Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 101 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. \O\ 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 Chlsholau Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, CBE, To the Et Eon Boy Jenkins HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF HAILSTONE IH THE COUNTY OF KENT 1* We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the Borough of Maidstone 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 of that Borough. 2* In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 10 June 1974 that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Maidstone Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the Kent County Council, Parish Councils in the district, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of 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 any interested bodies. 3. The Maidstone Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration, flhen doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No. 6 about the proposed size of the Council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expresssd to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. In accordance with section 7(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 they had exercised an option for elections by thirds. 5* On 26 November 19?4t Maidatone Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the area into 29 wards, each returning 1, 2 or 3 councillors, to form a council of 57 members* 6. We considered the draft scheme submitted by the Council and the comments which had been made upon it. We noted that the draft scheme compiled with our own guidelines but we considered that, contrary to the rules in Schedule 11 to the Act, the rural areas were over-represented at the expense of the urban areas. We therefore decided to adopt the Borough Council's scheme but to combine their proposed Harrietsham and Bicknor, Frinsted, Hollingbourne, Hacking and Wormsnill wards to form a single-member ward and to reduce the representation of their Pettiest sad and Yaldlng ward to 1 councillor. We also decided that the proposed names of the wards formed from groups of parishes should be changed to that of the parish with the largest electorate except that the Brocsnfield and Leeds ward should be known as "Leeds" and the West Farleigh and East Farleigh ward should be known as "Farleigh11. Finally we decided to adopt four minor boundary realignments suggested by Ordnance Survey. 7. On 24 January 1975 *e 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 the draft proposals and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us not later than 21 March 1975. 8. Comments received in response to our draft proposals raised objections Boxley and to our proposed/Harrietsham wards and to oar proposal that the Yalding ward should return 1 councillor. 9. We considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1972 Act, and at our request, you appointed Mr A C V Wait a as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us* 10. Hotice of the local meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented upon them, and was published locally. 11. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Town Hall, Ma ids tone, the on 11 September 1975 and visited the areaswhich werysubject of comment* A (without enclosures) copy of his report/is attached at Schedule 1 to this report* 12. In the light of the discussion that took place at the meeting and his inspection of the area the Assistant Commissioner recommended that the parishes of Harrietsham, Lenham. Wichling and Otterden should be combined in a 2-member ward to be known as Harriet sham and Lenham; that the parishes of Hollingbourne Bucking. Bioknor, Wormshill and Prinsted should be a single-member ward as proposed by the Borough Council and that the name of King Street ward be changed to "Bast". He considered a suggestion that the names of the wards in the rural areas should be amended to include the names of all the constituent parishes but mado no recommendations. 13. We gave further consideration to the ward names in the light of the comments made at the meeting. We cannot agree that it is necessary for the names of all the parishes to be included in the name of the ward to preserve the identity of the parish. Each parish retains its identity as an adminfltrative area. We consider long names to be cumbersome and in-convenient and we decided that we should confirm the names given in our draft proposals except for those changes referred to in para 12 above. 14* We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which had been received, including those received after the meeting, and of the Assistant Commissioner's report* We concluded that the modifications recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to these amendments we hereby confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals. 15* Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and on the attached maps* Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each and Schedule 3 shows the order of retirement of councillors* The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the maps* PUBLICATION 16. In accordance with section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 a copy of this report and a copy of the maps are being sent to Maids tone Borough Council and will be made available for public inspection at the Council's main offices* Copies of this report (without maps) are being sent to those who made comments. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards as defined on the maps, is set out in Schedule 4 to this report* L.S. Signed EDMOND CQMFTON (CHAIHMAN) JOHN M RATON (rarcrc CHAIHMAN) DIANA T C BQTFIELD MICHAEL CHISHOUff ANDREW WHEATLEY F B YOUNG 4P DAVID R SMITH (Secretary) 16 October 1975 REVIEW OF ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF MAIDSTONE Report of an Assistant Commissioner 1. This Report is submitted following a local meeting held at the Town Hall, Maidstone, on llth September, 1975, and visits made to the areas concerned. 2. A list showing the names and addresses of those attending the meeting, and the interests they represented, is attached. During my visits to the areas concerned, I was, with the agreement of those present at the meeting, accompanied by the Secretary of the Maidstone Borough Council and the Honorary Secretary of the Maidstone Area Committee of the Kent Association of Parish Councils who is also a Borough Councillor. 3- The draft scheme submitted to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by the Council on 26th November, 1974, provided for 29 Wards, with 57 Councillors, i.e. 3 fewer Councillors than under the existing arrangements. 15 of the proposed Wards were the same as existing Wards. The proposal for such a large number of Councillors ior an electorate of 88,996, was to a certain extent due, so I was informed, to the desire to give adequate representation to the 38 parishes in the two old Rural Districts that were merged with the former Borough. I am advised that the Commission considered the Council's draft "scheme offered a generally satisfactory basis of representation, but that the rural area was over-represented at the expense of the urban area. 4. The entitlements of the urban and rural areas of the Borough on the basis of the respective electorates are as follows:- 1974 1979 Ho. of Cllrs. Electorate Entitlement Electorate Entitlement Borough Council's Draft Scheme (57 Councillors) Urban ?0 50,729 32.49 56,446 31.77 Rural 27 38,267 24.51 44,839 25-23 Average per'CUr 1,561 1,776 Commission's Draft Proposals (55 Councillors) Urban 30 50,729 31.35 56,446 30.65 Rural 25 38,267 23.65 44,839 24.35 Average per Cllr 1,618 1,841 5.