sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aldwick, Angmering, Bersted, Bognor Regis, Bolney, Burpham

Introduction

The Electoral Review Panel (ERP) has prepared a scheme for 70 divisions for the County Council in response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for ’s consultation on future division arrangements.

The Panel has considered each district in turn and has invited stakeholders to take part in the process, to come up with schemes that provide good levels of electoral equality, as well as good community cohesion.

The LGBCE wrote to the County Council on 23 June 2015 to say that its proposed Council size is 70 members, by removing one seat in the . It accepted the County Council’s 2021 electoral projection figures. The number is a ‘preferred figure’ as the LGBCE accepts that a slight variation may be needed when detailed schemes are prepared. Its public consultation was launched, inviting proposals from any interested party on a division pattern for the County Council which meets the Commission’s statutory criteria:

 Delivering electoral equality for local voters – this means ensuring that each councillor represents roughly the same number of voters so that the value of your vote is the same regardless of where you live in the local authority area.  Interests and identities of local communities – this means establishing electoral arrangements which, as far as possible, avoid splitting local ties and where boundaries are easily identifiable  Effective and convenient local government – this means ensuring that the divisions can be represented effectively by their elected representative(s) and that the new electoral arrangements as a whole, including both the council size decision and warding arrangements, allow the local authority to conduct its business effectively.

The ERP arranged weekly meetings from late June until mid-July to consider division schemes district by district. It met in different locations and invited all local members to attend. Invitations were also sent to district councils, parish council clerks and representatives of local political associations, to attend and comment at the meetings.

As the ERP’s initial view was that 69 members provides greater electorate equality than 70 members, it has considered both scenarios. There were to be the same number of councillors as current in five districts, a reduction from six to five in Adur and either 11 or 12 in .

The goal of a review is to create divisions that have electorates both in 2015 and 2021 that are no more than 10% above or below the ‘electoral ratio’ (which is the ratio of the county-wide electorate divided by the number of councillors). This satisfies the legal requirement for councillors to represent roughly the same number of electors across the county. Divisions should also have as much co- terminosity (coincidence of district ward and county division boundaries) and community cohesion as possible.

The LGBCE has made it clear that it would prefer proposals that are satisfactory in 2021 even if they are not so good in 2015. They prefer this to the opposite. The data which has been worked on is the 2015 electorate and the 2021 projected electorate by polling district. The polling districts (which in rural areas are often the same as the parish) have, in the main, been regarded as the basic building blocks for the composition of a division and have only been divided if necessary to create an acceptable division numerically. Seven spreadsheets for seven districts were created showing the composition by polling district of the divisions currently. These spreadsheets could then be manipulated to show the numeric effect of either moving a polling district to another division or splitting a polling district between two divisions. Any number of options could then be easily investigated.

The Panel meetings examined a number of proposals for each district and after modifications, some minor, some more major, the Panel has agreed on seven proposals for seven districts to take forward. The details of these proposals with maps, numbers and justification are enclosed in this appendix pack.

The reason for the review is that currently 23 out of 71 (32%) of the County Council’s divisions are out of the 10% band (i.e. more than 10% bigger or smaller than the county electoral ratio). The proposals have 14 outside the band in 2015 (but four only very slightly outside) and only four outside the band in the more important 2021 projection (but two only very slightly outside). There are some proposed division of polling districts but these have been kept to a minimum in line with the general principle of minimal changes as the existing pattern of divisions is felt to be good in terms of community identity.

The County Council therefore believes that the enclosed scheme provides a strong arrangement for the future of West electoral divisions. With only four divisions outside the -/+10% tolerance by 2021, it believes that this scheme is well future-proofed to take account of the significant levels of development that are likely to occur across many areas. Its strong view is that 70 members is appropriate for good representation in the future.

Electoral data Check my data 2014 2020 Using this sheet: Number of councillors: 70 70 Fill in the cells for each polling district. Please make sure that the Overall electorate: 622,815 663,675 names of each parish, parish ward, district ward & county division are Average electorate per cllr: 8,897 9,481

Scroll right to see the second table Scroll left to see the first table

What is the Which county division is this polling district What is the What is the Is there any other description you Is this polling district contained in a parish? Fill in the name of each ward once. You can Fill in the number of Do not type in these cells. These cells will show you the electorate & variance. They polling district in? This columm is not essential, but may current forecast use for this area? If not, leave this cell blank. also use the drop down list to select the ward. councillors per ward change depending what you enter in the table to the left. code? help you. electorate? electorate?

Polling Electorate Electorate Number of cllrs Electorate District Parish District ward Proposed county division Name of division Electorate 2015 Variance 2015 Variance 2021 district 2015 2021 per division December 2021

AX Adur Lancing Southwick Green Shoreham East 1090 1112 Shoreham East 1 9,583 8% 9,890 4% AS1 Adur Lancing St Mary's Shoreham East 1215 1240 Lancing 1 9,839 11% 10,054 6% AW Adur Lancing Southwick Green Southwick 1240 1265 Shoreham West 1 9,312 5% 9,661 2% AV Adur Lancing Southlands Shoreham East 1244 1269 Sompting & North Lancing 1 9,983 12% 10,176 7% AS Adur Lancing St Mary's Shoreham East 1247 1273 Southwick 1 9,177 3% 9,375 -1% AU Adur Lancing Southlands Shoreham East 1696 1731 & Findon 1 8,203 -8% 8,747 -8% AO1 Adur Lancing Mash Barn Lancing 1198 1224 & Wick 1 7,935 -11% 10,082 6% AM Adur Manor Sompting & North Lancing 1381 1412 1 9,246 4% 9,967 5% AD Adur Churchill Lancing 1471 1504 East 1 9,442 6% 9,552 1% AC Adur Churchill Lancing 1964 2007 Bognor Regis West & 1 9,635 8% 9,831 4% AO Adur Mash Barn Lancing 2118 2165 East Preston & 1 9,947 12% 10,191 7% AY Adur Widewater Shoreham West 1474 1506 1 8,482 -5% 9,205 -3% AZ Adur Widewater Lancing 3088 3154 Fontwell 1 8,958 1% 9,724 3% AN Adur Coombes Marine Shoreham West 3546 3622 East 1 9,903 11% 9,983 5% AT1 Adur Sompting St Nicholas Shoreham West 748 790 Littlehampton Town 1 7,958 -11% 8,108 -14% AR Adur Sompting St Mary's Shoreham West 1178 1244 Middleton 1 8,398 -6% 8,888 -6% AA Adur Sompting Buckingham Shoreham East 1337 1412 Nyetimber 1 9,154 3% 9,187 -3% AB Adur Coombes Buckingham Shoreham East 1754 1853 1 9,695 9% 9,737 3% AT Adur Sompting St Nicholas Shoreham West 2366 2499 Bourne 1 9,427 6% 9,715 2% ALA Adur Manor Sompting & North Lancing 34 35 East 1 9,088 2% 10,527 11% AQ Adur Peverel Sompting & North Lancing 1565 1594 1 8,909 0% 10,304 9% AE Adur Cokeham Sompting & North Lancing 1630 1661 1 8,985 1% 9,537 1% AF Adur Cokeham Sompting & North Lancing 1750 1783 1 9,372 5% 9,575 1% ALB Adur Manor Sompting & North Lancing 1801 1835 Rother Valley 1 8,742 -2% 9,549 1% AP Adur Peverel Sompting & North Lancing 1822 1856 1 8,522 -4% 8,985 -5% AG Adur Poling Eastbrook Southwick 813 831 1 9,545 7% 9,783 3% AI Adur Eastbrook Southwick 1037 1059 1 8,567 -4% 8,757 -8% Adur Clapham Southwick 1 8,975 1% 9,394 -1% AW1 Southwick Green 1146 1171 AK Adur Angmering Hillside Southwick 1519 1552 & Ifield West 1 9,223 4% 9,692 2% AH Adur Angmering Eastbrook Southwick 1552 1586 Broadfield 1 9,090 2% 9,469 0% AJ Adur Findon Hillside Southwick 1870 1911 Langley Green & Ifield East 1 9,473 6% 9,848 4% APOL Arun Angmering Arundel & Angmering & Findon 147 155 Northgate & West Green 1 7,892 -11% 10,000 5% APAT Arun Angmering Angmering & Findon Angmering & Findon 209 217 Maidenbower & Worth 1 8,719 -2% 8,889 -6% ACLA Arun South Stoke Angmering & Findon Angmering & Findon 255 263 & Pound Hill South 1 7,795 -12% 8,575 -10% AANGS Arun Houghton East Preston Angmering & Findon 771 939 Pound Hill North 1 6,800 -24% 9,613 1% AANGBG Arun Angmering & Findon Angmering & Findon 1529 1537 Southgate & 1 9,803 10% 10,294 9% AFIN Arun Findon Angmering & Findon 1635 1643 Tilgate & 1 8,912 0% 9,294 -2% AANGN2 Arun Littlehampton Angmering & Findon Angmering & Findon 1710 1878 1 8,557 -4% 9,829 4% AANGN1 Arun & Crossbush Angmering & Findon Angmering & Findon 1947 2115 Castle 1 9,123 3% 9,247 -2% ASOU Arun Littlehampton Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 34 41 1 8,373 -6% 8,656 -9% AHOU Arun Arundel Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 77 84 Holbrook 1 8,578 -4% 8,629 -9% AWAR Arun Arundel Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 137 144 Horsham Hurst 1 8,512 -4% 8,587 -9% ABUR Arun Littlehampton Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 152 159 Horsham Riverside 1 8,063 -9% 9,509 0% BCORN Arun Littlehampton Brookfield Littlehampton East 241 249 Broadbridge 1 7,822 -12% 9,283 -2% ALYM Arun Bersted Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 288 296 1 9,720 9% 10,303 9% BCWT2 Arun Bersted Courtwick with Toddington Arundel & Wick 595 1294 Horsham East 1 8,559 -4% 8,729 -8% AARU1 Arun Bersted Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 1198 1205 & 1 8,278 -7% 8,428 -11% AARU2 Arun Bersted Arundel & Walberton Arundel & Wick 1535 1542 1 9,945 12% 10,278 8% BWICK Arun Bognor Regis River Arundel & Wick 1626 2325 St Leonard'S Forest 1 6,851 -23% 9,387 -1% BCWT1 Arun Bognor Regis Courtwick with Toddington Arundel & Wick 2293 2992 East 1 8,793 -1% 10,091 6% BBG1 Arun Bersted Orchard Bersted 221 238 Burgess Hill Town 1 9,542 7% 10,000 5% BSHR Arun Bersted Bersted Bersted 270 291 & Lucastes 1 8,281 -7% 9,714 2% BNB3 Arun Bognor Regis Bersted Bersted 338 364 Meridian 1 8,459 -5% 8,938 -6% East Grinstead South & Ashurst Arun Bersted Orchard Bersted 353 381 1 8,869 0% 9,293 -2% BBG2 Wood BMARN Arun Bognor Regis Marine Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 598 645 & Victoria 1 9,360 5% 9,829 4% BPEV1 Arun Bognor Regis Bersted 1311 1413 East 1 8,083 -9% 8,510 -10% BNB1 Arun Bersted Bersted Bersted 2159 2327 Haywards Heath Town 1 8,289 -7% 8,610 -9% BNB2 Arun Bognor Regis Bersted Bersted 2292 2471 & 1 9,423 6% 9,804 3% BPEV2 Arun Bognor Regis Pevensey Bersted 2302 2482 Imberdown 1 8,323 -6% 8,881 -6% BBB1 Arun Bognor Regis Bersted Bognor Regis East 176 178 Lindfield & High 1 9,709 9% 10,338 9% BHATH Arun Bognor Regis Pevensey Bognor Regis East 344 348 Worth Forest 1 9,857 11% 10,221 8% BORC1 Arun Aldwick Orchard Bognor Regis East 509 515 Broadwater 1 9,309 5% 9,415 -1% BBB2 Arun Aldwick Bersted Bognor Regis East 1178 1192 Cissbury 1 8,774 -1% 8,886 -6% BORC2 Arun Aldwick Orchard Bognor Regis East 1639 1658 Durrington & 1 9,754 10% 10,042 6% BORC3 Arun Bognor Regis Orchard Bognor Regis East 1645 1664 Goring 1 8,540 -4% 8,752 -8% BHOT1 Arun Aldwick Hotham Bognor Regis East 1789 1810 Northbrook 1 8,353 -6% 10,381 9% BHOT2 Arun Bognor Regis Hotham Bognor Regis East 2162 2187 Tarring 1 9,734 9% 9,892 4% BSTRIC Arun Rustington Aldwick West Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 1063 1081 East 1 8,631 -3% 8,768 -8% BALDE1 Arun Kingston Aldwick East Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 1144 1163 Worthing 1 8,847 -1% 9,250 -2% BALDE3 Arun Ferring Aldwick East Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 1313 1335 Worthing West 1 8,815 -1% 9,038 -5% BMAR1 Arun Ferring Marine Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 1743 1772 0 -100% 0 -100% BALDE2 Arun East Preston Aldwick East Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 1760 1789 0 -100% 0 -100% BMAR2 Arun East Preston Marine Bognor Regis West & Aldwick 2014 2047 0 -100% 0 -100% WWP Arun East Preston East Preston & Ferring 457 468 0 -100% 0 -100% WKIN Arun Felpham East Preston East Preston & Ferring 555 569 0 -100% 0 -100% WFER1 Arun Felpham Ferring East Preston & Ferring 1616 1656 0 -100% 0 -100% WFER2 Arun Felpham Ferring East Preston & Ferring 2348 2406 0 -100% 0 -100% WEP2 Arun Felpham East Preston East Preston & Ferring 2403 2462 0 -100% 0 -100% WEP1 Arun East Preston East Preston & Ferring 2568 2631 0 -100% 0 -100% BHOE Arun Felpham East Felpham 91 99 0 -100% 0 -100% BFELE1 Arun Felpham East Felpham 1772 1923 0 -100% 0 -100% BFELW2 Arun Felpham West Felpham 1891 2052 0 -100% 0 -100% BFELW1 Arun Walberton Felpham West Felpham 2031 2204 0 -100% 0 -100% BFELE2 Arun Barnham Felpham East Felpham 2697 2927 0 -100% 0 -100% AMAD Arun Walberton Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 92 100 0 -100% 0 -100% AFONT Arun Eastergate Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 273 296 0 -100% 0 -100% ARACE Arun Aldingbourne Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 279 303 0 -100% 0 -100% ASLI Arun Littlehampton Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 440 478 0 -100% 0 -100% AWAL2 Arun Littlehampton Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 537 583 0 -100% 0 -100% ABAR Arun Rustington Barnham Fontwell 1041 1130 0 -100% 0 -100% AWAL1 Arun Littlehampton Arundel & Walberton Fontwell 1227 1332 0 -100% 0 -100% AEAS Arun Littlehampton Barnham Fontwell 2439 2648 0 -100% 0 -100% AALD Arun Littlehampton Barnham Fontwell 2630 2855 0 -100% 0 -100% BBRO1 Arun Littlehampton Brookfield Littlehampton East 917 923 0 -100% 0 -100% BBRO3 Arun Littlehampton Brookfield Littlehampton East 1027 1034 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSWN Arun Littlehampton Rustington West Littlehampton East 1453 1463 0 -100% 0 -100% BBEA2 Arun Littlehampton Beach Littlehampton East 1472 1482 0 -100% 0 -100% BBRO2 Arun Littlehampton Brookfield Littlehampton East 2027 2041 0 -100% 0 -100% BBEA1 Arun Littlehampton Beach Littlehampton East 2311 2327 0 -100% 0 -100% BELM Arun Brookfield Littlehampton East 455 464 0 -100% 0 -100% BHAM1 Arun Ford Courtwick with Toddington Littlehampton Town 856 872 0 -100% 0 -100% BRIV3A Arun Middleton on Sea River Littlehampton Town 1104 1125 0 -100% 0 -100% BRIV2 Arun Middleton on Sea River Littlehampton Town 1590 1620 0 -100% 0 -100% BHAM2 Arun Yapton Courtwick with Toddington Littlehampton Town 1988 2026 0 -100% 0 -100% BRIV1 Arun Aldwick River Littlehampton Town 2420 2466 0 -100% 0 -100% BCLI Arun Aldwick Yapton Middleton 728 771 0 -100% 0 -100% BFOR Arun Aldwick Yapton Middleton 868 919 0 -100% 0 -100% BMID1 Arun Aldwick Middleton on Sea Middleton 2031 2150 0 -100% 0 -100% BMID2 Arun Middleton on Sea Middleton 2066 2187 0 -100% 0 -100% BYAP Arun Pagham Yapton Middleton 2705 2863 0 -100% 0 -100% BBARR Arun Rustington Aldwick East Nyetimber 256 257 0 -100% 0 -100% BALDW2 Arun Rustington Aldwick West Nyetimber 287 288 0 -100% 0 -100% BALDW3 Arun Rustington Aldwick West Nyetimber 1269 1274 0 -100% 0 -100% BALDW1 Arun Rustington Aldwick West Nyetimber 2376 2384 0 -100% 0 -100% BPAG2 Arun Rustington Pagham Nyetimber 2420 2429 0 -100% 0 -100% BPAG1 Arun Marden Pagham Nyetimber 2546 2555 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSW1 Arun Stoughton Rustington West Rustington 1093 1098 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSW3 Arun Stoughton Rustington West Rustington 1904 1912 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSE2 Arun Compton Rustington East Rustington 2008 2017 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSW2 Arun Chidham & Hambrook Rustington West Rustington 2220 2230 0 -100% 0 -100% WRUSE1 Arun Chidham & Hambrook Rustington East Rustington 2470 2481 0 -100% 0 -100% FUN3 Chichester Bourne 73 75 0 -100% 0 -100% FUN4 Chichester Chidham & Hambrook Funtington Bourne 271 279 0 -100% 0 -100% FUN5 Chichester Funtington Bourne 288 297 0 -100% 0 -100% FUN1 Chichester Southbourne Funtington Bourne 321 331 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU6 Chichester Southbourne Southbourne Bourne 372 383 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU1 Chichester Westbourne Southbourne Bourne 379 391 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU5 Chichester Oving Southbourne Bourne 423 436 0 -100% 0 -100% BOS3 Chichester Bourne 1194 1231 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU2 Chichester Chichester Southbourne Bourne 1255 1293 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU3 Chichester Chichester Southbourne Bourne 1469 1514 0 -100% 0 -100% SOU4 Chichester Chichester Southbourne Bourne 1578 1626 0 -100% 0 -100% WES1 Chichester Chichester Westbourne Bourne 1804 1859 0 -100% 0 -100% NOM2 Chichester North Mundham 758 1404 0 -100% 0 -100% NOM1 Chichester North Mundham Chichester South 1032 1061 0 -100% 0 -100% CHE4 Chichester Chichester East Chichester East 1275 1358 0 -100% 0 -100% CHE2 Chichester East Dean Chichester East Chichester East 1589 1672 0 -100% 0 -100% CHE3 Chichester West Dean Chichester East Chichester East 1618 1701 0 -100% 0 -100% CHE1 Chichester Singleton Chichester East Chichester East 1647 1730 0 -100% 0 -100% TAN1 Chichester Chichester Tangmere Chichester East 2040 2477 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX5 Chichester Chichester North 15 21 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX2 Chichester Boxgrove Boxgrove Chichester North 68 80 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX3 Chichester Boxgrove Chichester North 175 187 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX6 Chichester Chichester Boxgrove Chichester North 315 327 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX4 Chichester Chichester Boxgrove Chichester North 383 395 0 -100% 0 -100% CHN1 Chichester Chichester Chichester North Chichester North 540 912 0 -100% 0 -100% LAV2 Chichester Lavant Chichester North 590 778 0 -100% 0 -100% BOX1 Chichester Hunston Boxgrove Chichester North 807 819 0 -100% 0 -100% LAV1 Chichester Lavant Chichester North 1328 1377 0 -100% 0 -100% CHN2 Chichester Chichester Chichester North Chichester North 2227 2599 0 -100% 0 -100% CHN3 Chichester Donnington Chichester North Chichester North 2461 2809 0 -100% 0 -100% CHN3 Chichester Chichester Chichester North Chichester East 161 185 0 -100% 0 -100% DON1 Chichester Chichester Donnington Chichester South 124 132 0 -100% 0 -100% SID1 Chichester Bosham Sidlesham Chichester South 885 943 0 -100% 0 -100% The Witterings SID2 Chichester Chichester Sidlesham 990 1055 0 -100% 0 -100% CHS2 Chichester Funtington Chichester South Chichester South 1586 1690 0 -100% 0 -100% DON2 Chichester Bosham Donnington Chichester South 1716 1829 0 -100% CHS3 Chichester Fishbourne Chichester South Chichester South 1751 1866 0 -100% 0 -100% CHS1 Chichester Chichester Chichester South Chichester South 1891 2016 0 -100% 0 -100% BOS2 Chichester Bosham Chichester West 874 893 0 -100% 0 -100% CHW1 Chichester Chichester West Chichester West 911 931 0 -100% 0 -100% FUN2 Chichester Funtington Chichester West 1270 1298 0 -100% 0 -100% BOS1 Chichester Sutton Bosham Chichester West 1544 1577 0 -100% 0 -100% FIS1 Chichester Fishbourne Chichester West 1894 1935 0 -100% 0 -100% CHW2 Chichester West Lavington Chichester West Chichester West 2879 2941 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR2 Chichester Rother Valley 89 97 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR1 Chichester Cocking Bury Rother Valley 106 116 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR5 Chichester Bury Rother Valley 136 149 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR7 Chichester Bury Rother Valley 177 193 0 -100% 0 -100% STE3 Chichester Bury Rother Valley 220 240 0 -100% 0 -100% STE6 Chichester Stedham Rother Valley 228 249 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR4 Chichester Bury Rother Valley 303 331 0 -100% 0 -100% STE2 Chichester Stedham Rother Valley 337 368 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR6 Chichester Fernhurst Bury Rother Valley 455 497 0 -100% 0 -100% EAS2 Chichester Easebourne Rother Valley 534 583 0 -100% 0 -100% BUR3 Chichester Stedham with Bury Rother Valley 563 615 0 -100% 0 -100% FER3 Chichester with Redford Fernhurst Rother Valley 891 973 0 -100% 0 -100% FER2 Chichester Fernhurst Rother Valley 1078 1178 0 -100% 0 -100% EAS1 Chichester Easebourne Rother Valley 1471 1607 0 -100% 0 -100% FER1 Chichester & Fernhurst Rother Valley 2154 2353 0 -100% 0 -100% ROG4 Chichester Midhurst 40 42 0 -100% 0 -100% STE4 Chichester Rogate Stedham Midhurst 99 104 0 -100% 0 -100% STE7 Chichester Stedham Stedham Midhurst 116 122 0 -100% 0 -100% STE1 Chichester Stedham Midhurst 202 213 0 -100% 0 -100% HAR3 Chichester Rogate Harting Midhurst 207 218 0 -100% 0 -100% HAR1 Chichester Harting Harting Midhurst 213 225 0 -100% 0 -100% HAR4 Chichester Midhurst Harting Midhurst 283 298 0 -100% 0 -100% ROG2 Chichester Rogate Midhurst 452 477 0 -100% 0 -100% STE5 Chichester Stedham Midhurst 567 598 0 -100% 0 -100% ROG1 Chichester Tillington Rogate Midhurst 673 710 0 -100% 0 -100% ROG3 Chichester Rogate Midhurst 815 859 0 -100% 0 -100% HAR2 Chichester Harting Midhurst 1011 1066 0 -100% 0 -100% MID1 Chichester Midhurst Midhurst 3844 4053 0 -100% 0 -100% PET4 Chichester Petworth Petworth 76 78 0 -100% 0 -100% PET1 Chichester Petworth Petworth 168 172 0 -100% 0 -100% PET5 Chichester Petworth Petworth 420 430 0 -100% 0 -100% PLA2 Chichester & Plaistow Petworth 491 503 0 -100% 0 -100% PLA3 Chichester Petworth Plaistow Petworth 571 585 0 -100% 0 -100% PET2 Chichester Selsey Petworth Petworth 789 809 0 -100% 0 -100% WIS1 Chichester Selsey Wisborough Green Petworth 827 848 0 -100% 0 -100% WIS2 Chichester Selsey Wisborough Green Petworth 1158 1187 0 -100% 0 -100% PLA1 Chichester Plaistow Petworth 1198 1228 0 -100% 0 -100% PLA4 Chichester Plaistow Petworth 1560 1599 0 -100% 0 -100% PET3 Chichester Petworth Petworth 2287 2344 0 -100% 0 -100% SEN1 Chichester West Wittering Selsey 2481 2536 0 -100% 0 -100% SEN2 Chichester Selsey North Selsey 2569 2626 0 -100% 0 -100% SES1 Chichester & Bracklesham Selsey 3517 3595 0 -100% 0 -100% ESW1 Chichester East Wittering & Bracklesham East Wittering The Witterings 390 407 0 -100% 0 -100% WEW2 Chichester West Wittering The Witterings 412 430 0 -100% 0 -100% WEW3 Chichester West Wittering The Witterings 1122 1172 0 -100% 0 -100% WEW4 Chichester West Wittering The Witterings 1194 1247 0 -100% 0 -100% WEW1 Chichester West Wittering The Witterings 1243 1298 0 -100% 0 -100% ESW2 Chichester East Wittering The Witterings 1301 1359 0 -100% 0 -100% ESW3 Chichester East Wittering The Witterings 2323 2426 0 -100% 0 -100% LFC Ifield Bewbush & Ifield West 2294 2419 0 -100% 0 -100% LA Crawley Bewbush Bewbush & Ifield West 6314 6658 0 -100% 0 -100% LBB Crawley Broadfield North Broadfield 1485 1547 0 -100% 0 -100% LCA Crawley Broadfield South Broadfield 1746 1819 0 -100% 0 -100% LCB Crawley Broadfield South Broadfield 2710 2823 0 -100% 0 -100% LBA Crawley Broadfield North Broadfield 3149 3280 0 -100% 0 -100% LFB Crawley Ifield Langley Green & Ifield East 743 814 0 -100% 0 -100% LFB Crawley Ifield Bewbush & Ifield West 615 615 0 -100% 0 -100% LFA Crawley Ifield Langley Green & Ifield East 3025 3183 0 -100% 0 -100% LE Crawley Gossops Green Southgate & Gossops Green 3930 4135 0 -100% 0 -100% LO Crawley West Green Northgate & West Green 3565 4236 0 -100% 0 -100% LG Crawley Langley Green Langley Green & Ifield East 5705 5851 0 -100% 0 -100% LHA Crawley Maidenbower Maidenbower & Worth 2754 2801 0 -100% LKA Crawley Pound Hill South & Worth Three Bridges & Pound Hill South 2805 2853 0 -100% 0 -100% LHB Crawley Maidenbower Maidenbower & Worth 3757 3822 0 -100% 0 -100% LMB Crawley Three Bridges Three Bridges & Pound Hill South 1748 2056 0 -100% 0 -100% LMA Crawley Three Bridges Three Bridges & Pound Hill South 2281 2563 0 -100% 0 -100% LMA Crawley Three Bridges Pound Hill North 471 673 0 -100% 0 -100% LIA Crawley Northgate Northgate & West Green 3784 4450 0 -100% 0 -100% LJB Crawley Pound Hill North Pound Hill North 2143 4670 0 -100% 0 -100% LJA Crawley Pound Hill North Pound Hill North 2924 2995 0 -100% 0 -100% LKB Crawley Pound Hill South & Worth Pound Hill North 1262 1275 0 -100% 0 -100% LKB Crawley Pound Hill South & Worth Maidenbower & Worth 2208 2266 0 -100% LIB Crawley Northgate Northgate & West Green 93 802 0 -100% 0 -100% LMC Crawley Three Bridges Three Bridges & Pound Hill South 961 1103 0 -100% 0 -100% LLA Crawley Shipley Southgate Southgate & Gossops Green 2946 3120 0 -100% 0 -100% LLB Crawley Shipley Southgate Southgate & Gossops Green 2927 3039 0 -100% 0 -100% LLB Crawley Shipley Southgate Northgate & West Green 450 512 0 -100% LNA Crawley Tilgate Tilgate & Furnace Green 2158 2251 0 -100% 0 -100% LNB Crawley Billingshurst Tilgate Tilgate & Furnace Green 2288 2386 0 -100% 0 -100% LD Crawley Billingshurst Furnace Green Tilgate & Furnace Green 4466 4657 0 -100% 0 -100% PQE Horsham Billingshurst Billingshurst & Shipley Southwater & Nuthurst 49 56 0 -100% 0 -100% PN Horsham Billingshurst Billingshurst & Shipley Billingshurst 483 555 0 -100% NK Horsham Henfield Billingshurst & Shipley Billingshurst 507 582 0 -100% 0 -100% ND Horsham Ashurst Itchingfield, & Billingshurst 1141 1310 0 -100% 0 -100% NFB Horsham Woodmancote Billingshurst & Shipley Billingshurst 1173 1347 0 -100% 0 -100% NFA Horsham Billingshurst & Shipley Billingshurst 1744 2003 0 -100% 0 -100% NFC Horsham Bramber Billingshurst & Shipley Billingshurst 3509 4032 0 -100% 0 -100% NFC Horsham Upper Beeding Billingshurst & Shipley Pulborough 29 30 0 -100% 0 -100% PPB Horsham Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote Bramber Castle 172 174 0 -100% 0 -100% NC Horsham Steyning Bramber Castle 221 224 0 -100% 0 -100% QD Horsham Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote Bramber Castle 428 434 0 -100% 0 -100% PPA Horsham Shermanbury Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote Bramber Castle 612 620 0 -100% 0 -100% NE Horsham Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote Bramber Castle 659 668 0 -100% PX Horsham West Grinstead Bramber, Upper Beeding & Woodmancote Bramber Castle 2350 2382 0 -100% 0 -100% PR Horsham Henfield Steyning Bramber Castle 4681 4745 0 -100% 0 -100% QB Horsham Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead Henfield 180 186 0 -100% 0 -100% NQ Horsham North Horsham Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead Henfield 250 258 0 -100% 0 -100% PM Horsham North Horsham Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead Henfield 259 268 0 -100% 0 -100% NL Horsham North Horsham Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead Henfield 1451 1500 0 -100% 0 -100% PE Horsham North Horsham Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead Henfield 2102 2173 0 -100% 0 -100% NW Horsham Henfield Henfield 4131 4271 0 -100% 0 -100% NXC Horsham Holbrook West Holbrook 905 910 0 -100% 0 -100% NXB Horsham Holbrook West Holbrook 1511 1520 0 -100% 0 -100% NXE Horsham Holbrook East Holbrook 1880 1891 0 -100% 0 -100% NXA Horsham Holbrook West Holbrook 1968 1980 0 -100% 0 -100% NXD Horsham Holbrook East Holbrook 2314 2328 0 -100% 0 -100% NP Horsham Horsham Park Horsham Hurst 1202 1212 0 -100% 0 -100% PH Horsham Horsham Park Horsham Hurst 1810 1824 0 -100% 0 -100% PW Horsham Trafalgar Horsham Hurst 2180 2197 0 -100% 0 -100% PV Horsham Trafalgar Horsham Hurst 2627 2648 0 -100% 0 -100% NVC Horsham Roffey South Horsham East 781 794 0 -100% 0 -100% NVC Horsham Roffey South Horsham Hurst 21 22 0 -100% 0 -100% NRB Horsham Forest Horsham Riverside 1243 1265 0 -100% 0 -100% NVB Horsham Roffey South Horsham East 1258 1280 0 -100% 0 -100% PJ Horsham Broadbridge Heath Horsham Park Horsham Riverside 666 677 0 -100% 0 -100% PJ Horsham Horsham Park Horsham Hurst 672 684 0 -100% 0 -100% NRA Horsham Pulborough Forest Horsham East 1679 1708 0 -100% PI Horsham Pulborough Horsham Park Horsham Riverside 1703 1733 0 -100% 0 -100% NGB Horsham Broadbridge Heath Broadbridge 388 1688 0 -100% 0 -100% NO Horsham Deene Horsham Riverside 1392 1475 0 -100% 0 -100% NGA Horsham Broadbridge Heath Broadbridge 2240 2323 0 -100% NN Horsham Pulborough Deene Horsham Riverside 3059 4359 0 -100% 0 -100% PC Horsham North Horsham Pulborough & Coldwaltham Pulborough 240 254 0 -100% 0 -100% PB Horsham North Horsham Pulborough & Coldwaltham Pulborough 438 464 0 -100% 0 -100% NI Horsham North Horsham Pulborough & Coldwaltham Pulborough 787 834 0 -100% 0 -100% PU Horsham Nuthurst Chanctonbury Pulborough 1450 1537 0 -100% 0 -100% QA Horsham Southwater Chanctonbury Pulborough 3010 3191 0 -100% 0 -100% PF Horsham Pulborough & Coldwaltham Pulborough 3766 3993 0 -100% 0 -100% NU Horsham Nuthurst Roffey North Horsham East 2191 2239 0 -100% 0 -100% NT Horsham Southwater Roffey North Horsham East 2650 2708 0 -100% 0 -100% NVA Horsham Southwater Roffey South St Leonard'S Forest 2763 2823 0 -100% 0 -100% PD Horsham Southwater Nuthurst Southwater & Nuthurst 480 488 0 -100% 0 -100% NH Horsham Southwater Southwater Southwater & Nuthurst 701 713 0 -100% 0 -100% NM Horsham Amberley Nuthurst St Leonard'S Forest 893 909 0 -100% 0 -100% PA Horsham Wiston Nuthurst St Leonard'S Forest 1053 1071 0 -100% 0 -100% PQB Horsham Parham Southwater Southwater & Nuthurst 1160 1180 0 -100% 0 -100% PQC Horsham Amberley Southwater Southwater & Nuthurst 1600 1628 0 -100% 0 -100% PQA Horsham Washington Southwater Southwater & Nuthurst 1987 2022 0 -100% 0 -100% PQD Horsham Washington Southwater Southwater & Nuthurst 2301 2341 0 -100% 0 -100% NY Horsham Storrington & Chantry Storrington 72 74 0 -100% 0 -100% QC Horsham Ashington Chanctonbury Storrington 159 164 0 -100% 0 -100% PG Horsham Storrington & Sullington Chantry Storrington 171 177 0 -100% 0 -100% NA Horsham Colgate Chantry Storrington 382 395 0 -100% 0 -100% PZA Horsham Chantry Storrington 645 667 0 -100% 0 -100% PZB Horsham Colgate Chantry Storrington 819 846 0 -100% 0 -100% PT Horsham Rusper Chantry Storrington 1823 1884 0 -100% 0 -100% NB Horsham Colgate Chanctonbury Storrington 1996 2063 0 -100% 0 -100% PS Horsham Rusper Chantry Storrington 3878 4008 0 -100% 0 -100% NSC Horsham Slinfold Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 113 913 0 -100% 0 -100% NSB Horsham Warnham Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 119 919 0 -100% 0 -100% NSA Horsham Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 315 1115 0 -100% 0 -100% NZ Horsham Burgess Hill Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 476 490 0 -100% 0 -100% NJ Horsham Burgess Hill Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 513 527 0 -100% 0 -100% PL Horsham Burgess Hill Rusper & Colgate St Leonard'S Forest 606 620 0 -100% 0 -100% PO Horsham Burgess Hill Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham Broadbridge 1460 1474 0 -100% 0 -100% PY Horsham Burgess Hill Itchingfield, Slinfold & Warnham Broadbridge 1587 1601 0 -100% 0 -100% PK Horsham Burgess Hill Rudgwick Broadbridge 2147 2197 0 -100% 0 -100% KDA Mid Sussex Burgess Hill Burgess Hill Meedes Hassocks & Victoria 2170 2325 0 -100% 0 -100% KDD Mid Sussex Burgess Hill Burgess Hill Meedes Burgess Hill East 1023 1299 0 -100% 0 -100% KDD Mid Sussex Ansty & Burgess Hill Meedes Burgess Hill Town 496 550 0 -100% 0 -100% KA Mid Sussex Ansty & Staplefield Burgess Hill St Andrews Burgess Hill East 3765 4260 0 -100% 0 -100% KB Mid Sussex Ansty & Staplefield Burgess Hill Franklands Burgess Hill East 4005 4532 0 -100% 0 -100% KEF Mid Sussex Ansty & Staplefield Burgess Hill Dunstall Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 1825 1908 0 -100% 0 -100% KC Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Burgess Hill Leylands Burgess Hill Town 3749 3919 KEE Mid Sussex Cuckfield Burgess Hill Dunstall Burgess Hill Town 2059 2152 IE Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Cuckfield Haywards Heath Town 120 141 0 -100% 0 -100% IC Mid Sussex East Grinstead Cuckfield Cuckfield & Lucastes 190 223 0 -100% 0 -100% ID Mid Sussex East Grinstead Cuckfield Cuckfield & Lucastes 397 466 0 -100% 0 -100% IB Mid Sussex East Grinstead Cuckfield Cuckfield & Lucastes 638 748 0 -100% 0 -100% HDE Mid Sussex East Grinstead Haywards Heath Lucastes Cuckfield & Lucastes 1585 1859 0 -100% 0 -100% IA Mid Sussex East Grinstead Cuckfield Cuckfield & Lucastes 2682 3146 0 -100% 0 -100% HDD Mid Sussex East Grinstead Haywards Heath Lucastes Cuckfield & Lucastes 2789 3272 0 -100% 0 -100% BBA Mid Sussex East Grinstead East Grinstead Ashplats East Grinstead Meridian 1233 1294 0 -100% 0 -100% BBC Mid Sussex East Grinstead Ashplats East Grinstead Meridian 1377 1445 0 -100% 0 -100% BBB Mid Sussex East Grinstead East Grinstead Ashplats East Grinstead Meridian 1632 1712 0 -100% 0 -100% BEC Mid Sussex East Grinstead East Grinstead Town East Grinstead Meridian 858 936 0 -100% 0 -100% BD Mid Sussex Hassocks East Grinstead Baldwins East Grinstead Meridian 3359 3551 0 -100% 0 -100% BAC Mid Sussex Burgess Hill Ashurst Wood East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wo 699 736 0 -100% 0 -100% BED Mid Sussex Burgess Hill East Grinstead Town East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wo 2938 3047 0 -100% 0 -100% AA Mid Sussex Hassocks Ashurst Wood East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wo 1356 1428 0 -100% 0 -100% BCF Mid Sussex Haywards Heath East Grinstead Herontye East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wo 1356 1428 0 -100% 0 -100% BCE Mid Sussex Haywards Heath East Grinstead Herontye East Grinstead South & Ashurst Wo 2520 2654 0 -100% 0 -100% MA Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Hassocks Hassocks & Victoria 127 133 0 -100% 0 -100% KFB Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Burgess Hill Victoria Hassocks & Victoria 965 1007 0 -100% 0 -100% KFA Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Burgess Hill Victoria Burgess Hill Town 3238 3379 0 -100% 0 -100% MB Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Hassocks Hassocks & Victoria 6098 6364 0 -100% 0 -100% HAB Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Haywards Heath Franklands Haywards Heath East 1434 1510 0 -100% 0 -100% HBB Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Bentswood Haywards Heath East 1503 1582 0 -100% 0 -100% HAA Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Franklands Haywards Heath East 2330 2453 0 -100% 0 -100% HBD Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Bentswood Haywards Heath East 2816 2965 0 -100% 0 -100% HCB Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Ashenground Haywards Heath Town 1026 1064 0 -100% 0 -100% HCA Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Ashenground Haywards Heath Town 3032 3143 0 -100% 0 -100% HEC Mid Sussex Haywards Heath Heath Haywards Heath Town 4111 4262 0 -100% 0 -100% LC Mid Sussex Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 65 68 0 -100% 0 -100% LB Mid Sussex Hurstpierpoint & Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 182 189 0 -100% 0 -100% LD Mid Sussex Bolney Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 220 229 0 -100% 0 -100% JD Mid Sussex Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Bolney Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 220 229 0 -100% 0 -100% LE Mid Sussex East Grinstead Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 221 230 0 -100% 0 -100% JC Mid Sussex East Grinstead Bolney Worth Forest 432 449 0 -100% 0 -100% JA Mid Sussex Worth Bolney Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 520 540 0 -100% 0 -100% LAB Mid Sussex East Grinstead Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 800 831 0 -100% 0 -100% JB Mid Sussex Lindfield Rural Bolney Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 1018 1058 0 -100% 0 -100% LAA Mid Sussex Hurstpierpoint & Downs Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 4352 4522 0 -100% 0 -100% BFA Mid Sussex West Hoathly East Grinstead Imberhorne Imberdown 1554 1665 0 -100% 0 -100% BFD Mid Sussex Lindfield Rural East Grinstead Imberhorne Imberdown 1967 2108 0 -100% 0 -100% DA Mid Sussex Lindfield Rural & Imberdown 4269 4575 0 -100% 0 -100% BD Mid Sussex East Grinstead Baldwins Imberdown 533 533 0 -100% 0 -100% FCB Mid Sussex Lindfield Urban High Weald Lindfield & High Weald 189 201 0 -100% 0 -100% FAB Mid Sussex Slaugham High Weald Lindfield & High Weald 742 790 0 -100% 0 -100% FAA Mid Sussex Slaugham High Weald Lindfield & High Weald 863 919 0 -100% 0 -100% FCA Mid Sussex Turners Hill High Weald Lindfield & High Weald 896 954 0 -100% 0 -100% GA Mid Sussex Lindfield Lindfield & High Weald 1061 1130 0 -100% 0 -100% FB Mid Sussex High Weald Lindfield & High Weald 1217 1296 0 -100% 0 -100% GB Mid Sussex Worth Lindfield Lindfield & High Weald 4741 5048 0 -100% 0 -100% ED Mid Sussex Balcombe Worth Forest 628 651 0 -100% 0 -100% EC Mid Sussex Balcombe Worth Forest 952 987 0 -100% 0 -100% DB Mid Sussex Crawley Down & Turners Hill Worth Forest 1272 1319 0 -100% 0 -100% EA Mid Sussex Balcombe Worth Forest 1275 1322 0 -100% 0 -100% EB Mid Sussex Balcombe Worth Forest 1443 1496 0 -100% 0 -100% CA Mid Sussex Copthorne & Worth Worth Forest 3855 3997 0 -100% 0 -100% WA4 Worthing Broadwater Broadwater 1675 1694 0 -100% 0 -100% WA2 Worthing Broadwater Broadwater 2418 2446 0 -100% 0 -100% WA1 Worthing Broadwater Broadwater 1951 1973 0 -100% 0 -100% WA1 Worthing Broadwater Worthing East 468 474 0 -100% 0 -100% WE1 Worthing Gaisford Broadwater 3265 3302 0 -100% 0 -100% WA3 Worthing Broadwater Cissbury 343 347 0 -100% 0 -100% WK3 Worthing Salvington Cissbury 1955 1980 0 -100% 0 -100% WJ2 Worthing Cissbury 3212 3253 0 -100% 0 -100% WJ1 Worthing Offington Cissbury 3264 3306 WD1 Worthing Durrington Durrington & Salvington 1422 1464 0 -100% 0 -100% WK2 Worthing Salvington Durrington & Salvington 2488 2561 0 -100% 0 -100% WK1 Worthing Salvington Durrington & Salvington 2723 2803 0 -100% 0 -100% WD2 Worthing Durrington Durrington & Salvington 3121 3213 0 -100% 0 -100% WF2 Worthing Goring Goring 1397 1430 0 -100% 0 -100% WB3 Worthing 1445 1479 0 -100% 0 -100% WF3 Worthing Goring Goring 2528 2587 0 -100% 0 -100% WF1 Worthing Goring Goring 2986 3056 0 -100% 0 -100% WI2 Worthing Northbrook Northbrook 1341 1662 0 -100% 0 -100% WB2 Worthing Castle Northbrook 2282 2828 0 -100% 0 -100% WI1 Worthing Northbrook Northbrook 2304 2856 0 -100% 0 -100% WB1 Worthing Castle Northbrook 2426 3035 0 -100% 0 -100% WB1 Worthing Castle Goring 184 200 0 -100% 0 -100% WM1 Worthing Tarring Tarring 3012 3061 0 -100% 0 -100% WM2 Worthing Tarring Tarring 3340 3394 0 -100% 0 -100% WE2 Worthing Gaisford Tarring 3382 3437 0 -100% 0 -100% WC3 Worthing Central Worthing East 2140 2174 0 -100% 0 -100% WL2 Worthing Selden Worthing East 2679 2722 WL1 Worthing Selden Worthing East 3344 3398 0 -100% 0 -100% WC2 Worthing Central 1972 2062 0 -100% 0 -100% WC1 Worthing Central Worthing Pier 2885 3016 0 -100% 0 -100% WG2 Worthing Heene Worthing Pier 1771 1852 0 -100% 0 -100% WG1 Worthing Heene Worthing Pier 2219 2320 0 -100% 0 -100% WG3 Worthing Heene Worthing West 2142 2196 0 -100% 0 -100% WH1 Worthing Marine Worthing West 2825 2896 0 -100% 0 -100% WH2 Worthing Marine Worthing West 3848 3945 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% 0 -100% Adur District Proposals

2015 2021

Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Lancing 9839 10.6 10054 6.0 Shoreham West 9312 4.7 9661 1.9 Shoreham East 9583 7.7 9890 4.3 Sompting & North Lancing 9983 12.2 10176 7.3 Southwick 9177 3.1 9375 -1.1

Arun District Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Angmering & Findon 8203 -7.8 8747 -7.7 Arundel & Wick 7935 -10.8 10082 6.3 Bersted 9246 3.9 9967 5.1 Bognor East 9442 6.1 9552 0.7 Bognor West Aldwick 9635 8.3 9831 3.7 East Preston & Ferring 9947 11.8 10191 7.5 Felpham 8482 -4.7 9205 -2.9 Fontwell 8958 0.7 9724 2.6 Littlehampton East 9903 11.3 9983 5.3 Littlehampton Town 7958 -10.6 8108 -14.5 Middleton 8398 -5.6 8888 -6.3 Nyetimber 9154 2.9 9187 -3.1 Rustington 9695 9.0 9737 2.7

Chichester District Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Bourne 9427 6.0 9715 2.5 Chichester East 9088 2.1 10527 11.0 Chichester North 8909 0.1 10304 8.7 Chichester South 8985 1.0 9537 0.6 Chichester West 9372 5.3 9575 1.0 Rother Valley 8742 -1.7 9549 0.7 Midhurst 8522 -4.2 8985 -5.2 Petworth 9545 7.3 9783 3.2 Selsey 8567 -3.7 8757 -7.6 The Witterings 8975 0.9 9394 -0.9

Crawley Borough Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Bewbush & Ifield West 9223 3.7 9692 2.2 Broadfield 9090 2.2 9469 -0.1 Langley Green & Ifield East 9473 6.5 9848 3.9 Maidenbower & Worth 8719 -2.0 8889 -6.2 Northgate & West Green 7892 -11.3 10000 5.5 Pound Hill North 6800 -23.6 9613 1.4 Southgate & Gossops Green 9803 10.2 10294 8.6 Three Bridges & Pound Hill South 7795 -12.4 8575 -9.6 Tilgate & Furnace Green 8912 0.2 9294 -2.0

Horsham District Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Billingshurst 8557 -3.8 9829 3.7 Bramber Castle 9123 2.5 9247 -2.5 Henfield 8373 -5.9 8656 -8.7 Holbrook 8578 -3.6 8629 -9.0 Horsham Hurst 8512 -4.3 8587 -9.4 Horsham East 8559 -3.8 8729 -7.9 Horsham Riverside 8063 -9.4 9509 0.3 Pulborough 9720 9.2 10303 8.7 St Leonard's Forest 6851 -23.0 9387 -1.0 Southwater & Nuthurst 8278 -7 8428 -11.1 Storrington 9945 11.8 10278 8.4 Broadbridge 7822 -12.1 9283 -2.1

Mid Sussex District Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Burgess Hill East 8793 -1.2 10091 6.4 Burgess Hill Town 9542 7.2 10000 5.5 Cuckfield & Lucastes 8281 -6.9 9714 2.5 East Grinstead Meridian 8459 -4.9 8938 -5.7 East Grinstead S & Ashurst Wood 8869 -0.3 9293 -2.0 Hassocks & Victoria 9360 5.2 9829 3.7 Haywards Heath East 8083 -9.2 8510 -10.2 Haywards Heath Town 8289 -6.8 8610 -9.2 Hurstpierpoint & Bolney 9423 5.9 9804 3.4 Imberdown 8323 -6.5 8881 -6.3 Lindfield & High Weald 9709 9.1 10338 9.0 Worth Forest 9857 10.8 10221 7.8

Worthing Borough Proposals

2015 2021 Variance Variance electorate electorate (%) (%) Broadwater 9309 4.6 9415 -0.7 Cissbury 8774 -1.4 8886 -6.3 Durrington & Salvington 9754 9.6 10042 5.9 Goring 8540 -4.0 8752 -7.7 Northbrook 8353 -6.1 10381 9.5 Tarring 9734 9.4 9892 4.3 Worthing East 8631 -3.0 8768 -7.5 Worthing Pier 8847 -0.6 9250 -2.4 Worthing West 8815 -0.9 9038 -4.7

Boundary Review of County Council

Draft proposals for Adur: July 2015

Proposal: Reduction of County Divisions within Adur to five, transfer of polling districts between divisions and renaming of some divisions.

Divisions affected: All

Adur would lose one division, owing to the current and projected electoral equality figures.

 Removal of existing ‘Saltings Division’; polling districts reallocated as follows: o AN Marine and AY Widewater E to ‘Shoreham’ division o AZ Widewater W to ‘Lancing’  Transfer AA Buckingham E and AB Buckingham W from ‘Shoreham’ to ‘Kingston Buci’  Transfer AW Southwick Green from ‘Kingston Buci’ to ‘Southwick’  Transfer AM Manor S from Lancing to ‘Sompting and North Lancing’.

Rename the following divisions:

 Shoreham as ‘Shoreham West’  Kingston Buci as ‘Shoreham East’

Results in the following divisions as shown on the map:

(a) Sompting and North Lancing (b) Lancing (c) Shoreham West (d) Shoreham East (e) Southwick

Key Considerations:

 The reallocations outlined in the proposal would not require splitting any current polling districts.  Although separated by the mouth of the , residents of the Shoreham Beach spit (AN Marine and AY Widewater E) gravitate towards the community and retail facilities of Shoreham, rather than Lancing. Shoreham Beach is connected to Shoreham’s retail centre by a well-used footbridge and is also accessible via the A259, a principal local road. The member for Shoreham supported the proposals.  The member for Southwick supported the proposal as the whole of the Southwick ward would now be included in the ‘Southwick’ division.  Of the five divisions, none would exceed the +/-10% tolerance by 2021 and the two imbalances now are not significantly outside the tolerance level

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Arun: July 2015

Arun District Proposal: It is considered that the current scheme in the Arun area works fairly well in both terms of electoral equality and in community focus. Minimum changes were therefore considered rather than a complete reworking of the area. Two proposals were discussed and agreed. A modification to the second proposal was discussed following comments from Littlehampton Town Council, seeking to reunite two polling districts with the rest of a town ward by moving them to Littlehampton East. The Panel supported this.

Divisions affected: Arundel & Wick, Bersted, Bognor Regis West & Aldwick, Littlehampton Town and Littlehampton East.

(a) Move a group of electors from Bersted division to Bognor Regis West & Aldwick division as the current Bersted division was too large. This could be achieved by moving the northern section of the district Marine Ward (BMARN) from Bersted to Bognor Regis West & Aldwick. As well as transferring 598 electors and improving the equality of electorate, this would also make the county division boundary co-terminus with the district boundary. (b) Move the polling district of BCORN from Arundel & Wick division and the neighbouring polling district of BELM from Littlehampton Town to Littlehampton East division – this would better balance the electoral numbers and provide better community interest for those living south of the A27. Although moving both polling districts brings Littlehampton Town to have an electorate that is slightly too small in 2021, it is considered that the community and co-terminosity benefits outweigh this. Littlehampton Town Council also points out that new building in Littlehampton Town is likely to prove to be greater than currently forecasted, so soon after 2021 the electoral equality is likely to improve.

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Chichester: July 2015

Chichester District Proposal: It is considered that the current division pattern in Chichester works well both in terms of electoral equality and in community identity, so minimum changes would be considered rather than more radical re- drawing of divisions. As Chichester East is too large at present, two proposals were put forward and agreed.

Divisions affected: Chichester East, Chichester South, Fernhurst, The Witterings

(a) North Mundham parish (nom1 polling district) from Chichester East to Chichester South. This parish has direct transport links to Hunston, already in Chichester South. (b) Sidlesham parish (sid2 polling district) from Chichester South to The Witterings. Sidlesham has road links to the villages already in The Witterings division.

(c) It is proposed that Bostock Road and Graylingwell Drive from No 62 southwards (164 electors) be moved from Chichester North to Chichester East in the interest of community identity as there is no direct vehicular access to the rest of Chichester North.

(d) It is proposed that the brownfield land to the West of Palmersfield Avenue (0 electors) currently in Chichester East be moved to Chichester North and the land South of Kingsmead Avenue (0 electors) currently in Chichester North be moved to Chichester East in the interest of community identity as each parcel of land is expected to be developed with greater links to their new Divisions and use the northern part of Palmersfield Avenue and Kingsmead Avenue as clear Divisional boundaries.

Rename the following divisions:

(e) It was proposed to rename the ‘Fernhurst’ division as ‘Rother Valley’ as the division covered a number of villages spread over some distance – the name ‘Fernhurst’ simply referred to the biggest settlement. The proposal was discussed and agreed as the Rother Valley covers much of the division.

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Crawley: July 2015

Crawley Borough Proposal:

Divisions affected:

(a) Pound Hill & Worth – To lose Worth and some of Pound Hill South LKB Polling District. To gain the Tinsley Lane area of Three Bridges. Rename ‘Pound Hill North’.

(b) Maidenbower – To lose Pound Hill South LKA Polling District. To gain Worth and the remainder of Pound Hill South LKB Polling District that is not retained by Pound Hill North. Rename ‘Maidenbower & Worth’.

(c) Northgate & Three Bridges – To lose Northgate and the Tinsley Lane area of Three Bridges. To gain Pound Hill South LKA Polling District from Maidenbower and the Three Bridges Pembroke Park estate from Southgate and Crawley Central. Rename ‘Three Bridges & Pound Hill South’.

(d) Langley Green & West Green – To lose West Green and gain most of Ifield East. Rename ‘Langley Green & Ifield East’.

(e) Gossops Green & Ifield East – To lose Ifield East and gain most of Southgate. Rename ‘Southgate & Gossops Green’.

(f) Bewbush & Ifield West – Minor change to take in more of Ifield (transferred from Gossops Green and Ifield East).

(g) New division of ‘Northgate & West Green’ - taking in Northgate and West Green, including the Northgate town centre Polling District from Southgate & Crawley Central, as well as a small part of Southgate.

(h) Broadfield – unchanged

(i) Tilgate and Furnace Green – unchanged

(j) Southgate & Crawley Central – Deleted

Key Considerations:

 For any Crawley scheme, in order to satisfy the Boundary Commission’s primary concern of electoral equality, the overriding issue in Crawley that must be addressed is the new Forge Wood estate being built in Pound Hill; that will add huge electorate growth east of the to railway line. This housing growth which started this year is forecast to increase the LJB polling district in Pound Hill North by 2500 electors by 2021. Crawley Borough Council’s Local Plan states that there will be a further 175 properties built every year in Forge Wood in each of the five years from 2021 to 2025, with the final 125 properties being built in 2026.

 Because of this growth, the only way to have a fair and future-proofed scheme for Crawley is to breach the north-south railway line. The consequence of this is that a new scheme for Crawley is required.

 As there are nine county councillors and 15 borough council wards, it is not possible to achieve full co-terminosity in Crawley, but the proposed pattern of divisions sees a greater number of Crawley residents put back in their co- terminus borough ward than those removed from it under the current scheme for Crawley. Co-terminosity is achieved in 11 of the 15 wards which is unchanged.

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Horsham: July 2015

Horsham District Proposal:

Divisions affected:

(a) Billingshurst Unchanged

(b) Southwater & Nuthurst Loses part of the parish of Nuthurst and the parish of Lower Beeding (Polling districts PA and NM)

(c) Warnham & Rusper (rename to Broadbridge) Gains Broadbridge Heath (Polling Districts NGA and NGB) Loses Rusper and Colgate (polling districts PL, NZ, NSA, NSB, NSC, NSD and NJ)

(d) Roffey (rename to Horsham East) Gains parts of Roffey South (polling districts NVB and NVC) and part of Forest (polling district NRA) Loses part of Roffey South (polling district NVA) to St Leonard’s Forest Loses 19 houses (22 electors) on Station Road to Horsham Hurst

(e) Horsham Riverside Gains Denne (polling districts NN and NO). Loses part of Roffey South (polling districts NVB and NVC) and part of Forest (polling district NRA). Loses part of polling district PJ.

(f) Horsham Hurst Gains part (672 electors) of PJ Horsham Park 3 (Millais school area) from Riverside Gains 19 houses (22 electors) on Station Road from Roffey. 12 properties on the south side of Depot Road, west of Owers Close transferred from Riverside to Hurst (20 electors).

(g) Horsham Tanbridge & Broadbridge Heath – DIVISION REMOVED

(i) St Leonard’s Forest – NEW DIVISION to comprise: NVA Roffey S from Roffey, NM Crabtree (Lower Beeding area), PA from Southwater, NSA, NSB, NSC 1,2 & 3 , NJ Colgate, NZ Ifield & PL Rusper from Warnham

Divisions unchanged: (j) Bramber Castle, (k) Henfield, (l) Holbrook, (m) Pulborough and (n) Storrington.

Key Considerations:

 This proposal has two small divisions in 2015 (Broadbridge and St Leonards Forest) and one over 10% (Storrington). However, they all come into the band by 2021 giving a 2021 proposal with nothing outside the 10% band.  This has been, by far, the most difficult district to come up with coherent proposals and it involves more transfers than in any other district. It involves changes in the boundaries of the three town divisions (Riverside, Hurst, Roffey) and the loss of an urban area (Leechpool) to a largely rural St Leonards Forest. The large development at was the biggest distorting problem. The new St Leonards Forest division will necessarily be a large urban/rural area with the built-up area of Leechpool at one end and the new Kilnwood Vale at the other. In between is a pretty sparse rural area. St. Leonards Forest will have the smallest electorate in 2015 by far, but the significant building already underway in Kilnwood Vale will bring it up to a much more equitable position by 2021.

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Mid Sussex: July 2015

Mid Sussex District Proposal: The Panel acknowledged that the divisions for Mid Sussex were generally within tolerances but required some changes in order to improve the ratios.

Divisions affected:

(a) Burgess Hill. To reduce the electoral imbalance in Hassocks, BH Victoria North to transfer to Burgess Hill Town. BH Meeds South KDA to transfer to Hassocks. This means that two of the most southern sections of Burgess Hill are joined to Hassocks, slightly amending the current situation to improve elector numbers. This leads to the need to review boundaries in Burgess Hill. It was agreed that BH Dunstall West (1825 electors) should be joined with Hurstpierpoint and Bolney division to improve numbers there. This would leave Burgess Hill Town Division with Dunstall East and Leylands, plus a section of KDD, west of Civic Way and St John’s Road (496 electors). The remaining section of KDD, east of this boundary would be added to Burgess Hill East (1023 electors). This major change will deliver much better electoral equality in the south Mid Sussex area. (b) Transfer IE Cuckfield Sandrocks from Cuckfield & Lucastes division to Haywards Heath Town division (c) Transfer JC from Hurstpierpoint & Bolney division to Worth Forest division

Key Considerations:

 The Panel considered the appropriate division to move JC Warninglid and decided that Worth Forest would be the preferred division as Warninglid is part of the Slaugham Parish, the rest of which is already in Worth Forest division.  The scheme for the south Mid Sussex area ensures that the parishes of Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common can be left complete within electoral divisions. The split of Burgess Hill is inevitable as the current situation already has Victoria as part of the Hassocks and Victoria division, but the proposals use either established polling district boundaries or other main roads wherever possible.

Boundary Review of West Sussex County Council

Draft proposals for Worthing: July 2015

Proposal: Retain current County divisions, with changes to four boundaries to improve electoral equality.

On the April 2015 electoral roll figures, all divisions in Worthing are comfortably within the acceptable variance. Under the 2021 projected figures, ‘Worthing East’ fell outside of the tolerance (-13.6%) and ‘Goring’ was close to breaching it (-9.0%)

Divisions affected: Broadwater; Goring; Northbrook; Worthing East

(a) Properties on the south side of The Strand are currently in the ‘Goring’ division, whilst those on the north side are in ‘Northbrook’. Transfer all properties on the north side to the ‘Goring’ division (184 electors). This would not include Strand Parade or any roads/cul-de-sacs coming from the Strand. (b) Transfer Angola Road, Ruskin Road, Meredith Road, Thackery Road and Kingsley Close from ‘Broadwater’ to ‘Worthing East’ (351 electors). Also transfer all properties on Dominion Road between Angola Road and the railway line (117 electors).

Key Considerations:

 Members noted the preference that roads should not be split between divisions and recognised that the proposed transfer would create a polling district split. However, it was recognised that the proposal provided the best electoral equality and was the most straightforward proposal based on current boundaries. Members also noted that with nine County divisions and 13 Borough wards, splits were inevitable. The members for Goring and Northbrook had both indicated they were content with these proposals.  The local member for Worthing East confirmed he was happy with the suggested transfer of roads from Broadwater to Worthing East.

Other proposals considered:

The member for Broadwater had requested that the Panel consider moving WA3 polling district from Cissbury to Broadwater owing to its geographical and community linkages with the Broadwater area. The Panel noted the proposal. However, modelling demonstrated that the transfer of around 345 electors could only realistically be offset with the transfer of properties on the south side of the Upper Brighton Road (A27) from Broadwater to Cissbury. As this was only 105 electors (April 2015) then these changes combined would negatively impact Cissbury’s variance, compared to leaving the boundary as currently drawn.