Review of Non-Metropolitan Counties COUNTY OF EAST AND ~S BOUNDARIES KbN , SURREY AN ES SUSS LOCAL GQVEHKUZWT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

i'OU

REPORT NO . 002 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton

MEMBERS Mr K F J Ennals

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr C W Smith

Professor K Young ROBSUX.PMD

THE RT HON MICHAEL HESELTINE MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

REVIEW OF NON METROPOLITAN COUNTIES

THE COUNTY OF EAST SUSSEX AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH KENT, SURREY AND COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION 1. On 27 January 1986 we wrote to East Sussex County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the county under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local authorities and parishes in East Sussex and in the adjacent counties of Kent, Surrey and West Sussex; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities, water authorities, electricity and gas boards which might have an interest, as well as to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The County Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other local authorities, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by placing a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. They were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of the police and to services in respect of which they have a statutory function such as the administration of justice.

3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for local authorities, including those in the adjacent counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would best serve the interests of effective and convenient local government.

THE SUBMISSIONS MADE TO US

4. In response to our letter we received representations from East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council, Kent County Council, and a number of other local authorities, as well as from various other interested organisations and persons in the area, as listed in Schedule 1 to this report. In all, we received 114 representations from local authorities, private individuals and other bodies after the official launch of the review, in addition to 133 representations beforehand. We also received three petitions signed by 44 residents of Charlwood Gardens, Wivelsfield, ten residents of Strawberry Close and Margate Close, Frant, and 328 residents of Southwick and Shoreham, respectively.

5. The submissions made to us included various suggestions for changes to East Sussex's boundaries with Kent and West Sussex. Details of these suggestions, and our initial conclusions regarding them, are set out in the paragraphs below. No recommendations for change to East Sussex's boundary with Surrey were received.

SUGGESTIONS FOR CHANGES AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

(i) The Boundary between East Sussex and Kent:

(a) Frant - Strawberry Close and Margate Close

6. East Sussex County Council proposed the transfer to Tunbridge Wells, in Kent, of two areas of housing at Margate Close and Strawberry Close, on the grounds that access to them was only available from Tunbridge Wells and that services were already provided by the Kent local authorities. The proposal was supported by Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council. Council also endorsed the suggestion in principle but suggested an alternative line drawn more tightly round these developments and excluding certain forested areas which seemed to have little affinity with Tunbridge Wells. Three residents wrote to us opposing the proposed transfer because of concern that Tunbridge Wells Borough Council might extend development there and because of satisfaction with services currently provided. One resident enclosed a petition signed by ten others opposing any change but saying that if an alteration was deemed essential, it should be the minimum necessary.

7. We noted the residents' objections to change, but felt that the two areas were clearly extensions of Tunbridge Wells, which provides their local government services. We did not however consider that the transfer of undeveloped land between the two built up areas, which East Sussex County Council had suggested, could be justified in terms of effective and convenient local government. We therefore decided to adopt Wealden District Council's alignment as the basis of our draft proposal.

8. Ordnance Survey suggested a technical amendment to the existing boundary between High Rocks Fort and the A26 to replace a section that had become defaced. We decided to include this in our draft proposal.

(b) Frant - Benhall Mill Road

9. East Sussex County Council suggested that the north-west end of Benhall Mill Road should be transferred to Tunbridge Wells (Kent) which, by agreement, provides local authority services for the whole road. Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Wealden District Council all supported the suggestion although the last two councils proposed slightly amended boundaries to separate urban from rural areas. Twelve local residents supported Wealden District Council's suggested alignment which involved the least change and we decided to adopt this as the basis for our draft proposal.

(c) Frant - Bavham Lake and Bavham Abbev Ruins

10. East Sussex County Council suggested that its boundary with Kent near Bayham Lake should be changed to unite the whole of the lake in East Sussex, in order to help it discharge its responsibilities under the Reservoirs Act 1975 and to realign the defaced boundary at Bayham Abbey to the northern edge of the fishpond. It was supported by Wealden District Council. Kent County Council however proposed uniting Bayham Lake in.Kent so that the dam came under its control, as it claimed that Kent would be more at risk from flooding if a breach occurred.

11. We accepted that the boundary at the Abbey needed realignment. We also felt that change was required at Bayham Lake. We noted that most of the lake was already in East Sussex, and did not consider that Kent County Council had given sufficient reason to unite it in Kent. We therefore decided to adopt East Sussex County Council's proposed alignment for Bayham Lake and the Abbey as our draft proposal.

(d) Wadhurst - Hoghole Lane and Neills Road

12. East Sussex County Council suggested altering the boundary at Wadhurst to follow the southern edge of Hoghole Lane and Neills Road in order to simplify road maintenance, thereby placing the road and most of the community south of Sawpit Wood in Kent. It also suggested that the existing boundary at Shepherds Ward Wood and Slade Wood should be aligned to detail. Wealden District Council supported this suggestion. Kent County Council recognised the present anomalies but felt East Sussex County Council's proposal at Sawpit Wood was too extensive, would not achieve improvements in local government services and would not keep the community at Sawpit Wood intact as desired by Wadhurst Parish Council. However, East Sussex County Council's suggestions for Shepherds Ward Wood and Slade Wood were broadly accepted by Kent County Council. One resident was concerned that alteration of the boundary at Three Chimneys, south of Neills Road, would harm medical services.

13. We felt that the area's affinity was more with Lamberhurst (Kent) and that East Sussex's suggested alignment best reflected community ties. However, we felt that the boundary could be improved by placing all of Thieves Wood in Kent and the whole of the Water Treatment Works in East Sussex. We also thought that the proposed boundary at Owls Castle/Sawpit Wood would isolate Caroline Cottage and Maitlands in East Sussex and therefore we proposed a boundary change to place them in Kent.

14. We also noted that East Sussex's proposed boundary would result in properties on the southern side of Neills Road in East Sussex being accessible only from Kent. We considered that neither this nor Kent County Council's alternative would be appropriate. Although Kent's suggestion (with a small modification) would meet the wishes of the residents of Three Chimneys to remain in that county, we saw no reason to justify retaining the land south of Sleepers Stile Road in Kent and decided to make a draft proposal to transfer it to East Sussex so that the boundary would be more identifiable.

(e) Ticehurst - Bewl Bridge Reservoir and Flimwell

15. East Sussex County Council recommended that the whole of Bewl Bridge Reservoir and the land north-east up to the A21 should be brought into East Sussex in order to simplify its duties under the Reservoirs Act 1975. It had also considered the possibility of change north of Flimwell, but, after consulting the residents, had decided that none was necessary except the realignment of the boundary round Boundary Cottage. Rother District Council and Ticehurst Parish Council both supported the County Council's suggestion. Wealden District Council and East Sussex Magistrates Courts Committee supported the transfer of the reservoir to East Sussex but Wealden suggested a tighter boundary than the County Council, excluding land north east of the reservoir.

16. Kent County Council supported East Sussex's suggestion for Flimwell but, for the reservoir, suggested that part of it, and the whole of the dam, should be in Kent because the transfer of the reservoir to East Sussex would jeopardise its right of consultation on safety matters and would remove the reservoir from Kent's list of recreational amenities. It also opposed the transfer of land north-east of the reservoir to East Sussex as it considered its affinity to be with Kent.

17. We concluded that the whole reservoir and the dam should be in East Sussex. However, we considered that East Sussex County Council's suggested alignment was too extensive and would leave Bewl Bridge Farm and other properties with ties to Lamberhurst, isolated in East Sussex. We therefore decided to make a draft proposal based on Wealden District Council's suggestion, together with the agreed change at Flimweli, including technical amendments recommended by Ordnance Survey to replace sections of defaced boundary at Flimwell.

(f) Camber

18. Both East Sussex and Kent County Councils were concerned that the existing boundary near Camber was ill-defined and divided both the mineral works north of the coast road to Rye and the MoD gun ranges. They recommended their transfer to Kent. East Sussex Magistrates Courts Committee supported this suggestion. However, Kent County Council suggested that "Rosedale" should be retained in East Sussex, as its residents wished.

19. Shepway District Council, Rother District Council, the Parish Councils of Camber and Rye and Mr Kenneth Warren MP, opposed the suggested boundary change on the grounds that it was against the wishes of the residents involved, whose community links were said to be with Camber and Rye (though only one had written to the Commission); and that the change would cause duplication of council services in the area. Lydd Town Council suggested placing Brett Quarry and the Lydd Army Ranges wholly in Kent but leaving the residential properties in East Sussex.

20. The Commission carefully considered the arguments for and against change and concluded on balance that the change suggested by the County Council's would improve the boundary. It therefore decided to adopt East Sussex County Council's suggestion as the basis of its draft proposal, but modified to retain "Rosedale" in East Sussex, as advocated by Kent County Council and the occupiers.

(ii) The Boundary between East Sussex and West Sussex

(a) Shoreham

21 . East Sussex County Council originally recommended no change to the existing boundary, except to rectify an anomaly in the Brambledean Road/St Richard's Road area where it divided properties by placing both roads wholly in East Sussex. West Sussex County Council and Adur District Council however suggested placing only Brambledean Road in East Sussex and placing St Richard's Road in West Sussex. Both Councils' schemes reflected the view that radical change to the existing county boundary was not wanted, a view which was endorsed by Arun District Council, Borough Council, Horsham District Council, Worthing District Community Health Council, the Health Authorities for Brighton and Worthing District and several organisations representing residents of Southwick and Shoreham. A number of local residents also objected to any major revision of the present boundary. The Shoreham Port Authority, after initially advocating no change in the present boundary, endorsed a suggestion by one resident to put the harbour area wholly in West Sussex, but none of the local authorities concerned felt that unification of the harbour in isolation would solve its traffic and environmental problems. 22. In response to a request for further information, East Sussex County Council suggested that the River Adur should be the new county boundary and was supported by Hove Borough Council. Both West Sussex County Council and Adur District Council remained opposed to radical change, as did the Southwick (Sussex) Society.

23. We concluded that nothing less than radical change would enable a united view to be taken of the traffic and other environmental problems associated with Shoreham Harbour. Such change however could have serious implications for the future of the District of Adur. Furthermore, we noted that a joint study on the future use of the Port was already being carried out by the four principal authorities and the Shoreham Port Authority.

24. We therefore decided to limit our draft proposal to West Sussex County Council's suggestion for minor change at Brambledean Road/St Richard's Road. We reserved our position on the desirability of radical change pending the outcome of the joint study.

(b) Wivelsfield and Ditchlinq

25. East Sussex County Council recommended changes to the present boundary at Slugwash Lane to transfer parts of Cains Wood and Kaines Orchard to West Sussex to avoid split properties; at Greenhill Way to unite the residential development there with the rest of the estate in West Sussex; and at Valebridge Road and Charlwood Gardens to place the area in East Sussex to avoid dividing both existing and proposed development.

26. West Sussex County Council and Mid-Sussex District Council supported East Sussex's suggested change for Slugwash Lane and Greenhill Way. One resident of Slugwash Lane advocated making the lane the county boundary southwards to Wivelsfield and Ote Hall Chapel. Several residents of Greenhill Way opposed any change, claiming that Wivelsfield Parish Council had endorsed their views at its Annual General Meeting in 1985. They also claimed that

8 there were better schools in East Sussex and that West Sussex allowed too much infilling and development.

27. West Sussex County Council considered that East Sussex County Council's alignment would cut off properties on the eastern side of Valebridge Road from , from which it derived its services; instead, it suggested transferring these properties and several outlying farms to West Sussex. Mid-Sussex District Council and Burgess Hill Town Council both supported West Sussex County Council but the District Council suggested a more extensive realignment which would have used the B2112 between Ditchling Common and Wellhouse Farm as the boundary; it said that it would support West Sussex's proposal as a compromise if the Commission did not accept its own alignment. Lewes District Council, Wivelsfield Parish Council, Mr Tim Rathbone MP and the East Sussex Magistrates Courts Committee considered that only minor alterations were necessary. The Chairman of the Governors of Wivelsfield Green County Primary School expressed concern at the possible effect of any reduction in the number of children attending the school and forwarded, via East Sussex County Council, the results of a survey of households in Charlwood Gardens and Charlwood Road. Of the 52 households surveyed 36 were against transfer to West Sussex and only four were in favour.

28. We considered that the changes proposed for Slugwash Lane and Greenhill Way reflected the view that both areas were extensions of residential areas in West Sussex and decided to make draft proposals to this effect. However, we did not feel that East Sussex County Council's suggestions for the Charlwood Gardens/Valebridge Road area recognised that it was effectively a continuation of Burgess Hill whence it derived its services. We also considered that East Sussex County Council's suggestion could lead to duplication of services. We therefore decided to issue a draft proposal based on West Sussex County Council's suggestion, but modified to exclude open land between "Theobalds" and Little Wood which were not considered essential to the transfer. (c) Forest Row and

29. East Sussex County Council suggested transferring the developed area east of Ashurst Wood around Cansiron Lane to East Sussex, as well as a minor realignment to unite playing fields at Lewes Road and Wall Hill Road. Wealden District Council broadly accepted this suggestion but recommended an alternative boundary to take account of recent changes in the curtilages of some properties and to provide an alternative boundary round the playing fields.

30. West Sussex County Council argued that services to Cansiron Lane were provided via Ashurst Wood and in West Sussex. Initially, it proposed transferring all of Cansiron Lane to West Sussex but in view of the lack of local support it subsequently favoured a more limited adjustment which merely avoided splitting properties. Mid-Sussex District Council, however, felt that there was a clear case for uniting Cansiron Lane with Ashurst Wood and suggested putting the whole area in West Sussex. This was endorsed by East Grinstead Town Council but other organisations in the area felt that either no change or only very minor changes to the boundary were necessary. Several local residents said they felt no affinity with East Grinstead or West Sussex and claimed that services from Wealden District Council and East Sussex County Council were satisfactory. Some residents of East Grinstead pointed out that their nearest county town was Lewes in East Sussex, not Chichester in West Sussex.

31. Neither of the County Councils nor any of the District Councils had suggested the transfer of East Grinstead to East Sussex. We recognised that the town had historic links with that county; but we also noted that it now had close links with Crawley and, in particular, with Gatwick Airport in West Sussex. Moreover, to remove East Grinstead from West Sussex would substantially affect the size and balance of the District of Mid- Sussex. We concluded, therefore, that, in the absence of any substantial body of representations recommending radical change,

10 we should not make any proposals for East Grinstead.

32. We noted that Cansiron Lane and Hammerwood Road were both culs-de-sac that looked to East Grinstead, and therefore to West Sussex, for services. We concluded that Mid-Sussex District Council's suggestion better reflected the area's ties and decided to issue a draft proposal based upon it. We also noted that Brambletye School and several cottages on the edge of Ashurst Wood would be isolated in East Sussex even though they relied on West Sussex for services. We therefore decided to make a draft proposal to place these properties wholly in West Sussex.

(d) Weirwood Reservoir and Plawhatch

33. East Sussex County Council suggested uniting the whole reservoir in East Sussex and transferring land west of Grinstead Lane to West Sussex. It was supported by Wealden District Council and Forest Row Parish Council. This would have united the village of in West Sussex.

34. West Sussex County Council, however, felt that some properties in Grinstead Lane had a greater affinity with Sharpthorne; that the western end of the reservoir should be in West Sussex; and that East Sussex's alignment would complicate the maintenance of Whillets Bridge. It suggested an alternative boundary to unite the western end of the reservoir in West Sussex and so transfer those properties to West Sussex. This was supported by Mid-Sussex District Council, Parish Council and a local resident. The resident claimed that the area's administration by seven local authorities caused difficulties and claimed that residents of Plawhatch had little affinity with Forest Row. However, twelve Plawhatch residents who wrote to us direct denied this.

35. We concluded that West Sussex County Council's suggestion would divide responsibility for the reservoir whereas East Sussex's suggestion would unite the whole reservoir in one county

11 and would also unite Sharpthorne. We did not consider that the problem of maintaining Whillets Bridge should determine the boundary since the bridge would be accessible via Legsheath Lane. We therefore decided to make a draft proposal based on East Sussex County Council's suggestion.

36. In reaching these initial conclusions we recognised that they would extend West Sussex slightly further east into what is now East Sussex and that the East Grinstead area as a whole clearly had some close connections with parts of East Sussex to the south and east (and, indeed, with Surrey to the north). We had not, however, received any convincing evidence to indicate that such ties are stronger than those which now link it with Crawley and Gatwick in West Sussex, and have already indicated (in paragraph 31 above) our decision to make no proposals for East Grinstead.

(e) Donkey Bottom

37. East Sussex County Council, supported by Brighton Borough Council, suggested amending the boundary to bring the whole of the Standean access road and a number of scattered properties into East Sussex. West Sussex County Council and Mid-Sussex District Council broadly agreed with the proposal but suggested transferring a smaller area of land to East Sussex which would still resolve the present anomalies.

38. We noted that the main reason given for change was that Brighton Borough Council owned the land but we did not consider that this alone was sufficient justification for a boundary change. However, as access to the scattered properties was only possible via East Sussex, we concluded that West Sussex County Council's suggested lesser transfer was more appropriate and we decided to adopt it as our draft proposal.

12 (f) Birch Grove House, Maresfield

39. East Sussex County Council, supported by the three other principal local authorities, suggested incorporating Birch Grove House and all its grounds in West Sussex to correct the anomaly of its division by the boundary. We therefore decided to make a draft proposal based on this suggestion but incorporating suggestions by Ordnance Survey to align the boundary to detail.

(g) Pellino Bridge. Chailev

40. East Sussex County Council, supported by the West Sussex local authorities involved , suggested uniting the whole of Felling Bridge in East Sussex by using Pellingford Brook as the boundary. We considered this to be sensible and decided to adopt it for our draft proposal.

(h) Wellhouse Lane, Ditchling

41. West Sussex County Council suggested transferring Wellhouse Farm and its associated buildings to West Sussex to accord with service provision. We considered the suggestion was sensible and decided to adopt it as the basis for our draft proposal.

INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

42. We took interim decisions to make no proposals in respect of the following areas where the local authorities had suggested changes, or had recommended no change where changes had been proposed to them.

(i) The boundary between East Sussex and Surrey

43. No changes had been suggested to the short section of boundary between Surrey and East Sussex and we ourselves saw no need for change. We therefore decided to make no proposals in respect of this boundary.

13 (ii) The boundary between East Sussex and West Sussex

(a) Danehill

44. East Sussex County. Council suggested transferring land east of Freshfield Lane to East Sussex, with which it was said to have an affinity. It was supported by Wealden District Council. Danehill Parish Council felt that a more extensive transfer was required to prevent the community centred on the lane being divided. However, West Sussex County Council did not consider that the present boundary created any difficulties and both it and Freshfield Lane Brickworks Ltd pointed out that Danehill Parish Council's proposal would split the brickworks. No local residents had commented.

45. We concluded that no convincing case for change had been made and decided to make no proposals for the area.

(b) Devil's Dvke and Mile Oak

46. Brighton Borough Council suggested transferring land it owned at both sites from West Sussex to East Sussex and was supported by Hove Borough Council in respect of the former. East Sussex County Council supported in principle the Borough Council's suggestion for Devils Dyke, although it felt the transfer proposed was too extensive/ but did not support the proposal for Mile Oak. West Sussex County Council and Mid-Sussex District Council both considered that land ownership was insufficient reason for a boundary change and that Brighton's proposal would split an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, leaving it vulnerable to encroachment.

47. We did not consider that either Brighton Borough Council or East Sussex County Council had made a case for changing the existing boundaries in these areas, so we therefore decided to make no proposals.

14 PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

48. Our draft proposals and interim decisions were published on 1 November 1988 in a letter to East Sussex County Council. Copies were sent to all those who had received a copy of our letter of 27 January 1986 and to those who had made representations to us. East Sussex County Council was asked to arrange, in conjunction with Kent, Surrey and West Sussex County Councils, for the publication of a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions, and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. The County Councils, along with the District Councils concerned, were also asked to place copies of our draft proposals letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 31 December 1988; due however to the combination of a postal strike and the Christmas holiday period, an extension was later granted until 31 January 1989.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS;

49. We received 64 representations in response to our draft proposals. They included comments from the County Councils of East Sussex, Kent and West Sussex, from several other local authorities concerned, and from the interested bodies which are listed in the attached Schedule 2. The representations also included letters from 27 members of the public.

50. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have considered the representations made to us. Our conclusions, in the light of the representations concerning each area, are set out in the following paragraphs.

15 (i) East Sussex/Kent Boundary (a) Frant -Strawberry Close and Margate Close

51. Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Wealden District Council all supported the Commission's draft proposal in principle, although Kent and Tunbridge Wells both suggested that two areas of undeveloped land on the south side of Broadwater Down should be transferred to Tunbridge Wells so that one authority would have planning control over the whole area. However, neither Kent nor Tunbridge Wells saw justification for our technical amendment to the existing boundary between High Rocks Fort and the A26. Kent saw no difficulties in service provision arising from the present boundary and Tunbridge Wells wanted more time for people to comment on the technical amendment as they considered that our draft proposals letter had failed to explain exactly what change was proposed. Wealden suggested transferring open land south of the disused railway and the built- up area to East Sussex on the grounds that it was designated an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and that our technical amendment would divide it.

52. We received two other representations for this area. An architect acting for a resident of Strawberry Close suggested a small modification to our draft proposal to avoid division of his client's land. The owner of Ramslye Farm Cottage opposed our technical amendment because it divided an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and because he considered parts of the boundary still to be poorly defined; he suggested transferring open land south of the built-up area and Friesland Wood to East Sussex.

53. We considered that the architect's suggested modification to our draft proposal was justified, and as only a de minimis change would be involved, we have confirmed our draft proposal as final incorporating this modification. We have decided to withdraw our technical amendment to the boundary between High Rocks Fort and the A26 as we accept that it does not offer a significant improvement on the existing boundary.

16 (b) Frant-Benhall Mill Road

54. Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and a local resident all supported our draft proposal. Consultants acting for the owners of land behind Benhall Mill Road suggested that the land should be united in Kent, so that their clients could develop it under one planning authority. However, we do not favour boundary changes which are motivated by a desire to promote (or obstruct) development and we have decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(c) Frant-Bayham Lake and Bavham Abbey Ruins

55. Kent County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council supported our draft proposal for Bayham Lake and the Abbey fishpond but opposed it for the dams because they considered that responsibility for their structural safety should be with the downstream authority (Kent). East Sussex County Council supported our draft proposal. We have no doubt East Sussex County Council will meet its responsibilities for the maintenance of the dams and have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(d) Wadhurst - Hoghole Lane and Nellls Road

56. Kent County Council, East Sussex County Council and Tunbridge Wells Borough Council all supported our draft proposal. No objections were received and we have confirmed it as final.

(e) Ticehurst - Bewl Bridge Reservoir and Flimwell

57. Kent County Council, Tunbridge Wells Borough Council and Lamberhurst Parish Council, all opposed our draft proposal for Bewl Bridge Reservoir because, as at Bayham Lake (paragraph 55), they considered that responsibility for maintenance of the dam should be with the downstream authority. East Sussex County Council and Rother District Council supported our draft proposal in principle, but still wanted the A21 to be the eastern boundary.

17 Kent County Council also supported in principle our draft proposal for Flimwell, but considered that our technical amendments to the existing boundary were unnecessary. Ticehurst Parish Council and Councillor Mrs Moore suggested that land between the A21 and Rosemary Lane should be transferred to East Sussex on grounds of affinities and alleged poor road maintenance by Kent County Council; however, no local residents supported this proposal.

58. We are confident that East Sussex County Council will meet its responsibilities for maintenance of the dam at Bewl Bridge Reservoir; however we still consider that there are insufficient grounds for making the A21 the eastern boundary. As for Flimwell, we already know that residents of Rosemary Lane had previously opposed change, so we are not convinced by the case put by Ticehurst and Councillor Mrs Moore. We also cannot accept Kent's argument about our technical amendments; to do so would leave lengths of poorly defined boundary. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final.

(f) Camber

59. Both Kent and East Sussex County Councils supported our draft proposal; however, Rother District Council, Camber Parish Council and Mr Kenneth Warren MP opposed it. Camber was concerned that there would be duplication of road maintenance and refuse collection. We have reconsidered our draft proposal for this area and have concluded that the gain in effective and convenient local government would be very limited. We have therefore decided to withdraw it.

(ii) East Sussex/West Sussex Boundary

(a) Shoreham

60. West Sussex County Council, Adur District Council and Shoreham Port Authority supported our draft proposal but East Sussex County Council, Mr (now Sir) Richard Luce MP the Southwick

18 Society and two local residents opposed it. East Sussex considered our draft proposal would divide a community and wanted St Richard's Road to be wholly in East Sussex. The Southwick Society did not consider the current boundary to be an obstacle to effective and convenient local government. One local resident was concerned that her rates would increase and that her children would have to change school.

61. The existing boundary is clearly anomalous in the Brambledean Road/St Richards Road area and we have concluded that the advantages of our draft proposal in terms of effective and convenient local government must here outweigh local opposition to change. We have therefore confirmed it as final. As to the division of the area round Shoreham Harbour between two counties, we do not consider that sufficient evidence has been produced to justify a radical boundary change and we note that the joint study to which we refer in paragraph 23 has not yet been completed. We therefore make no proposals fox- major change in this area.

(b) Wivelsfield and Ditchling

62. Our draft proposal was supported by West Sussex County Council, Mid-Sussex District Council, Burgess Hill Town Council, Rural Parish Council, Councillor Mrs Meek and one local resident, on the grounds that the Valebridge Road/Charlwood Gardens area was a continuation of Burgess Hill; that there were no links with Wivelsfield; and that it would reduce duplication of services. However, Mid-Sussex pointed out that there was a discrepancy in our draft proposal between the text of our letter, which explained that West Sussex County Council's proposal had been adopted, and the map accompanying the letter, which excluded open fields between "Theobalds" and Little Wood. We were also asked to consider putting the area to be transferred into the parish of Burgess Hill, rather than into Cuckfield Rural, because it is an extension of Burgess Hill.

19 63. Our draft proposal was opposed by East Sussex County Council, Lewes District Council, Wivelsfield Parish Council, Mr Tim Rathbone MP, the Chairman of Governors for Wivelsfield County Primary School and six local residents, on the grounds that the residents opposed change; that the area was rural; that it had no affinity with Burgess Hill; and that it had educational, social and religious links with Wivelsfield. Opponents also expressed concern about their children's education and, in particular, about the future viability of Wivelsfield County Primary School; they pointed to differences in the two County Councils' policies on school admissions and transport. All the comments we received concerned Valebridge Road and Charlwood Gardens; none concerned Greenhill Way or Slugwash Lane.

64. We noted that, notwithstanding local residents' claimed affinities with East Sussex, all the properties concerned are only accessible from West Sussex. We have concluded that our draft proposal for Valebridge Road/Chariwood Gardens was justified - but as shown in the map accompanying our draft proposals letter, not as described in the text of that letter, (the proposal shown in the map is limited to those properties accessible only via West Sussex and excludes the open fields west of Great Ote Hall, Little Wood and the tributary of the River Adur). We have therefore decided to confirm our draft proposal as final, but with a modification so as to transfer the area to the parish of Burgess Hill rather than Cuckfield Rural, thereby reflecting our view that the area is essentially part of that community. We have also decided to confirm as final our draft proposal for Greenhill Way and Slugwash Lane, to which no opposition was received.

(c) Forest Row and Ashurst Wood

65. Both Mid-Sussex District Council and East Grinstead Town Council supported our draft proposal. However, East Sussex County Council, Wealden District Council, Forest Row Parish Council, County Councillor Hughes and 16 local residents opposed it. Opposition was mainly to changes in the Cansiron Lane area of

20 Ashurst Wood but East Sussex County Council also opposed our draft proposal at Brambletye School, suggesting that change should be limited to the playing fields at Lewes Road. Forest Row Parish Council, although not opposing our draft proposal for the school, suggested using Forest Way as the boundary.

66. The main reasons for opposing our draft proposal at Cansiron Lane were that residents' affinity was with Forest Row (East Sussex) and that it would cause a duplication of local authority services. Some local residents suggested uniting all properties east of Ashurst Wood Abbey in East Sussex, because of their close links with Forest Row. While we recognised the area's proximity to Ashurst Wood and the lack of direct road communication with Forest Row, we decided to issue a further draft proposal based on uniting all properties east of Ashurst Wood Abbey in East Sussex.

(d) Weirwood Reservoir and Plawhatch

67. East Sussex County Council, Forest Row Parish Council and Southern Water Authority all supported our draft proposal. A local landowner supported it as regards the reservoir, but opposed it for Plawhatch on the grounds that it would divide the local estate (Mayes) and failed to reflect local residents' closer affinity with West Hoathly (West Sussex) than with Forest Row (East Sussex). He suggested transferring the whole estate to West Sussex and was supported by the West Sussex local authorities.

68. We felt that the suggestion to transfer the local estate to West Sussex had merit, notwithstanding that the boundary would be less identifiable than our original proposal, as it avoided the division of property and appeared to satisfy local ties. We therefore decided to make a further draft proposal based on this suggestion.

21 (e) Donkey Bottom, (f) Birch Grove House, Maresfield, (g) Felling Bridge, Chailev, and (M Wellhouse Lane. Ditchlinq

69. East Sussex County Council and Brighton Borough Council both supported our draft proposal for Donkey Bottom. Parish Council opposed it on the grounds of historical links and residents affiliations with Pyecombe, but it acknowledged that access was only via East Sussex. Our other three draft proposals have not been subject to any opposition. East Sussex County Council supported all of them and Councillor Mrs Meek supported our draft proposal for Wellhouse Lane. Mid-Sussex District Council however suggested transferring extra land near Wellhouse Farm to West Sussex to give it planning control over the fringes of Burgess Hill, but we were not convinced this was a sufficient reason for transferring additional land. We have therefore confirmed all our draft proposals for these areas as final.

RESPONSE TO OUR INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

(i) East Sussex/Surrey Boundary

70. We received no response to our interim decision and have therefore confirmed it as final.

(ii) East Sussex/West Sussex Boundary (a) Danehill

71 . West Sussex County Council supported our interim decision. East Sussex County Council opposed it; however, as it repeated its arguments for change which we had earlier rejected, we see no reason for changing our minds and have decided to confirm it as final.

22 (b) Devil's Dvke and Mile Oak

72. We received no representations about Mile Oak. East Sussex County Council and Brighton Borough Council opposed our interim decision for Devil's Dyke. Brighton argued that transferring the Dyke to East Sussex would enable it to be managed more effectively due to its closer proximity to East Sussex local authorities than to their West Sussex counterparts. However, Brighton's suggestion would transfer to East Sussex the community of Saddlescombe, which is closer to Poynings (West Sussex) than to Brighton. Much of the argument for change has been based upon Brighton's claim that the Dyke is mainly used by its residents and that, consequently, it and East Sussex County Council have a greater interest in its effective management than the more remote West Sussex local authorities, whose residents make less use of it. We do not consider this argument sufficient to justify a boundary change, so we have confirmed our interim decision as final.

PUBLICATION OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

73. Our further draft proposals were published on 23 February 1990 in a letter to East Sussex County Council who, together with West Sussex County Council, were asked to make the same arrangements for publicity and consultation as described in paragraph 48. Mid-Sussex and Wealden District Councils were also asked to place the further draft proposals on deposit for eight weeks. Comments were invited by 20 April 1990.

RESPONSE TO OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS

(a) Forest Row and Ashurst Wood

74. East Sussex County Council, Wealden District Council, Forest Row Parish Council, Councillor Mrs Gabriel and eight local residents supported our further draft proposal, claiming that the properties at Cansiron Lane are separate from Ashurst Wood; that the two areas are different in character; and that their links are

23 with Forest Row and East Sussex, However, West Sussex County Council, Council, East Grinstead Town Council and twelve local residents all opposed our further draft proposal, on the grounds that they considered Cansiron Lane to be part of Ashurst Wood; that road access was solely via West Sussex; that the nearest community facilities were all in Ashurst Wood; and that the nearest town of any size was East Grinstead in West Sussex. The Ashurst Wood Abbey Management Company pointed out that our further draft proposal divided its land and asked that our final proposal place it wholly in one county or the other.

75. In the light of the opposition to our further draft proposal we have re-assessed it. Road communications and patterns of community life certainly link Cansiron Lane with Ashurst Wood and East Grinstead. The balance of local opinion now appears to be at least as much against unification in East Sussex as in West. We have reconsidered retention of the existing boundary in view of the differences in local opinion; however, some change is necessary because the boundary cuts across properties. Cansiron Lane is essentially a rural extension of Ashurst Wood and the majority of houses along the lane and Hammerwood Road are now in West Sussex. We accept that some duplication of local authority services could result from its transfer to West Sussex, but we feel that services to the few outlying properties reached via Hammerwood Road and Cansiron Lane could be provided by agency arrangements between the authorities. We have therefore withdrawn our further draft proposal and have decided to confirm as final our original draft proposal, that is to unite Cansiron Lane with Ashurst Wood in West Sussex. This includes the transfer of Brambletye School to West Sussex.

(b) Weirwood Reservoir and Plawhatch

76. West Sussex County Council and Mid-Sussex District Council both supported our further draft proposal. However, it was opposed by East Sussex County Council, Wealden District Council, Forest Row Parish Council and Councillor Mrs Gabriel, because the

24 boundary was (i) more poorly defined than that which we had originally proposed; (ii) it gave too much weight to land ownership which can change; and (iii) the owner of the Mayes Estate wanted to stay in East Sussex. The current estate owner considered that Grinstead Lane would be a better boundary and claimed that the south-western boundary of his estate, which is part of our proposed boundary, is difficult to identify.

77. We have re-assessed our further draft proposal and have concluded that, in the light of the fresh evidence we have received, there is insufficient justification for it. We have therefore decided to withdraw our further draft proposal and to confirm instead our original draft proposal for both Weirwood Reservoir and Plawhatch as final, as outlined in paragraph 35 above.

OUR FINAL PROPOSALS AND DECISION TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

78. Our final conclusions on the review of the boundaries of East Sussex are set out:-

in paragraphs 51-59 in respect of the East Sussex/Kent boundary;

in paragraphs 5 and 70 in respect of the East Sussex/Surrey boundary; and

in paragraphs 60-64, 69, 71-72 and 74-77 in respect of the East Sussex/West Sussex boundary.

We now commend our conclusions to you as apt for securing effective and convenient local government.

PUBLICAT. ";N

79. A separate letter, enclosing copies of this Report, is being sent to the County Councils of East Sussex, West Sussex, Kent and

25 Surrey, asking them to deposit copies of the Report at their main offices for inspection for six months and to put notices to this effect on public notice-boards and in the local press. The text of the notice will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not before six weeks from the date they are submitted to you. Copies of this Report, which contains small scale maps of our proposals, are also being sent to those who received our consultation letters and to those who responded in writing.

26 Signed: G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

C W SMITH

K YOUNG

R D COMPTON Secretary

24 January 1991

LS

27 REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING OUR LETTER OF 27 JANUARY 1986

1. East Sussex County Council 2. Kent County Council 3. West Sussex County Council 4. Adur District Council 5. Arun District Council 6. Brighton Borough Council 7. Horsham District Council 8. Hove Borough Council 9. Lewes District Council 10. Mid Sussex District Council 11. Rother District Council 12. Shepway District Council 13. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 14. Wealden District Council 15. Burgess Hill Town Council 16. Camber Parish Council 17. Danehill Parish Council 18. East Grinstead Town Council 19. Forest Row Parish Council 20. Lydd Town Council 21 . Rye Town Council 22. Ticehurst Parish Council 23. West Hoathly Parish Council 24. Wivelsfield Parish Council 25. Southern Water 26. Brighton Health Authority 27. Worthing District Health Authority 28. Shoreham Port Authority 29. East Sussex Magistrates Courts Committee 30. Worthing District Community Health Council 31 . Tim Rathbone MP 32. Kenneth Warren MP 33. Ashurst Wood Community Association 34. The Conservators of Ashdown Forest 35. The East Grinstead Society REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING OUR LETTER OF 27 JANUARY 1986 Cont'd

36. Freshfield Lane Brickworks Limited 37. The Shoreham Society 38. The Southwick Sussex Society 39. County Councillor Mrs P J Meek 40. Parish Councillor G Mould 41 . Chairman of the Governors of Wivelsfield Green CP School 42. Thirty-six private individuals 43. Three petitions (one with 10 signatures, one with 44 signatures and one with 328 signatures) REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS LETTER DATED 1 NOVEMBER 1988

1 . East Sussex County Council 2. Kent County Council 3. West Sussex County Council 4. Adur District Council 5. Brighton Borough Council 6. Lewes District Council 7. Mid Sussex District Council 8. Rother District Council 9. Tunbridge Wells Borough Council 10. Wealden District Council 11. Burgess Hill Town Council 12. Camber Parish Council 13. Cuckfield Rural Parish Council 14. East Grinstead Town Council 15. Forest Row Parish Council 16. Lamberhurst Parish Council 17. Pyecombe Parish Council 18. Ticehurst Parish Council 19. West Hoathly Parish Council 20. Wivelsfield Parish Council 21. Shoreham Port Authority 22. Southern Water 23. Sir Richard Luce MP 24. Tim Rathbone MP 25. Kenneth Warren MP 26. Chancellors, Town Planning Consultants 27. Chairman of Governors, .U)iv&lft?;&| cj Cp School 28. Southwick Sussex Society 29. County Councillor 0 E B Hughes 30. County Councillor Mrs P J Meek 31. County Councillor Mrs A Moore 32. District Councillor Mrs E M Gabriel 33. Twenty-six private individuals REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF OUR FURTHER DRAFT PROPOSALS LETTER DATED 23 FEBRUARY 1990

1 . East Sussex County Council 2. West Sussex County Council 3. Mid Sussex District Council 4. Wealden District Council 5. East Grinstead Town Council 6. Forest Row Parish Council 7. British Gas 8. Southern Water 9. Ashdown Forest Heath Centre 10. Ashurst Wood Abbey Management Company 11. District Councillor Mrs E M Gabriel 12. Parish Councillor G Mould 13. Nineteen private individuals ANNEX A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

EAST SUSSEX

AFFECTING WEST SUSSEX AND KENT

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary ————— Proposed County Boundary «— — —— Other Boundary

Produced by Ordnance Survey for the Local Government Boundary Commission for England LOCATION DIAGRAM

KENT Map 12

WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX O

© Crown Copyright »9I EAST SUSSEX

WEST SUSSEX

/ »«„.„ - WEST SUSSEX

[Area A EAST SUSSEX

' U -W T£~ ' (c) Crown CopyrtflM 1991 WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX <»,--.=-.-<. '•--- V~~ ro" "H^XS^xCfi-

WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX

^ T ** ^^^. /.'/-*

WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX- WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX EAST SUSSEX

WEST SUSSEX WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX WEST SUSSEX

EAST SUSSEX

Forest Row V Proposed boundary follows Home Wood. Transfers Broadwater Down

EAST SUSSEX| EAST SUSSEX EAST SUSSEX EAST SUSSEX BeWl~Bficfge~ReS6rVo EAST SUSSEX

CJ Crown Copyright 1991 ' CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. East Sussex West Sussex East Sussex West Sussex Hove Borough Adur District Lewes District Mid Sussex District Portslade South Ward Eastbrook Ward Wivelsfield CP Lindfield Rural CP 6^^ fA^ Portslade South ED Southwick ED Wivelsfield Ward Lindfield Rural Ward 1 Chailey ED Cuckfield Rural ED West Sussex East Sussex Adur District Hove Borough West Sussex East Sussex c Eastbrook Ward Portslade South Ward Mid Sussex District Lewes District Southwick ED Portslade South ED A Lindfield Rural CP Wivelsfield CP Lindfield Rural Ward Wivelsfield Ward West Sussex East Sussex Cuckfield Rural ED Chailey ED Mid Sussex District Brighton Borough 7 2 A Pyecombe CP Non-parished area West Sussex East Sussex Clayton Ward Patcham Ward Mid Sussex District Lewes District Mid Sussex South ED Patcham ED to Lindfield Rural CP Chailey CP Lindfield Rural Ward Chailey Ward East Sussex West Sussex Cuckfield Rural ED Chailey ED Lewes District Mid Sussex District 3 A Dltchiing CP CP East Sussex West Sussex Ditchling Ward Keymer Ward Wealden District Mid Sussex District Chailey ED and Burgess HOI West EC to Maresfield CP CP Maresfleld Ward Horsted Keynes Ward East Sussex West Sussex Buxted Maresfield ED Cuckfield Rural ED Lewes District Mid Sussex District 4 A Wivelsfield CP Burgess Hill CP West Sussex East Sussex Wivelsfield Ward Burgess Hill-St Andrews Ward D Mid Sussex District Wealden District Chailey ED Burgess Hill East ED 8 Horsted Keynes CP Maresfield CP Horsted Keynes Ward Maresfield Ward A West Sussex East Sussex Cuckfield Rural ED Buxted Maresfield ED rn Mid Sussex District Lewes District 1o Non-partshed area Wivelsfield CP East Sussex West Sussex Hay word* Heath Fronklands Ward Wivelsfield Ward Wealden District Mid Sussex District \rs Hoywords Heath East ED Chaiiey ED F Danehill CP Horsted Keynes CP Danehill Ward Horsted Keynes Ward East Sussex West Sussex Df^ Buxted Maresfield ED Cuckfield Rural ED Lewes District Mid Sussex District to Wivetsfield CP Non-parished area iF Wivelsfield Ward Hoywards Heath Franklands Ward Chailey ED East ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM NO. REF. NO. REF. TO

East Sussex West Sussex East Sussex Kent Wealden District Mid Sussex District Wealden District Tunbridge Wells District Forest Row CP West Hoathly CP A Front CP Non-pdrished area Forest Row Ward West Hoathly Ward Front Ward Pantiles Ward Forest Row ED East Grinstead South ED Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells South ED 9 II West Sussex East Sussex East Sussex Kent Mid Sussex District Wealden District Wealden District Tunbridge Wells District B East Grinstead CP Forest Row CP B Front CP Non-parished area East Grinstead South Word Forest Row Ward Front Ward Sf Mark's Ward East Grinstead South ED Forest Row ED Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells South ED

East Sussex West Sussex Kent East Sussex Wealden District Mid Sussex District Tunbridge Wells Borough Wealden District A Forest Row CP East Grinstead CP A Non-parished area Front CP Forest Row Ward East Grinstedd East Ward St Mark's Ward Front Ward Forest Row ED East Grinstead East ED Tunbridge Welts South ED Wadhurst ED 10 East Sussex West Sussex East Sussex Kent Wealden District Mid Sussex District Wealden District Tunbridge Wells Borough B Forest Row CP East Grinsteod CP B Front CP Non-parished area Forest Row Ward East Grinstead South Ward Front Ward St Mark's Ward Forest Row ED East Grinstead South ED Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells South ED 11^2^ East Sussex West Sussex Kent East Sussex Weatden District Mid Sussex District Tunbridge Wells Borough Wealden District to Forest Row CP East Grinstead CP C Non-parished area Front CP Forest Row Ward East Grinstead East Ward Park Ward Front Ward Forest Row ED East Grinstead East ED Tunbridge Wells East ED Wadhurst ED IOA West Sussex East Sussex East Sussex Kent Mid Sussex District Wealden District Wealden District Tunbridge Wells Borough to East Grinstead CP Forest Row CP D Front CP Non-parished area East Grinstead East Ward Forest Row Ward Front Ward Park Ward East Grinstead East ED Forest Row ED Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells East ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF.

Kent East Sussex East Sussex Kent Tunbridge Wells Borough Wealden District A Rother District Tunbridge Wells Borough 1o Lamberhurst CP Front CP Ticehurst CP Goudhurst CP Lamberhurst Ward Front Ward Ticehurst Ward Goudhurst Ward Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Wadhurst. ED Ticehurst ED Tunbridge Wells Rural Cast ED 13 F East Sussex Kent Kent East Sussex L_ Wealden District Tunbridge Wells Borough C Tunbridge Wells Borough Rother District to Front CP Lamberhurst CP 16 Goudhurst CP Ticehurst CP 1 Front Ward Lamberhurst Ward Goudhurst Ward Ticehurst Ward J Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Ticehurst ED

A East Sussex Kent Kent East Sussex M Wealden District Tunbridge Wells Borough Tunbridge Wells Borough Rother District to Wadhurst CP Lamberhurst CP E Hawkhurst CP Ticehurst CP p Wadhurst Ward Lamberhurst Ward Hawkhurst Ward Ticehurst Ward ^ Wadhurst ED Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Cranbrook ED Ticehurst ED 14 H Kent East Sussex 1 1 Tunbridge Wells Borough Wealden District to Lamberhurst CP Wadhurst CP I Lamberhurst Ward Wadhurst Ward i_ Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Wadhurst ED

Kent East Sussex Tunbridge Wells Borough Rother District A Lamberhurst CP Ticehurst CP Lamberhurst Ward Ticehurst Ward Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Ticehurst ED

East Sussex Kent Rother District 1 C Tunbridge Wells Borough 15 Ticehurst CP Lamberhurst CP Ticehurst Ward Lamberhurst Ward Ticehurst ED Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED

Kent East Sussex Tunbridge Wells Borough Rother District C Goudhurst CP Ticehurst CP Goudhurst Ward Ticehurst Ward Tunbridge Wells Rural East ED Ticehurst ED