Local Government Boundary Commission for England

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 18p net LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3

SBN 11 700499 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB, K.BE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN < Mr J M Rankin,QC

MEMBERS The Countess of Albemarle, DBE Mr T C Benfield Professor Michael Chisholm Sir Andrew Wheatiey, CBE Mr F B Young, CBE

in To the Rt Hon Geoffrey'Rippon QC MP Secretary of State for the Environment

1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, present our Report No 3 containing our proposals for the constitution of parishes the boundaries of which are determined by reference to those of existing urban districts and boroughs and also in certain cases by reference to the boundaries of the new districts. The report also includes our proposals for naming these parishes.

2. The statutory provisions relating to the constitution of these parishes are contained in section 1(8) and Part V of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1972. Under paragraph 1 of that Schedule we were required to "consult the councils of existing counties, boroughs and urban districts and the committees established under section 264 (1) (b) with a view to making proposals to the Secretary of State for the constitution of parishes each of which has a boundary coterminous with that of— (a) an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is not divided by or under Section I above between two or more districts, or (b) so much of an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is so divided, as is wholly comprised in a single district, and for naming those parishes." We now present our proposals for the constitution of such parishes and for naming them. We refer to these parishes in this report as successor parishes.

3. The formulation of our proposals has been governed by the following guidelines issued to us by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a letter dated 22nd January 1973: "I. When making proposals in accordance with these provisions the Commission should have regard to the policy of the Government, now reflected in the Act, with regard to statutory authorities at parish level. The Act provides for the retention of existing rural parishes with their parish councils or parish meetings. The Government's further view, as explained in Parliament, is that small towns .which are at present boroughs or urban districts should retain elected councils at parish level where such towns are broadly comparable in size and character with other small towns or villages which at present have rural parish councils. But it is the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas. 2. Against this background the Commission's consideration of applications from the councils of existing boroughs and urban districts should have regard to all the relevant considerations and, inter alia, to the following matters (which are not listed in any order of importance): (a) the population of the area; no absolute maximum figure is prescribed but the limited range of functions available to parish councils and the fact that much of their importance lies in the fact that they act as the focus for local opinion, do not point to the desirability of large units at this level: many towns of the order of 10,000-20,000 (as well as those below this range) might well qualify; but the Secretary of State would expect proposals above this range to be the exception rather than the rule both in metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties;

1 (b) the proportion of the district population comprised in the town under consideration; the higher this proportion—and hence the proportion of electors and of coun- cillors on the district council—the more the voice of the town will have the opportunity to be heard in the deliberations of the district council, and the less will be the need for an additional council at parish level; again no rigid limit is suggested but if the town comprised more than one-fifth of the population of the district it would not normally qualify for separate parish status. This second consideration should be regarded as operating in addition to and not as an alternative to that in (a); (c) The separate identity of the town as a community on its own, and its historical background; (d) the extent to which it is a physically separate unit which might be compared to villages or small towns now having the status of rural parishes; (e) the wishes of the existing borough or urban district council; also the views of the joint committee of existing authorities established under the Act for the relevant district, and of the existing county council. In recommending names for the successor parishes the Commission will no doubt have regard to local wishes and the importance of continuity in the present operation. The Secretary of State would be glad if the Commission can make their recommendations to him by about the end of May."

4. On 30th January 1973 we sent a circular (LGBC 1/73) to the councils of counties, county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban districts and to the joint committees set up under section 264 of the Act. The circular set out the guidelines and invited the councils of boroughs and urban districts to consider whether, within the terms of the guidelines, they wished to apply for the constitution of a parish for their area, or for any part of their area which will be wholly comprised in a single district and, if so, to make their case together with proposals for naming that parish. Representations were also invited from the joint committees and from county councils.

5. We were aware that it was the Government's aim to lay an order before Parliament in the summer and this was the reason for the Secretary of State's request that we should make our recommendations to him by about the end of May. In order to meet this request, we asked that all applications and representations should be sent to us to arrive not later than Tuesday the 13th of March 1973.

NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES 6. In the main, the applications which we received from the non-metropolitan counties were in respect of towns which were well within the guidelines in all respects. We received a number of applications relating to towns which were outside one or more of the guidelines and in those cases the local authorities usually claimed that there were exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, there were many authorities who decided not to apply for a successor parish even though the town was well within all the guidelines.

7. In considering applications for parish status we were bound to pay particular attention to the concept of a successor parish. This was outlined in guideline 1 which also required us to have regard to the policy of the Government towards statutory authorities at parish level. In this respect, the White Paper on Local Government in England (Grand 4584) stated: "the establishment of two operational forms of local authorities does not remove the need for authorities at parish level. There has been a substantial revival of interest in recent years in the part that very small bodies or authorities can play in allowing local people themselves to get things done and hi focusing local opinion on matters affecting the neigh- bourhood. The Government wish to give every encouragement to the existing rural parishes outside the Metropolitan counties". The White Paper was less certain about the position in urban areas: "The retention or establishment of parish councils in essentially urban areas raises different problems—hi the metropolitan districts, for instance, or in town areas outside the metropolitan counties. It may be appropriate, if local people wish it, to provide for the equivalent of a parish council in a small town which is now a separate borough or urban district, where such a town is included in a new and enlarged district. But the views and wishes of neighbourhoods, or smalt communities within larger built-up areas, might preferably be represented by non-statutory bodies; district authorities should have powers to assist such bodies financially and in other ways."

