Chelmsford District in the County of Essex
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 49 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 Albemarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chisholm. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, CBE. To the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE CHELMSFORD DISTRICT IN THE COUNTY OF ESSEX 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the Chelmsford "district, 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 District. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice'was given on 3 June 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to Chelmsford District Council, copies of which were circulated to the Essex County Council, Parish Councils and a Parish Meeting in the district, the members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of 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 interested bodies. 3* Chelmsford District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. When 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 wore also asked 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 before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. The Council had passed a resolution under section (?)(it)(a) of the Local Government Act 1972 requesting the Secretary of State to provide for a system of whole council elections. 5* On 29 October 197** Chelmsford District Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed that the district should be divided into 29 wards, each returning 1, 2 or 3 councillors to form a council of 60 , 7>£ •>*** Mftrfc* *5 members, 3 moro tntm at present. 6. We carefully considered the draft scheme, together with the comments which had been made on certain areas. We concluded that we should make some modifications to the council's draft scheme before adopting it as our draft proposals. We decided to divide one 3-member ward to form 2 single member wards and to regroup certain other parishes giving additional representation. On the advice of Ordnance Survey we proposed some minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the ward boundaries. We then formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 7*0n 3 January 1975 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 Connil were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying maps 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 members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 28 February 1975- RESPONSE TO DRAFT PROPOSALS 8. Some parish councils wrote to support our proposals for their regrouping. We also received comments objecting to the Commission's proposals for the Springfield, Boreham, South Hanningfield, Runwell and Rettendon wards asking that they should be rejected in favour of the proposals put forward by the District Council in their draft scheme. We again received proposals for an alternative boundary between the proposed Cathedral and The Lawns wards. We also received representations from South Hanningfield Parish Council objecting to the arrangements for the proposed Settendon ward, from Boreham Parish Council objecting to the proposal to reduce the number of councillors, and other objections to the proposal to separate the proposed Boreham and Springfield wards. 9. In view of these differences of views we considered 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 H J Backhouse as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 10. The Assistant Commissioner visited the areas which were the subject of dispute and held a meeting at the Civic Centre, Chelmsford on 17 June. A copy of his report to us of the inspection and of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 11. The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the boundary between the .^Cathedral ward and the ""The Lawns ' ward should be realigned and that the parishes of Boreham and Springfield should, be combined to form a 2-memher ward. He also recommended that two ward names should be changed. 12. We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that we should accept all the Assistant Commissioner's recommendations and, subject to these modifications, we confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals* 13- Details of these proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and on the attached maps. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each. The boundaries of the new wards are shown on the maps. PUBLICATION 1*f. In accordance with section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report together with copies of the maps are being sent to Chelmsford District Council and will be available for inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without maps) are 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 maps is set out in Schedule 3 to this report. L.S. Signed EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN) JOHN M RANKIN (DEPUTY CHAIRMAN) DIANA ALBEMAHLE T C BENFIELD MICHAEL CHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLET F B YOUNG DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) 31 July 1975 REPORT OF MBSTiaG TO INQUiaS INTO THS FUTURE ELECTORAL • ARRANGE!.! CTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF CH2LMSFORD. I attended at the Civic. Centre, Chelmsford on 17th Junef 1975 to hear representation relating to the following wards proposed by the Commission! Cathedral, The Lawns, Borehata, Springfield, Rettendon, South Kanningfield, Ruivsell. The persona set out in the attached list attended. Cathedral and The Laflns Wards* The boundary "between the above-named wards tfas changed by the District Council in their draft scheme, thereby transferring 753 electors from The Lagans ward to Cathedral ward. This proposal was adopted by the Commission. The Springfield Residents Association objected to the new southern boundary of The Lawns and suggested that it should be restored to the railway as the obvious line. It appears that one object of the proposal to depart frora the original railway boundary was to secure some equality in electoral representation. The figure given in the Commission's Draft Proposals for 1979 were, for Cathedral ward, 4303 electors and for The Lawns ward, 4953 electors. Since these Draft Proposals were isstrsd, however, a mistake has been found, making the 1979 figure now, for Cathedral ward, 5058 electors and for The La'jna ward, 419& electors. Mr. Hartley, for the District Council, conceded that these nos figures meant that the proposed boundary nov; gave no advantage in equality of representation, since by reverting back to the railway boundary, the figure would be for Cathedral ward, 4303 electors and for The Lawns ward, 4953 electors. He claimed, however, that the area proposed to be transferred from The Lawns "ward to Cathedral ward comprised older development which had a co&caunity affiliation and good road links -with the remainder of Cathedral ward south of the railway. This view was supported by the representatives of the Conservative Association, vjho also pointed out that the polling station at the Church School vjould be more convenient for the residents of the old persons' dwellings by Springfield dreen than the Tyrell School polling station in The Lawns ward. Mr. Roberts, for the Springfield Residents Association, pointed out that most of the : property in the aroa under dispute was post-war, a substantial part around Chichester Drive (2?5 electors) being of very recent construction, and was totally . different in type from most of Cathedral ward which stretched into the centre of the town. He agreed that the old persons at Springfield Green -sould have a longer journey to vote if the boundary was moved back to the railway but only by a few hundred yards. On the other hand, the electors in the Chichester Drive and Seven Ash Green area would have a difficult and dangerous journey to vote at the 'Trinity School polling station in Cathedral ward under the dr&ft proposals. He also pointed out that the proposed boundary was tortuous and explicated, sonetiraes following roads and sometimes the back fences of dwellings, whereas the railway was a clearly defined boundary.