sign in sign up
<<
Home , Bletchingley, Burstow, Caterham, Chaldon, Chelsham, Chelsham and Farleigh

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR IN

Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions

September 1998

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND

This report sets out the Commission’s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Tandridge in Surrey.

Members of the Commission are:

Professor Malcolm Grant (Chairman)

Helena Shovelton (Deputy Chairman)

Peter Brokenshire

Professor Michael Clarke

Pamela Gordon

Robin Gray

Robert Hughes

Barbara Stephens (Chief Executive)

©Crown Copyright 1998 Applications for reproduction should be made to: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office Copyright Unit

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by The Local Government Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings. Licence Number: GD 03114G.

This report is printed on recycled paper. ii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND CONTENTS

page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE v

SUMMARY vii

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3

3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7

4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9

5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 11

6 NEXT STEPS 21

APPENDICES

A Final Recommendations for Tandridge: Detailed Mapping 23

B Draft Recommendations for Tandridge (March 1998) 29

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND iii iv LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Local Government Commission for England

September 1998

Dear Secretary of State

On 2 September 1997 the Commission began a periodic electoral review of the district of Tandridge under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements in March 1998 and undertook an eleven-week period of consultation.

We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation. We have confirmed our draft recommendations for the District Council in their entirety, although some modifications have been made to warding arrangements (see paragraph 64) in the light of further evidence. This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Tandridge.

We recommend that Council should be served by 42 councillors representing 20 wards, and that some changes should be made to ward boundaries in order to improve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria. We recommend that elections should continue to take place by thirds.

We note that you have now set out in the White Paper Modern Local Government - In Touch with the People (Cm 4014, HMSO), legislative proposals for a number of changes to local authority electoral arrangements. However, until such time as that new legislation is in place we are obliged to conduct our work in accordance with current legislation, and to continue our current approach to periodic electoral reviews.

I would like to thank members and officers of the District Council and other local people who have contributed to the review. Their co-operation and assistance have been very much appreciated by Commissioners and staff.

Yours sincerely

PROFESSOR MALCOLM GRANT Chairman

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND v vi LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND SUMMARY

The Commission began a review of Tandridge on ● In 17 of the 20 wards, the number of 2 September 1997. We published our draft electors per councillor would vary by no recommendations for electoral arrangements on more than 8 per cent from the district 17 March 1998, after which we undertook an 11- average. week period of consultation. ● This level of electoral equality is expected to improve, with the number of electors per ● This report summarises the representations councillor in 18 wards projected to vary by we have received during consultation on our no more than 8 per cent from the average by draft recommendations, and offers our final the year 2002. recommendations to the Secretary of State. Recommendations are also made for changes to We found that the existing electoral arrangements parish and town council electoral arrangements. provide unequal representation of electors in They provide for: Tandridge because: ● new warding arrangements for Lingfield and ● in nine of the 21 wards, the number of Dormansland Parish Council. electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district, and three wards vary by All further correspondence on these more than 20 per cent from the average; recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the ● by 2002, electoral equality is expected to Secretary of State for the Environment, deteriorate, with the number of electors per Transport and the Regions, who will councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 not make an order implementing the per cent from the average in 11 wards, and Commission’s recommendations before by more than 20 per cent in six wards. 13 October 1998: Our main final recommendations for future The Secretary of State electoral arrangements (Figure 1 and paragraph Department of the Environment, 60) are that: Transport and the Regions Local Government Review ● Tandridge District Council should continue Eland House to be served by 42 councillors, as at present; Bressenden Place ● there should be 20 wards, one fewer than at SW1E 5DU present; ● the boundaries of 12 of the existing wards should be modified, while nine wards should retain their existing boundaries; ● elections should continue to take place by thirds.

These recommendations seek to ensure that the number of electors represented by each district councillor is as nearly as possible the same, having regard to local circumstances.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND vii Figure 1: The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Summary

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

1 3 Bletchingley ward (Bletchingley parish); Map A5 & Nutfield Nutfield ward (Nutfield parish)

2 & Horne 3 Unchanged (the of Burstow Map 2 and Horne)

3 1 Chaldon ward; Queens Park ward (part) Large map

4 Dormans 2 Dormans ward (Dormansland parish Map A3 & Felcourt ward and Baldwins Hill parish ward of Lingfield and Dormansland parish; Lingfield & Crowhust ward (part – Lingfield parish ward (part) of Lingfield and Dormansland parish)

5 1 Unchanged (Felbridge parish) Map 2

6 3 Unchanged (Godstone parish) Map 2

7 Harestone 2 Unchanged Large map (in )

8 2 Unchanged (Limpsfield parish) Map 2

9 Lingfield 2 Lingfield & Crowhurst ward (part – Map A3 & Crowhurst Lingfield parish ward (part) of Lingfield and Dormansland parish; Crowhurst parish)

10 North 3 Unchanged (North ward of Oxted parish Map 2 & Tandridge and Tandridge parish)

11 Oxted South 3 Unchanged (South ward of Oxted parish) Map 2

12 Portley 2 Portley ward; Westway ward (part) Large map (in Caterham)

13 Queens Park 2 Queens Park ward (part); Westway ward Large map (in Caterham) (part)

14 & 1 & Farleigh, Tatsfield & Titsey Map A2 ward (part – the parishes of Tatsfield and Titsey)

15 Valley 2 Unchanged Large map (in Caterham)

viii LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 1 (continued): The Commission’s Final Recommendations: Constituent areas

Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors

16 East 3 Warlingham East ward; Chelsham & Map A2 & Chelsham Farleigh, Tatsfield & Titsey ward & Farleigh (part – Chelsham & Farleigh parish)

17 Warlingham West 2 Warlingham West ward; Whytleafe ward Map A2 (part)

18 Westway 2 Westway ward (part) Large map (in Caterham)

19 2 Whyteleafe ward (part) Large map

20 1 Unchanged Map 2

Notes: 1 The area to the north of the M25 (the wards of Chaldon, Godstone, Harestone, Portley, Queen’s Park, Valley, Warlingham East, Warlingham West, Westway, Whyteleafe and Woldingham) is entirely unparished. 2 Map 2, the maps at Appendix A and the large map at the back of the report illustrate the proposed wards outlined above.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND ix x LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1. INTRODUCTION

1 This report contains our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Tandridge in Surrey.

2 In undertaking these reviews, we have had regard to:

● the statutory criteria in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992; ● the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972.

