PEOPLE AND PLACES BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR REPORT NO 550

Her Majesty's Stationery Office PEOPLE AND PLACES LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO 550

Local Government Commission for England x LIBRARY COPY , PLEASE RETURN

LONDON HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE 1988 O Crown Copyright 1988 First published 1988 ISBN Oil 752130 2 To:

The Rt. Hon. Nicholas Ridley MP Secretary of State for the Environment

The Rt Hon. Hurd MP Secretary of State for the Home Department

People and Places — A Report by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Foreword

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was established by the Local Government Act 1972. Since then it has reported on many electoral and administrative boundaries but its last general report was produced in 1983.(11This report gives an account of the Commission's activities since 1983, outlines its current programme and discusses some of the problems the Commission faces in its work. It is addressed to the Secretaries of State, to whom the Commission reports under the Act, but it is hoped that it will be both useful to local authorities and of interest to a wider public.

111 Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBC) Report No. 443. Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Chairman MrGJEHertonCMGMBE

Deputy Chairman Mr JG Powell CBE

Members

Professor G E Cherry MrKFJEnnalsCB Mr GR Prentice MrsHRVSarkany MrBScholesOBE Contents

Page Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 2 Why change local government boundaries?

The Commission's Approach to its work

3 Making proposals for change 4 Consultation 5 Local knowledge 6 Local meetings 6 Legal challenge 7 Guidelines issued by the Secretary of State 8 Planning and development 9 Green Belts 10 Campaignsfor return to pre-1974 boundaries 11 The views of local people 12 Divided communities 13 Reluctance to advocate change 13 Cost-benefit of boundary changes

The Commission's Work since 1983

Boundary Reviews

14 Parish reviews 15 Rural parishes 16 Urban parishes 17 boundaries 20 Non -metropolitan

in Page 22 London and the of London 23 Metropolitan 23 23 Seaward boundaries 24 National boundaries

24 Electoral Reviews

25 Criteria for electoral reviews 25 Countyelectoral reviews 26 Further electoral reviews of districts 26 Review of ILEA's electoral arrangements 27 Council size-The Widdicombe Report

28 New Legislation

28 Conclusion

Appendices

30 A Criteria which the Local Government Boundary Commission For England will take into account in carrying out reviews of principal areas 32 B Approach to the reviews of Non-Metropolitan Counties 33 C Guidelines for the reviews of London and the Metropolitan districts 35 D Revised check list of points to be covered in parish reviews 38 E List of reports to the Secretary of State on principal area boundary changes since January 1983 40 F Check list of points to be covered in boundary reviews (other than parish reviews)

IV Introduction

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England

1. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England was set up by the Local Government Act 1972 to review the boundaries of , the , the counties and districts and their electoral arrangements, and to make proposals for changes to them in the interests of "effective and convenient local government."The Commission also makes proposals in respect of reviews of parishes carried out by district councils. The Commission is not concerned with parliamentary constituencies which are the exclusive responsibility of the Parliamentary Boundary Commission.

2. The Commission has a duty, under the 1972 Act, to review at periodic intervals all counties in England, all metropolitan districts and all London boroughs.111 It has a separate duty to review, also at intervals, the electoral arrangements for all counties, districts and London boroughs.121

3. The Commission is also empowered to undertake ad hoc boundary reviews of districts and electoral reviews and it must consider requests for them from local authorities,131 as well as recommendations from district councils arising out of their own parish reviews.14'

4. In considering suggestions put to it, as well as in producing or modifying its own draft proposals, the Commission takes account of guidelines issued by the Secretary of State." These are discussed later in this report. Having decided on its final proposals, the Commission reports to the Secretary of State, who may accept, modify or reject its proposals, when he takes the final decision.

5. It is also the Commission's responsibility, and one it sees as very much part of its role, to ensure as wide a consultation as possible at each stage, with all those affected by, or interested in, a review.

01 Section 48(1 )The Local Government Act 1972. 121 Section 50(2) The Local Government Act 1972. 131 Section 48(3X4) The Local Government Act 1972. (4) Section 48(8)The Local Government Act 1972. 'Throughout this report 'Secretary of State' should be taken to mean either the Secretary of State for the Environment or Secretary of State for the Home Department as appropriate to the context. Why Change Local Government Boundaries?

6. Changes in the size and distribution of population will inevitably mean that the areas of some local authorities will from time to time cease to be apt for effective and convenient local government. For example, new development may often straddle an existing boundary; but a boundary which cuts through property is unlikely to be convenient to the property owner who may have to deal with two separate authorities, for example, for rating and planning purposes. It can also make it harder, or more expensive, to deliver local government services effectively, for example, by requiring vehicles from two authorities to collect rubbish from adjoining houses in the same street.

7. Similarly, unless electoral areas - district wards and divisions- are kept under periodic review, changes in the distribution of population will mean that the general equality of representation which Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act calls for, will cease to apply, and votes in one area will weigh more heavily than those elsewhere in the same district or county.

8. But if local boundaries must be changedfrom time to time, there are good reasons for changing them as seldom as possible. Most people value continuity in their lives and often feel fierce loyalty to their , parish, , city or county. Any boundary change, therefore, is quite likely to be strenuously opposed by local people who are normally content with things as they are; they will resent the instability which frequent change can mean to their communities.

9. Another good reason for avoiding frequent change is that even a minor boundary variation will require much detailed work on the part of not less than two local authorities - and a substantial change, for example, to a county boundary, can involve six (or more) authorities: two counties, two {or more) districts and two (or more) parishes. Detailed work will be required not only by those authorities, but by the Commission and the Department of the Environment (and by the when electoral areas are affected), as well as by Ordnance Survey. In short, we are well aware that boundary changes cost money.

10. Opposition to boundary changes has changed little since Mr Balfour, introducing the London Government Bill nearly ninety years ago, said:

'I am well aware that there is probably no more ticklish question to be dealt with in this Bill than this question of areas. It invariably arouses jealousies, feelings, local passions and local rivalries in a way which has proved very embarrassing to every government which has endeavoured to deal with the complexity of our existing local areas and which has, I am afraid, stood in the way of many important and useful reforms.' (Hansard, 23 Feb. 1899, Col. 356).

11. The Commission is not in the business of re-drawing wholesale the local government map of England. Rather, it views its task as that of an estate manager, seeking to keep the fabric of the map in good repair and to prevent, if possible, that tendency towards rigidity in the pattern which was a characteristic of local government in the 85 years before reorganisation in 1972.

THE COMMISSION'S APPROACH TO ITS WORK

Making proposalsfor change

12. Our task is to make proposals for changes appearing to us desirable in the interests of 'effective and convenient local government.' We meet on a regular basis. At each meeting we have before us for each item all the proposals and counter-proposals put to us by local authorities, supported by all the written representations from members of the public. In addition, we have advice from Ordnance Survey on the technical suitability of proposed boundaries. When we are considering whether to carry out a review, and when we are formulating our proposals, we have regard to the guidelines set out in Department of the Environment (DOE) Circular 33/78, extracts of which are reproduced at Appendix A. These guidelines ask us to have in mind three broad considerations:

— whether the boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants; — whether it reflects the pattern of community life; and — whether it is conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services.

13. We comment further on our guidelines in paragraphs 28-33 and 42-45 below. It is important that those who wish to suggest changes should put forward a detailed and reasoned case which we can relate to them -and this applies to all types of boundary review. The submissions we receive, whether for or against change, do not always set out the facts and arguments which have led to the conclusion that it will or will not be in the interests of effective and convenient local government, which is our concern. Submissions often do not follow through the practical effects of a proposal: in what ways will it better reflect the pattern of community life? How will it result in services being delivered more effectively? The omission of such evidence sometimes requires us to go back for more details and thus take longer than we would like to consider the need for change.

14. It is also important that advocates of change should consult interested parties, particularly other affected local authorities, and that their views be made known to us. Sometimes we find that local authorities have not sent copies of their recommendations to their neighbouring authorities and this, too, can cause unnecessary delay.

Consultation

15. In order to ensure that members of the public, as well as local authorities and other bodies concerned, have a proper opportunity to put forward their views, section 60 of the 1972 Act requires us to publish draft proposals, and to consider the response to them, before we go on to put our final proposals to the Secretary of State. The basic stages of a review initiated by the Commission comprise therefore:

— an announcement of the review's commencement, in which suggestions for change are invited — the publication of the Commission's draft proposals, when comments on them are similarly invited — consideration of the above comments by the Commission (which may lead to the publication of further draft proposals, or of modified draft proposals), and lastly — the publication of final proposals, after which any further comments must be put to the Secretary of State.

The procedure is similar for parish reviews except that the initial consideration is carried out by the District Council which puts its recom- mendations to the Commission, which, after considering them, either publishes draft modifications or submits them unaltered as its own proposals to the Secretary of State.

16. We try to ensure that everyone interested in a review is aware of it at each stage, as the 1972 Act requires, but we also need to have in mind the additional workand cost involved in widespread advertising. In the case of county reviews we consider that the most effective way of meeting the Act's consultation requirements is to advertise the start of a review throughout the county concerned, and in adjoining areas, but then to limit the publicity about our draft and final proposals to the affected areas, plus any other area where an interest in change has been expressed. Only where we have made wide-ranging proposals, or ones which affect the whole authority, do we think it necessary to publicise the later stages equally widely.

17. We also believe it important, as a matter of principle, that all parties affected by a review should be made aware of the principal arguments put to us and of our main reasons for reaching a particular conclusion. Consequently, if we consider it necessary, we may send material which has been put to us, from any source, to another body or person, for their information and so that they can comment on it. Similarly, when we come to publish our draft proposals, we may put on deposit with them any representations we received which appear to us particularly relevant.

18. We are aware that people can be unnecessarily worried about some of the effects of a boundary change. They may believe, for example, that a transfer to another county will automatically mean their children will have to change schools, or that, if they transfer to a different , it will mean they belong to another ecclesiastical parish. To help overcome these fears, and to inform people generally about the Commission's work, we have published the first of a series of leaflets, in this case dealing with our review of London.

Local knowledge

19. It is sometimes asked how we can make a proposal without personal knowledge of the area concerned. We include in our membership a wide background of varied expertise, including long-standing experience of local government. When the arguments for or against change are inconclusive and a first-hand view of the area would be helpful in assessing them, one or more of us makes a private visit to that area.

20. It has been said that, if we visit an area, those interested in the review should be able to accompany us. For practical reasons this is not really possible. We could not agree to our being accompanied by representatives of only one side who would naturally wish to take the opportunity to reinforce their own views. This would be patently unfair to the other side. However, if everyone concerned were to accompany us, sheer numbers would cause serious problems and detract from the purpose of our visit, which is essentially to form our own objective view of the area in the light of everything which has been put to us. Local meetings

21. We arrange a local meeting strictly to enable us to gather information which we need to help us reach our conclusions and which we cannot obtain in any other convenient way. This purpose is often misunderstood. We need to stress that a local meeting is not intended as a forum in which to argue matters through to a conclusion, stilt less is it an opportunity for cross-examination by opposing parties. It is rather a means of hearing new points, or more detail about points which have already been made in the material put to us. We do not, therefore, arrange a meeting simply because there is great public interest and people (however understandably) would like to put across orally the same points they have already put to us in writing.

22. Local meetings are held under our powers to consult authorities, bodies and persons contained in section 60(2) of the Act. They are not "local inquiries" as envisaged under sections 61 and 250, which provide for witnesses to be summoned and costs to be attributed. We use our consultative powers in order to keep the arrangements as convenient and simple as possible. A local hall is hired, public notice is given, and usually at least two sessions are held: one during the day and one in the evening. People attending are simply asked to record their attendance, all those who wish to speak are given an opportunity to do so and there is no need for professional representation. Often an Assistant Commissioner is appointed specifically to hold the meeting. He reports to us afterwards and his report is normally attached to our final proposals. Sometimes, however, one or more of our own Members holds the meeting. In that case those Members report to the Commission as a whole. The procedure, however, is very similar whoever holds the meeting, with the emphasis on informality.

Legal challenge

23. The Commission has had the occasion to re-examine its procedures recently in responding to a Judicial Review sought by Hart District Council of our final proposals for the Rushmoor/Hart district boundary contained in our Report No. 515.

24. Hart District Council sought declarations from the Court inter alia that we had been in breach of the rules of natural justice, and of the consultation procedure under section 60 of the Act, in failing to give them the opportunit to comment either on the response of RushmoorDistrict Counciltoour draft proposals, or on a length of 'temporary' boundary we had finally proposed* pending the fixing of the line of a new road. They sought a declaration that our final report was'illegal and in breach of the rules of natural justice in that it failed to give adequate and proper reasons which dealt with substantial points' they had raised. They also claimed that our decision not to hold a local inquiry (sic) was irrational and sought an order of mandamus ordering us to hold one. Finally, they contended the Commission had misdirected itself in its reading of DOE Circular 33/78 where it refers to the'wishes of the local inhabitants'and to'expected development.'

25. Thischallenge seemed to us to go to the heart of our procedures and our general approach as an advisory body making proposals to the Secretary of State. It was clear that if it succeeded we should have to re- order our method of working, with serious consequences for the time taken by cases and for the cost of our operation.

26. The case was heard by Mr Justice Simon Brown in the High Court on 9 December 1987. In his Judgment he found no merit in any of the grounds. He said he had not the least doubt that all representations had been fully considered and weighed. He added that the Court should be particularly reluctant to be drawn into this field, drawing attention to the ability of those discontented with the Commission's proposals to make representations to the Secretary of State during the six weeks' minimum period before he takes the final decision. In dealing with the individual grounds on which relief had been sought, Mr Justice Brown found that the Commission had consulted as required by section 60(2). He described the Commission's final report as proper, adequate and intelligible, and said that it dealt with the substantial points and principal arguments advanced. He also rejected the contention that the Commission had acted irrationally in rejecting the request for a local inquiry and considered that Hart District Council's criticism of our interpretation of Circular 33/78 was barren and placed excessive weight on its precise terms.

27. We are encouraged by this endorsement of our approach. We shall, however, continue to keep our procedures under review, with the aim of providing a service to local authorities and the public alike which is as fair as possible, yet is reasonably expeditious and economical.

Guidelines issued by the Secretary of State

28. Section 52{1) of the 1972 Act enables the Secretary of State to give the Commission directions for guidance in conducting reviews. Our present guidelines are incorporated in DOE circulars and extracts from the two most recent are at Appendices B {the review of the non-metropolitan counties) and C (London and the metropolitan districts). 29. TheguidelinesgivetheSecretaryofState'sviewon howaparticular class of review should be approached. Currently, they suggest that more radical changes, such as the abolition or creation of a principal area, will be apropriate 'only in very exceptional circumstances, where present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government.' The guidelines for London and the metroplitan districts (Appendix C)go on to suggest that, where major changes are called for, in the interests of stability, we should consider merging existing local authority areas rather than any more widespread redrawing of the boundaries.

30. Not surprisingly, the guidelines are couched in broad terms only. They leave the Commission ample scope for the exercise of its own judgement in formulating proposals. The burden of the guidelines is to discourage radical change, save in the exceptional circumstances explained in paragraph 29 above. Nevertheless, the Commission has a duty, under the legislation, to consider carefully all the information and views available to them, including proposalsfor radical change, to see whether such change may be desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

31. Both sets of guidelines require us to ensure that authorities have an adequate population base for the discharge of their functions but offer no guidance on appropriate ranges of population. We do not find this altogether surprising, since differences between urban and rural areas, industrial and residential areas, the variety of local needs, not to mention differences in resources and powers, make the search for quantitative criteria a daunting undertaking.

32. The Commission are faced from time to time with the argument that a particular authority will cease to be financially viable if its resources are significantly reduced through boundary change. We are aware that under the present arrangements for local government finance there are redistri- butive mechanisms to deal with a loss of rateable value, and these have a consfderable bearing on financial viability. Moreover, local government has a fine record of coping somehow with whatever resources are available. Our conclusion so far has been that it is impossible to reduce the question of financial viability to a set of measurable propositions. In the end we have to make a judgement based on the evidence put to us and, in any particular case, rely on our own collective experience.

Planning and development

33. The guidelines ask us to take account of existing and expected

8 development. Generally, we interpret expected development as being development for which planning permission has been given. We recognise that approved and adopted local authority plans can, in certain instances, serve as a useful guide. On the other hand, we would not accept proposed boundary changes which are submitted only as a means of stimulating or frustrating development, or with the objective of transferring potentially developable land to a more expansion-minded authority.