8. The Government's policy is reflected in the Act which provides for the retention of existing rural parishes, with their parish councils or parish meetings and for the constitution of successor parishes in certain cases elsewhere. We noted the Government's further view, as stated in guideline 1, that small towns which are at present boroughs or urban districts should retain elected councils at parish level "where such towns are broadly comparable in size and character with other small towns or villages which at present have rural parish councils." We further noted that it was the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which were "essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas" and this guideline has special relevance to metropolitan counties (see paras 15 to 21 below). It was against this background that guideline 2 asked us to have regard to all relevant considerations and, inter alia, to certain criteria which are stated in that guideline.

9. When considering whether the towns in respect of which applications for parish status were made, were "broadly comparable in size and character with other small towns or villages which at present have rural parish councils" we thought it would not be right to attempt to apply any general concept of parish size and character. We, therefore, looked at each proposal individually and took account not only of the general size and character of rural parishes in England but also of the general size and character of existing rural parishes in the vicinity of each applicant authority.

10. The guidelines do not fix any absolute limit to the population size of a successor parish but state that "the Secretary of State would expect proposals above this range (10,000-20,000 population) to be the exception rather than the rule both in metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties". Generally we found that such proposals as we received for successor parishes above this population range were inconsistent with the concept of a successor parish given to us in guideline 1 and therefore unacceptable. Our recommendations do, however, include a few successor parishes marginally exceeding the 20,000 figure, which appeared to us to be admissible as exceptions because the other criteria in the guidelines were satisfied. They occur in districts of substantial size where a successor parish marginally exceeding 20,000 in population is consistent with the measurement of one fifth of the district population suggested in guideline 2(b).

11. The converse has applied to the exceptional cases where we have proposed successor parishes showing some measure of excess over one fifth of the district population. These are cases which fully satisfy the other criteria in the guidelines, and for the most part are to be found in districts with a small population, where there are small towns with a population somewhat in excess of one fifth of the district but well below 20,000 and clearly of the size and character of rural parishes.

12. Several applications were received in respect of towns which are not physically separate units. Again, we looked at the merits of each case. Where, as stated in guideline I, these "are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas" they are not within the concept of a successor parish and we decided to make no proposals. We came to a similar conclusion in respect of areas which are wholly or mainly within the designated area of a New Town. There may be a case for a parish council for that part of the area outside the New Town boundary but this will be a matter for the new District Council on a review of their area: we have no power to make proposals for parishes for part of a borough or urban district in these circumstances. For other areas where there is some continuity of development, we had regard, in addition to the other guidelines, to the extent to which the town contained a separate and largely self- contained community and in other respects met the concept of a successor parish suggested in guideline 1.

13. We know that a number of the councils of boroughs and urban districts have decided not to apply for parish status at this time but to wait until they can have discussions with the new district councils about the future status of their towns. Other existing borough councils are understood to favour having Charter Trustees where this course is open to them. Section 48(8) of the Act does place a duty on the new district councils to keep the whole of their area under review for the purpose of considering whether or not to make recommendations to us for the constitution, abolition or alteration of parishes in the district. We see this immediate task, therefore, not as a once and for all operation but one for estab- lishing an initial pattern of parish government. In the future there will be opportunity for adjustments designed to meet the changing needs, to be initiated locally.

14. Table A, which is appended to this report, lists in county order, the existing boroughs and urban districts or parts thereof in the non-metropolitan counties where we propose that a parish should be constituted and the proposed name.

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES 15. In the background description, given in guideline 1, of the character and situation appropriate for successor parishes, it is stated to be "the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas". The White Paper (Cmnd 4584) upon which the Local Government Bill was founded, described the proposed metropolitan pattern as "suitable only where a county is divisible into districts all of which are populous and compact" and stated that the boundaries of the 6 metropolitan counties "should include all the main area or areas of continuous development and any adjacent area into which continuous development will extend."

16. Given the exigencies of boundary adjustments and other considerations, it may well be that this principle has not been fully maintained throughout the metropolitan counties as actually defined in the Local Government Act 1972. But we had no grounds for thinking that the principle had been impaired, and it followed that in the metropolitan counties we could expect little scope for successor parishes that respected guideline 1. But neither the Act nor our guidelines excluded them from our consideration. Indeed the inclusion of such counties was to be inferred from the statement in guideline 2(a) that "the Secretary of State would expect proposals above this range (i.e. the 10,000-20,000 population range) to be the exception rather than the rule both in metropolitan and non- metropolitan counties". 17. We therefore opened our successor parish review by consulting the present local authorities in the metropolitan as well as in the non-metropolitan districts. But we foresaw that when we came to consider the resulting applications from boroughs and urban districts in metropolitan districts, it would be necessary not only to apply the population and other criteria in guideline 2, but to give particular attention to the test in guideline 1. The application of this test has caused us much difficulty, the question whether a given area is "essentially part of a larger town or of a continuously built-up area" being as much a matter of opinion as of fact. 18. We have been placed in an additional difficulty by the diversity of local views that has emerged as a result of our ascertaining the opinions of the joint committees of existing authorities in accordance with guideline 2(e). In a number of metropolitan districts the joint committees have supported applicants or have not expressed any opinion. In others, they have expressed the view that the parish has no place in the metropolitan situation. We were able to judge from the number and distribution of the applications for successor parish status that a number of potential applicants for parish status either had not come forward or had withdrawn their applications in deference to this point of view. Conse- quently we faced the prospect that any proposals that we might make for successor parishes in the metropolitan districts would show a serious imbalance which would not necessarily correspond to differences in the character and composition of those districts but would be due rather to a provisional and often divided expression of local opinion,

