LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR IN

Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

September 1998

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Mole Valley in Surrey.

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman)

Peter Brokenshire

Professor Michael Clarke

Pamela Gordon

Robin Gray

Robert Hughes

Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive)

©Crown Copyright 1998 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G.

This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS

page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 13

6 NEXT STEPS 25

APPENDICES

A Final Recommendations for Mole Valley: Detailed Mapping 27

B Draft Recommendations for Mole Valley (February 1998) 33

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England

1 September 1998

Dear Secretary of State

On 2 September 1997 the Commission commenced a periodic electoral review of the district of Mole Valley under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in February 1998 and undertook a nine-week period of consultation.

We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation. We have for the most part confirmed our draft recommendations, although some modifications have been made in the light of further evidence (see paragraphs 89-90). This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Mole Valley.

We recommend that Mole Valley District Council should continue to be served by 41 councillors, who should represent 21 wards rather than the present 23, and that some changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that the Council should continue to be elected by thirds.

We note that you have now set out in the White Paper Modern Local Government - In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, HMSO), legislative proposals for a number of changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as that new legislation is in place we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews.

I would like to thank members and officers of the District Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of the electoral ● In 18 of the 21 wards, the number of arrangements for Mole Valley on 2 September electors per councillor would vary by no 1997. We published our draft recommendations more than 10 per cent from the district for electoral arrangements on 17 February 1998, average, with no ward varying by more than after which we undertook a nine-week period of 20 per cent from the average. consultation. ● This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with only one ward ● This report summarises the representations expected to vary by more than 10 per cent we received during consultation on our draft from the average for the district by 2002. recommendations, and offers our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. No recommendations are made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements. We found that the existing electoral arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Mole Valley because: All further correspondence on these recommendations and the matters discussed ● in 14 of the 23 wards, the number of in this report should be addressed to the electors represented by each councillor varies Secretary of State for the Environment, by more than 10 per cent from the average Transport and the Regions, who will for the district and eight wards vary by more not make an order implementing the than 20 per cent from the average; Commission’s recommendations before ● by 2002, electoral equality is not expected to 12 October 1998: improve significantly, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by The Secretary of State more than 10 per cent from the average in Department of the Environment, 12 wards and by more than 20 per cent in Transport and the Regions seven wards. Local Government Review Eland House Our main final recommendations for future Bressenden Place electoral arrangements (Figure 1 and paragraphs London SW1E 5DU 89-90) are that:

● Mole Valley District Council should be served by 41 councillors, the same as at present; ● there should be 21 wards, compared with 23 at present; ● the boundaries of 18 of the existing wards should be modified, while five wards should retain their existing boundaries; ● elections should continue to take place by thirds.

These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each district councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to local circumstances.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

1 Common 2 ward; Maps 2 and A2 North ward (part)

2 Ashtead Park 2 Ashtead Park ward (part); Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead South ward (part)

3 Ashtead Village 3 Ashtead Village ward; Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead North ward (part)

4 Beare Green 1 Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part – Map 2 the Beare Green parish ward of Capel parish)

5 Bookham North 3 Bookham North ward (part); Maps 2 and A3 West ward (part)

6 Bookham South 3 Unchanged (the unparished area of Map 2 Bookham South)

7 Box Hill 1 Box Hill ward (part – the polling district Map 2 & Headley of Box Hill and the parish of Headley)

8 , 2 Brockham ward (the parish of Map 2 Brockham); Rural East ward (part – & Buckland the parishes of Betchworth and Buckland)

9 Capel, Leigh 2 Rural South ward (the parish of Map 2 & Newdigate and Capel parish ward of Capel parish); Rural East ward (part – the parish of Leigh)

10 1 Unchanged (the parish of Charlwood) Map 2

11 North 2 Dorking North East ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Dorking North West ward

12 Dorking South 3 Dorking North East ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Dorking South East ward; Dorking South West ward; North Holmwood ward (part)

13 Fetcham East 2 Fetcham East ward (part) Maps 2 and A3

14 Fetcham West 2 Bookham North ward (part); Maps 2 and A3 Fetcham East ward (part); Fetcham West ward (part)

15 Holmwoods 3 North Holmwood ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part – the parish of Holmwood)

viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

16 Leatherhead North 3 Leatherhead North ward (part) Maps 2 and A2

17 Leatherhead South 2 Ashtead Park ward (part); Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead South ward (part)

18 1 Unchanged (the parish of Wotton, Map 2 the Northern parish ward of parish and the Coldharbour parish ward of Capel parish)

19 Mickleham, 1 Box Hill ward (part – the polling district Maps 2 and A4 of Westhumble and the parish of Mickleham); & Dorking North East ward (part)

20 Okewood 1 Unchanged (the parish of and the Map 2 Southern parish ward of Abinger parish)

21 Westcott 1 Unchanged (the unparished area of Map 2 Westcott)

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains our final recommendations 5 Stage Three began on 17 February 1998 with on the electoral arrangements for the district of the publication of our report, Draft Reccomendations Mole Valley in Surrey. We have now reviewed all on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Mole Valley in the districts in Surrey as part of our programme of Surrey, and ended on 20 April 1998. Comments periodic electoral reviews of all principal local were sought on our preliminary conclusions. authority areas in England. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the light of the Stage 2 In undertaking these reviews, we have had Three consultation and now publish our final regard to: recommendations.

● the statutory criteria in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992: ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements contained in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.

3 We have also had regard to our Guidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authorities and Other Interested Parties (published in March 1996, supplemented in September 1996 and updated in March 1998), which sets out our approach to the reviews.

4 The review was in four stages. Stage One began on 2 September 1997, when we wrote to Mole Valley District Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. Our letter was copied to Surrey County Council, the Surrey Police Authority, the local authority associations, the Surrey Association of Local Councils, parish councils in the district, Members of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament with constituency interests in the district, and the headquarters of the main political parties. At the start of the review and following publication of our draft recommendations, we published a notice in the local press, issued a press release and other publicity, and invited the District Council to publicise the review more widely. The closing date for receipt of representations was 25 November 1997. At Stage Two we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

6 The district of Mole Valley contains the towns of Dorking and Leatherhead which, with the associated small towns and villages, makes for an area which is both residential and agricultural in character. It contains two of Surrey’s notable beauty spots, Box Hill and Leith Hill, and encompasses nearly 26,000 hectares with a population of 79,220. There are 13 parishes in the district.

7 To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards we calculated the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each ward (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the district average in percentage terms. In the text which follows this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term ‘electoral variance’.