3 We have also had regard to our Guidance and Procedural Advice for Local Authorities and Other Interested Parties (published in March 1996 and updated in March 1998), which sets out our approach to the reviews.

4 This review was in four stages. Stage One began on 2 September1997, when we wrote to Tandridge District Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. We also notified Surrey County Council, Authority, the local authority associations, the Surrey Association of Local Councils, parish councils in the district, the Member of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament with constituency interests in the district, and the headquarters of the main political parties. We placed a notice in the local press, issued a press release and other publicity, and invited the District Council to publicise the review further. The closing date for receipt of representations, the end of Stage One, was 25 November 1997. At Stage Two, we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations.

5 Stage Three began on17 March 1998 with the publication of our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Tandridge in Surrey and ended on 1 June 1998. Comments were sought on our preliminary conclusions. Finally, during Stage Four we reconsidered our draft recommendations in the light of the Stage Three consultation and now publish our final recommendations.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 1 2 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS

6 The district of Tandridge was established in 1974, and comprises the former Caterham & Warlingham Urban District Council and Godstone Rural District Council. It borders & Banstead to the west, and extends from the boundary in the north, to in the east and in the south. It has a population of approximately 77,000, and is the second smallest of the Surrey districts. Some 60 per cent of the population reside in the main residential areas of Caterham, Oxted, Warlingham and Whyteleafe in the north of the district, with the remainder in smaller settlements and villages.

7 To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards, the extent to which the number of electors per councillor in each ward (the councillor:elector ratio) varies from the district average in percentage terms has been calculated. In the report this calculation may also be described as ‘electoral variance’.

8 The electorate of the district (February 1997) is 58,752. The Council presently has 42 councillors who are elected from 21 wards (Map 1 and Figure 3). Of these, five wards are each represented by three councillors, 11 wards each elect two councillors, while the remaining five are each represented by a single councillor. The Council is elected by thirds.

9 Since the last electoral review, there has only been a minor increase in population in the district, with around 3 per cent more electors than two decades ago. At present, each councillor represents an average of 1,399 electors, which the District Council forecasts would increase to 1,467 by the year 2002 if the present number of councillors is maintained. The number of electors per councillor in nine of the 21 wards varies by more than 10 per cent from the district average and in three wards by more than 20 per cent. The worst imbalance is in Nutfield ward, in which the number of electors per councillor is 48 per cent above the district average.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3 Map 1: Existing Wards in Tandridge

4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 2: Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Bletchingley 2 2,309 1,155 -17 2,313 1,157 -21

2 Burstow 3 4,399 1,466 5 4,448 1,483 1 & Horne

3 Chaldon 1 1,281 1,281 -8 1,292 1,292 -12

4 Chelsham 1 1,821 1,821 30 2,005 2,005 37 & Farleigh, Tatsfield & Titsey

5 Dormans 2 2,284 1,142 -18 2,320 1,160 -21

6 Felbridge 1 1,593 1,593 14 1,663 1,663 13

7 Godstone 3 4,333 1,444 3 4,535 1,512 3

8 Harestone 2 2,881 1,441 3 3,016 1,508 3 (in Caterham)

9 Limpsfield 2 2,763 1,382 -1 2,837 1,419 -3

10 Lingfield 2 3,533 1,767 26 3,781 1,891 29 & Crowhurst

11 Nutfield 1 2,074 2,074 48 2,099 2,099 43

12 Oxted North 3 4,182 1,394 0 4,315 1,438 -2 & Tandridge

13 Oxted South 3 4,249 1,416 1 4,491 1,497 2

14 Portley 2 2,378 1,189 -15 2,417 1,209 -18 (in Caterham)

15 Queens Park 2 2,589 1,295 -7 2,634 1,317 -10 (in Caterham)

16 Valley 2 2,824 1,412 1 2,930 1,465 0 (in Caterham)

17 Warlingham East 3 3,505 1,168 -16 3,552 1,184 -19

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5 Figure 2 (continued): Existing Electoral Arrangements

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

18 Warlingham West 2 2,721 1,361 -3 2,734 1,367 -7

19 Westway 2 2,774 1,387 -1 3,859 1,930 32 (in Caterham)

20 Whyteleafe 2 2,600 1,300 -7 2,721 1,361 -7

21 Woldingham 1 1,659 1,659 19 1,653 1,653 13

Totals 42 58,752 --61,615 --

Averages -- 1,399 -- 1,467 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Tandridge District Council’s submission. Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the district. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. For example, electors in Bletchingley ward are relatively over-represented by 17 per cent, while electors in Nutfield ward are relatively under-represented by 48 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

6 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

10 During Stage One, we received representations from Tandridge District Council, six parish councils and a further 30 submissions from local groups, councillors and residents. In the light of these representations and evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in the report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Tandridge in Surrey. We proposed that:

(a) Tandridge District Council should be served by 42 councillors representing 20 wards;

(b) the boundaries of 12 of the existing wards should be modified, while nine wards should retain their existing boundaries;

(c) elections should continue to take place by thirds.

