Local Government Boundary Commission for England Report No.309 LOCAL Governiil'nt
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.309 LOCAL GOVERNiiL'NT BOUNDARY C00.IISSIOK FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOViilRNui^'i1 BOUIJLAuY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton GCB KBE DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC MEMBERS Lady Bowden' MrJ T Brockbank Professor Michael Chisholm Mr R R Thornton CB DL Mr D P Harrison To the Rt Hon Merlyn Rees MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF WAVERLEY IN THE COUNTY OF SURREY 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of Waverley in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to? the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that district* 2* In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(l) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 May 1974 that we were to undertake this review* This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Waverley District Council, copies of which were circulated to the Surrey County Council, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned, Parish Councils in the district and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3. Waverley District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in pur Report No. 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward* They were asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment, *f. In accordance with section 7(*0 of the Local Government Act 1972, the Council have exercised em option of a system of whole::council elections* 5* On 27 September 1974Waverley District Council presented two draft schemes of representation which they called Scheme A and Scheme B. Both schemes provided for the division of the district into 30 wards. Scheme A divided the district into 1, 2 or 3 member wards, with the exception of Cranleigh which would return 5 councillors, to form a council of 60 members. Scheme B provided for 1, 2 or 3 member wards, with the exception of Cranleigh which would return 6 members, to produce a total council of 56 members. 6. We considered both draft schemes, together with the comments which we had received and those which had been transmitted to us by the District Council. None of the comments took the form of alternative schemes for .the district as a whole but were related to warding arrangements for various parishes within the district. 7. We decided to draw up a compromise scheme for 55 members using 20 wards from Scheme B, with some adjustment to the number of councillors allocated to wards, and 9 wards from Scheme A (those in the area of Godalming and Haslemere). We thought that the parish of Cranleigh should have two wards, one with three members and the other with two, in accordance with our guidelines that no ward should return more than 3 councillors* The resulting scheme appeared to us to offer a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements for the district, which complied with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and with our guidelines. We formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 8. On 5 March 1975 we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to the recipients of our consultation letter and others from whom comments on the District Council's draft schemes had been received. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries available for inspection at their main offices* Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us by 9 May 1975. 9. Our draft proposals were opposed by the District Council, by Parish Councils and by members of the public. The District Council further informed ue that they no longer supported either Scheme A or Scheme B; and that they wished to retain their existing electoral arrangements which included a number of wards returning 4« 5 and 6 councillors giving a total council of 61 members* i' 10. In the light of the general opposition to our draft proposals, we met representatives of the District Council which subsequently_agreed to submit a revised draft scheme for our consideration. 11. On 12 February 1976, Waverley District Council sent us their revised draft scheme and the final material to complete the scheme was received on 8 April 1976. They proposed to divide the area into 28 wards, each returning 1, 2 or J councillors to produce a council of 58 members. The District Council had published details of their revised proposals and invited comments on them* 12* We studied the revised scheme together with the comments which had been received. The comments included an alternative scheme submitted by a local councillor. This scheme provided for the division of the district into 28 wards each returning 1, 2"or 3 members to form a council of 57 members. We decided to reject this scheme as we found that the standard of equality of representation was generally inferior to that offered by the revised draft scheme. 13. The remaining comments dealt with particular aspects of the Council's revised scheme. These comments included alternative warding arrangements for various parishes together with suggestions for the renaming of some of the proposed wards. We felt unable to accept any of the modifications which had been suggested and we resolved, as the District Council had done, to reject them and we decided therefore to use that scheme as the basis for our revised draft proposals. In the interests of clarity we renamed some of the wards in the revised scheme and adopted minor boundary modifications which the Ordnance Survey had suggested. We then formulated our revised draft proposals accordingly. 14. On 9 August 1976 we issued our revised draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's revised draft scheme. The Council were asked to make these revised draft proposals, and the accompanying maps, which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our revised draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 15 October 1976. 15* Waverley District Council informed us that they had no observations to make on our revised draft proposals and Surrey County Council wrote in similar terms. Five parish councils accepted our revised draft proposals. Elstead Parish Council objected to their proposed grouping with the parish of Thursley but would accept this arrangement if it meant that otherwise they would return only one councillor* Hambledon Parish Council objected to the. proposal to link the T>arish with Chiddtogfold to form a 2 member ward. They preferred to be 'transferred to the proposed ward comprising Busbridge, Hascombe and Dunefold or else to be grouped with Busbridge and Hascombe alone. Cranleigh Parish Council objected to the proposal that part of the parish should be split and linked with the neighbouring parish of Alford. Similar objections were received from a local political association and a member of the public. Another local political association objected to the proposed warding arrangements for Cranleigh and thought that the parish should be divided into 2 wards. 16» In view of these comments we decided that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with section 65(2) of the 1972 Act ..and, at our request, Mr R E Millard, CBU, was appointed as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 17. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Borough Hall, Godalming on 20 January 1977. A copy (without enclosures) of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 18. The Assistant Commissioner recommended that our revised draft proposals should be varied as follows:- a. the parish of Cranleigh to be divided into a Cranleigh. East ward returning 3 members and a Cranleigh West ward returning 2 members. b. a single member ward comprising the parishes of Alfolxl and Dunefold. c. a single member ward comprising the parishes of Busbridge, Hambledon and Hascombe. d. a single member ward comprising the parish of Chiddingfold.. 19. We considered again onr revised draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We concluded that the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to those amendments, we decided to confirm our revised draft proposals as our final proposals.