Report No. 394: Surrey
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 394 Local Government Bqvmdriry.Comr.iissiori • :• - .C«« t1',•»/•.?-,.-,-E ,-...'•• • i iCJi L"i;'-• Sciij'.i • • ' • . •'.", '--. ' . .'• •-, ,- . / • 20 Albert I-iiVcaokir.cnt ' '• .<v'-v'•'•-"-'.'':-''• -'- •--.•.. -v.: London Gbl 7TJ ' • :'•"•'•"' \ -.-; '-.-. : ..' i" ''o 1 - ' - • - ' • Tsiephcno Di-'tiul Line 01-211 ^°JJ ''-'j ''.':/: "v. :>V'"-...'••.- • •' Our reft. LG3C/D/35V':.'. G Tfcssorcmn Ssq. v;*j.>' 153 Division :-; ;••'.-.;" '..• Howe OfTice ' " " ":" - 50 Q;i£an /imio's Gate London SwlH 9AT -••:••- October 1980 rSVTKV 0? El-SC-TCR/'t AnUj^C^^T^ - CO!?:;TY CJ1 SUHHElf' COMM1S3I01PS HKPCPT KO. 394 - COIUUGICNDUM . - ,--.. -.:.: 1. Elinbridge Borough Council have- drav;n the Coirsiissjcn's attention to certain errors in Iho description c.f the proposed ^altori-on-^haaies electoral division contained in Schedule 2 (pages 2 pjid 3) of the -Cocjtission'.e Report Ho. 39'K ' . '.. - • ?.. The following1 descriptions hr.ve bo en agreed by the Boroud- Council atid Ordriwica Siu:vey*" I would be grateful if you could amend yo'.u1 cc-piss of the report ex ^l^££^£li^L££l£lJl^^ • :' '.:.'' •'"'.•':•'/•'•'•;.' • " • - . ' . -'••' •-"''• ;'. '• - ' '. ' •"•" '"' -• ' ' f '' ':•'•• 3o3.ete fron 'and1'in .line 1 to 'said property and* in line 5» insert:- ar/J ths-t part of Walton Central 7;ard coa,r.encin£ at tj-.p ^motion o.f Kin#c Koad aud Sidney Road on the sout,h(2?.atorr. bcur.dA.vy of V.'alton Central ?t'ao;d, thonoti northwastv-'ards alon^: Sidney Ror-d to a point opposite- tbo oouthcaEtern boundary of n'o. 72 Sidney Hoa-i( thenco • - southvfost-vaxds to sjid alonf: said scutheaKtsrn boo.udary to the northeastern boaridory of }!o,105 Kinga Road, t:isnce /Kii'th\vefl'tv;ardK along- r.aid northoactorn boi\nda.ry to tho voar boundary of the last rasritionfid property, tl^.onoe oouth\fostwards along1 naid rear boundary and the rear boundary of Ko. 103 Kings Ho&d to tho reor boxmiary of llo.l Kings Close, thenco northwactv/ards along said rear bo-^ndary and continuinf; s along '. , . •-..',;.-: '.::',..,-...••:.>;.-v ••' •• . •• •".-.,. .-. :-- : .-...- . •• JiSiii:i:i^1'5i)±!r:i2L^2i^^ ;'•• "" ' ' '- •-' fiolete fx'c/fi 'alii' itr lino 24 to 'aoid street* irx lino 26,' insert:- 'to tho reav j of the property knov/n c .s lilcn'diO.R1l the;ice ri03:t}iv;estY/o.vds e.lo.i^ aairl r-i;u' bouriclC'.L'y wn^ the rear boundiU'ioG "cf the r.^ipci-'ties icnown as RcKt.--ilior ";vvo:oa. Fiusfietn, Cottosmore and Selv/otthy to tl1^ Koutlieastc-ru bo'on{'ia;:y of \Valton-on-*l'hiira'»s Bsptiwt CbMrch, thence Goutbvyont'.varcle alon^; oaid southoastorn boundary to Ccl'oy Hoad, thence i no3:thYf-estwai. ds alon^: said road to V/inch3?*tez.' Soadr thence ncrtlyoaiitvwrda alonj^ said road to a point or^o-oitf.1 tr:o aouthv/cst^m bo\ind:iL'y of I:o.l V/?.nchoot;er ;-?oad, thonce northv;oiitv;ardo to arxa aionji said itouthwftfitei'ii bounciary s.v;d in prolongation theiM-oi' to the riarthwciotcrn boundary of No. 63 High Street, thonca oouth^eatwai-'ils along; srdd , .. northwfcsi-^rn boundary to tha southv/sstcrn bounda.ry .of the Dyr«ott thorice /TonsL'G.!l.ly liorl.hwoJjtv.'arns a.lon.v; B.iid southv/t>nte.v^ boundary to Church V/a'/.k, thonco tiortha.MOtv.xird-'; p.!Oiis• fe.niO V,-'ruk to a ioint oppofdto the re.-u.1 bountuiry oi" No. cjlc K.i^h Stref.'t, thoncft iiortlivro^tY/anlo along e<iid roar boufidar-y iiiid ths i.'ear bouj;d;iry or Ko, //y Hi£H Si'Veot v • • - -•-_"'' '.-.'-..".; . •" • ; to ins ^outheAobcrni bounihu-y of I'ln, 47 Hjfili fifcreyt, theaco nr.rthop.atttards along naif)' soutUrvastsrn bounduvy fco the no-'thttnstortvjost point of th»3 IE at ir.vntior.jr-a property, tJienoo northv/o^tiVArrirt i"ros) nai-;] point .ir, .?. stxvuglvt 3.ine to the rear tcundary oi' !!o. /.5a ;!i(-:.h fitreot. thonoo uccthw-iatvard:; alonfj r.u.lfl rear tou-iajry and t}i« roo.t' boundary of No. 45 Hifl-. Street to the 6ox:tiVoautsi-n bov.t>d:jry of. ;.!o. 43 Hiffh Street, thehcc nortt:esstv;.irdo along s«"iil southca.cte.rn boyndary to tho ror.r boundary of the lost mentioned proj>ertyfc thonco northv.'v^Jtwards along; said rear boundary and continuing gene rail" northiveaty&rds alons' the roar boundarieo of Koa. 41b a^ ^11 Hi^h Streot to and cro«ein*; Churchf iold Head In a atjc-aight'ULne. to an-1 /:ensrfil.!y northiv«:?tv»T4vds 'along; the rear boundaries of >jos 39 to la Uigh Street to Church Street, thence southv.:estv:ardo along said a tweet . ' . • ; -.,.-. ;.-.. ;,\ ,. • •' . 3. Ccpios ojT .thia letter h.?.ve ber:n sent to Surrey County Council, all district Councils in the County and tho Mcir.ber of parlXp-asnt fov the cons-tituency concerned. L.B GRIKS1IAVT LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND BEPOHT NO. S°* LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Nicholas Morrison KCB DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin QC Lady Bowden Mr J T Brockbank Mr R R Thornton CBE DL Mr D P Harrison Professor G E Cherry To the Rt Hon William Whitolnw, Gil MC MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PifUPOSALS R)H THIS FUTUiiE KLKCTGRAL AhKANGU-UiNTti I'UR THK CUUUTY OF SURREY 1. The last Order under Section 51 of the Local Government Act 1972 in relation to electoral arrangements for districts in the county of Surrey was made on 6 August 1979. As required by Section 63 and Schedule 9 of the Act we have now reviewed the electoral arrangements for that county, using the procedures we had set out in our Report Wo 6. 2. We informed the Surrey County Council in a consultation letter dated 18 September 1979 that we proposed to conduct the review, and sent copies of the letter to all local authorities and parish meetings in the county, to the MPs representing the constituencies concerned, to the headquarters of the main political parties and to the editors both of local papers circulating in the county and of the local government press. Notices in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from interested bodies. 3* On 31 January 1980 the County Council submitted to us a draft scheme in which they suggested 76 electoral divisions for the county, each returning one member in accordance with Section 6(2)(a) of the Act. A. We considered this scheme together with the views expressed by local interests. On 11 April 1980 wo issued draft proposals which we sent to all those who had received our consultation letter or commented on the County Council's draft scheme. Notices were inserted in the local press announcing that the draft proposals had been issued and could be inspected at the County Council's offices* 5. We incorporated in our draft proposals certain modifications to the County Council's draft scheme, designed to take account of local ties and based on comments made about the county scheme. 6. The modifications wo mnde wore us follows: (a) Klmbridj-'Q .Boroupji We replaced the County Council's arrangements Tor the Walton and Weybridge area with those suggested by the Chartsey and W.-ilton Labour Party. (b) Epsom and Evell Borough We replaced the 5 electoral divisions proposed by the County Council with 5 divisions proposed by the Cuddington Residents1 Association. (°) Guildford Borough We transferred the parish of St Martha from the proposed Shalford division to the proposed Share division, (d) Tandridge District We transferred the parish of Home from the proposed Godstone division to the proposed Lingfield division. (e ) Barnes of electoral_di visions At tho request of the County Council we changed the name of the proposed f Heather—park division in the Borough of Surrey Heath to Heatheraide and » Parkside, and at the request of Tandridge District Council we changed the name of the proposed Oxtod and Limps field division to Qxted. 7. We received comments in response to our draft proposals from the Surrey County Council, two borough Councils, one district council, five parish councils, one town council, three Members of Parliament, five county or district councillors, fifteen political organisations, nine other local associations and fifteen members of the public. A list of those who wrote to us is given at Appendix 1 to this Report. 8. The Surrey County Council supported our draft proposals except in respect of our proposals for the Borough of Epsom and hwell and the Walton and Wp.ybri.dge area of the borough of Elmbrid^e0 The^coneidered that in both boroughs the provisions of their original scheme were preferable to those in our dra.ft proposals in that they did not involve the splitting of borough wards or polling districts. They were wholly opposed to our proposals for the Walton and Weybridge area of Elmbridge but stated that, if we were unwilling to accept their original proposals for Epsom and Ewell, they would accept our proposals for that borough as being next in their order of preference. 9* The other comments we received can be sumraari'fted as follows:- (a) Elmbridge Borough The majority of coranants on our draft proposals were concerned with this district, particularly the proposed arrangements for the Walton and Weybridge area. The Chertsey and Walton Constituency Labour Party (supported by a petition bearing 157 signatures), three local branches of the Labour Party and four members of the public supported our proposals for the area. The Chertsey, Walton and Weybridge Liberal Association, Councillor Curran and a local resident welcomed our proposals as an improvement over the County Councilfs draft scheme but considered that it was desirable to avoid the splitting of polling districts and submitted identical alternative schemes which were based on a similar grouping of whole or part borough wards but which followed polling district boundaries wherever a ward was divided.