Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 14 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT

BOUNDARY COMMISSION

FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR iiNGLAND

CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN

Mr J M Rankin,QC.

MEMBERS The Counteae Of Albeoarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfleld. Professor Michael Chi8holm. Sir Andrew Wheatley.CBE. Mr t B Young, CB£. PV:

To the Rt Hon Koy Jenkins, HP Secretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR TH£ BOROUGH OF KEIGATL1 AND BANSTEAD IN Tim COUNTY OF SUHR2Y

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Reigate and

Banstead 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 60d) and (2) of the

1972 Act, notice was given on 13 Hay 197^ that we were to undertake this review.

This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Reigate and Banstead

Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Surrey County Council, the

Parish Councils 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 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. Heigate and Banstead 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 guide- lines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of council and

the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they shpuld publish details of their provisional

proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. k. In accordance with section ?(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the

Council had exercised an option for elections by thirds.

5. On JO December 197^ Heigate and Banstead Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the borough into eighteen wards each returning two or three members to form a council of fifty-one.

6. Following publication by the Borough Council of their provisional proposals we received a large number of letters raising issues in relation to the proposed

Salfords and ^idlov, Tadworth and Walton, Preston^ Tattenhams, Nork, Kingswood with Burgh Heath and Chipstead-Hooley and Woodmansterne wards as well as the

Central,' South Central, South West and South East wards of Iteigate.

7. The Borough Council also sent us copies of comments which they had received during their consultations. Several of these raised points which they had been unable to meet in settling their draft scheme. Most of these unsatisfied representations referred to the issues which had been raised directly with us.

8. We considered the Borough Council's draft scheme, together with all the comments which had been made. We decided to adopt a suggestion, made by two political parties, for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South

Central and South West wards of Heigate, which placed the Woodhatch Estate area in the South West ward. We also adopted a suggestion by one of those parties for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South West and Central wards.

9* We studied the Borough Council's draft scheme to see whether there were any modifications which could be made to improve the standard of representation. i We noted that, on current electorates, the 'proposed Salfords and Sidlow and k Preston wards were not entitled to representation by two councillors each as had been proposed by the Borough Council. Accordingly we decided to reduce the number of councillors representing those proposed wards to one each. In taking

this step we noted that, if the Borough Council's 1979 forecast of the electorate

for the proposed Preston ward were to be realised, that ward would be marginally under-represented by that year. However we thought that the forecast was optimistic

and concluded that representation by two councillors could not be justified. Vie examined a number of other possible modifications designed to improve the

standard of equality of representation but concluded that these were probably unacceptable on Lhe grounds of disturbance of local ties.

10. To avoid confusion we decided to amend the names of the wards in the i.;eigatc

part of the borough by preceding the name proposed by the Borough Council with

thn word "Heigate".

11. After consulting Ordnance Purvey we made* a number of minor adjustments to

the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more readily identifiable on the ground.

12. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 above, we ducitled that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future'electoral arrangements for the borough in compliance with the rules in

Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly.

1J5. On 9 June 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 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, ^presentations 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 bodice, '.v'e asked that any comronts should reach us by 1 August 197% 14. We received a letter from Surrey County Council saying that they had no observations to make on our draft proposals. Support for our proposals for the

Iteigate oouth West ward carne from a local political party.

1% Reigate and Banstoad Borough Council informed Us that they rejected our draft proposals where these varied from the draft scheme originally submitted by the Council, except for the amendments to names of the wards in T:eigate. The

Borough Council also pointed out that there had been an error on the maps which they had submitted to us showing the wards proposed in their draft scheme, and • that consequently the boundary between the Heigate North and lieigate Central wards did not illustrate their intention. ;'iince we had adopted the boundaries on their naps for these two wards, our draft proposals' followed the wrong boundary line, and the Council therefore wished the error to be rectified.

16. iialforcls and iSidlow rari.nh Council wrote to say that they considered that the proposed representation of the ward by a single councillor would be inadequate.

Two bornu^h councillors said that the nature and problems of ,-Jalfords and .'jiulow warranted special consideration and that there should be two councillors to represent the ward. Two local political associations made similar representations, as did a local church council, a county councillor and a local resident.

17* Another political association wrote to say that they accepted the proposed reduction in representation of the Preston ward, but they considered that the proposed Salfords and Sirilow ward should retain two councillors. They objected to the changes which we had made to the boundaries of the wards in the Keif^yte area, and added that the Reigate Uoutli We.'st ward should bo represented by two councillors in.stc.-.n of the proponed three. 18. Another political association objected to the proposed reduction in representation of the-Salfords and oidlow ward. The association considered also that the Tadworth and Walton ward should be allocated three councillors instead of the two proposed.

19« A local federation of ratepayers' and residents' associations said that the proposed Preston and Salfords and Sidlow wards should have two councillors each.

'tlO. The chairman and president of a local residents association wrote separately a'uout our proposals for the '-L'adworth and Walton ward. They objected to the reduction in representation from three councillors as at present to the two recommended in our draft proposals, pointing out that the ward had a lar^c electorate, was bitf in area and that there was the possibility of development which would increase the electorate still further. It was al;so suggested that the ward mi^ht bo divided into two parts, with one ward for Tadworth and another for Walton.

I?1. We received letters from two borough councillors who also considered that

'L'ndworth and Walton should be represented by three councillors. Support for this suggestion came from three local residents.

'S.cL. A local residents'association from the 'Aittenhamo area suggested an alteration to boundaries between the Tattenhams and Nork and Tattenharr.s and i-reston wards.

23. A local branch of a political party ul:;o made proposals for alterations to the 'i'attenhams and Preston wards, which, they said, would produce two wards entitled to two councillors each. They cuf-^osted, in addition, an adjustment to the proposed Nork and ^attenhams boundary which would produce a more compact rj for the proposed Aittenhams ward and more clearly defined boundaries. 2'f. Finally, a residents'association from the Burgh Heath area, which had written to us previously, reiterated earlier proposals which they had made for a ward baaed on the Burgh Heath area.

213. In viev; of these objections we considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the 1')72 Act and at our request you appointed Mr L J Slocombe as an Assistant i Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us.

26. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, i-ieigate on

25 November V)75. A copy (without enclosures) of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report.

2V- r£he Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals be approved subject to modifications to the boundaries between the proposed Nork and Tattenhams wards, the '^attenhams and Preston wards, the Keigate South Central and xeigate

South East wards and the Heigate Central and Reigate North wards,

2B. We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that the

Assistant Commissioner's recommendations should be adopted. V.'e consulted the

Ordnance Purvey about the recommended boundary modifications and, on their advice, we decided to make two minor adjustments in order to secure boundary lines which wore more readily identifiable on the ground. .Subject to' these modi Tien Li onr; and nnv.-ndmonts wo decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals.

<"?% lJt:tails of these final proposals are ;;et out in .Schedules 2 ant: ji to thi;-; fW roport and on the attached map* Schedule 2 give;.; the names of the ward:: and tlio number of councillors to be returned by each. Schedule ''j .shows our proposals for , the order of retirement of councillors. The boundaries of the new wards are dofinod on Uie ninp. PUBLICATION .< •":

30. In accordance with section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 a copy V .\ of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Keigate and Banstead Borough

Council and will be available 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 k to this report,

L.S. • •'; .

Signed

EDMUND COMPTON (CHAIRMAN)

JOHN M KANKIN (DL'PUTY CHAIRMAN)

DIANA ALBEMARLE

T C BENFIELD

MICHAEL CHISHOLM

ANDREW WHEATLKlf

DAVID R SMITH (Secretary)

15th January 1976 SCHEDULE 1

Th* Secretary, Local Government Boundary Commission for England, Room 12?, 20, Albert Embankment, London SE1 7TJ

Sir Review of Electoral Arrangements Borough of Reigate and Banstead. Surrey. In accordance with my appointment by the Secretary of State aa an Assistant Commissioner and pursuant to the instructions contained in your letter 4 of the 4th November 1975, I have the honour to subnit the following report. 1. Date of Meeting A local meeting was held at the Town Hall, Heigate on Tuesday 25th November 1975 commencing at 10-30 a.m. and concluding shortly after 1800 hours. On Wednesday morning 26th November 1975 I made a number of visits and inspections of various parts of the district. Full details of those visits are contained in paragraph 16 of this report. 2. Attendance The signed attendance lists accompany this report (Annex.A). Those who spoke or participated in the proceedingo are listed below. Although the names are complete it will be seen from the body of this report that some people spoke in respect of more than one ward and in some cases in nore than one capacity. All Wards Mr 1) S Walker, Chief Executive and Town Clerk, Kelgate and Banstead Borough Council. Salfords and Sidlow ward Councillor Mr R H Tyler as councillor and on behalf of Dorking Division Conservative Association, Councillor Mrs H J Fryer as Councillor and on behalf of Salfords Branch of Conservative and Unionist Association. Mrs R M Ledwich on behalf of Banstead District Federation of Ratepayers and * Residents Associations, Mr K G Castle, parish councillor for Parish Council and on behalf of Parochial Church Council, Mr T A Boxnll, parish councillor, Mr Robin Allen on behalf of Reigate and Bonstend Conservative Association, Councillor Mr J H G Browne on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Liberal Association. Tadworth and Walton ward Canon J H Atkins, Rural Dean of Bpsom, Mrs E Williamson, resident, Councillor Kra Rona Mellor as councillor and on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Liberal Association, Councillor Mr J H G Browne as councillor and on behalf of Reigate and flanstead Liberal Association, Councillor Mrs P Horsfall, Mr Robin Allen on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association, Mrs R M Ledwich on behalf of Banatead District

