Eton Parish Council and the Windsor 2030 Neighbourhood Plan) The twotowns are separated by a large river and this historic boundary (between Berkshire andBuckinghamshire) should be respected The two towns are not joined by any open road. The onlyway of driving from Eton to Windsor is via Datchet or Slough, a journey that takes a minimum of13 minutes and can take over half an hour at busy times. It is therefore absurd to treat them asone 'community', contrary to Electoral Commission guidelines. There are no buses linking Windsor toEton and walking between, say, Eton Wick and Osborne Road, is 51 minutes according to GoogleMaps. In the business times, especially in the summer, even car journeys can be over one hourlong This is not 'convenient government' as per Electoral Commission guidelines. Their needs aresometimes in competition (such as Eton High Street versus Windsor's) or over the night timeeconomy and councillors could not reasonable be expected to represent both at the same time TheLead Member for Communities at RBWM was given responsibility for overseeing the council’sresponse to the Commission but is also unfortunately the ward member most affected by thechanges across the borough. The role should have been given to a Lead Member with less of apersonal interest. This process has not therefore been carried out in accordance with the Nolanprinciples and the council’s input may need to be redone. Windsor is the town centre for the muchlarge suburban area, to which it is much more connected than to Eton. Treating Eton and Castle asone would have the effect of weakening the link between the town and its own suburbs. The name‘Windsor’ doesn’t appear in any ward, except Old Windsor, emphasising how the proposals do notreflect the New Windsor community. Also there is no ‘Eton Castle’; it is Windsor Castle. A moresensible name for the central Windsor ward would therefore be Windsor and Castle. Regards, Andre

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded


Personal Details:

Name: Lorna Walsh

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name:

Comment text:

I object to the proposed changes for the reasons given in the official submission from Old Windsor Parish Council.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

1

Ashby, JonathanFrom: Ella Wen borne Sent: 23 April 2018 14:52To: reviewsSubject: Boundary Changes

I do not agree with the boundary changes and i will not agree with the said changes, i live at

in Old Windsor and have done all my life. Yours Mrs Ella Wenborne




Personal Details:

Name: Andrew Wright

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: N/a

Comment text:

Your proposal to split off part of the Old Windsor Ward to Ascot/Sunningdale and to add part ofWindsor smacks of a numbers exercise rather than recognising historical, geographical andcommunity strengths of the Old Windsor parish. We are a separate community from Windsor and itis only right that we have our own representation on the RBWM. Residents of the Great Parknaturally gravitate towards Old Windsor and as far as education is concerned they come to OldWindsor and then Windsor schools. Being looked after by councillors fromAscot/Sunningdale whohave no knowledge of Old Windsor or the Windsor schools pyramid makes absolutely no sense.Likewise Windsor residents in the Bolton Avenue area have no connection to Old Windsor andnaturally gravitate towards Central Windsor. It makes no sense for them to be looked after by OldWindsor councillors. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE reconsider this completely non-sensical proposal andleave the existing Old Windsor boundary intact. Thank you.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

For attention of Mr Jonathan Ashby Re: New electoral arrangements for the Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead Dear Mr Ashby, I write to make my contribution to the Local Government Boundary Commission’s review of local ward boundaries in Windsor and Maidenhead. I have lived in the area for 60 years; and I have been, and I still am engaged in the local community in many ways (eg. as a governor at five schools in the past, at All Saints Church, in ASCENT Ascot and the Sunnings Community Environment Network, the Heatherwood Hospital campaigns, first Community worker in Bracknell/Ascot Social Services, currently Insect SOS.) I see a boundary review as a wonderful opportunity to build community cohesion, and I believe there is a good way to do this in the part of Ascot where I live. The Blackmoor stream marks the dividing line between the Royal Borough of Windsor & Maidenhead on one hand, and Bracknell Forest Borough on the other. The area between this stream and Ascot Heath (and north of the London Road, A329) comprises a group of ‘executive residential’ estates. It is a community distinct from the rest of Ascot to the south and east. Our local church is All Saints, and we share a pleasant recreational and wild life area at Blythewood. The current borough ward in which we sit is called ‘Ascot & Cheapside’, and yet Cheapside has very little in common with the part of North Ascot that I am describing. With a council of 57 members, merging the two areas into one was perhaps required to justify a 2-member ward. Since the overall size of the council is to be reduced, the number of electors in this ‘Ascot Heath’ community is exactly right to have a single-member ward by itself. I ask you to reflect the common interests and identity of our community in your final proposals. In my view a 'trio' of single-member wards (Ascot Heath; South Ascot; and Sunninghill) would be the best way to fit the local warding pattern to the identities of the local population. A 2-member Sunningdale ward - preferably with Cheapside included - would sit alongside these very well, and complete the warding pattern for the whole of the Ascot, Sunninghill and Sunningdale area. Yours sincerely Mrs Anne Yarwood

1

Ashby, Jonathan

From: Carolann Young Sent: 30 April 2018 10:52To: reviewsSubject: Consultation

I have been a resident in Windsor Great Park for 52 years and I think your proposal is madness. We have always had an association with Old Windsor with the doctors schools scouts and brownies and a lot of our Residents have retired to Tyle Place in Old Windsor. I have no interest in being associated with Ascot and historically this park has always been known as WINDSOR GREAT PARK which would be very silly if it is in the parish of Ascot. We feel part of the community of Old Windsor and have no dealings with Ascot so you would be breaking up our community. If Ascot needs more houses build some affordable houses there ( that’s a joke as nothing in Ascot is affordable). Many of the children come to the Royal school from Old Windsor and ours go to St. Peter’s or Kings Court. How will the Queen feel with her in Windsor and Prince Andrew in her park but under Ascot? I return to my first comment that this idea is madness. Yours sincerely Carolann & Alan Young Sent from my iPad