Local Government Boundary Commission For 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

1* We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the Borough of 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 , 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 and , , , 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 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 and ward should be known as "Farleigh11. Finally we decided to adopt four minor boundary realignments suggested by .

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 and to our proposed/Harrietsham wards and to oar proposal that the 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, . and should be combined in a 2-member ward to be known as Harriet sham and Lenham; that the parishes of Hollingbourne Bucking. Bioknor, 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

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. On 24th January, 1975, the Commission issued their draft proposals which were the same as the Council's draft scheme, except that the Commission - (i) amalgamated the Council's proposed Harrietsham and Hollingbourne etc. rural wards to return 1 Councillor; (ii) reduced the representation of the Council's Nettlestead and Yalding rural ward from 2 to 1 Councillor; (iii) made alterations in the names of 12 rural wards in the interest of "brevity; and (iv) adopted 4 minor boundary alterations suggested by Ordnance Survey. 6. At the local meeting representations were made by the Borough Council, the Parish Councils, the Kent Association of Parish Councils and others, against the Commission's proposals except for the minor boundary adjustment suggested by Ordnance Survey. In addition, the Boxley Parish Council proposed that the Boxley Ward should have two Councillors instead of the one proposed by the Council and accepted by the Commission. I. BOXLEY 7. The Boxley Parish Council objected to the Borough Council's proposal adopted by the Commission, that the Ward comprising the Parish of Boxley should be represented r;y only one Councillor, and asked for two. 8. Mrs. Nissen, Vice-Chairman of the Parish Council, stated that prior to reorganisation, there were two Councillors representing the electorate of the Parish; now they only had one Councillor, The Parish comprised a great number of different and scattered communities, which made local contact more arduous. It was aggravated by a most unusual road pattern, involving excessive mileage, which made travelling around the Ward extremely difficult. 9. While the 1974 electorate was 1,422, the Borough Council had projected that the 1979 electorate would be over 7,000, which they subsequently amended to 2,500. Mrs. Mssen's view was that it would be between 3,000 and 4,000, which more than justified two Councillors. Mr. Rogers, Secretary of the Borough Council, said the very large projected electorate was due to two areas of anticipated major development. Since the figures were obtained over a year ago from the County Planning Officer, the extent of residential development planned for those areas had been reviewed, and it was possible that the potential might be even greater. However, at the present time, no precise figures were available, nor was it remotely possible to say whether any significant development would be completed within five years. 10, The development of approximately 900 houses proposed at was mainly on land owned by the Kent County Council, and north of the . As the motorway formed a natural barrier from the rest of Boxley Parish and the rest of the Borough, the Borough Council had not objected to the Walderslade area which at present had an electorate of 330, beinu; taken over by the Medway Borough Council whenever the Commission would agree to a general adjustment of District boundaries. 11, As to the other major development proposed in the parish, this would be privately sponsored at Yinters Park and produce an electorate of 3*500. So far little had been done to progress the development. The Borough Council did not support the increase in representation, and adhered to their revised view that a 1979 electorate of 2,500 was more realistic. Recommendation 1 In the present economic climate it is unlikely that either of the two" major residential developments planned will result in any significant number of dwellings being completed in the next five years. There is also the possibility of the Walderslade area, with its potential electorate of over 2,000, being transferred to the Borough of Medway. Should, however, there be an unexpectedly rapid increase in the electorate, the Borough Council has, in reducing the existing membership from 60 to 57. left leeway for increasing representation where justified. I therefore consider that based on the present electorate, and that for the foreseeable future, one Councillor is sufficient to represent the proposed Boxley Ward. II. (i) HARRIETSHAM (il) HOLLINGBOURNE with , BICKNOR, WORMSHILL and FRINSTEAD (iii) LENHAM with WICHLING and OTTERDEN 12, The Borough Council's draft scheme for this north-eastern rural area of Maidstone provided for three separate Wards, as at present. Harrietsham and Hollingbourne etc. Wards each returning one Councillor, and Lenham etc. Ward returning two Councillors. Because of the low ratio of electors to Councillors, the Commission proposed the amalgamation of the Harrietsham and Hollingbourne etc. Wards returning one Councillor. The Commission adopted the Council's draft scheme for the Lenham etc. Ward. 13. The effect of such proposals is as follows:- 1979 Ward Cllrs Acreage Elector- Entitle- Elector- Entitlement ate ment ate

Commission^ Draft Proposals (Council of 55 members) Harrietsham .• 1 11,702 2,160 1.34 2,252 1.22 Lenham 2 9,775 2,626 1.62 2,644 1.43 Borough Council's Draft Scheme (Council of 57 members) Hollingbourne 1 9,218 1,051 0.68 1,142 0.65 Harrietsham 1 2,484 1,110 0.71 1,110 0.63 Lenham 2 9,775 2,626 1.77 2,644 1.49 14. Prior to reorganisation, each of the ten parishes mentioned above were separately represented on their Rural District Council. While accepting with regret the reduction to 4 Councillors on the Borough Council, all the parish Chairmen and representatives strongly opposed a further reduction, and especially the merger of Harrietsham with Hollingbourne and its four associated parishes on the top of the Downs. The Borough Council were aiso 7 opposed to the merger. c, 15. Details of the sepatate but lively organisation and facilities of each parish and some individual villages were given. I was particularly referred to the difficulties that the existing Councillor for the Hollingbourne Ward had in keeping in touch with local affairs of five parishes and how impossible it would be for one Councillor to cope if the parish of Harrietsham were added. The area would be nearly twice the size ol Maidstone town. A large part oi' it was very hilly, and the road system that serves the parishes on the top oi' the Downs was both poor numerically and in quality. I found on my visit to the area that apart from the main A20 trunk road which runs east-west along the southernmost edge of the three Wards, communication between parishes over narrow country lanes, through undulating and at times hilly country, is most difficult. 16. In addition to the parish representatives, I had the benefit of hearing the views of three County Councillors, including the immediate^past Chairman of the County Council, and three Borough Councillors, including the Chairman of the Planning Committee. They all most strongly supported the separate representation of Hollingbourne etc. because of its most unusual geographical, social and community features. Furthermore, all of them would like to have seen the 'status quo1' as they considered that the area had already suffered too much from mainly unavoidable changes arising from reorganisation, and should now have a period to settle down without further change. 17. As the merger of Harrietsham with Lenham etc. with three Councillor representation had been considered by the General Purposes Group on the Borough Council, but rejected by the Policy and Resources Committee, I again put forward this possibility. From answers I received, all seemed to agree that the village of Harrietsham had a closer community of interest with the village of Lenham than with the Hollingbourne area. It appeared from my inspection that both Harrietsham ana Lenham villages contained a large part of the population of their parishes Both villages adjoined the A20. Outside either village the area mainly comprised large scattered farms, and was sparsely populated. As to the Lenham etc. Ward, the electorate of the parish of Lenham is 2,369, whereas Otterden is t88, and Wichling 69. If a merger was forced upon them, Mr. Gill, the Chairman of the Harrietsham Parish Council, generously stated that he thought his Council would prefer for electoral purposes to be merged with Lenham rather than with Hollingbourne. Mr. Phillips, representing the Lenham Parish Council, who was present, did not dissent at the possibility of Harrietsham Parish being merged with his Ward. 18. At the meeting there was discussion on the County electoral proposals for Maidstone, and I was fortunate to hear from Mr. Leigh-Pemberton of the consideration that the Group of County members had given, which supplemented information given to me by the County Secretary. It 'appears that if the Parish of Harrietsham was linked with Lenham, its electorate of 1,110 would have .to be transferred from the proposed North to the East Division. This could be of help as the Borough Council have already made representations that the North Division has too large an electorate (12,457) whereas the East Division has the lowest electorate (9,072) proposed. Recommendation 2 Because of the very large area with its scattered but active communities in very hilly and poor connecting road system, and the special and unusual difficulties which the local Councillor would experience, I recommend that despite its very low entitlement, the Boundary Commission should accept the unanimous decision of the Borough Council and the wishes of the Parish representatives in the area that the Parishes of Hollingbourne, Hucking, Bicknor, Wormshill, and Frinstead should be a Ward electing one Councillor. Recommendation 3 Unlike the Hollingbourne etc. Ward, regretfully I can find insufficient special reasons for the Parish of Harrietsham with such a low entitlement number of electors remaining as a Ward electing one Councillor, and consider that the Parishes of Harrietsham, Lenham, Wichling, and Otterden should be a Ward returning two Councillors. While this will increase the area of the Lenham Ward from 9,775 acres to 12,259 acres, again nearly twice the size of Maidstone town, and the electorate from 2,626 to 3f736, the provision for two Councillors to serve the Ward should be adequate. The entitlement of the Lenham etc. Ward will rise from 1.77 to 2.30, but fall to 2.04 for 1979. III. (i) YALDING with NETTLESTEAD (ii) HARDEN with HUNTON and LINTON (iii) FARLEIGH EAST AND WEST 19. The Borough Council's draft scheme for part of the western rural area of Maidstone provided for three separate Wards. Yalding etc. and Harden etc. Wards, each returning two Councillors, and the Farleighs one Councillor. 