- 1 - Federation of Ratepayers and Residents Associations, Mrs 0 Browne, resident. Preston, Tattenhams and Nork Words Mrs R H Ledwich on behalf of Tattenhams Residents Association, Mr API) Riley and Mr P B M Handscomb on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association, Dr G Ormerod on behalf of Banatead North West Branch of Reigate Constituency Labour Party, Councillor Mrs M Robson as councillor and on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association. Reigate Warda Councillor Nr G P Murden as councillor and on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association, Mr P 1) K Davies on behalf of Reigate Constituency Labour Party and Reigate South West Ward Labour Party, Councillor Mrs M A Waller, Mr L J Gibbs, resident, Councillor Mr N C Snith. Kingswood with Bur/rh Heath and Baafcead Villaire wards Mr J G Swanson on behalf of the Burgh Heath Ward Residents Association was unable to be present in the afternoon but handed in a statement and map on which I comment later. Each speaker had the opportunity of commenting on what had been said by others, in addition to making their own views known. Not everyone availed themselves of the right of reply but some did. 3. The CommissioriiB draft proposals The Borough Council's draft scheme was for a Council of 51 members elected from 18 wards. The Commission adopted this scheme as a basis for their own draft proposals but subject to a number of modifications aa follows :- (a) Salfords and Sidlow ward to be represented by one councillor instead of two. (b) Preston ward to be represented by one councillor instead of two. (c) The Woodhatch Estate to be transferred from the proposed South Central to the South West Ward, and a number of roads in the Reigate Heath area were to be transferred from the proposed South West to Central Ward. (d) The word "Reigate" to be added at the beginning of the name of each of the 8 wards in the Reigate area. (e) Fourteen minor boundary re-alignments recommended by the Ordnance Survey in the interests of better boundaries. The draft proposals before me and the meeting were therefore for a Council of 49 members elected from 18 wards. There were no objections to the proposals in (d) above and I have no need to say miything about it and will refer to the Reigate wards under their new names throughout this report. . Ordnance Survey amendments. At an early stage in the proceedings I put all 14 amendments in a descriptive form to the meeting and after replying to one or two questions these wore all agreed. I understand that no electors are affected by these very minor amendments. "Errors" on plan The Borough Council had pointed out to the Commission that a line dividing Reigate Central and Keigate North wards was incorrect. This was their error as their intention was to follow the railway line and the electorate had been calculated on that basis. There were no objections to this correction. I will deal with it by way of a formal recommendation at the end of this report. The Borough Council also raised at the meeting a further correction relating to the boundary between Norlc and Tattenhams wards in the area of Shawley Crescent. The effect of this correction would mean that the boundary would be amended resulting in certain houses in Shawley Crescent being in Tattenhans ward and those in Claremount Gardens and Home Farm Close in Work ward. On the face of it the proposal seems sensible. I however defer consideration of the proposal as these boundaries are the subject of a number of specific and more extensive representations and T will deal with them all together. Comments on the draft proposals The Commission's draft proposals were advertised locally and comments were invited. A considerable number of comments were received most cf which objected to the proposals in various ways. I mention these comments here in summary form but deal with all the cases advanced at the meeting in detail in the main body of my report. o observations to make on the draft proposals. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council - object to all alterations made by the Commission to their draft scheme (except re-naming of Keigate Wards). Salforda and Sidlow ward Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council, Councillor Mrs H J Fryer, Councillor Mr H H Tyler, Dorking Division Conservative Association, Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association, Reigate and Banstead Liberal Association, Salfords Branch of the Conservative and Unionist Association, Parochial Church Council for the Parish Church of Christ the King, County Councillor W G L Austin, Mr W J Maiklera and Banstead District Federation of Ratepayers and Residents Associations all object to the reduction of 2 members to one for this ward. Tadworth and Walton ward The Chairman of Tadworth and Walton Residents Association expresses concern about the reduction in representation from the present 5 (Tadworth 2 Walton 1) to 2, The President of the same Association presses for 3 members for the combined ward, or if only 2, then one each for Tadworth and Wnlton. Councillor Mr J H G Browne and Councillor Mrs It Mellor consider 3 members are essential for the ward and the decision of the Council to reduce it to two was a majority party decision and not the working parties view. Sir John Jjang who had written early on to the Borough Council now asked for the matter to be reviewed again. Mr H R Scott considers two members insufficient representation. Mrs E Williamson considers that there should be one (or two) councillors for Tadworth and one for Walton on the Hill, Reigate and Banstead liberal Association say the size of the ward warrants 3 councillors. Tattenhams. Work and Preston wards Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association say that Preston ward should retain its two - councillor representation, Banstead District Federation of Ratepayers and Residents Associations consider Preston should have 2 councillors, Tattenhams Residents Association re-state proposals made earlier that there should be a re- drawing of the boundary between the Tattenhams and Work wards and the Tattenhnms and Preston wards. The Banstead North West Branch of Reigate Labour Party propose an amendment between the single - member Preston and 3 - member Tattenhems wards so as to provide two 2 - member wards and the "Tidying-up" operation would also affect Mork ward. Reigate wards Reigate and Banatead Conservative Association do not like the Commission's oraendments to these wards. .Support the Borough Council Scheme but suggest Reigate South West ward should be represented by 2 councillors and not 3- The South West Ward Labour Party support the draft proposals insofar as they affect Keigate South Central and South West wards. Kingsvood with Burgh Heath and Banstead Village wards The BuzghHeath Ward Residents Association object to the proposals (both Commission and Council) that link part of BurghHeath with Kingswood, re-submit their earlier proposals for an extended word or for the prer.Rnt ward to be retained and want a "less parochial" name for Banstead Village wnrrt if the drnft proposals are approved. 7. Crier of procedure In order to facilitate the hearing T decided to deal with the vnrious matlffer:; boforn me by hearing evidence on particular wards aad groups of vardn in turn and concluding each group in turn. The wtirda were dealt with ia the urJcr they appear in thia report. There w

- 4 - any way ft verbatim note of every word that wan said but is, I hope, a fair summary of the principal points made by the various speakers, both initially and in reply. My assesoment of the weight of arguments advanced at the meeting is contained in paragraphs 17 to 21 below. 9. Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Mr D S Walker, Chief Executive and Town Clerk explained the Borough Council's views. The Council had approached the review of the electoral arrangements in a business- like way, had engaged in widespread consultations, the members had been made aware of the Boundary Commission's criteria and notes on boundary making, the draft scheme had been prepared with all the criteria in mind, two schemes had been considered and the final result was an amalgam of the two. All public notice procedures had been complied with. The scheme was for a Council of 51 members elected from 18 wards and the Council wanted this adopted and not the Commission's draft proposals. When the Commission's draft proposals were received, the Council decided to adhere to their own scheme on the grounds it more nearly conformed to the criteria. He accepted that this was a majority decision but that was the normal democratic process in local government. Equally some members of the Council would be taking up different points of view on particular aspects of the proposals. The Council only differed from the Commission in respect of certain boundary changes in Heigate and on the reduction of membership in Salfords and Sidlow and Preston wards. At this stage Mr Walker handed in two documents relating to electorate growth and acreage of wards, (see ANNEX B - documents 1 and 2). He appreciated that area was not a matter for consideration but the Council liad considerable sympathy >dth the representations which had been made on this basis, pointed out that as recently as 29th April 1974 the Secretary of State had made an Order under the Charlwood and Horley Act 1974 allotting two councillors to the newly formed Salfords and Sidlow ward. So far as Preston ward is concerned there is probable growth within a 5 year period which would justify 2 councillors. The Council could not under- stand the Commission's approach to their changes in the Reigate wards, areas of sparse population had been added to a central town area and Woodhatch area had been moved, the Council's proposals seemed to be more equitable. In conclusion Mr Walker said he would comment later on individual points to be raised, if required but thought (a) the Council's proposals were a fair distribution of member responsibility, a real endeavour had been made to take into account community of interest, (b) the location of polling stations would be reviewed when the wards were settled and (c) the definition of boundary lines, whilst difficult, had been done to the best degree possible. 10. Salfords and Sidlow ward Councillor Mr R H Tyler spoke both as a councillor for the ward and on behalf of the Dorking Division Conservative Association. He had been a councillor for the ward on the Borough Council since 1974, was previously on the Shadow Mole Valley Council, lived in the ward, was familiar with its problems and strongly objected to the reduction from two to one councillor for the ward. His objections.fell under two headings (a) The number of electorate (2449 in 1975) was the highest in the Borough, the figures of electorate from 1971 to 1974 had showed a slight decline - 2458, 2430, 2391 - but were beginning to pick up at about 50 per year since 1974 and should increase. Even if they did not the ratio was still too high, (b) The nature of the ward was largely rural but with concentrations of houses and an industrial estate, the presence of housing, industry and farming made many problems of possible mutual conflict - farmers cannot survive in high density population, householders object to industrial noise, traffic, dust and spillage. Whilst Mrs Fryer (next witness) would deal with development threats, he pointed out the vulnerable position of the ward in relation to development in the north and south, said most of the agricultural land was owned by developers, planning appeals had been heard, the people did not want swift change but the threat was ever present, the proximity of other authorities meant additional monitoring work, major roads, Gatwick Airport and Redhill Aerodrome all caused problems as did the fear of new giant pylons across the ward. Access between Salfords and Sidlow wus difficult. He quoted from an article by the Secretary of the Commission in July 1975 District Councils Review - "The ideal of absolute equality (of electorate) may be tempered by the need to respect local ties and patterns of development and communications". He felt the ward justified special treatment and urged the representation should be two councillors for the ward. Councillor Mr s H J .Fryer spoke as a councillor for the ward, a parish council representative and on behalf of the Salfords Branch of the Conservative and Unionist Association. She had lived in the district for 11 years, knew its problems, considered it was a potential development area, mentioned the planning difficulties of large scale commercial parking of vehicles from Gatwick Airport, a gypsy cnravan site in an adjoining district, the possible extensions of development from large houses with large gardens, the shortage of recreational facilities, the young growing families and emphasized the work of the ward wan far too much for one councillor and urged that the ward should be represented by two councillors. Mrs R K Ledwich speaking for the Banstead District Federation of Ratepayers and Residents Associations supported fully what had been said by the two previous speakers,was convinced two councillors were necessary and illustrated this with details of her own experience of bringing problems to the notice of councillors and officers. Mr K Q Castle spoko on behalf of the Parish Council, of which he was Vice-Chairman, and as Church Warden for the Parish Church known as Christ the King, Salfords.

- 6 - He had lived in Salforda since 19^6, said the Perish Council fully supported the views expressed by Mr Tyler and Mrs Fryer, looked to them to take the parish council problems to the district council and thought one representative would be overwhelmed. Re considered that if the Borough councillors were to be young (as they are now) they could not lead an active working life and be an effective councillor if there was only one of them. The new parish council would need to promote the provision of recreational and youth facilities which would need close co-operation with the Borough councillors for the ward. He then endorsed the foregoing remarks on behalf of the Parochial Church Council (who had all signed a letter to the Commission) and pointed out some differences in ecclesiastical and civil parish boundaries. Mr T A Boxall - a parish councillor and a member for 15 years of the former Dorking and Horley Rural District Council - fully supported all previous speakers, one councillor wns insufficient, it may be wron^; to assume there would be no development as Ministers could grant permissions. He emphasised the problem of car parking at the Cambridge Hotel - 200/300 cars discharging direct on to A.23 and also the noise and flying problems. Mr Robin Allen for the Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association supported the representations made by previous speakers and confirmed the views expressed in his letter of the 21st July 1975 addressed to the Commission. Councillor Mr J H G Browne for the Reignte and Banstead Liberal Association supported the views of the previous speakers. Mr I) S Walker Chief Executive and Town Clerk said at thia stage he considered the case had been fully made out for the ward to be represented by two councillors. 11. Tadworth and Walton ward Canon J H Atkins Rural Dean of Epsom who lives at The Rectory, Walton on the Hill emphasised the essential differences between Walton and Tadworth. The area of Walton was of outstanding natural beauty with much open space, common land and farms. It needed a separate representative to guard its amenities as a joint representative would find it difficult to combine the varying interests of a suburban area, (Tadworth) with an old village of historic associations (V'alton). He hoped consideration would be given to retaining V'alton as a separate ward with one councillor. Mrs E Williamson - resident of Tadworth - nlso stressed the differences between the two areas which had no community of interest. Some development was likely in Tadworth and she favoured the two present wardo remaining separate on their existing boundaries with tw> councillors for Taiworth and one for Walton. Councillor Mrs Rona Mellor as councillor and on behalf of Reigate and Banstead Liberal Association said she had lived at Tadworth for 41 years, had been a Banstead U.D councillor for 3 years and was now a councillor for the Borough since 1974. In her view the work load for the new combined Tadworth and Walton ward would be too much for two councillors, she instanced the problems of new housing by other authorities, the dualling of the A217 road, the exorcise of manorial and common rights and then gave details of pending and possible development in Tadworth as follows :- Uow building - 73 units (35 for Merton LBC) Planning permission given - 27 units Pending permission - 9 units t/md availability - 40 acres fit Tadworth Court, 15 acres at Mereclose Nursery (2 units agreed), 3 acres of Council land, 2 acres at Rozelle, and 10 flr.ts at The .Laurels, Dorking Road. She accepted that not all these areas were firm 'ievelopraenta but considered them as lilcely ones, and urged for 3 councillors for the ward. Councillor Mr J H G Browne spoke as a councillor and on behalf of the Heigate and Banstead Liberal Association raid objected to there only being 2 councillors for the ward. He had some synpnthy for those who were asking for the ward to be divided but wanted 3 councillors for the proponed ward. He ea.Ioroed vhnt had been said about the nature of the area by Mrs Melior and proceeded to give details of the present and potential developments in Walton. There were a number of large houses being split up into separate units - in some cases into 5 units. He listed a number of roads where the electorate was increasing and believed there were to be 150 new names on the register. Walton was a Conservation Area which culled for special consideration and danger of development was always threatened, for example 16 acres of Street Farm owned by the City of London where a planning application for 50 unitn was under consideration, arid a 100 house scheme off Sandlands Grove on land of Railway Police Training School which had been refused planning consent on appeal on road access grounds but could be revived. There was also the possibility of a gypsy caravan site in Ebbishnm Lane for the County Council although planning consent had not yet been applied for. Mr Browne also spent some time giving details of five non-conforming industries in the Conservation area and 2 near by. Although planning approval had been given by the former Banstead U.U.C an abattoir and an engineering works caused particular worry to the village. Councillor _Mrn P Horsfall - n councillor for Reigate and a former resident of T.?dworth for 3 years - pointed out the differences between Walton tind Tadworth, the former is a village and the latter commuter country. She would prefer the proposed ward to be split with 2 councillors for Tadworth and one for Walton but if this was not agreed then 3 for the combined ward. MrJRobin Allen for the Heigate and Banstead Conservative Association supported what had been snid by Mr:-, Horsfall and for che reasons given. Mra R H Ledwich on behalf of the Banstead District Federation of Ratepayers nnd Residents Associations supported the views expressed in writing by the Residents Association that there should be 3 councillors for the ward. Mrs 0 Browne - a resident, pointed out that Tadworth and Walton were divided by an extensive Heath. Mr D S Walker Chief Executive and Town Clerk supported the Commission's proposals which were those of the Council - a combined ward with 2 councillors. The Council had accepted and voted on the scheme as a whole and not by wards, the developments mentioned by various speakers had been included in the forecasts to the extent that they were likely to be achieved, no planning permission had yet been given for the gypsy caravan site in Kbbisham Lane. Mr Walker here handed in a plan showing the Conservation area for Walton on the Hill - Document 3 Annex B. 12. Preston. Tattenhams and Nork wards Mrs R M Ledwich on behalf of the Tattenhams Residents Association asked that careful nnd detailed consideration should be given to the Association's letters of 2?th December 1974 and 26th July 1975. These contained proposals for extensions of Tattenhams ward (a) southwards into Preston ward at its western part and (b) north- easterly into Nork ward. She had heard the Council's proposals relating to the correction of an "error" in the Shawley Crescent area and this if agreed went part way only to her suggestion. She would also agree the proposal mentioned that the boundary should be maintained along the South of properties in Yew Tree Bottom Hoad (see later). Preston as a ward had a fairly long existence and should continue but subject to the amendment above suggested. Mr A P D Rlley - a former councillor for Banstead U.1J.C spoke on behalf of the Heigate and Banstead Conservative Association. He handed me a letter dated 24th November 1975, signed by Mr P 3 M Handscomb who was not able, to be present until later but subsequently spoke. Letter is Document 4 Annex B. There were three points to put forward (a) The present boundary between Nork and Tattenhams wards should be maintained following the rear of the properties in Great Tattenhams and Shawley Crescent. Mr Riley appreciated this was the Council's "error" correction and he agreed with it. (b} The Commission's proposals appear to draw the boundary between Nork and Tattenhams wards down tho middle of Yew Tree Bottom Road thus placing houses on either side of the road in different wards. He urged thnt the present boundary should be maintained following the rear of properties on the south side of Yew Tree Bottom Road thus leaving the whole of tho road in Nork ward but retaining the whole of Garlichill Koad in Tattenhams ward, (c) Under the Commission'; proposals the whole of Epsom Lane North (except Nos 108 and 110) is transferred from Tattenhams to Preston ward. He objects to this on the grounds of splitting development and proposed development and convenience of shopping and aakn that • the present boundary between piling districts OA and P should form the Tattenhnos/

- 9 - Preston ward boundary, thus retaining Epsom Lone North Nos 34 to 110 and Oaks V.'ay in Tattenhams ward. After some observations about particular areas Mr Riley indicated support for 2 councillors for Preston ward. He saw no virtue in the Labour Party's suggested move of the Chapel Way estate to Preston ward. Dr M Q Ormerod spoke on behalf of the Reigate Constituency Labour Party - Banslead North West Branch and expanded on the proposals outlined in their letter of the 28th July 1975. The proposals was briefly (a) to extend the boundary of Preston ward northward to include an area of the Tattenhams ward between Merland Rise (W) Chetwode Hoad (:s) Chapel Way (N) nnd the footpath to the east of Chetwode Drive (E) (b) to extend Tattenhams ward northwards to cover the same area as suggested by the Tattenhams Residents Association but extending further eastwards along Tnttenharas V/ay to the Brighton Road. The effect of these proposals would mean also that a detached triangle of Tattenhnns ward would have to go to Nork ward, ie the part between Church Lnne, The Drive, Brighton Road and Tattenhams Way. Dr Ormerod objected to only one counci Llor for Preston ward, and outlined the problems of housing second generation families of houses being built in the area. To meet his point that Preston was under-represented he suggested the above changes so as to equalize the two wards in terms of electorate and provide for 2 councillors each. The figures he estimated would be : Preston 3500 (1974) 4100 (1979) Tattenhnms 5400 (1974) 5500 (1979) * He said both wards were fairly well established and Preston needed 2 councillors or better still, his own proposals for equalizing representation. Mr P B M Handscomb spoke for the Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association and followed closely on what had been said by Mr Riley on his behalf. He ur;_ced the acceptance of the preservation of various boundary lines an detailed in his letter of the 24th November 1975, considered the boundaries were sensible and convenient, opposed the Labour party's proposed alterations and disputed some of their facts and asked for 2 councillors for Preston ward and J5 for TatterUvuns ward. Councillor Mrs M Kobson spoke as a councillor and for Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association. She supported the points made by Mr Handscomb and also partially those made by Mrs Ledwich, favoured 2 councillors for Preston, preferred wards as proposed (subject to above) and was against the Labour party's alterations. Mr U S Walker Chief Executive and Town Clerk supported the Council's scheme, considered 2 members for Preston ward was equitable, it had the largest growth potential and he gave some figures of growth in thut ward and in Tattenhams ward, as follows :- Headley View Site - 72 houses - started Cemetery Site - 104 units - p.p awaited Tottenham corner - 50 units - p.p awaited Waterfleld and Pit Wood Green - 87 units - starting soon

- 10 - 13. The Reiflate Wards Mr Councillor G P Murden spoke as a councillor and on behalf of the Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association. He had been also a Reigate councillor for 3 yenrs, knew the area well, emphasized the differences of the central areas of Reigate and Redhill as against the areas further out, illustrated the points of connection of the outer areas (villages) with the 2 inner areas and generally reviewed the approach that the Council had made to the warding proposals. He strongly supported the Council's scheme as against that of Commission, did not accept the arguments about community of interest and boundaries being better in the Comnission's scheme, woo prepared to debate what was meant by "a village" and stressed that the Woodhatch estate (post war) had no community of interest with South Pork (pre-war). He finally suggested that 2 members mid not 3 should be elected for Reigate South West ward. Mr P D K Davies spoke for the Reigate Constituency Labour Party and the Reigate South West Vard Labour Party. He fully supported the Commission's proposals for the 3 Reigate wards and would not like to see the Council's Scheme re-instated. The points he made can be summarised briefly as follows :- the draft proposals represent a fairer distribution of electors, the boundaries ore better nnct nore natural, community of interest has been respected, the re-distribution between Reigate South West and Reigate South Central wards is particularly good on a numerical basis, the northern boundary of Reigate South West ward follows the escarpment vO.ich is a natural barrier, the same applies to the residents on the north side of Park Lane Bast, the existing arrangements are preserved for those residents in Trumpets Hill, Sandy Lrjie and Flanchard Rond west of the Priory, Woodhatch as a community naturally relates to the area at The Angel junction where there are major ahops, schools, library, rent office and surgeries, a petition from 194 householders at Woodhatch had objected to the Council's proposals and finally, that for all the reasons of equity, boundaries, community of interest and local feeling, the Commission's draft proposals were fully supported. He did not support the Conservative suggestion of only 2 members for Reigate South West ward. Councillor Mrs M A Waller objected to the proposed boundary between Reigate South Central and Reigate South Kast insofar as the line inducted a small spur at Pendleton Road. She wished the boundary to bo re-drawn so that the following properties should be included in Keignte South Wast instead of Reignte i-.outh Central:- Pendleton Close 12 ) _. , „ , ,,„ ) Total of fiB electors to be transferred Church Road 22 ( The Cutting 34 ) Mrs Waller hud lived in The Cutting for 25 years and there was a strong community Association at Karlswood to the south and the application for amendment was made on community grounds. Mr L J Gibbs - a resident on the Woodhatch estate for 15 years, had beori a councillor for the former Reigate Borough, knows the area and residents well from his social

- 11 - and other activities on the estate and fully supports the views expressed by Mr Davies. He had no doubt that the Angel shopping centre was the focal point for the Woodhatch estate and South West ward. As a nember of the Fire Service for 27 years he knew how people will relate to their area and often the general area was described as the Angel estate - He fully supports the Commission's proposals. Mr Councillor N C Smith spoke as a councillor ond a former councillor for 23 years on Heigate Council. He has had a long association with the South West area, it is not linked with Headvale which is not relevant to the South West ward, Woodhatch was properly placed in the South Vfest ward an>i he was in full support of the Commission's drnft proposals. Mr J) S Walker. Chief Executive and Town ('lerk said he stood by his earlier statement and stood by the scheme proposed by the Council. 14. laiuyswood and Bur/?h Heath and Banstead Villas wards '.There were no appearances in respect of these wards as the representative of the Burgh Heath Ward Residents Association was unable to be present. Mr J G Swmison however left a map nnd statement with me - Document 5 Annex B - on which I will comment later. 15- General observations Before proceeding to a detailed examination of the verbal and written evidence, I feel that there are a few general matters on which I would wish to express a view. I am sure the Commission are aware, as I am, that the area under review is a particularly difficult one in which to achieve an absolute equality of electorate. In oeveral of the wards the range of deviation is quite wide. In fact the figures which I have extracted show that under the Commission's scheme the range is about 861 (1974) and 1268 (1979) whilst the Council's figures ore respectively 971 and 1065. In the Commission's scheme 11 wards are below average and 7 above both in 1974 and 1979. The Council's scheme figures are 12 below and 6 above both in 1974 end 1979. These are ranges which are a little more than desirable but I see no way of curing the situation without indulging in an exercise of needless butchery which would upset everybody. The short answer is that the Council have obviously tried extremely hard to achieve a reasonable scheme (after some compromise) in spite of - great difficulties due to the uneven distribution of electors and perhaps some historic problems. I have been able only to make one or tv/o suggestions which go slightly towards a better scheme. The second general point is that I find it hard to deal with interesting proposals when these proposals are not supported by verbal evidence. It means I cannot teat th•je points, cannot have the benefit of the views of those present and am left to decide on correupondence only. Thirdly I find it disconcerting when considering n whole district, as h.-.'ve the Council and Commission to do, to look at n single proposal which may be worthwhile in itself but completely wrecks the adjoining wards and thus has a wide repercussive effect. 16. Visits and Inapectiona I carried out certain visits and inspections on the morning of Wednesday 26th

- 12 - November 1975. For all points of call I was accompanied by Mr i> i> Walker, Chief Executive and Town Clerk and a Mr Walker of the Planning Department of the Borough Council. Other representatives joined me at various stages as shown below. I first went to the Woodhatch area at the junction known as The Angel where Cockshot Hill (A217), Prices Lane and the B.2035 meet. (Mr Davies and Mr GibbsJ. I there saw the large range of purpose built shops, library, 2 schools and other community buildings and the housing. The escarpment was observed. There is no direct veliicular access through the Estate to Reigate. A steep footpath up the escarpment was noted but not walked. Vehicular access could be obtained via Meadvale Kstate. I then went to Park Lane East (Mr Davies) and saw the line of houses in that road nnd, looking to the north, the escarpment. I then returned to the Woodhatch Estate (Mr jjavies) and went via Copse Rond to the Meadvale area, noting in passing Arbutus Road (a proposed Commission boundary). T observed the nature of Meadvale - much older property, 10 or 12 shops - mostly converted from houses - and a pub. I then vent to see the area of amendment proposed by Mrs Waller - Church Road, Pendleton Road (Close), The Cutting - and noted Karlswood Common to the south. A long drive then to rendevouz at Tattonham Corner Railway Station. Here I met Mrs Ledwich, Mr Hanscomb and Dr Ormerod. Although only one visit was subsequently made I had a useful session clearing up much detail on larger scale maps of the amendments which all ? parties had proposed, including the Shawley Crescent correction. Finally with Mrs Ledwich I visited the area and roads known as Claremount Gardens and Home Farm Close. 17. Assessment of weight of ar/rumenta Having heard the various arguments and expressions of view, carefully considered all that had been said and written, and finished my inspections, I reached the conclusion that there were a number of fairly difficult matters to resolve. Some were matters of number of councillors only, and others a combination of both numbers and boundaries. There is no overall simple recommendation that I can make «nd will accordingly examine each set of wards separately and in detail. 18. .'Jalforda and Sidlow ward There is a straightforward decision to be made here - should the ward have 2 councillors an proposed by Council or 1 councillor as proposed by Commission? All the speakers and all the writers say it should be 2. In essence the arguments turn on the nature and size of the area and on itn growth prospects. So far as the former is concerned I am not empowered, to have regard to the si?,e of the ward. All I need say on this point is that I accept it is a large wnrd but it is not exceptionally large compared to districts up and down the country. Accordingly I do not attach any weight to this factor. The real difficulty is in trying to establish what growth will in fact take place and I have examined this matter in the greatest detail. Many of the peopla who had written in and those that spoke referred to various sites as well as more general, but unquantified, expectations of growth. In particular 4 areas were mentioned - Monotype, Brazier Estates, Dairy Houae Farm and Wates. The north part of the ward is covered by the Metropolitan Green Belt zoning and in most of the remainder Green Belt zoning applies. A map indicating this is Document 6 Annex B. I comment now on each of the 4 sites mentioned. Monotype Works. This is an area of 114 acres adjacent to Cross Oak Lane, Picketts Hill and Honeycrock Lane, Salfords on which 734 dwellings were proposed. Permission was refused and the appeal was dismissed by the Secretary of State for the Environment on 15th October 1975- So this is certainly a non-starter at present. During the hearing I was startled by a statement niade by one of the parish councillors that there were already planning porwissionsissued for over 1200 dwellings within 2 miles of the appeal site, with the implication that some of these were in the ward. I therefore obtained and examined a copy of the decision letter of the Secretary of otate - Document 7 Annex 3. The units shown for development are not within the Salfords and yidlow ward. Details in Document 8. Annex B. Brazier Estates. This is land in Copsleigh Avenue, Knlfords. The appeal decision is awaited. The development is on 10 acres and is for about 104 dwellings. As Metropolitan Green Belt zoning applies I do not regard the development as firm. Dairy House Farm. An application for 240 dwellings has not yet been considered by the Council. Aa mainly Notional Green Belt zoning applies, officer opinion is that it is not likely to receive favourable consideration. Here again I do not regard the development as firm. Wates. None of this development is within the Salfords and Sidlow ward, but in Horley. At the end of the day then I am left with no firm and precise developments in the ward. The Council have produced for me a revised set of growth figures - Document 1 Annex B - and this indicates only an addition of 15 electors up to 1979- I have noted the 1975 figure has increased by 43 but overall in the Horough there is a fall of 190. Certainly no trend can be deduced fron a single yenr but it is interesting to note the varying electorate figures given in Mr Tyler's evidence. My conclusion is that the case for expansion has not been made out. I am now left to consider whether th«re should be 2 councillors for an electorate of 2449. The entitlements are 1.37(1974) 1.27(1979) and 1.40 on 1975 figures. The arguments put to me said in effect that 2 were essential because of the work load. The work of ward councillors is iiuportnnt but each councillor is a member of the Borough Council which has overall responsibility and I do not think the interests of Salfords and Uidlow ward would be neglected if thnre was only one councillor. Additionally there is an active parish council of 7 members which other wards (except Horley) have not got. If I recommended 2 councillors for the ward I would

- 14 - be creating an awkward precedent and accordingly I reject the request and will recommend that the Commission's draft proposals be accepted. 19. Tadworth and Walton Ward There are two or three different, but inter-related, points to be considered in respect of this ward. There is the point of view expressed that 2 councillors are insufficient for the combined ward by reason of the growth prospects, the work load and the differing type of problems involved. Linked with this is the proposal made by some, but not all, of the objectors that the natxire and problems are so different that Tadworth and Valton should be separate wards represented by 2 or 1 and 1 councillors respectively. I propose to deal with the matter in two parts - should the proposed ward be split into two wards as it is now and secondly should there be 2 or 3 councillors for the area. The evidence given was not conclusive. Some pressed hnrd for separation, some did not want a split and others appeared to be on the fence on this point but pressed . for 3 councillors. The Council had proposed a combined ward with 2 members. I was handed a letter from the Chairman of the Tadworth and Walton Residents Association dated 20th November 1975 - Document 9. Annex B. The Residents Association were firmly of the opinion that the two areas should not be separated, the areas are similar and the problems arising are by and large much the same, experience has shown the councillors work together with mutual understanding and separation would mean a serious reduction in the efficiency of representation. My opinion is that th« speakers rather over-emphasised the arguments on the separate nature and problems. Not sufficient weight was given to the fact that both areas are part of the whole Borough who have a general responsibility as a corporate body and is the only authority which can deal with the problems and take effective action. I am therefore not convinced that a case for separation has been made out on general grounds but I look now at the figures to see if there is any justification on that basis. The breakdown of electorate gives the following result :- Tadworth 2592(1974) 2653(1975) Entitlement 1.47 1.51 Walton 1502(1974) 1488(1975) Entitlement 0.86 0.85 Thus Tadworth would be over-reprenented with 2 councillors raid under-represented with 1. Walton only marginally rates 1. The combined figuren which I refer to later give a much more even spread. For the reasons mentioned above I reject the case for separation of Tndworth and Walton into 2 wards mid turn now to the question of numbers. The objectors supplied me with a wealth of detail of pending and possible developments and the Council have supplied - Document 1 Annex B. - revised figures of growth which show only an additional 4 on their earlier eotimnte. The letter from the Residents Association - Document 9 Annex B - covers the matter of growth of electorate in a similar way to that expressed at the meeting. I have noted that there is an increase of 47 in the 1975 figures (Tadworth +6l/-?47?nThis {growth is consistent with the Council's estimate of 248 over a five year period nnd they asoure me that all the areas of growth which are probable have been included in their forecast. Using the original figures supplied (and there is only a difference of +4) the position is as follows :- Electorate 4094 (1974) 4338 (1979) Entitlement 2.32 2. 29 Average 1974 If 2 councillors 2097 If 3 councillors 1364 Average 1979 If 2 councillors 2169 If 3 councillors 1446 I conclude that laccept the Council's estimate of growth as being as accurate as possible and that the ward is clearly not entitled on the figures shown to more than 2 councillors. I therefore confirm the Commission's draft proposals for this ward. 20. Tattenhams. Nork and Preston wards There are a number of intermixed proposals for consideration in these 3 wards, including the Council's correction between Work and Tattenharns wards, the pressure by the Council and many others for 2 councillors for Preston ward and various amendments - some overlapping - from the Tattenhams Residents Association, the Iteigate Constituency Labour Party and the Reigate and Uanstead Conservative Association. I will try and deal with the various points in a logical order. Many of the proposed amendments are of H relatively minor nature but they have to be fitted into a jig-saw of the wider proposals. First I come to the quite substantial amendments submitted by Dr Ormerod on behalf of the Labour Party. In essence these involved quite considerable alterations to the Tattenhams and Preston wards aud some minor effect on the Nork ward. Dr Ormerod said quite cleorly that he wanted to "equalize" the 2 wards and provide them each with 2 councillors. At one end it involved moving the Chapel Way estate from Tattenhams to Preston and at the other a piece of Nork ward into Tattenhams with a small area being moved from Tattenhnms to Nork. He made these proposals to balance up the electorate and the figures nre given earlier in this report. Hie proposal was not supported by the Council and was criticised by the Conservatives. I do not think this chopping up of the areas is necessary and its only merit is to equalize electorates. I believe this drastic cure is not justified and I reject the proposal. In doing so I have had regard, so far as the Labour Party's northern amendment is concerned, to the fnct it covered a proposal from the Tattenhains Residents Association to transfer the area of Great Burgh„ Home Farm Close and Claremount Gardens from Nork to Tattenhams ward - an estimated 198 electors. The removal of about 200 electors would not affect the viability of Nork as n 3 member ward but I vas concerned because there was no hard evidence that these 198 electors wanted to be moved from Nork. I have already made up my mind to accept the Council's correction in the Shawley Crescent area and this included Conservative recommendation No.l. I

- 16 - also am going to approve the Conservative recommendation No.2 about Yew Tree Bottom Road. Hence in the light of the foregoing I could have dealt with both the Tattenhftras Residents Association and the Labour Party proposals by running the boundary on the eastern side of the house called Gaywood in Yew Tree Bottom Road northwards to Yew Tree Bottom Road and then sweeping east and south easterly down Reigate Road to its junction with Great Tattenhans. Such a proposal would take care of the Council's correction. I was in two minds wtiat to do but have come down on the side of maintaining existing boundaries where possible and so reject thia group of amendments, in so for as they relate to Great Burgh, Home Farm Close and Claremount Gardens. Still dealing with the Nork/Tattenhams boundary I can now quite quickly dispose of the two outstanding points - recommendations 1 and 2 of the Conservative Association and this includes the Council's correction. I accept both amendments and will make a formal recommendation accordingly. The effect on electorate is negligible. The matters can be described in the following detail :- (a) The boundary shown on the Council's and Commission's plans be amended so us to preserve the present ward boundary and thus run at the rear of properties in Great Tattenhams and Shawley Crescent placing those properties in Tattenhnms ward. A suggested boundary is shown marked A - B on the plan marked Document 10 Annex B. (bj The boundary shown on the Council's and Commission's plans be amended to preserve the present ward boundary and thus run along the rear gardens of houses on the south side of Yew Tree Bottom Road thus placing the whole of that road in Nork ward but retaining the whole of Garlichill Road in Tattenhams ward. A suggested boundary is shown marked C - 1) on the plan marked Document 10 Annex B. The last item to be dealt with under this section relates to the substantial amendments to the Tattenharas and Preston wards suggested by the Tattenhains Residents Association and the lesser one made by the Conservative Association as their recommendation 3. If the Residents Association amendment is accepted it will meet the Conservative's point. The weight of the arguments by the Council and others was directed to the need for 2 councillors for Preston and not the 1 proposed by the Commission. The points made are fully set out in the earlier part of this report. The real question ia whether or not the predicted increase in electorate in the ward will occur. The present electorate of 2277 clearly does not give an entitlement to two councillors - the figure is 1.29. Even if the whole of the increase does take place the entitlement is only 1.54. The 1975 figures for the present combined Preston and Tattenhains ward show a drop of 46 but I do not know the distribution of this figure for the proposed separate wards. >\irtherniore the Council's revised statement of electorates - Document 1 Annex B - shows a reduction in the earlier forecast figures of -47 for

- 17 - Tattenhams and -79 for Preston. All these points incline me to treat expansion predictions with some caution. Having weighed up nil the matters carefully I believe I have reached a solution that will meet most points of view. In particular the complaint that Preston is under-represented and Tattenhams over-represented will be removed. Briefly what I am proposing is to adopt the suggestions of the TattenhamsResidents Association, meet the views of the Conservative Association, and remove some existing electors and many potential electors from Preston to Tattenhams ward. The arithmetic is as follows : Nos 34 - 110 Spsom Lane Worth plus Oaks Way - say 40 houses. Mulitiply this by the occupancy rate of 2.9 and divide through by the electors per house (74/^ in round figures) and the result is, say, 90 electors moved from proposed Preston to proposed Tattennis. This is not significant on present electorates for either ward. The more important result is that 4uite substantial areas of development land will be placed in Tattcnhnms ward and removed from Preston ward. Details as follows :- Headley View Sitfl (New Ideal Homes) 72 houses - 156 electors. - started Cemetery Site - 104 units - 225 electors. (Fwaiting planning permission)

Tatteiiham Corner (Railway Itmd) - 30 units - 65 electors. ivawaiting planning permission). (This above site will now all be in Tattenhams instead of being split between Tattenhams/Preston.) Waterfield & Pit Wood Green - 87 units - 189 electors (About to start) ' (Remains in Preston) Adding all these figures (except Railway Site, where moot was in Tattenhams anyhow) it means Tattenhams will have about 471 electors more than planned and Preston that many less. The Council had originally ahown a growth figure for Preston ward of 642 and have now reduced this by 7y. If this reduction is added to the loss by transfer to Tattenhams (47l) it means very little growth in Preston ward - perhaps only the Waterfield and Pit Wood Green scheme of 87 units. I therefore consider that there is no case for a second councillor for the Preston ward. All that remains in this section is to describe the proposed amendments to the boundary between Tattenhams mid Preston wards. I recommend thnt Tattenhams ward be extended southwards and westwards - the boundary to run southwards behind the rear of numbers 80 - 116 Herland Rise, then westwards along the northern boundary of Pit Wood, under the railway arch, skirting the southern boundary of 34 Epsom Lane North and across the track at South Tadworth Farm to the Borough boundary arid then follow northerly'the western boundary of the ward as shown on the Commission':; plan. I have marked the boundaries A-B-C-D-Eof the suggested amendment on a plan - Document 11, Annex B. On that some plan I have indicated the four areas of proposed development referred to earlier in this paragraph. 21. The Reigate wards The principal point at issue here was the objection by the Council and the

- 18 - Reigate and Banstead Conservative Association to the changes which the Commission had made in respect of Reigate South West, South Central and Central wards. In brief this involved (a) the transfer of the Woodhatch Estate from the South Central to the South West ward and (b) the transfer of a number of roads in the Keigute Heath area from South West to Central ward. Additionally the Conservative Association, but not the Council, suggested a reduction of membership of the Heigate South West ward from 3 councillors to 2. A further amendment arose at the meeting with the proposal by Oouncillor Mrs M A "aller to make a small change of boundary between Reigate South Central and Heigate South Kast wards. Finally there was the "error" pointed out by the Council of the boundary between Reigate Central and Reig;-te Worth wards at the railway line. So far as the major objection is concerned it vas argued by the Council on grounds of more nearly conforming to the Commission's criteria, attaching rural areas to town areas, lack of community interest and associated matters. To these the Conservatives added an element of history end geography. Mr Davies for the Labour Party and other local residents strongly rebutted these views and welcomed and supported the Commission's proposals. The figures for each of the proposals are as follows :- Coinmission's Proposals 12H 1979 Ward Councillors Electorate Entitlement Electorate Entitlement Reigate Central 3 5441 3.09 5603 2.96 Reigate South Centra.l1 3 5281 3.00 5409 2.86 Reigate South West 3 5249 2.98 5283 2.79 Council's Proposals (entitlement on 49 basin0 Reigate Central 3 5151 2.92 5313 2.81 Reigate South Centra.l1 3 6297 3.57 6425 3.39 Reigate South West 3 4523 2.57 4557 2.41 The Council's revised growth estimates do not show any significant changes for these wards. Go far as the figures are concerned I am firmly of the view that in terras of electorate the Commission's draft proposals are much more equitable than the Council's and T reject their arguments on this score. On the more general matters I was impressed by the evidence given by Mr Privies and others, see nothing wrong in mixing town and country nnd have no hestitation in confirming the Commission's proposals. I also reject the suggestion that the Reigate South West ward should only have 2 councillors. There might have been n cnse for this under the Council':: scheme but there certainly is no case under the Commission's proposals. The amendment proposed by Councillor Mrs M A Waller is on the grounds of severance of community of interests which sho says lies in Earlsv:ood to the south nnd on the grounds that the division at Pendleton Road is illogical by creating a spur jutting southward. I accept the arguments and will recommend the amendment of boundary. The details arelas follows : The boundary between Reigate South Central

- 19 - and Reignte South Kest wards be amended by moving the boundary of the latter ward slightly northwards so as to run along Church Road and Pendleton Road to the Brighton Road thereby placing properties in Pendleton Close, Church Hond and The Cutting in. Reignte South Bast ward. A suggested boundary line A - B is shown on a plan - Document 12 Annex 3. The effect on electorate is negligible. The Council had drawn the Commission's attention to an "error" on their plan and that of the Commission. The Council had intended the line between'Keigate Central and Reignte North wards should continue to follow the Redhill/Guildford railway line on the eastern side of the A.217 to Station Road, Redhill and not as shown. I put this matter to the meeting and there was no objection. I recommend therefore that the boundary be emended as requested - amended boundary is shown/-on a nap - Document 15 Anne?; B. 22. Kin^swood with Burf#i Heath and Banatead Village wards '• There were no speakers for these wards as Mr J G Svanson for the Burgh Heath Word Residents Association was not able to be present when I came to consider these wards. He handed me a note and plan - Document 5 Annex 3 - which I have considered along with letters dated 16th November 1974, 30th December 1974 and 21st July 1975- I think I can fairly summarize his views as follows. He points out the disparate nature of different parts to be included in the proposed ward, the difficulties of transport and communications, his proposals show greater social- affinity than the Council's, particularly mentions the distance between Burgh Heath and Kingsvood, and feels the Council have missed the chance of making a more rational system. He proposed a new ward made up as below and as illustrated on the plan.

Existing ^urgh Heath Ward f 2199 Kork - Polling District NB 839 Tattenhams - Polling District OB 789 North side Garretts Lane (from Banstead Village) 70 North Acre (from Banstead Village) 100 Total 3997 (Mr Swanson said "Long Acre" in his letter but he must mean "North Acre") He says the effect on other wards would be that the electorates would be :- Nork 4239 Tattenhams 40154 Banstead Village 4643- I cannot quite agree these figures but I make only this point. If they are nearly right then the question of the number of councillors for both Nork and Tattenhams is in question. So far as his suggestion for the new ward with an electorate of 3997 this only gives an entitlement to 2.27. Three councillors would not be justified. 1 have considered the proposals, which would have a serious effect on other wards. I attach no special weight to his suggestions and reject them. Mr iivanson asked also for consideration to be given to a less parochial name for the Banstead Village ward. I put the suggestion to the meeting. It was received in silence and I make no recommendation for change.

- 20 - 23. Acknowledgements I record my grateful thanks to ail the parties at the hearing for their assistance in supplying information arid opinions, to the officers of the Council who made all the necessary arrangements for the hearing nnd the visits and for the cogent mid pleasant way in which the evidence was given. 24. Re cpmme nda ti on I recommend that the Commission's draft proposals for a Co\inc:.l of 49 member:; elected from 18 wards be approved subject to the following boundary modifications : (a) The boundary between Nork/Tattenhams vrards be amended at the two places described in paragraph 20 ;md shown on Document 10 Annex B. (bj The boundary between Tattenhaias/Preston wards be amended ns described in paragraph 20 and ahown on Document 11 Annex B. (c) The boundary between Reigate r,outh Central/Reigate .South Wast wards be amended as described in paragraph 21 and shown on Document 12 Annex B. (d) The boundary between Reigate Central/Roigate North wards be amended as described in paragraph 21 and shown on Document 13 Annex 3. I am, Sir, Your obedient .'Servant

I, J SiXJCOMBK Assistant Commissioner

3rd December 1975 SCHEDULE 2

BOROUGH OF REIGATE AND BAN3TEAD: NAMES OF PKOPOSED WARDS AND NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS

NAME OF WARD NO.OF COUNCILLORS

BANSTEAD VILLAGE 3

CHIPSTEAD - HOOLEY AND WOODMAHSTERNE 3

HORLEY EAST 3

HORLEY WEST 3

KINGSWOOD WITH BURGH HEATH 3

NOKK 3

PRKSTON 1

REIGATE CENTRAL 3

REIGATE EAST 3

REIGATE NORTH 3

RKIGATE NORTH CENTRAL 3

KEIGATE NORTH EJ\3T 3

REIGATE SOUTH CI«HAL 3

REIGATE SOUTH EAST 3

REIGATE SOUTH WEST 3

SALFORDS AND SIDLOW 1

TADWORTH AND WALTON 2

TATTENHAMS 3 SCHEDULE 3

BOROUGH OK REIGATK AND 3AHSTEAD: ORDER OF RKTIRliMNT OF COUNCILLORS

KO. OP COUNCILLORS NAJffi OF WARD 1st YEAR 2nd YEAR RSPHESHmilG \7ARD 3rd YKAU

BANSTEAD VILLAGE 3 1 1 1 CHIPSTEAD-HOOLEY AND WOODKANSTEHNE 3 1 1 1 » HORLiJY KAST 3 1 1 PE 1 HOHLEY WEST 3 1 1 PK 1 KINGSWOOD WITH BUHGII HEAT}! 3 1 1 1 NORK 3 1 1 1 PRESTON 1 1 - - REIGATE CENTRAL 3 1 1 1 - REIGATE EAST 3 1 1 1 REIGATE NORTH 3 1 1 1 • REIGATE NORTH CENTRAL 3 1 1 1 REIGATE NOiOT KAST 3 1 . 1 1 ' REIGATU SOUTH CENTRAL 3 1 1 1 REIGATK SOUTH KAST 3 1 1 1 REIGATE UOUTH WEST 3 1 '1 1 SALrORDS AND SIDLOW 1 - 1 PE - TADWORTU AND WALTON 2 - 1 1 TATTENHAKS 3 1 1 1

16 17 16

PE = PARISH ELECTIONS

• SCHEDULE BOROUGH OF R2IGATE AND BANSTSAD - DESCRIPTION OP PROPOSED WARD

NOTEj Where the boundary is described as following a road, railway, river, canal or similar feature it should be deemed to follow the centre line thereof unless otherwise stated.

BANSTEAD VILLAGE WARD

Commencing where Wood Lane meets Brighton Road, northeastwards and following said road, northwestwards along Belmont Rise, northeastwards and following the northern boundary of the District, westwards and northwards along the southern and eastern boundaries of parcel No 2573 as shown on OS 1i2500 plan TQ 2?60

Edition of 1958 » westwards along the southern boundary of parcel Ho 0860 and parcel No 9758 as shown on 03 1i2500 Plan TQ 2660 Edition of 1958, southwards along the eastern boundary of parcel No 8834, westwards along the northern boundaries of parcel Mos 8911 and 8505, southwards along the western boundaries of parcel No 850? and parcel No 8600 as shown on 03 1:2500 plan Tq 26/2759

Edition of 1959t crossing Woodmansterne Lane, southwestwards along the eastern boundary of Romina, then rear boundaries of 1 to 5 Kenneth Road and the western boundary of Becken'a Shaw, southwestwards along the path from Kingscroft Road to Park Road, southeastwards and following the western boundaries of parcel Nos

8753» 0826 and 0006 and southwards and following the western boundary of parcel

No 0006 on OS 1i2500 Plan TQ 26/2758 Edition of 1959, southwards and westwards along Soloms Court Road, southwards and westwards along the rear boundaries of Wai wood Lodge, northwestwards along Park Road, southwestwards along the path from Park Road to Holly Lane, northwestwards along said lane, westwards along the path from Holly Lane to Chipstead Road, and Chipstead Road, southwards along the path forming the western boundary of Parcel No 4360 as shown on OS

1 1 2500 Plan TQ 25.58 Edition of 1959 to National Grid reference TQ 2526958449, westwards along the path to Wood Lane, and Wood Lane to the point of commencement,

NORK WARD Commencing at a point where the northern boundary of the District meets the western boundary of Banstead Village Ward, generally southwards along said ward boundary to The Drive, southwestwards along The "Drive and Church Lane to Reigate Road, southeastwards along Reigate Road to a point opposite the southern boundary of the property known as Ismay, thence to and along the said boundary and continuing generally westwards along the northern boundaries of No 2 and Nos 14 to 18 Great Tattenhams to a point opposite the rear boundary of No 99 Shawley Crescent, thence generally northwestwards and southweatwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 99 to 29 Shawley Crescent to the eastern boundary of Great Burgh, southwards, westwards and northwards along the boundary of the Great Burgh to the northern boundary of No 40

Northview Crescent, thence westwards along the said boundary and the rear boundaries of Noa 42 to 58 Northview Crescent to the western boundary of the property known as Beechwood, thence northwards along said boundary to Tew Tree

Bottom Road, thence westwards along said road to a point opposite the eastern boundary of the property known as Moas Ford, thence southwards to and along said boundary to the northern boundary of No 10 Downs Wood, thence generally westwards along said boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos 12 to 28 "Downs

Wood and southwestwards along the western boundary of No 28 Downs Wood to the path joining Downs Wood and Old London Road, thence northwestwards along the said path to the western boundary of the District, thence northwards and generally northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement.

TATTENHAMS WARD

Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of parcel No 5044 as shown

on OS 112500 Plan TQ. 22/2557 Edition of 1971 meets the western boundary of the

District, northwards along the said diotrict boundary to the southern boundary

of Nork Ward, eastwards along said boundary and southwards along the western

boundary of Banatead Tillage Ward, continuing southwards alon^ Brighton Road,

generally westwards along the path from Brighton Road to Rei^ate Road, southwards

along said road, southweatwards along the path from Rei^ate Road to Ch^twodf?

Road, southwestwards along Chetwode Road, southwards along Merland Rise, % westwards, southwards and westwards along the northern and rea'" boundaries of

Nos 80 to 120 Merland Rise, continuing westwards along the northern boundary _' arch of Pit Wood and the adjoining property to the railway/and continuing along the

road past South Tadworth Farm to Epsom Lane, southwards along Spsom Lane to the southern boundary of parcel No 5044, westwards along said boundary to the point of commencement. PRESTON WARD

Commencing at a point in Epsom Lane North opposite the southern boundary of parcel no 4900 on OS 1i2500 Plan TQ 22/2556 (1969), westwards and following- eaid southern boundary and in prolongation thereof to the western boundary of the district, northwards along said boundary, northeastwards and following the southern boundary of Tattenhams Ward, southwards along the western boundary of Burgh Heath, southwestwards along the unnamed road to the north of Vernon Walk and Copley Walk and eouthwestwards and following the path from said unnamed road to Shelvere Way, westwards and following the rear boundaries of 76 to 92 Shelvers Way, 12 to ** Shelvers Green, 10 to 5 Hill View Close and 1 Ashurst Road, southwestwards along Preston Lane and westwards and following Epsom Lane North to the point of commence- ment.

TADWORTH AND WALTON WARD Commencing where the track from Mogador to Mount Hill meets the western boundary of the District, northwestwards and following said boundary, eastwards and following the southern boundary of Preston Ward, southeastwards along the western boundary of Burgh Heath, eastwards along Shelvers Wsy, southwards along Brighton Road, southwestwards and following the track from Brighton Road southwest of The Old Vicarage to Hamara Hogden Cottage, southwards and following the eastern boundary of Banstead Heath to Nat Grid Reference TQ 2*103353207, southwestwards in a straight line to Nat Grid Reference TQ 23971+531?1*, southwards and following Mogador Road, southwestwards and following the track from said road to Mount Hill passing through Mogador to the point of commencement.

KINGSWOOD WITH BURGH HEATH WARD Commencing where the eastern boundary of Tadworth and Walton Ward meets the western boundary of the District, northeastwards and following said eastern boundary and the eastern boundaries of Preston Ward and Tettenhame Ward, generally eastwards along the southern boundary of Banstead Village Werd and Holly Lane, southwards and southeastwards along the western and southern boundaries of Stagbury Cottage, eouthwestwards along Outwood Lsne to Nat

Grid Reference TQ 272195785^ west in a straight line to the southeastern boundary of Banstead Wood at Nat Grid Reference TQ 27028578^9, westwards and following said boundary to a point opposite the eastern boundary of parcel no 0025 on plan TQ 26/2757 (197D thence southwards to and along aaid boundary and in prolongation thereof to the railway, eastwards along said railway, due south to the eastern boundary of Chiphouse Wood, southeastwards along said boundary and the western boundaries of parcel nos 5209, ***+00 and parcel no 5500 on OS 1:2500 plan TQ 26/2756 (1971), southwestwards along Outwood Lane, southwards along the unnamed road from said lane to Eyhurst Farm *t Nat Grid Reference TQ 26M»756121, eastwards and following the western boundary of parcel 5800, and parcel no 5800 on

OS 1:2500 plan TQ 26/2755 (1971), southwestwarde and following the northern boundary of parcel no 5373 to Nat Grid Reference TQ 263^75589^1 d«e westwards to the track from Eyhuret Farm to Chipstead Lane, southeastwards along said track to the northern boundary of parcel no 00^2, eouthwestwards, southwards and following said boundary and westwards and southwards along the northern and western boundaries of parcel no 00**2 on OS 1:2500 plan

TQ 2*f/2555 (1971), westwards along Chipstead Lane, southwards along the path from Chipstead Lane to the track from Green Lane to High Road, southwards and following said track, southwestwards along High Road, southeastwards along Babylon Lane, southweetwards along Blackhorse Lane, southwards along

Fort Lane, westwards along the track (Trackway) to the north of Reigate Hill and Colley Hill, westwards and following the southern boundaries of parcel nos <*510, 3307, 2106, 1508, 0717, 0207, 0717, all on OS 1:2500 plan

TQ 2V2552 (1971)i northwestwards and following the northern and western boundaries of Colley Hill, westwards and following the southern boundary of parcel no 0012, northwestwards along the northern boundary of parcel no 9216 on OS 1:2500 plan TQ 22/2352 and northwestwards along the western boundary of the District to the point of commencement. CHIPSTEAD-HOOLEY AND WOODMANSTERNE WARD

Commencing where the eastern boundary of Kingswood with Burgh Heath ward meets High Road at Old Trees, northwestwards and following said eastern boundary and the eastern boundary of Banetead Village Ward, eastwards and following the eastern boundary of the District, westwards along Dean Lane, » southwards and following the rear boundaries of "Cold Blow", westwards and following Dean Lane, southweetwards along the path from Dean Lr.ne to Shepherd's Hill, northwestwards along the northern boundaries of parcel nos 0006, 9722 and 892*1 on OS 1:2500 plan TQ 28/2955 (1971) and northwards and westwards along the eastern and northern boundaries of parcel no 7836, southwards along Brighton Road, northwestwards and following the northern boundaries of parcel noe 5073, 3977 and 3180 on OS 1:2500 plan TQ 28/295** (1963)i southwards and following the western boundaries of parcel nos 3180 and 297**, westwards and following Harps Oak Lane, southwards along Markedge Lane, southweetwards and southwards along the northern and western boundaries of parcel no 6938 on OS 1:2500 plan TQ 26/275**, southwestwards end following the track from Markedge Lme to High Road, southwestwards and following the southern boundaries of parcel noe 8320 and 7808 and southwestwards along High Road to the point of commencement.

REIGATH NORTH WARD Commencing where the Redhill to Guildford railway meets the western boundary of the District, northwards and following said western boundary, southeastwards VWj and following the southern boundaries of Kingswood with Burgh Heath Ward end » Ghipstead-Hooley and Woodmansterne Ward, southwards along the eastern boundary of the District, westwards along the M25, southwards along the London to Brighton railway, northwestwards and following Battlebridge Lane, southwestwarde along London Road South and Qatton Park Road, southeastwards and following Batts Hill, southwards and following Linkfield Lane and LinVfield Corner to the Redhill to Guildford railway, westwards alon# said railway to the

point of commencement.

REKATE NOH3H EAST WARD Commencing where Battlebridge Lane meets the southern boundary of Reigate North Ward on the London to Brighton railway, northeastwards and following said southern boundary, southwards and following the eastern "boundary of the District, westwards along Nutfield Marsh Road, northwestwards and following Nutfield Road, northwestwards and following Orpin Road, northwestwards and northwards along the rear boundaries of !Hazeltonl and southwestwards along Battlebridge Lane to the point of commencement.

REIGATE NORTH CENTRAL WARD Commencing where Station Road meets the southern boundary of Reigate North Ward, northeastwards and following said southern boundary, southwards along London Road and westwards along Station Road to the point of commencement.

REIGATE CENTRAL WABD Commencing where Flanchford Road meets the western boundary of the District, generally northwards and following said western boundary, eastwards and following the southern boundaries of Reigate North Ward and Reigate North Central Ward, southwards along High Street and Brighton Road, westwards along Grovehill Road, Sim Hoad, Blackborou^i Road, ^Sest Hoad and Lesboiirne Head, southwards along Bell Street to the path leading through Reigate Park, southwestwards along said path and continuing along the path to the south of Park Hill to Park Lane, « southwards along said lane to Clayhall Lane, southwestwards and following said lane and Flanchford Road to the point of commencement. REIGATE BAST WARD Commencing where the path from Mason's Bridge Road to The Old Cottage and Kings Mill Lane meets the northern boundary of Salforde and Sidlow CP, southwestwards along said path, northwestwards and following Mason's Bridge Hoad and Three Arch Road, northwards along the railway, westwards along Hooley Lane, northeastwards along Brighton Road and the eastern boundaries of Reigate Central Ward and Reigate North Central Ward, northeastwards and following the southern boundaries of Reigate North Ward and Reigate North East Ward, southwards and following the eastern boundary of the District, southwestwards and following the northern boundary of Salfords and Sidlow CP to the point of commencement*

RBIGAXS SOUTH WBSV WARD Commencing where the northern boundary of Salfords and Sidlow CP meets the western boundary of the District, northwestwards and following said western boundary, northeastwards and following the southern boundary of Reigate Central Ward to the path to Park Lane East, southwards along said path to said lane, eastwards along said lane to Cockshot Bill, southwards along said hill to the path between said hill and Smoke Lane, northeastwards along said path and said lane, southwards along the path to the rear of Nos 2-14 Hilltop Road, eastwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 16-22 and Noe 21-17 Hilltop Road to the rear boundary of No 31 Purzefield Crescent,thence southwards, northeast- wards and northwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 51-1 Purzefield Crescent to the path between said crescent and Cronks Hill, northeastwards alonj? said path and southeastwards along the rear boundaries of The Chantry, Nos 112-86 Somerset Bead and the Jireh Chapel to Copse Road, westwards along said road, southeastwards and following Arbutus Road, southwards along Willow Road, westwards along Pendleton Hoad and Woodhatch Road, southwards along Cockahot Hill and Dovers Green Road and southwestwards and following the northern boundary of Salfords and Sidlow CP to the point of commencement. REIGATE SOUTH CENTRAL WARD

Commencing where Pendleton Road meets the eastern boundary of Reigate South

West Ward, generally northwards along the said boundary, westwards along the northern boundary of said ward, northeastwards and eastwards along the southern boundary of Reigate Central Ward, southwards along the western boundary of

Reigate East Ward and continuing southwestwards and westwards along Brighton

Road, Church Road, Fountain Road and Pendleton Road to the point of commencement*

REIGATE SOUTH EAST WARD

Commencing where the eastern boundary of Reigate South West Ward meets the northern boundary of Salfords and Sidlow CP, northwards and eastwards along said eastern boundaryi northeastwards and following the southern boundary of

Reigate South Central Ward, eastwards and following the western and southern boundaries of Reigate East Ward and southeastwards and following the northern boundary of Salfords and Sidlow CP to the point of commencement.

SALFORDS AND SIDLOW WARD

The parish of Salfords and Sidlow.

HORLEY WEST WARD

The Horley No 1 (West) and Horley No 2 (North Central) wards of the parish of

Horley.

HORLEY EAST WARD

The Horley No 3 (South Central) and Horley No 4 (East) wards of the parish of

Horley.