Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Elizabeth Samways
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I would like Nork and Tattenhams kept together as at present with no changes.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Andrew Sanford
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I wish the ward names were more imaginative. Tattenham’s should be named as Derby Ward. Reigate Central should be named as Reigate Town. Nork as Nork Park. Chipstead Ward as Chipstead Valley. Names after compass points are meaningless.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded 2/2/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Per•onal Detalls:
Name: Wayne Scivier E-mall: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Regarding the Preston Ward,ideally we should join Tattenhams Ward[as we are closer to that ward,than Tadworth and Walton].Though i know by going into Tattenhams,we would have to change constituency back to Epsom and Ewell and also County Division or create a new Preston Ward,using the Regeneration boundary,as then 'nlttenhams would lose one councillor and Preston Ward would go back to how orlglnally It was. Hlstorlcally Preston Is a Manor from the Medleval times. There Is one main road connecting us to Todworth and Walton Ward and a alley.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation. lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/1 1726 1/1 Please find below some thoughts on the current electoral wards of the Redhill area in relation to the communities that I have observed, both historic, and naturally occurring through movements of people. I hope that you may find this useful when considering the boundary review.
The north Earlswood (including the Royal Earlswood development) and St John’s areas (along with Eastern parts of Meadvale) naturally forms a community spanning the A23, centred around Earlswood railway station, the northern part of Earlswood/Redhill Common and St John’s Church (graphic, right). This reflects the historic community which has been truncated by the A23, and the current separation of this community between two wards furthers this. As such it is suggested they form a joint ward. These areas share commonalities of housing type and density and similar position from, and access to, Redhill town centre. People in these areas naturally navigate between the amenities in the area either side of the A23 which in addition to those already mentioned include the pubs on the western side and the convenience store, post office and Indian restaurant on the eastern side. This website has more details of the historic links between Earlswood and St John’s. http://www.exploringsurreyspast.org.uk/themes/places/surrey/reigate_and_banstead/earlswood/
South Earlswood (south of Maple and Three Arch Roads) and Whitebushes seem to naturally form a community straddling either side of the A23 with neighbouring Salfords (graphic, right). When places such as the McDonalds and Alberts Fish Bar on the A23 are discussed no one really knows where to say they are as the McDonalds is named ‘Earlswood’ (probably due to the nearby ‘Welcome to Earlswood’ sign) but in reality no one thinks of that area as Earlswood and to refer to it as such would cause confusion. People are more likely to refer to that area as Whitebushes. These areas have a quite distinct identity from the areas of older housing immediately south of Redhill town centre. The South Earlswood, Whitebushes and Salfords share similar property types and densities and are outside of the area where Redhill town centre could be comfortably accessed by foot. They are all served by Salfords Primary School and Salfords Post Office.
Although outside of the remit of this review, it seems problematic that the Redhill Aerodrome site (graphic, right) straddles two boroughs and this issue has been highlighted by the material housing development currently proposed for the site. It seems concerning that a site that is immediately adjacent to the Redhill/Reigate conurbation, and that therefore any development of it would have a direct impact on that conurbation, is governed by Tandridge Council whose primary conurbations and mainline railway line are located in the East of Tandridge Borough, well away from the proposed development.
The easternmost part of the ‘Reigate Central’ ward is in fact in central Redhill (graphic, right). This not only seems unintuitive but causes confusion locally with some estate agents attempting to present the area as a Reigate enclave in Redhill. Additionally, it separates a homogenous area from Brownlow Road to Garlands Road that formed the historic settlement of Linkfield Street. The housing types and density in this part of ‘Reigate Central’ is more similar to its neighbours to the east (the rest of Upper Bridge Road & Ridgeway Road & Grovehill Road plus Garlands Road, and to north Earlswood) than it is to the leafier, lower density, larger and often newer housing types to the west. It is suggested that these areas re‐join a Redhill‐named ward as they are immediately adjacent to Redhill town centre and constitute some of the town’s most attractive and historic areas.
Many of the northernmost parts of Redhill East including the Watercolour development (graphic, right) feel more closely aligned to each other (a micro community) and to Merstham than they do to Redhill town centre. The influx of commuters using their nearest station, Merstham, may be a key reason for this. As well as the Watercolour development, another example of one of a micro community is the area roughly between St Bedes School and East Surrey College (graphic, below right) which can be accessed by Wray Lane, Rocky Lane and Gatton Park Road rather than Redhill town centre and has a feel and identity around leafy historic Gatton Park that is distinct from more urban Redhill which is centred on the A23 and A25.
Dear Sir, I write to express my concern and anger over the proposed ward changes for Tattenhams. The lack of clear and direct communication has meant that many of the local community had no knowledge of the intentions of the Boundary Commission until approximately 10 days ago. I first learned of this proposal at Tattenhams Residents’ Association A.G.M on March 28th, at the very end of the meeting, introduced under A.O.B. There was no mention of this in the Spring 2018 Newsletter, which I, as Road Steward for Chaple Way, had delivered earlier in the month. I understand the which the Boundary Commission use to assess ward boundaries. However ,the specific situation of each community should be taken into account. I have lived in Great Tattenhams since 1987. When I first moved here there was very little community spirit apparent. My daughter attended Brownies and Guides at St Mark’s Church and the family became members of the church. There was little else on offer! However, over the years there has been a steady groundswell of interest in being a part of the “Tattenhamds Community”. The Residents’ Association has grown in popularity and support and has made a significant contribution to all aspects of local concerns, eg , replacing trees in the locality and trying to deal with the shocking number of potholes. \it also successfully helped in rebuilding the local leisure centre…a major asset to the area. The local library, when under threat of closure, was saved by the united efforts of our local councillors and residents, led by Pauline Sowry and is now a thriving Community Library with more than 70 volunteers working shifts to keep this facility open. Two of the local businesses at Tattenham Corner, Belmont Garage MG and Eastons Estate Agents support our two local primary schools, offering opportunities that would not be possible them. Under this new scheme the two schools would not both be eligible for this aid as they would be split between two different wards. Indeed , Shawley Way would be outside the ward which contains both the church and the local shops with which it has such strong links. Over the past 6 years there has been a significant desire to foster the spirit of community, and many events are beginning. Already we have a Summer Market Fair on the Village Green and for 3 years we have also hosted our Christmas celebration complete with tree, lights and events for the whole community during December. As I write this I am listening to a news report on the radio talking about the huge increase of knife crime within London. Surely one key way to combat this is to strengthen our local care and identity rather than dilute it? Yours sincerely Lesley and Alan Sedgwick
