Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 94 j LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Countess Of Albeoarle, BBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chisho1m. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, CBE. To the Ht Hon Roy Jenkins, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF WOKING IN THE COUNTY OF SUSREI X. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Woking in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that borough* 2, In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 6o(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 May 1974 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Woking Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the Surrey County Council, the Member of Farliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties* Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and to the local government press* Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies* 3. Woking Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration* In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward* They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details-of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. In accordance with section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council had exercised an option for elections by thirds. 5. On 19 September 1974 the Woking Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation* The Council proposed to divide the area into 14 wards each returning 1, 2 or 3 members to form a council of 34* two more than at present. 6. Following the publication by the Borough Council of their draft scheme we received a letter from a branch of a local political association suggesting alterations to the draft scheme in order to avoid the proposed Mayford and Sutton ward returning only one councillor. 7* The Council also sent us copies of a small number of letters received during the period when the scheme was in preparation. We noted that in their draft scheme the Council appeared to have met substantially the points made in the correspondence* 8, We considered the draft scheme together with the comment which had been made to us* In relation to this comment we decided not to adopt the suggested modifications. In addition we noted that the 3-member Old Woking, Klngfleld and Westfield ward proposed by the Borough Council would be under-represented and accordingly we decided to propose the division of this ward to form a single- member Old Woking ward and a three-member King field and Westfield ward, thus increasing the size of council to 35 members. We also decided to propose the adjustment of the boundary between the proposed Horsell East and Woodham and Horsell West wards in order to secure a better standard of representation for the two wards* We further noted that there would be considerable imbalance in the electorates of the proposed 3-member Central and Maybury and Mount Hermon wards. We decided, therefore, to reform these wards to create three wards, each electing two Councillors, with the names Central and Maybury, Mount Hermon East and Mount Hermon West. 9* On the recommendation of the Ordnance Survey we adopted a small number of minor modifications to ward boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more easily identifiable on the ground. 10. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 8 and 9 above we decided that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements of the Borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly* 11. On 23 December 1974, we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme* The Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices* Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 21 February 1975. 12. Surrey County Council informed us that they had no observations to make on our draft proposals* We also received a letter from a local residents' association approving the proposals for their particular area. 13. Woking Borough Council expressed concern at the western boundary of the proposed Central and Maybury ward but did not wish to make definite suggestions for amending the boundaries. However, they did suggest a revised boundary between the proposed Horsell West and Horsell East and Woodham wards on the grounds of community of interest. 14* The Chief Executive, in his separate capacity as Returning Officer for local elections, also drew our attention to the fact that the northern and southern parts of the Central and Maybury ward were divided from each other by the railway line with the result that there were no direct road communications between the two parts. A local political party proposed an alteration to the boundaries of this ward and suggested that the number of councillors representing the ward should be increased from two to three* A local councillor also suggested increased representation because of the special problems of the Central and Maybury area. 15. The same political party supported the Borough Council's suggested amendment to the proposed boundary between Horsell West and Horsell East and Woodham wards. In addition they proposed an amendment to the proposed St John's and Enaphill wards, which would transfer the Inkerman Barracks site, which they said was due to be developed, from St John's to Knaphill ward. 16. A local association suggested two small boundary re-alignments between the proposed Old Woking and Kingfield and Westfield wards. 17. In view of these comments we considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65 (2) of the 1972 Act and at our request, you appointed Mr C E C R Flatten as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 18. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at Woking on 21 May 1975* A copy of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 19. The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the whole of Coniston Road should be included in the Old Woking ward and that the whole of Shackleford Road together with a number of properties in the High Street should be in the King field and We at field ward* He recommended that the Borough Council's suggestion for re-aligning the boundary between the Horsell East and Woodham and Horsell West wards should be adopted* He further recommended that the boundary between Mount Hennon East and Central and Maybury ward should be adjusted by transferring a number of properties in Princess Gardens, Princess Road, Alpha Road and Beta Eoad from Mount Hennon East to Central and Maybury, and that the number of members for Central and Maybury ward should remain at two. Finally, he recommended that the boundary between the St John's and Knaphill wards should be moved eastwards to a line representing the centre line of the proposed St John's By-pass, thus placing the majority of the Inker-man Barracks site in the Knaphill ward. 20. We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report* We resolved that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to these amendments, we decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals* 21* Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each* Schedule 3 shows our proposals for the order of retirement of councillors. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the map* PUBLICATION 22. In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Woking Borough Council and will be available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments.