Brighton in the County of East Sussex

Home , Montpelier Crescent, North Laine, Ovingdean, Westdene

171

Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 361 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC

MEMBERS

Lady Bov/den Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To tjie Rt Hon William Whitelaw, CH, MC, MF. Secretary of State for the Home Department

PROPOSALS FOB FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON IN THE COUNTY OF EAST SUSSEX

1* We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried ont our Initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Brighton 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 for that district*

2* In accordance with the procedure laid down In section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice wae given on 12 August 1974 that we were to undertake this review* This was Incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to Brighton Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to East Sussex County Council, parish councils and parish meetings in the district, Members of Parliament for the constituencies 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 from Interested bodies*

3* Brighton Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration* In 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 si 20 of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account views expressed 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* The Council have passed a resolution under section 7(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, requesting a system of elections by thirds*

5. On 19 December 1974 the Council presented a draft scheme of representation. We considered the scheme but, on tho grounds of inequality of representation, we were unable to accept it as the basis for draft proposals* Accordingly. we invited the Council to revise their draft scheme*

6. On 7 February 1977 the Council presented a revised draft scheme* They proposed to divide the borough into 16 wards, each returning 3 councillors, to form a council of 48.

7* We considered the Council's revised draft scheme together with the comments which had been made upon it* We decided to adopt the Council's revised draft scheme as the basis for our draft proposals, but to realign the boundary between the Regency and St Nicholas wards to meet local objections and to change the name of the proposed St Nicholas ward to 'Seven Dials1*

8. On 30 August 1977 we 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 map, which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their "»•*" offices* Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices* from other members of the public and interested bodies* We asked that comments should reach us by 28 October 1977*

9* In view of the comments we received in response to the draft proposals we decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. At our request an Assistant Commissioner was appointed and asked to conduct a local meeting. This was held in the Town Hall, Brighton on 19 January 1978* 10* It was however evident that the arrangements for the meeting had been impaired by bad weather and, as a result, a number of people who had wished to put forward views had been unable to be present when the Assistant Commissioner eventually was able to start the meeting. In these circumstances we did not consider we could proceed with confidence to formulate final proposals without re-publication of our draft proposals and fresh consultation on them*

11. Our re-published draft proposals were issued on 22 December, 1978 and were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had subsequently commented. Public notices explained the reasons for our taking this unusual step, and Invited comments on the draft proposals* We asked that they should reaoh us by 28 February, 1979.

12* The Council supported our draft proposals as did a number of councillors and private Individuals. There were however objections, particularly to the modifications we had proposed for the two wards referred to in paragraph 7 above; and a local political association,supported by two private individuals, put forward an alternative scheme for a. third ward. Two branches of a political party and a second political assocatlon each put forward comments about several wards*

13. In view of these comments we decided it would be appropriate to afford a further opportunity for local discussion* Mr T Fbord was, In accordance with section 65(2) of the Local Government Act, 1972 and at our request, appointed an Assistant Commissioner* He was asked to hold a local meeting and report to us*

14* The Assistant Commissioner held the meeting in the Royal Pavilion, Brighton on 11 July 1979* A copy of his report to us of the meeting Is at Schedule 1 to this report* 15* In the light of the discussions at the meeting, and his inspection of the areas which were the subject of comment, the Assistant Commissioner recommended that our draft proposals should be adopted subject to reversion to the Council's earlier suggestions for the boundaries of Regency and Seven Dials Wards*

16* We reviewed our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded as he did that, although the arguments were finely balanced, the arrangements in the Borough Council's draft scheme for tne Regency and Seven Dials wards were preferable to the modifications we had made in our draft proposals, but that otherwise our draft proposals should stand. We decided therefore to adopt the Assistant Commissioner's recommendations and formulated our final proposals accordingly*

17* Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to this report and on the attached map* Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each* A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the map, is set out in Schedule 3*

FOBLICATIQH

18* In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972* a copy of this report and a copy of the map are being sent to Brighton Borough Council and will be available for public inspection at the Borough Council's ""»•*" offices* Copies of this report (without the map) are being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made constants* US. Signed:

NICHOUS MDBEISON (CHAIBM&H)

JOHN M RANKUJ (DEPUTI CHAIBMAN)

PHTTiTiTfl BOUDEN

TYRRELL BBOCKBANK

G S CHERRI

D F H&BRISON

E E THOfiNTON

LESUE GEJMSHAW (Secretary) 20th September 1979 SCHSDUL3 1

THOMAS FOORD 73 FIRST AVENUE. LL.a.CHONI.I. P.C.t.m., L.M.H.T.F.I. WORTHING. SOLICITOR SUSSEX. BNI4 9NP WONTHINfl *OO7««

19th July 1979. Your ref: LGBC/D/14/4

L.B, Grimshaw Esq., Local Government Boundary Commission for England, 20 Albert Embankment, London, SE1 7TJ.

Dear Sir, Review of the Electoral. Arrangements for the Borough of Brighton 1. Having been appointed an Assistant Commissioner by the Home Secretary, in accordance with section 65(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, I was asked by the Commission to hold a public meeting to hear representations and local views on their draft proposals for the electoral arrangements for the Borough of Brighton. I was advised that the meeting was part of the process of local consultation, and should be run on lines as informal as possible, so as to encourage a full exchange of views, but consistent with the need to ensure a fair hearing. 2. At present the electoral arrangements for the Borough provide for 19 wards, seventeen of which are represented by three councillors each on the Council, and two by four councillors each, giving a total Council of 59. The draft scheme for the future electoral arrangements submitted by the Council to the Local Government Boundary Commission in February 1977 proposed that the Borough should be divided into 16 wards each returning 3 councillors, giving a total Council of 48 members. 3. The Commission's draft proposals are based on the Council's scheme but in the light of objections received, to the Council's scheme the Commission re-aligned the boundary between the Council's proposed Regency and St. Nicholas wards, and changed the name of St. Nicholas Ward to Seven Dials Ward. The proposals are as follows! Name of Ward No. of Councillors Hanover 3 Hollingbury 3 King's Cliff 3 Marine 3 Moulsecoomb 3 Patcham 3 .Preston 3 Regency 3 Rottingdean 3 - 2 -

Name of Ward No, of Councillors St. Peter's . 3 Seven Dials 3 Stanmer 3 Tenantry 3 Westdene 3 Woodingdean 3 Queens Park 3 Total 48

4. I now report on the meeting which was held on Wednesday llth July 1979 in the William IV Room at the Royal Pavilion, Brighton. A list of persons attending the meeting, with their addresses and the interests they represented, is attached to this report.

5. Opening for the Borough Council Mr. Morgan, the Chief Executive and Town Clerk, said that following the reorganisation of local government in 1974 the Local Government Boundary Commission was charged with the task of reviewing the electoral arrangements of district councils and in December 1974 a draft scheme, based on 19 wards, was submitted by the Borough Council to the Commission. In August 1975 this draft scheme was referred back by the Commission, who invited the Council to reconsider it as they had>decided that it did not measure up to their ground rules, mainly he thought in relation to the number of Councillors and the relative size of wards. At the same time the Commission had asked the East Sussex County Council to review their scheme as the Commission considered that the proposed County Council of 84 members was too large. 6. The East Sussex County original scheme provided for Brighton to be represented by 19 County Councillors, and it was, therefore, apparent that before steps could be taken to review the Brighton Electoral representation the question of the County Council review had first to be settled. There followed discussions with the County Joint Committee, which''resulted in the membership of East Sussex County Council being, agreed by the Joint Committee at 70, of which Brighton was allocated 16 seats. This provided a basis on which 16 new wards for Brighton could be formulated, each one returning three members to provide a Council of 48, one third of whom would eventually retire each time, as the Council had opted for elections by thirds rather than a whole Council election every fourth year. 7. Mr. Morgan said that accordingly in the middle of 1976 a special Sub-Committee of the Council under the Chairmanship of Councillor Cristofoli started work on the new basis and produced a scheme which complied as far as practicable with - 3 - the Boundary Commission's criterion of equality of representation, whilst at the same time endeavouring to meet the other criteria of not breaking local ties and using easily identifiable boundaries. The scheme was approved by the Council on the 7th January 1977, and after being on deposit was submitted to the Boundary Commission on the 8th February 1977, as a response to the August 1975 request for a revised scheme. The Boundary Commission issued their own revised proposals on 30th August 1977, the only major difference from the Council's submission being in relation to the St. Nicholas and Regency Wards, where the dividing line was altered to move an area around Clifton Hill from Regency to St. Nicholas and an area around North Road from St. Nicholas to Regency. The numbers in each ward were little changed. The altered St. Nicholas was as re-christened Seven Dials. Other minor boundary changes were made for technical reasons without affecting the electorate. 8. The Commission's proposals were consideredi-by Brighton Council at their meeting on 7th October 1977, when they accepted the revised arrangements and informed the Boundary Commission accordingly.

9. Mr. Morgan said that the Commission's revised proposals had of course been on deposit for public comment (direct to the Commission) and as a result.of representations received the Commission notified the Council on the 8th December that they had decided to hold an informal meeting to hear local views on the proposed arrangements and that Mr. Waite had been appointed by the Home Secretary as Assistant Commissioner to conduct a meeting, in the Town Hall on the 19th January 1978. That meeting was duly held but owing to the well known vagaries of the British climate Mr. Waite was for a time snow bound en route, with the result that the opening of the meeting was considerably delayed. That was not the end of the problems because the validity of the Commission's methods of working was subsequently challenged in the Courts and there was a long period when for all practical purposes the Commission ceased to operate. The matter having been resolved on appeal the Commission recommenced work, but it was by then too late for any decision to be taken in time to enable the Borough to be re-warded for the whole Council elections in May 1979. Brighton Council therefore continued to operate on their old basis of 17 wards of three members and two of four members, giving a total of 59 Councillors,

The Boundary Commission decided in December 1978 that in all the circumstances the best course would be to re-publish their original proposals and to hold the present local meeting. - 4 -

10. Mr, Morgan said that Brighton Council remained content, as it was before, to accept the Commission's proposals. He had, therefore, no representations, observations or comments to make on behalf of the Council, but Councillor Cristofoli, who was Chairman of the Special Boundaries Sub- Committee, was present and would be pleased to assist upon any points which might be raised. Their role, however, was essentially a passive one, and unless any matter arose upon which assistance was needed or which appeared fundament- ally to cut across the Commission's proposals they would not seek to intervene in the proceedings.

11. Mr. Poole, Assistant County Secretary for the East Sussex County Council, agreed with what Mr. Morgan had said. The County Council supported the Boundary Commission's proposals. 12. Councillor Mrs. P.A. Drake said that.she spoke as the County Councillor representing the present Regency Ward, and as Chairman of the Regency Ward Conservative Association, She was born in the present Montpelier Ward and had lived arid worked for many years in Regency Ward. She favoured the original proposals of December 1976 made by Brighton Council. They met to perfection the criteria laid down by the Boundary Commission themselves, namely the desirability of fixing boundaries which were and would remain easily identifiable, avoiding any local ties which would be broken by the fixing of any particular boundary. She said that the 1976 proposal achieved this objective superbly. It gave a natural, well defined boundary following major traffic routes, which did not transgress the area of any acknowledged community. Mrs. Drake said the 1977/1979 proposal showed a complete disregard for the guidelines, and she read the following extracts from the boundary description. "Clifton Terrace, thence northeastwards along said road to the path to the rear of Clifton Terrace known as Vine Place, thence southeastwards along said path to Dyke Road," "York Place, thence southwards along said road to the unnamed road which leads southeastwards (northeast of the Car Park) to the road known as Grand Parade," 13. Councillor Mrs. Drake said that beside its superb boundary the 1976 proposal recognised the historical development from the original four inns along the coast and up to St. Nicholas Church, Upper North Street and thence up to Kemps temple, now the High School. It - 5 - recognised the unity of this area from the seafront hotels through the Regency Squares to the Regency residential character of the hinterland. There was a natural contour of the sweep of the development; one automatically flowed from the other. 1976 put together three conservation areas in their entirety, the Old Town, Regency and Montpelier and Clifton Hill, Three communities interlinked with everything in common. 1976 put the Montpelier and Clifton Hill Assoc- iation area together for the first time. It had 343 listed properties within its bounds and was an influential community and conservation association. 14. Mrs. Drake then said that the Commission's proposals sought to create a community of the Seven Dials, but what it sought could not be done, and recognised what did not exist in community terms. Sfte said that one quarter of the Seven Dials area was in the Borough of Hove. The Dials was the name of a major road junction and each of the roads dissected the area and acted against the formation of a coherent community. ' In fact those visiting the area for shopping or living around the Dials went to one or two sections but almost never attempted to encompass the whole. The traffic counts for the roads showed the large number of vehicles travers- ing the junction. Local firms such as Forfars Bakers maintained shops on both sides of the Dials, in recognition of the separate nature of the community. Tesco's closed their branch on the Dyke Road South because insufficient people were prepared to shop from the Northern side. Mrs. brake stressed the fact that Seven Dials was the name of a road junction which by its nature divides and was not a community association. 15. The 1979 proposal perpetuated the split of the Montpelier and Clifton Hill area and failed to recognise its unity and importance. Montpelier Villas had much more in common with Montpelier Crescent, both by its architecture and its occupants, than Montpelier Crescent had with the Seven Dials. The present ward boundaries and the 1979 amendment continued to split such institutions as the Brighton and Hove High School into two and the Church of St. Michael from many of its parishioners, to name but a few of its inconsistencies. The boundaries were so ill defined that literature at election time was frequently delivered to the wrong ward by all parties, and even by the council, with the obvious result of a lost journey, frustration and inconvenience of elderly electors. The proposals assumed that the East and West side of Queens Road were different, but in fact Crown Gardens and Frederick Place were originally built as support accommodation for the Royal Pavilion, as stable lads' houses, etc. 16. Councillor Mrs. Drake said that the proposals presumed that the Montpelier Villas area was similar in character - 6 - to North Laine but in fact the roads from the Seven Dials to the Station, represented by the West Hill Community Association and the North Laine area on both East and West of the Queens Road all focus on the station. Their expansion had come with the expansion of the railway area. The West Hill and North Laine Community Associations had much in common, they advertised one another's events, and they were of a similar age and outlook. North Laine had a strong vitality of terraced houses, tiny old shops, pubs, street markets and a resource centre, much of which was shared by West Hill. This was in no way similar to Montpelier and Clifton Hill, particularly when the 1979 proposals had removed the central wedge of transmission and compatability from the new Ward.

17. Finally Mrs. Drake said that the 1979 proposals gave to one group of Councillors responsibility for the whole of the seafront of Brighton Pavilion, all the major hotels, the Brighton Conference Centre, all the cinemas of any size, the other entertainments, all the major shopping areas, the Royal Pavilion, the library, the new swimming pool, the Town Hall, virtually all the major car parks and two areas of urban deprivation. A totally disproportionate share for one set of representatives. Numbers of electorate did not always tell the whole story. The proposals were a retrograde step, and she asked for a return to the 1976 scheme, which was supported by members of all political parties.

18. Mr. Egerton Sykes said he had a house in Montpelier Villas. He was interested in the structure of Regency Ward and had sat for 29 years on the Committee. He supported all that Councillor Mrs. Drake had said - she had put in in a nutshell, 19. Mr. Kingman said that he too lived in Montpelier Villas and was a member of the Montpelier Ward Committee. The argument was about whether the Boundary Commission was right to recognise the integrity of the Seven Dials area - or whether it was just the Regency area. In his view there was no way of getting the whole historic area into the Regency Ward. The people in Seven Dials had fought to keep their community and the unity of the Seven Dials area was important. He supported the Boundary Commission's proposals. 20. Mr, Brian Digby said he was a resident of Regency Ward, although a comparatively new resident. He agreed with what Mrs. Drake had said and referred to his letter (jointly with Mr, W.H. Harrison) to the Commission of the 22nd February 1979 in which he had protested against the Commission's amendment to the Council's scheme. The Council's proposals to take the western boundary of Regency Ward up to the Seven Dials road junction and then down a longer stretch of Dyke Road was preferable for several reasons. The Commission's proposed northern ward boundary was unnatural and illogical. The Victoria Road line, by cutting off the northemClifton Hill triangle effectively sliced in half the Montpelier and - 7 -

Clifton Hill conservation area. The area was a cohesive and viable community, mainly residential. The area of the North Laine Community Association had nothing else in common with the rest of Regency Ward. It consisted of a mixture of residential, small shops and light industries. 21. Mr. Digby referred to the Government's statements that they were concentrating on saving money. They had already cancelled the rating re-valuation survey. He asked whether anybody had costed the saving to the rate- payers of not proceeding with the current review of the electoral arrangements. He felt that it should be post- poned, pending consideration of the amalgamation of Brighton and Hove, which he recommended. A large area of the Seven Dials was in Hove and not Brighton. The electors were weary of the number of elections and changes they had had recently and it would be sensible to defer the review of the ward boundaries until Brighton and Hove could be considered as a whole. He agreed with the reduction in the number of councillors proposed in the present scheme. 22. Captain E.G. Frances-Woodruff said that he preferred the boundary for Regency Ward which had been suggested by the Council. it kept communities together. The Commission's proposals joined two quite separate and distinct areas. He supported what had been said by Mrs. Drake. 23. Mrs. Kay Burton said she had lived.in Seven Dials for the last 27 years. The area was a well knit community. She disagreed with Captain Woodruff. Residents shopped on both sides of the Dials roundabout, and she produced a recent advertisement from a shop in Prestonville Road on the north side of Seven Dials, which had been distributed throughout the area, including the roads on the south side. In the opposition to the one-way traffic scheme all the residents had banded together, proving it was one area. She supported what Mr. Kingman had said. She had voted against the Brighton Council's proposals for this area when it was submitted to the full council. A boundary line along Dyke Road between the Seven Dials roundabout and the junction of Buckingham Road and Victoria Road would cut the area in two and would result in confusion to all the electors. Mrs. Burton expressed the hope that when the Constituency Boundaries were reviewed the remaining one-seventh of the Seven Dials at present in Hove would be brought into Brighton. 24. Mrs. Jean Simpson said that she represented Montpelier Ward. She also shopped daily in the Dials and didn't differentiate between the north and the south side of the Dials. It was one area. She read a statement by Mr. G.A. Burton, County Councillor for Montpelier Ward and Chairman of the Montpelier Ward Conservative Committee in which he reaffirmed unanimous support for the Commission's draft proposals, which had been twice supported by Brighton Borough Council. In the circumstances he was sure that it was not - 8 - necessary to give again and in detail the reasons for their support, but there were two main features in the proposals that merited a further mention, as they so clearly conformed with the Commission's recommendations. Firstly he referred to the compact and united community centred on the Seven Dials traffic intersection, the essential unity of which had been so dramatically underlined by the spontaneous and popular opposition to the recently introduced traffic manage- ment scheme; and secondly to the natural boundary of the busy major distributor road and bus route, Queens Road, He sincerely trusted that the Commission would adhere to its proposals. Finally Mrs, Simpson asked that consideration should be given to re-naming the Ward St. Nicholas Ward. 25. Councillor John Smith referred to the letter he had written to the Commission on the 25th October 1977 expressing his concern about the major alteration to the Council's scheme proposed by the Commission, involving the Regency and St. Nicholas (Seven Dials) wards. He was not so concerned as previous speakers with buildings and roads. He was concerned about people and communities. Clearly the bout was between two sets of communities, one around Seven Dials and one round the Montpelier area, which he supported. He asked what kind of Regency Ward would the Commission's draft proposals give to Brighton for years to come. He agreed with Mrs. Drake that it would be a most difficult ward. It was a difficult ward to represent now, and if the area of urban deprivation was added to the sea-front area it would place an unbearable burden on its elected councillors. 26. Mr. Bernard Farmer said he represented Montpelier Ward and was a former councillor. He had listened to the descriptionsof Seven Dials ranging up to one-third in Hove and two-thirds in Brighton. In his opinion only one-seventh of the area was in Hove. Seven Dials was a very closely knit community, with their own shopping centre, and it should be kept as one community and not split up as proposed in the Council's scheme. Queens Road was an obvious boundary. The area to the west of Queens Road was enHrely residential, whereas the area to the east was largely industrial and commercial. He supported the Boundary Commission's proposals, 27. Councillor Richard Bates said he was a councillor for Montpelier Ward and represented Brighton Pavilion Liberal Association. He agreed with the Boundary Commission's draft proposals but his Association would like to see the names of three of the wards changed. Regency Ward should be called Old Town Ward. The Brighton Central Area plan referred to the character of the area as "Old Town". Seven Dials Ward should be re-named Montpelier, which implied a health resort, and was more suitable than Seven Dials, one of London's most notorious slums. Hollingbury Ward should be changed to either St. Mathias, Fiveways or Hollingdean Ward. There was confusion with the industrial estate - 9 - which was in Stanmer Ward. The Association was also concerned about the timing of the election. He referred to the reduction in the number of Council members from 59 to 48. The Association wanted the new full council election to be in 1981 - the same year as the county council elections. Mr. Morgan explained that it was expected that the Order would give the Council the option of either 1980 or 1983. The Association also felt that the current South East Preston Park polling area would be better suited in Preston Ward or St. Peters Ward than the new Westdene Ward. 28. Councillor Arthur Harman, representing himself and Hollingbury Ward, said he welcomed the holding of the present inquiry, and he had no wish to go over the old ground of the abandoned inquiry of February 1978. He referred to the letter, dated 7th February 1979, sent to the Commission by Mrs. A. Robinson, the Chairman of the Hollingbury Ward Branch of the Brighton (Pavilion) Conservative Association, which he supported. He felt that it would have been helpful to have used a street map, preferably coloured, to identify boundaries, rather than the type of map used by the Council and the Commission, which was merely a stark outline. A street map would show areas clearly and also names of established usage. This would have illustrated what the Association was trying to emphasise about the history and origins of Hollingbury as against any other possible name for the new ward. They believed that the retention of existing names as far as possible was essential. In his letter to the Commission, dated 16th February 1978, Councillor Gordon Bradley, the County Councillor for the Hollingbury Division, had said that the name of the ward should continue to be that of Hollingbury, not only because of its geographical situation, demonstrated by the inclusion of Hollingbury Camp, the ancient castle earthworks, but by the name of Hollingbury given to numerous roads and streets. The name Hollingbury had also been given to the public house and the post office in the area. Councillor Harman utterly rejected the proposal by Councillor Bates, the previous speaker, that the name of Hollingbury should be changed. 29. Councillor Harman drew attention to the potential development of the residential areas in Hollingbury and the need to allow for it in drawing up new boundaries. He said that the Council had sometimes given him the impression that they believed that the proposals they had put forward were really open to a very little challenge, and in his opening speech Mr. Morgan appeared to think there was little argument. They were, of course, only submitting proposals, they were not infallible, and there was considerable argument. They were all presented with a completely different ball game when it became clear that the Commission insisted on a reduction of the numbers of wards from 19 to 16, and they had all had to re-appraise their thinking, Hollingbury Ward Association had looked at this very carefully, -. * •• t; - 10 - as he had himself - and what were virtually joint representations had emerged. Hollingbury Conservatives agreed with the Liberal Party that the Bates' Estate, where development was fast proceeding, was illogically placed, both in the existing ward, and that which they envisaged. If their proposals were accepted, there would be relatively little disturbance. Most of the area was already within the Hollingbury Ward, and only a small part of Preston would be affected, which, nevertheless, had close affinities with the remainder of the ward. There would be no problems with the polling stations. 30. Councillor Harman said that in every way their proposals were workable, sensible, practical and conformed to the basic requirement of "natural boundaries". The Labour Party's proposals, on the other hand, would create a monster, straggling ward, of bits and pieces, carving up three present wards. By the same token the Council's suggestions would also create administrative havoc over the existing arrangements, and they resisted them. If changes were to be made he felt that account must be taken also of the greater number of people each Councillor would have responsibility for. It followed that their wards should be as practically drawn as possible, and there should be as little unheaval as possible, 31. Referring again to the proposals of the Hollingbury Ward Branch in the letter of 7th February 1979, Councillor Harman said that the base eastern boundary of a new Hollingbury Ward should be the railway line from Brighton to Lewes, which was a natural boundary. The Branch felt that an accepted, indeed vital major link between the A.27 and A.23 was via Hollingdean Road, Hollingbury Road and Preston Drove. However, the "natural boundary" properly would be Ditchling Road, and not Hollingbury Road, and with that minor amendment a southern boundary could be reasonably laid down for the new Hollingbury Ward (although to continue with Hollingbury Road as the boundary - in view of its long accepted usage - would not be open to reasonable criticism). The boundary would proceed naturally to Surrenden Road. Following this road northwards, and thence via Braybon Avenue (both major roads, and busy 'bus routes, and therefore acceptably'natural boundaries") would provide an unarguable western boundary. Woodbourne Avenue - the only stretch of their suggestion not a "natural boundary", but still a major road - would become the northern ward boundary, and lead conveniently into the line encompassing Hollingbury Park/Castle/Golf Course, etc., which the draft proposals themselves embraced. It was accepted that the proposals had implications for other ward boundaries contained in the draft proposals. 32. Councillor Cristofoli, for Brighton Council, said that there were some 800 electors in the Bates estate and he asked where were they to go. It was easy for Mr. Harman - 11 -

and the Hollingbury Ward Branch to say that the Bates Estate was illogically placed in Hollingbury Ward, and should be removed from that ward, but the electors had to be fitted in. If they became part of another ward there would be other difficulties. When Hollingbury Ward was originally formed there was no Bates Estate. Despite the strongly felt arguments of the various parties, it was significant that the ordinary men in the street hadn't lined up at the local meeting. Whatever boundaries were decided the merging of three wards into two must necessarily be artificial in terms of the present arrangements. That is why the Council did not argue with the Commission's amendments to the Council's scheme - there were merits on both sides. Equally, some- body had to have the 3,000 electors of St. Nicholas. With regard to the suggested change of ward names Councillor Cristofoli said that they were living in 1979 and not in the past, and he rejected the name Old Town Ward. 33. Councillor John Miller said he represented Hollingbury Ward. He supported what Councillor Harman had said. Although he had been a council member for many years he had been off the council for some five years and, therefore, he had taken no part in the schemes put forward to the Commission. He pointed out that on Local Government Re-org- anisation in 1974 the number of council members had been reduced from 76 to 59, a loss of 17 seats. Now it was proposed to reduce this number further from 59 to 48. So in a period of five or six years the representation had been virtually cut in half. He did not think this was good. He did not agree that fewer councillors speeded up local government. Councillors were there to represent people. It was the electors that mattered, and none of the previous speakers had mentioned this.

34. Councillor Cristofoli said that all the people were concerned about their particular areas. The proposed Council of 48 members was not small. The Borough didn't lend itself to being divided into 16 neat and perfect compartments. Those who had spoken at the meeting had represented their interests well. He regretted, however, that people from the other areas were not at the meeting to express their views on these representations. The Council had to look at the area as a whole. With regard to the representations made by Councillor Richard Bates about ward names, he could assure him that the committee had spent a lot of time on their deliberations, and he instanced the use of the name Tenantry Ward. They too did not like losing St.-Nicholas Ward. They had faithfully, and he believed fairly, followed their terms of reference. 35. At the commencement of the meeting I was handed two letters from Councillors who were unable to be present at the meeting. The first was from Councillor H.J. Drake, who said that he had lived in Regency Ward and knew it well. - 12 -

To add the southern part of the present St. Nicholas Ward to it would make a compatible and unified new ward, because it would have the "seaside" area of Brighton Pavilion constituency, containing the older and Regency are of the constituency and the principal shopping centres, hotels, and places of entertainment. On the other hand, the northern section of the old St. Nicholas Ward, containing the North Laines area, was separate and entirely different in character and new Regency Ward Councillors would find it hard to represent conscientiously. For those reasons he strongly supported the original 1976 proposals, which created an identifiable new Regency Ward, with well defined boundaries.

36. The other letter was from Councillor Mrs. C.L.E, Nettleton expressing her support for the proposals for the Regency and St. Nicholas (Seven Dials) put forward in the Borough Council's scheme. She felt that Regency and Montpelier Wards were very similar in character and their way of life. Regency had a very strong and active Conserv- ation Society which spilled over into Montpelier Ward and was considerably more of a community than St. Nicholas Ward could be as St. Nicholas was some distance from Regency Ward and would undoubtedly no longer be the close community which was desired. The Ward being so wide-spread would make it much more difficult for the Councillors to administer, and this would not be beneficial to the Public.

37, I made a general inspection of the area, particularly the wards under dispute, prior to the meeting. Afterwards I looked again at the Hollingbury, Regency and Seven Dials Wards to examine the detailed boundaries, community features and other matters to which my attention had been drawn during the meeting.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

38. I would like first of all to express my thanks to all those, who, in the interest of the Borough of Brighton, gave so much of their time and effort to present their views on the future electoral arrangements for the town. I am particularly grateful to the council members and others who attended the local meeting and assisted me in my deliberations and to Mr. Morgan, the Chief Executive and Town Clerk and the Council's staff for their courtesy and assistance throughout the proceedings. 39. The arguments for and against the Commission's draft proposals for Regency and Seven Dials are finely balanced. They were very well argued at the local meeting, as set out above. Clearly there are strong community ties in the Seven Dials area and also in Clifton Hill and Montpelier, which are both outstanding conservation areas. It is inevitable, however, in a major electoral review such as this that one cannot equate all the preferred features. - 13 - and one has to balance the desirability of maintaining local ties and community of interest with the requirement of electoral equality. It is evident that a considerable amount of care and thought went into the preparation of the Borough Council's scheme, and they are to be congratulated on it. Apart from the few areas of dispute the scheme has commanded broad acceptance. The Commission, in view of the representations they received about the Council's proposals for Regency and St. Nicholas (Seven Dials) Wards decided to re-align the boundary between these wards, as suggested by the objectors. The Commission's draft proposals, however, produced even more objections from those who preferred the Council's scheme for this area. At the local meeting Councillor Cristofoli, for the Borough Council, said, in response to a question from me, that while they were prepared to accept the Commission's proposals and would not wish to argue with them, they still liked their original scheme. This too was the view of the County Council repres- entative, and indeed in their letter to the Commission, dated the 26th February 1979, the County Council said that no objection would be made should it be decided to adopt the earlier proposals put forward by the Brighton Borough Council. 40. Given that the community interests are so evenly balanced it is necessary to consider which of the alternative proposals would make for more effective and convenient local government. Here I believe the scales are tipped in favour of the Borough Council's scheme. Councillor Mrs. Drake pointed out that the Commission's proposals gave to one group of councillors responsibility for the Brighton Pavilion,, sea front, all the major hotels, the new Brighton Conference complex, the major cinemas and other entertainments, the central shopping areas, the Royal Pavilion estate, the library, the new swimming pool, the Town Hall area, virtually all the major car parks and two areas of urban deprivation. In this she was supported by Councillor Smith, who described it as an unbearable burden. I agree with them that numbers of electorate do not always tell the whole story, and there is no doubt that under the Commission's proposals a totally disproportionate share of responsibility would be placed on one set of representatives. 41. I recommend, therefore, that the boundaries proposed in the Borough Council's scheme for Regency and St. Nicholas Wards be adopted in lieu of those in the Commission's draft proposals. The balance of opinion favoured the Commission's proposal to use the name Seven Dials for the Ward rather than St. Nicholas, and I so recommend. 42. I have considered carefully the alternative proposals for Hollingbury Ward, put forward by the Hollingbury Ward Branch Brighton (Pavilion) Conservative Association and others, and so ably presented by Councillor Harman at the meeting. The proposals affect St. Peters Ward and Moulsecoomb Ward, and were opposed by the Borough Council. - 14 -

The problems arise from the size of the pockets of electorate, notably Bates estate, which it is proposed to move to other wards. Here again it is difficult to carry out an exercise reducing the number of wards without affecting existing patterns. I have tried several exercises of moving boundaries, using these proposals for Hollingbury Ward as a base, but unfortunately due to the "shunt" effect which occurs when a boundary is changed, I have invariably ended up with an unsatisfactory ward arrangement, an unnatural boundary, or an unacceptable lack of equality of electorate elsewhere. I have no doubt that similar problems exercised the minds of the Council members when the scheme was prepared, and I am satisfied that, in the circumstances, the Council's scheme for this area provides the most reasonable compromise available, and that the Commission were right to adopt it in their draft proposals. There was considerable support for the retention of the name Hollingbury, and 1 did not find the arguments for a change convincing. 43. I have considered the several other proposals and matters raised in the written objections, in so far as they were not raised at the local meeting, but I do not consider that any of them outweigh the undoubted merits of the council *s scheme for the Borough as a whole, and which has commanded such general acceptance.

44. I recommend, therefore, that the Local Government Boundary Commission's Draft Proposals for the Borough of Brighton be confirmed, subject only to the alteration of the boundaries of Regency and Seven Dials Wards to conform with the Borough Council's scheme. Yours faithfully, SCHEDULE 2

BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON : NAMES OF PROPOSED WARDS AND NUMBERS OF COUNCILLORS

NAME OF WARD NO OF COUNCILLORS Hanover 3 Hollingbury King's Cliff 3 Marine ^ o Moulsecoomb J

•7 Patcham J Preston 3 Queen's Park * Regency 3 Rottlngdean ^ St Peter's 3 Sevan Dials ^ Stanmer 3 Tenantry •* Vestdene ^ Woodingdean ^ SCHEDULE 3

BOROUGH OF BRIGHTON DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WARD BOUNDARIES

NOTE: Where a boundary is described as following a road, railway, river, canal or similar feature it should be deemed to follow the centre line of the feature unless otherwise stated.

REGENCY WARD

Commencing at the point where the western boundary of the Borough crosses

Goldsmid Road, thence eastwards along said road to Dyke Road, thence southeastwards along said road to North Street, thence southeastwards along said street, Castle Square and the central carriageway of the road system known as Old Steine to the eastern carriageway of Old Steine, thence southwards along said eastern carriageway and continuing southwards in a straight line crossing the roundabout, Grand Junction Road and the

Esplanade to the western boundary of the jetty to the west of the Palace

Pier, thence southwards along said western boundary and in prolongation thereof to Mean Low Water being the southern boundary of the Borough, thence northwestwards along said Borough boundary to the western boundary of the Borough, thence generally northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement.

SEVEN DIALS WARD

Commencing at the point where the western boundary of the Borough meets the prolongation southwestwards of the road known as Highcroft Villas, thence northeastwards along said prolongation, northeastwards and southeastwards along said road and continuing southeastwards along Stanford

Road to a point opposite the northernmost corner of No 5^ Stanford Road, ' thence northeastwards to said corner, thence southeastwards along the - rear boundary of said property and the rear boundaries of Nos 52 to 48

Stanford Road, the rear boundaries of Nos kk to 1 Hamilton Road and the northeastern boundaries of Nos 8 to 2 Old Shoreham Road and in prolongation thereof to Old Shoreham Road, thence eastwards along said road to the western boundary of the Railway, thence southeastwards along said boundary

to. New England Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the road

known as Howard Place, thence southeastwards along said road and Terminus

Road to the western extent of Trafalgar Street, thence southeastwards

along.said street and continuing in a straight line to and southeastwards

along the eastern extent of said street to Station Street, thence northwards

along said street to the road known as Cheapside, thence eastwards along

said road, to the road known as York Place, thence southwards along said

road to the unnamed road which leads southeastwards (northeast of the

Car Park) to the road known as Grand Parade, thence southeastwards along

said unnamed road to Grand Parade, thence southwestwards along said road,

Pavilion Parade and the eastern carriageway of the road system known as

Old Steine to the northeastern boundary of Regency Ward, thence north-

westwards along said ward boundary and the western boundary of the Borough

to the point of commencement.

WESTDENE WARD

Commencing at the point where the northern boundary of Seven Dials Ward meets the western boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwestwards and northwards along said Borough boundary to the northern boundary of the

Borough, thence generally eastwards, southwards and eastwards along said boundary to the Burgess Hill to Brighton Railway line, thence southeastwards and southwards along said railway to the road known as The Deneway, thence

generally southeastwards along said road to London Road, thence southwest-

wards and southeastwards along said road and Preston Road to the Lewes to

Brighton Railway line, thence generally southwards along said railway to New

England Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the northeastern

boundary of Seven Dials Ward, thence northwestwards and southwestwards

along said boundary and the northern boundary of said ward to the point

of commencement. PATCHAM WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Westdene Ward meets the northern boundary of the Borough, thence generally eastwards along said

Borough boundary to Ditchling Road, thence southwards along said road to the track which leads southwestwards to the road known as Ladies Mile, thence southwestwards along said track to said road, thence generally southwestwards along said road to Ladies1 Mile Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Sunnydale Avenue, thence southeastwards along said avenue to the northern carriageway of Garden Avenue, thence northeastwards along said avenue to a point "opposite the footpath situated between

No's 270, 2?2 and 274, 2?6 Garden Avenue, thence southeastwards to and along said path to Denton Drive, thence northeastwards along said drive to a point opposite the steps situated between No's 5 to 8 and 9 to 12 Rodmell Place, thence southeastwards to and along said steps and the footpath between No's 61 to 66 and 55 to 60 Birch Grove Crescent to the footpath and steps leading to Birch.Grove Crescent, thence southwestwards along said footpath and steps to and crossing Birch Grove

Crescent to the road known as Warnham Rise, thence southeastwards along said road to Crabtree Avenue, thence southwestwards and westwards along said avenue and Westfield Crescent to Beechwood Avenue, thence generally southwards along said avenue to Surrenden Road, thence westwards along said road to Braybon Avenue, thence northwestwards along said avenue to Peacock Lane, thence westwards along said lane to the eastern boundary of Westdene Ward, thence generally northwestwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement. PRESTON WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Westdene Ward meets

the southern boundary of Patcham Ward, thence eastwards along said southern

boundary and continuing eastwards along Surrenden Road to Ditchling Road,

thence southwards along said road to Stanford Avenue, thence southwestwards

along said avenue to the eastern boundary of Westdene Ward, thence north-

westwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement.

ST PETER'S WARD

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of Seven Dials Ward

meets the southeastern boundary of Westdene Ward, thence northeastwards and

generally northwards along said southeastern boundary and the eastern

boundary of said ward to the southeastern boundary of Preston Ward, thence

northeastwards along said boundary to Ditchling Road, thence southwards

along said road to Prince's Crescent, thence southeastwards and northeast-

wards along said crescent to Richmond Road, thence northeastwards along

said road to D'Aubigny Road, thence southwards along said road to Round Hill

Crescent, thence eastwards along said crescent to Upper Lewes Road, thence

northeastwards along said road to Lewes Road, thence southwestwards along

said road, Waterloo Place and Richmond Place to the northeastern boundary of Seven -Dials Ward-, thence generally northwestwards and northeastwards along said ward boundary, to the point of commencement.

HOLLINGBDRY WARD .

Commencing at the point where the northeastern boundary of St Peter's Ward

meets' the eastern boundary of Preston Ward, thence northwards along said

eastern boundary and continuing northeastwards along Ditchling Road to a

point being in prolongation northwestwards of the northern boundary of

Parcel No 5630, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 32-3308, Edition

of 1971i thence southeastwards along said prolongation and southeastwards, southwestwards and generally southeastwards along said boundary and in prolongation thereof to the road known as Highfields, thence southeastwards along said road to the footpath which leads southeastwards through

Moulsecoomb Wild Park, thence southeastwards along said path to the unnamed road which leads southeastwards to Lewes Road, thence southeastwards along said unnamed road to Lewes Road, thence southwestwards along said road to the northeastern boundary of St Peter's Ward, thence generally southwestwards and northwards along said ward boundary to the point of commencement.

STANMER WARD

Commencing at the point where the northwestern boundary of Hollingbury Ward meets the northern boundary of Preston Ward, thence westwards along said northern boundary to the eastern boundary of Patcham Ward, thence generally northeastwards along said eastern boundary to the northern boundary of the

Borough, thence generally eastwards along said Borough boundary and generally southeastwards along the northeastern boundary of the .Borough to the road known as Falraer Hill (A27)j thence south-westwards along said road and

Lewes Road to the northeastern boundary of Hollingbury Ward, thence generally northwestwards along said northeastern boundary and generally southwestwards along the northwestern boundary of said ward to the point of commencement.

MOULSECOOMB WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of Stanmer Ward meets the northeastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally southeastwards along said Borough boundary to the northern boundary of Parcel No ^532, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 350?, Edition of 1956, thence southwestwards along said northern boundary, the northern boundary of

Parcel No 1323 and the northern boundary of Parcel No 9621, as shown on

Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 3^0?, Edition of 1956, to the western boundary of said parcel, thence southeastwards along said boundary, the western boundary of Parcel No 9905, the eastern boundary of Parcel No

0101, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 3507, Edition of 1956, and the eastern boundary of Parcel No 0385 as shown on Ordnance Survey

1:2500 Plan TQ 3506, Edition of 195^* to the southern boundary of said parcel, thence southwestwards and westwards along said boundary and the southern boundary of Parcel No 558*f, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500

Plan TQ 3^06, Edition of 195*f, to the western boundary of Parcel No

9060, thence generally southwestwards along said boundary and the western boundary of Parcel No 7**4£ to the rear boundary of No kS Walmer Crescent, thence southeastwards along said rear boundary and southeastwards and southwestwards along the rear boundaries of No's ^6 to 6 Walmer Crescent to the eastern boundary of Bevendean Recreation Ground, thence southeastwards along said boundary to the southern boundary of said recreation ground, thence southwestwards along said boundary to the. eastern boundary of Parcel No 0002, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 3^-3505,

Edition of 1968, thence southeastwards along said boundary and in prolongation thereof to the unnamed road which leads southwestwards to Drove Road, thence southwestwards along said unnamed road to Drove Road, thence southwestwards along said road to Warren Road, thence westwards along said road to Bear Road, thence northwestwards along said road to the'unnamed road which leads northwestwards and northwards, east of the Riding School, thence northwestwards and northwards along said unnamed road and continuing north- . wards along the track to the rear boundary of No 8 Dartmouth Close, thence southwestwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundaries of Ncs 19 to *f1 Dartmouth Crescent and continuing southwestwards and northwestwards along the southern and western boundaries of the plot of land west of last- mentioned property to the southern boundary of Dartmouth Crescent, thence southwestwards along said boundary and northwestwards along the western boundary of said crescent and the western boundary of the westernmost properties between Dartmouth Crescent and Fitch Drive to the western end of Fitch Drive, thence northeastwards along said drive to a point being in prolongation southeastwards of the footpath, west of No 28 Fitch Drive, thence northwestwards along said prolongation and said footpath to the northeastern boundary of the Allotment Gardens, thence northwestwards along said boundary to the footpath between No 30 Manton Road and No 2

Lower Bevendean Avenue, thence northwestwards along said footpath to

Manton Hoad, thence southwestwards along said road to the unnamed road, east of No 152 The Avenue, thence northwestwards along said unnamed road, crossing the southern road known as The Avenue, to Upper Bevendean Avenue, thence northwestwards along said avenue via the western arm of the junction with the northern road known-as-The Avenue, thence northeastwards along said road to a point opposite the footpath situated- between No 123 The Avenue and No 1 Upper

Bevendean Avenue, thence northwestwards to and along said path to a point opposite the rear boundary of No 123 The Avenue, thence southwestwards to and southwestwards and northwestwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundaries of No's 121: to 57 The Avenue to the northwestern boundary of

No 57 The Avenue, thence southwestwards along said boundary to the rear boundary of No 55 The Avenue, thence northwestwards along said boundary and the rear boundaries of No's 53 to ^9 The Avenue to the northwestern corner of last mentioned property, thence northwestwards in a straight line to the northeastern corner of No'^5 The Avenue, thence northwestwards and southwestwards along the rear and northwestern boundaries of said property to a point opposite the rear boundary of No ^3 The Avenue, thence northwestwards to and along said boundary and the rear boundaries of Nos kl to 1 The Avenue to Colbourne Avenue, thence northeastwards along said avenue to a point opposite the southwestern boundary of No 1 Colbourne

Avenue, thence northwestwards to and along said boundary to the rear boundary of said property, thence northeastwards along said boundary and the rear boundaries of No's 3 to 7 Colbourne Avenue to the northwestern boundary of No's 62 and 61 The Highway, thence southwestwards along said 8

•boundary to-the rear boundary of No 63 The Highway, thence northwestwards

along said boundary and the rear boundaries of No's 6k to 68 The Highway

to the northern boundary of No's 68 The Highway, thence northwestwards along

said boundary and in prolongation thereof to the eastern boundary of

Hollingbury Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary to the

soouthern boundary of Stannter Ward, thence northeastwards along said

boundary to the point of commencement.

TENANTRY WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Hollingbury Ward meets

the southwestern boundary of Moulsecoorab Ward, thence generally southeast-

wards along said southwestern boundary to Warren Road, thence southwest-

wards along said.road and continuing southwestwards crossing the junction

with Tenantry Down Road and Freshfield Road to the road known as Elm Grove,

thence westwards along said road to Wellington Street, thence northeastwards

along said street to Franklin Road, thence northwestwards along said road

to the eastern boundary of St Peter's Ward, thence northeastwards along said

ward boundary and the eastern boundary of Hollingbury Ward to the point

of commencement.

HANOVER WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of St Peter's Ward meets

the southern boundary of Tenantry Ward, thence generally southeastwards and

eastwards along said southern boundary to Freshfield Road, thence south-

westwards along said road to Pankhurst Avenue, thence southwestwards along

said avenue to Queen's Park Road, thence southwestwards and southeastwards

along said road to the road known as Upper Park Place, thence southwestwards

along said road to the road known as Carlton Hill, thence northwestwards

along said road and Kingswood Street to the eastern boundary of. Seven Dials

Ward, thence northeastwards along said ward boundary and the eastern boundary

of St Peter's Ward to the point of commencement. QUEEN'S PARK WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Seven Dials Ward meets

the southern boundary of Hanover Ward, thence southeastwards and generally

northeastwards along said southern boundary to Freshfield Road, thence

southwestwards along said road to Eastern Road, thence northwestwards along

said road to Upper Bedford Street, thence southwestwards along said street

and crossing the junction with Upper St James's Street and Bristol Road in

a straight line to and continuing southwestwards along Bedford Street-to

the centre of Marine Parade, thence due southwards to Mean Low Water being

the southern boundary of the Borough, thence northwestwards along said

Borough boundary to the eastern boundary of Regency Ward, thence generally

northwards along said ward boundary and the eastern boundary of Seven Dials Ward-to the point of commencement.

KING'S CLIFF WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of the Borough meets

the eastern boundary of Queen's Park Ward, thence northeastwards along

said eastern boundary to the road known as Manor Hill, thence southeastwards

along said road to a point being in prolongation northeastwards of the

rear boundary of No 61 Manor Hill, thence southwestwards along said

prolongation and said boundary, the rear boundary of No 59 Manor Hill

and the rear boundaries of No's 131 to 29 Maresfield Road to the southern

boundary of No 29 Maresfield Road, thence southeastwards along said

boundary to the southernmost corner of said property, thence southeast-

wards in a straight line, crossing Donald Hall Road, to the northwestern

corner of No 27 Maresfield Road, thence southwestwards along the western

boundary of said property, the western boundary of the Playing Fields

and in prolongation thereof to the unnamed road which leads southeastwards

to Manor Road, thence southeastwards along said unnamed road to Manor Road, 10

thence southwestwards along said road to the road known as Church Place,

thence southwestwards along said road 'to Eastern Road, thence southeast-

wards along said road to Rock Street, thence southwestwards along said

street to the road known as Rock Grove, thence southwestwards along said

road to a point opposite the western soundary of No 1 Lewes Crescent, thence

southeastwards to and southeastwards and southwestwards along said western

boundary to the southwestern corner of said property, thence due southwards

to Mean Low Water being the southern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwestwards along said Borough boundary to the point of commencement.

MAKING WARD

Commencing at the point where the eastern boundary of Hanover Ward meets

the southern boundary of Tenantry Ward, thence northeastwards along said

southern boundary to the southern boundary of Moulsecoomb Ward, thence

eastwards along said boundary and continuing southeastwards along Warren

Road to the track which leads southeastwards dividing East Brighton Golf

Course from Wick Bottom, thence southeastwards along said track to the track

leading to Red Hill, thence northwestwards along said track and its southern

fork to the track and path which lead to the junction of Roedean Way and

Roedean Vale, thence southwards and northwestwards along said track and

path to the unnamed road which leads southwestwards from said junction to

Marine Drive, thence southwestwards along said unnamed road to the centre

of Marine Drive, thence due southwards to Mean Low Water being the southern

boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwestwards, southwards, northwestwards, northwards and northwestwards along said Borough boundary

to the eastern boundary of King's Cliff Ward, thence generally northwards

and northwestwards along said ward boundary to the eastern boundary of

Queen's Park Ward, thence northeastwards along said boundary and the

eastern boundary of Hanover Ward to the point of commencement. 11

WOODINGDEAN WARD

Commencing at the point where the southeastern boundary'of Moulsecoomb

Ward meets the northeastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally southwards and eastwards along said Borough boundary and generally southwards along the eastern boundary of the Borough to the southern boundary of Parcel No 0003, as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan

TQ 36-3704, Edition of 1960, thence westwards along said boundary to the western boundary of said parcel, thence northwards and westwards along said boundary and in prolongation thereof to the unnamed road running northwards from the properties in Parcel No 8360, thence northwards, northwestwards and generally southwestwards along said unnamed road to a point opposite the southern boundary of Parcel No 4600, thence westwards to and northwestwards 'and westwards along said boundary to the southern boundary of. Parcel No 3583, thence generally southwestwards along said boundary and in prolongation thereof to the eastern boundary of

Parcel No 0556, thence northwards along said boundary to the northern boundary of said parcel, thence southwestwards along said boundary and the northern boundary of Parcel No 4600 to the track which leads southwestwards to Falmer Road, thence southwestwards along said track, crossing Falmer

Road in a straight line to Ovingdean Road, thence southwestwards along said road to a point opposite the eastern boundary.of the property known as Newlands, thence northwards to and along said boundary to the rear boundary of said property, thence westwards and southwards along said boundary and the western boundary of said property to the rear boundary of the property known as Woodingcote, thence generally westwards along said rear boundary and the rear boundary of Woodingdean Farm to the rear boundary of No 4 Ovingdean Close, thence generally northeastwards along said boundary and the rear boundary of No 16 Ovingdean Close to the northeastern boundary of ' No 1o Ovingdean Close, thence northwestwards along said boundary and the northeastern boundary of Ovingdean Close and continuing northwestwards 12

along the northeastern boundary of No 23 Ovingdean Close to the rear boundary of said property, thence southwestwards along said boundary, the rear boundaries of No's 21 to 3 Ovingdean Close and the western boundary of the property known as Hillside to the access road leading from the Electricity

Sub-Station to Ovingdean Road, thence southwestwards along said access road to

Ovingdean Road, thence southwestwards along said road to a point opposite the northeastern boundary of the property known as North Cottage, thence northwestwards to and along said boundary to the rear boundary of said property, thence southwestwards along said boundary and the rear boundary of the property known as South Cottage to the northern boundary of the property known as Grange Meadows, thence southwestwards and northwestwards

along said boundary and the northeastern boundary of Ovingdean' Hall Farm

to the northern boundary of said farm, thence southwestwards, northwestwards

and southwestwards along said boundary to the southwestern boundary of said

farm, thence southeastwards along said boundary to the rear boundary of the

Hall, thence southwestwards along said boundary, the northwestern boundary

of No 1 Greenways Corner and the southeastern boundary of Parcel No 46?9

as shown on Ordnance Survey 1:2500 Plan TQ 3503, Edition of 1953 to the

track which leads northwestwards to the eastern boundary of Marine Ward,

thence northwestwards along said track to the eastern boundary of Marine

Ward, thence northwestwards along said ward boundary to the southeastern boundary of Moulsecoomb Ward, thence generally northeastwards along said boundary to the point of commencement.

ROTTINGDEAN WARD

Commencing at the point where the southern boundary of the Borough meets

the eastern boundary of Marine Ward, thence generally northeastwards and

eastwards along said eastern boundary to the southern boundary of Woodingdean

Ward, thence southeastwards and generally northeastwards along said southern

boundary to the eastern boundary of the Borough, thence generally southwestwards, generally eastwards, southeastwards and southwestwards along said Borough boundary to the southern boundary of the Borough, thence generally northwestwards along said boundary.to the point of commencement.