34. Occasionally, it may be desirable to defer making proposals so as to avoid seeming to take sides in a contentious planning issue. More often the issue of expected development does not arise, or is of limited importance, and our decisions can properly be based on the whole range of factors we are required to consider. At present we are taking careful note of the changes to development planning which are being implemented in metropolitan areas, and proposed for non-metropolitan areas, as well as Government guidance on regional and strategic planning matters, so as to be better informed about trends, particularly in London and the metropolitan areas.

35. In the area of development control two matters are worthy of mention. First, it is often suggested to us that changes should (or, more often, should not) be made to boundaries because of the different planning policies of individual local authorities, We do not believe we should be influenced, in deciding where boundaries should lie, by perceived differences in the way authorities might exercise development control. To do so might well be seen as intervening ourselves in the planning process. We are also well aware that planning policies can change. Secondly, in some areas we have been considering, there have been particular unresolved planning applications, decisions on which could materially affect the definition of boundaries. In such cases we are prepared to defer a decision until the outcome of the application is known. We can then speedily report to the Secretary of State without the particular review having to be started again from the beginning.

Green Belts

36. Many built-up areas are surrounded by open land designated as green belt; a designation which is accorded through development plans. Green belts are expected to be protected for the foreseeable future and there is a presumption against inappropriate development within them. Fears are often expressed to us that an urban authority will more readily seek to extend its built-up area than a rural authority. However, once a green belt has been defined, it should make no difference in which authority parts of it are located.

Campaigns for return to pre-1974 county boundaries.

37. There have been a number of campaigns for a return to the pre-1974 county boundaries, particularly in parts of the new counties of Avon. Cleveland, and Worcester and Humberside, and it has been noticeable that traditional county loyalties are more fiercely held than those to many districts. These campaigns have been strongly supported by many local people. We have to be careful to bear in mind, even so, that those who write to us, or whose names appear on petitions, are usuatty only a small proportion of those concerned and we can make no assumptions about the views of the silent majority either way.

38. In considering the representations in favour of a return to pre-1974 boundaries, we have been mindful of the need to take into account the guidelines which suggest that'... abolition or creation of a principal area will be appropriate in very exceptional circumstances where present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government'(paragraph 11 of DOE Circular No. 12/84 at Appendix B). This clearly is, and is no doubt intended to be, a very stringent test.

39. We have noted, with some concern, the extent and intensity of local feeling in some parts of the new counties created in 1974, even allowing for the fact that new counties cannot be expected to have inspired the same loyalties in 14 years as counties whose history stretches back over centuries. However, in all these cases we have concluded that such feeling is not, in isolation, evidence that the present local government arrangements have failed. Moreover, where alternative arrangements were put to us they did not seem to us to offer any better prospect of more effective and convenient local government. On the contrary, we have had to recognise that radical change in itself would cause great disruption and in some instances have consequences going well beyond the area concerned.

40. We acknowledge the strength of localfeeling inthesecases. However, bearing in mind the guidelines given to us, it must be for those who seek to go back to 1974 to demonstrate how present arrangements have failed and how alternatives would be more in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

10 The views of local people

41. The Commission invariably pays careful regard to whether or not a boundary accords with the wishes of local people; what is more difficult is deciding precisely what weight to attach to such wishes.

42. Generally, there is an inbuilt resistance to change and we are faced with the fact that, more often than not, any boundary alteration will be opposed by the majority of people who are going to write to us. Even the campaignsfor return to the pre-1974 boundaries, although themselves now advocating radical change, are essentially a continuation of resistance to those changes brought about by the 1972 Act. We appreciate and understand the strong attachment people feel to their village, town and county. We recognise that such a sense of belonging plays an important part in local democracy: if people are attached to an area they are more likely to be interested in the running of its affairs. However, such feelings of attachment may not necessarily reflect any longer the pattern of people's everyday livesand their use of services and, in assessing the merits of a case, we must balance both sets of factors. Increasingly, people travel: to work, to shop and to use leisure facilities in adjacent areas. We must consider whether or not their use of such services is reflecting or even creating, sufficient new links to justify a change in the boundary which will allow them to have a say in the planning and operation of those services and, if necessary, to contribute towards their cost.

43. The views of local people are, therefore, important to us. However, such views are often made known in the form of a petition, or as numbers and/or percentages of those voting in a local poll. Such evidence is useful, but the motions put to the vote or the questions posed on petitions are often leading ones and thus render the results of doubtful value. We are more persuaded of a case if there is evidence that an attempt has been made to give residents accurate and objective information on which to base their views and if all the feasible options have been put before them. Representations which give practical reasons for wanting a change, or for preserving the status quo, are the most helpful ones. Individual letters from local people often pointing out difficulties in the current arrangements, or problems which would follow from a change in boundary, are particularly useful to us. For example, people may point to a confusing overlap of police and fire services; to doubt as to which authority is responsible for maintaining the road or to which library they should use; to children having to go to a different authority's school; or to refuse vehicles from two authorities serving the same street.

11 44. The views of local people are seldom uniform; in each review we undertake we are likely to encounter conflicting opinions on the nature, direction and strength of local ties. Areas which have recently experienced substantial shifts in the make-up of their population -for example, close to big which have attracted many commuters-may present particularly acute problems. Long-established residents often take sharply different views from newcomers but we suspect we are more likely to hear from the latter than theformer. We may face similar problems in the future when we come to consider inner city areas which have been gentrif ied. We can only hope that in such cases we shall benefit from a wide range of local opinion even if we have to accept that some sections of the community are more vocal than others. We can however, make no assumptions about the views of those who remain silent; we need a wide range of reasoned representations, therefore, if we are to gauge local opinion effectively.

Divided communities

45. A problem highlighted by th'e mandatory review of non-metropolitan counties has been that of divided communities. Particular examples are Chorleywood, where the straddles the boundary between Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire, Colnbrook which isdivided between three counties - Berkshire, Buckinghamshire and Surrey- and, on a smaller scale. Mow Cop, which straddles the boundary between Cheshire and Staffordshire, and Gilslandwhich is split between Cumbria and Northumberland.

46. The problem of divided communities can be serious to those who live there. They may be pulled in two or more directions and so lack social cohesion; their division may necessitate agency arrangements between authorities at one or more levels; or there may be needless duplication of services. None of these is good for accountability and effective and convenient local government. Yet often, while many local people accept that they would be better served by being wholly within one local authority area, because of the pull of loyalties, especially county loyalties, they are unable to agree which area would suit them best and thus opt to retain the status quo.

47. It is sometimes argued that it is one of the strengths of local government that it is able to respond flexibly and imaginatively to any situation. We accept that local government can cope even in the most adverse circumstances. But that is not in our view an argument against

12 providing a more rational framework of boundaries. It is, therefore, for the local authorities concerned to convince us, if they can, that, even looking at the longer term, they are really best left as they are and would not benefit from boundary changes.

Reluctance to advocate change

48. We have already made it clear in this report that we believe we should have good reason to be satisfied that an improvement in effective and convenient local government will result before we propose any change in a county, or, indeed, in any boundary. The present review of county boundaries places an obligation on the Commission, however, to consider each boundary to see if any change is in fact called for. In carrying out our task we believe we should be able to look to the county councils themselves, with the other local authorities concerned, to study their boundaries, in the light of their close local knowledge, to alert us to any apparent anomalies which require attention, and to let us have their reasoned views as to whether they do or do not warrant a change. Sometimes we have gained the impression that counties -with the under- standable aim of preserving continuity and avoiding extra administrative costs - may have agreed beforehand on principle that no change should be proposed even though the necessity for joint working arrangements suggests that some detailed consideration is required. In such instances we have found it necessary as a first step to seek information from the authorities about the pattern of community life and the operation of services so that we could decide whether to take our investigation further. One example has been Newmarket in Suffolk which, in geographical terms, is almost entirely surrounded by Cambridgeshire but on which neither county offered comments in its initial submission. We have since sought, and received, a great deal of relevant information from the county and district authorities involved.

Cost-benefit of change

49. We are not specifically required by the Act to take account of the cost of possible boundary changes. It seems to us, however, that before final decisions are taken it would be useful to have a clearer idea of all the costs and benefits which would follow in both the public and private sectors. We recognise that these are likely to vary widely between different categories of review, and even between different reviews in the same category. It would be necessary to cover both the transitional costs of making the

13 change and the costs which arise from the changed pattern of services after it has taken place. It would also be important not to discount the subjective costs -such as the residents' loyalty to their present county - simply because they could not be measured. On the other hand there would sometimes be costs in not making a change, when operational savings would clearly be foregone.

50. We recognise that this is a difficult field for research. We propose, however, to commission at least a feasibility study to see if a methodology can be worked out by which such costs and benefits can be more systematically evaluated. If it does prove possible it will then be for the Secretary of State to consider whether cost-effectiveness should figure in the legislation and guidelines covering our work.

THE COMMISSION'S WORK SINCE 1983

Boundary Reviews

Parish reviews

51. District Councils have a duty to keep the whole of their district under review for the purpose of considering whether or not to make recommendations to the Commission regarding the creation of parishes, the alteration of existing parish boundaries, or, in exceptional circumstances, the abolition of a parish.

52. Since 1974, of some 330 districts in England, about two-thirds have completed, or currently have in hand, a formal parish review. Most of the remaining one-third are predominantly urban districts with no recent history of parish councils.

53. Public interest in parish reviews is usually high and often gives rise to much correspondence. While some districts have produced helpful review reports, others are less satisfactory; in particular, we often find that the reason for minor changes to parish boundaries is not given or is unclear. Sometimes we think we can deduce the reason but often we have to check back to the District Council; this delays cases which may already be several years old. We think it may be useful, therefore, to reproduce at Appendix D a revised checklist of points we would like district councils to cover. Some district councils are reluctant to make proposals which would require an alteration to district wards. However, if a proposal is a good one

14 and a district council would otherwise support it, then it should not be rejected solely because it would necessitate a change in ward boundaries. Recommendations should then be made for new electoral arrangements - see section 7 of the checklist. We have also been disturbed to find that some districts appear to have confined their role to seeking the views of parish councils and only putting forward recommendations which are acceptable to all those involved. In other cases, they may have omitted to seek the views of people in unparished areas. This seems to us to fail to measure up to the objective view required by section 48(8) and leaves us with the task of considering necessary changes ab initio, without the benefit of the close local knowledge only the district council can possess.

Rural parishes

54. Most of ourworkon parish reviews is concerned with rural areas, where we deal with a great variety of recommendations from district councils. Some of them are for the transfer of parts of parishes now on the edge of to the unparished areas of those towns. Others are for small transfers between rural parishes, many of them involving no more than one or two houses, where one parish council considers, and the district agrees, that the residents have closer connections with a neighbouring parish than their own. In some cases a village may be divided between two parishes.

55. While we have some doubts about the value of the smallest changes in relation to the costs involved, we have to consider all of them carefully before making our own proposals. We do so against the background of the district council's own views, those of the parish councils concerned and, not least, the residents themselves. In a few cases we hear very little from the residents but in others, perhaps where the district council has taken care to stimulate real local debate, many local people express their views, both to the district council and direct to us. Often their letters reveal strong loyalties to particular parishes, which we try, as far as possible, to reflect in our own proposals. Occasionally, however, it is difficult to do so: in more than one case residents of a divided village have agreed upon the need to unite the village in one parish but have conspicuously not been able to agree as to which. An example is Charter Alley in Hampshire,(1ta community of some 200 people divided down the middle between the parishes of Monk Sherborne and Wootton St Lawrence in the of Basingstoke and Deane. In both parts of the village there was a clear majority in favour of uniting it, but equally clearly disagreement about how

11> LGBC Report No. 513 (Basingstoke and Deane)

15 to do so. We explored various options, including combining the two parishes, but none of them was acceptable to a majority of the people in both parts. In the end, after successive attempts at finding a solution, spread over a period of years, we had to report to the Secretary of State that the least unacceptable option was to retain the status quo. But we did so with considerable reluctance, knowing that we would be leaving the village divided in a way which could not really be conducive to effective and convenient local government

56. It is clear to us that many people do value having a parish council and resent the prospect of losing it as a consequence of being transferred into an . We notice in this connection that district councils can take widely differing views about the creation of new parishes in small towns even where there is evidence of strong public support. In a few instances such as Waver/7/7/in Suffolk and ExmouthP} in Devon we have ourselves felt the need to respond to local demand and propose the creation of new parishes to the Secretary of State.

Urban parishes

57. A feature of some more recent reviews has been an interest in the creation of urban parishes. The Commission takes the view that if there is a substantial measure of agreement that a local community exists, the creation of a parish should be seriously considered: the guidelines in DOE Circular 121 /77 recognise that there may be a case for the creation of parishes in some areas of continuous urban development.

58. The City of parish review<2>turned on this very issue. It was conducted by ourselves and we initially proposed the creation of 13 parishes and invited suggestions for others. After an extension of the consultation period to give the more time to test public opinion, they proposed the creation of 84 parishes, largely based on district wards covering the whole City. We noted, however, that in their consultation publicity the City Council had presented parish councils in the context of their own concurrent proposals for decentralising the City's administration through area management and offices, rather than as free standing elected authorities in their own right.

59. The case raised some interesting issues. In our Report No. 443 we had said that, in the context of a parish review, we would not normally wish to

'"LGBC Report No.541 (East Devon) 121 LGBC Report No. 534 (Birmingham}

16 disagree with the judgement of a district council about what was apt for effective and convenient local government in its area. We eventually concluded, however, that the case for parishes in Birmingham was fundamentally weak because of the lack of evidence of strong local support. We therefore came to the view, with some reluctance, and in the knowledge that the City Council remained enthusiastic about parishes, that we could not make any proposals for parishes in the City. In our view the justification for urban parishes must depend upon both an identifiable sense of local community and a sufficient measure of local support.

60. In the case of the Parish Review of the of 0/d/?am,(1|although the Borough Council did not support representations for the creation of a parish in the urban area of Shaw and Crompton, we took the view that the sense of local community and the measure of support present were such that the parishing of the area was justifiable. We proposed accordingly to the Secretary of State, who accepted our proposal.

District boundaries

61. Since our last report we have continued to receive a steady flow of submissions from district councils to amend their boundaries and the Commission has completed 59 reviews. (A list of reports to the Secretary of State since 1983 is at Appendix (E)). At the beginning of 1988 we had eleven cases in hand.

62. Most requests are still for relatively minor changes: others, however, reflect long standing anomalies, some of them pre-dating local government reorganisation. Increasingly, cases are now put to us as a consequence of new urban development straddling boundaries.

63. We summarise below some of the major cases we have dealt with since 1983: (i) The Borough of Chesterfield and the District of North East Derbyshire(LGBC Report No. 517) The Borough of Chesterfield sought a number of changes to the boundary between the Borough and the District of North East Derbyshire to reflect the fact that both residential and industrial development had, in several places, spilled over from one to the other. A feature of the case was that certain changes had been agreed

(1) LGBC Report No. 493 (Oldham)

17 between the two authorities which would still have left the boundary in some places running through continuously built-up areas. This seemed to us illogical. We eventually decided in this instance to propose more radical change so as to unite the built-up areas concerned within what we believed to be the more appropriate district. We do not lightly set aside recommendations which the affected principal authorities have jointly advocated, but there are bound to be occasions when, in the light of all the representations we receive, we will independently form a different view as to what appears likely to serve best the interests of effective and convenient local government. The Secretary of State subsequently made an Order implementing our proposals in full.

(i i} The City of Exeter and the Districts of East Devon and Teignbridge (LGBC Report No. 521) The City of Exeter sought a number of changes tothe long-standing boundary between the City and the Districts of East Devon and Teignbridge, to reflect the fact that at different points both residential and industrial development had straddled it. The City also sought changes to produce a more clearly defined boundary. In this case all the other local authorities concerned strongly opposed any change. Although we had some sympathy with the opposition to the changes, we took the view that the City Council, as an urban authority, was seeking to bring the administration of a single, urban area within one district, and that the areas it sought would look more naturally to the City for services and amenities than tothe other, more rural districts. We decided, therefore, that the arguments against change were not sufficient to override the City's case. Consequently, with the exception of an area of marshland which was unlikely to be developed in the foreseeable future, we based our final proposals on the City's recommendation. The Secretary of State did not implement these proposals in full. This was because after ourfinal report, the City and the District of Teignbridge reached a compromise over a rural area more in the District's favour and the Secretary of State decided that the compromise boundary was no less apt to secure effective and convenient local government than the Commission's proposed boundary. All our other final proposals were implemented.

(i i i) The City of Gloucester, the Boroughs of Cheltenham and Tewkesbury and the Districts of Stroud and Cotswold {LGBC Report No. 547)

The City of Gloucester a nd t he Borough of Cheltenham were both anxious to extend their boundaries to include adjoining parishes

18 which they sawas clearly dependent on them, economically and socially. We announced our review in 1982 and the following year the two authorities submitted a joint scheme. The subsequent history of the review was marked by strong opposition: from many local residents, supported by several members of Parliament, from the Councils off/?e Borough of Tewkesbury and District ofStroud, and from the Gloucestershire which, like the Districts, was worried that it would, as they saw it, destroy the balance between urban and rural interests enshrined in the county pattern established in 1974. Another particular issue was the concern, felt by the County and the Borough of Tewkesbury, that too extensive change could cast doubt on the continued viability of Tewkesbury as a district. With this in mind the Borough Council later sought the professional advice of Coopers and Lybrand Associates to demonstrate the impact of our proposals on the Borough. We considered very carefully the views of local residents from whom we received over 1200 letters the largest single number being from Upton St. Leonards. We recognised the strength of feeling involved, and the loyalties shown to the existing authorities; but we were not persuaded that they were sufficient to overcome the very close links established between the parishes and Gloucester and Cheltenham. We saw considerable advantage, however, in the retention of parish status and parish councils in the areas to be transferred, as a continuing focus of local opinion. We also paid careful regard to the question of viability. Our own proposals were considerably less extensive than those put forward by Gloucester and Cheltenham and we came to the conclusion that, while there was no precise formula by which to calculate viability, on the basis of comparisons with other districts, Tewkesbury should remain viable at the reduced population of about 60,000 which would be the overall effect of our proposals. As regards the urban/rural balance in the County, we did not see why resources could no longer be allocated fairly because of changes to boundaries which only reflected existing urban development. After the most careful consideration, therefore, we decided to maintain our draft proposals, with minor adjustments only, as our final proposals. We have reported accordingly to the Secretary of State, who has not yet made his decision. (iv) The City of Oxford and the Districts ofCherwell, South Oxfordshire and Vale of White Horse (LGBC Report No. 536)

Oxford City Council, in proposing major changes, argued that, as the City had been subject to such intensive development, many of the

19 principal proposals for new development, which were intended to provide for the needs of local people and of industry, had involved sites on the urban fringe but outside the City's boundaries. The County Council, other local authorities and many people and bodies, strongly opposed the boundary changes. Their objections were based principally on the fears that the City Council was only interested in developing the land and that the interim Green Belt was at risk. In reporting to the Secretary of State, we stated our position in relation to future development; that whatever a local authority's reasons for wanting to take over extra land, it was not for us to appear to take a view on the merits of planning proposals. We cannot anticipate planning decisions and do not intend to express a view on what might or might not be a desirable development. Nor would we wish to comment on the willingness or the ability of any particular local authority to safeguard a Green Belt. Ourconcern is to formulate proposals for what is best for effective and convenient local government, taking account only of existing and expected development. Our report reflected this position. The Secretary of State is yet to take a decision on our final proposals.

64. The majority of cases for changes to district boundaries are reasonably well presented: However, as we say in paragraph 13 above, we still receive many submissions which do not set out the facts or the arguments which have, presumably, led the local authority to conclude that change will be in the interest of effective and convenient local government. If authorities were to give us more factual information about the pattern of community life and about local services, showing how each would be improved by the change, we would have a much clearer view of the effects of their proposals. A checklist of relevant items is provided at Appendix F which we hope will be useful to local authorities. It applies equally to the reviews of counties, London boroughs and Metropolitan districts discussed below.

Non-metropolitan counties

65. We have already referred to our duty to review periodically the boundaries of counties in England. The first such review was due to take place between April 1984 and 1989. In the light of the abolition of the Greater London and Councils, however, the Secretary of State directed us to leave the areas directly affected by abolition until after 1 April 1987, and to restrict our reviews in the meantime to those non-metropolitan counties {or '' counties), or parts of them, not so affected.

20 66. At the same time the Secretary of State recognised that the postpone- ment of work on the counties affected by abolition meant that we would not be able to complete the review by the end of March 1989. Accordingly, he deferred the date for its completion until 31 March 1992.

67.. After consultation with the local authority associations, and with the chief executives of the counties concerned, we decided to even out our workload by spreading the start of the reviews over three phases. The final phase commenced in September 1986.

68. We have mentioned in paragraphs 37-40 the campaigns for abolition or dismemberment of the counties newly created in 1974. We have also had to consider some suggested changes which, though not so radical, would involve transferring quite extensive areas of land between counties. For example, it has been suggested that five Oxfordshire parishes to the north of Reading should become part of Berkshire, that Gatwick Airport should be transferred from West Sussex to Surrey, and that the West Craven area now in Lancashire should go back to North Yorkshire.

69. Most of the suggestions, however, have been on a smaller scale. This does not mean that they are any less important to the people concerned, or that they are easier for us to consider. Indeed, some suggestions, involving communities divided by county boundaries, have exercised us as much as the larger issues and we have already felt it necessary to hold four local meetings- at Aspley Guise (Bedfordshire/Buckinghamshire), C/7or/eyivo0d(Buckinghamshire/Hertfordshire), Tenbury Wells {Shropshire/Hereford and Worcester), and Colnbrook (Berkshire/ Buckinghamshire/Surrey).

70. A number of suggested changes have involved very minor alignments, perhaps where a county boundary runs through a few properties, or was originally tied to a river which has since changed course. While we confess to some doubts about the value of such changes, they have generally so far presented little difficulty, and are indeed often put forward with the agreement of all the local authorities and others concerned. In the case of several individual county boundaries we have concluded no change at all is needed.

71. To date we have reported on the boundaries of nine non-metropolitan counties, Cornwall, Devon, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lincolnshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, Somerset and Cambridgeshire.™ At

111LGBC Report Nos. 535 (Cornwall and Devon), 519(lsleof Wight), 542 (Kent), 540 (Lincolnshire), 539 (Northamptonshire), 538 (Oxfordshire), 545 (Somerset) and 546 (Cambridgeshire)

21 present we still have the review of 30 non-metropolitan counties to be completed. These include 16 counties adjoining London boroughs or metropolitan counties, the review of which we cannot conclude until we have carried out the London and metropolitan reviews. Our reports do not necessarily cover the entire boundary of a county. For example, the report concerning Northamptonshire only covered the County's boundaries with Warwickshire and Leicestershire. Its other boundaries will be dealt with in the reports on the neighbouring counties.

London boroughs and the

72. The areas and boundaries of the London boroughs were established by the London Government Act 1963, twenty-five years ago and nine years before the creation of the metropolitan districts. Consequently, in the guidelines contained in DOE Circular No. 20/86 the Secretary of State asked us initially to give priority to London. This we have done: the London review commenced on 1 April 1987, when we asked the local authorities concerned, and other bodies and persons, to let us have their initial suggestions by 1 November of that year.

73. Although we are only beginning to make draft proposals for the London boroughs, the indications are that, as well as a multitude of minor anomalies, there will be some major issues concerning for example, London (Heathrow) Airport, the Wembley part of Brent, and Wood Green and Hornsey in Haringey. There have also been some wider ranging suggestions, including the creation of new London boroughs. We shall of course, take account of the guidelines given to us in considering whether to incorporate any such suggestions in our own proposals, but we shall be obliged to consider them, in so far as they appear to us to be put forward in the interests of effective and convenient local government.

74. Since the start of the review legislation has been introduced concerning housing, education (including the abolition of ILEA), and the replacement of the present rating system by the community charge and the national non-domestic rate. Mindful of these proposed changes, which would have a considerable impact on London authorities, we confirmed with the Department of the Environment that the Secretary of State did not intend to give us any additional guidelines. In our approach to the review we are therefore following the guidelines in Circular 20/86 (see Appendix C).

75. In conducting the review we have felt the need to bear in mind some wider issues, within the ambit of the guidelines but going beyond the specific suggestions for local changes put to us by the boroughs and other

22 bodies. We have already noted, for example, that several communities appear to be divided by borough boundaries where we have received no suggestions to unify them. In considering the outer London boundary we recognise how in some places the present boundary lies well beyond the continuous built-up area but elsewhere cuts through it. We shall need to take a consistent attitude, as we look at the various sections of the outer boundary, and to take account in each case of the relevance of the Green Belt, and, where appropriate, of the M25.

Metropolitan districts

76. Having given priority to London, we divided the reviews of the metropolitan counties into two phases. Thefirst commenced on 1 September 1987 (, Greater , and ), and the second on 1 February 1988 (, and ). Although we have yet to reach the draft proposal stage for any of the districts, there are similar indications to the London review, that is, a large number of minor proposals and some major ones, concerning, for example,Sot/f/Jpo/t(Sefton),//A:/ex(), Wer/jerAy () and Sutton Co/d//e/c/(Birmingham).

Unitary authority

77. The l&le of Wight County Council proposed the creation of a single all- purpose authority for the Island. We took the viewthat as a county the Isle of Wight was unique, both because it was an island and because of its small size and population (119,800). This uniqueness implied that a local government structure different from that on the mainland might be appropriate. It was clear that the island had a strong sense of unity, and that planning and the provision of many services needed to be considered over the island as a whole. The present level of co-operation could not provide the unity of purpose which would flow from a single authority, and which, in our view, would be of great benefit to the island. While a unitary authority could not be achieved without legislation, which neither we nor a local authority could promote, we thought it right to indicate in our report11' that this would have been our preference.

Seaward boundaries

78. The Commission has been asked by the County Councils of Hampshire and the fsfe of Wight for a review of their seaward boundaries

(1>LGBC Report No.519

23 in the Solent. As this would be the first exercise of our powers under Section 71 of the 1972 Act, and there are complex questions in interpreting the present legal position, we are taking legal advice before we announce the start of the review.

National boundaries

79. In January 1978 the Commission received the first submission made under Section 62 of the 1972 Act. It was a joint submission from the County Councils of Clwyd, Cheshire and Merseyside. The three County Councils requested the English and Welsh Commissions to confirm as the boundary between the Counties along the lower River Dee and in the Dee Estuary, the current Ordnance Survey line, which for more than 100 years had been drawn down the centre of the Dee Estuary westwards from Burton Point.

80. We accepted this joint recommendation and adopted it for our draft proposal. As was to be expected, the three County Councils accepted it. Our next move would normally have been to re-assess our draft proposal in the light of all the representations we had received. However, before we could do that, Clwyd County Council withdrew its support, recommended a different line and called for a public inquiry. We sought the views of the other two County Councils but neither agreed to any change to the original proposed boundary line and neither supported the call for a public inquiry.

81. Under the 1972 Act, we cannot make joint proposals with the Welsh Commission except with the consent of all the county Councils concerned. The changed stance of Clwyd County Council precluded such consent and clearly implied that any further work would be abortive. Consequently, both Commissions decided that they could take no further action and reported accordingly to the Secretaries of State.111

Electoral reviews

82. Electoral reviews constitute a separate but equally important part of the Commission's work, on which we report to the . While they seldom excite much public interest they are of central concern to political parties, and play an essential part in the democratic process by ensuring that people are represented equitably in local government.

(1|LGBC Report No. 504

24 Criteria for electoral reviews

83. The Commission has long recognised that equality of representation is the essential consideration in electoral reviews. Along with not crossing parish {or parish ward) boundaries it constitutes the primary criterion in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. When it is not possible to comply fully with all the criteria in the Schedule, however, we must judge which criterion is to be given greater weight. We continue to regard local ties(like identifiable boundaries) as important even though they rank as secondary criteria. We seek to reflect them in our proposals as far as we can, without causing a significant reduction in equality. We often find ourselves inhibited, however, when considering District Councils' initial suggestions, by a lack of information about local ties. Unless they discuss this aspect more fully, telling us, for example, about alternative boundaries they have considered and their reasons for rejecting them, it is very difficult for us to know whether they have given any weight to local ties. This can lead to our having to make further enquiries, sometimes unnecessarily, when the District Council is often anxious for the scheme to come into operation before a particular election date.

County electoral reviews

84. At the beginning of 1983 we still had 14 of the first round of county electoral reviews to complete. The nine outstanding non-metropolitan county electoral reviews were completed by July 1984(11and three of the outstanding metropolitan county reviews by November of that year.121

85. Several reviews were delayed by county councils arguing for larger councils than we considered could be justified, having regard both to their populations and to our recommendations in respect of similar counties. Indeed, such arguments from South Yorkshire andTyne and Wear Metropolitan County Councils resulted in their reviews being overtaken by events, in the form of the abolition of their councils.

86. The next general electoral review of county councils is not due until 1996 but demographic change has already caused us to undertake a second review of Wiltshire; it is possible that further ad hoc county electoral reviews will be required before 1996.

(1> LGBC Report Nos. 441 (Leicestershire), 452 (Berkshire), 456 (Cornwall), 460(Cambridgeshire), 462 (Bedfordshire), 472 (Norfolk), 473 (West Sussex), 477 (North Yorkshire), 479 (Cleveland) 121 LGBC Report Nos. 482 (), 483 (West Yorkshire), 488 (Merseyside)

25 Further electoral reviews of districts

87. The growth in population over the last decade, coupled with changes in distribution at local level, have resulted in a steady flow of requests for further electoral reviews and we have found it necessary to conduct nine such reviews'1' over the past five years. In addition, we have accepted the need for a further two reviews.

88. In previous reports'21 we have already referred to the difficulties caused by a lack of any mechanism in the 1972 Act for making minor electoral changes without a full scale review. This lack is particularly felt in areas of exceptional growth and development where a single ward can become very much under-represented yet must continue so until a full review can be completed. The Commission has suggested to the Secretary of State that some mechanism for making such minor electoral changes should be included in future legislation when a suitable opportunity occurs.

Review of ILEA's electoral arrangements

89. The local Government Act 1985 required us to review the electoral arrangements for the Inner London Education Area. We first considered the size of the Authority. The 1985 Act provided that it should be not less than 48 nor more than 58. The Authority itself suggested the full 58 members which was also the number of members elected at the initial elections in May 1986, based on two members for each Parliamentary constituency.

90. We took the view that an Authority with 58 elected members was not unreasonable given the scale of ILEA's operations and we issued our own draft proposals, based on 58 members, in May 1986. Generally, these found acceptance and subject to some very minor modifications we confirmed them asour final proposals, which we submitted to the Secretary of State in March 1987.131 We would only add that, notwithstanding widespread publicity, we received only one representation from the public - and that about the name of a ward.

91. The Government has since announced its intention to abolish the Authority.

01LGBC Report Nos. 470n~amworth 1984), 487fThamesdown 1984), 500( 1985), 508

26 Council size - the Widdicombe Reportit)

92. The only case law on further electoral reviews is that contained in 'London Borough of Enfieldv The Local Government Boundary Commmission for England.'The House of Lords held that our first task in conducting such a review is to establish the size of the council, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, before we go on to consider the pattern of wards.

93. We have found ourselves in more than one case in some difficulty with regard to council size. Early in the Commission's existence, when it was about to start on the initial electoral reviews of districts, it decided to use as guidelines ranges of Council size produced by the Home Office for the 1973 local authority elections.'2'These were based in turn on the Home Office's consultations with the local authority associations. They were expressed, however, in very broad terms. For non-Metropolitan Districts they suggested a range of between 30 and 60, and for Metropolitan Districts, between 50 and 80. They were, we imagine, little more than a summation of good practice at that time. However, we are now finding that, because of rising population, local authorities are seeking increases in Council size which would, in one or two instances, take them above the guidelines. We can appreciate the need to ensure that the Council is large enough to provide a proper standard of representation and to discharge the Council's functions effectively, but we are conscious that, overtime, this trend would lead to a steadily rising total number of councillors.

94. We have reservations about the desirability of such an increase and have therefore tended to look critically at suggestions for larger Councils. We recognise, however, that the size.of existing councils varies greatly between districts of similarly sized electorates and that there are wide variations in the internal organisation of authorities which may be relevant.

95. The Commission has considered the main issues on electoral arrangements raised in Chapter 7 of the Widdicombe Report, which were that there should be single member wards throughout Great-Britain; that every four years there should be whole council elections in all parts of the country; and that there should be a review to see if councils should be reduced in size.

(1) Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the conduct of Local Authority business (2)LGBCReportNo.6

27 96. We did not consider it appropriate or necessary for us to formulate a corporate view on the merits of these proposals. In terms of our own work we have concluded that if we were still required to meet other criteria, such as the reflection of local ties, a comprehensive pattern of single member wards would make our task in electoral reviews rather more difficult because it would reduce our flexibility. We are also firmly of the view that we could only usefully embark upon an exercise aimed at producing significantly smaller councils if we weref irst given clear guidelines on the desired range of sizes. We recognise, of course, that this would not be an easy task and that the guidance would need to be based on more thorough research evidence, covering both the functional and the representational aspects, than was available to the Widdicome Committee. Any such guidance would be needed for the next general review of electoral boundaries, which is due in 1996.

New legislation

97. We are aware that new and proposed legislation, in particular, the Local Government Act 1988, the Local Government Finance Bill, the Education (Reform) Bill and the Housing Bill, will have an effect on the provision of local government services. It is too early yet to say how, or to what extent, this legislation will impinge upon our consideration of boundary changes, but we will be monitoring closely the possible implications for our work.

Conclusion

98. We hope that in this survey of the Commission's work over the past few years and in the years immediately ahead we have given an idea of the problems with which we are confronted in our pursuit of more 'effective and convenient local government,' and the ways in which we are tackling them.

99. We make no claim for special indulgence. It is of the nature of our task that in any particular review we can seldom give satisfaction to everyone. The most we can do is to set out as clearly as we can, in our proposals and in our reports, the evidene we found important and the reasons for our conclusions. The Members of the Commission, and of the Secretariat which advises us, continue to find our work of absorbing interest, both for the insights it yields into the working of local government at all levels, and for the continued stimulus provided by the great variety of people's wishes.

28 needs and priorities, as expressed in their comments to us. It is in the balancing of these two sets of considerations-the right functional framework and yet the right pattern of loyalties - that the challenge of the Commission's work lies: our concern is, equally, with people and places.

Signed: G JEllerton (Chairman) LS

J G Powell (Deputy Chairman)

GE Cherry

KFJEnnals

G R Prentice

Helen Sarkany

BScholes

STGarrish (Secretary)

14Apnl1988

29 Appendix A

Criteria which the Local Government Boundary Commission for England will take into account in carrying out reviews of principal areas

Extracts from DOE Circular 33/78

Paragraph 14:

The Commission are enjoined (47(1 )}to make proposalsfor 'effecting changes appearing to the Commission desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.' This will be a major consideration. In considering cases put to the Commission in support of requests that they should carry out reviews, therefore, they will have regard to whether or not an area or boundary accords with the wishes of the local inhabitants, reflects the pattern of community life, and is conducive to the effective operation of local government and associated services. Some factors to be taken into account in applying these criteria are given in annex B to thiscircular.

If as a result they conclude that an area or boundary may be defective, they will consider whether it could be improved without interfering with the overall pattern of districts. Changes which seem likely to prejudice the continued existence of any existing district will, unless they could be scaled down, need to be considered in the light of paragraph 10 above; evidence of wholly exceptional circumstances will be required.

Annex B: a. Pattern of community life Factors include: i. community of interest within an area, and sometimes a sense of separation from other areas stemming from social, geographical, economic and cultural influences; ii. size and shape of the areas of local government; iii. development and expected development; iv. means of communication and transport facilities; and v. accessibility of administrative, shopping, business and employment centres, educational, social, recreational, cultural and religious facilities and professional and medical services.

30 b. Effective operation of local government and associated services Factors include: i. size and distribution of population; ii. financial resources; and iii. pattern of administration of local services, eg. housing, social services, health, education, highways and sewerage.

31 Appendix B

Approach to the reviews of non-metropolitan counties

Extract from Department of the Environment Circular 12/84

Paragraphs 11-14:

It will be for the Commission to consider whether to propose other changes of the kind set out in section 47(1): and the Secretary of State will consider any proposals that they make accordingly. In relation to the present review, however, it is the Secretary of State's view that more radical changes, such as the abolition or creation of a principal area, will be appropriate only in very exceptional circumstances, where present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government.

The boundaries adopted in 1972, when the present pattern of counties was established, were for the most part set by references to pre-existing county and boundaries, some of them of considerable antiquity. Changes in the pattern of development - at different rates in different areas - may well require the revision of some of these boundaries; and the Secretary of State takes the view that the primary purpose of the present review should be to consider the need for such alterations with the aim of achieving more effective and convenient local government.

In this connection it is not the Secretary of State's intention to propose minimum or maximum populations against which the Commission should compare those of existing areas. In proposing boundary alterations, the Commission will, however, wish to have in mind the need for authorities to have an adequate population base for the proper discharge of their functions.

Application of Criteria

The Commission are enjoined by section 47 of the 1972 Act to make proposals to the Secretary of State for 'effecting changes appearing to [them] desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government.' The Commission have indicated to the Secretary of State that, in carrying out their review, they will have in mind the considerations set out in paragraph 14 of, and Annex B to, DOE circular 33/78.

32 Appendix C

Guidelines for the reviews of London and the metropolitan districts

Extract from DOE Circular 20/86

Paragraphs 6-10:

The present boundaries of both metropolitan districts and London boroughs reflect their history, being derived initially from amalgamation of smaller areas, many of which had themselves been so formed. In addition, since the boundaries were first drawn, major development may have taken place overlying them, and new lines of communication have been opened and old ones closed, leaving to changes in the pattern of development and in the make-up of communities. The Secretary of State considers that for the most part the purpose of the forthcoming reviews should be the examination of the need for adjustment of local government boundaries to overcome specific problems arising from historical anomalies or from subsequent changes in the pattern of development. In the interests of stability, the Commission may wish to consider the merging of existing local government areas, rather than any more widespread redrawing of boundaries, in any area where they form the view that major changes are called for.

The Act requires the Commission to consider, in the interests of effective and convenient local government, whether to propose any changes of the kinds set out in Section 47( 1) of the 1972 Act as amended. The Secretary of State will consider any proposals the Commission may make accordingly. Subject to what the Commission may find, however, it is the Secretary of State's view that proposals for the more radical changes set out in Section 47(1}, such as the abolition or creation of a principal area, would be appropriate only where the Commission consider that present arrangements clearly fail to provide effective and convenient local government and that a major change (such as the merging of authorities to create a new principal area) is required.

In connection with any substantial changes which are found to be necessary, it is not the Secretary of State's intention to propose minimum or maximum populations against which the Commission should compare those of existing areas. In proposing boundary alterations the Commission will, however, wish to have in mind the need for authorities affected to

33 have an adequate population base for the efficient and cost-effective discharge of their functions.

Changes in the outer boundaries of Greater London and the metropolitan counties have a special significance in that the distribution of functions is substantially different within and without those areas. The Secretary of State therefore considers that special care is required on considering such changes. Nevertheless, some of the boundaries have been overlaid by development and some changes may be necessary to correct them.

Application of Criteria

In relation to the Commission's consideration of what constitutes effective and convenient local government in relation to any areas, the Secretary of State considers that the criteria set out in DOE Circular 33/78 are still relevant.

34 Appendix D

Revised check-list of points to be covered in district council parish reviews

1. CONSULTATION DURING THE REVIEW (a) The County Council should be consulted at an early stage with regard to the implications for County Electoral Divisions; this consultation should be maintained at each stage of the review. (b) Ordnance Survey can be consulted about the technical aspects of proposed new boundaries. (In this connection Ordnance Survey's 'An Illustrated Guide to Boundary Making' - £5 from Ordnance Survey might be useful).

2. PUBLICITY FOR REVIEWS (a) The start of the review - the notice should make it clear how the review is to cover the whole district (b) Publication of draft recommendations or interim decision not to make recommendations

(c) Submission of report to the Commission -the notice should include a statement to the effect that anyone wishing to send comments to the Commission should do so within six weeks of its publication, and a further sentence - 'If the Commission decide in the light of any representations made to them to modify the proposals recommended by the Council-or to carry out their own review-they will at the same time place any relevant letters etc. on deposit for inspection, with their own modifications or draft proposals.' (Paragraph 28 of Report No. 443).

3. PROCEDURE

The following information should be supplied with or in parish review reports: (a) Information about public meetings held, including numbers of those attending and any resolutions adopted (b) Copies of all correspondence received in the course of the review, including that relating to requests for change not pursued by the Council (c) Whether or not Ordnance Survey have been consulted-

35 (d) Details of all parish populations, parish council sizes, and the frequency of parish meetings over the last five years, where a parish is not represented by a parish council (either separate or common).

4. RECOMMENDATIONS (a) Summary of all recommendations in respect of suggested changes and reasonsfor them ie. details as to why the suggested changes would, in the District Council's view; be apt for securing effective and convenient local government

(b) Statement of reasons for not recommending changes which have been suggested to the District Council - it is important that the Commission should know exactly why any particular suggestion has been rejected. Similarly, comments and decisionson representations received on the District Council's recommendations. (c) Clear indication of extent of agreement locally to all recommendations either for change or no change - one of the Commission'sgreatest difficulties is in assessing local opinion, and District Councils are asked to provide as much information as possible to assist in this task.

5. NON-FUNCTIONING PARISHES

The Commission believe that parishes containing no electors, and parishes which have no regular parish meetings, (ie. at least twice a year) do not have any real place on the local government map (paragraph 18(d) of Report No. 443). If any exist in the district, and it proves impossible to persuade them to function, recommendations should be made for: (a) Grouping with appropriatefunctioningparish(es) (b) Amalgamation with appropriate functioning parish(es) (c) Abolition - if no suitable alternative.

6. NEWPARISHES

Where there is a suggstton that a new parish should be formed the following information should be provided: (a) Views of existing parish councils affected (b) Steps taken to sound out local opinion eg. local meetings or polling of residents.

36 (c) Degree of interest shown eg. numbers attending public meetings compared to size of electorate, correspondence received or sent to local press. (d) Extent to which local bodies which have expressed views may be regarded as representative.

7. ELECTORAL CONSEQUENCES (a) Recommendations should be made for consequential changes in the electoral arrangements for district wards or county divisions necessitated by changes in the parish structure. (b) The size of the electorate so effected should be stated in each case, together with any likely changes in the next five years. (c) Proposed electoral arrangements for new or changed parishes should be indicated in the Report. (d) A tabular statement should be included showing all the areas recommended for transfer, and giving particulars of any parish ward into which an area is to be transferred. Where boundaries of district wards or county electoral divisions are affected particulars should also be given of the ward or division into which an area is to be transferred. Where no change to district wards or county divisions is involved this should be stated.

8. MAPPING

Two sets of maps should be supplied details and advice can be obtained from Ordnance Survey.

9. ITEMS NOTTO BE INCLUDED IN PARISH REVIEW REPORTS (a) Parish boundary changes which also affect district or county boundaries - these cannot be dealt with in parish reviews. (b) Changes to parish electoral arrangements which do not arise directly from changes in parishes or parish boundaries recommended in the report.

37 Appendix E

List of reports to the Secretary of State on principal area boundary changes since January 1983

To Secretary Name Number of State

Erewash/Amber Valley/Broxtowe 439 18.2.83 Malvern Hills, , /Wychavon/Wyre Forest 442 18.3.83 Preston/Ribble Valley 444 20.6.83 Worthing/Arun/Adur 445 20.6.83 Wychavon/Malvern Hills 446 28.6.83 Dacorum/Three Rivers 447 17.6.83 Arun/Chichester 448 24.6.83 /Mid-Bedfordshire 449 17.6.83 East Hertfordshire/Welwyn Hatfield 451 4.7.83 Horsham/Mid-Sussex 453 21.7.83 //Selby 454 3.12.84 Teignbridge/South Hams/Mid-Devon 455 4.12.83 Guildford/SurreyHeath/Woking/Elmbridge/ MoleValley/Waverley/Rushmore 457 1.11.83 Easington/Durham 459 16.1.85 West Oxfordshire/Cherwell 461 21.12.83 Newcastle-under-Lyme/Stoke-on-Trent 463 2.4.84 Braintree/Colchester/Chelmsford 464 7.12.83 Shepway/Canterbury 465 20.12.83 Rushcliffe/Gedling/Newark/Nottingham/ Melton/Charnwood 466 9.2.84 South Hams/Plymouth 467 2.2.84 Medina/South Wight 468 23.3.84 North West Leicestershire/Hinckley and Bosworth 471 4.7.84 Suffolk Coast/Ipswich 474 17.7.84 Durham/ 475 11.7.84 South Ribble/Ribble Valley 481 20.8.84 / 484 7.11.84

38 South Oxfordshire/Vale of White Horse 489 14.1.85 North East Derbyshire/Bolsover 490 23.1.85 / 491 28.1.85 Gravesham/Dartford/Sevenoaks 494 2.4.85 East Hertfordshire/Stevenage 495 3.6.85 Shrewsbury and Atcham/The Wrekin 496 8.7.85 Epping Forest/Brentwood 497 12.6.85 Uttlesford/Braintree 498 13.6.85 -le-Street/Durham 499 25.6.85 Chorley/SouthRibble 501 1.7.85 Tunbridge Wells/Maidstone 502 1.7.85 /Chiltern/Wycombe 503 22.7.85 Dee Estuary 504 .11.85 Ribble Valley/Hyndburn/Burnley/Pendle 505 21.10.85 Dover/Canterbury/Shepway 506 31.10.85 Chiltern/Wycombe 507 11.12.85 Hinckley/Bosworth/Blaby 509 6.11.85 Gedling/Newark and Sherwood 510 31.10.85 Worcester/MalvernHills/Wychavon 512 9.12.85 Eastleigh/Test Valley 514 25.3.86 Rushmoor/Hart 515 11.7.86 /Shrewsbury and Atcham 516 22.8.86 Chesterfield/North East Derbyshire 517 9.10.86 Chester/ 518 14.11.86 Exeter/East Devon/Teignbridge 521 10.12.86 Leominster/South Herefordshire 523 12.12.86 Birmingham/SolihuH 524 19.12.86 /Purbeck 525 17.12.86 Ashfield/Gedling 526 9.1.87 Maldon/Braintree 531 15.12.86 Blaby/Leicester/Oadby and Wigston 532 2.6.87 Oxford 536 18.6.87 Guildford/Mole Valley 537 18.5.87

39 Appendix F

Check-list of points to be covered in boundary reviews (other than parish reviews)

Local authorities might find useful the following check list of factual information in local services and the pattern of community life when considering whether or not to make suggestions for change to the Commission. The Commission will find such information helpful in deciding whether a change is warranted where there are apparent anomalies, for example, where a boundary dividesa built-up area.

1. The locations of local offices or depots for the following services: Police, Fire, Ambulance, Social Services, Road Maintenance, Street Lighting, Refuse Collection, Waste Disposal, Library Services, Parks and Recreational Facilities, Consumer Protection.

2. Any joint committees or agency arrangements currently operating in respect of any of the above services.

3. Location and catchment areas of local educational establishments, including age range served, status (eg. Grant maintained). Numbers of cross boundary movement and details of any cross boundary arrangements which apply.

4. Location and ownership of public housing (itemising sheltered accommodation) and the number of units. Similar details, together with catchment areas, of old persons accommodation provided by social services. Any cross boundary arrangements in respect of public housing (including special needs provision).

5. Location of hospitals and/or centres for psychiatric treatment serving the area and the responsible health authority.

6. Any agency arrangements for water supply, sewerage and sewage disposal.

7. Figures if available {or estimates) of movements between the area and other areas for the purposes of:

-employment -shopping

40 -leisure

8. The main public transport routes in and out of the area, including frequency of service.

9. Circulations of the principal local newspapers serving the area.

10. Detailsof any provision for future development (infrastructure, commercial, residential, industrial, recreational) in or near the area in either the county structure plan or in adopted local plans, and indications of any pressure for changes in land use.

Printed in the United Kingdom for Her Majesty's Stationery Off ice Dd290567 C130 7/88 (40711)

41