Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No.571

FLeview of Non-Metropolitan Counties

COUNTY OF KINGHAMSH RE BOUNDARES WIT ERTFORDSHIRE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIR LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

REPORT NO. 571 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

CHAIRMAN Mr G J Ellerton CMC MBE

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J G Powell CBE FRIGS FSVA

Members Professor G E Cherry BA DSc FRTPI FRIGS

Mr K F J Ennals CB

Mr G R Prentice

Mrs H R V Sarkany

Mr B Scholes OBE THE RT HON NICHOLAS RIDLEY MP SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

REVIEW OF NOW-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES

THE COUNTY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE AND ITS BOUNDARIES WITH HERTFORDSHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE AND OXFORDSHIRE

COMMISSION'S FINAL REPORT AND PROPOSALS

INTRODUCTION

1. On 26 July 1985 we wrote to Buckinghamshire County Council announcing our intention to undertake a review of the county under section 48(1) of the Local Government Act 1972. Copies of the letter were sent to the principal local c authorities and parishes in Buckinghamshire, and in the surrounding counties of Bedfordshire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire, Oxfordshire, and Surrey; to the National and County Associations of Local Councils; to those Members of Parliament with constituency interests; and to the headquarters of the main political parties. In addition, copies were sent to those government departments, regional health authorities, water authorities, electricity and gas boards which might have an interest, as well as to British Telecom, the English Tourist Board, the local government press, and to local television and radio stations serving the area.

2. The County Councils were requested, in co-operation as necessary with the other local authorities, to assist us in publicising the start of the review by inserting a notice for two successive weeks in local newspapers so as to give a wide coverage in the areas concerned. The County Councils were also asked to ensure that the consultation letter was drawn to the attention of those involved with services such as the police and the administration of justice, in respect of which they have a statutory function.

3. A period of six months from the date of the letter was allowed for all local authorities, including those in the surrounding counties, and any person or body interested in the review, to send us their views in detail on whether changes to the county boundary were desirable and, if so, what those changes should be and how they would best serve the interests of effective and convenient local government, the criterion laid down in the Act.

THE SUBMISSIONS HADE TO US

4. In response to our letter we received representations from Buckinghamshire County Council and a number of other local authorities, as well as from various other interested organisations and bodies in the area, as listed in Schedule 1 of this report. We also received individual representations from 242 members of the public, and two petitions, one signed by 40 parents of children attending Long Marston JMI School in the parish of Tring Rural and one signed by 750 residents of Chorleywood, Buckinghamshire, which had been forwarded to us by Chiltern District Council.

5. The submissions made to us included various suggestions for changes to Buckinghamshire's boundaries with Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire. Details of these suggestions, and our initial conclusions regarding them, are set out in the paragraphs below. Suggestions for changes to Buckinghamshire's boundaries with Bedfordshire, Berkshire and Surrey have already been considered in the context of the reviews of Bedfordshire and Berkshire. Reports concerning these reviews have been sent to you separately.

SUGGESTIONS FOR MAJOR CHANGES AND OUR INITIAL CONCLUSIONS

(a) Chorlevwood

6. Buckinghamshire County Council recommended the transfer of that part of the parish of Chorleywood which lies to the west of the M25 motorway, together with the area known as Heronsgate, from the district of Three Rivers, in Hertfordshire, to the district of Chiltern, in Buckinghamshire, to form a new parish in combination with the village of Chenies. It claimed that the area had a greater affinity with Chiltern and Buckinghamshire than with Three Rivers and Hertfordshire, and that the true community of Chorleywood did not include that part of the parish which lay to the east of the motorway. Support for this proposal was expressed by Chiltern District Council and Chenies Parish Council.

7. Alternative proposals were submitted by Hertfordshire County Council, Three Rivers District Council, and Chorleywood Parish Council. Each sought to unite the Chorleywood community, as it saw it, in Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire County Council suggested that only the built-up area in Buckinghamshire should be transferred to its county. Three Rivers District Council suggested that, in addition, the adjacent woodlands and some open land should be included in the transfer. Chorleywood Parish Council's scheme provided for the transfer of virtually all of the parish of Chenies to Hertfordshire. In addition to these proposals South West Herts Health Authority requested that the new boundary in the area should be coterminous with its own western boundary.

8. Local opinion, as represented by the parish councils at Chenies, Chalfont St Giles, Chipperfield, Flaunden and Sarratt, the Members of Parliament for the affected constituencies, local district councillors, residents' associations, various persons and bodies connected with education in the area, and in 111 representations.received from members of the public, was divided on the relative merits of the submissions. Differences in the education policies of the two county councils appeared to be a significant factor in the majority of the letters received.

9. We recognised that this was an important and controversial case and we concluded, after studying all the submissions and representations received, that we had insufficient information to reach a conclusion on the issues involved. We therefore decided to hold a local meeting before proceeding further, and Mr L K Robinson CBE, DL, was accordingly appointed as an Assistant Commissioner. The meeting was held at the Chorleywood Memorial Hall, Common Road, Chorleywood, on 25-26 June 1987. A copy of the Assistant Commissioner's report is enclosed at Annex A. 10. The Assistant Commissioner's conclusions were, in brief, that Chorleywood was one built-up area; that the M25 would not, in this instance, provide a good boundary; and that that part of Chorleywood currently in Buckinghamshire should be transferred to Hertfordshire. We agreed with the Assistant Commissioner's findings and we endorsed his recommendations. We thought that Chorleywood should be united in Hertfordshire, which would enable a unified view to be taken of the provision of education, social and other services over the area as a whole, as well as reducing the operational difficulties said by the Chief Constables to be now experienced in policing the town. We noted also that the service centres in Hertfordshire were significantly nearer than those in Buckinghamshire. We considered that the arguments advanced in favour of this proposal, both in correspondence received and at the local meeting, had been convincing. We did not think that the M25 Motorway would make a good boundary, as had been suggested by Buckinghamshire County Council and others, as it would leave the Chorleywood community divided. Since the motorway is largely in a cutting in this area, and is crossed by four roads, it is less of a barrier than might appear from the map. In this connection we noted that many.children crossed the motorway twice per day to go to schools in Chorleywood (east). We considered that, of the various alignments put forward to unite Chorleywood in Hertfordshire, that suggested by Three Rivers District Council, as amended for technical reasons by Ordnance Survey, would provide the most appropriate boundary. We accordingly adopted it as our draft proposal.

Electoral Congruences

11. We noted that, at district level, our draft proposals would involve the transfer of 1200 electors from the Chenies district ward of Chiltern District Council to the Chorleywood West district ward of Three Rivers District Council. The Chorleywood West district ward would therefore be entitled to one more councillor, while the continued existence of Chenies district ward would be called into question. However, as we had already indicated our intention of conducting a further electoral review of the district of Chiltern when the county boundary issue was resolved, we considered that it might be preferable to allow Chenies district ward to continue, with its existing representation of one councillor, until we had reviewed the electoral arrangements for the whole of Chiltern. We also noted that, at county level, the transfer of 1200 electors from the Chalfont ~St Giles electoral division of Buckinghamshire to the Chorleywood electoral division of. Hertfordshire would leave the divisions within the normal tolerance levels. It would thus be broadly acceptable and not require any immediate remedial action.

(b) Trine

12. Buckinghamshire County Council recommended that the parish of Tring Rural should be transferred from the borough of Dacorum, in Hertfordshire, to the district of Aylesbury Vale, in Buckinghamshire, and also that a small area of land adjoining the Grand Union Canal should be transferred from Buckinghamshire to Hertfordshire. It claimed that Tring Rural had a greater affinity with Buckinghamshire, and that its transfer to that county would provide a better defined boundary and enable highway improvements to be carried out more easily in the area. It additionally proposed a minor adjustment to transfer an area of Buckinghamshire bounded by the Tring .Bypass, the Upper Icknield Way and the roundabout at the top of Tring Hill (and known as the "Tring Triangle") to Hertfordshire.

13. Buckinghamshire County Council's proposal regarding Tring Rural was supported by Aylesbury Vale District Council, but opposed by Hertfordshire County Council, Dacorum Borough Council, Tring Rural Parish Council and Aldbury Parish Council, as well as by Mr R B Jones, MP, the North West Herts Health Authority, one county and one parish councillor, and various local people and organisations (particularly those connected with schools and churches in the area). In addition, the overwhelming majority of the 81 representations received by us from private individuals opposed the suggestion. Many argued that the area's historical, social, ecclesiastical and travel links were with Hertfordshire, and stressed the fact that the two counties had different educational systems. There was, however, general agreement to Buckinghamshire's proposal to transfer the "Tring Triangle" to Hertfordshire. 14. After careful consideration we concluded , from the views expressed to us, and our own assessment of the nature of the area, that Tring Rural was essentially separate from Aylesbury Vale. This suggested to us that the area should remain in Hertfordshire. We concluded that there was insufficient evidence to show that the large-scale change being sought would result in more effective and convenient local government. We therefore decided to adopt as our draft proposal only the agreed minor adjustment, transferring the "Tring Triangle" from Buckinghamshire to Hertfordshire.

(c) Minor Realignments

15. The submission by Buckinghamshire County Council also suggested a number of relatively minor adjustments to the county boundary. These changes were in general agreed by the other local authorities involved, and we decided to incorporate them into our draft proposals. The areas concerned were:-

The Buckinghamshire/Hertfordshire boundary

(i) Cholesburv Bottom: The existing boundary leaves two cottages and their associated land isolated on the edge of the district of Dacorum.in Hertfordshire. It was maintained that services could more easily be provided via Buckinghamshire. We therefore proposed to transfer the two cottages and associated land to the district of Chiltern.

(ii) Heath End: The hamlet of Heath End is split by the existing boundary, with a small part of it remaining in the district of Dacorum.in Hertfordshire. We accordingly proposed to unite the area within the district of Chiltern, in Buckinghamshire.

(iii) Bovinedon Airfield: Both County Councils agreed that it would be in the interests of effective and convenient local government if the area of the former Bovingdon Airfield was within one county. Chiltern District Council and Dacorum Borough Council subsequently agreed on an exchange of land which would achieve this and result in the whole of the former Airfield, together with an area of associated open farm land, being united in Hertfordshire. A further minor realignment near the hamlet of Whelpley Hill was proposed to bring the whole of the built-up area into Buckinghamshire. We accordingly adopted both suggestions as part of our draft proposals.

(iv) Home Farm and Mill Farm. Flaunden:- The existing boundary splits the buildings of Home Farm between the districts of Chiltern and Dacorum, while Mill Farm was said to have closer ties with the parish of Chenies than with Flaunden. Buckinghamshire County Council proposed, with the agreement of the other affected local authorities, a realignment to bring both these properties wholly within the district of Chiltern. No objections were received and we adopted the suggestion as part of our draft proposals.

The Buckinghamshire/Oxfordshire boundary

(v) Fawlev Court: The existing boundary at Fawley Court divides the buildings and their associated lands. Buckinghamshire County Council • proposed that the area should be wholly within its county and was supported by the other affected local authorities and the owners of the property concerned. We accordingly adopted the suggestion as part of our draft proposals.

The Buckinghamshire/Northamptonshire boundary

(vi) Rivers Great Ouse and Tove: The county boundary no longer follows the course of the Rivers Great Ouse and Tove at Mount Mill Farm and Hall Farm, Beachampton; Calverton; Old Stratford, Passenh'am; Castlethorpe Bridge and Grafton Regis. Buckinghamshire County Council proposed, in agreement with the other local authorities concerned, that the boundary should be realigned in each case with the main channel of the river. We accordingly adopted the suggestion as part of our draft proposals. (vii) Forest Road. Hanslope: The existing boundary at Salcey Green follows no physical features and divides Salcey Green Farm. Buckinghamshire County Council proposed that the boundary should be tied to the western edge of Forest Road, so that the Farm would be placed wholly within Buckinghamshire, and a parcel of agricultural land transferred to Northamptonshire, We therefore adopted the suggestion as the basis of our draft proposals. •\ (viii) Salcev Forest. Hanslooe: The existing boundary at Salcey Forest divides a site of Special Scientific Interest. Buckinghamshire County Council proposed to unite the area wholly within Northamptonshire, and were supported by the other affected local authorities. We accordingly adopted the suggestion as the basis of our draft proposals.

(ix) Brackley Bypass: A proposal for a minor adjustment to the boundary was also made by Northamptonshire County Council, who suggested that part of the recently completed Brackley Bypass which was presently in Buckinghamshire should be transferred to Northamptonshire. The change, which was primarily for administrative and policing reasons, was supported by the other affected local authorities. The Northamptonshire Branch of the Police Federation, however, suggested an alternative alignment for the proposed new boundary which was slightly further to the east, in order to incorporate into Northamptonshire any future works connected with, or buildings having access to, the new road or the roundabout at its junction wtth the A422. We took the view that the Police Federation's suggestion was premature, as no properties existed or were contemplated in the area in question. We accordingly decided to adopt Northamptonshire County Council's suggestion as the basis of our draft proposals.

INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO PROPOSALS

16. Suggestions for changes to the boundaries of four other areas were put forward. We took an interim decision to make no proposals in respect of each of these areas for the reasons explained:-

8 (a) Horn Hill:

17. Three Rivers District Council proposed that the settlement at Horn Hill, which was split by the existing boundary, should be united under one county structure. It claimed that the residents of the area looked towards Hertfordshire for shopping, entertainment, and social and cultural activities, and should therefore be transferred to its district. Buckinghamshire County Council, together with Chalfont St Peter Parish Council, rejected the suggestion that the area had a greater affinity with Hertfordshire and, on the whole, preferred the status quo. If change were deemed to be necessary, however, Buckinghamshire County Council thought the area should be brought wholly within its own county. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council claimed that Horn Hill had educational and ecclesiastical links with its parish. A private individual referred to the medical links between the area and Aylesbury.

18. We considered that the area had some affinity with Buckinghamshire, but we did not feel that, in this instance, a strong enough case in terms of effective and convenient local government had been made out to justify the transfer of it to Buckinghamshire. We therefore decided to make no proposals for the area.

(b) Thame Bypass

19. South Oxfordshire District Council proposed that that part of the parish of Long Crendon which lies to the south of the Thame Bypass should be transferred from Buckinghamshire to Oxfordshire. Neither Buckinghamshire County Council, nor Oxfordshire County Council was in favour of any change in this area, and there did not appear to be any specific reasons for the realignment in terms of effective and convenient local government. We accordingly decided not to endorse the suggestion. (c) Hill Top Lane and Red Lane. Chinnor

20. Oxfordshire County Council and Bledlow-cum-Saunderton Parish Council referred to a tentative proposal made at an earlier stage of the review by Chinnor Parish Council for the transfer from Buckinghamshire to Oxfordshire of an area of land adjoining Hill Top Lane and Red Lane, Chinnor. Bledlow-cura- Saunderton Parish Council responded to this suggestion with a counter-proposal that two other areas adjoining the same roads should be transferred from Oxfordshire to Buckinghamshire.

21. We received no formal submission from Chinnor Parish Council, and Bledlow- cum-Saunderton Parish Council's suggestion was opposed by six local residents. We.nevertheless considered both schemes in the light of these objections and concluded that, in the absence of any evidence of difficulties caused by the existing arrangements, we would not endorse either proposal to realign the boundary.

(d) Pitstone Common

22. Ordnance Survey suggested a series of technical adjustments to the boundaries between the parishes of Ivinghoe and Pitstone (Buckinghamshire) and Aldbury and Little Gaddesden (Hertfordshire) in order to tie them to detail on the ground. Neither Buckinghamshire County Council nor Hertfordshire County Council supported these proposals. Buckinghamshire County Council pointed out that the suggested changes would split Pitstone Common, which is currently in the ownership of Pitstone Parish Council, between two parishes and two counties. In the light of this information we decided not to adopt the Ordnance Survey's recommendations.

PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS

23. Our draft proposals and interim decisions were published on 11 March 1988 in a letter to Buckinghamshire County Council. Copies were sent to all those who had received a copy of our letter of 26 July 1985, and to those who had made

10 representations to us. Buckinghamshire County Council was asked to arrange, in conjunction with the other county councils affected, for the publication of a notice giving details of our draft proposals and interim decisions, and to post copies of it at places where public notices are customarily displayed. The County Councils were also asked to place copies of our draft proposals letter on deposit for inspection at their main offices for a period of eight weeks. Comments were invited by 8 May 1988.

RESPONSE TO OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS AND INTERIM DECISIONS: OUR FINAL PROPOSALS AND CONCLUSIONS

24. We received representations from 277 sources in response to our draft proposals letter, of which 267 concerned Chorleywood. They included comments from Buckinghamshire County Council and many of the other local authorities concerned, together with representations from various interested organisations and persons representing the area. They are listed in the attached Schedule 2. We also received individual representations from 252 members of the public.

25. As required by section 60(2) of the Local Government Act 1972, we have considered the representations made to us. Our conclusions, in the light of the representations concerning each area, and our final proposals, are set out in the following paragraphs.

(a) Chorleywood

26. Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council, in a joint submission, opposed our draft proposals and reaffirmed their support for the M25 as the boundary. If, however, we decided to proceed with our draft proposals, they requested us to omit from the transfer to Hertfordshire the fields north of the built-up area and to the east of Green Street. Hertfordshire County Council, Three Rivers District Council and Chipperfield Parish Council all supported our draft proposals. Chenies Parish Council, however, opposed them and requested that the status quo should be maintained. It claimed that

11 our proposed boundary had no support and would render its parish no longer viable. Chorleywood Parish Council generally supported our draft proposals, but was disappointed that its suggested boundary had not been adopted. It thought that there should be an area of open land between the built-up area and the boundary, and urged that an alternative scheme put forward by a private individual should be considered as a compromise between our draft proposals and its own original suggestion.

27. The Chenies Estate Residents' Association opposed our draft proposals and requested the retention of the status quo. It enclosed the results of a survey it had conducted of all Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) residents, and it claimed that the figures showed that the vast majority supported its views. Sir Ian Gilmour, Bt, MP, and District Councillor R J Arthy both supported the retention of the existing boundary. Of the five other comments received from interested organisations and local councillors,two were in support of the draft proposals.

28. Of the 252 letters we received from private individuals, nine were in support of the draft proposals and 243 opposed them. Twelve of those writers opposing our draft proposals suggested various amendments to the proposed boundary line, but nearly all of the others who objected requested the retention of the existing boundary. They stressed their links with Buckinghamshire, their preference for its education system and medical facilities, the greater efficiency, as they saw it, of Chiltern District Council (and its lower rates) compared to Three Rivers District Council, and their fears of erosion of the countryside and possible future incorporation into London if they were to be transferred to Hertfordshire. Many thought there were two distinct communities in Chorleywood,and that the M25 would therefore make a far more sensible and permanent boundary than that proposed; however, they preferred that the existing boundary be kept. They maintained that although it produced anomalies, these were more than outweighed by benefits, such as the additional choice of schools and hospitals.

29. Those supporting our draft proposals stressed that the break between the

12 developed land and Che Green Belt area was the natural boundary. They stated that Chorleywood, Buckinghamshire, had few facilities of its own and relied on those of Hertfordshire. The proposed change would therefore allow those residents of Chorleywood now in Buckinghamshire to have a say in, and contribute towards, the services they actually used. They thought it would be illogical to continue to divide the administration of the community between two counties. Several writers said that worries about rate increases, depreciation of property values, and restriction of educational choice in the event of a transfer to Hertfordshire had been exaggerated. One writer thought that simplifying the administration of Chorleywood West would help towards resolving traffic problems in the centre of the town.

Our Conclusions

30. We have reassessed our draft proposals in the light of all the representations we have received. We have given careful consideration to the objections to the changes we had in mind. We have sympathy with those who do not wish their links with Buckinghamshire to be broken. We do not, however, think that this factor should outweigh the arguments marshalled by the Assistant Commissioner, which we endorsed from our own consideration, and which have not in our view been overturned by the subsequent detailed representations. We note, moreover, that while they could not agree about the nature of change, all four principal local authorities did agree that Chorleywood West should be brought together in one county, which implies that county loyalties would be disturbed in one direction or the other.

31. Our own conclusion remains that Chorleywood is essentially one community, stretching across the M25; that the links between the areas on either side of the Common are particularly strong, and that those between the two parts of Chorleywood West are even stronger. The present boundary, running as it does straight through the built-up area, cannot be conducive either to the effective representation of the town in local government, or to the provision of services. We consider that it is in the interests of accountability, as of effective representation generally, that there should be as close a link as possible

13 between the community on the ground, the rates or charges levied and the services provided. We believe therefore that Chorleywood can be better represented and better served if it is united within one set of authorities. We consider that those authorities should be the ones in which the greater part of Chorleywood (and 80% of its population) already lies, that is Hertfordshire County Council and Three Rivers District Council.

32. Among the arguments put forward by the individuals who wrote to us direct were several which we cannot regard as wholly relevant in terms of our guidelines. Many of the objections made to our draft proposals, for example, compared unfavourably the policies and services of Hertfordshire County Council with those of Buckinghamshire County Council, in particular in relation to planning. In establishing the right long-term geographical framework for local authorities we cannot, however, allow our view to be determined by the current policies of local authorities, which are matters for their political leadership and which can vary with changes in political control.

33. There was also a good deal of discussion about the availability and effectiveness of the health services in the two counties. This is not primarily a local government matter, particularly as the Health Authority boundary does not follow the county boundary, and there is, in any case, always a degree of flexibility in a "border area".

34. Many people were concerned that their long term education plans for their children would be disrupted in the event of a change. We have considered this aspect carefully, and note that there had been an equally vehement reaction from the Hertfordshire side in response to Buckinghamshire County Council's initial proposal to adopt the M25 as the new boundary. We note also that the school, St Clement Dane's, about which most concern has been expressed, lies in Hertfordshire, and wishes to remain so. More generally, however, we do not consider that the fact that two areas have different education policies should preclude a boundary change which in other respects accords with our guidelines. It seems unlikely that choice of schools will be lessened by a change to the county boundary. The larger scope now envisaged for parental choice in new

14 legislation should also reduce that risk. We hope that, to the extent that they are necessary, the county authorities will make suitable transitional arrangements for those pupils directly affected.

35. Some correspondents have claimed that, in formulating our draft proposals, we gave undue weight to the findings of the Assistant Commissioner and that he, in turn, had been swayed in his conclusions by the uncorroborated evidence of several speakers at the local meeting. Criticisms were also made to the effect that his report contained a number of inaccuracies and that many people attending the meeting came from outside the immediate area, thereby diluting the views of those residents directly affected. We do not believe these charges affect the validity of our own initial conclusions. The local meeting was held over two days and involved five sessions, including an evening session. We are satisfied that it provided a reasonable opportunity for all who wished to contribute to the discussion to do so. We accept there were some minor inaccuracies in his report (as is probably inevitable when such a long meeting is conducted single-handed) but they did not affect our provisional conclusions. More importantly, although the Assistant Commissioner's report was valuable in eliciting the views of the residents at the outset of our examination, and in highlighting the relevance of service provision problems, we also had before us the detailed submissions of the local authorities and local bodies representing the residents, as well as letters from a large number of private individuals. In addition, we tested a number of the statements made at the meeting concerning policing, social services, health care provision and education, against information obtained direct from the authorities concerned. Before reaching our present, final, conclusions we have also, of course, had the benefit of further representations from members of the public and of the further views of the local authorities involved.

36. We have also considered the criticisms made of the boundary we proposed. Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council requested that the open land east of Green Street and north of the built-up area should be omitted from the transfer to Hertfordshire, as it had no link with the urban development

15 and was part of the Chilterns' Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (and also Green Belt). The area does, however, contain part of the playing fields associated with St Clement Dane's School, Hertfordshire, which it would not seem right to divide between the two counties. Moreover, its status as an Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, and its inclusion in the Green Belt, need not be affected by the incidence of the county boundary. Some private individuals have suggested that the area of open land in question would be more likely to be subject to development pressures if it were to be transferred to Hertfordshire. Others have predicted, however, that the transfer of the open land to Hertfordshire would lead to similar pressure for development on the Buckinghamshire side of the proposed new boundary. They have therefore advocated that more land should be taken into Hertfordshire in order to avoid this danger. We cannot accept, in the light of our guidelines, that we should give weight to this line of argument. As we see it, planning decisions of this kind should be taken within their proper planning context, which should not be altered either way by the position of the local government boundary. It is not for us to make judgements about the planning policies of different local authorities.

37. The remaining requests from private individuals for an amendment to the proposed boundary concerned the splitting of farm land, and the splitting of property from land in the same ownership. We note that some of these suggestions would result in less definite boundaries than the one we had proposed, and many would produce very irregular lines. We consider the rationale of our proposed boundary to be preferable, in that it includes in Hertfordshire all the houses now in Chorleywood, Buckinghamshire, together with the closely associated woods and open land.

38, We have also considered the question of the undefined stretch of boundary north of the A404, which was brought to our attention by Buckinghamshire County Council. We note that the area concerned does not contain any electors or property. We do not consider that there would be sufficient practical advantages to justify modifying the existing boundary. To do so would further

16 delay the conclusion of the review, and so prolong the inevitable uncertainty amongst residents and authorities alike.

39. In the light of all these considerations we have concluded that the changes we had in mind remain desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government, and that we should adhere to our draft proposals.

40. When we made our final proposals to you in 1984 in connection with the review of the parish pattern of the district of Three Rivers we referred to the need to look at the eastern boundary of Chorleywood once the question of the county boundary had been finally settled. We trust that the District Council will be prepared to undertake a review of its parish boundaries in this area as soon as you have indicated your decision on our present proposals.

41. Buckinghamshire County Council and Aylesbury Vale District Council accepted our interim decision not to adopt their major proposal to transfer Tring Rural from Hertfordshire to Buckinghamshire, while Dacorum Borough Council and Mr R B Jones, MP, welcomed it. Our proposal to transfer the "Tring Triangle" to Hertfordshire from Buckinghamshire attracted an objection from Drayton Beauchamp Parish Meeting. It feared that development would be allowed on the land in question if it were to be transferred, and that this would be another threat to the rural surroundings of its village.

Our Conclusions

42. We have noted the comments of Drayton Beauchamp Parish Meeting regarding the "Tring Triangle", but remain of the view that the area is isolated from Buckinghamshire by the several roads crossing it and would be much more easily served from Hertfordshire. We have accordingly decided to adhere to our draft proposals regarding the "Tring Triangle". We have also decided to confirm our interim decision to make no proposals regarding the transfer of Tring Rural.

17 (c) Minor Realignments

43. Of our nine minor proposals to realign boundaries, only two attracted specific comments, which are dealt with below. We have decided therefore to adhere to the other seven without amendment.

Cholesburv Bottom

44. Cholesbury-cum-St Leonards Parish Council recalled that its original suggestion for the area affected only the properties concerned and not the surrounding fields. It said that it could not therefore support the draft proposal as published. We noted that Buckinghamshire County Council's original submission had included some surrounding land in the area proposed for transfer which it said was in the ownership of the cottages. We had ourselves included a further area in our suggestions in order to avoid dividing a parcel of land. We are not persuaded that there is sufficient justification to alter our view, and have accordingly decided to adhere to our draft proposals.

Home Farm and Mill Farm. Flaunden

45. Buckinghamshire County Council and Chiltern District Council pointed out that the transfer we were minded to make from the parish of Flaunden to the parish of Chenies also involved a minor transfer between the parishes of Chenies and Latimer which are both in Chiltern. We had extended the area recommended by the local authorities for transfer in order to tie the proposed boundary to detail. Although no objections were received from the owners of the property involved we feel, on further reflection, that our proposed change is not appropriate in the context of a county boundary review since it cannot be regarded as directly consequential to a change to the county boundary. We therefore withdraw our draft proposal. In this connection we note that further stretches of the existing western parish boundary of Chenies appear to be unsatisfactory, because they follow no recognisable features. Our minor adjustment would not have resolved all those problems. We trust that Chiltern

18 District Council will be prepared to carry out a further parish review of its area, including the western boundary of Chenies, after the county boundary has been decided, so that we can, if appropriate, make proposals to you. We intend entering into discussion with the district council about the timing of such a parish review in relation to that of the further electoral review mentioned in paragraph 11 above.

RESPONSE TO OUR INTERIM DECISIONS TO MAKE NO. PROPOSALS AND OUR CONCLUSIONS

46. No objections were received concerning our interim decisions to make no proposals in respect of the four areas mentioned in paragraphs 17-22 above. We have therefore had no difficulty in deciding to adhere to them.

47. We are satisfied that the proposals set out above and illustrated in Annex B of this report are desirable in the interests of effective and convenient local government and we make them accordingly. We further propose the consequential electoral changes set out in Annex C to this report.

PUBLICATION

48. A separate letter enclosing copies of this report is being sent to the County Councils of Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire, Northamptonshire and Oxfordshire asking them, as necessary, to deposit copies of it at their main offices for inspection over a six-month period. The County Councils are also asked to co-operate in putting notices to this effect on public notice boards and in the local press. The text of the notices will explain that the Commission has fulfilled its statutory role in the matter, and that it now falls to you to make an Order implementing the proposals, if you think fit, though not earlier than six weeks from the date they are submitted to you. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received our consultation letters and to those who made comments.

19 Signed: G J ELLERTON (Chairman)

J G POWELL (Deputy Chairman)

G E CHERRY

K F J ENNALS

G R PRENTICE

HELEN SARKANY

BRIAN SCHOLES

S T GARRISH Secretary 26 January 1989

20F

SCHEDULE 1

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING OUR LETTER OF 26 JULY 1985 ANNOUNCING THE START OF THE REVIEW:-

1. Buckinghamshire County Council 2. Hertfordshire County Council 3. Northamptonshire County Council 4. Oxfordshire County Council 5. Aylesbury Vale District Council 6. Chiltern District Council 7. Dacorum Borough Council 8. Milton Keynes Borough Council 9. South Oxfordshire District Council 10. Three Rivers District Council 11. Aldbury Parish Council 12. Bledlow-cum-Saunderton Parish Council 13. Chalfont St Peter Parish Council 14. Chenies Parish Council 15. Chipperfield Parish Council 16. Chorleywood Parish Council 17. Flaunden Parish Council 18. Great Gaddesden Parish Council 19. Old Stratford Parish Council 20. Sarratt Parish Council 21. Tring Rural Parish Council 22. Sir Ian Gilmour Bt MP 23. Mr Robert B Jones MP 24. Mr Richard Page MP 25. North West Hertfordshire Health Authority 26. South West Hertfordshire Health Authority 27. Northants Police Federation 28. Chenies Estate Residents' Association 29. Chorleywood and District Residents' Association 30. Wilstone Women's Institute 31. Wilstone Local History Society 32. The Bishop of Hertford 33. The Bishop of St Albans 34. Christ Church Chorleywood Parochial Church Council 35. Chess Area Advisory Committee for Education 36. St Clement Dane's Parents' Association 37. Christ Church School Parent Teacher Association 38. St Clement Dane's School, Headmaster 39. St Clement Dane's School, Chairman of Governors 40. Christ Church CE JMI School, Headmaster 41. Christ Church CE JMI School, Chairman 42. Chorleywood CE JHI School, Headteacher 43. Chorleywood CE JMI School, Chairman of Governors 44. St Pauls' CE JMI School, Chipperfield, Chairman of Governors 45. Grove Road Primary School, Chairman of Governors 46. Dundale, Goldfield and Grove Road Schools, Tring, Chairman Joint Governors' Committee 47. Tring School, Chairman of Governors 48. Long Marston JMI School, Chairman of Governors 49. St Albans Diocesan Education Committee 50. Councillor R A Crockett 51. Councillor H T D Marwood 52. Councillor C S Stewart 53. Councillor J W Wallington 54. Two hundred and forty-two private individuals

2F SCHEDULE 2

REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED FOLLOWING PUBLICATION OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS LETTER OF 11 MARCH 1988:-

1. Buckinghamshire County Council 2. Hertfordshire County Council 3. Oxfordshire County Council 4. Aylesbury Vale District Council 5. Chiltern District Council (joint submission with Buckinghamshire County Council) 6. Dacorum Borough Council 7. Milton Keynes Borough Council 8. Three Rivers District Council 9. Wycombe District Council 10. Chenies Parish Council 11. Chipperfield Parish Council 12. Cholesbury-cum-St Leonards Parish Council 13. Chorleywood Parish Council 14. Drayton Beauchamp Parish Meeting 15. Sir Ian Gilmour Bt MP 16. Mr Robert B Jones MP 17. North West Thames Regional Health Authority 18. Chenies Estate Residents' Association 19. Chorleywood Evening Women's Institute 20. Russell County Combined School, Chairman of Governors 21. Christ Church CE JMI School, Headmaster 22. Councillor R J Arthy 23. Councillor R K B Hubbard 24. Councillor A Walters 25. C W and R C Shrimplin, Chartered Architects and Town Planners 26. Two hundred and fifty-two private individuals Local Government Commission for England MEETING ARRANGEMENTS

DATE OF MEETING: 3rd July 2000

TIMEOF MEETING: 2pm

TYPE OF MEETING: Buckinghamshire Chief Executives' Launch Meeting __

PRESS BRIEFING: NO (dti«c•»«ppn>pr»u)

If YES, please include details under "PROGRAMME" information

ADDRESS OF MEETING: Aylesbury Vale District Council Offices

Committee Room l,BearbrookHouse, Oxford Road

Aylesbury

CONTACT NAME/NO: Chris Poppe (01296) 585050

PROGRAMME: 2pm - 3.30pm - Briefing of Officers. Each authority has confirmed attendance, including the Head of Administration from Buckinghamshire County Council. Two or three representatives will be attending from each authority.

LGC STAFF ATTENDING: Barbara Stephens, Chief Executive; Bryan Davey, Review Manager, Team E;

Dave Mahon, Review Leader, Team B; Natalie Foley, Review Leader, Team D

TRAVEL ARRANGEMENTS: 12.27 London Marylebone - Aylesbury (Standard Class)

TICKETS TO BE ORDERED BY: Kester Ford, Team E

COMMENTS:

MEETING ARRANGED BY/ ALLQUERIESTO: Bryan Davey,Team E

C.WINDOWSVTempora/y Internet Filei\Content.lE5\GHQNOL6B\exi«nalV.20me*iing%20»rrangemenu'/.:oi;07W(l].«pd vj - 2S/IO/93 ANNEX A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY

COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

MANDATORY REVIEW OF THE NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES

COUNTY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BOUNDARY AT CHORLEYWOOD

LOCAL MEETING ON 25TH & 26TH JUNE 1987

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT1 COMMISSIONER

MR L K ROBINSON CBE DL

JULY 1987 ANNEX A

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY

COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1972

MANDATORY REVIEW OF THE NON-METROPOLITAN COUNTIES

COUNTY OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

BOUNDARY AT CHORLEYHOOD

LOCAL MEETING ON 25TH & 26TH JUNE 1987

REPORT OF THE ASSISTANT' COMMISSIONER

MR L K ROBINSON CBE DL

JULY 1987 To The Local Government Boundary Commission For England

Local Meeting Chorleywood

25/26th June 1987

Introduction

1. The decision to hold a local meeting arose from the Commissions mandatory view of the County of Buckinghamshire.

The Commission has a duty, stemming from the Local Government Act 1972, to review the boundaries of all Counties between April 1984 and March 1992.

The purpose of the review is to ascertain whether the Commission should make proposals the to Secretary of State for the Environment for any changes thought necessary in the interest of effective and convenient Local Government.

2. The Commission announced its intention to review in a letter to Buckinghamshire County Council dated 26th July 1985. The letter allowed 6 months for submissions and a further period of 6 weeks for the public to examine and comment on their submissions.

3. Arising from this Buckinghamshire recommended, inter alia, the transfer of that part of the Parish of Chorleywood which lies to the west of the M25 Motorway, together with Heronsgate, from the District of Three Rivers in Hertfordshire to the District of Chiltern in Buckinghamshire to form a new parish in combination.with the village of Chenies.

4. Hertfordshire responded with alternative proposals to "unite the Chorleywood community" within Hertfordshire and they, Three Rivers District Council and Chorleywood Parish Council made suggestions designed to this end.

None of these Councils considered the M25 to be a barrier between the two parts of Chorleywood (Hertfordshire). They all agreed that Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) should be transferred to Hertfordshire to unite the urban area of Chorleywood. Hertfordshire drew a suggested boundary tightly round the Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) area the other two Councils suggested that larger areas of Buckinghamshire should be transferred. All the Hertfordshire authorities however agreed that they would accept any of the three solutions advanced.

5. The Local Government Boundary Commission did not feel that it had sufficient information upon which to formulate draft proposals and decided that a local meeting should be held before proceeding further.

The Issues

6. The issues to be explored were:- 1. Whether Chorleywood is in fact one community.

2. If so where should the boundary be drawn, and with which County has it the greater affinity.

3. If changes were to be made what consequential boundary change would be necessary at Parish level.

4. If changes were to be made what consequential electoral arrangements need to be made to the Counties,. Districts and Parishes.

5. If Chorleywood is not in fact one community what are the boundaries of the communities it contains and what changes, if any, are necessary to the existing boundaries.

7. On the 16th January 1987 I was appointed an Assistant Commissioner by the Secretary of State for the Environment to hold a local enquiry or carry out any consultation or investigation in respect of the review by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England of the boundary between the counties of Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire in the vicinity of Chorleywood.

8. On 6th April 1987 the Local Government Boundary Commission caused notices to be published of a local meeting concerning the review of the boundary at Chorleywood. The purpose of the meeting was expressed to be to provide the Commission with first-hand evidence of people's views about the present boundary and about any alternative boundaries which might in their opinion be more suitable. In particular the Commission expressed the hope that the local meeting would help them form a view about whether Chorleywood consists of one or more communities, how it or they could be delineated and in which county they should most appropriately be located.

9. Immediately prior to the local meeting which commenced on June 25th, . I inspected the area in question from Rickraansworth in the east to Loudwater, Sarratt, Chenies, Chorleywood West (Buckinghamshire), Heronsgate including, of course, the centre of Chorleywood round the station and the shopping area centred on Shire Lane. I also walked the Chorleywood Common during the period when it wasn't raining.

The Local Meeting

10. I held 4 sessions in the Chorleywood Memorial Hall , Common Road. One in the morning and one in the afternoon of the 25th June. Both were well attended - all seats being taken in . the morning and fewer in the afternoon. I heard 21 submissions during these sessions.

11. I held one evening session which was exceptionally well attended and lively. The capacity of the hall was taxed and well over 200 people attended many having to stand at the back. The assembly was good-humoured and responsive and popular statements attracted significant bouts of applause. At one stage there were calls for a vote to the taken but I did not allow this - there being no machinery for such a procedure which in any case would have been wholly inappropriate, unrepresentative . and unhelpful . I heard 16 submissions .

12 . A final session was held on the morning of June 26th. This attracted about 60 or so people. I heard 16 submissions. The attendance sheets for all four sessions appear at Addendum "A" .

The Hearing. Day Session 25.6.87.

13 . Buckinghamshire County Council, Chiltern District Council & Chenies Parish Council made a joint statement a copy of which appears at Appendix I. This makes the case that Chorleywood is not ,one community and that the boundary should be moved to the M25 thus moving some 4,000 people from Hertfordshire to Buckinghamshire effectively severing Chorleywood East (Hertfordshire) and Chorleywood West (Hertfordshire) .

As Education has featured prominently in the boundary debates the views of Buckinghamshire Education Committee as expressed by its' Chairman were put in evidence. See Buckinghamshire "Information" Press statement dated June 15th 1987. This was widely circulated in the area and dozens of copies were made available in the Chorleywood Memorial Hall during the meeting. This appears at Appendix

It was stated that the boundary proposals advanced would not necessitate any changes in electoral divisions at County level but changes would be necessary at District level .

14. Hertfordshire County Council made a statement (appendix III) averring that Chorleywood is already one Community, dismissing the Motorway as a suitable boundary and claiming that Chorleywood West ( Buckinghamshire ) should be added to it. The Hertfordshire proposal is for a boundary tightly drawn round the developed area of Chorleywood West ( Buckinghamshire ) . Three Rivers District Council proposes a slightly larger area for transfer to Hertfordshire and the Chorleywood Parish Council suggest that a significantly larger area, incorporating Chenies should be transferred. The three authorities have agreed that they would support whichever new boundary was chosen in the Buckinghamshire area. The 3 boundaries are shown on the Map - Appendix IV.

Hertfordshire would accept the status quo on boundaries as better than the Buckinghamshire proposals but feel that this would not be a satisfactory solution. Loud applause greeted the ' status quo* proposal , both then, and later, whenever reference was made to it by residents of the area. 15 . Three Rivers District Council

This Council made a statement which appears at Appendix V opposing the use of the M25 as a boundary and contending that physically and social ly the two parts of Chorleywood are very much part of Three Rivers in Hertfordshire as distinct from the situation in Buckinghamshire.

16. Drs Bennett & Clarke, General Medical Practitioners in Chorleywood (Hertfordshire ) said that from a hospital viewpoint the people in Chorleywood Buckinghamshire, had to go to High Wycombe or Aylesbury. Buckinghamshire patients were disadvantaged as there was no resident physiotherapist. Health visitors cannot always cross county boundaries. Dr Clarke said her practice had 6000 patients 4500 in Hertfordshire and 1500 in Buckinghamshire. She considered Hertfordshire were subsidising Buckinghamshire for general medical services. It was not possible to get health visitors in Chenies. She thought one community for Chorleywood should be formed but did not offer an opinion as to which County this should be.

17. Graham Alylett, a member of the Chenies Estate Residents Association supported alignment of the boundary to the M25. He didn"t like the boundary suggested by Three Rivers District Council and much preferred the M25. This was the view of the Residents Association and the Chenies Village Society. He said the Rates in Buckinghamshire were lower than in Hertfordshire. They used to be 12£% lower but the difference was now only 4%. The Residents Association had 1812 Members and were orientated to the Buckinghamshire County Council and its suggested revision of the boundaries,

18. Doctor Norman Eve made a visual presentation showing the rural areas through which the Hertfordshire suggested boundary would pass. He claimed that a boundary of this kind would not readily be known or appreciated by the people living there and he showed slides indicating, in his view, how very better it would be to adopt the M25 which would be readily appreciated as a boundary for decades to come.

19. Mr Robert Hacking

(Headmaster of Junior Infants School in Hertfordshire). He opposed the Buckinghamshire suggestion. There was excellent rapport between the Primary and Secondary schools in Hertfordshire particularly with those in Rickmansworth and Watford. He regarded the open land in Buckinghamshire as the barrier - not the M25. He said that the Hertfordshire residents liked the Hertfordshire Education system, because they had a choice. The Education systems in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire were not compatible. In Buckinghamshire the children do not have a choice - their school depends upon their ability or lack of ability to pass an examination.

20. Miss Catlin

(Headmistress of Chorleywood Primary School) endorsed all the views expressed by Mr Hacking. Contact with Buckinghamshire County was non-existant. Educationally movement across the "border" was difficult.

21. Mr Conway, Headmaster of St Clement Danes voluntary-aided Comprehensive School in Hertfordshire.

A-s so many people at the meeting were worried about the impact of boundary changes on education I attach (Appendix VI) Mr Conway' s proof of evidence in full. He and the Governors were keen to stay in Hertfordshire. They would be extremely unhappy to move into a selective system. They would, as a school, like to serve the whole of Chorleywood on both sides of the boundary. 22. Mr A Toulson

Chairman of St Clement Danes' Governors.

Strongly opposed to a boundary change which would take the school into Buckinghamshire. The expansion of the school, needed because of the demand, had the full approval of Hertfordshire County Council and was top of the Hertfordshire list of priority projects for Voluntary Aided Schools. Hertfordshire County Council had agreed to make a grant and to meet the maintenance costs. This advantageous position would be lost if the school moved into Buckinghamshire. The school teaches 30 subjects on a consortium basis with other Hertfordshire Schools. There would be uncertainty in every direction if there was a move to Buckinghamshire. The Governors (none from Buckinghamshire) were unanimous in the view that St Clement Danes should remain in Hertfordshire.

23. Mr John Ellis, (Chorleywood Resident Association with 4500 fully paid members).

He said that only 19% of Chorleywood residents lived in Buckinghamshire.

The M25 had not split the community o£ Chorleywood in any way. ChiItem District Council's proposals would split the community. If such a split took place the Chorleywood residents east of the M25 might become part of Rickmansworth. This would be very unpopular with them.

24. Mr Charles Fay

A resident of Chorleywood, Buckinghamshire. He held a number of local positions including the Chairmanship of Chenies Residents Association. He was however speaking personally and not for them.

He had a strong desire to remain in Buckinghamshire. His social life was orientated to Buckinghamshire and Aylesbury. He shops in Little Chalfont, his wife in Chorleywood. He felt the preservation of the green belt was safer in Buckinghamshire hands than in Hertfordshire1s. Three Rivers was perhaps the most urbanised part of Hertfordshire. Fear that if Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) was put into Hertfordshire there would be further development in the future. It was important to prevent settlements from merging. He felt the Motorway would make a good boundary. He and his neighbours regarded Carpenters Wood as "our wood".

25. Mr Charles Stewart

Spoke as a resident of Hertfordshire and a Council lor of Three Rivers District Council.

He dwelt upon the historical development of the area from the 1870's and produced an interesting series of maps from that period.

From being a very rural area in the 1870's change took place at the end of the Century with the coming of the Railway. In 1897 there was no development in Buckinghamshire but some in

5. Hertfordshire. By 1912/3 quite a lot of development in Hertfordshire and some in Buckinghamshire.

By 1938 there were definite signs of development in Buckinghamshire but most of the development had taken place since the second world war. Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) was a very new community.

He liked the choice of schools in Hertfordshire. He was worried about health care and what he had heard from Drs Clarke and Bennett. In Chorleywood West (Hertfordshire) there were 210 Council houses and flats. There were Aone in Chorleywood Buckinghamshire. If the Council house tenants moved into Buckinghamshire they would not have the benefit of the exchanges they had in Hertfordshire and could only move West on transfer. He produced rate statistics for 1987/8 showing that the Rates in the pound in Chorleywood Buckinghamshire were 225.9lp and in Chorleywood Hertfordshire they were 234.71p a difference of 8.8p or 3.89%.

He compared services on each side of the existing boundary and found them better in Hertfordshire. He said that . Three Rivers District Council jealously guarded the Green Belt and said this was not so in Buckinghamshire. He said that although one or two people might like to transfer to Buckinghamshire, and some preferred to stay as they are, the vast majority in Chorleywood (Hertfordshire) wished to see Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) brought into Hertfordshire.

26. Mr M Newman

A resident of Buckinghamshire and Past President of Chenies Residents Association.

He wished to stay in Buckinghamshire. Aylesbury was "handy". Hertfordshire was another world. The M25 would make a solid boundary for a long time. The Hertfordshire proposal was "too tight" and the boundary would have to be drawn again in a few years time.

27. Mr J Garnett

Spoke for Loudwater Residents Association which had 345 members, 280 of whom were in Chorleywood Parish. 201 had signed a petition opposing changes and wished things to stay as they are.

He supported the views of St Clement Danes, Councillor Stewart, the Heads of the Hertfordshire schools and the Doctors who had spoken.

28. Mr Michael Fletcher

A resident of Old Shire Lane. He had been a special constable in Hertfordshire for 23 years. The ambulance invariably came from Hertfordshire for an accident in Chorleywood irrespective of which side of the boundary an accident took place. In his view Chorleywood - all of it - was Hertfordshire not Buckinghamshire.

29. Mr R Blood ,

A Hertfordshire resident who wanted to see Chorleywood united in Hertfordshire. He posed the question of whether Buckinghamshire would have suggested the M25 as a boundary if it had run through Buckinghamshire.

30. Mr L Evans

Spoke privately but was Chairman of the Historic Buildings of the Children1s Society. He lives in Hertfordshire but used to live in Buckinghamshire.

He considered that Three Rivers District Council had a greater sense of environmental preservation than the Buckinghamshire authorities. The grass was cut more regularly in Hertfordshire. He thought there should be a "referendum" on the boundary issue.

31. Mr Mackay

Felt that Chorleywood was one community and.it should be in Hertfordshire.

Evening Session 25.6.87. Very well attended, over- stretching the capacity of the hall.

32. Dr Norman Eve

A resident of Buckinghamshire said that Chenies Parish Council agreed with Buckinghamshire and Chiltern District Council. He produced (Appendix II ) a statement by Buckinghamshire County Council saying that St Clements Danes school would be safe in Buckinghamshire. Apart from the assurances in this statement he said that Buckinghamshire had many comprehensive schools in Milton Keynes and they existed side by side with the selective system. He also said that St Clement Danes might possibly wish to go independent.

He thought Chorleywood (East) was intertwined with Rickmansworth, Chorleywood (West) was separated by a tract of open county. The M25 emphasised this separation.

Chorleywood (West) (Hertfordshire & Buckinghamshire) was a well defined community.

He felt the M25 was the only rational choice for the boundary. He said that the Buckinghamshire residents wished to stay in Buckinghamshire and acknowledged that the Hertfordshire residents had said that they wished to stay in Hertfordshire.

33. Mr E Jones

A resident of Hertfordshire. He said that Chorleywood had its origins in Hertfordshire, the M25 would not make an appropriate boundary. Refuse collection, snow clearing, lighting, and education were all better in Hertfordshire. Hertfordshire were willing to spend more money than Buckinghamshire on their good comprehensive Education system.

34. Mr K Hamblin A resident in Hertfordshire and an ex-teacher. He felt that the facilities afforded to the schools in Hertfordshire compared unfavourably with those in the Grammar Schools. 35. Mr A Ballard Spoke as Chairman of the Governors of Sarratt Junior Mixed Infant Schools. He said he was not reassured by the Buckinghamshire statement on St Clement Danes. The selective Education System of Buckinghamshire would not work if any part of Hertfordshire went to Buckinghamshire.

36. Mr M Brazier Spoke as the Chairman of the Parents Association of St Clement Danes School. He said they were unanimously opposed to any move into Buckinghamshire. The Associatin placed no reliance on the Buckinghamshire assurances.

3-7. Mr P Edwards A Hertfordshire resident of Chorleywood and a parent Governor of a local school and a scout leader. He said that no-one he knew thought that the present boundary was a problem. He wished to stay in Hertfordshire. He commented on the important place St Clement Danes played in the South West Hertfordshire Educational system and stressed the differences between the Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire Educational systems.

38. Mr Mayward

A Buckinghamshire resident, said that matters should stay as they are.

39. M/s Baldrick

Felt that the whole of Chorleywood should be made one Authority. Hertfordshire was the obvious choice with, in her view, a better educational system.

40. Mr Bill Atkinson

A Buckinghamshire resident thought Chorleywood was one community. He thought education was not the whole part of our 1ives. People should be treated as people and not as pieces of real estate or rateable value.

41. Mr A Little-john

A resident of Hertfordshire and Vice Chairman of Chorleywood Parish Council having recently been Chairman for 2 years.

He said that change was necessary. Hertfordshire and Buckinghamshire were in favour of change, so were Chiltern and Three Rivers District Councils and so were Chorleywood and Chenies Parish Councils.

Chorleywood Parish Council support Hertfordshire and Three Rivers District Council that the boundary should be moved West.

They disagreed strongly with the Buckinghamshire argument. The people of the East & West portions of Chorleywood ward which spans the M5 showed by their votes in the recent elections that they were keenly interested in the Chorleywood ward. There was heavy voting on both sides of the motorway.

The Parish Council only disagreed with the County and Three Rivers in as much as the latter thought the new boundary should run along the perimeter of present housing developments. The Parish Councilfeel the boundary should run in open country as indicated in green on the plan at Appendix IV. This takes in Chenies and the Chorleywood Parish Council chose the Western boundary of the present Chenies Parish as the County boundary because the Boundary Commission had already accepted this line as a reasonable boundary in their Parish Review Order 1985.

Another reason for suggesting this boundary was to deter Chiltern District Council from promoting further, development along the present County boundary.

42. Mr B Osbourne

Chairman of the Loudwater Residents Association said that in their view the M5 was in no way a boundary. They were part of Chorleywood Parish and had no desire to be de-parished. They support the present boundary.

43. Mr I Watson

A Hertfordshire Resident said he chose to live in Hertfordshire deliberately. He stated that he did not like the Buckinghamshire Education system. St Clement Danes chose Hertfordshire.

44. Mr Saunders

A Buckinghamshire Resident who said he had chosen to live in Buckinghamshire deliberately and wanted to stay in Buckinghamshire.

45. Mr Peter Williams

He said he lived in a Council House in Ricksmansworth and supported the Hertfordshire Educational System and the case advanced by St Clement Danes School .

46. Mr Watson

Lives in Chorleywood West (Hertfordshire) and has done since 1923. If M25 boundary adopted this would de-parish all Chorleywood East and North East of the Motorway.

The M25 does not divide Chorleywood. The Common is an asset enjoyed by all the people of Chorleywood East and West of the county boundary. 47. Mr R Arthy

A Chiltern District Councillor, living in Chenies. He said a questionnaire was sent out in March 1987 on the Buckinghamshire side of Chorleywood. 97% said they preferred to stay in Buckinghamshire.

He said his council were good at preserving the Green Belt. He worried about expansion around the Motorway junction. He believed the M25 to be the best solution if any change is to be made.

48. Mr Venner

Head of Geography St Clement Danes School was in favour of leaving the boundary as it is.

The Hearing Morning Session 26.6.87

49. Mrs J P Hawker lives in Chorleywood Buckinghamshire. She believed that Chorleywood should be united. The biggest threat is further development. Buckinghamshire in her view would be more reliable than Hertfordshire in preserving the Green Belt. The two counties however were not dissimilar in their approaches to problems.

50. Col M Matthews

Chairman of the Governors of Chenies Combined School. Former Buckinghamshire County Councillor and former Chairman of the Bridges and Highways Committee.

He was of the view that there would be little scope for the Chenies school in the Hertfordshire system. Chenies was in Domesday when Chorleywood was only a hamlet.

Chenies as a community look to Amersham, Chesham etc in Buckinghamshire.

Cricket is played in combination with Latimer. He would like Chenies to remain in Buckinghamshire.

51. Mr A Ford

Parish Councillor in Buckinghamshire. He believes Chorleywood is only identifiable west of M25 and therefore would like the boundary to be there, "or leave the whole thing alone".

52. Mr Ronald Crockett

Three Rivers District Councillor, 33 years resident in Chorleywood: 10 years on Buckinghamshire side. Former member of Hertfordshire County Council. He thought the M25 was not a suitable boundary. People on the East of M25 feel part of Chorleywood. Would like the status quo.

10. 53. Beryl Greenslade

: Lives in Rickmansworth, spoke on behalf of Christ Church C of E J.M.I. School. 75% of the children came from Rickmansworth. It was crazy to contemplate theM25 as a boundary. The place to shop for those in Chorleywood was Watford not Amersham. East Chorleywood would become detached and isolated if M25 used as boundary Education in Buckinghamshire and Hertfordshire not compatible.

The boundary should stay as it is or Chorleywood should all be in. one Authority (Hertfordshire).

54. Rev G Tullins

Three Rivers District Council was a good Authority. Policy was better on the Hertfordshire side of the boundary. Historically all Chorleywood should be in Hertfordshire but better to leave things as they are. There was a big question mark about the future of St Clement Danes if it moved to Buckinghamshire.

55. Mr G Hughes

Leave things as they are.

56. Mr M Green

Living in Chorleywood Buckinghamshire. He believed , Buckinghamshire would treat the Hertfordshire Schools wel1 if the boundary were to be moved. History and statistics should be ignored. He did not approve of any of the boundary < suggestions advanced by the Hertfordshire Authorities.

'57. Mrs Phillips

Resident of ChipperfieId and a St Clement Danes parent. Ex- governor of St Pauls. She said the School and the parents did not want to see a boundary change which would put St Clement Danes in Buckinghamshire.

58. Mrs Leather

A Chorleywood West (Hertfordshire) ratepayer. She said she chose the Hertfordshire system of Education and didn't want to see a change.

59. Mrs D Cooper

She said she had lived 42 years in Hertfordshire and 8 years in Buckinghamshire. She had taught for 8 years.

She thought Chorleywood was still a village and was concerned that the quality of life should be improved. She thought that under Three Rivers D.C. the town centre had deteriorated. There was no proper provision for parking. She would 1 ike the town centre to be taken over by Buckinghamshire but would be content with the status quo.

60. The Wilsons from Chestnut Avenue thought change was unnecessary. 61.. Mr Henlbuth Lived in Buckinghamshire.

Member of Chenies Parish Council and Chiltern District Council.

He said that Chiltern District Council owned the woods (3 of them) which lie to the West of Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire). They had been bought by Amersham District Council originally. They should be retained. He felt the woods had been neglected. Chiltern District Council employ consultants to look after them. He felt that these amenity woodlands should be in the ownership of the local authority in whose area the adjacent houses were situated.

62. A member of Amersham District Council Whose name I did not record merely said "Bucks is Bucks and Herts is Herts". He was against change.

63. Dr Roberts lived in Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire). A resident for 15 years. He felt that Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) should be in Hertfordshire. The smaller unit should go with the larger. Leaving matters as they were was not satisfactory. He was convinced by the case advanced by the Hertfordshire Authorities. There were few facilities on the Buckinghamshire side of the existing boundary. He didn't think the boundaries advanced by the Hertfordshire Authorities were the best that could be devised and he put in 2 maps (Appendix VII) showing a boundary he thought was more logical than any of the 3 put forward by the Hertfordshire Authorities. He had not. however shared his thoughts on this suggestion with anyone else and had specifically requested to be heard at the end of the Meeting, thus making difficult comment by others on his suggestions.

64. Mrs E Fricker & Mr Nix were against change.

65. A number of written submissions were handed to me during the course of the Meeting. I read all of them and took them into consideration before writing this report.

Conclusions

66. Chorleywood is in my view one community. It has blossomed and expanded in Hertfordshire and more than 80% of its population is in that County. I find that there is little evidence of dissatisfaction with life under Hertfordshire County Council and Three Rivers District Council. Quite the reverse in fact. Those who gave evidence both in writing and at the Meeting were very concerned to stay in Hertfordshire and anxious not to have to move into Buckinghamshire. The educational and health reasons for this I find quite compelling.

67. In view of the foregoing conclusion I am asked to say where the boundary should be drawn. This I find a difficult issue but having listened very carefully to all that was said I am of the view that the greater part of Chorleywood in Hertfordshire should for more effective and convenient government encompass the smaller area of Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire). What makes for difficulty is the fact that almost to a man and woman the people of Chorleywood who live in Buckinghamshire do not wish the boundary to be moved so that they will be in future be in Hertfordshire. Nevertheless, despite statements that some of the Buckinghamshire citizens of Chorleywood look to Buckinghamshire for shopping and prefer the Buckinghamshire attitude to Green Belt preservation, I was totally unconvinced that the case for Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) to stay in Buckinghamshire was sound.

68. The Buckinghamshire case to move the boundary to the M25 was in my view extremely weak. Though supported by Chiltern District Council and Chenies Parish Council I found that Chorleywood would be divided in two by a Motorway which in my view does not provide an ideal boundary. Such a severance would throw Chorleywood East into Rickmansworth and Chorleywood West (Buckinghamshire & Hertfordshire) into an unhappy alliance,with the Hertfordshire citizens, the latter being the vast majority,disliking both the educational and health policies in Buckinghamshire.

69. Where should the boundary lie?

This is clearly a dilemma as Hertfordshire> Three Rivers District Council and Chorleywood District Council alJ. proposed different solutions - but said that they would abide by any decision adopting one of their solutions. The Boundary suggested by Hertfordshire was closely drawn round Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire). The Three Rivers solution was better in as much as it encompassed the woods, so understandably dear to the hearts of the citizens of Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire). The Chorleywood Parish Council boundary taking in Chenies would in my view be indefensible ; Chenies is quite different in character from Chorleywood and should in my view remain in Buckinghamshire.

I favour the Three Rivers solution but believe that the boundary advanced by Dr Roberts (Appendix VII) deserves the closest attention. This was a late suggestion at the Meeting and no-one else had had the opportunity of studying the proposal in detail. I believe that the Commission should however look carefully at this and compare it with the boundary line suggested by Three Rivers District Council. Both have merit.

70. If changes are to be made as I recommend in the foregoing paragraphs the area of Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire > would be included in Hertfordshire, Three Rivers District Council and Chorleywood Parish Council for electoral purposes. I indicated to the representatives of both County Councils that they should give more thought to electoral boundaries and write to the Commission with their suggestions before any definite decisions are made on the boundary issue. I suggest they be reminded of this by the Commissions staff.

71. It may be helpful to the Commission if I set out my views on several issues raised in correspondence and at the Public Meeting:

1. In my inspection of the area I did not find the M25 to be in any way divisive. Movement of people - both ways was easy and convenient. 2. Views on the two different educational systems were • extremely strong and most people said they had deliberately chosen to live on one side of the boundary or the other in order to be within a comprehensive or a selective system,

3. The services offered a by Hertfordshire to Chorleywood East & West appeared to be more effective than those offered by Buckinghamshire to Chorleywood residents in this County. Distance in this case was an important factor. 4. I found the evidence given by the Doctors on health facilities to be important. Whilst not wishing to take sides they clearly operated more effectively in Hertfordshire than in Buckinghamshire.

5. Despite the assurances given by Buckinghamshire as to the future of St Clement Danes School if the boundary were to be changed, I found the evidence of the Chairman of Governors, The Headmaster and a substantial number of parents to be compelling. They would clearly not welcome a move to Buckinghamshire.

6. The preservation of the Green Belt by residents in Chorleywood West (Buckinghamshire) was an important issue and the rentention in an undeveloped state of the 3 adjoining woods was clearly extremely critical in formulating these views, Whilst these woods remain in local authority ownership all should be well but it is in my view important that the woods and the developed portion of Chorleywood (Buckinghamshire) should 1ie on the same side of the boundary.

7. Views at ,the- hearing were extremely polarised. The Buckinghamshire ci't'izens wanted to stay in Buckinghamshire and the Hertfordshire people wanted to stay in Hertfordshire (although several people said they thought Chorleywood was one Community). Understandably the vast majority of the people who attended the meeting would be happy with the status quo and if the Commission were to adopt this course it would be a popular decision but not, in my view the right one. The test must be whether changes are necessary in the interests of effective and convenient local government. I find that changes are necessary as indicated in these conclusions and I recommend the Commission to adopt them.

Signed

£t /V ^*~'*u

L K ROBINSON DATE July 1987 ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER ANNEX B

LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

COUNTY BOUNDARY REVIEW

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

AFFECTING . OXFORDSHIRE, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE AND HERTFORDSHIRE

FINAL PROPOSALS

Existing County Boundary Proposed County Boundary Existing other Boundary Proposed other Boundary LOCATION DIAGRAM

~] [Map 4b

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

OXFORDSHIRE.

SHEET 2 NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE I See Inset No. l|

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

»S|INSET NO. 2

See Inset No. 2\

[See Inset No. 4 | See Inset No. 3

C) Ccown CopyrlgW 1967 f\ BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE [See Inset No. I

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Proposed boundary follows the centre of the River Tove. Some transfers too small to show INSET NO. 2j BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

Proposed boundary follows the centre of the River Tove. Transfers too small to show. NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

CJ Crown Copyright 1987 Map 4b BUCKINGHAMSHIRE^^

Proposed boundary follows the centre of the River love. Some transfers too smalt to show

NORTHAMPTONSHIRE NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

Proposed boundary follows the centre of the River Great Ouse. Transfers too small to show.

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE Map 4d NORTHAMPTONSHIRE

^y-y.-w-';^

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

C) Crown Copyright 1987 ', t I I- NORTHAMPTONSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HERTFORDSHIRE

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HERTFORDSHIRE

I BUCKINGHAMSHIRE :^^^^.

HERTFORDSHIRE

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

A HERTFORDSHIRE!^ HERTFORDSHIRE

Mop 9a

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE C) Crown Copyright 1987 HERTFORDSHIRE

BUCKINGHAMSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

HERTFORDSHIRE BUCKINGHAMSHIRE EH See Mop I2o|

OXFORDSHIRE

Map 12 Bfef/ BERKSHIRE I £» ' .- .-- BUCKINGHAMSHIRE

OXFORDSHIRE CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire South Northamptonshire District Aylesbury Vole District Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District A Brackley CP Turweston CP A Non Parished Area Old Stratford CP Brackley East Word Tinqewick Word Slony Stratford Ward Cosgrove Ward Brackley ED Buckingham North ED Stony Stratford ED Deanshanger ED 1 3 Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vole District South Northamptonshire District South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes B Turweston CP Brockley CP B Did Stratford CP Non Parished Area Tlngewick Word Brackley East Word Cosgrove Word Stony Stratford Ward Buckingham North ED Brackley ED Deanshonger ED Stony Stratford ED

Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire A Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District A Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire Distrlc Non Perished Area Deanshanger CP Hanslope CP Hortwel! CP Stony Stratford Word Deanshanger Ward C Stantonbury Ward Salcey Ward Stony Stratford ED Deanshonger ED Olney ED Hockleton ED

Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes B Deanshonger CP Non Parished Area B HartweP CP Hanslope CP Deanshanger Ward Stony Stratford Ward Salcey Ward Stantonbury Ward Deanshanger ED Stony Stratford ED Hackleton ED Olney ED 4a Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire South Northamptonshire District Aylesbury Vole District South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes 2 D Wicken CP Beachampton CP D Graflon Regis CP Hanslope CP Deanshanger Word Great Horwood Word Grofton Ward Stantonbury Word Deanshanger ED Winslow ED Deanshanger ED Olney ED

Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Aylesbury Vale District South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District E Beachampton CP Wicken CP . E Hanslope CP Grofton Regis CP Great Norwood Ward Deonshanger Ward Stantonbury Word Grafton Wdrd Winslow ED Oeanshanger ED Olney ED Deanshanger ED j - Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire South Northamptonshire District Aylesbury Vole District South Northamptonshire District Borough of MDton Keynes F Wicken CP Beachampton CP 4c F Cosgrove CP Castlethorpe CP ' "*-, Deanshanger Ward Great Horwood Word Cosgrove Ward Stantonbury Ward i * Deanshanger ED Winstow ED Deanshanger ED Olney ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA ^nr\i A FROr Mwi»Mi TO r^^^* FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire Borough of Millon Keynes South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District J Castlethorpe CP Cosgrove CP A Hanslope CP Hartwell CP Stantonbury Word Cosgrove Word Stantonbury Ward Salcey Ward Olney ED Deanshanger ED Olney ED Hackleton ED 4d Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire H South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes Boro/jgh of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District Cosgrove CP Castlethorpe CP Honslope CP HacWeton CP Bu Cosgrove Ward Stantonbury Ward Stoke Goldlngton CP Hackleton Ward Deanshanger ED Olney ED Olney ED Hackleton ED 5a Between 0 ond P on Mop 4o, and Q and R on Mops 4o and 4b, the oreos to Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire be transferred will also be port of Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District District, Grafton Regis CP. Grafton Ward and Deanshanger ED. Stoke Goldlngton CP Hortwell CP c Olney Ward Salcey Ward Between R and S on Mop 4b the area to be transferred will also be port of Olney ED Hackleton ED Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire District, Yardley Gobion CP, Grafton Ward and Deanshanger ED. Northamptonshire Buckinghamshire South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes Between S, T and U on Mops 4b and 4c, the area to be transferred will also be Hartwell CP Du* Hanslope CP part of Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire District, Cosgrove CP, Salcey Ward Stantonbury Ward Cosgrove Ward and Deanshanger ED. Hackleton ED Olney ED

Between V ond W on Mop 4d, the area to be transferred will also be part of Northamptonshire D^f ' Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire District, Cosgrove CP, Cosgrove Ward, South Northamptonshire District Borough of Milton Keynes and Deanshanger ED. Hartwel! CP Hanslope CP Salcey Ward Stantonbury Ward Mi i Between W and X on Map 4d, the area to be transferred will also be part of t± i_ Hackleton ED Olney ED Northamptonshire, South Northamptonshire District, Old Stratford CP, 5b Cosqrove Word and Deanshanger ED. Buckinghamshire Northamptonshire E Borough of Milton Keynes South Northamptonshire District Hanslope CP Hortwell CP Stantonbury Ward Salcey Ward Olney ED Hackleton ED. CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA MAP AREA FROM TO FROM TO NO. REF. NO. REF. Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Aylesbury Vole District Borough of Dacorum Borough of Dacorum Chiltern District Droyton Beauchamp CP Tring CP B Berkhamsled CP Ashley Green CP Aston Clinton Word Tring West Ward Berkhamsted East Ward Ashley Green and Latimer Ward Aston Clinton and Tring ED Berkhamsted ED Chesham North ED Weston Turvltle ED Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Chiltern District Borough of Dacorum Borough ot Dacorum Chiltern District Ashley Green CP Berkhamsled CP Qri cw 7 A Tring CP Cholesbury-cum St Leonards CP JU Ashley Green and Latimer Word Berkhamsted East Ward Trinq East Ward Cholesbury and The Lee Word Cheshom North ED Berkhomsled ED Tring ED Chesham West ED Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Chiltern District Borough of Dacorum Borough of Dacorum Chiltern District Ashley Green CP flovlngdon CP 8 A Wigginton CP . Cholesbury-cum St Leonards CP Ashley Green and Latimer Ward Bovingdon and Flaunden Ward Atdbury and Wigginton Ward Cholesbury and The Lee Ward Chesham North ED Kings Langley ED Tring ED Chesham West ED Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Borough of Dacorum Chiltern District Borough of Dacorum Chiltern District A A r-\ Flounden CP Chenles CP Berkhamsted CP Ashley Green CP Bovingdon and Flaunden Ward Chenles Ward Berkhamsted East Word Ashley Green and Latimer Ward Kings Langley ED Chalfont St Giles ED Berkhamsted ED Cheshom North ED B Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Chlltern District Three Rivers District \rs Chiltern District Borough of Decorum Chenles CP Sarratt CP 9 D Ashley Green CP Bovingdon CP D Chenles Ward Sorratt Ward Ashley Green and Lollmer Word Bovingdon end Flounden Word in E Chalfont St Giles ED Chorleywood ED Chesham North ED Kings Longley ED IVJ Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Buckinghamshire Borough of Dacorum Chiliern District E Borough of Dacorum Chiltern District F Flaunden CP Lotimer CP Bovingdon CP Ashley Green CP Bovingdon and Flounden Word Ashley Green and Latfmer Ward Bovingdon and Flaunden Word Ashley Green and Lotimer Ward Kings Langley ED Chesham North ED Kings Langley ED Chesham North ED CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGES

MAP AREA r^r^f* FROM TO NO. REF. Buckinghamshire Hertfordshire Chiltern District Three Rivers District 11 A Chenies CP Chorleywood CP Chenies Ward Chorleywood West Ward Chalfont St Giles ED Chorleywood ED

F Oxfordshire Buckinghamshire i_ South Oxfordshire District Wycombe District H Bix and Assendon CP Fawley CP K" Nettlebed Ward Hambleden Valley Ward r\ Henley North ED Marlow Rural ED 12 F Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire i Wycombe District South Oxfordshire District G Fawley CP Bix and Assendon CP j Hambleden Valley Ward Nettlebed Ward u Marlow Rural ED Henley North ED A Oxfordshire Buckinghamshire r^ South Oxfordshire District Wycombe District C Bix and Assendon CP Fawley CP F Nettlebed Ward Hambleden Valley Ward i_ Henley North ED Marlow Rural ED I2a Buckinghamshire Oxfordshire B Wycombe District South Oxfordshire District Fawley CP Bix and Assendon CP Hambleden Valley Ward Nettlebed Ward Marlow Rural ED Henley North ED