Draft Recommendation Tandridge District Council should comprise 42 councillors, serving 20 wards. Elections should continue to take place by thirds.

11 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in 17 of the 20 wards varying by no more than 8 per cent from the district average. This level of electoral equality was expected to improve, with the number of electors per councillor in 18 wards projected to vary by no more than 8 per cent from the average by the year 2002.

12 Our draft recommendations are summarised at Appendix B.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 7 8 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION

13 During the consultation on our draft 17 Bletchingley Parish Council accepted that the recommendations report, 40 representations were integrity of Nutfield and Bletchingley would be received. In addition, 88 proformas were received maintained by the draft recommendations but felt opposing our draft recommendation to form a new that the alternative of combining Nutfield with ward comprising the parishes of Nutfield and Outwood and Bletchingley with Horne would be Bletchingley. A list of respondents is available on “more practical”. Nutfield Parish Council “strongly request from the Commission. disagreed” with the proposal to combine Bletchingley and Nutfield. Burstow Parish Council Tandridge District Council expressed its support for the Commission’s draft recommendation to retain the existing electoral arrangements in Burstow and Horne. 14 The District Council broadly supported our draft recommendations. It welcomed our proposals in Felbridge, Godstone, Harestone, Limpsfield, Other Representations Oxted North and Tandridge, Oxted South, Portley, Tatsfield & Titsey, Valley, Warlingham East & 18 The Commission received a further 32 Chelsham & Farleigh, Warlingham West, Westway, representations from local groups and residents. Whyteleafe and Woldinghan wards and accepted Nutfield Conservation Society and 19 local our draft recommendations in Chaldon and residents wrote to express their opposition to Queens Park wards. However while noting our the draft recommendation to combine Nutfield draft recommendations in the area covering and Bletchingley. In addition we received 88 Bletchingley, Nutfield, Burstow and Horne, it proforma letters expressing the same view, and indicated that there would be “strong local supporting the proposal to combine Nutfield with opposition”. Outwood and Bletchingley with Horne. One respondent supported the proposal for a new South Parish Councils Nutfield ward, with ‘Top’ Nutfield being combined with Bletchingley.

15 Parish Council opposed our proposals for Chelsham and Farleigh to form a 19 Dormansland Village Group wrote in support new ward with Warlingham East. It argued that of the draft recommendation for Dormansland this area was largely rural, and had little in common and suggested minor changes to the parish with the more urban area of Warlingham. This ward boundaries. Eight local residents broadly view was endorsed by Tatsfield Parish Council. supported our draft recommendations in principle, although two residents suggested changes to the proposed parish ward boundaries. 16 Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council had no further comments to make in respect of the draft recommendations for their area, but 20 Chaldon Women’s Institute supported our expressed concern at the proposed parish councillor proposed boundary change to Chaldon ward. representation for the new parish wards. It However, one respondent expressed concern that the suggested an alternative scheme which would proposed boundary change would result in a change provide for the proposed Lingfield parish ward of polling station from Caterham to Chaldon. having six parish councillors, the proposed Dormansland parish ward having four parish 21 One resident objected to the Commission’s councillors and the proposed Haxted, Felcourt proposal to combine Chelsham and Farleigh with and Dormans Park parish wards each being Warlingham East. He felt that this was a “totally represented by one parish councillor. Crowhurst inappropriate combination” given Chelsham and Parish Council expressed its support for the draft Farleigh’s rural character and Warlingham East’s recommendations. urban character.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 9 10 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

22 As indicated previously, our prime objective in Electorate Projections considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Tandridge is to achieve electoral 26 During Stage One the District Council equality, having regard to the statutory criteria set submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2002, out in the Local Government Act 1992 and projecting an increase in the electorate of some Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972, 5 per cent from 58,752 to 61,615 over the five- which refers to the ratio of electors to councillors year period. The significant area of development being “as nearly as may be, the same in every ward was expected to take place within Westway ward, in of the district or borough”. Caterham, with the development of the St. Lawrence Hospital site. The District Council has 23 However, our function is not merely arithmetical. estimated rates and locations of housing First, our recommendations are not intended to be development with regard to structure and local based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on plans, and the expected rate of building over the assumptions as to changes in the number and five-year period. In our draft recommendations distribution of local government electors likely to report we accepted that this is an inexact science, take place within the ensuing five years. Second, we and having given consideration to the Council’s must have regard to the desirability of fixing projections, were content that they represented the identifiable boundaries, and to maintaining local ties best estimates that could reasonably be made at this which might otherwise be broken. Third, we must time. consider the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the interests and 27 We received no comments on the Council’s identities of local communities. electorate projections at Stage Three, and remain satisfied that they provide the best estimates 24 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral presently available. scheme which provides for exactly the same number of electors per councillor in every ward of an authority. There must be a degree of flexibility. Council Size However, our approach, in the context of the statutory criteria, is that such flexibility must be 28 Our Guidance indicated that we would kept to a minimum. normally expect the number of councillors serving a district or borough council to be in the range of 30 to 60. 25 Our Guidance states that, while we accept that the achievement of absolute electoral equality for the authority as a whole is likely to be unattainable, 29 Tandridge District Council is at present served we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to by 42 councillors. At Stage One, the District Council be kept to the minimum, such an objective should argued that there should be no change to the existing be the starting point in any review. We therefore council size. No other submissions were received on strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral the matter. In our draft recommendations report we schemes, local authorities and other interested concluded that the statutory criteria and the parties should start from the standpoint of absolute achievement of electoral equality would best be met electoral equality and only then make adjustments by a continuing council size of 42. We have not to reflect relevant factors, such as community received evidence during Stage Three to persuade us identity. Regard must also be had to five-year to move away from this view. forecasts of change in electorates. We will require particular justification for schemes which result in, Electoral Arrangements or retain, an imbalance of more than 10 per cent in any ward. Any imbalances of 20 per cent 30 Having considered all representations received and over should arise only in the most during Stage Three of the review, we have further exceptional of circumstances, and will require the considered our draft recommendations. We are strongest justification. endorsing our draft recommendations in their

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 11 entirety, although we propose to modify parish represent a better balance of the statutory criteria warding arrangements in Lingfield and and the need to ensure electoral equality than the Dormansland parish in order to reflect a number of current arrangements. We also proposed a minor views put to us at Stage Three. boundary modification between Warlingham West and Whyteleafe wards, to provide for all properties 31 The following sections outline the Commission’s in Picton Mount to be wholly contained analysis and final recommendations for the future within Warlingham West ward. Our draft electoral arrangements for Tandridge, which are recommendations provided for improved electoral summarised in Figures 1 and 4 and illustrated on equality, with the number of electors per councillor Map 2. Appendix A contains detailed mapping of in all wards varying by no more than 8 per cent boundary changes proposed by the Commission, from the average both now and in 2002. while the map at the back of the report illustrates the final recommendations for Caterham. The 34 At Stage Three the District Council welcomed following wards, are considered in turn: our draft recommendations. However Chelsham & Farleigh Parish Council expressed its opposition (a) Chelsham & Farleigh, Tatsfield & Titsey, to our draft recommendations, and argued that the Warlingham East and Warlingham West wards; needs of the two parishes are “very different” given that Warlingham East covers an urban area while (b) Oxted North & Tandridge, Oxted South and Limpsfield wards; Chelsham and Farleigh covers a rural area. This view was endorsed by Tatsfield Parish Council and (c) Dormans, Lingfield & Crowhurst and by a local resident, who argued that it was “totally Felbridge wards; inappropriate” for a rural community to be placed

(d) Bletchingley, Burstow & Horne, Godstone and with part of an urban area. Nutfield wards; 35 Having given careful consideration to the (e) Chaldon, Woldingham and Whyteleafe wards; representations received at Stage Three, we are (f) the five Caterham wards. content to endorse our draft recommendations in this area. While we have sympathy with the view Chelsham & Farleigh, Tatsfield & that the two areas are distinct, we consider that the Titsey, Warlingham East and level of electoral inequality in the current Chelsham Warlingham West wards & Farleigh, Tatsfield & Titsey ward should be addressed. We also note that Tatsfield and Titsey is 32 At present, Chelsham & Farleigh parish and the a relatively self contained area and that Chelsham parishes of Tatsfield and Titsey form a ward and Farleigh has a common interest with represented by a single councillor. It has a high Warlingham, and looks towards it for a number of level of electoral inequality, with 30 per cent more facilities. Accordingly, on balance, we remain of the electors per councillor than the district average (37 view that our draft proposals for this area are per cent by 2002). The area of Warlingham is appropriate. Details of the proposed boundary divided into two wards: Warlingham West ward, changes to Chelsham & Farleigh, Tatsfield & which is represented by two councillors, and has Titsey, Warlingham East and Warlingham West reasonable electoral equality, with 3 per cent fewer wards are illustrated on Map A2 at Appendix A, electors per councillor than the average (7 per cent while the boundary change between Warlingham below the average by 2002); and Warlingham West and Whyteleafe wards is illustrated on the East ward, which is represented by three large map at the back of the report. councillors, and has 17 per cent fewer electors per councillor than the average (19 per cent below the Oxted North & Tandridge, Oxted average by 2002). South and Limpsfield wards

33 At Stage One the District Council proposed 36 Oxted North & Tandridge ward comprises that Chelsham & Farleigh parish should be Oxted North ward of Oxted Parish Council and combined with the existing ward of Warlingham the whole of Tandridge Parish Council, and is East, to be represented by three members, and that represented by three councillors. Oxted South the parishes of Tatsfield and Titsey should form a ward comprises Oxted South ward of Oxted Parish new single-member ward. No change was Council, and is also represented by three proposed to the existing electoral arrangements councillors. Limpsfield ward, whose boundaries for Warlingham West ward. In our draft are coterminous with Limpsfield parish, is recommendations report we endorsed the District represented by two councillors. Currently, all three Council’s proposals which we considered would wards enjoy good electoral equality, with the

12 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND number of electors per councillor varying by from the average by 3 per cent; and 11 per cent for no more than 1 per cent in all three wards. At Stage the ward covering the remainder of Dormans and One, the District Council argued that there Lingfield & Crowhurst wards. Second, that the should be no change to the existing warding area covered by Dormansland should form a new arrangements for the three wards. No other single-member ward, with the remainder of representations were received. Dormans and Lingfield & Crowhurst wards forming a three-member ward. This would result in 37 In our draft recommendations report we the number of electors per councillor varying from proposed the retention of the existing arrangements the average by 13 per cent in the proposed in the area. On the evidence received at that stage, Dormansland ward; and 1 per cent for the ward we were not persuaded that changes to the covering the remainder of Dormans and Lingfield warding arrangements would secure a better level & Crowhurst wards. Third, that the the areas of of electoral equality or better reflect the Felcourt and Haxted be transferred from Lingfield statutory criteria. & Crowhurst ward to Dormans ward. This would result in the number of electors per councillor 38 At Stage Three the District Council varying from the average by 2 per cent in the welcomed our draft recommendations. No other proposed Dormansland & Felcourt ward; and 6 submissions were received. Having considered the per cent for the ward covering the remainder of representations received at Stage Three, we remain Lingfield & Crowhurst ward. Submissions were persuaded that there should be no change to the also received from Lingfield and Dormansland existing warding arrangements of the three wards. Parish Council, Dormansland Village Group, a Accordingly, we are content to confirm our draft local councillor and nine residents. recommendations. 41 In our draft recommendations report we agreed Dormans, Lingfield & Crowhurst and that there should be no change to the existing Felbridge wards warding arrangements in Felbridge ward. However in relation to the area covered by 39 Currently, Dormans ward comprises the parish Dormansland, Crowhurst and Lingfield wards, we wards of Dormansland and Baldwins Hill of proposed that the existing Dormans ward be Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council, and is combined with the areas of Felcourt and Haxted, represented by two councillors; Lingfield & currently in Lingfield ward. In so doing, we stated Crowhurst ward comprises Lingfield parish ward that this proposal would secure the best level of of Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council and electoral equality, had the support of the majority Crowhurst parish, and is represented by two of respondents and was equally preferred with the councillors. Felbridge ward, the boundaries of status quo by Lingfield and Dormansland Parish which are coterminous with Felbridge parish, is Council. Under our draft recommendations there represented by one councillor. These wards are would be significantly improved electoral equality subject to significant electoral inequality, with the with the number of electors per councillor in the number of electors per councillor in Dormans, revised Dormans & Felcourt and Lingfield & Felbridge and Lingfield & Crowhurst wards Crowhurst wards varying from the district average varying from the district average by 18 per cent, by 2 per cent and 6 per cent respectively. This level 14 per cent and 26 per cent respectively. This of electoral equality was not projected to change electoral imbalance is not projected to change significantly over the next five years. significantly over the next five years. 42 At Stage Three, the District Council noted our 40 At Stage One the District Council argued that draft recommendations and raised no objection. there should be no change to Felbridge ward’s Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council had no existing boundaries. However the District Council further comment to make in respect of the draft was unable to reach a consensus on the most recommendations for their area but expressed appropriate warding arrangements for the area concern at the proposed parish councillor covered by Dormans and Lingfield and Crowhurst representation for the new parish wards. wards. It therefore set out three options for the Crowhurst Parish Council and eight local residents area. First, that the area covered by Lingfield town expressed support for our draft recommendations. centre should form a separate two-member ward with the remainder of Dormans and Lingfield & 43 Having carefully considered the representations Crowhurst wards forming a two-member ward. received at Stage Three we are content to confirm This would result in the the number of electors per our draft recommendations in the area, which we councillor in the proposed Lingfield ward varying consider represent the best balance between

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 13 electoral equality and reflecting the identities and persuaded that the proposal to combine Horne and interests in the area. In particular we note that our Bletchingley parishes and the ‘Outwood’ area of draft recommendations have achieved a large Burstow parish with Nutfield parish would measure of local support at Stage Three. The represent a better balance of electoral equality and proposed parish ward boundaries are illustrated on the statutory criteria than the current arrangements. Map A3 at Appendix A. We concluded that the best balance of electoral equality and the statutory criteria would be achieved Bletchingley, Burstow & Horne, by the merger of Bletchingley and Nutfield parishes Godstone and Nutfield wards in their entirety, to form a new three member ward, with no change to the existing electoral 44 Under current arrangements, while there are 5 arrangements for Burstow and Horne ward. Our per cent and 3 per cent more electors per councillor draft recommendation provided much improved than the district average in Burstow & Horne and electoral equality, with the number of electors per Godstone wards, the number of electors per councillor in the proposed Bletchingley & Nutfield councillor in Bletchingley and Nutfield wards is 17 ward varying by 4 per cent from the average, with per cent fewer and 48 per cent more than the no change to Burstow and Horne ward. average, respectively. 47 At Stage Three, the District Council noted our 45 At Stage One, the District Council argued that draft recommendation, and indicated that there there should be no change to Godstone’s existing would be “strong local opposition” to it. ward boundaries. It argued that the boundaries Bletchingley Parish Council, Nutfield Parish straddle the A22 highway and share the same well- Council, Nutfield Conservation Society and 19 established boundaries as Godstone Parish Council. local residents opposed our draft recommendation. However, the District Council was unable to reach a It continued to be argued that Nutfield and consensus on the most appropriate warding Bletchingley had separate identities with little arrangements for Bletchingley, Burstow & Horne “common social networks or shared facilities”, and and Nutfield and set out three options for the area that this was demonstrated by the fact that the two for consideration. First, that Bletchingley and areas are separated by the M23, with the only Nutfield wards be combined to form a new three- connection being a high level bridge. Concern was member ward. This would result in the number of also expressed by residents in Nutfield that the electors per councillor in the proposed Bletchingley three councillors could all come from the more & Nutfield ward varying by 4 per cent from the populous Bletchingley parish, and that this could average, with no change to Burstow & Horne ward. lead to them becoming disenfranchised. In addition Second, that the ‘Outwood’ area of Burstow parish we received some 88 proforma letters opposing our be combined with Nutfield parish, while Horne be draft recommendations. However Burstow Parish combined with Bletchingley parish. This would Council supported our draft recommendations. result in the number of electors per councillor varying from the average by 6 per cent in the 48 Having considered the representations received proposed Bletchingley & Horne ward, 12 per cent in at Stage Three, we are content to endorse our draft the proposed Nutfield & Outwood ward and 20 per recommendation for Godstone ward. However we cent in the proposed Burstow ward. Third, that note that our proposal to merge the parishes ‘Top’ Nutfield be combined with Bletchingley, with of Bletchingley and Nutfield has attracted a degree the remainder of Nutfield forming a South Nutfield of local opposition. In most cases, the respondents ward. This would result in the number of electors have argued that a better warding arrangement per councillor varying by 2 per cent from the average would be to combine the parishes of Bletchingley in the proposed Bletchingley & ‘Top’ Nutfield ward, and Horne to form one ward, with Nutfield parish 18 per cent in the proposed South Nutfield ward, forming another ward with the Outwood area with no change to Burstow & Horne ward. of Burstow parish. Nonetheless we remain of the view that this proposal would not represent a 46 In our draft recommendations report we agreed satisfactory balance between electoral equality and that there should be no change to the existing the statutory criteria. In particular, we consider that warding arrangements in Godstone. We gave the proposal would not achieve satisfactory careful consideration to the three options put electoral equality in the area and that, in dividing forward by the District Council, and noted that the existing Burstow and Horne ward between two while there was merit to the proposal to combine new wards, the good level of electoral Bletchingley and Nutfield parishes and ‘Top’ equality within Burstow and Horne ward would Nutfield with Bletchingley parish, we were not be affected.

14 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 49 We have also reconsidered our draft 52 In our draft recommendations report we recommendations against the proposal to combine endorsed the District Council’s proposal that there ‘Top’ Nutfield with Bletchingley, with South should be no change to the existing warding Nutfield forming a new ward in its own right. In arrangements of the three wards. While we noted our draft recommendations report, while we that this would result in Woldingham continuing to considered that this proposal had merit, we noted be substantially under-represented, we considered that it would provide poorer electoral equality than that this was unavoidable given that the ward is our draft recommendation, with the number of centred around the self-contained and relatively electors per councillor in the proposed South isolated settlement of Woldingham, and has no Nutfield ward varying by more than 18 per cent compelling links with surrounding areas. from the district average. We also noted that this proposal would require consequential warding 53 However we did propose minor boundary arrangements in Nutfield parish. This proposal has modifications between Chaldon and Queens Park only received limited support at Stage Three, with wards and Whyteleafe and Warlingham West one resident putting it forward as a preferred wards. First we proposed to modify the boundary option and one local councillor putting it forward between Chaldon and Queens Park wards to as a second option. We have therefore not been provide a better level of electoral equality in persuaded that this option commands sufficient Chaldon ward. The proposed boundary between support locally to justify departing from our draft the two wards would follow the rear line of recommendations. properties in Sunny Rise, resulting in the number of electors per councillor in Chaldon ward being 50 Accordingly we are content to confirm our draft equal to the average (4 per cent by 2002). Second, recommendation to combine the parishes of we proposed to modify the boundary between Bletchingley and Nutfield to form a new ward, to Whyteleafe and Warlingham West wards to provide be represented by three members. While we for all the properties in Picton Mount to be wholly acknowledge that this proposal has achieved little contained within Warlingham West ward. support locally, we have considered the alternative warding arrangements in the light of the Stage 54 At Stage Three, the District Council and the Three responses, and remain persuaded that our Chaldon Women’s Institute supported our draft draft recommendation represents the best possible recommendations. One local resident objected to balance of the achievement of electoral equality and our draft recommendations which, it was argued, the statutory criteria. Moreover, as indicated in our would result in him having to vote at a less draft recommendations report, we have not been convenient polling station. persuaded that a merger at district level would necessarily adversely affect the villages’ separate 55 Having carefully considered all of the responses identities. Under this proposal both communities received at Stage Three we are content to confirm would retain separate parish councils, and would our draft recommendations, which we consider therefore be able to maintain their own identities. represent the best balance between electoral Details of the proposed boundaries are illustrated equality and the statutory criteria. Details of these on Map A5 at Appendix A and on Map 2. recommendations are illustrated on Map 2 and the large map at the back of the report. Chaldon, Whyteleafe and Woldingham wards Harestone, Portley, Queens Park, Valley and Westway wards (in Caterham) 51 The wards of Chaldon, Whyteleafe and Woldingham are currently unparished. While 56 Caterham town is currently divided into five Chaldon and Whytleafe wards have 8 per cent and wards, and is represented by 10 councillors. Under 7 per cent fewer electors per councillor than the current arrangements, Portley, Queens Park and average, Woldingham ward has 19 per cent more Westway wards have 15 per cent, 7 per cent and 1 per electors per councillor than the average. The level cent fewer electors per councillor than the district of electoral equality is expected to deteriorate in average, while Harestone and Valley wards have 3 per Chaldon over the next five years, with the number cent and 1 per cent more electors per councillor than of electors per councillor projected to vary by 12 the average. With the exception of Westway ward, per cent from the average. However, while the level this electoral imbalance is not projected to change of electoral equality is expected to improve over the significantly over the next five years. In Westway next five years in Woldingham, the number of ward, as a result of the development of the St. electors per councillor is still projected to vary by Lawrence Hospital site, a further 1,100 more electors 13 per cent from the average by 2002. are expected to reside in Westway ward by 2002.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 15 57 At Stage One, the District Council proposed Electoral Cycle that the existing boundary between Portley and Westway wards and Queens Park and Westway 59 In our draft recommendations report, we wards should be modified to provide for a better proposed that the present system of elections by thirds level of electoral equality and to rationalise existing in Tandridge be retained. At Stage Three we received ward boundaries. No change was proposed to no representations on this matter. Accordingly, we Harestone and Valley wards. In our draft confirm our draft recommendation as final. recommendations report we endorsed the District Council’s scheme in Caterham, although as indicated earlier, we proposed a boundary Conclusions modification between Queens Park and Chaldon wards to provide for better electoral equality 60 Having considered carefully all the evidence and between those two wards. representations received in response to our consultation report, we have decided to confirm 58 At Stage Three the District Council raised our draft recommendations for the District Council no objection to our draft recommendations. No in their entirety: other representations were received. We are therefore content to confirm our draft (a) Tandridge District Council should continue to recommendations for the area. Our proposals be served by 42 councillors; would result in improved equality of representation, with the number of electors per (b) there should be 20 wards, one less than at councillor varying by no more than 5 per present;

cent in all wards except for Westway ward. (c) the boundaries of 12 of the existing 21 wards While the number of electors per councillor should be modified; in Westway ward would initially be 32 per cent fewer than the district average, the development of (d) elections should continue to take place by thirds. the St. Lawrence Hospital site would result in there being 2 per cent more electors per councillor 61 Figure 3 shows the impact of our final than the average by 2002. The proposed new ward recommendations on electoral equality, comparing boundaries for Caterham are illustrated on the them with the current arrangements, based on large map at the back of the report. 1997 and 2002 electorate figures.

Figure 3: Comparison of Current and Recommended Electoral Arrangements

1997 electorate 2002 projected electorate Current Final Current Final arrangements recommendations arrangements recommendations

Number of councillors 42 42 42 42

Number of wards 21 20 21 20

Average number of electors 1,399 1,399 1,467 1,467 per councillor

Number of wards with a 9 3 11 2 variance more than 10 per cent from the average

Number of wards with a 3 1 6 0 variance more than 20 per cent from the average

16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 62 As Figure 3 shows, our recommendations would reduce the number of wards with electoral Final Recommendation variances greater than 10 per cent from the district Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council average from nine to three. This level of electoral should comprise 13 parish councillors equality is expected to improve over the next five representing five parish wards, with years. Under these proposals, the average number Lingfield parish ward returning six parish of electors per councillor would remain at 1,399. councillors, Dormansland parish ward We conclude that our recommendations would best returning four parish councillors and the meet the need for electoral equality, having regard parish wards of Dormans Park, Haxted and to the statutory criteria. Felcourt returning one parish councillors each. The new parish wards should reflect the proposed new district ward boundary Final Recommendation between Dormansland & Felcourt and Tandridge District Council should comprise Lingfield & Crowhurst wards. The new 42 councillors serving 20 wards, as detailed parish wards are illustrated on Map A4 at and named in Figures 1 and 4, and Appendix A illustrated on Map 2 at Appendix A and on the large map at the back of the report. The Council should continue to hold elections 65 In our draft recommendation report we by thirds. proposed that there should be no change to the electoral cycle of parish and town councils in the District. We have not received any evidence to Parish Council Electoral persuade us to move away from this proposal. Arrangements Final Recommendation 63 In undertaking reviews of electoral arrangements, we are required to comply as far as Elections for parish and town councils is reasonably practicable with the provisions set out should continue to be held at the same time in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act. The Schedule as elections for principal authorities. provides that if a parish is to be divided between different district wards, it must also be divided into parish wards, so that each parish ward lies wholly within a single ward of the district. Accordingly, we propose a number of consequential parish and town ward changes, as detailed below.

64 In our draft recommendations report we proposed that Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council should in future comprise 14 parish councillors, and that the number of wards should be increased from three to five. We proposed that the parish wards should be modified to reflect the proposed new district ward boundary between Dormansland & Felcourt and Lingfield & Crowhurst wards. At Stage Three we received representations from Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council, Dormansland Village Group and two local residents. In the light of these representations we have decided to modify our draft recommendations. We propose that Lingfield and Dormansland Parish Council should in future comprise 13 parish councillors, and that the number of parish wards be increased from three to five. We are also proposing a number of minor parish boundary modifications, as illustrated on Map A4 at Appendix A.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 17 Map 2: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Tandridge

18 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure 4: The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Tandridge

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Bletchingley 3 4,383 1,461 4 4,412 1,471 0 & Nutfield

2 Burstow 3 4,399 1,466 5 4,448 1,483 1 & Horne

3 Chaldon 1 1,392 1,392 0 1,403 1,403 -4

4 Dormans 2 2,857 1,429 2 2,935 1,468 0 & Felcourt

5 Felbridge 1 1,593 1,593 14 1,663 1,663 13

6 Godstone 3 4,333 1,444 3 4,535 1,512 3

7 Harestone 2 2,881 1,441 3 3,016 1,508 3 (in Caterham)

8 Limpsfield 2 2,763 1,382 -1 2,837 1,419 -3

9 Lingfield 2 2,960 1,480 6 3,166 1,583 8 & Crowhurst

10 Oxted North & 3 4,182 1,394 0 4,315 1,438 -2 Tandridge

11 Oxted South 3 4,249 1,416 1 4,491 1,497 2

12 Portley 2 2,913 1,457 4 2,943 1,472 0 (in Caterham)

13 Queens Park 2 2,820 1,410 1 2,859 1,430 -3 (in Caterham)

14 Tatsfield & Titsey 1 1,485 1,485 6 1,474 1,474 0

15 Valley 2 2,824 1,412 1 2,930 1,465 0 (in Caterham)

16 Warlingham East 3 3,841 1,280 -8 4,082 1,361 -7 & Chelsham & Farleigh

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 19 Figure 4: (continued) The Commission’s Final Recommendations for Tandridge

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

17 Warlingham 2 2,733 1,367 -2 2,746 1,373 -6 West

18 Westway 2 1,897 949 -32 2,997 1,499 2 (in Caterham)

19 Whyteleafe 2 2,588 1,294 -8 2,709 1,355 -8

20 Woldingham 1 1,659 1,659 19 1,653 1,653 13

Totals 42 58,752 --61,614 --

Averages -- 1,399 -- 1,467 -

Source: Electorate figures are based on Tandridge District Council’s submission. Notes: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor varies from the average for the District. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number.

20 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 6. NEXT STEPS

66 Having completed our review of electoral arrangements in Tandridge and submitted our final recommendations to the Secretary of State, we have fulfilled our statutory obligation under the Local Government Act 1992.

67 It now falls to the Secretary of State to decide whether to give effect to our recommendations, with or without modification, and to implement them by means of an order. Such an order will not be made earlier than six weeks from the date that our recommendations are submitted to the Secretary of State.

68 All further correspondence concerning our recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to:

The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Review Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 21 22 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX A

Final Recommendations for Tandridge: Detailed Mapping

The following maps illustrate the Commission’s proposed ward boundaries for the Tandridge area.

Map A1 illustrates, in outline form, the proposed ward boundaries within the district and indicates the areas which are shown in more detail in Maps A2, A3, A4, A5 and the large map inserted at the back of the report.

Map A2 illustrates the proposed boundaries for Warlingham East & Chelsham & Farleigh and Tatsfield & Titsey wards.

Map A3 illustrates the proposed boundaries for Dormans & Felcourt and Lingfield & Crowhurst wards.

Map A4 illustrates the proposed parish ward boundaries in Lingfield and Dormansland parish.

Map A5 illustrates the proposed boundaries for Bletchingley & Nutfield ward.

The large map inserted in the back of the report illustrates the proposed warding arrangements for Caterham town, Chaldon and Whyteleafe.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 23 Map A1: Final Recommendations for Tandridge: Key Map

24 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A2: Proposed Boundaries for Warlingham East & Chelsham & Farleigh and Tatsfield & Titsey Wards

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 25 Map A3: Proposed Boundaries for Dormans & Felcourt and Lingfield & Crowhurst Wards

26 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Map A4: Proposed Parish Ward Boundaries in Lingfield and Dormansland Parish

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 27 Map A5: Proposed Boundaries for Bletchingley and Nutfield Ward

28 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND APPENDIX B

Draft Recommendations for Tandridge

Figure B1: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Ward name Number of Constituent areas councillors

1 Bletchingley 3 Bletchingley ward (Bletchingley parish); Nutfield ward & Nutfield (Nutfield parish);

2 Burstow 3 Unchanged (the parishes of Burstow and Horne) & Horne

3 Chaldon 1 Chaldon ward, Queens Park ward (part)

4 Dormans 2 Dormans ward (Dormansland parish ward and Baldwins Hill & Felcourt parish ward of Lingfield and Dormansland parish; Lingfield & Crowhust ward (part – Lingfield parish ward (part) of Lingfield and Dormansland parish)

5 Felbridge 1 Unchanged (Felbridge parish)

6 Godstone 3 Unchanged (Godstone parish)

7 Harestone 2 Unchanged (in Caterham)

8 Limpsfield 2 Unchanged (Limpsfield parish)

9 Lingfield 2 Lingfield & Crowhurst ward( part – Lingfield parish ward & Crowhurst (part) of Lingfield and Dormansland parish; Crowhurst parish)

10 Oxted North 3 Unchanged (North ward of Oxted parish and Tandridge parish) & Tandridge

11 Oxted South 3 Unchanged (South ward of Oxted parish)

12 Portley 2 Portley ward; Westway ward (part) (in Caterham)

13 Queens Park 2 Queens Park ward (part); Westway ward (part) (in Caterham)

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 29 Figure B1: (continued) The Commission’s Draft Recommendations: Constituent Areas

Ward name Number of Constituent areas councillors

14 Tatsfield & Titsey 1 Chelsham, Farleigh, Tatsfield and Titsey ward (part – the parishes of Tatsfield and Titsey)

15 Valley 2 Unchanged (in Caterham)

16 Warlingham East 3 Warlingham East ward; Chelsham, Farleigh, Tatsfield and Titsey & Chelsham ward (part – Chelsham & Farleigh parish) & Farleigh

17 Warlingham West 2 Warlingham West ward; Whytleafe ward (part)

18 Westway 2 Westway ward (part) (in Caterham)

19 Whyteleafe 2 Whyteleafe ward (part)

20 Woldingham 1 Unchanged

30 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND Figure B2: The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Tandridge

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

1 Bletchingley 3 4,383 1,461 4 4,412 1,471 0 & Nutfield

2 Burstow 3 4,399 1,466 5 4,448 1,483 1 & Horne

3 Chaldon 1 1,392 1,392 0 1,403 1,403 -4

4 Dormans 2 2,857 1,429 2 2,935 1,468 0 & Felcourt

5 Felbridge 1 1,593 1,593 14 1,663 1,663 13

6 Godstone 3 4,333 1,444 3 4,535 1,512 3

7 Harestone 2 2,881 1,441 3 3,016 1,508 3 (in Caterham)

8 Limpsfield 2 2,763 1,382 -1 2,837 1,419 -3

9 Lingfield 2 2,960 1,480 6 3,166 1,583 8 & Crowhurst

10 Oxted 3 4,182 1,394 0 4,315 1,438 -2 North Tandridge

11 Oxted South 3 4,249 1,416 1 4,491 1,497 2

12 Portley 2 2,913 1,457 4 2,943 1,472 0 (in Caterham)

13 Queens Park 2 2,820 1,410 1 2,859 1,430 -3 (in Caterham)

14 Tatsfield & Titsey 1 1,485 1,485 6 1,474 1,474 0

15 Valley 2 2,824 1,412 1 2,930 1,465 0 (in Caterham)

16 Warlingham East 3 3,841 1,280 -8 4,082 1,361 -7 & Chelsham & Farleigh

continued overleaf

LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND 31 Figure B2: (continued) The Commission’s Draft Recommendations for Tandridge

Ward name Number Electorate Number Variance Electorate Number Variance of (1997) of electors from (2002) of electors from councillors per councillor average per councillor average %%

17 Warlingham West 2 2,733 1,367 -2 2,746 1,373 -6

18 Westway 2 1,897 949 -32 2,997 1,499 2 (in Caterham)

19 Whyteleafe 2 2,588 1,294 -8 2,709 1,355 -8

20 Woldingham 1 1,659 1,659 19 1,653 1,653 13

Totals 42 58,752 --61,614 1,005 -

Averages -- 1,399 -- 1,467 -

32 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND