Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No. 401 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 401 Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 401 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REIPORT NO. lj-G\ LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB MEMBERS Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank DL Ur R K Thornton CBE DL Mr D ? Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH MC HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS TOR THE COUNTY OF ESSEX 1. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to electoral arrangements for districts in the county of Essex was made on 2k January 1978. As required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we have now reviewed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report No. 6. 2. We informed the Essex Countv Council in a consultation letter dated 15 May 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to all local authorities and parish meetings in the county, to the MPs representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of local newspapers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local precs announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies* 3« On 2^ January 19^0 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 99 electoral divisions for the county, each returning 1 member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. *f. We considered this scheme together with the views expressed by local interests. On 10 June 19&> we issued draft proposals which we sent to all those who had received our consultation letter, or commented on the County Council's draft scheme. Notices were inserted in the local press announcing that the draft proposals had been issued and could be inspected at the County Council's offices* 5. We incorporated the County Council's draft scheme in our draft proposals subject to certain modifications which we adopted either to produce a more even standard of representation or to take account of comments we had received on the scheme. A reduction by one in the number of divisions in Chelmsford Borough hnd the effect of reducing the total size of the Council from 99 to 98. 6. The modifications we made were as follows: (a) Braintree., District We replaced k of the 7 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with alternative divisions suggested by Braintree District Council* 1 ' (b) Chelmeford Borough We reduced' by one the number of divisions in the Borough, by incorporating part of the Danbury and Boreham division in the Springfield division and the remainder in the Woodham Ferrers division (which we renamed 'Woodham Ferrers and Danbury ' ) . We took the view that the Borough would be over-represented with the allocation of 10 councillors resulting from the County Council's draft scheme, though we were aware that the arrangement of 9 divisions that we included in our draft proposals might not be the moat appropriate to achieve our objective. We therefore said we would be prepared to consider alternative schemes providing for 9 divisions in the Borough. (c) Colchester Borough We replaced 3 of the 9 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with 3 alternative divisions suggested by Essex County Labour Party; Of the County Council's proposed divisions that we accepted we renamed the Clingoe division 'Wivenhoe St Andrew', as suggested by Wivenhoe Town Council, and the Old Heath division 'Colne1, as suggested by East Donyland Parish Council. (d) Epping Forest District We replaced *t of the 8 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with alternative divisions suggested by Epping Forest District Council and Ongar Parish Council, and 2 with alternative divisions suggested. by Essex County Labour Party and Epping Forest Constituency Labour Party. (e) Maldon District We replaced 2 of the 3 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with alternative divisions suggested by the Dengie Hundred Group of Parishes. Uttlesford District We replaced 3 of the 4 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with alternative divisions suggested by the Saffron Walden Constituency Conservative Association. 7. We received comments in response to our draft proposals from the Essex County Council, 7 district councils, 2k parish councils, 2 town councils, 2 county councillors, 13 district councillors, 14 political associations and 25 individuals or groups of individuals. A list of those who wrote to us is given at Appendix 1 to this report. 8. Essex County Council accepted our draft proposals for 9 of the 1** districts (Basildon, Brentwood, Castle Point, Earlow, Rochford, Southend-on-Sea, Tendring, Thurrock and Uttlesford). In the Braintree district they accepted our proposals except that in relation to our Booking and Braintree West divisions they forwarded alternative suggestions made by one of the local members for the area, County Councillor 0 R M Sebag-Montefiore. They indicated that they wished to express no preference as between these suggestions and our own draft proposals, which were supported by County Councillor Gilthorpe, the other local member for the area* In the other 4 districts (Chelmsford, Colchester, Epping Forest and Maldon) they urged ua to retain their draft scheme. : other 9« The/comments we received can be summarised district by district as follows:- (a) Basildon District Basildon, Billericay and Wickford Conservative Association and the Laindon Branch of that Association put forward an alternative which they thought would better reflect local ties and have better boundaries than our proposed Basildon e?rouch, Basildon Fryerns, Basildon Gloucester Park, Basildon Laindon and Basildon Westley Heights electoral divisions. Essex County Labour Party supported our draft proposals. (b) Braintree District Braintree District Council, Essex County Labour Party and County Councillor Gilthorpe wrote in support of our draft proposals. County Councillor Sebag-Montefiore thought that rural and urban areas should not be linked as in our Bocking division and put forward alternative suggestions for this and the adjoining Braintree West division. One private individual put forward an alternative arrangement for the Braintree East, Witham Southern and Withara Northern electoral divisions which he considered would provide better linkages between villages and towns. (c) Brentwood District Brentwood and Ongar Constituency Labour Party and Essex County Labour Party objected to our draft proposals for the Brentwood South and Brentwood Central electoral divisions and preferred to retain the existing divisions on the grounds that they followed the natural boundary of a railway line. One district councillor and 13 private individuals made similar objections. (d) Castle Point District Essex County Labour Party repeated their earlier arguments for alternative divisions which would link rather than separate the Benfleet and Canvey Island areas. (e) Chelmsford Borough The Essex County Council objected to the reduction in the number of divisions for the Borough and urged us to revert to their draft scheme for 10 divisions. Chelmsford Borough Council also opposed our draft proposals and supported the County Council's draft scheme subject to one minor amendment. Great Waltham Parish Council, Danbury Parish Council and Boreham Parish Council all preferred the County Council's draft scheme to our draft proposals. Broomfield Parish Council repeated their arguments for the retention of the existing division in which they were located* Woortham Ferrers Parish Council asked that East Hanningfeld Parish be transferred from the Stock to the Woodhara Ferrers and Danbury electoral division. The Chelmsford Liberal Association considered that the view that the Borough would be over- represented with 10 councillors was fully justified and responded to the invitation we attached to our draft proposals by putting forward an alternative scheme of 9 divisions for the Borough. The Essex County Labour Party also agreed that the Borough would be properly represented with nine members, (f) Colchester Borough The Essex County Council asked us to look again at the Constable, Drury and Park divisions in their draft scheme which we had modified and to revert to their original name, Old Heath, for our Colne division, on the grounds that it was more appropriate for reasons of geography. Colchester Borough Council agreed with our draft proposals except that they too preferred the name Old Heath for our Colne division. The New Town Ward of the Colchester Constituency Labour Party, six borough councillors and one county councillor likewise opposed our renaming of Old Heath division. Essex County Labour Party agreed our draft proposals but preferred the names of Old Heath to Colne, and St Andrews and Wivenhoe to Wivenhoe St Andrew* East Donyland Parish Council and Wivenhoe Town Council supported the proposed renaming of the Old Heath and Clingoe electoral divisions. One private individual suggested that the Drury and Maypole electoral divisions be renamed. The Colchester Division Conservative Association supported our draft proposals because they avoided the three-way splitting of the Lexden ward which was a feature of the County Council's draft scheme. • . (g) Epping Forest District The Essex County Council preferred their own draft scheme for- the two Loughton divisions, and for the Cbigwell and Ongar divisions. They s&w no good reasons for the changes we had made, and in the latter case drew attention to the imblance in the electorates that would result;.from our"draft"propoaale» Epping Forest District Council also objected to ourdraftproposals for the two Lough ton electoral divisions but supported the inclusion of the Parish of Lambourne in the Ongar division. One district councillor and 2 private individuals supported our draft proposals as they affected the Loughton divisions.