Dear Sir, I write to express my concern and anger over the proposed ward changes for Tattenhams. The lack of clear and direct communication has meant that many of the local community had no knowledge of the intentions of the Boundary Commission until approximately 10 days ago. I first learned of this proposal at Tattenhams Residents’ Association A.G.M on March 28th, at the very end of the meeting, introduced under A.O.B. There was no mention of this in the Spring 2018 Newsletter, which I, as Road Steward , had delivered earlier in the month. I understand the which the Boundary Commission use to assess ward boundaries. However ,the specific situation of each community should be taken into account. I have lived in Great Tattenhams since 1987. When I first moved here there was very little community spirit apparent. My daughter attended Brownies and Guides at St Mark’s Church and the family became members of the church. There was little else on offer! However, over the years there has been a steady groundswell of interest in being a part of the “Tattenhamds Community”. The Residents’ Association has grown in popularity and support and has made a significant contribution to all aspects of local concerns, eg , replacing trees in the locality and trying to deal with the shocking number of potholes. \it also successfully helped in rebuilding the local leisure centre…a major asset to the area. The local library, when under threat of closure, was saved by the united efforts of our local councillors and residents, led by Pauline Sowry and is now a thriving Community Library with more than 70 volunteers working shifts to keep this facility open. Two of the local businesses at Tattenham Corner, Belmont Garage MG and Eastons Estate Agents support our two local primary schools, offering opportunities that would not be possible them. Under this new scheme the two schools would not both be eligible for this aid as they would be split between two different wards. Indeed , Shawley Way would be outside the ward which contains both the church and the local shops with which it has such strong links. Over the past 6 years there has been a significant desire to foster the spirit of community, and many events are beginning. Already we have a Summer Market Fair on the Village Green and for 3 years we have also hosted our Christmas celebration complete with tree, lights and events for the whole community during December. As I write this I am listening to a news report on the radio talking about the huge increase of knife crime within London. Surely one key way to combat this is to strengthen our local care and identity rather than dilute it? Yours sincerely Lesley and Alan Sedgwick
Owen, David
From: Jayne Shannon Sent: 31 March 2018 11:57 To: reviews Subject: Reigate and Banstead Review
Dear Boundary Commission,
We would like to object to the proposal to cut off the north of the ward of Tattenhams and move it into Nork ward. It would effectively draw a division right through the centre of the community of Tattenham Corner. It seems to us that we need to strengthen our UK communities, not destroy them. We do understand the need for reorganisation and think that Tattenhams joining with Preston would be a better option because it would not divide the existing communities. Another option would be to combine Nork, Tattenhams and Preston and have six councillors.
Best regards, Ian, Jayne and Ruth Shannon
1
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Patricia Sherren
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I am apposed to Burgh Heath being included in the Ward for Banstead. As a village we sit very happily with our neighbours in Kingswood. There is no need to change the status quo. The polling station for residents of Burgh Heath is The War Memorial Hall which is in the centre of the village, the convenience of this can not be over stated for the older members of the community. There is a great feeling of community which is celebrated in the Burgh Heath War Memorial Hall and St. Mary's Church. By changing the boundaries you will kill this community spirit and I thought that your remit was to nurture that spirit.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded 3/12/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Thomas Sibley E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Redhill East is very underrepresented compared to other wards. For example, using the ratio of projected electorate for South Park & Woodhatch - there would be 1 councilor for every 1958 electorate. Using this ratio, Redhill East should have 5 councilors.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/12324 1/1 Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Evelyn Smith
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I have lived in Downs Wood (Tattenhams) for 40 years. My children went to school in Tattenhams (Merland Rise & De Burgh as they then were). I use the Tattenham Corner shops regularly including the Co-op, pharmacy, vet and post office. I am a volunteer in the Tattenhams Community Library where with my fellow volunteers we have built up a community centre where one did not previously exist. I am involved with the activities which benefit locals of all ages now held on a regular basis at Tattenhams Community Library. Both my doctor and dentist are within Tattenhams. Therefore I am in tune with what happens in Tattenhams and I have no interest or contact with Nork. I do not want to be separated from what I consider to be my neighbourhood by an arbitrary line drawn on a map. I fear there may be a political motive behind the proposal which may disfranchise many of us. I am also dismayed that this proposal was not circulated at an earlier date as there has been very little time for people to react. I understand that councillors came up with a boundary suggestion that was agreed but this seems to have been subsequently ignored. I urge you to rethink the proposal so that I and my friends and neighbours may remain within the Tattenhams Ward. Evelyn Smith.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Owen, David
From: Nigel Stanley Sent: 08 April 2018 17:41 To: reviews Subject: Reigate and Banstead Review
Dear Sirs,
Re: Reigate & Banstead Borough Review
I recently attended the Annual General Meeting of the Tattenhams Residents Association and was concerned to hear about the plans for the boundary review in Tattenhams.
I can see from a numbers perspective it makes sense to merge Tattenhams and Preston. However, I am concerned that this will have an adverse impact on the community in Tattenhams and would prefer that the boundaries of Tattenhams stayed as they are.
The boundaries in Tattenhams have remained mainly unchanged for many years and I think this has helped to build a strong sense of community in Tattenhams.
I have heard that there is a proposal to move the residential part of Tattenham Crescent into Nork and leave the shops in Tattenhams. This doesn’t make any sense as the shops form the centre of Tattenham village. We use the Tattenham corner shops, libraries and restaurants frequently and often travel into London from Tattenham Corner station. The residents’ association and the Tattenham Corner Community charity work together closely and organise Christmas activities and summer fetes on the green around the shopping area.
The volunteers who work for the library, the residents association and the Tattenhams charity live in the surrounding roads.
I feel strongly that the council’s proposals would damage the integrity of the Tattenhams community and would prefer the boundaries to stay as they are.
Yours faithfully,
Nigel Stanley
1 Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Richard Stanley
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I belong and shop in Crawley.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Hamish Stewart
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Far fewer Wards, 45 is too many, reduce number of Councillors. Amalgamate Nork/Banstead Village, Reigate Hill/Reigate Central
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Ian Stewart
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Surely it is a good thing to retain local identity and commitment to it. Erasing Tattenhams is tantamount to destroying a link to an historic part of the country never mind Surrey. Nork simply does not have the same cache.We desperately want to remain known as Tattenhams Ward and we want to stress that. I have been delighted with the representation I have received from the Tattenhams Residents Association as a non- political and locally oriietated organisation..What is the motivation behind this proposed change I wonder. The interests of the residents? I doubt it.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Tattenhams Ward Boundary Review
Having read the Council’s Proposal regarding the roads north of Great Tattenhams, I wish to notify the Council of my objection to this proposal for the following reasons:
One reason why I object to this proposal is that it will split up the community around Tattenham Corner from access to services provided there. This will have an effect on many of the residents in this area in a variety of ways.
Tattenham Corner village centre is based around a large shopping area with over 25 shops and restaurants together with a variety of other valuable services. Several establishments attracted my attention when I saw the proposed split.
I have particular concern for the older people in the area for the following reasons:
a) The volunteer-run community library provides being, not only a place to regularly borrow a supply of reading material, but several other services. The activities that take place there provide opportunities for social interaction that give some people a valuable environment that prevents them becoming socially isolated. b) Being voluntarily-run the older people can offer their services and as such gain a feeling of self-confidence and self-worth giving them opportunities to avoid feeling “useless” and developing depression. c) This environment also provides stimulation that these people would not find in many other places where they can access it as and when they wish to. This gives them the opportunity to keep organising their own lives, again feeling “useful”. d) The medical centres currently in the Tattenham Corner area could become places that provide services for other residences from another part of the Nork area and the current residents may then have to register with another medical centre. As a resident who lives in the area covered by this proposal I could be affected by the change in areas and am aware of the resulting problems. e) The older people affected by a change in area resulting from this proposal could have difficulty adapting to the various differences in health care provision at other medical centres. They probably chose the centre they are registered with due to the ease with which they could reach it, and now have form a special relationship with the staff working there, hence they can feel at ease in obtaining services when required. f) This change could also have an effect on the community services provided to these older people by health services where they may receive home visits for a variety of health reasons. If they have received these services for a long period of time then, again, it can be very stressful to try and adapt. g) Transport is an important commodity for all of us, but wherever we need to go, the journey may not seem so far if we know the route. If these older people need to determine routes to other medical services they may miss appointments or may not keep appointments due to having difficulty using public transport, or if having mobility problems, being unable to make their own way there.
As a registered mental health nurse who worked in the community for years and specialised in the mental health of older people I have experienced the stress older people go through when they have to make changes to their lifestyle.
I have also seen the difference made to the mental health of these people when they are introduced to environments providing such services as those in the Tattenham Corner village area.
In another area I worked in I tried to help those with various types of dementia to enjoy participation by introducing them to an establishment similar to the library at Tattenham Corner with some very interesting results. My attention did not stop with the people with a diagnosis of dementia, but stretched to their carers who often had no opportunity to enjoy some time to their own interests.
I feel that the people who have made this proposal are not aware of the stress and handicap that it may cause the older people who do not or cannot drive and are therefore restricted as to where and when they can travel. It is difficult when one has to make a change even when it is chosen, but if it is “forced” on a person it is even more difficult to adapt to. It is not just a few yards up the road, but a change on the person’s whole lifestyle.
In addition, it would appear that a lot of these people are not aware of this proposal as they have no technical equipment and have not received any information from the local council. As such, the very people most affected by this proposal are the people that the council has omitted to inform.
These are some of the reasons for my objection to the Tattenhams Ward Boundary reallocation as outlined by the Local Council in their proposal.
Please include my name in with those objecting to the proposal.
Mrs. Linda Sutch,
3/9/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Colin Sutherland E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The whole of Park Road Basnstead should be in the Banstead Village Ward
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/12302 1/1
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
5 April 2018
BOUNDARY CHANGES AS THEY AFFECT BURGH HEATH, IN REIGATE AND BANSTEAD
A personal statement from Prof J G Swanson
Dear Sir/Madam
I have lived at the same address for 46 years and have been involved in local affairs throughout. I was originally a member and then secretary of the Burgh Heath Resident’s Association. Most recently I have been chair of the Burgh Heath Development Group. This group has prepared an as yet unadopted Supplementary Planning Document for the community of Burgh Heath as well as its submissions to the Core Strategy and Development Management Policy(DMP) consultations, both under the auspices of the residents’ association. It is with this body of experience that I make the following personal statement about new ward boundaries in the vicinity of Burgh Heath which is currently an electoral sub-division, KBH1, of the Kingswood and Burgh Heath ward.
The present ward is overly elongated which means that people are just about as geographically remote as they could be. We in Burgh Heath are geographically remote from Lower Kingswood and Mogador and have little idea of what concerns them. Although closer, the main body of Kingswood seems as remote to me, there is little social interaction though contacts are made at a personal level. We do however have a common interest in the future of the Green Belt land that separates us. Relations between our three residents’ associations are good and maintained mainly through the Banstead Federation of Residents’ Associations.
Much has been made of the role of the A217 main road in maintaining unity and cohesion between the three communities that comprise the current ward but I believe that this argument cannot be sustained by current behaviour.
In my opinion the factors that have been mentioned cause difficulties for the three representing councilors who, in Burgh Heath at least, seem rather remote, one whom was described as our “our invisible councilor”. All have to marry the differing needs of the three communities, none lives in Burgh Heath.
This leads me to believe that being part of a Kingswood centred ward is far from optimum for us.
An inherent problem is that electorally we are quite small(645 in 2023) and would have to be attached to a much larger body of people.
The borough’s plan certainly achieves what the LGBC seeks in terms of numbers, this is quite an achievement. Though not stated, I surmise that it recognizes that we at Burgh Heath have a greater affinity with Banstead than Kingswood, partly because it is our town centre. In fact the latest and near to final version of its DMP designates Banstead as the only Town Centre north of the M25. We rely on it and look towards it for many of our cultural activities and services. We would share concerns with Banstead, just as we would continue to do with Kingswood, about the Green Belt land that separates us.
Including Burgh Heath in a Banstead and Burgh Heath ward achieves a ward with a shape that optimizes internal proximity and has a clear centre. Attention must be given to communication using public transport but I think being in the same ward as Banstead would reinforce the arguments that have already been made for better public transport between here and there. For some of us in Burgh Heath a road journey to Banstead is about 4 miles owing to restricted turns onto the A217. There is a good network of footpaths but they are not of much use for shopping or if you need to go there quickly.
From an electoral and political point of view we would remain the tail of a dog and we would have a mutual responsibility to ensure that we are not seen as an awkward appendage.
The Banstead option is I believe one that would suit us best.
Yours faithfully
Prof JG Swanson Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Sheila Swanson
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name: Burgh Heath Resident's Association
Comment text:
I have lived in Burgh Heath for 46years, currently we are joined with Kingswood and Lower Kingswood to form the Kingswood with Burgh Heath ward. I can see no reason to change and having spoken to residents of Banstead I feel that we would be seen as an appendage to an already established ward and my preference would be to remain within the existing configuration.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: David Talbot
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Feature Annotations
1: To bring Banstead Village back together
Contains Ordnance Survey data © Crown copyright and database rights 2013. Map Features:
Annotation 1: To bring Banstead Village back together
Comment text:
I would like to understand the reasons behind the reduction in Councillors from 51 to 45 – a 10% cut. Is this to save money or for some other reason..? Perhaps this could be explained in the subsequent proposal..?
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Jane Trippitt
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The current proposal for splitting Tattenhams and Nork will divide our village community. There is a more natural split using Reigate Road 217 side which is already considered by locals to be Nork as residents there vote at the Beacon School. Splitting the Tattenhams community will be a very wrong move and cause emotional upset for our area. KT18 addresses should stay as Tattenhams and KT17. Those houses in KT20 and SUtton postcode should be Nork. This works with regard to the locality of shops, schools and churches. Historically Tattenhams has been a known area and its character and community should and must continue.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Roy trowsdale
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I object to the proposal to alter the ward boundary of Tattenhams Ward the changes will split the local community. The existing Tattenhams Ward is comprised of an historic local residential area served by its own village centre at Tattenham Corner with its own Southern rail station, it has its own local school, church and residents association. It is extremely important for the efficient working of local government that independent councillors are represented on the elected council, they have a non party agenda that is crucial to the effective working of local government.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Introduction
This submission is a proposal for the ward boundary review of Reigate and Banstead Borough Council relevant to the southern portion of the borough. Given the desire of the council to pursue a consistent pattern of 3‐member wards (despite it being possible to go against this under particular circumstances, as shown by recent reviews in Peterborough and Wyre Forest), this proposal outlines a pattern of 3 wards with 3 members each across the parished parts of the borough.
Since these proposals have been drawn up using electorate data in each polling district, it is not possible to provide precise electorate figures for these proposed wards. Since the LGBCE will be in possession of more detailed figures, I have outlined areas that could possibly be placed in more than one of my proposed wards such that they might allocate these areas in a way that will deliver greater levels of electoral equality.
Before looking into the flexible areas, I shall set out the base proposals for the borough wards. When doing this the following are considered:
Community centres (both past and present) Road transport links (both past and present) Public transport links Other logical dividing lines
Before outlining the proposals, I do wish to iterate that a better solution for addressing community identity would be to have Salfords and Sidlow as a separate ward with the area of Horley I propose joining up with Salfords and Sidlow being its own 2‐member ward. Since deviation from 3‐member does not appear to have popular support I acknowledge that this is unlikely to be accepted, nonetheless I do wish to reiterate that such a proposal is both practicable and a much better representation of community identity.
Logic
Electorally, the town of Horley is made up of 7 polling districts whilst Salfords and Sidlow Council is made up of 3 polling districts. The quantitative and qualitative make up of these districts may be described as follows:
POLLING DISTRICT 2023 POPULATION COMMUNITIES HOC1 1965 Yattendon Park, Roundabout HOC2 4299 Town Centre, Riverside Gardens HOC3 1160 West of Balcombe Road HOE1 4577 Langshott, The Acres HOE2 1424 East of Balcombe Road HOW1 5081 Court Lodge, West Meath Green HOW2 2964 East Meath Green, The Rec SAS1 1948 Salfords SAS2 463 Sidlow EWB4 (SAS3) 453 North Salfords
Knowing these to be the polling districts and communities, it is important to consider how these areas are linked in terms of community centres, transport links, and other dividing lines.
In the borough council’s submission on council size,1 a number of local community centres were outlined. These ‘local shopping centres’ in the Horley context were listed as:
Brighton Road Meath Green Lane Langshott/Lake Lane Town Centre
The area surrounding the Brighton Road shops is complex in the surrounding roads all tend to lead in to multiple areas (the norm here is long straight avenues that link otherwise disconnected areas). The Brighton Road shops are useful for individuals on both sides of the A23: whilst the current warding pattern uses the A23 to separate wards future patterns could use this area either as a dividing line or as unifying community centre.
The Meath Green Lane centre is due to become more significant as the Westvale Park housing development is completed along with a neighbourhood centre. Said neighbourhood centre will sit at the centre of the extended Meath Green community upon the completion of Westvale Park.2 Meath Green (defined as the area of Horley that is west of the A23 and north of Horley Row) is already an internally consistent community and the new neighbourhood centre is likely to reorient the community so as to turn Horley Row into a more significant community dividing line. Although there are shops used by individuals on both sides of Horley Row on the road itself, this is equally true of the Brighton Road area where the ward boundary currently exists.
The Langshott community is an internally consistent one, with the two communities in HOE1 polling district being closely linked to one another. Since shops have struggled to open on either Langshott or the Acres, both communities still rely on the Town Centre for many services: something that is also true of the Balcombe Road community immediately to the south of Langshott. Both of the HOE polling districts and HOC3 witness greater reliance on the shopping area east of the Town Centre near the places designated as ‘employment areas’ in the council size submission of the borough council. The town centre itself is of key importance to many Horley communities, though some communities are better connected to places that are not the town centre than others and this has an effect on where the boundaries should be drawn.
Road transport links are necessarily a key determinant of where to draw the ward boundaries, and they become especially important when considering how to link the Salfords and Sidlow communities to Horley. The three main North‐South roads through the Salfords and Sidlow parish are the A217, the A23 and Meath Green Lane/Lonesome Lane. The A217 runs past the west of Horley, and whilst historically it has been necessary to leave Horley in order to reach the road the Westvale Park development is now directly linked to the A217. Meath Green Lane/Lonesome Lane runs straight into the middle of Meath Green but bypasses the populated part of Salfords (though this can be reached by turning into Lodge Lane). The A23 runs into Horley, going west of the town centre and forming an artery that links Horley to the centre of Salfords. Though it has not yet been completed, Phase B of the North West Sector housing development will see an additional road
1 http://s3‐eu‐west‐ 2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/Reviews/South%20East/Surrey/Reigate%20and%20Banstead/Council%20Size/Reigat eBansteadBoroughCouncil_CouncilSize.pdf 2 https://horleyonline.co.uk/phasing‐plan/ linking the north of Meath Green more directly with the A23 built. Since the Meath Green area of Horley is the best connected to the disparate Salfords and Sidlow areas I hence propose that Salfords & Sidlow, should it be amalgamated into a 3‐member ward, be amalgamated into a ward containing Meath Green, with Meath Green being defined as all areas in Horley north of Horley Row and west of the A23. Most of this area is currently situated in HOW1 and HOW2 polling districts, with a small part of HOC1 also being added. The extent of this area in Horley is shaded in red on Figure 2.
When determining the appropriate allocation of the rest of Horley’s communities to wards, it is important to consider the transport links in the town. The two most frequently running bus services are the 20 and the 100. The 20 links the Langshott community with the centre of town before continuing to Crawley. The 100 is a socially valuable bus that travels from Redhill along Horley Row, into the Court Lodge estate, onto the town centre and Massetts Road before continuing through to Crawley via the A23. The Court Lodge estate sits half way between the Town Centre and Meath Green, but the public transport links into the town centre are superior to those heading in the other direction. When community reorientation towards the new Westvale Neighbourhood Centre occurs amongst the Meath Green community, the town centre and the Brighton Road shops will remain the most accessible centres (in no small part due to the frequent bus services). I hence propose that the area of the HOW1 polling district located south of Horley Row form a ward with the current HOC2 polling district (except for the area of HOC2 located to the east of the railway line). Furthermore, I propose that both sides of Vicarage Lane should be included in this ward since the Recreation Ground acts more like a buffer between areas than the road does: if the ward boundary does end up being set in this area the Rec would be a more appropriate boundary.
To determine the final dividing line, it is important to consider the presence of clear dividing lines between communities. The railway line forms a visible boundary between the eastern components of the town and the rest of the town. Given that this population also share facilities in the middle of this area (e.g. shops to the east of the town centre and the primary school) it makes sense to join all the areas east of the railway line into the same ward. My third ward proposal hence combines the current Horley East ward, the HOC3 polling district and the handful of houses in the HOC2 polling district located to the east of the railway line.
Boundaries
In this next section I include 3 figures, based upon the logic already outlined, to illustrate my proposals for Horley’s wards in the future. Figure 1 highlights the three polling districts of the Salfords and Sidlow parish. Figure 2 shows the base proposals for each of the three wards in Horley, whilst Figure 3 shows areas of Horley that could easily fit into many of the base wards, and which I invite the commission to distribute between the wards in such a way so as to facilitate higher levels of electoral equality.
Figure 1: Polling Districts of Salfords
Figure 2: Base Proposals for Horley
Figure 3: Flexible Areas of Horley
The first ward consists of the area of Figure 2 highlighted in red and the areas of Salfords and Sidlow. The areas in these communities are connected to each other by the A217, Meath Green Lane, the A23 and will be further connected in future by a road between Westvale Park and the A23, similar to that already connecting Westvale Park to the A217. Ideally all 3 wards of Salfords and Sidlow Parish council should be included in this ward so that there is a clear link between the whole of the parish council and the borough councillors. This being said, it is possible that electoral equality might necessitate keeping EWB4 polling district in with Earlswood and Whitebushes ward and/or including Sidlow (SAS2) with South Park and Woodhatch. This solution would be far from ideal but may be desirable under some circumstances. Whatever happens, the warding arrangements for this parish should be simple enough allow the parish council to be organised into no more than 3 parish wards.
The second ward consists of the area of Figure 2 highlighted in purple. This ward includes the Court Lodge area, the Town Centre and the Riverside Gardens area. Every area in this ward is characterised by its location to the west of the railway line and its ease of access to the Town Centre relative to other centres. The third ward consists of the whole of the Horley Town Council area located to the east of the railway line. The communities east of the railways line all link in to the town centre for service purposes but are all distinct from the town centre itself. The main population centres in the seats of the Langshott area, the Acres, and the areas surrounding the southern portion of the Balcombe Road.
Below is a table of suggestions for ward names for these three wards:
Scheme Ward 1 Ward 2 Ward 3 Historic Horley West, Salfords Horley Central Horley East (and Sidlow) Compass Horley North West, Horley South West Horley East Salfords (and Sidlow) Localities Meath Green, Salfords Court Lodge and Langshott (and (and Sidlow) Victoria Haroldslea) Churches Horley St Wilfrid, Horley St Horley St Francis Salfords (and Sidlow) Bartholomew
The historic and compass names have a similar thought process informing them, and if this approach is desired the best approach will be to go with whichever naming pattern ‘looks’ right when compared to the proposals are they appear on paper. The localities naming scheme is designed to reflect the towns communities whilst acknowledging that the continued Horley Town identity can persist without the wards continuing the bear the Horley name. Meath Green reflects the areas of Horley that are west of the A23 and north of Horley Row; the same areas that I have included in the first ward. Court Lodge reflects the community branching off Court Lodge Road, with Victoria reflecting both the Town Centre and the Riverside Gardens estate. Langshott reflects the area in the north of Ward 3 (both Langshott itself and the Acres) well, though the south of this ward may not identify with the Langshott area. I have suggested appending ‘Haroldslea’ to the ward name to reflect the south of the ward, though other possibilities include ‘Thunderfield’ (after the castle), ‘Oakwood’ (after the school), ‘Victoria East’ (reflecting the south west of this ward in particular) and ‘Balcombe Road’ (reflecting the road that acts as an artery for the ward). The churches proposal reflects the names of the Church of England churches located in each of the three wards, with St Wilfrid’s on the north side of Horley Row, St Bart’s at the end of Church Road and St Francis’ on the Balcombe Road.
Taking Figures 1 and 2 to reflect the core of the wards, some parts of Horley have been deliberately unallocated, with Figure 3 splitting this area up into sections that can be placed in whichever ward requires ‘the numbers’. Each area and the wards said areas could be sorted into in the name of electoral equality are outlined below.
Area 1 contains the portion of the Balcombe Road located west of the railway line and the roads sandwiched between the Chequers Roundabout, the A23 and the railway line. Since all of these areas feed into the portion of the A23 that leads on to Salfords, this area could be included in Ward 1 if necessary. On the other hand, the area has two clear road links (Balcombe Road and Ladbroke Road) that link this area to the area to the parts of the town east of the railway line. Area 1 would hence also be suitable for inclusion in Ward 3. The presence of the 100 Bus route into the town centre and Court Lodge would also make this area an appropriate place to include in Ward 2. Of all the wards, Ward 3 has the fewest other suitable options for areas that can be added to it, hence this area will most likely be included in Ward 3. Areas 2 and 3 make up the other two areas of the current HOC1 polling district (except for Benhams Drive, which should be included in Ward 1). Area 2 contains Oakwood Road and Yattendon Road whilst Area 3 contains Lumley Road and Albert Road (except the apartment blocks near the bottom which are contained in a separate polling district and county council division). These roads act as avenues between different areas of the town, with the railway line and town centre on one side and Brighton Road on the other side. Both of these areas could go in with Ward 3 if necessary, with both areas linking easily to the pedestrian crossings over the railway line in the middle of town and Area 2 also being closely located to the Balcombe Road. These areas could also be included in Ward 1 if and only if Areas 4 and 5 are included in Ward 1 (since at this point the Brighton Road shops, themselves on the A23, would all be included in the same ward). Most appropriate, however, would be to include these areas in Ward 2 since the Brighton Road shops are easily accessible from both the Town Centre and Court Lodge on top of the roads themselves all easily leading into the town centre. From my best guess, I imagine that Area 2 could be included in either Ward 2 or Ward 3, depending on whether Ward 3 needs any more voters to achieve sufficient electoral equality. Area 3 will almost certainly be included in Ward 2, both due to it being a better fit with this ward and for reasons of electoral equality; nonetheless it could be included in another ward if necessary.
Areas 4 and 5 are located within a triangle formed of the Recreation Ground, Horley Row and Brighton Road. Area 4 contains Chequers Drive whilst Area 5 contains a series of avenues between the two main roads and a cul‐de‐sac leading into the Recreation Ground. The roads in the two areas are qualitatively different with Chequers Drive exclusively feeding into Horley Row whilst the neighbouring avenues lead into multiple roads. It would not reflect Horley’s communities well to include these areas in Ward 3, though they could be included in either Ward 1 or Ward 2. Although these areas do face the issue of being remote from the future neighbourhood centre, the roads do all link easily into other roads that will link into this community in a way that is less true of the two ends of Court Lodge Road. On the other hand, the links to Ward 2 include proximity to the Brighton Road shops and the ease of access to the Town Centre itself. Area 5 will most likely be included in Ward 2, with Area 4 being included in whichever of Ward 1 and Ward 2 requires the additional electors (Area 4 being closer to the Chequers Roundabout). Again though, whichever allocation of these areas helps electoral equality the most should be preferred.
Given this distribution, I note that the polling districts resulting from my proposal should be reasonable and practical. Whilst noting that it is not the LGBCE’s role to redraw polling districts, it is a relevant consideration at the borough level for the practicality of running elections (and hence the feasibility of a pattern of wards). HOC3 and HOE2 could be merged into one polling district (they already use the same polling station); HOW1 and HOW2 could remain in their current form minus the areas transferred into other districts (or separate districts could be created for older Meath Green and newer Westvale Park, depending on preferences). In Ward 2, the roads straddling Brighton Road (all in Horley West, Salfords and Sidlow county division) could be merged into one polling district with Court Lodge forming its own district and HOC2 remaining in its current form. The only ‘small’ polling district would potentially be that containing the new areas of the Horley East ward located to the west of the railway line, though even if this is only comprised of Area 1 it should still be large enough to warrant 1 town councillor (the lower practical limit for a polling district in the town of Horley). My proposal at all points honours the current polling districts of Salfords and Sidlow parish; attempts to split these districts risks creating a situation where a polling district will either be too small to warrant its own parish councillor or coterminosity between parish wards and borough wards will be violated: neither situation would be desirable.
Summary
In this submission I have proposed a pattern of wards for the southern portion of the Reigate and Banstead borough. I have proposed 3 ‘base’ wards linking up key areas whilst enabling flexibility between these base wards for the areas in between to allow the commission to meet their own targets regarding electoral equality (I note that they will have access to specific information that I do not).
In Ward 1 I propose that the Meath Green area of Horley is linked with the whole parish of Salfords and Sidlow. I note that, in the name of electoral equality, the polling district containing the north of Salfords Village (and Salfords Primary School) will likely remain attached to Earlswood and Whitebushes and/or the SAS2 polling district may be added to South Park and Woodhatch (whilst noting my objection to any proposals which creates unnecessary extra small polling districts in the parish: this will complicate the future allocation of parish councillors). I further note that this will most likely be the whole of the ward, but that if this proposal is too small then other areas nearer the centre of Horley could be added.
In Ward 2 I propose a ward that centres of the Town Centre itself whilst also including other neighbourhoods that naturally feed in to the Town Centre (as opposed to the future Westvale Park neighbourhood centre). These areas include the Riverside Gardens neighbourhood and the Court Lodge neighbourhood. Subject to electoral equality costraints, I also note that the roads leading into the Brighton Road shopping parade are also likely to be included in this ward, and that this area also naturally feeds into the town centre.
In Ward 3 I propose that all areas in Horley located to the east of the railway line be joined together in one ward, noting that all these areas link into the town but also that they share their own community centres (i.e. the retail centre near the gasworks). I further note that this ward will likely include areas of Horley located to the west of the railway line that link well into areas east of the railway line (mostly likely Area 1 and possibly also Area 2 highlighted on Figure 3: Area 3 could be included but is unlikely to be).
To justify this pattern of wards I have used information on transport links, community centres and natural barriers amongst other pieces of contextual community information. Whilst my proposal does represent a departure from previous boundaries, it does so because the town of Horley at present and in the future is different to the Horley of the past. I note that my proposal would enable the creation of simple polling districts, meaning that future parish wards (when they are reviewed) can also reflect communities in addition to borough wards that reflect local communities.
One final note on my proposals: I have proposed Ward 1 in the way that I have because of the council’s desire to pursue a uniform pattern of 3‐member wards. I note that pursuing such a pattern is not necessary (highlighted by recent reviews in Wyre Forest and Peterborough) and that, in an ideal situation, the separated communities of Salfords and Sidlow would remain a one‐member ward with the Horley component of my proposed Ward 1 becoming a two‐member ward (likely named Meath Green). I have proposed Ward 1 in the way that I have since it is what the council have requested; were there not as great a determination to self‐impose this restriction I would be proposing that Meath Green and Salfords and Sidlow become separate wards.
Whilst I have only developed detailed proposals for the southern portion of the borough, I have included as an appendix a commentary of the initial Reigate and Banstead proposals as found in the online agenda of the 12/04/2018 Full Council Meeting. Appendix: Commentary on the Working Group’s Proposals
As a part of the upcoming review of borough council boundaries, a Reigate and Banstead Council working group have developed a set of initial proposals. Some of these proposals are welcome; others would present difficulties if implemented. In this appendix I provide a critique of their proposals, discussing both the boundaries themselves and the methodology used to acquire those boundaries.
To start with methodology and premises, the first point to consider is the apparent balance between the two conflicting goals of electoral equality and community identity. These proposals clearly favour the former at the expense of the latter: this is very much to be expected from a first draft and it will be easier to work with a first draft starting with too much of a focus on electoral equality rather than too much of a focus on community identity. Nonetheless this does result in a handful of issues, to be discussed later.
There is a second methodological point in the apparent lack of consideration for current polling districts. Polling districts can easily be changed and hence it is easy to see why these will not be adhered to rigidly (I have not adhered to them myself). Nonetheless, necessary polling district changes should pay attention to coterminosity with county division boundaries. Where proposals necessitate the creation of new polling districts, it should be ensured that these polling districts are likely to be practical when drawn up. This is not always the case. For reference I have included the supplied image of current polling districts in the borough on the next page, and the map of the Working Group proposals on the page after.
In terms of the proposals themselves I start at the bottom of the borough and work my way up. As alluded to in the proposal itself I would prefer for Salfords and Sidlow to remain a single member ward with one of the Horley wards remaining a two‐member ward (though I would switch this from being the eastern ward to the western ward). On top of the fact that Salfords and Sidlow are separate communities from Horley, there is the issue of coterminosity with the parliamentary constituencies and the future problems this might cause. Reigate and East Surrey constituencies are currently both just within the acceptable range of a constituency size (Reigate on the small side, East Surrey on the large side). Were a review to occur in future where Horley and Salfords had to be joined together in one seat, it is difficult to see how constituencies fulfilling the statutory criteria could be created. While solutions to this problem might be possible (more on this later), it would be easier if this potential issues was prevented in the first place.
Coming to the proposed pattern itself, the proposal is to include the village of Salfords with Horley East and the western rural outskirts with Horley West. On the eastern side, I struggle to see how the East of Horley is linked to the village of Salfords other than through the roads which are better linked to the west of Horley (currently but even more so in future). The case made is that both Horley East and Salfords contain rural areas and should hence be joined together: if this is an argument to keep areas together it surely makes more sense to keep the entire rural buffer zone in the same ward rather than split it between wards.
On the western side the case they have made for including the western rural areas with Horley West is similar to my own case. This being said, the way in which they have split the rural western area is baffling: if the Salfords stream is a natural barrier in the east of the rural buffer zone it is even more so in the rural western area. Even if this were not the case, the resulting polling districts (and presumably parish wards) would be both small and lacking in any coherent link of their own (current
SAS1 contains Salfords and the Lonesome Lane areas whilst SAS2 contains rural settlements linking in to the A217: this clear and logical divide makes more sense than the necessary alternative will). With this in mind, I have to express my concern at the proposed splitting of the SAS2 polling district between South Park and Woodhatch and Horley West. For reasons of natural community links and coterminosity (with county divisions) SAS2 should be wholly included with Salfords (and Horley): if electoral equality requires that SAS2 be moved in with South Park and Woodhatch it should be the whole of SAS2 being moved and none of SAS1.
The continued inclusion of Benhams Drive with Horley Central is also confusing. The 1998‐99 review noted that Benhams Drive formed a more natural community with Horley West than Horley Central, and that it was only to be included in Central on the grounds on electoral equality.3 Unless it is again necessary to include Benhams Drive with Horley Central for reasons of electoral equality, it would make sense for Benhams Drive to be included with the rest of Meath Green. Whilst I commend the fact that Horley Row is used as a boundary in some places, I find it confusing that Hevers Avenue is being used as a boundary: nothing about this road is characteristic of a community dividing line. If the commission choose to ignore my proposal, I would at the very least urge that all of Hevers Avenue is included in the same ward.
Moving further up the borough, I commend the proposal to move all of Woodhatch into the same ward. The one change that would be useful, however, is to make the area of the current Meadvale and St John’s ward to be moved over into the new South Park and Woodhatch ward coterminous with the current MSJ3 polling district. The boundary between MSJ3 and MSJ2 is a county division boundary: it would be necessary to create a very small polling district to accommodate the movement of Clarence Walk and Yeats Close into South Park and Woodhatch. Making the area being moved coterminous with MSJ3 would enable elections to be simpler: local government functions would be more effective.
The proposals for the border between Earlswood and Whitebushes and St Mary’s and St John’s raise a similar potential conundrum. The proposals for this area use logical barriers to separate communities, but in doing so another small polling district will need to be created for the area being transferred from Redhill East to St Mary’s and St John’s. The area in question is slightly bigger on this occasion and the good logic of the proposed boundaries means that this small polling district might even be worthwhile. Whether it is deemed unnecessarily inconvenient or not, the necessary adjustments that will have to be made to this area are worth mentioning. There are further questions surrounding the choice to call the Brook Road area ‘Earlswood’, though calling this ward Earlswood and Whitebushes even with the non‐Earlswood additions is better than giving said ward an extra‐long name.
The proposals for Redhill East, Redhill West and Wray Common, and Reigate are all reasonable proposals: the majority of polling district deviations can be solved without introducing exceptionally small polling districts. Where this issue does arise, it is due to the choice to use the M25 as a natural barrier when drawing up the proposals. Whilst logical, the current county division boundary uses the parallel Gatton Bottom rather than the M25 itself. Any proposal should hence either also use Gatton Bottom as a boundary or (as I would prefer) move the boundary up to include the areas of the current MER1 polling district that are due to be included in the new Chipstead, Kingswood and Woodmansterne ward in one of the central wards instead (Reigate of Redhill West). One possible arrangement to consider (though not one I would necessarily endorse) would be the inclusion of
3 http://s3‐eu‐west‐2.amazonaws.com/lgbce/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/8403/surrey‐reigate‐ banstead_6505‐6109__e__.pdf Wray Common in the new Reigate ward, the addition of the areas north of Raglan Road/Underhill Park Road to the Redhill West ward alongside the rural west of MER1 polling district and the resultant creation of a ‘Gatton and Redhill West’ ward.
Merstham, Netherne and Hooley ward as an area is another one that would benefit from flexibility on the front of councillors‐per‐ward. The village of Merstham feeds into Redhill to its south whilst Hooley and Netherne feed into settlements to their north (Coulsdon and Banstead). Given that these areas both feed into different towns whilst also being remote from one another, there is a serious case to be made for making Merstham a two‐member ward and Hooley and Netherne a single‐ member ward. Further to this, there is a case for keeping these areas separate on the grounds of future coterminosity. Suppose a future constituency review throws up the Horley and Salfords problem and a solution is necessary. One potentially solution will be to join the Banstead part of the borough with Caterham and other parts of Tandridge district. At present it would be possible to create a contiguous constituency meeting these conditions. However, were this three‐member ward to be created, no such solution would be possible without separating Merstham from Redhill, something that would not respect local community ties. Arguably the creation of two smaller wards in this area rather than one larger ward would hence be the more futureproof solution.
Putting the barriers between the villages to one side, there is also the issue of a proposed split of Hooley down the middle for this ward: Over a third of Hooley would be excluded from Hooley’s ward. Whilst there is an electoral equality gain from doing this, it is insignificant compared to the issues of splitting this small yet coherent community in half. If all the current Merstham ward and all of CHW3 and CHW4 were included in one ward, it would be 11.7% over target in 2023. With significant portions of MER1 and CHW3 already being excluded, this number will almost certainly fall significantly below the 10% target: given that Hooley is separated from all other nearby settlements by either a rural or road barriers it is better to keep the whole settlement in one ward.
My knowledge of the north of the borough is more limited, so this last section will be shorter. Most of the wards themselves appear to be workable (though I do not see the logic behind taking more of Woodmansterne Lane out of Woodmansterne’s ward). One standout issue is that the current proposal suggests that Margery Hall be included with Reigate instead of Lower Kingswood despite being north of Reigate Hill and despite such a movement requiring the creation of its own small polling district (as half a hamlet this would include a few hundred voters at most). The consequent additional difficulty in organising elections combined with the fact that these areas are not easily linked communities suggests that this should be changed.
The decision to split the Tattenhams and Kingswood neighbourhoods is something I will leave down to locals in these areas, though I imagine neither decision will be popular. All I will add to that discussion is that the name ‘Preston Park and Tattenham Corner’ is quite long winded: ‘Preston and Tattenham Corner’ and ‘Preston and Great Tattenhams’ might be suitable alternatives. For most other areas, the necessary changes to polling districts will be logical and the wards themselves are constructed using reasoning that I am not in a position to fault (though any faults pointed out by others should be carefully considered).
To summarise, there are many positive aspects to the Working Group’s boundary proposal, and many good ideas surrounding which communities are naturally tied together. However, there are also problems with the proposals which I have sought to outline here, often caused by the prioritisation of strict electoral equality over community identity alongside the lack of consideration for coterminosity with county division boundaries. Significant improvements could be made to the current proposals by acknowledging existing administrative boundaries, acknowledging important community boundaries and entertaining the possibility of smaller wards where such wards would facilitate better governance at both a community and (potentially in the future) national level. Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Tom Turner
E-mail:
Postcode: N/A (despite being a Labour Party candidate, this proposal reflects only my own views and not those of the local Labour Party) Organisation Name:
Comment text:
All details of my proposal are included in the attached document: the proposal is focused on the southern portion of the borough but the document also contains commentary on proposals for other parts of the borough.
Uploaded Documents:
Download (https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/download_document? file=draft%2F1522969909_RB+Electoral+Review+Area+3+Proposal.docx) Owen, David
From: Catalina Vassallo-Bonner Sent: 22 March 2018 10:18 To: reviews Cc: Subject: RE: Reigate & Bansted
First salvo, good idea
Catalina
From: David Gradidge Sent: 21 March 2018 23:01 To: [email protected] Cc: Catalina Vassallo‐Bonner Subject: Reigate & Bansted
Dear Sir, I am writing on behalf of Banstead Village Residents Assn representing 1950 village households. We are told that R & B should cut the number wards from 19 to 15 and Councillors from 51 to 45 but then to take account of the identity of your local community and facilities. In my opinion you cant do both in a borogh cut in half by the M25, that stretches from Gatwick in south over 25 miles to the LB Sutton in the north and is often only 3 miles wide. What the tolerances on ward numbers,councillor numbers and electorate per ward, Distict communities like Preston and the very rural Salfords and Sidlow with its parish council, and both having 1 councillor look doomed if you adopt a rigid mathematical approach. Regards David Gradidge Treasurer
1
3/1212018 LocalGOll8mment Commlaalon Bculdary tbr England Conaullallon Portal
Reigate and Bansteed Dl•trlct
PerNnal Detall•:
Name: Rlc:herd Wegner E111all: PG.._de: Organlutlan Name: Feature Annotation•
ry
·rnch 'cod
Gn,.;· S,11,111'..-,\'vot.d
Litt e!lc err·· ,Vooc
rark ::iowns
Perl< t-t1rrr
�r:, ,._.•!> ,a.o<:t· cuO:·!.� �tarrcck Coni.1ni. Ordnance 6urvey data C Crown copyright Mep Featu,-:
Annotation 1: Junctson of COulsdon Lane-Hollymeoak Rd more natural geographic feature Annotation 2: See annotation 1 Annotation 3: Transfer to Croydon. It was a Croydon school, now an academy. Rail viaduct at public house = natural borough boundary.
comment text:
Alm of suggest2d c:hanges rs tD place resldentll where their nabm1I 111soc:latlons sit, billed on my ye1rs u I borough c:,ounc:lllors representing these groups of residents who reg,rded themselves H pert of Croydon and thus Gre,ter London - i:ert.lnly not that Relg,te II. Banstead or Surrey
htlp8:l/conaultatlon.lgbc:8.org.uk/nodelprlntJlnfonnedffP,-nlallonf12309 112
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Barry Keith Walker
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The proposal for Tattenhams Ward seems to be to split the ward north and south of Great Tattenhams (road). I would suggest that this proposal is short sighted, possible only from a map, and the area should be looked at in person. The community as a whole sits both sides of Great Tattenhams, the community library, petrol station and half the shops to the north and the church and the other shops to the south. During the year the community organises various charity events outside the library and the shops. To split the ward would kill the community spirit. I am opposed to such plans.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Linda Walsh
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
Our post code sits just inside the Nork boundary next to Tattenhams. But we consider Tattenham to be our local area where we access the Medical Centre, local shops and library.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded 3/12/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Robert Warren E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
The background map is missing much recent development; what is shown varies by zoom level. Redhill East and West divides the town centre in two halves whereas it is really one entity
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/12306 1/1 Owen, David
From: Jerry Warwick Sent: 01 April 2018 14:21 To: reviews Subject: Attachments: Council.pdf
Hello.
I was provided with the attached leaflet with my Council Tax Bill for year 2018/2019. My property is Band E and I live in Hooley, Coulsdon, Surrey.
My local town is Coulsdon, my address is Hooley, Coulsdon and my post code is a Croydon post code, yet my local authority is Reigate and Banstead.
The attached leaflet invites suggestions on boundaries. Quite simply, Hooley should become part of the London Borough of Croydon and not be within the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council area.
The services in Hooley received by Reigate and Banstead Council are derisory and clearly the village is considered to be an 'outpsost' as nothing gets done here and residents have to continually badger the local authority through local Councillors.
So my suggestion is to align Hooley with the local authority where everything suggests it should be ‐ London Borough of Croydon. This will relieve the burden on Reigate and Banstead and the residents of Hooley will receive the services of their closest neighbours in Coulsdon.
Yours faithfully,
J B Warwick (Mr)
1 Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Patrick Webb
E-mail:
Postcode:
Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I feel that the Tadworth & Walton Ward should not be combined with any other Ward. The area is different from adjacent Wards. Also, the A217 and the M25 tend to divide the community from others to the East and South. To the North, the Preston Ward is unique with its own needs and should remain as such, I suggest.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
3/12/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Personal Details:
Name: Barrie Williams E-mail: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
I would suggest that the area around Windmill Way and surrounding streets, on the western side of the current Redhill West Ward is joined into the Reigate Hill or Reigate Central Ward. The basis of the recommendation are: 1. The properties in this area have a Reigate postcode 2. The residents there look to Reigate rather than Redhill for most activities, including shopping, entertainment,recreation etc 3. The current councillor has a focus on what is happening and needed in Redhill, when our interests are for Reigate.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation. lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/1 2311 1/1 2/1512018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal
Reigate and Banstead District
Per•onal Detalls:
Name: Robert Willock E-mall: Postcode: Organisation Name:
Comment text:
How is it fair that (eg) 6005 Tadworth residents elect 3 councillors, while 6001 Hortey East residents elect only 2 councillors? Why is Tadworth vote worth 50% more than a Herley East vote? There are similar discrepancies all over the county. Surely the boundaries should be drawn to ensure equal representation.
Uploaded Documents:
None Uploaded
https://consultation. lgbce.org.uk/nodelprinUinformed-representation/1 1958 1/1