Tonbridge and Mailing

Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 122 •ft K LOCAL GOVERBffiNT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. 12.2- LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR KNGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Countess Of Albemarle, DB£. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chiaholm. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, CBE. To the Rt Hon.r Roy Jenkins, MP ,v , Secretary 0 of State"" f 6 the'; Hoine Department u/ v. i , .t. * . '•:•:. .•*;.* ;J:>^:;T. PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF TONBRIDGE' AND' MAILING INVTHE COUNTY "OF 'KENT' -" ' -t: •:'-"r':V>' 'v 1. We, the Loca..l K , Governmenf '-I. I,"3 "tt "VBoundar - ' •y 'Commissio"^ -, - n• 'for England' • , having carried out our initial review of. the electoral .arrangements for the district of Tonbridge and Mailing 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 . ,• ».;..>•* -t : -:-..'u'o;?Y-- .. .,-.-, .;-.v. ."•.. T \v,5 '., -i -.»;^ ..-..- arrangements of ,that^ district. 2. In accordance with'the procedure 'laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act", notice "was" given on 10 June 197^ that we0 were" to' undertake this' review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to Tonbridge and Mailing District Council" j copies of which were circulated to Kent County Council, Parish Councils' in the district, the Member of Parliament for the constituency concerned and the headquarters ofl'th'e main political parties* Copies were also sent to ' • i i\ ij • • i , ~ the editors of the local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local governmen,1t press' .• ;'Notice '! . ' s inserted in the' local 'press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and any interested bodies. ; '-- '.'.,..-- . .jJ..- ;.:• 0 - • j5. Tonbridge and Mailing District Council" were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. When doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the Council and the proposed numbor'of councillors' for each ward. They were also a;;ked 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. k. In accordance with section 7W(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 they had exercised an option for elections by thirds. 5. On 18 December 197*S Tonbridge and Mailing District Council presented their -• draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the area into 23 wards, i each returning 1, 2 or 3 councillors, to form a council of 5^ members. 6. We considered the draft scheme submitted by the Council and the comments which had been made upon it. We noted that the draft scheme complied with our own guidelines but we considered that the range of elector/councillor ratios was eo wide as to be contrary to the rules in Schedule 11 to the Act, We therefore decided to adopt the District Council's scheme but to increase the representation of the Blue Bell Hill ward to 2 councillors; to re-draw the boundary between the Cage Green and Higham wards and to reduce the representation of the former ward to 2 councillors; to reduce the representation of the Judd ward to 2 councillors; the to transfer the parish of Stansted from the Oast ward to/Wrotham ward; to reduce the representation of the Oast ward to 1 councillor; to combine the Aylesford ward and the Eccles ward to return J> councillors. Finally we decided to adopt one minor boundary realignment suggested by Ordnance Survey, but we overlooked a request by the Council to make an alteration to their own proposals relating to Tilt-tern Corner but this was taken into consideration at a later stsige (ueo p.'f.ra. 16). 7. On 18 February 1975 we issued oar draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make the draft proposals and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries available for inspection at their t main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to ' whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from members of the public and t interested bodies. We asked that comments should reach us not later than 15 April 1975. 8. Comments received in response to our draft proposals raised objections to our changes and to the.proposed representation of the Ditton ward. 9. We considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach.a conclusion* Therefore, in accordance wi;th section 65(2) of the 1972 Act, and at our request, you appointed Mr P B Ostler as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 10. Notice of the local meeting was sent to all who had received our draft proposals or had commented upon them and was published locally, 11.Tho Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at the Council Offices, West Mailing, Maidstone on 25 September 1975 and visited the areas which were the subject of « comment. A copy of his report is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 12. We have considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and the Assistant Commissioner's report of the local meeting. 13. We noted that, in consequence of the amended 1979 forecast electorate for the Blue Bell Hill ward produced by the District Council at the meeting, the Assistant Commissioner has recommended that the representation of the ward should--be 1 councillor and not 2 as in our draft proposals. We have given further consideration to the representation of this ward in the light of the revised forecast but we consider that, even taking into account the slower rate of development^the electorate of the ward in five year's time would be inadequately represented with only 1 councillor. We concluded therefore that we would not modify our draft proposals for this ward. 1*f. We have also given careful consideration to the Assistant Commissioner s recommendations regarding the Cage Green ward. We accept his recommendation that the boundary between the Cage ^reen and Higham wards should, with the exception of a minor alteration at Tilebarn Corner, be restored to the line originally caan^-e proposed by the District Council* Taking this/into account however, we still consider that the electorate of the ward would not justify more than 2 councillors and, in this respect, we decided to confirm our draft proposals. ^ 15. Finally we have given further consideration to our proposed Oast and Wrotham £ and Stansted wards in the light of the written representations which we received and the evidence put before the Assistant Commissioner. We noted that the Councils of Trottiscliffe, Addington, Offham and Stansted had objected strongly to our proposal that the parish of Stansted should be detached from the ward as it exists at present and should be linked with the parish of Wrothara. We also noted that the four parishes were similar in character, that Wrotham was less rural than these four parishes and that the M20 already passes between Addington and Trottiscliffe and, when extendedtwill pass between Wrotham and Stansted. We noted that the Assistant Commissioner had recommended that our draft proposals for these two wards should be confirmed and in doing so we have no doubt that he had regard to the balance of electoral equality this arrangement achieved. He made an alternative suggestion that if the four parishes of Trottiscliffe, Addington, Offham and Stansted were to form a ward they should be represented by only 1 councillor. In view of the strong community ties which would be broken by our draft proposals we have concluded that we should modify them by adopting the Assistant Commissioner's alternativesuggestion, .even some though this creates / imbalance of representation between the Oast and Wrotham wards. 16. As a result of this review of our draft proposals we therefore conclude that i they should be confirmed with the following modifications; that the boundary between i » the Cage Green and Higham wards should be the line originally proposed by the District Council with the minor adjustment at Tilebarn Corner suggested by the District Council and recommended by the Assistant Commissioner and that the parish of Stansted should be transferred to the Oast ward and that the Oast ward and the Wrotham ward should each be represented by 1 councillor. We formulated our final proposals accordingly. * 17« Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and * on the attached maps. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of councillors to be returned by each and Schedule 3 shows the order of retirement of councillors. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on the maps. PUBLICATION 18. In accordance with section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 a copy of this report and copies of the maps are being sent to Tonbridge and Calling District Council and will be made available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report (without maps) are being sent to those who made comments.

Load more