19. Given, all these circumstances—particularly the practical difficulty of our effectively applying the test of continuous development, and the diversity of local opinion reflected in the views of the applicant authorities and the joint committees—we decided that at this initial stage in the new system of local government, our proposals for successor parishes in the metropolitan districts should be restricted to the very few cases where the application seemed to be fully supported by local opinion, all the other criteria in guideline 2 were satisfied, and we had no doubt at all that in spite of being situated in a metropolitan area, the background conditions prescribed in guideline 1 as understood by us were fully met. Apart from these exceptional cases, it seems preferable to us that action should wait till the new metropolitan district councils have had the opportunity to carry out the duty imposed upon them by section 48(8) of the Act to review their areas with a view to their recommending to us the constitution of parishes in their respective districts. This process will enable the districts to include in their review consideration of the role that the parish can properly perform in the metropolitan situation: and in this connection we think it significant that our guideline 1 states that "statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) [our italics] for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas".

20. We have not overlooked the fact that the new metropolitan districts will include a number of existing rural parishes with their parish councils or parish meetings. We do not, however, consider that the presence of these parishes in new metropolitan districts is in itself a reason for adding to the parishes in those districts. A review under section 48(8) of the Act includes the power to recom- mend to us the abolition or alteration, as well as the constitution, of parishes in the district. Given the present uncertainties over the role of the parish in a metropolitan area it seems to us that there may be advantage in restricting the number of additional parishes in the initial pattern so as to leave the field as clear as possible for review by the metropolitan district councils.

21. Table B which is appended to this report, lists in county order, the existing boroughs and urban districts or parts thereof in the metropolitan counties where we propose that a parish should be constituted and the proposed name.

STATUS OF CERTAIN PARISHES 22. When making proposals for the names of the new parishes, a number of authorities proposed that the word town should be included with the existing name of the borough or urban district. Town status is not a matter for the Commission but for parish councils. Section 245(6) provides that the council of a parish which is not grouped with any other parish may resolve that the parish shall have the status of a town and thereupon the parish shall bear the name of the council of the town. In these cases we have therefore recommended the existing names suggested to us by the applicant authority: it will be for the new parish councils to decide whether to adopt town status.

23. There were also a few cases where existing cities or boroughs asked to retain their status in the name of the parish. City status is conferred by Her Majesty under the Prerogative and we must leave the new parish council to decide whether to make an application for this status. So far as borough status is concerned successor parishes cannot retain or acquire this status because it is reserved for local government units at district level. In both these cases we have adopted the name suggested to us, but without the title of city or borough.

Signed

EDMUND COMPTON (Chairman) LS JOHN M RANKIN (Deputy Chairman) DIANA ALBEMARLE T C BENFIELD MICHAEL CHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLEY F B YOUNG

DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) 31 May 1973 RECOMMENDATIONS

.TABLE A

Urban districts or boroughs and parts of urban districts or boroughs in the non-metropolitan counties which the Commission propose should be constituted as parishes.

