Local Government Boundary Commission For England Report No. 34 LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOUNDARY ' COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND REPORT NO. LOCAL GOVi;mi£NT BOUHLAilY CCfciiviISSION t'OR ENGLAND CHAIRMAN Sir Edmund Compton, GCB, KBE. EEPUTY WIAIRivlAN Mr J M Kanlcin, QC. lOffi'ERS The Countess Of. Albemarle, DBE. Mr T C Benfield. Professor Michael Chisholm. Sir Andrew V/heatley, CBE. Mr F B Young, CBE. To the Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, MP Secretary of State for the Home Department PROPOSALS FOR REVISED ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE BOROIK3H OF GUILDFORD IN THE COUNTY OF SURREY 1. We, the Local Government Boundary Commission for England, having carried r out our initial review of the electoral arrangements for the borough of Guildford 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 6od) and (2) of the 1972 Act, notice was given on 13 May 197^ that we were to undertake this review. This was incorporated in a consultation letter addressed to the Guildford Borough Council, copies of which were circulated to the Surrey County Council, Parish Councils and Parish Meetings in the Borough, 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 news- papers 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. Guildford 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 guidelines which we set out in our Report No 6 about the proposed size of the council and the proposed number of councillors for each ward. They were asked also to take into account any views expressed to them following their consultation with local interests. We therefore asked that they should publish details of their provisional proposals about a month before they submitted their draft scheme to us, thus allowing an opportunity for local comment. 4. In accordance with section 7(4) of the Local Government Act 1972 the Council had exercised an option for whole council --elections. 5. On 30 October 1974 the Guildford Borough Council presented their draft scheme of representation. The Council proposed to divide the area into 20 wards each returning 1, 2 or 3 members to form a Council of 44, two more than at present. 6. Following the publication by the Borough Council of their draft scheme we received letters from a localpolitical association, two local councillors and a group of local residents in which various proposals affecting the Merrow and Burpharai Stoke and Holy Trinity and Christchurch wards proposed by the Borough Council were submitted for our consideration, 7. We considered the draft scheme together with the comments we had received and those of the comments received by the Borough Council, both before and after the publication of their draft scheme, which they had not felt able to adopt and incorporate in their draft scheme. We noted that the proposed Merrow and Burpham» Stoke and Holy Trinity and Christchurch wards would all have a relatively high elector/councillor ratio. Having studied the composition of these three wards and the comments made to us about them we decided that the proposed Merrw and'Burpbam ward should be divided into two district wards, Burpham ward returning 1 councillor and Merrow ward returning 2 councillors. We also decided that the proposed Stoke and Holy Trinity & Christchurch wards should be reorganised into 3 wards to be called Stoke, Holy Trinity ori Christchurch, The new Chrietchurch ward would return 2 members and the Holy Trinity and Stoke wards 2 members and 3 members respectively. The three new wards would thus return a total of 7 councillors instead of the 6 proposed by the Borough Council* This would increase the size of the council to 45 members. 8. We considered whether the draft scheme could be further modified to strengthen the electorates of the proposed Onslow and Stoughton wards both of which would enjoy a relatively generous standard of representation, A number of possibilities were examined but, having regard to the location of the wards and the nature of their boundaries, we concluded that there were no sensible changes which could be made* 9. Turning our attention to the rural parts of the Borough we decided, in the interests of greater equality of representation, that the proposed Shalford ward should be strengthened by the addition of the parishes of Compton and Artington from the neighbouring The Pilgrims ward. The proposed Shalford ward would then return 2 councillors instead of one SB'the Borough Council had proposed, while The Pilgrims ward would be represented by one councillor instead of 2. 10. On the recommendation of the Ordnance Survey we adopted a number of minor modifications to ward boundaries in order to secure boundary lines which were more identifiable on the ground. 11. Subject to the changes referred to in paragraphs 7? 9 and 10 above we decided that the Borough Council's draft scheme provided a reasonable basis for the future electoral arrangements of the Borough in compliance with the rules in Schedule 11 to the 1972 Act and our guidelines, and we formulated our draft proposals accordingly. 12. On 6 December 197**, 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 theae draft proposals, and the accompanying maps which defined the proposed ward boundaries, available for inspection at their main offices. Representations on our draft proposals were invited from those to whom they were circulated and, by public notices, from other members of the public and interested bodies. We asked that any comments should reach us by 31 January 1975. 13. Surrey County Council informed us that they had no observations to make on our draft proposals and we received a letter of support from a local political party. In addition, we received letters expressing approval of our proposal to create separate wards for Burpham and Harrow and of the proposals to reorganise the proposed Stoke and Holy Trinity and Christchurch wards so as to establish a separate Christchurch ward. 14. However, our draft proposals attracted opposition from the Borough Council who requested that their draft scheme should be adopted without modification. A local political party opposed our proposal to create separate wards for Morrow and Burpham and criticised the proposed Christchurch ward on the grounds that the two areas comprising the new ward had little in common* The same political party expressed concern at the proposal of the Borough Council which we had adopted to divide the parish of Sealeand Tongham between two district wards. They also objected to our proposed 3-Blford and The Pilgrims wards. The last mentioned wards were opposed also by 4 parish councils, including those of the parishes of Compton, . Artington and Shalford. Finally there was a suggestion from a district councillor that the proposed JViary and St Nicolas: ward should be divided into two district wards. 15. In view of these comments we considered that we needed further information to enable us to reach a conclusion. Therefore, in accordance with Section 65(2) of the 1972 Act and at our request, you appointed Mr Thomas Foord as an Assistant Commissioner to hold a local meeting and to report to us. 16. The Assistant Commissioner held a meeting at Guildford on 20 May 1975. A copy of his report to us of the meeting is attached at Schedule 1 to this report. 17. The Assistant Commissioner recommended that the proposed Burpham and Merrow wards should form a single ward returning 3 councillors and that the parishes of Compton and Artington should be included in the proposed The Pilgrims ward which would return two councillors, leaving the proposed Shalford ward to return one member. Both these recommendations involved a return to the proposals comprised in the Borough Council's draft scheme. j 18. We considered again our draft proposals in the light of the comments which we had received and of the Assistant Commissioner's report. We resolved that both the alterations recommended by the Assistant Commissioner should be adopted and, subject to these amendments, we decided to confirm our draft proposals as our final proposals. 19. Details of these final proposals are set out in Schedule 2 to this report and : on the attached maps. Schedule 2 gives the names of the wards and the number of " councillors to be returned by each. The boundaries of the new wards are defined on , the maps. \ PUBLICATION 20. In accordance with Section 60(5)(b) of the Local Government Act 1972, a copy of this report and a copy of the maps are being sent to Guildford Borough Council and will be available for public inspection at the Council's main offices. Copies of this report are also being sent to those who received the consultation letter and to those who made comments. A detailed description of the boundaries of the proposed wards, as defined on the maps, is set out in Schedule 3 to this report. L.S. Signed " EDMUND COMPTON (Chairman) JOHN M RANKIN (Deputy Chairman) DIANA ALBEMARLE T C BENFIELD MICHAEL GHISHOLM ANDREW WHEATLEY F B YOUNG DAVID R SMITH ( Secretary) 3 Ju]y 1975 SCHEDULE 1 THOMAS FOORD „_.• IHON*.).