LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE FUTURE ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR MOLE VALLEY IN SURREY Report to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions September 1998
LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMISSION FOR ENGLAND This report sets out the Commission s final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for Mole Valley 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
CONTENTS page LETTER TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE SUMMARY v vii 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 3 3 DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 7 4 RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 9 5 ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 13 6 NEXT STEPS 25 APPENDICES A Final Recommendations for Mole Valley: Detailed Mapping 27 B Draft Recommendations for Mole Valley (February 1998) 33 iii
iv
Local Government Commission for England 1 September 1998 Dear Secretary of State On 2 September 1997 the Commission commenced a periodic electoral review of the district of Mole Valley under the Local Government Act 1992. We published our draft recommendations in February 1998 and undertook a nine-week period of consultation. We have now prepared our final recommendations in the light of the consultation. We have for the most part confirmed our draft recommendations, although some modifications have been made in the light of further evidence (see paragraphs 89-90). This report sets out our final recommendations for changes to electoral arrangements in Mole Valley. We recommend that Mole Valley District Council should continue to be served by 41 councillors, who should represent 21 wards rather than the present 23, 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 the Council should continue to be elected 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 v
vi
SUMMARY The Commission began a review of the electoral arrangements for Mole Valley on 2 September 1997. We published our draft recommendations for electoral arrangements on 17 February 1998, after which we undertook a nine-week period of consultation. This report summarises the representations we received during consultation on our draft recommendations, and offers our final recommendations to the Secretary of State. We found that the existing electoral arrangements provide unequal representation of electors in Mole Valley because: in 14 of the 23 wards, the number of electors represented by each councillor varies by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district and eight wards vary by more than 20 per cent from the average; by 2002, electoral equality is not expected to improve significantly, with the number of electors per councillor forecast to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average in 12 wards and by more than 20 per cent in seven wards. Our main final recommendations for future electoral arrangements (Figure 1 and paragraphs 89-90) are that: In 18 of the 21 wards, the number of electors per councillor would vary by no more than 10 per cent from the district average, with no ward varying by more than 20 per cent from the average. This improved level of electoral equality is forecast to continue, with only one ward expected to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average for the district by 2002. No recommendations are made for changes to parish council electoral arrangements. All further correspondence on these recommendations and the matters discussed in this report should be addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will not make an order implementing the Commission s recommendations before 12 October 1998: The Secretary of State Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions Local Government Review Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU Mole Valley District Council should be served by 41 councillors, the same as at present; there should be 21 wards, compared with 23 at present; the boundaries of 18 of the existing wards should be modified, while five 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. vii
Figure 1: The Commission s Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors 1 Ashtead Common 2 Ashtead Common ward; Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead North ward (part) 2 Ashtead Park 2 Ashtead Park ward (part); Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead South ward (part) 3 Ashtead Village 3 Ashtead Village ward; Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead North ward (part) 4 Beare Green 1 Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part Map 2 the Beare Green parish ward of Capel parish) 5 Bookham North 3 Bookham North ward (part); Maps 2 and A3 Fetcham West ward (part) 6 Bookham South 3 Unchanged (the unparished area of Map 2 Bookham South) 7 Box Hill 1 Box Hill ward (part the polling district Map 2 & Headley of Box Hill and the parish of Headley) 8 Brockham, 2 Brockham ward (the parish of Map 2 Betchworth Brockham); Rural East ward (part & Buckland the parishes of Betchworth and Buckland) 9 Capel, Leigh 2 Rural South ward (the parish of Map 2 & Newdigate Newdigate and Capel parish ward of Capel parish); Rural East ward (part the parish of Leigh) 10 Charlwood 1 Unchanged (the parish of Charlwood) Map 2 11 Dorking North 2 Dorking North East ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Dorking North West ward 12 Dorking South 3 Dorking North East ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Dorking South East ward; Dorking South West ward; North Holmwood ward (part) 13 Fetcham East 2 Fetcham East ward (part) Maps 2 and A3 14 Fetcham West 2 Bookham North ward (part); Maps 2 and A3 Fetcham East ward (part); Fetcham West ward (part) 15 Holmwoods 3 North Holmwood ward (part); Maps 2 and A4 Holmwood & Beare Green ward (part the parish of Holmwood) viii
Figure 1 (continued): The Commission s Final Recommendations: Summary Ward name Number of Constituent areas Map reference councillors 16 Leatherhead North 3 Leatherhead North ward (part) Maps 2 and A2 17 Leatherhead South 2 Ashtead Park ward (part); Maps 2 and A2 Leatherhead South ward (part) 18 Leith Hill 1 Unchanged (the parish of Wotton, Map 2 the Northern parish ward of Abinger parish and the Coldharbour parish ward of Capel parish) 19 Mickleham, 1 Box Hill ward (part the polling district Maps 2 and A4 Westhumble of Westhumble and the parish of Mickleham); & Pixham Dorking North East ward (part) 20 Okewood 1 Unchanged (the parish of Ockley and the Map 2 Southern parish ward of Abinger parish) 21 Westcott 1 Unchanged (the unparished area of Map 2 Westcott) ix
