Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 14 4 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY COMMISSION FOR iiNGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB.KBE. DEPUTY CHAIRMAN Mr J M Rankin,QC. MEMBERS The Counteae Of Albeoarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfleld. Professor Michael Chi8holm. Sir Andrew Wheatley.CBE. Mr t B Young, CB£. PV: To the Rt Hon Koy Jenkins, HP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR TH£ BOROUGH OF KEIGATL1 AND BANSTEAD IN Tim COUNTY OF SUHR2Y 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Reigate and Banstead in accordance with the requirements of section 63 of, and Schedule 9 to, the Local Government Act 1972, present our proposals for the future electoral arrangements for that Borough. 2. In accordance with the procedure laid down in section 60d) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 Hay 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to Surrey County Council, the Parish Councils in the district, the Members of Parliament for the constituencies concerned and the headquarters of the main political parties. Copies were also sent to the editors of local newspapers circulating in the area and to the local government press. Notices inserted in the local press announced the start of the review and invited comments from members of the public and from any interested bodies. 3. Heigate and Banstead Borough Council were invited to prepare a draft scheme of representation for our consideration. In doing so, they were asked to observe the rules laid down.in Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972 and the guide- lines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were also asked to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they shpuld publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. k. In accordance with section ?(4)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council had exercised an option for elections by thirds. 5. On JO December 197^ Heigate and Banstead Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. They proposed to divide the borough into eighteen wards each returning two or three members to form a council of fifty-one. 6. Following publication by the Borough Council of their provisional proposals we received a large number of letters raising issues in relation to the proposed Salfords and ^idlov, Tadworth and Walton, Preston^ Tattenhams, Nork, Kingswood with Burgh Heath and Chipstead-Hooley and Woodmansterne wards as well as the Central,' South Central, South West and South East wards of Iteigate. 7. The Borough Council also sent us copies of comments which they had received during their consultations. Several of these raised points which they had been unable to meet in settling their draft scheme. Most of these unsatisfied representations referred to the issues which had been raised directly with us. 8. We considered the Borough Council's draft scheme, together with all the comments which had been made. We decided to adopt a suggestion, made by two political parties, for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South Central and South West wards of Heigate, which placed the Woodhatch Estate area in the South West ward. We also adopted a suggestion by one of those parties for an alteration to the boundary between the proposed South West and Central wards. 9* We studied the Borough Council's draft scheme to see whether there were any modifications which could be made to improve the standard of representation. i We noted that, on current electorates, the 'proposed Salfords and Sidlow and k Preston wards were not entitled to representation by two councillors each as had been proposed by the Borough Council. Accordingly we decided to reduce the number of councillors representing those proposed wards to one each. In taking this step we noted that, if the Borough Council's 1979 forecast of the electorate for the proposed Preston ward were to be realised, that ward would be marginally under-represented by that year. However we thought that the forecast was optimistic and concluded that representation by two councillors could not be justified. Vie examined a number of other possible modifications designed to improve the standard of equality of representation but concluded that these were probably unacceptable on Lhe grounds of disturbance of local ties. 10. To avoid confusion we decided to amend the names of the wards in the i.;eigatc part of the borough by preceding the name proposed by the Borough Council with thn word "Heigate". 11. After consulting Ordnance Purvey we made* a number of minor adjustments to the alignment of some of the boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more readily identifiable on the ground. 12. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 above, we ducitled that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future'electoral arrangements for the borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 1J5. On 9 June 1975, we issued our draft proposals and these were sent to all who had received our consultation letter or had commented on the Council's draft scheme. The Council were asked to make these draft proposals, and the accompanying map which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices, ^presentations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodice, '.v'e asked that any comronts should reach us by 1 August 197% 14. We received a letter from Surrey County Council saying that they had no observations to make on our draft proposals. Support for our proposals for the Iteigate oouth West ward carne from a local political party. 1% Reigate and Banstoad Borough Council informed Us that they rejected our draft proposals where these varied from the draft scheme originally submitted by the Council, except for the amendments to names of the wards in T:eigate. The Borough Council also pointed out that there had been an error on the maps which they had submitted to us showing the wards proposed in their draft scheme, and • that consequently the boundary between the Heigate North and lieigate Central wards did not illustrate their intention. ;'iince we had adopted the boundaries on their naps for these two wards, our draft proposals' followed the wrong boundary line, and the Council therefore wished the error to be rectified. 16. iialforcls and iSidlow rari.nh Council wrote to say that they considered that the proposed representation of the ward by a single councillor would be inadequate. Two bornu^h councillors said that the nature and problems of ,-Jalfords and .'jiulow warranted special consideration and that there should be two councillors to represent the ward. Two local political associations made similar representations, as did a local church council, a county councillor and a local resident. 17* Another political association wrote to say that they accepted the proposed reduction in representation of the Preston ward, but they considered that the proposed Salfords and Sirilow ward should retain two councillors. They objected to the changes which we had made to the boundaries of the wards in the Keif^yte area, and added that the Reigate Uoutli We.'st ward should bo represented by two councillors in.stc.-.n of the proponed three. 18. Another political association objected to the proposed reduction in representation of the-Salfords and oidlow ward. The association considered also that the Tadworth and Walton ward should be allocated three councillors instead of the two proposed. 19« A local federation of ratepayers' and residents' associations said that the proposed Preston and Salfords and Sidlow wards should have two councillors each. 'tlO. The chairman and president of a local residents association wrote separately a'uout our proposals for the '-L'adworth and Walton ward. They objected to the reduction in representation from three councillors as at present to the two recommended in our draft proposals, pointing out that the ward had a lar^c electorate, was bitf in area and that there was the possibility of development which would increase the electorate still further. It was al;so suggested that the ward mi^ht bo divided into two parts, with one ward for Tadworth and another for Walton. I?1. We received letters from two borough councillors who also considered that 'L'ndworth and Walton should be represented by three councillors. Support for this suggestion came from three local residents. 'S.cL. A local residents'association from the 'Aittenhamo area suggested an alteration to boundaries between the Tattenhams and Nork and Tattenharr.s and i-reston wards. 23. A local branch of a political party ul:;o made proposals for alterations to the 'i'attenhams and Preston wards, which, they said, would produce two wards entitled to two councillors each. They cuf-^osted, in addition, an adjustment to the proposed Nork and ^attenhams boundary which would produce a more compact rj for the proposed Aittenhams ward and more clearly defined boundaries.