(2) 0) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Avon ClevedonUD Clevedon Norton-Radstock UD Norton-Radstock Portishead UD Portishead Bedfordshire Ampthill UD Ampthill BiggleswadeUD Biggleswade Kempston UD Kempston Urban Leighton-Linslade UD Leighton-Linslade Sandy UD Sandy Berkshire Wokingham MB Wokingham Eton UD Eton Buckinghamshire Buckingham MB Buckingham Beaconsfield UD Beaconsfield Chesham UD Chesham Marlow UD Marlow Cambridgeshire Huntingdon and Huntingdon and Godmanchester MB Godmanchester St Ives MB Saint Ives Chatteris UD Chatteris ElyUD Ely March UD March Ramsey UD Ramsey St Neots UD St Neots Cheshire AlderleyEdgeUD Alderley Edge Alsager UD Alsager Bollington UD Bollington Golborne UD Culcheth and Glazebury ( Wards ofCulcheth and Newchurch) Knutsford UD Knutsford LymmUD Lymm Middlewich UD Middlewich Nantwich UD Nantwich Northwich UD Northwich Cleveland GuisboroughUD Guisborough LoftusUD Loftus Saltburn and Marske-by-t he- Saltbum and Marske-by-thc- Sea UD Sea Cornwall Bodmin MB Bodmin Helston MB Helston Launceston MB Launceston Liskeard MB Liskeard PenrynMB Penryn St Ives MB Stives Saltash MB Saltash Bude-Stratton UD Bude-Stratton LooeUD Looe StJustUD StJust Torpoint UD Torpoint (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Cumbria Appleby MB Appleby Cockermouth UD Cockermouth Grange UD Grange-over-Sands Keswick UD Keswick Lakes UD (Paflerda/e Ward) Patterdale Lakes UD (except Patterdale Lakes Ward) Maryport UD Maryport Ulverston UD Ulverston Windermere UD Windermerc Derbyshire Ashboume UD Ashbourne BakewellUD Bakewell Belper UD Belper Bolsover UD Old Bolsover Qay Cross UD Clay Cross Dronfield UD Dronfield New Mills UD New Mills RipleyUD Ripley Staveley UD Staveley Whaley Bridge UD Whaley Bridge Wirksworth UD Wirksworth Devon Clifton Dartmouth Hardness MB Dartmouth Great Torrington MB Great Torrington Honiton MB Honiton Okehampton MB Okehampton Totnes MB Totnes Ashburton UD Ashburton Buckfastleigh UD Buckfastleigh BudleighSaltertonUD Budleigh Salterton Crediton UD Crediton Dawlish UD Dawlish HfracombeUD Ilfracombe Kingsbridge UD Kingsbridgc Lynton LTD Lynton and Lynmouth NorthamUD Northam Ottery St Mary UD Ottery St Mary SalcombeUD Salcombe Seaton UD Seaton Sidmouth UD Sidmouth TeignmoulhUD Teignmouth Dorset Blandford Forum MB Blandford Forum Bridport MB Bridport Dorchester MB Dorchester Lyme Regis MB Lyme Regis Shaftesbury MB Shaftesbury WarehamMB Wareham Lady St Mary Portland UD Portland Sherborne UD Sherborne Swanage UD Swanage Wimborne Minster UD Wimborne Minster Durham Barnard Castle UD Barnard Castle Brandon and Byshottles UD Brandon and Byshottles Shildon UD Shildon Spennyraoor UD Spennymoor Tow Law UD Tow Law East Sussex Rye MB Rye Newhaven UD Newhaven (2) U) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Essex Harwich MB Harwich Saffron Walden MB Saffron Walden Brightlingsea UD Brightlingsea Burnham-on-Crouch UD Burnham-on-Crouch Epping UD Epping Frinton and Walton UD Frinton and Walton HalsteadUD Halstead Waltham Holy Cross UD Waltham Holy Cross West Mersea UD West Mersea Wivenhoe UD Wivenhoe Gloucestershire Tewkesbury MB Tewkesbury Cirencester UD Cirencester Nailsworth UD Nailsworth Hampshire Romsey MB Romsey Alton UD Alton Petersfield UD Petersfield Hereford and Bewdley MB Bewdley Worcester Droitwich MB Droitwich Evesham MB Evesham Leominster MB Leominster Kington UD Kington Ross-on-Wye UD Ross-on-Wye Stourport-on-Severn UD Stourport-on-Severn Hertfordshire Berkhamsted UD Berkhamsted Chorleywood UD Chorleywood Royston UD Royston Sawbridgeworth UD Sawbridgeworth TringUD Tring Ware UD Ware Humberside Hcdon MB Hedon Barton-upon-Humber UD Barton-upon-Humber BriggUD Brigg Hornsea UD Hornsea Isle of Wight Vent nor UD Ventnor Kent Faversham MB Faversham Hythe MB Hythe Lydd MB Lydd New Romney MB New Romney •^ Sandwich MB Sandwich Tenterden MB Tenterden Broadstairs and St Peters UD Broadstairs and St Peters Sevenoaks UD Sevenoaks Southborough UD Southborough Swanscombe UD Swanscombe Lancashire Carnforth UD Carnforth Kirkham UD Kirkham LongridgeUD Longridgc Preesall UD Preesall TurtonUD ". Turton North (Wards of Belmont, Chapeltown, Edgworth and part ofEgerton) Withnell UD Withnell Whitworth UD Whitworth Leicestershire Ashby-de-la-Zouch UD Ashby-de-la-Zouch AshbyWouldsUD Ashby Woulds Oakham UD Oakham

10 (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Lincolnshire LouthMB Louth Stamford MB Stamford Alford UD Alford Bourne UD Bourne Horncastle UD Horncastle Mablethorpe and Sutton UD Mablethorpe and Sutton Market Rasen UD Market Rasen SkegnessUD Skegness Sleaford UD Sleaford Woodhall Spa UD Woodhall Spa Norfolk Thetford MB Thetford Cromer UD Cromer DissUD Diss Downham Market UD Downham Market East Dereham UD East Dereham Hunstanton UD Hunstanton North Walsham UD North Walsham Sheringbam UD Sheringham Swaffham UD Swaffham Wells-next-the-Sea UD Wells-next-the-Sea Wymondham UD Wymondham Northamptonshire BracldeyMB Brackley Higham Ferrers MB Higham Ferrers Burton Latimer UD Burton Latimer Desborough UD Desborough Irthlingborough UD Irthlingborough OundleUD Oundle Raunds UD Raunds Rothwell UD Rothwell Northumberland AlnwickUD Alnwick Amble UD Amble Hexham UD Hexham Prudhoe UD Prudhoe North Yorkshire Richmond MB Richmond Ripon MB Ripon FileyUD Filey Knaresborough UD Knaresborough Malton UD Malton Northallerton UD Northailerton Norton UD Norton-on-Derwent Pickering UD Pickering ScalbyUD Scalby Selby UD Selby Whitby UD Whitby Nottinghamshire Eastwood UD Eastwood Warsop UD ^ Warsop Oxfordshire Abingdon MB Abingdon Chipping Norton MB . • Chipping Norton Henley-on-Thames MB Henley-on-Thames Wallingford MB Wallingford Woodstock MB Woodstock Bicester UD Bicester ThameUD Thame Wantage UD Wantage Witney UD Witney 11 (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Salop Newport UD Newport Somerset Chard MB Chard Glastonbury MB Glastonbury Wells MB Wells Burnham-on-Sea UD Burnhanwm-Sea and Highbridge Crewkerne UD CrewKerne Frame UD Frome Ilminster UD Ilminster Shepton Mallet UD Shepton Mallet Street UD Street WatchetUD Watchel Wellington UD Wellington Staffordshire Biddulph UD Biddulph LeekUD Leek Stone UD Stone Uttoxeter UD Uttoxeter Suffolk Aldeburgh MB Aldeburgh BecclesMB Beccles Eye MB Eye Southwold MB Southwold SudburyMB Sudbury Bungay UD Bungay Hadleigh UD Hadleigh Halesworth UD Halesworth Leiston-cum-Sizewell UD Leiston Saxmundham UD Saxmundham Stowmarket UD Stowmarket Woodbridge UD Woodbridge Surrey Godalming MB Godalming Haslemere UD Haslemere Warwickshire Stratford-upon-Avon MB Stratford-upon-Avon Warwick MB Warwick Kenilworth UD Kenilworth West Sussex Arundel MB Arundel Burgess Hill UD Burgess Hill East Grinstead UD East Grinstead Littlehampton UD Littlehampton Wiltshire CalneMB Calne Devizes MB Devizes Malmesbury MB Malmesbury Marlborough MB Marlborough Wilton MB Wilton Bradford-on-Avon UD Bradford-on-Avon MelkshamUD Melksham Warminster UD Warminster WestburyUD Westbury

12 RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE B Urban districts or boroughs and parts of urban districts or borouglis in the metropolitan counties which the Commission propose should be constituted as parishes.

(2) 0) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Greater Manchester Blackrod UD Blackrod Merseyside Ashton-in-Makerfield UD Seneley Green (South Ward) Billinge and Winstanley UD Billinge Chapel End (The Billinge Chapel End Ward together with the detached parts of the Winstanley Ward) Rainford UD Rainford South Yorkshire Penistone UD Penistone Stocksbridge UD Stocksbridge Tidchill UD Tickhill West Yorkshire Todmorden MB Todmorden Denholme UD Denholme Hebden Royd UD Hebden Royd Hernsworth UD Hemsworth Otley UD Otley Ripponden UD Ripponden Silsden UD Silsden

Printed in England for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by W & J Mackay Limited, Chatham. Dd 505749 K80 5/73 HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE Government Bookshops 49 High Holborn, London WCIV 6HB 13a Castle Street, Edinburgh EH2 3AR 109 St Mary Street, Cardiff CFI IJW Brazcnnose Street, Manchester M60 8AS 50 Fairfax Street, Bristol BS1 3DE 258 Broad Street, Birmingham Bl 2HE 80 Chichester Street, Belfast BTI 4JY Government publications are also available through booksellers

SBN 11 700499 5 x-» 5

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 18p net LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT No. 3

SBN U 700499 5 L

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB, KBE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin, QC

MEMBERS The Countess of Albemarle, DBE Mr T C Benfield Professor Michael Chisholm Sir Andrew Wheatley, CBE Mr F B Young, CBE

111 To the Rt Hon Geoffrey Rippon QC MP Secretary of State for the Environment

2. The statutory provisions relating to the constitution of these parishes are contained in section 1(8) and Part V of Schedule 1 to the Local Government Act 1972. Under paragraph 1 of that Schedule we were required to "consult the councils of existing counties, boroughs and urban districts and the committees established under section 264 (1) (b) with a view to making proposals to the Secretary of State for the constitution of parishes each of which has a boundary coterminous with that of— (a) an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is not divided by or under Section 1 above between two or more districts, or (b) so much of an existing urban district or borough, the area of which is so divided, as is wholly comprised in a single district, and for naming those parishes." We now present our proposals for the constitution of such parishes and for naming them. We refer to these parishes in this report as successor parishes.

3. The formulation of our proposals has been governed by the following guidelines issued to us by the Secretary of State for the Environment in a letter dated 22nd January 1973: " 1. When making proposals in accordance with these provisions the Commission should have regard to the policy of the Government, now reflected in the Act, with regard to statutory authorities at parish level. The Act provides for the retention of existing rural parishes with their parish councils or parish meetings. The Government's further view, as' explained in Parliament, is that small towns which are at present boroughs or urban districts should retain elected councils at parish level where such towns are broadly comparable in size and character with other small towns or villages which at present have rural parish councils. But it is the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas. 2. Against this background the Commission's consideration of applications from the councils of existing boroughs and urban districts should have regard to all the relevant considerations and, inter alia, to the following matters (which are not listed in any order of importance): (a) the population of the area; no absolute maximum figure is prescribed but the limited range of functions available to parish councils and the fact that much of their importance lies in the fact that they act as the focus for local opinion, do not point to the desirability of large units at this level: many towns of the order of 10,000-20,000 (as well as those below this range) might well qualify; but the Secretary of State would expect proposals above this range to be the exception rather than the rule both in metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties;

5. We were aware that it was the Government's aim to lay an order before Parliament in the summer and this was the reason for the Secretary of State's request that we should make our recommendations to him by about the' end of May. In order to meet this request, we asked that all applications and representations should be sent to us to arrive not later than Tuesday the 13th of March 1973.

NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES 6. In the main, the applications which we received from the non-metropolitan counties were in respect of towns which were well within the guidelines in all respects. We received a number of applications relating to towns which were outside one or more of the guidelines-and in those cases the local authorities usually claimed that there were exceptional circumstances. On the other hand, there were many authorities who decided not to apply for a successor parish even though the town was well within all the guidelines.

7. In considering applications for parish status we were bound to pay particular attention to the concept of a successor parish. This was outlined in guideline 1 which also required us to have regard to the policy of the Government towards statutory authorities at parish level. In this respect, the White Paper on Local Government in England (Cmnd 4584) stated: "the establishment of two operational forms of local authorities does not remove the need for authorities at parish level. There has been a substantial revival of interest in recent years in the part that very small bodies or authorities can play in allowing local people themselves to get things done and in focusing local opinion on matters affecting the neigh- bourhood. The Government wish to give every encouragement to the existing rural parishes outside the Metropolitan counties". The White Paper was less certain about the position in urban areas: "The retention or establishment of parish councils in essentially urban areas raises different problems—in the metropolitan districts, for instance, or hi town areas outside the metropolitan counties. It may be appropriate, if local people wish it, to provide for the equivalent of a parish council in a small town which is now a separate borough or urban district, where such a town is included in a new and enlarged district. But the views and wishes of neighbourhoods, or small communities within larger built-up areas, might preferably be represented by non-statutory bodies; district authorities should have powers to assist such bodies financially and in other ways."

10. The guidelines do not fix any absolute limit to the population size of a successor parish but state that "the Secretary of State would expect proposals above this range (10,000-20,000 population) to be the exception rather than the rule both in metropolitan and non-metropolitan counties". Generally we found (that such proposals as we received for successor parishes above this population range were inconsistent with the concept of a successor parish given to us in guideline 1 and therefore unacceptable. Our recommendations do, however, include a few successor parishes marginally exceeding the 20,000 figure, which appeared to us to be admissible as exceptions because the other criteria in the guidelines were satisfied. They occur in districts of substantial size where, a successor parish marginally exceeding 20,000 in population is consistent with the measurement of one fifth of the district population suggested in guideline 2(b).

11. The converse has applied to the exceptional cases where we have pro-, posed successor parishes showing some measure of excess over one fifth of the district population. These are cases which fully satisfy the other criteria in the guidelines, and for the most part are to be found in districts with a small population, where there are small towns with a population somewhat in excess of one fifth of the district but well below 20,000 and clearly of the size and character of rural parishes.

12. Several applications were received in respect of towns which are not physically separate units. Again, we looked at the merits of each case. Where, as stated in guideline 1, these "are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas" they are not within the concept of a successor parish and we decided to make no proposals. We came to a similar conclusion in respect of areas which are wholly or mainly within the designated area of a New Town. There may be a case for a parish council for that part of the area outside the New Town boundary but this will be a matter for the new District Council on a review of their area: we have no power to make proposals for parishes for part of a borough or urban district in these circumstances. For other areas where there is some continuity of development, we had regard, in addition to the other guidelines, to the extent to which the town contained a separate and largely self- contained community and in other respects met the concept of a successor parish suggested in guideline 1.

METROPOLITAN COUNTIES 15. In the background description, given in guideline 1, of the character and situation appropriate for successor parishes, it is stated to be "the Government's view that statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas". The White Paper (Cmnd 4584) upon which the Local Government Bill was founded, described the proposed metropolitan.pattern as "suitable only where a county is divisible into districts all of which are .populous and compact" and stated that the boundaries of the 6 metropolitan counties "should include all the main area or areas of continuous development and any adjacent area into which continuous development will extend."

17. We therefore opened our successor parish. review by consulting the present local authorities in the metropolitan as well as in the non-metropolitan districts. But we foresaw that when we came to consider the resulting applications from boroughs and urban districts in metropolitan districts, it would be necessary not only to apply the population and other criteria in guideline 2, but to give particular attention to the test in guideline 1. The application of this test has caused us much difficulty, the question whether a given area is "essentially part of a larger town or of a continuously built-up area" being as much a matter of opinion as of fact.

18. _ We have been placed in an additional difficulty by the diversity of local views that has emerged as a result of our ascertaining the opinions of the joint committees of existing authorities in accordance with guideline 2(e). In a number of metropolitan districts the joint committees have supported applicants or have not expressed any opinion. In others, they have expressed the view that the parish has no place in the metropolitan situation. We were able to judge from the number and distribution of the applications for successor parish status that a number of potential applicants for parish status either had not come forward or had withdrawn their applications in deference to this point of view. Conse- quently we faced the prospect that any proposals that we might make for successor parishes in the metropolitan districts would show a serious imbalance which would not necessarily correspond to differences-in the character and composition of those districts but would be due rather to a provisional and often divided expression of local opinion.

19. Given all these circumstances—particularly the practical difficulty of our effectively applying the test of continuous development, and the diversity of local opinion reflected in the views of the applicant authorities and the joint .committees—we decided that at this initial stage in the new system of local government, our proposals for successor parishes in the metropolitan districts should be restricted to the very few cases where the application seemed to be fully supported by local opinion, all the other criteria in guideline 2 were satisfied, and we had no doubt at all that in spite of being situated in a metropolitan area, the background conditions prescribed in guideline 1 as understood by us were fully met. Apart from these exceptional cases, it seems preferable to us that action should wait till the new metropolitan district councils have had the opportunity to carry out the duty imposed upon them by section 48(8) of the Act to review their areas with a view to their recommending to us the constitution of parishes in their respective districts. This process will enable the districts to include in their review consideration of the role that the parish can properly perform in the metropolitan situation: and in this connection we think it significant that our guideline 1 states that "statutory authorities should not be established at parish level (at any rate for the present) [our italics] for areas which are essentially parts of larger towns or of continuously built-up areas".

Signed

EDMUND COMPTON (Chairman) LS JOHN M RANKIN (Deputy Chairman) DIANA ALBEMARLE T C BENFIELD MICHAEL CHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLEY F B YOUNG

DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) 31 May 1973 RECOMMENDATIONS TABLE A

Urban districts or boroughs and parts of urban districts or boroughs in the non-metropolitan counties which the Commission propose should be constituted as parishes.

(2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Avon Clevedon UD Clevedon Norton-Radstock UD Norton-Radstock Portishead UD Portishead Bedfordshire Ampthill UD Ampthill Biggleswade UD Biggleswade Kempston UD Kempston Urban Leighton-Linslade UD Leighton-Linslade Sandy UD Sandy Berkshire Wokingham MB Wokingham Eton UD Eton Buckinghamshire Buckingham MB Buckingham Beaconsfield UD Beaconsfield Chesham UD Chesham Marlow UD Marlow Cambridgeshire Huntingdon and Huntingdon and Godmanchester MB Godmanchester St Ives MB Saint Ives Chatteris UD Chatteris ElyUD Ely March UD March Ramsey UD Ramsey St Neots UD St Neots Cheshire Alderley Edge UD Alderley Edge Alsager UD Alsager Bollington UD Bollington GolborneUD Culcheth and Glazebury ( Wards ofCulcheth and Ne wchurcH Knutsford UD ICnutsford LymmUD Lymm Middlewich UD Middlewich Nantwich UD Nantwich Northwich UD Northwich Cleveland Guisborough UD Guisborough LoftusUD Loftus Saltburn and Marske-by-t he- Saltburn and Marske-by-thc- Sea UD Sea Cornwall BodminMB Bodmin Helston MB Helston Launceston MB Launceston Liskeard MB Liskeard PenrynMB Penryn Stives MB Stives Saltash MB Saltash Bude-StrattonUD Bude-Stratton LooeUD Looe StJustUD StJust Torpoint UD Torpoint (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Cumbria Appleby MB Appleby Cockermouth UD Cockermouth Grange UD Grange-over-Sands Keswick UD Keswick Lakes UD (Patterdale Ward) Patterdale Lakes UD (except Patterdale Lakes Ward) Maryport UD Maryport Ulverston UD Ulverston Vi?in6ermere\Jl> Wmilermere Derbyshire Ashbourne UD Ashbourne Bakewell UD Bakewell BelperUD Bel per Bolsover UD Old Bolsover Clay Cross UD Clay Cross Dronfield UD Dronfield New Mills UD New Mills Ripley UD Ripley Staveley UD Staveley Whaley Bridge UD Whaley Bridge Wirksworth UD Wirksworth Devon Clifton Dartmouth Hardness MB Dartmouth Great Torrington MB Great Torrington Honiton MB Honiton Okehampton MB Okehampton Totnes MB Totnes Ashburton UP Ashburton Buckfastleigh UD Buckfastleigh Budleigh Salterton UD Budleigh Salterton Crediton UD Crediton Dawlkh UD DawlUh Ilfracombe UD Ilfracombe KingsbridgeUD Kingsbridge Lynton UD Lynton and Lynmouth Northam UD Northam OtteryStMaryUD Ottery St Mary Salcombe UD Salcombe Seaton UD . Seaton- Sidmouth UD Sidmouth Teignmouth UD Teignmouth Dorset Blandford Forum MB Blandford Forum Bridport MB Bridport Dorchester MB Dorchester Lyme Regis MB Lyme Regis Shaftesbury MB Shaftesbury Wareham MB Wareham Lady St Mary Portland UD . Portland Sherborne UD Sherborne Swanage UD Swanage Wimborne Minster UD Wimborne Minster Durham Barnard Castle UD Barnard Castle Brandon and Byshottles UD Brandon and Byshottles ShUdonUD ShiWovi Spennymoor UD Spennymoor Tow Law UD Tow Law East Sussex Rye MB Rye Newhaven UD Newhaven (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Essex Harwich MB Harwich Saffron Walden MB Saffron Walden Brightlingsea UD Brightlingsea Burnham-on-Crouch UD Burnham-on-Crouch Epping UD Epping Frinton and Walton UD Frinton and Walton Halstead UD Halstead Waltham Holy Cross UD Waltham Holy Cross West Mersea UD West Mersea Wivenhoe UD Wivenhoe Gloucestershire Tewkesbury MB Tewkesbury Cirencester UD Cirencester Nailsworth UD Nailsworth Hampshire Romsey MB Romsey Alton UD Alton PetersfieldUD Petersfield Hereford and Bewdley MB Bewdley Worcester Droitwich MB Droitwich Evesham MB Evesham Leominster MB Leominster Kington UD Kington Ross-on-Wye UD Ross-on-Wye Stourport-on-Severn UD Stourport-on-Severn Hertfordshire Berkhamsted UD Berkhamsted Chorleywood UD Chorleywood Royston UD Royston Sawbridgeworth UD Sawbridgeworth Tring UD Tring WareUD Ware Humberside Hedon MB Hedon Barton-upon-Humber UD Barton-upon-Humber BriggUD Brigg Hornsea UD Hornsea IsleofWight Ventnor UD Ventnor Kent Faversham MB Faversham Hythe MB Hythe Lydd MB Lydd NewRomney MB New Romney Sandwich MB Sandwich Tenterden MB Tenterden Broadstairs and St Peters UD Broadstairs and St Peters Sevenoaks UD Sevenoaks Southborough UD Southborough Swanscombe UD Swanscombe Lancashire Carnforth UD Carnforth Kirkham UD Kirkham Longridge UD Longridge Preesall UD Preesall Turton UD Turton North (Wards of Belmont, Chapeltown, Edgworth and part ofEgerton) Withnell UD Withnell Whitworth UD Whitworth Leicestershire Ashby-de-la-Zouch UD Ashby-de-la-Zouch AshbyWouldsUD Ashby Woulds OakhamUD Oakham

10 (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Norfolk Thetford MB Thetford Cromer UD Cromer DissUD Diss Downham Market UD Downham Market East Dereham UD East Dereham Hunstanton UD Hunstanton North WalshamUD North Walsham Sheringham UD Sheringham SwaffhamUD Swaffham WeUs-next-the-Sea UD Wells-next-the-Sea Wymondham UD Wymondham Northamptonshire Bractdey MB Brackley Higham Ferrers MB Higham Ferrers Burton Latimer UD Burton Latimer Desborough UD Desborough Irthlingborough UD : Irthlingborough Oundle UD Oundle RaundsUD Raunds Rothwell UD Rothwell Northumberland AlnwickUD Alnwick Amble UD Amble HexhamUD Hexham Prudhoe UD Prudhoe North Yorkshire Richmond MB Richmond Ripon MB Ripon FileyUD Filey Knaresborough UD Knaresborough Malton UD Malton Northallerton UD Northallerton Norton UD Norton-on-Derwent Pickering UD Pickering ScalbyUD r^^J Scalby SelbyUD We1-";". Selby Whitby UD Whitby Nottinghamshire Eastwood UD Eastwood WarsopUD Warsop Oxfordshire Abingdon MB Abingdon Chipping Norton MB Chipping Norton Henley-on-Thames MB Henley-on-Thames Wallingford MB WalUngford Woodstock MB Woodstock Bicester UD Bicester ThameUD Thame Wantage UD Wantage Witney UD Witney

11 (2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Salop Newport UD Newport Somerset Chard MB Chard Glastonbury MB Glastonbury Wells MB Wells Burnham-on-Sea UD Burnham-on-Sea and Highbridge Crewkerne UD Crewkerne Frome UD Frome Ilminster UD Ilminster Shepton Mallet UD Shepton Mallet Street UD Street Watchet UD Watchet Wellington UD Wellington Staffordshire BiddulphUD Biddulph LeekUD Leek Stone UD Stone Uttoxeter UD Uttoxeter Suffolk Aldeburgh MB Aldeburgh Beccles MB Beccles Eye MB Eye Southwold MB Southwold Sudbury MB Sudbury Bungay UD Bungay Hadleigh UD Hadleigh HalesworthUp Halesworth Leiston-cunvSizewell UD Leiston Saxmundham UD Saxmundham Stowmarket UD Stowmarket Woodbridge UD Woodbridge Surrey Godalming MB Godaltning Haslemere UD Haslemere Warwickshire Stratford-upon-Avon MB Stratford-upon-Avon Warwick MB Warwick Kenilworth UD Kenilworth West Sussex Arundel MB Arundel Burgess Hill UD Burgess Hill EastGrra&teadUD EastGrinstead Littlehampton UD Littlehampton Wiltshire Calne MB Calne Devizes MB Devizes Malmesbury MB Malmesbury Marlborough MB Marlborough Wilton MB Wilton Bradford-on-Avon UD Bradford-on-Avon MelkshamUD Melksham Wanninster UD Warminster Westbury UD Westbury

12 R ECO M MENDATIONS TABLE B Urban districts or boroughs and parts of urban districts or boroughs in the metropolitan counties which the Commission propose should be 'constituted as parishes.

(2) (1) Area of parish by reference to (3) Name of county existing urban district and Name of parish borough boundaries

Greater Manchester Blackrod UD Blackrod Merseyside Ashton-in-Makerfield UD Seneley Green (South Ward) VW p** ^ X , Billinge and Winstanley UD Billinge Chapel End (The Billinge Chapel End Ward together with the detached parts of the Winstanley Ward)' R'ainford UD Rainford South Yorkshire Penistone UD Penistone Stocksbridge UD Stocksbridge Tickhill UD Tickhill West Yorkshire Todmorden MB Todmorden Denholme UD Denholme Hebden Royd UD Hebden Royd Hemsworth UD Hemsworth Otley UD Otley Ripponden UD Ripponden Silsden UD Silsden

Printed in England for Her Majesty's Stationery Office by W & J Mackay Limited, Chatham. Dd 505749 K80 5/73 HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE Government Bookshops 49 High Holborn, London WCIV 6HB 13a Castle Street, Edinburgh EH2 3AR 109 St Mary Street, Cardiff CF1 1JW Brazennose Street, Manchester M60 8AS 50 Fairfax Street, Bristol BS1 3DE 258 Broad Street, Birmingham Bl 2HE 80 Chichester Street, Belfast BT1 4JY Government publications are also available through booksellers

SEN 11 700499 5