Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 4^ 7 LOCAL GOTEEDMHT BOUNDARY OOJMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. ^" 3 7 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNMHY COMMISSIOH FOR ENGLAND CHAIBMAH Mr G J Ellerton CMS MBE IEPTJTT CHATRMAN Sir Wilfred Burns CB CBE MEMBERS Lftdj Ackner Mr T BrockUnk DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry T3I1 3T. HCS. PATRICK J2KKIN UP SECRETARY OF STATE ?03 THE EKVI30KK2IT *. In their parish review report subnitted to us on 16 June iV80f Guildford Borough Council suggested changes to parts of ths boundary between the Borough, of Cuildford ?.r.d the Boroughs of Surrey Heath, Poking and Elmbridge, and Districts of Hole Valley and T7averley in the Coi-nty of Surrey, and the Borough of 3ushmoor in the County of Hacipahire in the following parishad and unparished areas:- Ash Parish, Guildford/Surrey Heath Borough Pirbright Parish, Guildford/Surroy Eeath Borough Pirbright Parish, Guildi'ord/tfokinc Borough Ockha-n Parisii, Guildfcrd/Elcbridge Borough Effin^haa Parish, Guildford/r.role Valley District East I'.orsley Parish, Guildford/Abinger Parish, Kole Valley Shere Parish, Guildford/Abinter Parish, Hole Valley Shere Parish, Guildford/Ev/hurst Parish, Vfaverley District Albury Parish, Cuildford/V.'onersh Parish, V/averley r:halfor;l parish, Guildford/Bcamley Parish, TTaverley Shalford Parish, Guildford/Godalming Parish, 77averley Coinpton Parish, Guildford/Godalmir.g Parish, '.V-: verley Shackleford Parish, Guildford/Goclaiming Parish, i7a*/erley ShaclQeford Parish, Guildford/Witley Parish, ";7averley Seale and Tongham Parish, Guildford/Elstead Parisl;, /teverley Seale and Toafjham Parish, GuildTord/Tilford Parish, VTaverley Seale and Tonghaa Parish, Guildford/7averley District Ash Parish, Guilclford, Surrey/Rushooor Borough, Eaapshlre ^ ;2. In the Effingham CP, Cuildford/L:ol3 Vslley boundary area, Guildford Borough Council 3u>_r;9sted thit houses opposite jlffinghc^:. village or. the "ole Valley sido cf the boundary should be brought within..Effi.'i£hain ;?-arish bac^use cf a cordon cocaunity of intorast; for the remaining areas, they nurgected minor alterations to create more, satisfactory administrative boundaries. 3- V.'e considered Guildford Borough Council's request, as required by Section 45(5) of the Local Government Act 1972, having regard to the Department of the Environment Circular 33/7? and our Report :To. 287- 4. We had before us the 'Views of all the parishes and district councils concerned with the changes suggested in the various areas and of Surrey and Hampshire County Councils. In the absence of general agreement on the necessity of carrying out a review of the boundary between Guildford Borough in Surrey and Rushmoor Borough in Hampshire, we were not satisfied we had sufficient justification for embarking on an ad hoc review in advance of the review of county boundaries during the period after 1984 for which the Act provides. For the remainder we decided that we should undertake a review, and that the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional to enable us to shorten our normal procedure by publishing draft proposals at the time time as we formally announced our intention to carry out a review. 5. We based our draft proposals on Guildford Borough Council's submission in all j • *-i areas except one which is dealt with"below. In three instances however this involved, on the advice of Ordnance Survey, extending Guildford Borough Council's suggested area fox alteration into adjacent par i shed or unparished area as follows:- Pitfbri^it CP, Guildford/Woking Borough extended into Worplesdon CP, Guildford Seale and Tongham CP, Guildford/Tilford CP, Waverley extended into Waverley District CP, Guildford/Mole Valley extended into Wotton CP, Mole Valley In respect of the one exception the Albury CP (Guildford)/Wonersh (Waverley) boundary, we adopted the alternative boundary suggested by Wonersh Parish Council. 6. On 7 October 1982, we issued a consultation letter announcing the start of the review and giving details of our draft proposals. The letter was addressed to Guildford Borough Council and copies were sent to Surrey County Council, Surrey Heath, Woking and Elmbridge Borough Councils. and Mole Valley and Waverley District Councils, the parish councils concerned, MPs of the constituencies concerned, headquarters of the main political parties, local newspapers circulating in the areas concerned and the local government press. The district councils were asked to publish a notice announcing the start of the review and the publication of the draft proposals, and to place copies of it on display at places where public notices were customarily displayed; they were also asked to place copies of the draft proposals on deposit at their main offices for a period of six weeks. 7. Copies of our letters were also sent to Hampshire County Council and Rushraoor Borough Council in that county. RESPONSE TO TITS DRAFT PROPOSALS 8. In response to the publication of our draft proposals we received letters from Surrey County Council, the Borou^i Councils of Elmbridge, Guildford, Surrey Heath and 7'oking, Mole Valley District Council, Godalming Town Council, the Parish Councils of Effin^iara, Elstead, flitley and vYotton, the Thames '.Vater Authority, the Bookhams Residents' Association and several private individuals. 9. The Borough Councils of Elmbridge and Surrey Heath supported our draft proposals as they affected their boundaries. Surrey County Council, Woking Borough Council, and the Thames ^Tater Authority had no comments to make. All the comments received referred to draft proposals affecting the boundary between the Borough of Guildford, and the Districts of Mole Valley and "tfaverley. a. Mole Valley District 10. All the representations except three concerned the Effingham/(Bookham) Mole Valley boundary. 11. Effin^iam Parish Council had felt for some years that this particular boundary change was necessary as properly reflecting community ties and known wishes of some of ,the affected residents. 12. Mole Valley District Council argued strongly that the transfer of this area would split the historical village of Little Bookham and would involve a loss of rateable value. The Council had also conducted a poll in the area which indicated that the majority of the residents affected by the draft proposal objected to it. 13. Wotton Parish Council opposed the part of our draft proposals which affected their boundary. As explained in our letter of 7 October 1982 announcing the draft proposals, this area was incorporated at Ordnance Survey's suggestion; it was of no consequence to the main proposals and no electorate was involved. 14. The Bookhams Residents' Association were also opposed to our draft proposals for the same reasons as Mole Valley District Council. 15. Sixteen letters were received from residents affected by the proposal. Of these two supported our draft proposal whereas the other fourteen voiced strong objections. Amongst the reasons given for their objections were ties with Bookham and Mole Valley, historical boundaries, higher rates in Guildford, additional parish precept in Effingham, and a supposedly consequential change in postal address. t>- Waverley District 16. Godalming Town Council welcomed, and Elstead Parish Council had no objections to our draft proposals insofar as they affected the district boundary in their respective areas. 17. Witley Parish Council opposed the minor realignment of the district boundary which split properties between the ->hackleford/Witley parishes. They suggested instead that the boundary should be realigned in the opposite direction, so that three adjacent cottages in Shackleford were transferred to their area as they were part of Milford village. They did not, however, specify the actual line the new boundary should follow. 18. We reassessed our draft proposals in the light of the representations we received and the alternatives put forward. We noted that only two of our draft proposals had been opposed, affecting the Guildford/Mole Valley boundary in the area adjoining the parish of Effingham (proposal 4c) and the Guildford/V.'averley boundary in the area of the parishes of Shackleford and "flitley (proposal 5j)- In the light of the number of representations received and the strength of the opposition to the changes, we decided that we would not proceed with these two draft proposals as published. However, rather than formulating final proposals immediately, based on alternative suggestions made in the representations, we decided to publish revised draft proposals to allow the opportunity of further public comment, ^'hese revised draft proposals involved the exclusion of the small area of '.Votton Parish from the Effingfaam, Guildford/(Bookham)/Wotton, Mole Valley transfer and the adoption of an alternative boundary suggested by V/itley Parish Council for the Shackleford, Guildford/7?itley, Waver ley area. 19. We published our revised draft proposals on 22 April 1923. Copies were sent to all those who had received our original draft proposals letter or who had since made representations to us. RESPONSE TO T!£ REVISED DRAFT PROPOSALS 20. In response to the publication of our revised draft proposals, we received letters from Surrey County Council, Guildford Borough Council, Mole Valley and Waver ley District Councils, Effingham and Shackleford Parish Councils, the Bookhams Residents' Association and two private individuals. a. Effingham, Guildford/(Bookham)/Vtotton, Mole Valley (proposal 4c) 21. Surrey County Council had no comments to make. 22. Mole Valley