Mole Valley in the County of Surrsy
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 50 I LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND' REPORT NO. 5O LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund .Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN - Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Countess Of Albemarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chisholm. Sir Andrew Wheatley,CBE. Mr P B Young, CBE. To the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, MP"" Secretarv of State for the Hcrnc Department PROPOSALS FOR RAISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF MOLE VALLEY IN THE COUNTY OF SURRSY 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of Mole Valley in accordance with-the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that district. 2m In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 May 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Mole Valley District Council, copies of which were circulated to the Surrey County Council, Parish Councils in the district, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies • concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted^in the local press announced the start 'of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3- Mole Valley District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule .11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also 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 comments. 4. On 29 November 197^j Mole Valley District Council presented their draft scheme of representation. In accordance with Section 7('+) of the Local Government Act 1972 they had exercised an option for election by thirds and they proposed to divide the area into 23 wards each returning one, two or three members to form a council of *f2. 5. Following the publication of the Council's proposals we received a letter from a parish council suggesting that the proposed Box' Hill ward should be renamed "Headley and Mickleham". The Council sent us copies of their correspondence with the County Council, parish councils, political parties and other bodies both during the period when the scheme was in preparation -and after its publication. We noted that there were a few instances where the Council had not been.able to accept the suggestionsmade and incorporate them in their scheme. 6. We considered the draft scheme and the suggested modifications. In the case of the name of the proposed Box Hill ward we considered that this name - after a very well known local geographical feature - was more appropriate than the alternative, which we decided to reject. We reviewed the suggestions rejected by the District Council but concluded in each case that their decision had been appropriate. • • 7. We considered several possibilities for adapting the Council's draft scheme so as to secure a more even standard of representation. We decided that the balance between the proposed Ashbead Village and- Ashtead Park wards would be improved by an adjustment of the boundary between the two wards. 8. We studied the District Council's proposed plan for .the order of retirement of councillors and made a number of modifications mainly to avoid the need to transfer the elections in a number of parishes from the normal year for parish elections. To the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, HP Secretary of Stati :cr the Home Department PROPOSES FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT OF MOLE VALLEY IN THE COUNTY OF SURREY 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the district of Mole Valley in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that district. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60(1) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 May 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Mole Valley District Council, copies of which were circulated to the Surrey County Council, Parish Councils in the district, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and of the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3« Hole Valley District Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also 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, tlius allowing an opportunity for local comments. 4. On 29 November 197^, Hole Valley District Council presented their draft scheme of representation. In accordance with Section 7(^) of the Local Government Act 1972 they had exercised an option for election by thirds and they proposed to divide the area into 23 wards each returning one, two or three members to form a council of 42. 5. Following the publication of the Council's proposals we received a letter from a parish council suggesting that the proposed Box Hill ward should be renamed "Headley and Hickleham". The Council sent us copies of their correspondence with 1;he County Council, parish councils, political parties and other bodies both during the period when the scheme was in preparation and after its publication. We noted that there were a fev; instances where the Council had not been.able to accept the suggestionsmade and incorporate them in their scheme* 6. V.'e considered the draft scheme and the suggested modifications. In the case of the name of the proposed Box Hill.ward we considered that this name - after a very well known local geographical feature - was more appropriate than the alternative, which we decided to reject. We reviewed the suggestions rejected by"the District Council but concluded in-each case that their decision had been appropriate. V. We considered several possibilities for adapting the Council's draft scheme so as to secure a more even standard of representation. We decided that the balance between the proposed Ashtead Village and Ashtead Park wards, would be improved by an adjustment of the boundary between the two wards. 8. V/e studied the District Council's proposed plan for the order of retirement of councillors and made a number of modifications mainly to avoid the need to transfer the elections in a number of parishes from the normal year for parish elections. 9. After consulting Ordnanco Survey we made a number of minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary linei which were more readily identifiable on the ground* • ' ' 10. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 7» 8 and 9 above wo decided that the District Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements of the District in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly, 11. On 26 February 1975 we issued our draf-t proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation-letter or who had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were •invited from those to whom they v/ere circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 30 April 1975- 12. Mole Valley District Council informed us that they accepted the draft . - proposals but sxiggested two small boundary alterations. -They asked also that v/e should accept the scheme for the order of retirement of councillors originally submitted by them rather than the modified version which we'had published. 13- Two local political Associations challenged the proposed allocation of 3 members to the proposed'North Holmwood ward. They suggested representation should be reduced to two-councillors -and there was a suggestion that "the ward be divided into two wards each returning one member. 1^. A parish council suggested that -the proposed Beare Green ward comprising the parish of Holmwood and the Beare Green ward of the parish of Capel should be re-named "Holmwood and Beare Green" ward.