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. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 4 to this report. L.S. Signed EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN) JOHN M RAHKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) DIANA ALBEMAJtLE T C BENKIELD MICHAEL CHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLEY F B IOUNG DAVID ft ShilTH (SECRETARY.) ' ep <* October 1Q7^ ?r SCHEDULE 1
LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS : BOROUGH OP WOKHTO THE LOCAL MEETING : REPORT OP ASSISTANT COMMISSIONS*
I Introduction 1. I opened the meeting at 10.30 am on Wednesday 21 May 1975t ia the Committee Room at the Council Offices, Woking, Surrey, and referred to my appointment by the Secretary of State.
2. The following persons were present, signed the attendance sheet, and stated the body or organisation they represented:- Cllr p Blagborough Woking Borough Council Cllr G A Brown Woking Borough Council (Brookwood and Knaphill Ward) Cllr Mrs M Boag Woking Borough Council (Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward) Cllr Mrs E Butler Woking Borough Council (Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward) Cllr Mrs M Gammon Woking Borough Council (Horsell Ward) Cllr Greenwood Woking Borough Council Cllr Mrs H Smith " H " Mr M Shawoross " " " Mr P Shipp B«H
Mr P R Sanderson Knaphill and St John's Branch Labour Party
Mrs B M Martin Old Woking Village Association Mrs M Wallace Old Woking Community Association
3. The Surrey County Council were represented by Mr T C Williams, who attended as an observer.
4* The local Press were represented by a reporter from the Woking News and Mail.
5. I stressed the essential informality of the proceedings and my intention to give everyone an adequate opportunity of expressing views.
6. With a view to meeting the convenience of those attending I invited suggestions as to the order of business and it was agreed that the Old Woking Ward proposal should be discussed first*
7« The meeting concluded at 1.25 pm, everyone agreeing they had had adequate opportunities for expressing views.
8. I stated my intention of visiting the areas during the afternoon and invited anyone to indicate any particular aspects they wished me to see or to accompany me for this purpose if they so desired.
II Proceedings 1. I stated briefly the sequence of events regarding the constitution of the Council and the wards of the Borough, from the arrangements made by the Secretary of State, pursuant to the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972, for the elections in 1973; the Borough Council's draft scheme of September 1974; the Commission's draft proposals for alterations to the scheme; and to the comments, suggestions and objections which had ensued.
2. At my request, the Chief Executive furnished particulars of the warding system prior to 1973| in the form of a short history of the constitution of the district from the creation as an Urban District, by Order in 1893, with 18 members, representing 5 wards, to the period immediately before its demise, and succession by the new District Council, under the provisions of the local Government Act 1972. He made the point that despite (or possibly because of) the inherent difficulties, inoluiing those of community of interest and of communications, the division of the district into wards, effected in 1907, had remained virtually unchanged until 1955i despite the various events and influences affecting the area over a period of nearly 50 years.
III Old Woking Ward 1. The Commission's proposals (altering those of the Borough Council to include Old Woking in one ward with Kingfield and Westfield to return 3 members) were to constitute the area of Old Woking as a separate ward, returning one member, and for
Kingfield and Westfield to be made a separate ward, returning 3 members, thus increasing the total representation for this part of the Borough by one member, above that proposed by the Borough Council,
2* No adverse commenta had been received or were made, on this proposal either i on behalf of the Borough Council or anyone else, but the Old Woking Village
Association, by letter dated 17 February 1975 to the Commission, referring to the eastern boundary of the Old Woking Ward, which ran along the centre of two roads, had asked "that whole roads should be taken into the ward boundaries and that
Coniston Road as a whole should be included in the Old Woking Ward** and that if it was considered necessary for the number of the respective electorates to be adjusted, this could be achieved by including the whole of Shackle ford Road in the Kingfield and West fie Id Ward. Mrs B H Martin of the Old Woking Village Association appeared in support of the Association's views; the Chief Executive on behalf of the Borough
Council, spoke in favour of whole roads being included in a ward, and where appropriate, ward boundaries usually following the rear of gardens of dwellinghouses, rather than the centre of residential roads.
3. No adverse comments to the Commission's proposals (with these amendments) were made*
4. Councillor Greenwood, a member of the Borough Council, generally supported the proposals. He did not feel strongly about Shackle ford Road, but thought (with apparently the general agreement of the meeting) that the south west boundary of the two wards should be varied by the inclusion of Has Ball Court in the Kingfield and West fie Id Ward* Mrs M Wallace, representing the Old Woking and District Community Centre Association, supported these views.
5. I undertook to examine this on the ground and on subsequently inspecting the area, I found that Hassall Court was a small old peoples* home and that it appeared to be west of the boundary suggested by the Commission and therefore already in the proposed Kingfield and Weetfield Ward. I subsequently verified this with the Chief Executive, who also told me that the electoral arrangements include the use of the Highlands CS School as a polling station, probably for both wards and that the building is now a school in its own right, not an annex to another building, as ehown on the plan*
6. Assessment of the weight of the argumenta advanced at the meeting I support the Borough Council*e and the Association's view that in general, a boundary along the rear of residential properties is preferable to one along the centre of an ordinary residential estate road. I support the Association's view in this case, that particularly because of its otherwise isolated position, the • east side of Coniston Road should be included with the west side, in Old tfoking Hard. At first I found it less easy to support the transfer of the whole of Shaokleford Road to Kingfield and Heat fie Id Ward, although this keeps both sides of the road together in the same ward, if the reason had been solely to reduce the arithmetical disparity between the two wards by the transfer of 69 voters. From the maps, the houses in Shaokleford Road appeared similar to those in the rest of the district to the east (the whole area earlier was known as "Shaokleford") as they are to those in the western end of Rydena Hay* It seemed that the area of the Highlands CS School, at the rear at the west side of Shaokleford Road, could constitute in part, a physical barrier. However it is the Polling Station for this area and there are links to the north of the School along Rydens Hay (apparently planned as a line of communication) as well as along the High Street. Moreover the catchment area for the School is understood to include the Shackleford area. The Village Association in their letter of 12 March 1974, admitted difficulty in deciding the western boundary, but decided to include Shaokleford Road and the area up to the western end of the High Street, but excluded Kingfield Road. But it was strongly opposed to a division further eastwards, eg along the old polling district boundary to the west of Hipley Street. If the western boundary of Old Hoking Hard ran along the rear of the houses on the west side of Shaokleford Road (Nos. 1 to 57), including or excluding the School site, this would transfer approximately a further 69 voters from Kingfield and Hestfield Ward to Old Hoking Hard. However, tho houses Nos. 1 to 37 Rydens Way are also similar in character, and if the ward boundary continued along the line of the western boundary of the School to Ryders Way, then these houses, (involving the transfer of approximately a further 45 electors) logically also oould be considered for inclusion in Old Woking Hard.
7. There appeared to be some case, therefore, based on community of interest, not just for keeping both sides of Shaokleford Road in the same ward, but for including it in the Old Woking Ward, with the School (either its east or west boundary) as the ward boundary. There were two local associations covering the area; the use of the School as the local polling station; the catchment area for the School; and any other community of interest generated by the other institutional establishments in that area, eg a church, a public house, and the community centre in Sundridge Road, run by the Association which Mrs Wallace represented.
8. From my inspection of the area, however, and from other information locally, the residential property on both sides of Shackle ford Road and west along Rydens Way, which had been built privately, was substantially different from that to the east, which was a self-contained council estate. Moreover, there was no obvious evidence of any particularly exclusive connection between this estate and the School, and the other institutional facilities in Kingfield Road and apparently it was no greater than that existing with the Kingfield Road area. As regards the name "Shaokleford" it seemed that this was not of the same community significance as "Old Woking", "Kingfield** or "Westfield" and it did not appear to be any longer in current use.
9. It seems inevitable that the existing substantial disparity between the two wards will continue until 1979 and the electorate of both wards will be either considerably over (Old Woking) or under (Kingfield and Westfield) the average per member. Having regard to the considerations mentioned above and to the greater imbalance in the electorate which would result from moving the proposed boundary any further westward than the centre of Shaokleford Road, I accept the proposal of the Old Woking Village Association, which was supported at the meeting, that the whole of Coniaton Road should be included in Old Woking Ward, and the whole of Shaokleford Road should be included in Kingfield and Westfield Ward. 10* As a consequence of the boundary being along the rear fences of the houses on the east side of Shackleford Road, it seems logical that it should continue southwards to the High Street, by running between No* 3 The Terrace and "The Old Cottage", the former being transferred to Kingfield and Westfield Ward (with the other houses known as "The Terrace") and the latter remaining in Old Woking Ward.
11. The boundary should then croas the High Street and having inspected the area, I suggest this should be almost due south to the western boundary of No. 30 High Street", then along this to the ditoh or drain at the rear of the High Street; then eastwards, ' as in the Commission's proposal*
12* The consequence of this would be to transfer to Kingfield and Westfield Ward, the four houses, Nos. 5-8 The Terrace on the North Side of the High Street (as well as the houses on the east side of Shackleford Road). On the south side of the High Street, all the properties west of No. 30 would be transferred to Kingfield and Westfield Ward, including "The Hall" and some seven houses to the west of it, as far as the Commission's proposed boundary on the east side of Hassail Court. The number of electors is being ascertained, but it is estimated to be between 20 and 30 (say 25) in addition to the 69 in Shackleford Road already mentioned*
13* I therefore recommend:- a. That the whole of Coniston Road be included in the Old Woking Ward, the boundary to be at the rear of the gardens of the houses on the west side of the road as shown on the annexed plan.
b. That the whole of Shackleford Road be included in the .Kin#ield and Westfield Ward, the boundary to be at the rear of the gardens of the houses v on the east side of the road, as shown on the annexed plan.
c. That the houses on the north side of the High Street, NOB. 5 to 8 The Terrace, be included in the Kin^ield and Westfield Ward, the boundary to be a line projected southwards from that referred to in b. above, between No. 8 The Terrace and "The Old Cottage", and across the High Street to the western boundary of No. 30 High Street, as shown on the plan.
d. That "The Hall" and the houses west of No* 30, as far as the boundary of Hassall Court be included in the Kingfield and Westfield Ward, the boundary to be a line projected northwards from that referred to in b. and c. above, between No. 30 High Street and "The Hall" as shown in the plan.
14. The approximate effect on the electorate, will be as foilone:-
Add 49 to Old Woking Hard from Kingfield and Westfield Hard Add 94 to Kingfield and Westfield from Old Woking Ward Net gain to Kingfield and WestfieId of 45 from Old Hoking Ward.
IV Horse11 WestAloraell East and Woodham Wards 1. This concerns a part of the north east boundary of the Horse11 West Ward 'and correspondingly, a part of the south west boundary of Horse 11 East and Woodham Ward.
2. The Commission's proposal varied the Borough Council's scheme by moving this
common boundary, from its line along Morton Road, north easterly for some 300 yards, to a roughly parallel line along the centre of Horsell Rise, thus transferring a comparatively small electorate, living in the vicinity of Horsell County Secondary
School, to the Horsell West Ward.
3. The Borough Council's view, expressed by the Chief Executive, is that the residents on the eastern side of Horsell Rise, have more community of interest with those residents of the western side of Horsell (ie the Horsell Village area) than with those in the eastern part, who tend to look towards Woodham. In accordance also with their principle, that the boundaries should follow the rear boundaries of
properties rather than the centre of residential road's, the Council suggest that the
boundary should be placed a further small distance north easterly along the line of
the footpath running from Kettlewell Hill to Cheap Side. The consequence of this
would be to transfer a further 148 electors from Horsell East and Woodham Ward to
Horsell West Ward. 4* The Woking Constituency Labour Party have written in support of the Borough Council's suggestion, for reasons of geography and history.
5. Councillor Mrs Margaret Gammon, a member for the Horse11 Ward, appeared in support of the Borough Council's suggestion regarding the choice of the footpath'as1 the "boundary and also supported the view that there was community of interest between the residents of the area and those of the Horsell West Ward, in that they used the same shopping facilities.
6. I understand that the suggested boundary is technically acceptable to the Ordnance Survey.
7. There was no opposition to or criticism of the suggestion from those present at the meeting.
8. In view of the case made by the Borough Council, supported by a local member and by a local political party, and in the absence of any objections received or contrary view expressed at the meeting, the further change in the "boundary, suggested by the Borough Council, to create a good line between the two wards and maintain the community of interest, should be supported. The only criticism apparent is that the transfer of a further 148 electorate to Horsell West Ward, increases the comparative disparity, already existing in the Commission's proposals between the two wards and diminishes the entitlement of Horsell East and Woodharo Ward to its two members. The electorate of Horsell West, 4764 in 1974 and 5167 in 1979i returning 3 members, would average 1588 (becoming 1723) electorate per member. Horsell East and Woodham, with 3234 electorate in 1974 and 3188 in 1979, returning 2 members, would average 1617 v (becoming 1594) electorate per member. Nevertheless I do not consider there is a sufficient imbalance in the figures to outweigh the advantages of good boundaries and the preservation of local community of interest.
9. I therefore recommend that the alterations to the boundaries eastwards along Cheap Side and thence south-east, at the rear of the houses in Horsell Rise and Kettlewell Close to Kettlewell Hill, as shown on the map (annexed) and involving the transfer of 148 electors from Horsell East and Woodham Ward, to Horsell West Ward, be adopted.
V Central and Haybury Ward
1. The Borough Council's scheme, submitted on 19 September 1974f proposed a combination of the former Central Ward (lying north of the Railway with an -i electorate of 3446 and returning two members) with a substantial part of the area
•known as Kaybury (lying south of the Railway, and with the area known as
Mount Heroion, constituting the Haybury and Mount Hermon Ward, with an electorate of 7581 and returning four members).
2. The part of Maybury proposed by the Council to be separated from the Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward, lay to the east of Maybury Hill and contained an electorate of 775, giving a total electorate for the proposed Central and Maybury Ward of 4221, for which 3 members were suggested,
3. The Council also proposed a Mount Hermon Ward composed of the remainder of the Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward, lying west of the suggested boundary of Maybury Hill, and containing 5483 electors, for which 3 members were suggested.
4. The Council's proposals apparently did not give rise to any public comment.
5. The Boundary Commission's proposals of 23 December 1974) however, involved substantial changes. The Commission proposed the constitution of three two-member Wards, Central and Maybury, Mount Hermon Cast and Mount Hermon West, in place of the if Council's suggested two threennember Wards.
6. To this end, the Commission proposed that the area of Mount Hermon should be divided into an East and a West Ward, by a line commencing at the principle
entrance to the Railway Station and running southwards along White Rose Lane, and
that the lines proposed by the Council as the western boundary of their Central and
Maybury Ward, both north and south of the Railway, should be moved about 300 yards
to the east. This would add the large, but isolated Sorbo Factory Unit, at present in Shearwater Ward, to the Central and Maybury Ward north of the Railway and south of the Railway would take from the Central and Maybury Ward, a substantial area of residential and other property, and transfer it to the proposed Mount Hermon East Ward* The boundary proposed between Mount Hermon Bast and this part of the Central and Maybury Ward, would no longer be Maybury Hill, southward under the Railway at Maybury Aroh, but the Railway itself, eastwards for about
300 yards and then a line southwards, along the line of the rear boundaries of the houses on the east side of Princess Gardens, through Oak Lane to the oentre of East Hill. As a oonsecfuenoe, the line of communication between the two parts
of the Ward, viz the Maybury Aroh linking Monument Road and Maybury Hill, would be transferred to the proposed Mount Hermon East Ward. The resultant electorate of
the Ward would be 3543, made up of 2131 from the Central area and 1412 from the Maybury Estate.
7. Comments and Objections a. The Borough Council, in their letter of 6 February 1975i approved the Commission's proposals as submitted, "subject to the comment1* that the proposed boundary, south of the Railway, separates a small part of the Maybury Housing Estate from the Ward. Four houses in Alpha Road and 34 in Prinoess Gardens, were involved. The Council did not wish to make any definite suggestion for amending the boundary, but nevertheless felt "that it should be brought to the Commission*s attention".
b. The Chief Executive, as Returning Officer, in his letter of 10 February 1975, expressed his concern about this boundary which would result in the two parts of the Ward being separated by the Railway embankment, while part of the Ward containing the natural connection afforded by the Maybury Aroh, would be transferred to the Mount Hermon East Ward, as also would the obvious Polling Station (at Monument Hill CP School). Though a polling station could be outside a Ward, he could not contemplate one station being used for two Wards. He felt the boundary needed careful consideration before
being finally settled.
10 o. The Woking Constituency Labour Party submitted a proposal to restore Maybury Hill as part of the boundary, thus restoring the communication line and the obvious polling station to the Ward, the boundary then to go eastwards along Princess "Drive" (assumed to be "Road"). Then south easterly, with the intention of including the whole of the area "identified as 'Maybury1 ", which they said would increase the electorate by approximately 300. They also asked for the number of members to be increased from two to three, for the reasons set out in their submission, including the special problems of the area.
d* At the meeting, a plan was put in by the Chief Executive showing the Labour Party1s proposed boundary as along the centre of Princess Road from Maybury Hill and then southwards along the rear of the gardens of the houses in Prailey Hill and Princess Gardens, via Oak Lane to Hast Hill, which he understood had been the Labour Party's intentions. It appeared, however, there has been some misunderstanding and Councillor Blagborough asked for this boundary to be altered to follow the centre line of Prailey Hill, from Princess Road to the centre of College Hill (see the plan). The effect of the Labour Party's proposals (as explained by Councillor Blagborough) would be to transfer 280 electors from Mount Hermon Bast to the Central and Maybury Ward,
e. Councillor Mrs Hilda Smith had written on 19 February 1975 asking for the representation to be increased to three members, because of the nature of the area and the number of problems.
8. At the Meeting:-
a. The Chief Executive handed in a note of the constitution of the Urban
District (Annexed) and a Ward Map (Annexed ) and described the old
boundaries of the Central Ward, how they related to strong geographical
features, such as the Canal (the old Parish boundary) and the Railway, and
how they were used by the Home Office in 1973. The Woodham and Sheerwater
11 Word then tended to be over-represented. The community of interest there was not strongt different influences prevailed, but there was some affinity between Shearwater and the Central Ward. b. Councillor P H Blagborough, who as Chairman of the Woking Constituency Labour Party, had subscribed the submission by the Party, referred to and explained by him in para 7d above, agreed that Sheerwater tended to be an isolated unit, and although it had been linked with Hoodham in 1973f it was deemed advisable now to separate it. As regards Maybury, although there was no de faoto community centre as yet, there was a strong identity of interest within the area, which tended to gravitate towards the area of the old Central Ward, rather than towards Mount Harmon. o. As regards the suggestion to use the centre of Prailey Hill as a boundary, when I asked Councillor Blagborough about the extreme narrowness of most of Prailey Hill and the oohesiveness of the residents on both sides of the road, his view was that the oharaoteristics of the two sides were different. Those on the west (he instanced the houses in Prailey Close) had an affinity with Mount Hermon residents, while those on the east looked towards the Haybury Estate. d. Regarding the central part of the Central and Maybury Ward, he felt that the overall effect of the proposed new building should be determined. He mentioned the 48 flats in the Town Centre and various proposals for residential development for old people in the Eve and Arnold Road area, to the east of the Town Centre redevelopment, between the Railway and the Canal. The Town Centre and Walton Road redevelopment should be undertaken by 1979 and could involve some 350 electors. He supported the case for the allocation of 3 members to the Ward, instead of 2, because of the social problems of the area and the unrealistic figures given for the electorate in this area, resulting from the non-enfranchisement of some of the immigrant population. e. Councillor Mrs Hilda Smith particularly stressed the number of individual problems with which members were faced in the Ward, which contained a substantial proportion of under privileged and immigrant residents. She said these views would also have been supported by Councillor Mrs Cleary who was unable to be present. f. Councillor Mrs Elisabeth Butler, a member for the Maybury and Mount Harmon Ward, said she differed with Councillor Mrs Smith about the extent and the difficulty of the problems of the Ward and the burden on the representatives. She and her colleagues would be happy to have the whole of the burdens of the Maybury Estate within her Ward. All residents from Maybury and Mount Harmon Ward gravitated towards the Town Centre. Some residents from East Hill area had community of interest with those in the West Byfleet Ward. g. Councillor Mrs Mary Boag, also a member for the Maybury and Mount Harmon Ward, said she supported Councillor Mrs Butler's views regarding the gravitation towards the centre of the Town. They all used the same school and youth centre. She did not accept the relevancy of the argument about the burden of the problems. All Wards had problems. She preferred the Borough Council's proposals. h. Councillor Mrs Margaret Gammon, a member of the Horsell Ward, referred to the County Council's proposal to close the Grammar School (south of East Hill) and to establish it as a 12-16 year old all-entry comprehensive. She was looking to this to become the community centre in Mount Herraon East. It could become the focal point for the surrounding area. Its catchment area would include the whole of the Maybury Estate, except for some children who would go to the Sheerwater School. i. Councillor Blagborough said that the Maybury School, when it had become comprehensive, would act as a fooal point for that and other parts of the Town. j. Councillor Mrs Gammon said the number of children in West Byfleet was declining. Maybury should remain in the Mount Hermon area. Councillor Blagborough was opposed to this. Maybury's links were with the Central area. k. In Councillor Mrs Butler's view, Maybury was a much larger area than embodied in Councillor Blagborough1s proposals - in her view the area of St Paul's Churoh (Pembroke Road/Oriental Road) was really part of Maybury. • 1. The Chief Executive said that the population figure for the Central and Maybury Ward had been estimated as "no change". This was partly because a number of people were thought not to be on the Register. The 48 flats referred to in the Town Centre were intended to be small and were estimated to accommodate 100'people. There was expected to be a small net gain in the Board School Road redevelopment. He submitted the figures for the electorate involved in the Labour Party's proposals, (as shown on the plan (annexed) by the red line) as 193? to which there should be added a further 87 in respect of the line as explained by Councillor Blagborough - 280 in all. There were some 400 houses on the Maybury Estate, with a population of twelve to fifteen hundred. (I have since established that the actual electorate is 1412.) He did not know accurately where "Maybury" really begins and ends. In the view of some, "Maybury goes as far west as White Rose Lane" (the Commission's proposed western boundary of Mount Hermon East Ward). The physical connection between the Central and Maybury areas, in fact, was the Railway Line and the Maybury Arch. m. The Chief Exeoutive also thought the main difficulty with the Commission's . suggested boundary is the voting arrangements. The electors from the Maybury Estate area would cross the proposed new Ward boundary, to vote at the Monument Hill School as heretofore, but the electors from Princess Gardens and Pollard Road, adjacent to the school, would vote somewhere else. It was difficult to suggest an alternative, though a search was being made. Alternative facilities at Walton Road (in the Central area of the Ward) were possible. 14 n. As regards the arguments adduced regarding the number of members, he pointed out that the Commission had never accepted that the number of representatives Was related to the number of problems in an area.
o. Councillor G A Brown, a member for the Brookwood and Knaphill Ward, observed as regards the problems of the area referred to by Councillor Mrs Smith, that in his view, they were of a temporary and transitional nature and would disappear.
p. Councillor Mrs Smith said there would be problems from immigrants unless they were helped by the Council to integrate and this imposed extra burdens on members.
q. Councillor Mrs Butler observed that tolerance and mutual goodwill between the Wards was necessary.
9- Inspections made a* I spent some hours on the evening prior to the meeting, on foot in the area from the High Street by the Railway Station and along Maybury Road and Maybury Hill. I also visited the area in the early morning before the meeting and again in the early afternoon of another day, particularly the Mayhurst Estate. It was obvious that there was considerable inter-communication between these areas, despite the physical barrier of the Railway and the access being limited to the Maybury (railway) Arch. Obviously also in the past, there had been considerable affinity between the Maybury and Mount Hermon areas, adjoining and with similar characteristics, and associated for some 60 years in constituting the Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward. Both had connections with the area of the Central Waid, which was the commercial heart of the Town, but both were physically separated from the Central area by the formidable barrier of the Railway, with only two underpasses for vehicles, one towards each end of the Town Centre, and a subway for footpassengers, under the tracks, at the Station. b. ;In the latter years, however, there appears to have been considerable change in the character of the Maybury area, particularly north-easterly from Maybury Hill, due to the nature of the development, infilling and the effect of industrial development in the vicinity, and the affinity with the Mount Hermon area, much of which appears, relatively, to be unchanged, appears to have become correspondingly leas. o. Superficially, and from examination of the maps, there appears to be little to commend a combination of the Central area and the Maybury . (Mayhurst Estate) area, but on the ground the position is different* Despite the apparent problems of communication arising from the Railway lines, there seems to be some community of interest and affinity between the two areas north and south of the lines, particularly in the Maybury Hoad and east of Maybury Hill area, over and above that which could be expected between any particular area of a town and its main commercial and shopping area.
The combination of the Central and Maybury areas a* There seems to be general acceptance, by the Council and by the political parties, of this link between the two areas, as set out in the preceding paragraph. The Council proposed the combination of the two areas in its proposals of the 19 September 1974i and when this was continued, in an amended form by the Commission, the Council gave its general approval on 6 February 1975, no-t objecting to, but merely drawing attention to, the separation of a small part of the housing estate. b. The Labour Party not only recognise the link, but propose it should be * strengthened by adding to the extent of the area south of the Railway, albeit their primary purpose presumably is to increase the electorate so as to justify an additional member. But their case, and that of Councillor Mrs Smith, is based on the political administration of the area, north and south of the Railway, as an entity, and the multiplicity of the problems which arise from the residents and workers from both sides. Inspection shows considerable
16 pedestrian and other traffic between the two aides also, at most times of the day, through the Aroh, and as the Chief Executive said "the Railway is a barrier but it is also a link".
o. The members from the Conservative Party generally supported the inclusion of the areas north and south of the Railway in one ward and the existence of community of interest between them. They differed with the Labour side members about the extent of the burdens on members arising from the nature of the population of the areas and were opposed to any additional representation on this account.
11. The boundary between the Central and Maybury Ward and the Mount Hermon East Ward a. The Commission's proposed boundaries and the consequent division of the electorate furnishes an equitable allocation of the electorate as regards both of the Mount Hermon Wards for 1974 and for 1979i and for the Central and Maybury Ward for 1979t though slightly under its entitlement for 1974* Despite the suggestions made by Councillor Blagborough, the estimated figures put in by the Chief Executive showed the electorate was likely to remain unchanged virtually until 1979 as a result of re-building of the Central area. Any significant increase in the electorate of the Ward is only likely to occur therefore as a result of adjustments to the boundary with Mount Hermon East Ward, with a corresponding reduction in the electorate of that Ward. Because of the nature of the Mount Hermon Bast Ward boundaries, it is unlikely that any compensatory adjustments to its electorate could be made, except by impinging on the Mount Hermon West Ward and impairing the Commission's clear and logical boundary between these two Wards. Any compensatory adjustments to Mount Hermon West Ward would be impracticable because of the physical nature of most of the other boundaries of that Ward.
b. The Council's proposals of September 1974 dividing the whole of the Central and Maybury and Mount Hermon area into two Wards, each achieving the commendable objective of returning three members, nevertheless suffered from the severe defect of involving substantial under—representation of the
17 Mount Hermon area and a considerable over-representation of the Central and
Maybury area. The Commission* s proposals achieved near parity for the two
Mount Hermon Wards, but left the Central and Maybury Ward slightly under- represented. To justify, arithmetically, Central and Maybury Ward being represented by three members, an increase in the electorate of 1089 would be required (all, of necessity, ooming from the "Maybury" area). Correspondingly,
Mount Hermon East would be reduced by this figure to 1983? lowering its entitlement to 1,28 members. Councillor Blagborough's suggestion, on behalf of the Labour Party, of a line up the centre of Prailey Hill, would add only 280 electors. To take a line further west, eg to include the area east of
Maybury Hill to College Road, including Orchard Close, Frailey Close etc would add only a further 106 electors approximately including the area west of
Prailey Hill, which, in Councillor Blagborough's view, had no community of interest with the Mayhurst Estate, but looked towards the Mount Hermon area*
It is even more difficult to see where the further 693 electors could be found.
Even if (as was said at the Meeting) St Paul's might be regarded as "Maybury", with the low density development, charaoteristic of the area southwards from
St Paul's, a large part of Mount Hermon East Ward, containing residential property of a. very different character from "Maybury", east of Maybury Hill, would have to be included and Mount Hermon East Ward's entitlement would be reduced to one member. c. Even if the Labour Party's contention (which was disputed) that the special nature and the problems of the Central and Maybury area, justified its representation by three members is accepted, the allocation of sufficient electorate necessary to comply reasonably with the statutory retirements as to comparability with other areas and community of interest etc would be virtually impossible. The conclusion remains therefore that the Commission's proposal that two members should be allocated to the Central and Maybury Ward is correct, and although on the electorate for 1974 the ward is slightly under- represented (by 0.29 of a member) by 1979 the allocation is virtually unimpeachable. 18 d. As to whether any alterations should be made to the Commission's proposed boundary between the Central and Maybury Ward and Mount Hermon East
Ward, the only tangible suggestions have come from the Labour Party, as part of their case for increased representation, on the grounds broadly of community of interest, which were not accepted by the Council or by others at the Meeting. The other members differed with the Labour members as to where the local faous of community activity was likely to be, in the future, in the
Mount Hermon and Maybury areas, but did not indicate any clear division between the two areas, although in their view, "Maybury11 as an area, was larger than that envisaged in the Labour Party's proposals. The Chief Executive agreed there were differing views as to where "Maybury" ended and "Mount
Hermon" began, the areas were largely homogeneous, and both gravitated towards the Town Centre. e. The Council's reference to the separation of the small part of the
Mayhurst Estate is not specifically put as a request for the boundary to be altered* Having inspected the area, my view is that this separation should be avoided, even though this adds slightly to the problem of reconciling the electorate figures - the four houses in Alpha Road and the thirty four in
Princess Gardens, physically forming part of the Estate, and involving
60 electors, should be included in the Central and Maybury Ward. f. The Chief Executive, as Returning Officer, although unhappy about the western boundary south of the Railway and asking for careful consideration to be given .to it, also makes no actual suggestion for its alteration, either as regards the separation of the two parts of the ward or the problems of the polling station. As to the consciences of the transfer of the Maybury Arch link to the Mount Hermon East Ward, although it is uncommon for parts of a ward to be separated by part of another ward, the separation does not of itself involve any important practical difficulties, either in the political organisation of the ward, or in the administration of the electoral processes.
The physical link itself (the roads and the Arch) have not been destroyed or closed and the lines of communication remain the same, except that one traverses a small aeotion of 'alien territory*, in the sense of another ward, in going from one part to the other* The practical effect of this cannot be great. (There are wards in other districts divided by a railway and linked only by a level crossing which is frequently closed and where it is more convenient to go through another ward to a bridge to avoid a long wait). Arising from the discussion at the Meeting and my subsequent inspection, I conclude that both the School and the Youth Centre should be included as part of the community activities of the Central and Maybury Ward. It is possible that the accommodation available at these two buildings may assist the Chief Executive to overcome the problem of providing Polling Stations for both wards, without the risk of confusion of the electors, to which he rightly draws attention. g. To preserve local ties and to make a clear boundary, the nearby Beta Road and the ten houses in Princess Road (Nos. 1-13 odd and 24-28 even) with forty electors in all, should also be included. This would add a total of 100 electors to the 3343 included in the Commission's proposals, representing an excess of 555 above the figure required in 1974 to entitle the ward precisely to two members* This surplus however does not arise as a result of the contribution to the total electorate of the ward from the "Maybury" area south of the Railway, but because the "Central" area, as a result of history and its traditional and physical boundaries, naturally contains an electorate above the Borough average for one member, but because of these boundaries it is impracticable to off-load some of this surplus to its neighbouring wards. In • • my view this should not mean that good ward planning, including considerations of community of interest and the existence of local ties, should be ignored or discounted, because of the inherent problems of the "Central" area, any more than that area should be over-generously treated for reasons unrecognised by the statutory provisions. The situation in 1979 is also relevant and by that time, although the forecast electorate for the "Central" area will be the same, the position in the Borough as a whole, will cause the Central and
20 Maybury Ward considerably to improve in relation to the average entitlement. h. The figures for 1974 and 1979 both show that the "Maybury" area, taken alone;, has and will have an electorate substantially less than the average for entitlement to one member. The question therefore arises as to whether, for example, the area of Pollard Road and the east side of Maybury Hill, from the
Arch to Princess Road, is sufficiently linked by community or other ties with the Mayhurst fietate to the east, so as to justify inclusion in this ward, and separation from the Mount Hermon East Ward, (and incidentally to remove the, so called, anomaly of the separation of the two parts of the ward by restoring the Arch) so as to justify the addition of a further 93 electors (Maybury Hill, part - 311 Pollard Road - 62) to the Central and Maybury Ward. Though at first eight the inclusion of these houses would appear to provide a tidy solution on the ground, and on the map, having regard to what was said at the meeting and having inspected the area, I have found no evidence of strong links with the Mayhurst Estate, which constitutes by far the greater part of the ward.
The Mayhurst Estate is a well-planned, well designed, award-winning Council estate, conceived as a whole and it is fortuitous that the Pollard Road development particular^ an* the houses in Maybury Hill are adjacent to it, and on one of the main routes which its residents have to use to work, to the
Station or to the shops. Different considerations apply to the houses in
Beta Road and Princess Road, referred to above, which also are not physically part of the Council estate, but on balance they are so close to it and otherwise isolated from other influences as to be part of its complex and in the case of Princess Road they are affected by the proximity to the School and the Youth Centre. Per these reasons and because otherwise the boundary would become too tortuous, I have included them with the Mayhurst Estate. i. The Maybury Hill/Pollard Road area is of a different nature. These houses are from an earlier period, privately built and really part of the old
"Maybury" area, although this is now less apparent because of the adverse effects of traffic, proximity to large scale industry and the Railway. They should be
21 included in the Commission's proposals for dealing with the Mount Hermon area and be in Mount Hermon Bast Hard with which they hare something in common. \
12. I therefore reoommend:- a. That the Commission's proposals be amended by transferring from the Mount Hermon East Ward to the Central and Maybury Ward, the houses in Princess Gardens, Princess Road (part), Alpha Road and Beta Road, referred to above as follows - NOB. 1-34 Princess Gardens - 34 houses - 55 electors , Nos. 1-13 odd and 24-28 even Princess Road - 10 houses - 32 electors Nos. 1 and 2, 13A and 13B Alpha Road - 4 houses - 5 electors No. 1 and Nos. 1 and 2 Haseltine Villas, Beta Road - 3 houses - 8 electors Total 100 electors
b. That the boundary between the two wards be a line southwards from the Railway, along the Western boundary of the Monument Hill County Primary School and the rear of the gardens of the houses on the east side of Pollard Road, to Princess Road, then eastwards along Princess Road, then southeast along the rear of the gardens of the houses on the east side of Prailey Hill, the west side of the Public House and the rear of the gardens on the west and south side of Princess Gardens until its junction with Oak Lane, as shown on the annexed plan.
o. That the number of members for the Central and Maybury Ward remain as two.
13' The effect on the electorate in the Commission's proposals, ig as follows:-
Mount Hermon East Ward - 2 members - Electorate 1974 - 2972 (1979 - 3402) " Central and Maybury Ward - 2 members - Electorate 1974 - 3643 (1979 - 3643)
'•t . f - . •- "• '1 • . . ,j*n: *'^T; ri .
.I-te*-. C - v- *• ." O* ', -: ' . 22 VI Knaphill and St John'a Wards 1. For the elections in June 1973t Knaphill and Brookwood comprised one ward, with an electorate of 6518, while St John's had an electorate of 6285, *>oth returning 4 members.
2. The Borough Council, on 19 September 1974, proposed the separation of the area of Knaphill from Brookwood, to give a Knaphill Ward, with an electorate of 4918 (rising to 5275 ty 1979) and returning 3 members (leaving Brookwood as a single member ward with an electorate of 1576) and St John's Ward with an electorate of 5278 (rising to 6043 by 1979) also returning 3 members.
3* The Commission adopted these proposals.
4. The only comments or objections were from the Woking Constituency Labour Party who suggest that infilling in St John's Ward will substantially increase the electorate by 1979 and that the whole, or a part of the Inkerraan Barracks site, in St John's Ward which is to be developed for housing, should be transferred to the Knaphill Ward, to avoid an excessively large electorate in St John's Ward. The Labour Party also suggest that the type of housing envisaged will produce a community similar to that in Knaphill, which will tend to gravitate towards Knaphill rather than St John's.
5. The Chief Executive put in a plan (annexed) showing the proposed development on the 30 acre site, which extended from the rear of the Married Quarters, on the south east side of Raglan Road, south eastwards to the rear of the houses in Robin Hood Road, Robin Hood Close and Ashley Close, bounded on the north east by Robin Hood Road and on the south by the Barrack Path. Work had not yet started but it was estimated that building up to 1979 would generate approximately 760 additional electors in the St John's Ward, made up as follows:- Woking Borough Council - 139 dwellings estimated as 472 persons or 360 electors
GuinneosTrust - 152 dwellings estimated as 546 persons or 400 electors
23 Future development, probably after 1979, of about 8 acres by Hoking Borough Council, would probably generate about a further 360 electors.
6. The development expected to be completed by 1979 was roughly from the middle of the site, south eastwards on the St John's side of the site, while the area expected to be developed after 1979 was oh the side nearer to Knaphill. Access to houses on the north east Bide of the site would be via Robin Hood Road, while a new road, giving vehicular access to the south west side of the site would be ; provided adjacent to the Barrack Path. The part of the site (approximately 3 acres) shown as "the site for the St John's By-pass extension", was to the south east of the site, with the bulk of the Borough Council's and the Guinness Trust's houses lying to the west and north of the proposed By-pass, There would be a small residential development (about 1.7 acres) by the Borough Council on the east side of the By-pass and adjoining this to the south, the County Council would use about
1-J- acres for mental welfare purposes.
7* The Chief Executive said the Borough Council's development of the 139 dwellings
(369 electors) was imminent and the Guinness Trust development of 152 dwellings
(400 alec-tors) would be completed by 1979- He did not see any likelihood of out-baok in the programs for national economics or other external reasons.
8. Councillor Blagborough appeared in support of the Woking Constituency Labour
Party's submissions of 20 February 1975 that all or part of the site should be transferred to the Khaphill Ward, for the reasons stated. An excessively large electorate would be created in the St John's Hard, greater than the forecast for
1979» of 6043, in their opinion already too large. The new community at the
Barracks site would be likely to identify with and gravitate towards Knaphill rather than St John's. Cotmoillor Blagborough said there was no great feeling about this issue, but it was felt necessary to make the re-warding scheme as tidy as possible. One important factor in the community of interest aspect was the provision of vehicular access. The construction of the proposed St John's By-pass would presumably constitute a barrier to access to St John's for the larger part
24 of the site. If the whole of the development remained in St John's, its
1 electorate would become excessively large by 19T9t above any question of 'tolerance which he put at in excess of 693.
9. The Chief Executive said the figures he had given were the likely ones, the area and development being shown in the County Development Plan.
10. Councillor Blagborough said the New Road (shown in red on the Map) should be the boundary and everything to the west of it should be included in Knapfaill.
11. Councillor Mrs H Smith, who lived in Batten Avenue, near the north weat boundary of St John's Ward and near to the south west boundary of the Barracks site, said that people from that area mostly went to Knaphill for their shopping, used Knaphill Community Centre and the Winston Churchill CS School. The southern boundary suggested by the Labour Party, along Hermitage Road therefore included the Winston Churchill School in the Knaphill Ward.
12. Councillor Gordon A Brown, member for Brookwood and Knaphill Ward, disagreed with Councillor Mrs Smith, He thought shoppers from the new development would go along the Barrack Patl* or by road, to St John's, rather than to Knaphill, He aaked if the 760 electors in the pending development, on the St John's side of the site, were transferred to Knaphill, what would happen to those, estimated at 350, from the proposed future development on the part of the site nearer to Knaphill. He also referred to other pending development in the Knaphill area (eg that at "the Barley Mow") which would add to the Knaphill electorate. He raised the question of the general relationship of the area with that of the Brookwood area and the possibility of transfer to that ward. He thought there was greater community of interest with Brookwood - in his view it would be better not to create problems for the future by substantial transfer to Knaphill, but to anticipate the problems, by considering now a transfer to Brookwood. He asked when was the next review - in 10 years time? By then the further 350 electors from the Borough Council's housing
25 development on the west side of the site would be a reality, and if the site had been transferred to Brookwood, its electorate would then justify an allocation of
2 members.
13- Councillor Blagborough repeated his contention that St John's Ward already had 360 electors more than Knaphill and there was greater growth taking place in
Et John's from infilling etc.
1*f. Councillor Brown referred to the development taking place in Goldsworth Park which he said was in the Knaphill area*
15- The Chief Executive said the figures involved in the developments mentioned by Councillor Brown had already been taken into account in the proposals* Some new houses were eventually to be built in Goldsworth Park*
16. Mr P R Sanderson, representing the Knaphill and St John's Branch Labour
Party, said that if the development on the Barracks site was included in either of the Knaphill or St John's Wards, either would be above the average for the Bcirough.
17* Councillor Mrs Smith mentioned the various centres of community interest in the areas.
18. Councillor Brown said the problem of car parking at the Polling Station would increase with a larger electorate.
19* Councillor Mrs E Butler, member for the Maybury and Mount Hermon Ward, said in her view, access from this site would be easier via the Barrack Path to
St John's rather than to Knaphill.
20. The Chief Executive has since confirmed (September 1975) the figure of 760 electors expected to arise from the Borough Council and Guinness Trust schemes, and says they are well advanced in the planning stage and that roads and sewers therefor are now in course of construction. Though there are no other major
26 proposals for development in the St John's area, he considers the forecast electorate for 1979 could possibly be increased by 100 (ie to 6l4j) to allow for. . infilling in this area* He also says it is possible now that the development of a further 8 acres, nearest to Knaphill, for which a further 350 electors was forecast for sometime after 1979* may be brought forward to within that period.
21. Inapections made
After the meeting I visited the St John's, Brookwood and Knaphill and Goldsworth
Park Wards and inspected on foot, the Barracks site and its environs.
22. Assessment of the arguments
a. Development and the Electorate
The Chief Executive said (and has since confirmed, subject to the increase
of 100 for infilling) that the estimated electorate for 1979 had already
taken account of the other developments mentioned by Councillors at the
meeting - this, included the references by Councillor Blaeborough to
infilling in St John's Ward and Councillor Brown's references to
other sites in Knaphill - the development in Goldsworth Park would
be contained in a separate ward. So the electorate problem is the
excess of 868 which St John's Ward is now estimated to have over the
Knaphill Ward in 1979, 760 of which arises from the development of
the Barracks site west of the By-pass, and the estimated further 350
electors to be generated from the 8 acres on the extreme west of the
site at, as yet, some unspecified time in the future, but now with the
possibility of it coming into account by 1979-
b. C ommu ni c at i o ns
The planned St John's By-pass will cross the site, diagonally from north
to south, near to the St John's side, leaving on that side only about
l£ acres for Borough Council housing and a smaller site for County
27 Council mental health purposes. On the Knaphill side of the By-pass will be two 8 acre sites, soon to be developed for housing, with a further 8 acres possibly to be used for housing at a later date. Access to the site as a whole will be from Robin Hood Road (the road from
St John's to Knaphill) on the north; from the Barrack Path on the south and south west (also running from St John's to Knaphill); while a new road for vehicular traffic will link the estate roads with Victoria Koad, leading directly to Knaphill and less directly will lead, via Raglan
Road, to St John's to the east and to Brookwood to the south west. The small Council housing site, east of the By-pass, is close to St John's and linked with it by Robin Hood Road. The By-pass is understood to be planned eventually as a dual carriageway, so it is likely to constitute a physical barrier across the site, with by far the greater development on the west (the Knaphill) side, but the extent to which it will reduce the means of communication between the new houses and St John's, or encourage community of interest to develop with Knaphill, is not clear. Presumably vehicular communications with St John's (and Knaphill) will still remain via Robin Hood Road on the north, or on foot along the Barrack Path on the south, which it is assumed will be carried over the By-pass, supplemented for further vehicular traffic by the new road. c. Community of interest
From the evidence given at the meeting and from my inspection of the area, it is not conclusive that the new communities will automatically develop links with Knaphill to the exclusion of St John's. The By-pass will present a physical barrier to direct access on foot between the estate roads and the residential area of St John's, but to some extent the same can be said of the military-type institutional area, lying between the estate and the village of Knaphill. The actual distance between the
28 new estate and the communities of St John!s and of Knaphill is about the same, but St Johh!s lies oh the direct route to the central area of
Woking. The issue is likely to be determined by the new residents1 attitude to the facilities available, both shopping and otherwise at the two places and convenience of the means of communication, parking facilities etc. ijhat is important from the sociological aspect, is that the new residents of the two estates, developed by difference agencies, should be given every encouragement to integrate, and the imposition of a contrived boundary, say, between the two estates, to achieve a purely arithmetical solution to the problem of electoral equality between the two wards,should not be undertaken without considerable thought. d. Boundaries
The line of the new By-pass will constitute an easily identifiable boundary, as well as presumably, a physical barrier between the new estate roads and the existing built-up area of St John's, and its impact, as well as its advantages as a boundary* cannot be overlooked. Plans of the two new estates not having been available, it is not known whether any possible suitable boundary west of the By-pass could occur, but it is unlikely to be as formidable as the By-pass, apart from the sociological factors referred to in (c) above. I am not satisfied that there is any justification, in electoral terms, for the transfer of.the Winston Churchill School site area to the Knaphill Ward. The line of the proposed By-pass is to the east of the School, which presumably will tend to separate it from the St John's residential area, but apart from the absence of any definite evidence about the School's-catchment area, south of the School and of Hermitage Hoad is a substantial residential area, bounded by the Canal, in the St John's Ward, for which no similar suggestions of transfer were made (see annexed plan). In the absence- of
29 information about the precise line of the By-pass and its effect on the local communications and the position of the School in relation to the local communities, I would recommend the retention of the area of the .'School in St John's Ward. e. Future development AS regards the possible future residential development by the Borough Council of the 8 acres nearest to Knaphill, the effect of the addition of a further 350 electors to the Knaphill Ward on the figures now estimated for 1979 will be to add further to the imbalance* The possibility of the Knaphill electorate exceeding that of St John's by 1002, is of some significance - Knaphill would have the largest electorate of any ward in place of St John's which would be reduced to fourth in siae. What is of greater moment, however, is that both wards would be somewhat under- represented, compared with the average entitlement for the Borough. Taken together, this part of the Borough would be below its entitlement by 0.65 of a member, but as both are 3-member wards, some solution such as the addition of a further member in the course of time to Knaphill, is unlikely. Councillor Brown expressed his views about the affinity between this area and Brookwood and the possibility of solving the future problems by transferring part of the Barracks site to that ward. Although these received little support at the Meeting, this aspect could be looked at again later on when more details of the Barracks site developments and the communications are known and this would probably necessitate reconsidering the western boundary of St John's Ward. f. An alternative, also mentioned by Councillor Brown, is to consider the area in relation to the Qoldsworth Park Ward. This new ward is designed to provide for large scale development of this area, by an estate of some 4000 houses, which is in hand and when completed is expected to
30 contain an electorate of 5^o8f supporting an entitlement of 3 members. The boundary between it and the St John's and Knaphill Wards is on,
or near to, the line of Robin Hood Road^ which is not of itself an
impediment to the development of community of interest between these
areas. It is understood that as a result of the present unfavourable
economic climate, the Goldsworth Park development is slower than planned
and although there is no suggestion that the development will not be
completed eventually, or even that the present shortfall will persist,
it is possible that for a time the actual electorate of this ward will not Justify its allocation of three members. Dependant on how this development and that of the Barracks site eventually materialise, there
may, in the future, be a need for a further review of these ward boundaries,
as well as those on the St John's/Knaphill/Brookwood side.
23» In the meanwhile my recommendation is that the boundary between the St John's
and the Knaphill Wards be moved eastwards to a line representing the centre line of the St John's By-pass, as shown on the annexed plan.
C E C R FLATTEN ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SCHEDULE 2
BOROUGH OF WOKING: NAMES OF PROPOSED WARDS AMD NUMBER OF COUNCILLORS
NAME OF WARD MQ OF COUNCILLORS
Brookvood 1 By-fleet 3 Central and Maybury 2 Goldsworth Park 3 Horsell East and Woodham 2 Horsell West 3 Kingfleld and Westfleld 3 Knaphill ^3 Mayford and Sutton 1 Mount He noon East 2 Mount Harmon West 2 Old Woking 1 Pyrfoni 2 St John's 3 Sheervater 2 West Byfleet 2 SCHEDULE 3
BOROUGH OF WOKING : ORDER OF RETIREMENT OF COUNCILLORS
NO. OF COUNCILLORS NAME OF WARD 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR REPRESENTING WARD 3rd YEAR
_ ^ 'Broofcwood 1 1 — 'Byfleet 3 1 1 1 s 2 1 1 Central and Mayfoury - Goldsworth Park 3 1 1 1 _ Horsell East and Woodham 2 1 1 Horsell West 3 1 1 1 Kingfield and Westfield 3 1 1 1 Knaphlll 3 1 1 1 Mayford and Sutton 1 -' 1 - 1 Mount Hermon East 2 1 - 2 1. 1 Mount Hermon West - Old Woklng 1 1 - - Pyrford 2 1 1 - St John's 3 1 1 1 2 1 1 Sheervater - West Byfleet 2 1 1 - 11 12 12
* , * SCHEDULE J50ROUGH OF WOKING DESCRIPTION OP PROPOSED WARD BOUNDARIES
Note: Where the boundary is described as following a road, railway, river, canal or similar feature, it should be deemed to follow the centre line of the feature unless otherwise stated.
KHAPHILL WARD Commencing at the point where Castle Grove Koad meets the northern boundary of the. District, thence southwestwards along the said road and Guildford Road to Carthouse Lane, thence southeastwards along said lane to Littlewick Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the proposed Goldsworth Park Ring Road, thence southeastwards along said proposed ring road to the proposed St John's By pass, thence generally southwards along said proposed by pass to J3arradc Path, thence northwestwards along aaid path to Raglan Road, thence generally southwards along said road to iiermita^e Road, thence southwestwards and southwards along said road to Basingstoke uanal, thence northwestwards and southwestwards along said canal to iiagshot Road, thence northwards along aaid road to a point opposite the southern boundary of Parcel NO 7234 as shown on 1:2500 Ordnance survey Plan SU 9457/9557 Edition 1973 thence southwestwards and northwestwards to and along said southern boundary and continuing northwestwards and northeastwards along the southwestern and northwestern boundaries of Parcel Wo 5144 and thence northwestwards along the western boundary of Parcel No 5075 and the southwestern and western boundaries of Parcel Nos 2000 and 0500 as shown on 1i2500 Ordnance Survey Plans SU9457/9557, SU9458/9558 editions of 1Q73 to the point where it meets the western boundary of the District, thence generally northwards and northeastwards alorv* the western and northern boundaries of the District to the point of commencement. GOLDSWORTH PARK WARD Commencing at the point where Triggs Lane meets the Southern Reg-ion . Waterloo to oouthampton Railway, thence northwestwards along said lane and continuing generally northwestwards along the Triangle and St Johns Road to a point opposite the track that leads to Goldsworth Bridge which spans the Basingstoke Canal, thence northwestwards to and along said track to the proposed Goldsworth Park Ring Road, thence southwestwards and northwestwards along said proposed ring road to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of Knaphill Ward, thence northwestwards and northeast- wards along said eastern boundary to the proposed Horsell tiy nass, thence southeastwards along said proposed by pass to the Basingstoke Canal, thence northeastwards along said canal to a point "being in prolongation northwest- wards of Percy Street, thence southeastwards along said prolongation, Fercy Street and Victoria Arch to the Southern Region Waterloo to Southampton railway, thence southv/estwards along said railway to the point of commence- ment.
HORSELL WEST WARD Commencing ;at the point where the eastern boundary of Knaphill Ward meets the northern boundary of the "District, thence eastwards and souths astwards along said northern boundary to Chobham Road, thence southeastwards along said road to Horsell Common Road, thence southwards along said road to oouth Road, thence northeastwards along said road to the footpath that
leads to Cheapside at its junction with Horsell Rise, thence southeast- wards along said footpath to Cheapside, thence northeastwards along Cheapside to the footpath that runs between Tip Trees and Rowan to the northeast of Horsell Rise, thence southeastwards along said path to Kettlefwell Hill, thence southeastwards along said hill and Chobham Roa point where it meets the northern boundary of Goldsworth Park Ward thence southwestwarda and northwestwards along said northern boundary and ;fche eastern boundary of Knaphlll Ward to the point of commencement, HORSELL EAST AND WOOBHAM WAHD Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Horsell West Ward meets the northern boundary of the District, thence .generally northeast- wards and southeaatwards along said northern boundary to the ."Basingstoke Canal, thence generally southwestwarda along said canal to the point where it meets the eastern boundary of Horsell West Ward, thence generally northweatwards along aaid eastern boundary to the point of commencement. CENTRAL AND MATOTRY WARD Jommencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Horsell '.Vest Ward meets the southeastern'boundary of Horsell East and Woodham Ward, thence northeastwards along said southeastern boundary to a point being the prolongation northwestwards of the rear boundaries of the properties Nos 59 to 1 Blackmore Creacent, thence southeastwarda to and along said boundaries and the western boundary of No 1 Albert Drive and in prolong- ation thereof to the Waterloo to Southampton railway, thence southwest- wards along said railway to a point being the prolongation northwestwards of the rear boundaries of the properties Nos 56 to 50 Alpha Road, thence southeastwards to and along said boundaries to a point where it meets the northern boundary of the property No 61 Princeas Hoad, thence generally aoutheaatwarda and following the rear boundaries of the properties tfos 61 to 141 Princess Road and continuing aoutheastwarda and aouthweatwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 1 to 8? Balmoral Drive to a point where it meets the northeastern boundary of No 77 East Hill, thence southeastwards along the northeastern boundaries of Nos 77 to 8? East Hill and in prolongation thereof to Old Woking Road, thence southwestwards along said road to East Hill, thence northwestwards along East Hill to Oak Lane, thence northwestwards alon£ said lane to the northern boundary of No 9 Oa'c Lane, thence westwards along said boundary to .the eastern boundary of No 41 Frailey Hill, thence north- westwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 41 to 1 Frailey Hill and in prolongation thereof to Princess Road, thence southwestwards along said road to a point opposite the rear boundaries of Nos 2 to 34 Pollard Road, thence northwestwards along said boundaries and southwestwards along the northern boundary of No 34 Pollard Road to Pollard Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the railway, thence south- westwards along said railway to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of Goldsworth Park Ward, thence northwestwards alons; said eastern boundary to a point, where it meets the southern boundary of Horsell West Ward, thence northeastwards along said southern boundary to the point of commencement. StlEERWATSR rfAKD Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Central and Maybury Ward meets the eastern boundary of Horsell Eaat and Woodham Ward, thence northeastwards along the eastern boundary of Horsell East and Woodham Ward to Sheerwater Road, thence southeastwards along said road to a point opposite the southeastern boundary of Norfolk Farm Cottage, Sheer- water Road, thence southwestwards to and along said boundary and con- tinuing along the rear boundaries of Nos 288 to 192 Albert Drive to a point where it meets the northwestern corner of the White Cottage, Old Avenue, thence southeastwards in a straight line to the western boundary of the property No 6 Old Avenue, thence southeastwards along the western boundaries of the properties Nos 6 to No 2 Old Avenue, thence southwestwards along the northern boundary of No 1 Old Avenue to the eastern boundary of the property No 1^8 Albert Drive, thence southeastwards along the said eastern boundary and in prolongation theredf to the Southern Region Waterloo to Southampton Railway Line, thence southwestwards along the said railway to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of the Central and Maybury Ward thence northwestwards along the said eastern boundary to the point of commencement. WEST BYTLEET WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Horsell East and Woodham Ward meets the northern boundary of. the District thence northeastwards along the said northern boundary to the River Wey Navigation thence southwards and southwestwards along the River Wey navigation to Dodd's Lane, thence northwestwards and southwestwards along the said lane to Pyrford Road thence northwards along the said road to Hollybank Road, thence northwestwards along the said road to Oakcroft Road thence southwestwards along the said road to Colharbour Road thence northwestwards along the said road to Old Woking Road thence southwestwards along the said road to a point opposite the southwestern boundary of the property No 2 Golf Close thence northwestwards to and along the southwestern boundaries of the properties No s 2 to 9 Qolf Close, and continuing southwestwards along the northwestern boundaries of the properties known as. Chipstead, Kingsmead, and Coomera, Blackdown Avenue, to the western most corner of the last mentioned property thence north- westwards in a straight line to a point on the eastern boundary of Sheerwater Ward at Grid reference TQ 03018/60308 thence generally north- eastwards along the said boundary and the eastern boundary of Horsell East and Woodham Ward to the point of commencement. BYFLEET WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of West Byfleet Ward meets the northern boundary of the District thence northeastwards and following the said District boundary to a point where it meets the drain that runs between Broad Ditch and the Biver Wey navigation thence northwestwards along the said drain to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of West Byfleet ward at Dodd's Bridge thence generally northwards along the said boundary to the point of commencement. BROOKWOOD WARD Commencing at a point where the western boundary of the District meets the southern boundary of Knaphill Ward thence generally southeastwards along the southernboundaries of the said ward to Hermitage Road thence southwards along the said road to Blackhorse Road thence southeastwards along the said road to the stream that runs from Blackhorse Road across Hook Heath to Crastock Bridge thence generally southeastwards along the said stream to Smarts Heath Road thence eastwards along the said road to Smarts Heath Lane thence southeastwards along the said lane to Hoe Stream thence southwestwards along the said stream to a point where it meetsthe southern boundary of the District thence westwards and following the southern and western boundaries of the District to the point of commencement. 7 ST JOHN'S WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Knaphill Ward meets the western boundary of Goldsworth Park Ward; thence generally southeastwards and following the southern boundaries of Goldsworth Park Ward to a point where it meets the Woking to Guildford railway; thence southwestwards along aaid railway to Blackbridge Road; thence southeastwards along the said road to figley Road; thence southwards along the said road to a point opposite the southern boundary of Parcel No 5272 as shown on 1t2500 Ordnance Survey Plan SU 9856/9956 Edition 1971; thence generally southwestwards to and along the southern boundaries of Parcel Nos 5272 and 4254 and in prolongation thereof to the Woking to Guildford railway; thence southwestwards along said railway to Hoe Stream; thence southwestwards along said stream to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of Brookwood Ward; thence northwestwards and norths'astwards along the eastern boundaries of Brookwood Ward and Knaphill Ward to the point of commencement. MOtJWT HERMQN WEST WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of St Johnfs Ward meets the sbathern boundary of Goldsworlhpark Ward; thence northeastwards alon# the said southern boundary and the southern boundary of Central and Maybury T7ard to the subway at Woking Station; thence southeastwards and following aaid subway, across Station Approach to White Rose Lane; thence southeastwards along said lane to a point opposite the footpath that runs between White Rose Lane and Elm ."Bridge Lane, adjacent to the eastern boundary of No 22a v/hite Hose Lane thence southwestwards to and along the said footpath to the Hoe Stream; thence southwestwards and following said stream to a point opposite the southern boundary of the property No 1 Hawthorn Close; thence northwestwards and northwards to and along the southern boundaries of itoa 1 to 12 and the ^e.-rtem boundary of No 12 Hawthorn Close to a point oppov^ite the eastern end of the thoroughfare known as Slapleys; thence northwestward?! to and alon# said thoroughfare to Sffley Road; thence southwestwards alonT said road f.o a point v/here it meets the eastern boundary of St John's Ward, thence ^nerally 8 northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement. MOUNT H3HMON EAST ' JoinmeAcing at the point where the eastern boundary of Mount Hermon West 'Yard meets the southern boundary of Central and Maybury Ward, thence northeastwards and following said southern boundary and continuing along Old Wok ing- Road to a point opposite the western boundary of the property known aa High Pines Old poking Road, thence due southeastward s in a straight line to the Hoe Stream, thence southv/estwards and .following1 said stream to the eastern bound- Mount ary of/Hermon ffest Ward, thence northwestwards alons said boundary to the point of commencement. KIWGFIELD • AND WE3TFI2LD WARD Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of St John's Ward meets the southern boundary of Mount Hermon West Ward, thence ^nerally northwestwards along said southern boundary and the southern boundary of Mount Hermon ^ast Ward to a point opposite the western boundary of Parcel No 8^50 as shown on 1:2500 Ordnance Survey Plan TQp057/0157 Edition 1968, thence southwards to and along said boundary to the rear boundaries of Nos 51 to 3 Fairfax Road, the northern boundaries of Nos 38 and 47 Goniston Soad and southwards alon^ the rear boundaries of Nos 47 to 3 Goniston Road to the northern boundary of No 80a Rydens V/ay, thence generally westwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 80a to 20 Rydens tfay, thence southwards alone: the western boundary of No 20 Rydens Way and in a straight line crossing Rydens Way to the eastern boimdary of No 39 Rydens Y/ay, thence southwards alon^ the rear boundaries of Nos 56 to 2 3hackleford Road and continuing southwards to and alon^ the eastern bounvlary of No 8 The Terrace to Hi^h Street, thence southwards alon# the western boundary of No 30 ili^h Street to the drain at the rear of said property, thence eastwards and following said drain and continuing alon/r the waterway that bounds the north aide of Mill Moor to the River Wny, thence southwest wards and following said river to the eastern boundary of tho District, thence southv/estwards alonp; said boundary to the a^cnag road that leads to RMqhprto ,, j.,-, ,* jj .»-•• risrier'a FarrT1) thenne westwards alon^r said road and continuing northwestwards and westwards along the footpath situated to the north of the said farm, to the access road to Willow Cottage; thence northwestwards alonsr the said road to Moor Lane; thence northwestwards alon^'the said lane to Westfield Common; thence northwards along Westfield Common to Balfour Avenue: thence westwards along said avenue to Westfield Road; thence northeastwards along said road to Bonsey Lane; thence southwestwards along said lane to a point opposite the footpath that leads to Highland Lane; thence southeastwa~ds to and along said footpath to a point opposite the southern boundary of Highlands County Secondary School; thence southwestwards to and along said boundary and in a straight line southwestwards to the footbridge crossing the Hoe Stream; thence westwards across the footbridge and along the path which is adjacent to the northern boundary of the property known as Nursery View, Bgley Road to Sgley Road; thence northwards along said road to a point where it meets the eastern boundary of St John's Ward; thence northeastwards along the said boundary to the point of commencement. OLD WOKING WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of King..*field and Westfield Ward meets the southern boundary of Mount Hermon East Ward; thence southeastwards and following the said southern boundary and continuing along Hoe Stream to a point opposite the western boundary of Parcel No 7913 as shown on Ordnance Survey 1i2500 PlanTQp258/0558 Edition 1972; thence northeastwards and eastwards to and along the western and northern boundaries of the said parcel and the northern boundaries of Parcel No 9016 to a point where it neet.^ the eastern boundary of the District; thence southwestwards and following the said boundary to the eastern boundary of Kingfield and V/estfield Ward; thence northwestwards and following said boundary to the point of commencement. PYRPORD WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Central and Maybury Ward meets the southern boundary of Sheerwater Ward; thence f**neralty northeastwards eastwards and southea-stwards aloat the southern boundaries of Shearwater Ward, West Byfleet Ward and Byfleet Ward to a point where it "ie<*t.n the eastern boundary of themntrict . thence ^rally noutheast-ards, southwestwards and 10 northwestwards along the said boundary to a point where.it meets the northern boundary of Old Wokin£ Ward; thence generally westwards alon,**- said boundary and continuing northwestwards and southwestwards alon^ the eastern and northern boundaries of Mount Hermon East Ward to the eastern boundary of Central .and Maybury Ward; thence northwestwards alon<* said "boundary to t'ie point of commencement. » J;iAYFOm> AND 3UTTON WARD * Co'mp.encin^ at a point where the southern boundary op the "District meets tv>o eastern* bound-..ry of Broolcwood Ward; thence ^eneralTy northeastwards and southeastwards along1 the n out hern boiuidaries of ^r-^okwood .'ard, 3t John1^ Ward and .Iin.q;'Meld and Vfestfield Ward to a point v.rhere it meets the eastern bonn^lary of tlis District-- thence generally southeastv;ards and nort'west^'irds -VI th^ eastern wl .';outh-;rn ljnund.",rief> o*" th-? .I)i/:trict to '.Vr- "oint o