20. While adopting the Council's draft scheme, the Commission proposed reducing the representation of the Yalding etc. Ward from 2 to 1 Councillor. 21. As the entitlements for both the Wards adjoining Yalding were low, the Commission, in advising the meeting, had stated that the meeting would also consider the electoral arrangements in the Harden etc. and the Farleighs Wards in the same way that they had given notice that Lenham etc. Ward would be considered. In addition, the Borough Secretary had written to the parishes concerned, warning them that their electoral arrangements were to be reviewed. Although, the representatives of the Parishes in the Hollingbourne, Harrietsham and Lenham V/ards had come prepared with their Council's views on merger, the representatives of parishes mentioned above stated that they did not realise that possible merger of Wards was an issue. They asked for an adjournment of the meeting to seek their Council's views, but as this was not possible I told them I would welcome their personal view. As even this suggestion was not entirely acceptable, I advised them to send their Council's views to the Secretary to the Commission within fourteen days. 22. The effect of such proposals is as follows:- Boundary Commission's Draft Proposals (Council of 55 members) 1974- 1979 Ward Cllrs Acreage Electorate Entitlement Electorate Entitle- ment Yalding 1 7,736 2,490 1.54 2,579 1.40 Farleigh 1 2,444 1,333 0.82 1,345 0.73 Harden 2 11,630 2,730 1.68 3,430 1.86 Entitlements under Borough Council's Draft Scheme (Council of 57 members) Councillors 1974- 1979 Yalding 2 1.59 1.45 Farleigh 1 0.85 0.75 Harden 2 1.74 1.93 23. Because of the acreage and more particularly "because of the number of the electorate, it was stated the Borough Council unanimously considered the Nettlestead and Yalding Ward should return two members. The proposal of the Boundary Commission meant that this rural Ward, returning only one Councillor for an electorate of 2,490, will "be the only Ward in the Borough with a ratio of electors per Councillor in excess of 2,000. The average electorate per Councillor being 1,561. In the 19 rural Wards only 4 others exceed the average. The Borough Council considers that the Commission's proposals would impose a very heavy burden on the Councillor for this Ward with its oversize electorate in a rural Ward with the two parishes separated by the . 24- The Chairman and Vice-Chairman of both Parish Councils stated that their Councils supported the Borough Council's views and desire for two Councillors as at present to continue to represent the Ward. Because of its acreage, number of electors, and geographical difficulties, it was too difficult a burden for • one Councillor, and not fair to the electorate. A Councillor could be involved in travelling 35 miles just to visit two electors. 25. There are only two widely separated bridges over the river, both of which can be closed to traffic when the river frequently floods. The railway which runs right through Nettlestead parish with its three level crossings, is an added difficulty. 26. The Chairman of Yalding Parish Council stated that in his viev/ the 1979 projected electorate of 2,579 was a gross under- estimate, especially if the sewerage scheme planned for the area materialised. It .was agreed that planning permissions were being refused solely on the grounds of drainage difficulties. 27- When pressed, he stated it was his.personal view that it would be better for the Nettlestead and Yalding Ward to be merged with the Farleigh Ward than chopped down to one Councillor. Although they had little community of interests, there was good road communication between Yalding village and West Farleigh. It would no't, however, help Nettlestead. 28. As to merger with the proposed Marden Ward, it was submitted that an area of nearly 20,000 acres would be too large, and it could well happen that all three Councillors would come from the dominant parish. Furthermore, Hettlestead and Yalding was unlikely.to be in the same County Electoral Division as Marden. 29. The representatives from East and West Farleigh stated they wished to remain alone, and thsir farming area had no community of interest with Yalding, let alone with Hettlestead which was the other side of the river and railway. The Kent Parish Councils Association representative stated that Nettlestead and Yalding was quite an exceptional rural Ward, and that if anything the Farleighs had strong links with , but little with Yalding, and none with Nettlestead. 30. A number of representatives deplored the loss of rural weighting, and expressed their approval when one Borough Councillor called it Whitehall's insistence on numerical equality representation which ignored geographical and physical features. 31. From what was said at the meeting, and from my visit to the area, it is clear that Nettlestead is the difficult area "because it is severed from the rest of the Borough and the Parish of Yalding "by the River Medway and the railway, Furthermore, it juts out into Tonbridge and West Mailing District, who could well desire to take it over, 32. The Parishes of Nettlestead and Yalding have hardly any links with the Parishes of Hunton, Linton, and Marden that comprise one proposed Ward. Yalding has good road communications, but no strong links with West Farleigh. For arithmetical purposes it would be convenient to merge West Farleigh (electorate 357; with Nettlestead and Yalding to help towards justifying a sufficient electorate for two Councillors. East Farleigh (electorate 976) could then be merged with (electorate 2,859), but this would have severed the strong links that undoubtedly exist between the two Farleighs. Recommendation 4 As I could find no evidence of the sewerage scheme proposed for Yalding with its consequential potential for a substantial increase in population, being undertaken in the near future, I have to accept that the projected electorate for 1979 will only give an entitlement of 1.40 for a Borough Council with 55 members. While the road communications between the two parishes are not easy, and. by Maidstone standards the area is comparatively large, I can find no exceptional grounds for recommending such low ratio of the number of electors to the number of Councillors. Furthermore, even if permitted two Councillors, there can be no certainty they would be from each parish as seems to be envisaged. IV. NAMES OF WARDS 33. In addition to those that had submitted written comments to the Commission, all the Chairmen of Parish Councils or Meetings, and their Clerks, attending the Meeting, expressed themselves strongly in favour of the Borough Council!s view that the names of all the Parishes bejug included in the name of the Ward despite in a few cases having a cumbersome title. They contended it would have two.advantages which would greatly outweigh minor administrative difficulties. It would - (i) make it abundantly clear, without any necessity to check, as could be the case if the Commission's proposal were adopted,' which of 38 parishes were included in a particular Ward; (ii) give something "back to the smaller Parishes which feel in this day of "Big Brother" they are in serious danger of losing their identity. 34. The Borough Council proposed 12 Wards with multiple names 7 Wards had two Parish names 4 Wards had three Parish names 1 Ward had five parishes 35. The Parish representatives from the Wards that were present at the meeting, were most unwilling to accept the Commission's policy, nor were they prepared to accept a neutral name, or geographical description. Confusion had already arisen on the Commission's published notice, which only referred to one Parish in a multiple named Ward. 36. Despite their resistance, I "believe the West Farleigh and East Farleigh parishes would accept the name of their Ward as "The Parleighs". 37. The same could not be said of using "The Suttons" for the Ward of and . This is because is to form a new Ward with . There were strong representations that to avoid confusion the names of both Wards should include both parishes. 38. Although Linton is now being added to the old Ward of Hunton - Warden, I also believe that Marden would be an acceptable name for the Ward. 39. If my recommendation is"accepted for Harrietsham to be included in the Lenham, Otterden, and Wichling Ward, then I would recommend that the name of the Ward should be Harrietsham and Lenham. 40. I was unable to obtain any agreement for a short name for the Ward that includes five, or maybe, six, parishes. Because these parishes, including Harrietsham, were in the area of the old Hollingbourne Rural District, I consider the Ward with or without Harrietsham, should be called "Hollingbourne". An alternative would be "The Pilgrims" as the Pilgrims Way crosses the parishes of Hollingbourne and Harrietsham, but my suggestion did not find favour. V. OTHER MATTERS (a) Representations of Mr. S. W. Burden At the meeting, Mr. Burden, a County Councillor for part of the rural area, asked that I should consider the representations he had written to the Commission, as he was still of the opinion there should be little or no change in the existing Ward boundaries until they had had a chance to settle down. If changes had to be forced upon the Borough Council, he wanted all three Sutton parishes to be together. They had a community of interest-, but Chart Sutton had more with Eoughton Monchelsea. He did not, however, put forward proposals for re-warding the areas affected. (b) Definition of Wards I concur in the following alterations which the Borough Council put before me in respect of the written definition of the boundaries of Wards:- (i) the name of King Street Ward to be changed to East Ward; (ii) in the description of the Shepway West Ward, the words "Sutton and11 to be inserted before Loose Road; (iii) in the description of the Heath and Allington Wards, the word "Borough" to be substituted for "District". VI. CONCLUSION In making my recommendations,! have also taken into account the written representations made to the Commission and to the Borough Council. I am g:rateful to all those individuals, Associations, and other bodies who, in the interests of the new Borough of Maidstone, have taken so much trouble and care to present their views. It was particularly refreshing to hear how Councillors from both the town and rural areas were working so well together and in partnership. The unanimity of views in submitting the draft scheme with its generous representation for rural areas, and the sincere opposition to the Commission's proposals where t:iey varied from that scheme, is but one example. In informal discussion I learned of many other ways, including the desire to associate the parishes with various aspects of the Council's work. It is a matter of real regret that the Rules laid down in the Eleventh Schedule to the Local Government Act, 1972, prevent me from agreeing with the Council's views.

Assistant Commissioner

26th September. 1975

10 SCHEDULE 2

BOROUGH OF MAIDSTONEs NAMES OP ffiOPOSED WARDS AND NUMBERS OP COUNCILLORS

NAME OF WARD NO, OF COUNCILLORS

ALLINGTOH 3

BAHMING 1

BEARSTED 3

BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA 1

BOXLEY 1

BRIDGE 3

COXHEATH 2

DJEELING 1

EAST 3

PARLEIGH ' 1

HARRIETSHAM & LENHAM 2

HEADCORN 2

HKAT?? 3

HIGH STREET 3

HOLLINGBOURNE 1

LANGLEY 1

LEEDS !

LOOSE 1

MAHDEN 2

NQRIffl 3

PARK WOOD 3

SHEPWAY EAST 3

SHEPTCAY WEST 3

SOUTH 3

STAELEHDRST 2

BUTTON VALENCE . 1

THURNHAM 1

YALDISG ! SCHEDULE 3

ORDER OF RETIREMENT OF COUNCILLORS REPRESENTING WARDS RMflJKMlHG OTHER THAN 3 COUNCILLORS

HO OP COUNCILLORS REPRESENTING 1ST YEAH 2ND YEAH 3RD YEAH WARD _ HARRIETSHAM AND 2 1 PE • 1

HEADCQRN 2 1 PE 1 - 2 l.PE 1 - HARDEN 2 1 PE 1 - COXHEATH 2 1 PE 1 - YALDING 1 1 PE - - BOXLEY 1 1 PE - - 1 1 PE - - HOLLINGBQURNE 1 . 1 PE -

THURNHAM 1 1 PE - - LANGLEY 1 1 PE - - LEEDS 1 1 PE - - SUTTON EALENCE 1 1 PE - - BOUGHTON MONCHELSEA 1 1 PE - - LOOSE 1 1 PE - - PARLEIGH 1 1 PE . -

BARMIKG 1 1 PE - -

3 7 7 SCHEDULE 4

MAIDSTONE DISTRICT WARD

NORTH WARD Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of Boxley Parish meets Boxley Road thence southwards along said road crossing Peneden Heath Road to and along a footpath known as Wheeler Street Hedges to Curzon Road thence northwestwards along said road to Boxley Road thence southwestwards along said road to Well Road thence southeastwards along said road to County Road thence southwestwards and westwards along said road to Week Street thence southwards along said street to the northern end of Station Road thence westwards and southwards along said road to a point opposite the footpath leading to the High Level Bridge over the River Hddway thence generally westwards to and along said footpath to said bridge thence generally north- wards along the River Medway to the southern boundary of Boxley Barish thence generally eastwards following said parish boundary to the point of commencement.

EAST WARD

Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of North Ward meets the southern boundary of Boxley Parish thence generally south eastyards and southwards following said southern boundary to a footpath leading to Huntsman Lane thence northwestwards along said footpath to said lane thence southeastwards along Huntsman Lane to a point opposite the rear boundary of the property known as Huntsman's Cottage in Vinters Road thence northwest- ward to and along said boundary and rear boundaries of the properties on the southside of said road to the eastern boundary of Virginia House thence southwards along said eastern boundary to the Haidstone-Ashford Railway thence northeastwards along said railway to Vinters Road thence generally westwards along said road and Union Street to Week Street thence northwards along said street to and continuing generally northeastwards following the southern and eastern boundary of North Ward to the point of commencement. HIGH STREET WARD

Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of North Ward meets . the western boundary of East Ward thence southwards and eastwards following the eastern and southern boundary of East Ward to and generally southwards and eastwards following the southern boundary of Boxley Parish to the access road to Turkey Mill thence southwestwards along said road to the thence generally westwards along the said river to a point opposite the rear boundary of No ^5 Blythe Road thence southwards to and along the rear boundaries of NOB 45 and *f? in said road and continuing along the eastern boundary of The Lodge at the entrance to Mote Park thence westwards along said entrance to Willow Way thence southwards along said way, the eastern parts of Lower Road, and Upper Road and West Park Road to a point opposite the southern boundary of Maidstone Grammar School thence westward to and along said southern boundary to and southwards and westwards along the eastern and southern boundaries of the Maidstone and District Laundry to Loose Road thencethence northwestwards along said road to Sheals Crescent thence westwards and northwards along said crescent and Postley Road to Old Road thence-southwestwards along said road and Tovil Road to Eccleston Road thence northwestward along said road and in prolongation thereof to the River Medway thence generally northwards along the said river to the southern boundary of North Ward thence generally eastwards following said southern boundary to the point of commencement*

SHEPVAY EAST WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of High Street Ward meets the southern boundary of Boxley Parish thence generally eastwards and southwards following said southern boundary and continuing to follow the western boundaries of Parish and Parish to a point where it leaves Chapman Avenue, thence westwards in a straight line to the southern boundary of No Bk Chapman Avenue thence westwards along said boundary and the southern boundaries of Beechcroft in Denton Close and No 275 Willington Street to said street thence southwards along Willington Street to a point opposite the northern boundary of No 417 Sutton Road thence northwestwards to and along said boundary and rear boundaries of Nos **O9 to 379 Sutton Road and in continuation thereof to the eastern boundary of No 377 in said road thence north eastwards along said boundary to the rear boundary of said property thence northwestwards along the rear boundaries of NOB 377 to 331 Sutton Road the northern boundaries of Nos 1*1 and *t6 Nottingham Avenue and rear boundaries of Nos 317 to 283 Sutton Road and in prolongation thereof to the eastern boundary of the Molehill Copse i County Primary School thence southweetwards,northwestwards and northeast- wards along the eastern, southern and western boundaries of said school to the rear boundary of No 239 Sutton Road thence northwestwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 239 to 199 Sutton Road and northern boundary of No 191 in said road to Northumberland Road thence northeastward along said road to its junction with the eastern end of Cumberland Avenue thence northwestwards and westwards along said avenue to Kent Avenue thence north- westwards along said avenue and South Park Road to a point opposite the southern boundary No 179 in said road thence eastwards to and along said boundary to the rear boundary of said property thence northwards and westwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 179 to 1 in South Park Road to Tork Road thence northwards along said road to a point opposite the southern boundary of No 165 in said road thence eastwards to and along said southern boundary and continuing generally northwards and westwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 161 to 51 York Road to a footpath leading to West Park Road thence along said footpath to the eastern boundary of High Street Ward thence generally northwards following said boundary to the point of commencement*

SHEPWAY WEST WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of High Street Hard meets the western boundary of Shepway East Ward thence generally southeastward^ southwestwards and southeastwards following said western boundary to and continuing along Northumberland Road to Sutton Road thence southeastwards i along said road to a point opposite the eastern boundary of No 130 in said road thence southweatwards along said boundary the rear boundary of property known as Dunluce and rear boundary of the Mangravet Free Church in Grove Road and continuing along the rear boundaries of Nos 9 to 10? in said road and Nos 11U and 116 Camp Way to the southermost corner of the latter thence westwards to the southermost corner of No 112 Camp Way thence northwestwards along the rear boundaries of Nos 112 to 2 Camp Way to a footpath leading to Pheasant Lane thence generally westwards and northwards along said footpath and said lane to and along Loose Road to the southern boundary of High Street Ward thence generally eastwards and northwards following the southern and eastern boundaries of said Ward to the point of commencement.

PARK WOOD WARD Commencing at a point where the eastern boundary of Shepway West Ward meets the south western boundary of Shepway East Ward thence generally southeastwards, northwards and eastwards following said south western and eastern boundary of last mentioned Ward to the western boundary of Otham Parish thence generally eastwards and southwards following said boundary and southwestwards following the northern boundary of Boughton Monchelsea Parish to a footpath leading to Camp Way thence north west- wards along said footpath to the southern boundary of Shepway West Ward thence generally eastwards and northwards following the southern and eastern boundaries of said ward to the point of commencement.

SOUTH WARD Commencing at a point where the southern boundary of High Street Ward meets the Western boundary of Shepway West Ward thence southeastwards following said western boundary and western boundary of Park Wood Ward to the northern boundary of Boughton Monchelsea Parish thence generally westwards following said northern boundary and northern boundaries of Loose Parish and East Farleigh Parish to the River Hedway thence generally northeastwards along the said river to the western boundary of High Street Ward thence generally south •astwards and eastward following the western and southern boundaries of said Ward to the point of commencement.

BRIDGE WARD Commencing at a point where the western boundary of North Ward meets the western boundary of High Street Ward thence generally southwards following last mentioned boundary and southwestwards following the northern boundary of South Ward to a point opposite Unicumes Lane thence northwestwards to and along said lane and Hackney Road to Milton Street thence northeastwards along said street to Tonbridge Road thence continuing north eastwards along Said road to Bower Mount Road thence generally northwards along said road to Scrubbs Lane (Footpath) thence westwards along said lane and Queen.'s Road to Mailing Terrace thence northwestwards along said terrace to Giddy- horn Lane thence north eastwards along said lane to Road thence southeastwards along said road to an un-adopted road on the southern side of Maidstone United Football Club thence north eastwards along said road and access road of the Maidstone Girls Grammar School to the railway leading to Maidstone East Station thence south east ward along said railway to the western boundary of North Ward thence southwards following said boundary to the point of commencement.

HEATH WARD Commencing at a point where the southwestern boundary of Bridge Ward meets the western boundary of South Ward thence southwards following said western boundary to the northern boundary of East Farleigh Parish thence westward following said northern boundary to the eastern boundary of Banning Parish thence generally northwestwards and northwards following said eastern boundary and western boundary of the Borough to Hermitage Lane thence southwards along said lane to a footpath leading to Hailing Terrace thence southeastwards along said footpath to the western boundary of Bridge Ward thence generally southwards.eastwards and southwards following the western and southwestern boundary of said Ward to the point of commencement,

ALLEJGJON WARD Commencing at a point where the western boundary of North Ward meets the southern boundary of Boxley Parish thence generally southwards following the western boundary of North Ward to and generally westwards following the northern boundaries of Bridge Ward and Heath Ward to the Borough boundary thence generally northwards following said boundary to and eastward following the southern boundary of Boxley Parish to the point of commencement.,

MARDEN WARD The Parishes of Hun ton, Linton and Harden.

YALDING WARD The Parishes of Hettlestead and Yalding.

LOOSE WARD The Parish of Loose.

COXHEATH WARD The Parish of Cozheath.

FARLEIGH WARD The Parishes of East Parleigh and Weat Farleigh.

BARKING WARD The Parishes of Banning and Teston. BQXLET WARD the Parish of Boxley.

DETLING WARD

The Parishes of Bredfaorst9 Detling and Stookbury.

BEARSTED WARD The Parish of Bearsted.

THORNHAM WARD The Parish of Thomhaou ' i HOLLUJGBOURKE WARD The Parishes of Bicknor, Frinsted, HalHogboume, Hacking and Wormshill,

HARRIETSHAM AND LEHHAM WARD The Parishes of Harrietaham, Lenham, Otterden and Wichling.

LEKDS WARD The Parishes of Broomfield and Leeds,

HE&DCQRN WARD The Parishes of Booghton Malherbe, Headoorn and Uloombe«

SUTOX)H VALMCE WARD The Parishes of East Sutton and Satton Valence. 8

LAHGLET WAED Th« 'Parishes of Othan and Langley*

BOOGHTOff MONCHELSEA WARD The 'Parishes of Boughton Monoheleea and Chart Sutton.

STAPLEHDRST WARD The Parish of Staplehurst.