8 The electorate of the district (February 1997) is 63,335. The Council presently has 41 councillors who are elected from 23 wards (Map 1 and Figure 2). Three of the 23 wards are each represented by three councillors, 12 wards elect two councillors each, while the remaining eight are single-member wards. The Council is elected by thirds.

9 At present, each councillor represents an average of 1,545 electors, which the District Council forecasts will decrease to 1,524 by the year 2002 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic and other changes over the past two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 14 of the 23 wards varies by more than 10 per cent from the district average and in eight wards by more than 20 per cent. The worst imbalance is in Rural South ward in which the number of electors per councillor is 55 per cent above the district average.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3 Figure 2: Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Ashtead 2 3,106 1,553 1 3,077 1,539 1 Common

2 Ashtead Park 2 3,030 1,515 -2 2,850 1,425 -7

3 Ashtead Village 3 4,484 1,495 -3 4,329 1,443 -5

4 Bookham North 2 3,896 1,948 26 3,753 1,877 23

5 Bookham South 3 4,405 1,468 -5 4,285 1,428 -6

6 Box Hill 2 2,484 1,242 -20 2,569 1,285 -16

7 Brockham 1 2,218 2,218 44 2,079 2,079 36

8 Charlwood 1 1,574 1,574 2 1,648 1,648 8

9 Dorking 1 1,859 1,859 20 1,787 1,787 17 North East

10 Dorking 1 1,900 1,900 23 1,756 1,756 15 North West

11 Dorking 2 2,629 1,315 -15 2,731 1,366 -10 South East

12 Dorking 2 2,185 1,093 -29 2,084 1,042 -32 South West

13 Fetcham East 2 3,415 1,708 11 3,375 1,688 11

14 Fetcham West 2 3,260 1,630 6 3,176 1,588 4

15 Holmwood 2 2,204 1,102 -29 2,115 1,058 -31 & Beare Green

16 Leatherhead 3 4,542 1,514 -2 4,722 1,574 3 North

17 Leatherhead 2 3,159 1,580 2 3,078 1,539 1 South

18 Leith Hill 1 1,361 1,361 -12 1,276 1,276 -16

19 North 2 4,168 2,084 35 4,483 2,242 47 Holmwood

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 2 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

20 Okewood 1 1,442 1,442 -7 1,367 1,367 -10

21 Rural East 2 1,915 958 -38 1,917 959 -37

22 Rural South 1 2,389 2,389 55 2,382 2,382 56

23 Westcott 1 1,710 1,710 11 1,663 1,663 9

Totals 41 63,335 --62,502 --

Averages -- 1,545 -- 1,524 -

Source: The 1997 electorate figures are based on Mole Valley District Council’s submission, and the projected (2002) electorates are based on statistics provided by Surrey County Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, in 1997, electors in Box Hill ward were relatively over-represented by 20 per cent, while electors in North Holmwood ward were relatively under-represented by 35 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5 Map 1: Existing Wards in Mole Valley

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

10 During Stage One Mole Valley District Council equality was expected to improve during the period put forward a scheme on electoral arrangements for to 2002, with no ward expected to vary by more the whole district, and we also received than 10 per cent from the average by that time. representations from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups on the District Council. 12 Our draft recommendations are summarised at Additionally, we heard directly from the Epsom & Appendix B. Ewell Conservative Association, three parish councils, three district councillors and a local resident. In the light of these representations and the evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Mole Valley in Surrey. We proposed that:

(a) Mole Valley District Council should be served by 41 councillors representing 20 wards;

(b) the towns of Bookham (except Bookham South ward), Dorking and Fetcham should be re- warded, with a pattern of multi-member wards;

(c) the ward boundaries between Ashtead and Leatherhead should be realigned with the M25 motorway;

(d) significant boundary changes should be made to many of the rural wards in the district;

(e) there should be no change to the wards of Bookham South, Charlwood and Okewood;

(f) elections should continue to be held by thirds;

(g) no change should be made to parish council electoral arrangements.

Draft Recommendation Mole Valley District Council should comprise 41 councillors serving 20 wards. The Council should continue to hold elections by thirds.

11 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in 19 of the 20 wards varying by no more than 10 per cent from the district average. This level of electoral

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 7 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

13 During the consultation on our draft Holmwood remain in a rural based ward and recommendations report, 24 direct representations supported Capel Parish Council with its proposal were received. A list of all respondents is available for a Capel with Cudworth ward. It also suggested on request from the Commission. a Newdigate with Leigh ward and a Betchworth, Buckland and Strood Green ward, and supported Mole Valley District Council our proposals for Dorking except for the two- member Dorking North ward. 14 The District Council supported the proposals for no change to the numbers of electors to be Mole Valley District Labour contained within each of the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards, but opposed the realignment Party of the boundaries with the M25 motorway. It proposed minor modifications to the proposed 16 The Mole Valley District Labour Party “broadly Bookham North and Fetcham East and West wards welcomed” our recommendations for multi-member but otherwise accepted our proposals in those wards to address electoral imbalance. However, it towns. In the town of Dorking the Council opposed the realignment of the Ashtead and opposed the proposed two-member Dorking Leatherhead ward boundaries to the M25, the North ward, preferring two-single member wards combining of Westcott and Leith Hill wards, and the as put forward in its Stage One submission. In the proposed three-member Holmwoods and single- rural area of the district the Council recommended member Beare Green wards. It argued that the a single-member ward comprising the Capel parish largely rural communities of Box Hill, Headley and ward of Capel parish and a separate single-member Pixham would be better served by a two-member ward comprising the parishes of Leigh and ward, rather than through the creation of two new Newdigate, contending that the proposed Capel, single-member wards. The Party supported the Leigh & Newdigate ward would be too large to continuation of elections by thirds which, it stated, enable effective representation. The Council provides continuous accountability of the whole supported our draft proposals for a three-member council to the electorate. Holmwoods ward and a single-member Beare Green ward. It also supported the proposal for no change to Charlwood ward but strongly opposed Mole Valley Constituency the recommendation for a two-member Leith Hill Labour Party – Dorking & Westcott ward, which would, in its view, Branch combine two areas with little in common. It concluded by proposing that the existing single- 17 The Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party – member wards of Leith Hill and Westcott should Dorking Branch – supported the extension of multi- remain unchanged. member wards to cover northern Dorking and proposed that the two-member Box Hill ward should Mole Valley Conservative be retained with the addition of Pixham. It proposed Association that a two-member ward for North Holmwood should be retained and proposed the inclusion of the 15 The Association accepted the majority of our more rural part of the present North Holmwood draft proposals for Ashtead, Leatherhead, Fetcham ward into an enlarged two-member Holmwood & and Bookham, as well as those for Beare Green. Beare Green ward. It did not support the warding of However it did not accept the proposal to integrate Brockham parish, and acknowledged that there were part of ‘Commonside’ with Fetcham West ward, or ‘natural groupings’ between Betchworth, Brockham that to merge the Leith Hill and Westcott wards. and Buckland, and Capel, Leigh and Newdigate. The The Association opposed the proposed submission also opposed our proposed two-member Holmwoods ward, preferring that the village of Leith Hill & Westcott ward.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 9 Mole Valley Liberal Other Representations Democrats 23 We received a further 13 direct representations in response to our draft recommendations, nine of 18 The Liberal Democrats generally supported our draft recommendations. However, they reaffirmed which were from county or district councillors. their original proposal for no change to the single- Councillor Seabrook, representing Fetcham East member wards of Leith Hill and Westcott, arguing ward, stated his preference for a greater number of that each community had a separate sense of single-member wards than had been proposed. He opposed the merging of the Dorking North East identity. They also opposed the use of the M25 as a and North West wards, Leith Hill and Westcott boundary between the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards and the parishes of Capel, Leigh and wards. Overall the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats Newdigate. He supported the District Council’s supported the mix of multi-member wards and view on the boundary between the Ashtead and argued for as many single-member wards in the Leatherhead wards, its proposed amendment rural areas of the district as practicable. between Fetcham East and West wards and the retention of certain properties in ‘Commonside’ Parish Councils within the Bookham North ward. Councillor Tatham, representing the district ward of Box Hill, 19 During Stage Three, nine representations were argued the case for a greater number of single- received from parish councils, three of which were member wards because they produce, in his view, a included in the submission from Mole Valley District greater degree of democratic accountability. Council. The parish councils of Brockham, Councillor Tatham also lodged his opposition to Charlwood and Ockley each supported the draft the proposed Leith Hill and Westcott ward. recommendations in relation to their own areas. 24 District Councillors Watson and Ward, 20 Abinger and Wotton parish councils both representing the present North Holmwood ward, opposed our proposals to merge the existing single- both supported our proposals for a three-member member Leith Hill and Westcott wards into a new ward covering the Holmwoods. The mixed nature two-member ward. Abinger Parish Council added of the ward would, in Councillor Ward’s view, be a that it was opposed to the merging of rural and positive proposal. He was however opposed to the urban areas which would, it claimed, lead to the combining of Leith Hill and Westcott. Councillor character of Abinger being threatened. Sewill representing the district ward of Charlwood was in favour of the proposal for no change to 21 Holmwood Parish Council supported our Charlwood ward. Councillor Wilkie representing “attempt to obtain a greater degree of electoral the district ward of Okewood conducted a survey balance in line with the changing population [in] in his ward, the results of which showed support the area”. However, it opposed the inclusion of the for our draft recommendations in this part of the parish of Holmwood into a ward including a more district. Councillor Cooksey representing the urban area, adding that it believed there were no district ward of Westcott was strongly opposed to specific links between the parish of Holmwood and our proposed merger of Leith Hill and Westcott the more suburban area of North Holmwood. It wards, submitting a petition with 345 signatories was “uneasy” about the population imbalance, also opposing the proposed merger. County which in its view favoured the more urban area of Councillor Gollin, representing the Ashtead North Holmwood. division, whilst supporting no change in Ashtead, contended that the proposed use of the M25 as a 22 Newdigate Parish Council opposed the draft boundary would be against local wishes. recommendations as they affected the parish, arguing that there were greater ties with Leigh than 25 County Councillor Watson, representing the with Capel. Capel Parish Council stated that the Dorking North division, supported our proposed proposed merging of Capel, Newdigate and Leigh Dorking North district ward. She added that she would produce too large a ward and that the area could not see the justification for Mickleham should rather be divided into two separate single- becoming part of a single-member ward, since it member wards. Buckland Parish Council wished to has “strong links” with Dorking. She argued for retain the present Rural East ward. the creation of either a two-member ward linking

10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Box Hill, Headley, Pixham, Mickleham and Westhumble or a three-member Dorking North ward through the addition of Westhumble, Mickleham and Pixham to our proposed Dorking North ward. County Councillor Watson also supported our proposed Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland ward, but opposed the proposed Leith Hill with Westcott ward citing the differences in community and geography.

26 The Brockham Green Village Society opposed our recommendations regarding the village of Brockham, preferring no change. The Westcott Village Association opposed our proposal to combine the Westcott and Leith Hill wards. We also received three representations from local residents in the proposed Leith Hill & Westcott ward. One resident supported the proposal while two opposed it.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 11 12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

27 As indicated previously, our prime objective in Electorate Forecasts considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Mole Valley is to achieve electoral 31 During Stage One the District Council equality, having regard to the statutory criteria set submitted “rounded” electorate forecasts for the out in the Local Government Act 1992 and year 2002, projecting an overall reduction in the Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972, electorate. We consulted Surrey County Council in which refers to the ratio of electors to councillors order to refine the forecasts. We understood from being “as nearly as may be, the same in every ward officers of the District Council that they were of the district or borough”. content with the revised forecasts. An overall reduction in the electorate of 833 had been 28 However, our function is not merely arithmetical. projected by the County Council over the five-year First, our recommendations are not intended to be period, from 63,335 to 62,502. It was expected based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on that the reduction in electorate would be fairly assumptions as to changes in the number and evenly spread across the district. distribution of local government electors likely to take place within the ensuing five years. Second, we 32 The electorate forecasts reflect assumptions as must have regard to the desirability of fixing to rates and locations of housing development with identifiable boundaries, and to maintaining local ties regard to structure and local plans, and the expected which might otherwise be broken. Third, we must rate of building over the five-year period. Advice consider the need to secure effective and convenient from the District Council on the likely effect on local government, and reflect the interests and electorates of changes to ward boundaries was identities of local communities. obtained. We accepted that this is an inexact science and, having given consideration to the District 29 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral Council’s forecast electorates together with the scheme which provides for exactly the same revisions proposed by the County Council, were number of electors per councillor in every ward of content that they represented the best estimates that an authority. There must be a degree of flexibility. could reasonably be made at the time. However, our approach is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum, consistent with the 33 During Stage Three the Brockham Green Village statutory criteria. Society made reference to the County Council’s projected decrease in electorate as “more than a bit 30 Our Guidance states that, while we accept that optimistic”. No other comments were received. We the achievement of absolute electoral equality for have decided to reconfirm our use of the figures the authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, provided by the County Council, as they were used we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be in our Draft Recommendations report, and formed kept to the minimum, such an objective should the basis on which views were invited. be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested Council Size parties should start from the standpoint of absolute electoral equality and only then make adjustments 34 Our Guidance indicated that we would to reflect relevant factors, such as community normally expect the number of councillors serving identity. Regard must also be had to five-year a district council to be in the range of 30 to 60. forecasts of changes in electorates. We will require particular justification for schemes which result in, 35 Mole Valley District Council is at present served or retain, an imbalance of over 10 per cent in any by 41 councillors. The Council did not propose any ward. Any imbalances of 20 per cent and over change to council size during Stage One. In our should arise only in the most exceptional draft recommendations report we considered the circumstances, and will require the strongest size and distribution of the electorate, the justification. geography and other characteristics of the area,

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 13 together with the representations received. We during the Council’s own consultation with regard concluded that the statutory criteria and the to Ashtead by the Ashtead Residents’ Association, achievement of electoral equality would best be met the County Councillor for Ashtead, the Epsom & by retaining a council size of 41. In its Stage Three Ewell Conservative Association and a local submission the District Council continued to resident. With regard to the Leatherhead wards the support no change to the present council size, while proposal for no change was supported by the further support was received from the Mole Valley Leatherhead Society. However, the Mole Valley District Labour Party. Having reconsidered our draft Conservative Group proposed a scheme for single- recommendations in light of the representations member wards for both Ashtead and Leatherhead. received, we are still of the view that 41 would be an appropriate council size for the District Council. 40 The proposals by the Conservative Group for single-member wards were expanded upon in some Electoral Arrangements detail in our Draft Recommendations report. In both our structural review work and in our electoral reviews, we have been sensitive to local preferences 36 Having considered all the representations received and practices and have put forward a mix of single- during Stage Three of the review, we have reviewed and multi- member ward recommendations. In four our draft recommendations. The following areas, of the main settlements in Mole Valley – Ashtead, based on existing wards, are considered in turn: Bookham, Leatherhead and Fetcham – the present pattern of multi-member wards is well established. (a) Ashtead (three wards) and Leatherhead (two We concluded that the present wards in Ashtead and wards); Leatherhead secured a good level of electoral (b) Bookham (two wards) and Fetcham (two wards); equality and endorsed in principle the proposition for no change. (c) Dorking (four wards) and Box Hill ward;

(d) Holmwood & Beare Green and North 41 However, we also proposed a realignment of Holmwood wards; the southern and western boundaries of the Ashtead wards with the M25 motorway and the (e) Brockham, Charlwood, Rural East and Rural South wards; eastern boundary of the Leatherhead wards with the motorway and the A243 road. This did not (f) Leith Hill, Okewood and Westcott wards. involve the transfer of any electors but would make the boundaries more appropriate and recognisable. Ashtead (three wards) and Leatherhead (two wards) 42 During Stage Three, our proposals for no change in principle to these wards were 37 The three wards in the town of Ashtead and the welcomed by the District Council, the Mole two wards in the town of Leatherhead presently Valley Conservative Association, the Mole Valley have a good level of electoral equality. In the two- District Labour Party, the Mole Valley Liberal member ward of Ashtead Common the number of Democrats, County Councillor Gollin representing electors per councillor is 1 per cent above the district Ashtead ward and Councillor Seabrook average, both initially and in 2002. The two- representing Fetcham East ward. However, the member Ashtead Park ward and three-member majority of these respondents opposed our Ashtead Village ward vary by 2 per cent and 3 per recommendation to realign the existing ward cent below the district average number of electors boundaries with the M25. per councillor (7 per cent and 5 per cent in 2002). 43 The present ward boundaries in this area were 38 In the town of Leatherhead, the three-member established (using field boundaries) in the mid- Leatherhead North ward and the two-member 1970s, some time before the M25 motorway was Leatherhead South ward vary from the average constructed. That road now cuts between Ashtead number of electors per councillor by 2 per cent and Leatherhead and the District Council, in its below and 2 per cent above the district average consultation prior to finalising its initial respectively (3 per cent above and 1 per cent above submission, considered recommending alterations in 2002). to the ward boundaries to reflect the ‘new’ road (which would not involve the transfer of any 39 During Stage One, both the District Council electors). However, during the consultation period and the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats proposed we received fairly strongly held views from many no change to the existing electoral arrangements in respondents that we should maintain the present Ashtead and Leatherhead, a proposal supported ward boundary between Ashtead and Leatherhead.

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 44 The respondents argued that the use of the M25 boundary modification (affecting 372 electors) as a boundary would lend local credence to the between the two-member Fetcham East and notion that the motorway would become a natural Fetcham West wards. Overall, the number of boundary for an expanded Greater London area in electors per councillor in the four wards would vary the future, something which local residents have by no more than 5 per cent from the average long sought to oppose. However, in our view the initially, and no more than 7 per cent by 2002. M25 would provide a clear and identifiable boundary, unlike the current boundary, and any 49 During Stage Three, our proposals for Bookham possible future expansion of Greater London is not and Fetcham generally received support from the a relevant consideration in this review. District Council, the Liberal Democrats, the District Labour Party, the Conservative Association and 45 We accept that the proposal to realign the existing Councillor Seabrook representing Fetcham East wards with the M25 appears to have little support ward. However, our proposal to transfer part of locally. However, we believe we would be failing in our ‘Commonside’ from Bookham North to Fetcham duty to secure boundaries that are more appropriate West was opposed by the District Council, the and recognisable if we did not acknowledge such a Conservative Association and Councillor Seabrook. distinct topographical feature as the M25. Therefore, we propose to endorse our draft recommendations for 50 In our Draft Recommendations report we the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards. Map A2 in proposed to transfer five properties from Appendix A details our final recommendations in ‘Commonside’ (11 electors) from Bookham North Ashtead and Leatherhead. ward to Fetcham West ward in order to ‘tidy up’ the Council’s proposed boundary. However, in its Stage Bookham (two wards) and Fetcham Three submission the Council argued that these (two wards) properties were only accessible by vehicle from Bookham. This would mean that in order to reach 46 The two-member ward of Bookham North is their allotted polling station in Fetcham those currently under-represented, with the number of electors would have to travel into and through electors per councillor varying from the district Bookham. On reflection, we accept this argument average by 26 per cent (23 per cent in 2002). The and now propose that these properties remain in three-member Bookham South ward presently has Bookham North ward (see Map A3). a reasonable level of electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor 5 per cent below 51 The Council also drew our attention to the the average (6 per cent in 2002). The two-member proposed boundary between Fetcham East and wards of Fetcham East and Fetcham West are both Fetcham West wards. Two properties in Cannon currently over-represented, with 11 per cent and Way (12a and Willow Cottage) are located to the 6 per cent above the average number of electors north-east of the railway line. However, vehicular per councillor respectively, (11 per cent and 4 per access to those two properties is available only via an cent in 2002). unmade road leading from Cannon Way ‘proper’, which passes under the railway line. Moreover, the 47 In order to secure improved electoral equality existing polling station for the electors at those for the towns of Bookham and Fetcham, the properties is in Cannon Way. The Council therefore Council argued in its Stage One submission that contended that the two properties should remain in this part of the district should be looked at as a Fetcham East ward. We are content to accept this whole, contending that the area merited 10 modification to the proposed boundary between councillors rather than the present nine, assuming Fetcham East and Fetcham West wards, and put this a 41-member council size. We concurred with this forward as our final recommendation(see Map A3). view, and our draft proposals for this area were based on the Council’s Stage One scheme (albeit Dorking (four wards) and Box Hill with a slight modification to the boundary between ward the proposed Bookham North and Fetcham West wards involving 11 electors). 52 There is presently a considerable degree of electoral inequality in the town of Dorking. The 48 Our proposals were for an unchanged three- single-member wards of Dorking North East and member Bookham South ward and a transfer of Dorking North West are presently under-represented, 517 electors from Fetcham West ward to Bookham varying from the average number of electors per North ward, the latter of which would be allocated councillor by 20 per cent and 23 per cent respectively an additional (third) member. We also proposed a (17 and 15 per cent in 2002). The two-member

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 15 wards of Dorking South East and Dorking South proposed Holmwoods ward). The three-member West, on the other hand, are over-represented, Dorking South ward would have an electoral varying from the average number of electors per variance of 6 per cent initially, 8 per cent in 2002. councillor by 15 per cent and 29 per cent respectively (10 per cent and 32 per cent in 2002). 57 During Stage Three, the District Council, the Conservative Association and Councillor Seabrook 53 The two-member ward of Box Hill, which is opposed our proposal to create a two-member situated to the north and north-east of Dorking, Dorking North ward. However, the proposal was consists of four distinct areas – the parishes supported by the Mole Valley District Labour of Headley and Mickleham, and the unparished areas Party, the Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party - of Box Hill and Westhumble. The ward is over- Dorking Branch, and the Mole Valley Liberal represented on the District Council, varying by 20 per Democrats, whilst a multi-member ward approach cent from the average number of electors per found favour with County Councillor Watson. councillor (16 per cent in 2002). We concluded that Dorking plus the ward of Box Hill should be 58 In respect of the more rural area, the Mole Valley considered together, and should be represented by District Labour Party and the Dorking Branch of the seven councillors in total rather than the present eight. Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party believed that our proposed wards of Box Hill & Headley and 54 As part of our draft recommendations, we Mickleham, Westhumble & Pixham should be adopted a proposal put forward by the Council, the merged together to form a new two-member ward. Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Group. In contrast, the Mole Valley Conservative The proposal was for the rural area of Box Hill and Association, the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats and the parish of Headley to form a new single- Councillor Tatham stated the case for single-member member ward of Box Hill & Headley, varying from wards because, it was argued, they produce a greater the average number of electors per councillor by 4 degree of democratic accountability. per cent initially (9 per cent in 2002). We also proposed that the parish of Mickleham and the 59 County Councillor Watson urged the Commission neighbouring community of Westhumble should be to consider recommending either a two-member ward placed with the Pixham area of Dorking to create a linking Box Hill, Headley, Pixham, Mickleham and new single-member Mickleham, Westhumble & Westhumble, or the creation of a three-member ward Pixham ward. The resultant ward would secure a through the addition of Westhumble, Mickleham and good level of electoral equality, with a variance of Pixham to the proposed Dorking North ward. only 1 per cent initially and equal to the average number of electors per councillor by 2002. 60 We have reconsidered our draft recommendations for Dorking in the light of the views expressed. 55 In the remainder of the urban area of Dorking, Some respondents support our proposals for the however, both single-member and multi-member town (or parts of it) while others oppose them. We ward schemes were put to us. As discussed in our have not been persuaded that the northern part of Draft Recommendations report, we approached the task Dorking is so different to other urban and of achieving appropriate electoral arrangements for suburban areas in Mole Valley as to warrant it Dorking from a standpoint of endeavouring to secure having single-member wards when the other areas consistency across the whole district. Although there will all have multi-member wards. Equally, we have are presently two single-member wards in the not been persuaded that our proposed single- northern part of Dorking, they are the only such member Mickleham, Westhumble & Pixham ward wards in the district’s urban or suburban areas. can be improved upon either by placing the Pixham area ‘back’ into a Dorking-based ward or by placing 56 Therefore, we proposed that the single-member the more rural parts of the proposed ward with wards put forward by the Council and the neighbouring rural areas. Conservative Association for northern Dorking should be placed together as a two-member 61 We believe our draft recommendations to strike Dorking North ward. The number of electors per the best balance between the need to secure electoral councillor would vary from the district average by equality, the need to treat each area consistently and 1 per cent initially, becoming 4 per cent in 2002. In to respect community identities. Accordingly, we the southern part of the town, we concurred with confirm our draft recommendations for the town of the District Council’s proposal for a three-member Dorking and the neighbouring present ward of Box Dorking South ward (albeit with a boundary Hill as final. Details of our final recommendations modification between Dorking South and our can be seen on Map A4 in Appendix A.

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Holmwood & Beare Green and North recommendations, with neither ward varying by Holmwood wards more than 10 per cent from the average. However, while the Labour Party’s proposals may alleviate 62 These two wards presently suffer from a some of the concerns of Holmwood Parish substantial degree of electoral imbalance. The two- Council, we have borne in mind the fact that most member Holmwood & Beare Green ward is over- other respondents have supported our draft represented, varying below the average number of proposals for this area, particularly that for a single- electors per councillor by 29 per cent (31 per cent member Beare Green ward. in 2002). The two-member North Holmwood ward, on the other hand, is under-represented, 67 While we acknowledge the concerns expressed varying by 35 per cent above the average. This level by Holmwood Parish Council, particularly in of under-representation is forecast to worsen (to 47 relation to the mixed urban/rural nature of the per cent) over the next five years, a contributory proposed Holmwoods ward, we remain of the view factor to this being the housing development that our draft recommendations for this part of the around the northern edge of the Rough Rew area. district, as supported by the District Council and others, are the most appropriate. We therefore 63 Our draft recommendations for this area were confirm our draft recommendations for a three- based on the District Council’s proposal to place member Holmwoods ward and a single-member the parish of Holmwood with the existing two- Beare Green ward as final. Details of the northern member North Holmwood ward to form a new boundary of our proposed Holmwoods ward are three-member Holmwoods ward (albeit with a shown in Appendix A on Map A4. boundary modification between its proposed Dorking South and Holmwoods wards). We also Brockham, Charlwood, Rural East and adopted the Council’s proposal to form a single- Rural South wards member Beare Green ward from the Beare Green parish ward of Capel parish. The number of electors 68 The single-member Brockham ward, per councillor in the Holmwoods ward would vary comprising solely the parish of that name, is by 2 per cent initially (10 per cent in 2002). In the considerably under-represented at present, with single-member Beare Green ward the number of the number of electors per councillor being 44 per electors per councillor would equal the district cent above the district average (36 per cent in average initially (varying by 3 per cent in 2002). 2002). The single-member Charlwood ward, comprising solely the parish of that name, varies by 64 During Stage Three our proposals for this area only 2 per cent above the district average (8 per were supported by the District Council, the Mole cent in 2002). Valley Liberal Democrats and District Councillors Watson and Ward. The Mole Valley Conservative 69 The present level of electoral imbalance in certain Association supported the proposal for Beare parts of Mole Valley is exemplified by the present Green ward. wards of Rural East and Rural South. The two- member Rural East ward, which comprises the 65 Holmwood Parish Council opposed the proposal parishes of Betchworth, Buckland and Leigh, has an to include the parish in the new Holmwoods ward, electorate of 1,915, while the Rural South ward, arguing that there was no specific link between the which comprises the Capel parish ward of that name parish of Holmwood and the more ‘urban’ area of and the parish of Newdigate, contains a larger North Holmwood. The Parish Council was also number of electors (2,389) but is only represented uneasy about the population distribution within the by one district councillor. Rural East ward is over- proposed ward which, it argued, favoured the more represented by 38 per cent (37 per cent in 2002) urban area of North Holmwood. while Rural South ward has the largest variance in the district, being under-represented by 55 per cent 66 The Mole Valley District Labour Party (56 per cent in 2002). (supported by the Dorking Branch of the Party) put forward an alternative proposal for this area 70 During Stage One the Council proposed the which involved the creation of a two-member ward retention of the existing Brockham ward (a for much of ‘urban’ Holmwood and a separate proposal also supported by Brockham Parish two-member ward consisting of the parish of Council) and that the present Rural East ward be Holmwood, the parish ward of Beare Green and retained on its present boundaries, but represented part of the present North Holmwood ward. Under by only one district councillor. The Council also its proposals the level of electoral equality would be proposed that two new single-member wards be broadly similar to that attained under our draft established, one for the parish of Newdigate and

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 17 the other for the parish ward of Capel, communities Democrats. The Liberal Democrats argued that the which are at present represented jointly in the single- proposed Capel Leigh and Newdigate ward was “the member Rural South ward. The Council proposed least unacceptable combination which achieves no change for the single-member ward of reasonable electoral equality.” Charlwood, a proposal that received support from Charlwood Parish Council. The Liberal Democrats, 76 The District Council contended that the the Conservative Group and Councillor Pharo- proposed ward was too big and recommended one Tomlin each argued for a pattern of single-member single-member ward comprising the Capel parish wards for the whole of this area. ward and another one comprising the parishes of Leigh and Newdigate. Councillor Seabrook 71 However, in our view the level of electoral equality expressed a preference for single-member wards for in some of the proposed wards was unacceptable. In the area. The Mole Valley Conservative Association order to improve the level of electoral equality in this believed that it was “illogical” to place Leigh with area, we proposed to create two new two-member Newdigate and Capel and expressed its support for wards from the present wards of Brockham, Rural the single-member ward proposals from Capel East and Rural South, and to retain unchanged the Parish Council submitted during Stage One. present single-member Charlwood ward. 77 While Newdigate Parish Council was opposed 72 We proposed a new two-member ward to any subdivision of Newdigate into different comprising the parishes of Brockham, Betchworth district wards, the Parish Council felt that the parish and Buckland which would initially vary from the as a whole shared greater ties with Leigh than with average number of electors per councillor by 11 per Capel. Capel Parish Council believed that the cent, a figure that was projected to improve to 8 per proposed merging of Capel, Newdigate and Leigh cent by 2002. We also proposed a new two-member would produce too large a ward and that the area ward comprising the parishes of Leigh and should instead be divided into two separate wards. Newdigate and the Capel parish ward of Capel parish, which would equal the average number of 78 Our proposal for Brockham, Betchworth & electors per councillor both initially and in 2002. The Buckland ward appears to enjoy local support, with single-member Charlwood ward would continue to the only respondents opposed to it arguing vary from the average number of electors per either for schemes with poor electoral equality or councillor by 2 per cent (8 per cent in 2002). for no change. As we explained in the draft recommendations report, a ‘no change’ proposal is 73 At Stage Three, the Mole Valley Liberal not acceptable due to the high level of electoral Democrats, the Mole Valley District Labour Party, inequality that would remain in the Brockham and Charlwood Parish Council and Councillor Sewill Rural East wards. Given the general level of support supported our proposals for no change to the and the reasonable level of electoral equality that existing single-member Charlwood ward. No would result, we are confirming as final our proposal comments against this proposal were received and for a two-member Brockham, Betchworth & we are therefore content to recommend it as final. Buckland ward including the ward name. The number of electors per councillor would vary from 74 Our recommendation to create a two-member the district average by 11 per cent, but a projected Brockham, Betchworth & Buckland ward received decrease in electorate in the ward would result in an support from the District Council, the District electoral variance of 8 per cent by 2002. Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Brockham Parish Council and County Councillor Watson. The 79 There is some support for a two-member Capel, Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party (Dorking Leigh & Newdigate ward. However, other Branch) was opposed to any warding of Brockham respondents have argued that the ward would be too parish, and acknowledged that there was a “natural large and have produced alternative single-member grouping” between Betchworth, Brockham and warding arrangements, some of which would involve Buckland. Brockham Green Village Society and the warding of Brockham parish. Our proposed ward Buckland Parish Council were both opposed to the appears to be relatively similar in size to the existing recommendation, preferring no change. Leith Hill ward, which, as expanded upon below, many respondents have argued should be retained. 75 With regard to our proposal for a two-member We have already accepted the proposal for no change Capel, Leigh & Newdigate ward we received to Charlwood ward and have reaffirmed our proposal support from the Mole Valley Constituency Labour to create a two-member Brockham, Betchworth & Party (Dorking Branch), the Mole Valley District Buckland ward, thereby limiting alternative options Labour Party and the Mole Valley Liberal for Capel, Leigh and Newdigate.

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 80 We have considered alternative arrangements ward, (primarily so that Leith Hill would not be (such as single-member wards) during Stage One merged with Westcott ward), we remain of the and again at Stage Three, but electoral equality view that the single-member Okewood ward cannot be improved upon without the arbitrary should remain unchanged. The number of electors splitting of the parish of Newdigate, something per councillor would vary from the district average which the parish council has expressed its firm by 7 per cent (10 per cent in 2002). opposition to. Therefore, we put forward our proposal for a two-member Capel, Leigh & 85 With regard to our proposal to merge Leith Newdigate ward as final. The number of electors Hill and Westcott to form a two-member ward, per councillor would equal the district average both many respondents (see Chapter Four) argued initially and in 2002. strongly against this draft recommendation. The existing Leith Hill ward comprises a whole parish Leith Hill, Okewood and Westcott (Wotton) plus parts of two neighbouring parishes wards (Abinger and Capel) and covers a relatively large rural area. The widely held view put to us by local 81 The single-member Leith Hill ward comprises respondents was that Westcott is more suburban in the parish of Wotton, the Northern parish ward of nature and is unparished and that to combine the Abinger parish and the Coldharbour parish ward of two wards would be artificial. It would be better Capel parish. The ward varies by 12 per cent below on community identity grounds, it was argued, to the average number of electors per councillor (16 maintain the two wards unchanged. per cent in 2002). The single-member Okewood ward comprises the parish of Ockley and the 86 We judge that, in this case, the community Southern parish ward of Abinger parish and varies identity arguments put to us marginally outweigh by 7 per cent below the average number of electors the electoral equality arguments and so recommend per councillor (10 per cent in 2002). The single- that the Leith Hill ward remain unaltered, member Westcott ward, an unparished area to the even though it would be the only ward in the west of Dorking, varies by 11 per cent above the district exceeding the average number of electors average number of electors per councillor (9 per per councillor by more than 10 per cent by cent in 2002). 2002, when it is projected to vary by 16 per cent from the average. 82 During Stage One, the District Council, the Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Group, 87 We therefore propose to also recommend that Abinger Parish Council and Wotton Parish Council there should be no change to the existing single- all proposed no change to the present electoral member Westcott ward, which would vary from arrangements of these wards. the average number of electors per councillor by 11 per cent initially, although a projected decrease in 83 In our Draft Recommendations report, we electorate for the ward would result in an electoral concurred with the proposal for no change to variance of 9 per cent by 2002. Okewood ward. However, in order to achieve better electoral equality in the rest of this part of the Electoral Cycle district, we proposed to merge the existing single- member wards of Leith Hill and Westcott to form a 88 In our Draft Recommendations report we new two-member Leith Hill & Westcott ward. We proposed that the present system of elections by stated that although such a ward would be relatively thirds should continue. At Stage Three the District large in size, it would improve the present level of Council and the Mole Valley District Labour Party electoral equality in this part of the district without, expressed their support for this proposal. No other on our understanding, adversely affecting local representations were received on this issue, and we community identities. The two-member Leith Hill have therefore decided to confirm our draft & Westcott ward would vary from the average recommendation as final. number of electors per councillor by just 1 per cent initially (4 per cent in 2002). Conclusions

84 During Stage Three our proposal for no change 89 Having considered all the evidence and to the single-member Okewood ward received representations we have received in response to our support from the District Council, the Mole Valley consultation report, we have decided to Liberal Democrats, Councillor Wilkie and Ockley substantially endorse our draft recommendations, Parish Council. Although some respondents although we propose to make modifications to our argued for Okewood to merge with Leith Hill draft proposals in the following wards:

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 19 (a) we propose to modify the boundary between that our recommendations would best meet the Bookham North and Fetcham West wards to need for electoral equality, having regard to the allow the 11 electors from the western end of statutory criteria. ‘Commonside’ to remain in Bookham North ward; Final Recommendation (b) the proposed Fetcham East and Fetcham West wards should be modified to allow two Mole Valley District Council should comprise properties to remain in Fetcham East ward; 41 councillors serving 21 wards, as detailed and named in Figures 1 and 4, and illustrated (c) the single-member Leith Hill and Westcott in Map 2 and Appendix A. The Council wards should remain unchanged rather than be should continue to hold elections by thirds. placed together to form a new two-member ward.

90 We have concluded that there should be a Parish Council Electoral council size of 41; that there should be 21 wards, Arrangements two fewer than at present; that the boundaries of 18 of the existing wards should be modified; 93 In undertaking reviews of electoral arrangements, and that elections should continue to take place we are required to comply as far as is reasonably by thirds. practicable with the provisions set out in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule provides that if a 91 Figure 3 shows the impact of our final parish is to be divided between different district recommendations on electoral equality, comparing wards it is to be divided into parish wards, so that them with the current arrangements, as based on each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward of 1997 and 2002 electorate figures. the district.

92 As shown in Figure 3, our recommendations 94 During Stage One we received no proposals for would result in a reduction in the number of changes to parish council electoral arrangements. wards varying by more than 10 per cent from the Therefore, we did not propose any change to the district average from 14 to three, and a further electoral arrangements of parish councils in the reduction to only one by 2002. We conclude district, nor to their electoral cycle. During Stage

Figure 3: Comparison of Current and Recommended Electoral Arrangements

1997 electorate 2002 projected electorate Current Final Current Final arrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations

Number of councillors 41 41 41 41

Number of wards 23 21 23 21

Average number of electors 1,545 1,545 1,524 1,524 per councillor

Number of wards with a 14 3 12 1 variance more than 10 per cent from the average

Number of wards with a 8 0 7 0 variance more than 20 per cent from the average

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Three, the District Council supported our draft recommendation that parish council elections should be held at the same time as elections for the District Council, although it noted that this is not the case presently with Brockham Parish Council. We have not received any evidence to consider moving away from this proposal, and therefore confirm it as final.

Final Recommendation Elections for parish councils should continue to be held at the same time as elections for the District Council.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 21 Figure 4: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Mole Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Ashtead 2 3,106 1,553 1 3,077 1,539 1 Common

2 Ashtead Park 2 3,030 1,515 -2 2,850 1,425 -7

3 Ashtead Village 3 4,484 1,495 -3 4,329 1,443 -5

4 Beare Green 1 1,539 1,539 0 1,476 1,476 -3

5 Bookham North 3 4,424 1,475 -5 4,272 1,424 -7

6 Bookham South 3 4,405 1,468 -5 4,285 1,428 -6

7 Box Hill 1 1,609 1,609 4 1,666 1,666 9 & Headley

8 Brockham, 2 3,439 1,720 11 3,298 1,649 8 Betchworth & Buckland

9 Capel, Leigh 2 3,083 1,542 0 3,056 1,528 0 & Newdigate

10 Charlwood 1 1,574 1,574 2 1,648 1,648 8

11 Dorking North 2 3,105 1,553 1 2,917 1,459 -4

12 Dorking South 3 4,931 1,644 6 4,931 1,644 8

13 Fetcham East 2 3,047 1,524 -1 3,011 1,506 -1

14 Fetcham West 2 3,100 1,550 0 3,021 1,511 -1

15 Holmwoods 3 4,716 1,572 2 5,032 1,677 10

16 Leatherhead 3 4,542 1,514 -2 4,722 1,574 3 North

17 Leatherhead 2 3,159 1,580 2 3,078 1,539 1 South

18 Leith Hill 1 1,361 1,361 -12 1,276 1,276 -16

19 Mickleham, 1 1,529 1,529 -1 1,527 1,527 0 Westhumble & Pixham

22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 4 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Mole Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

20 Okewood 1 1,442 1,442 -7 1,367 1,367 -10

21 Westcott 1 1,710 1,710 11 1,663 1,663 9

Totals 41 63,335 --62,502 --

Averages --1,545 --1,524 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Mole Valley District Council’s submission. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 23 Map 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Mole Valley

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 6. NEXT STEPS

95 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in Mole Valley and submitted our final recommendations to the Secretary of State, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Local Government Act 1992.

96 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give effect to our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an order. Such an order will not be made earlier than six weeks from the date that our recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of State.

97 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:

The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Review Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 25 26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX A

Final Recommendations for Mole Valley: Detailed Mapping

The following maps illustrate the Commission’s proposed ward boundaries for the Mole Valley area.

Map A1 illustrates, in outline form, the proposed ward boundaries within the district and indicates the areas which are shown in more detail in Maps A2, A3 and A4.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed boundary changes between the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards.

Map A3 illustrates the proposed warding arrangements for Bookham and Fetcham.

Map A4 illustrates the proposed warding arrangements for the Dorking area.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 27 Map A1: Final Recommendations for Mole Valley: Key Map

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A2: Proposed Boundary Changes between the Ashtead and Leatherhead Wards

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 29 Map A3: Proposed Warding Arrangements for Bookham and Fetcham

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A4: Proposed Warding Arrangements for the Dorking Area

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 31 32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX B

Draft Recommendations for Mole Valley

Figure B1: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Ward name Number of Constituent areas councillors

1 Ashtead 2 Ashtead Common ward; Leatherhead North ward (part) Common

2 Ashtead Park 2 Ashtead Park ward; Leatherhead South ward (part)

3 Ashtead Village 3 Ashtead Village ward; Leatherhead North ward (part)

4 Beare Green 1 Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part – the Beare Green parish ward of Capel parish)

5 Bookham North 3 Bookham North ward (part); Fetcham West ward (part)

6 Bookham South 3 Unchanged (the unparished area of Bookham South)

7 Box Hill 1 Box Hill ward (part – the polling district of Box Hill and the & Headley parish of Headley)

8 Brockham, 2 Brockham ward (the parish of Brockham); Rural East ward Betchworth (part – the parishes of Betchworth and Buckland) & Buckland

9 Capel, Leigh 2 Rural South ward (the parish of Newdigate and Capel parish & Newdigate ward of Capel parish); Rural East ward (part – the parish of Leigh)

10 Charlwood 1 Unchanged (the parish of Charlwood)

11 Dorking North 2 Dorking North East ward (part); Dorking North West ward

12 Dorking South 3 Dorking North East Ward (part); Dorking South East ward; Dorking South West ward; North Holmwood ward (part)

13 Fetcham East 2 Fetcham East ward (part)

14 Fetcham West 2 Bookham North ward (part); Fetcham East ward (part); Fetcham West ward (part)

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 33 Figure B1: (continued) The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Ward name Number of Constituent areas councillors

15 Holmwoods 3 North Holmwood ward (part); Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part – the parish of Holmwood)

16 Leatherhead 3 Leatherhead North ward (part) North

17 Leatherhead 2 Ashtead Park ward (part); Leatherhead South ward (part) South

18 Leith Hill 2 Leith Hill ward (the parish of Wotton, the Northern parish & Westcott ward of Abinger parish, and the Coldharbour parish ward of Capel parish); Westcott ward (the unparished area of Westcott)

19 Mickleham, 1 Box Hill ward (part – the polling district of Westhumble and Westhumble the parish of Mickleham); Dorking North East ward (part) & Pixham

20 Okewood 1 Unchanged (the parish of Ockley and the Southern parish ward of Abinger parish)

34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure B2: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Mole Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Ashtead 2 3,106 1,553 1 3,077 1,539 1 Common

2 Ashtead Park 2 3,030 1,515 -2 2,850 1,425 -7

3 Ashtead Village 3 4,484 1,495 -3 4,329 1,443 -5

4 Beare Green 1 1,539 1,539 0 1,476 1,476 -3

5 Bookham North 3 4,413 1,471 -5 4,261 1,420 -7

6 Bookham South 3 4,405 1,468 -5 4,285 1,428 -6

7 Box Hill 1 1,609 1,609 4 1,666 1,666 9 & Headley

8 Brockham, 2 3,439 1,720 11 3,298 1,649 8 Betchworth & Buckland

9 Capel, 2 3,083 1,542 0 3,056 1,528 0 Leigh & Newdigate

10 Charlwood 1 1,574 1,574 2 1,648 1,648 8

11 Dorking North 2 3,105 1,553 1 2,917 1,459 -4

12 Dorking South 3 4,931 1,644 6 4,931 1,644 8

13 Fetcham East 2 3,043 1,522 -2 3,007 1,504 -1

14 Fetcham West 2 3,115 1,558 1 3,036 1,518 0

15 Holmwoods 3 4,716 1,572 2 5,032 1,677 10

16 Leatherhead 3 4,542 1,514 -2 4,722 1,574 3 North

17 Leatherhead 2 3,159 1,580 2 3,078 1,539 1 South

18 Leith Hill 2 3,071 1,536 -1 2,939 1,470 -4 & Westcott

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 35 Figure B2 (continued): The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Mole Valley

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

19 Mickleham, 1 1,529 1,529 -1 1,527 1,527 0 Westhumble & Pixham

20 Okewood 1 1,442 1,442 -7 1,367 1,367 -10

Totals 41 63,335 --62,502 --

Averages -- 1,545 -- 1,524 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Mole Valley District Council’s submission and projected electorates provided by the County Council. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

36 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 37 38 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND