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 LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1973 © Crown copyright 1973 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 dis- tricts 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 compar- able 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 considera- tion; 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 oppor- tunity 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 sug- gested 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 con- sideration 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 constitu- tion 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 pro- posals 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 representa- tions 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 parti- cular attention to the concept of a successor parish. This was outlined in guide- line 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 metro- politan 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.