x
1. INTRODUCTION 1 This report contains our final recommendations on the electoral arrangements for the district of Mole Valley in Surrey. We have now reviewed all the districts in Surrey as part of our programme of periodic electoral reviews of all principal local authority areas in England. 2 In undertaking these reviews, we have had regard to: 5 Stage Three began on 17 February 1998 with the publication of our report, Draft Reccomendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Mole Valley in Surrey, and ended on 20 April 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. the statutory criteria in section 13(5) of the Local Government Act 1992: the Rules to be Observed in Considering Electoral Arrangements contained 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, supplemented in September 1996 and updated in March 1998), which sets out our approach to the reviews. 4 The review was in four stages. Stage One began on 2 September 1997, when we wrote to Mole Valley District Council inviting proposals for future electoral arrangements. Our letter was copied to Surrey County Council, the Surrey Police Authority, the local authority associations, the Surrey Association of Local Councils, parish councils in the district, Members of Parliament and the Member of the European Parliament with constituency interests in the district, and the headquarters of the main political parties. At the start of the review and following publication of our draft recommendations, we published a notice in the local press, issued a press release and other publicity, and invited the District Council to publicise the review more widely. The closing date for receipt of representations was 25 November 1997. At Stage Two we considered all the representations received during Stage One and prepared our draft recommendations. 1
2
2. CURRENT ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS 6 The district of Mole Valley contains the towns of Dorking and Leatherhead which, with the associated small towns and villages, makes for an area which is both residential and agricultural in character. It contains two of Surrey s notable beauty spots, Box Hill and Leith Hill, and encompasses nearly 26,000 hectares with a population of 79,220. There are 13 parishes in the district. 7 To compare levels of electoral inequality between wards we calculated 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. In the text which follows this calculation may also be described using the shorthand term electoral variance. 8 The electorate of the district (February 1997) is 63,335. The Council presently has 41 councillors who are elected from 23 wards (Map 1 and Figure 2). Three of the 23 wards are each represented by three councillors, 12 wards elect two councillors each, while the remaining eight are single-member wards. The Council is elected by thirds. 9 At present, each councillor represents an average of 1,545 electors, which the District Council forecasts will decrease to 1,524 by the year 2002 if the present number of councillors is maintained. However, due to demographic and other changes over the past two decades, the number of electors per councillor in 14 of the 23 wards varies by more than 10 per cent from the district average and in eight wards by more than 20 per cent. The worst imbalance is in Rural South ward in which the number of electors per councillor is 55 per cent above the district average. 3
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 Ashtead 2 3,106 1,553 1 3,077 1,539 1 Common 2 Ashtead Park 2 3,030 1,515-2 2,850 1,425-7 3 Ashtead Village 3 4,484 1,495-3 4,329 1,443-5 4 Bookham North 2 3,896 1,948 26 3,753 1,877 23 5 Bookham South 3 4,405 1,468-5 4,285 1,428-6 6 Box Hill 2 2,484 1,242-20 2,569 1,285-16 7 Brockham 1 2,218 2,218 44 2,079 2,079 36 8 Charlwood 1 1,574 1,574 2 1,648 1,648 8 9 Dorking 1 1,859 1,859 20 1,787 1,787 17 North East 10 Dorking 1 1,900 1,900 23 1,756 1,756 15 North West 11 Dorking 2 2,629 1,315-15 2,731 1,366-10 South East 12 Dorking 2 2,185 1,093-29 2,084 1,042-32 South West 13 Fetcham East 2 3,415 1,708 11 3,375 1,688 11 14 Fetcham West 2 3,260 1,630 6 3,176 1,588 4 15 Holmwood 2 2,204 1,102-29 2,115 1,058-31 & Beare Green 16 Leatherhead 3 4,542 1,514-2 4,722 1,574 3 North 17 Leatherhead 2 3,159 1,580 2 3,078 1,539 1 South 18 Leith Hill 1 1,361 1,361-12 1,276 1,276-16 19 North 2 4,168 2,084 35 4,483 2,242 47 Holmwood 4
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 % % 20 Okewood 1 1,442 1,442-7 1,367 1,367-10 21 Rural East 2 1,915 958-38 1,917 959-37 22 Rural South 1 2,389 2,389 55 2,382 2,382 56 23 Westcott 1 1,710 1,710 11 1,663 1,663 9 Totals 41 63,335 - - 62,502 - - Averages - - 1,545 - - 1,524 - Source: The 1997 electorate figures are based on Mole Valley District Council s submission, and the projected (2002) electorates are based on statistics provided by Surrey County Council. 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, in 1997, electors in Box Hill ward were relatively over-represented by 20 per cent, while electors in North Holmwood ward were relatively under-represented by 35 per cent. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 5
Map 1: Existing Wards in Mole Valley 6
3. DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS 10 During Stage One Mole Valley District Council put forward a scheme on electoral arrangements for the whole district, and we also received representations from the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Groups on the District Council. Additionally, we heard directly from the Epsom & Ewell Conservative Association, three parish councils, three district councillors and a local resident. In the light of these representations and the evidence available to us, we reached preliminary conclusions which were set out in our report, Draft Recommendations on the Future Electoral Arrangements for Mole Valley in Surrey. We proposed that: equality was expected to improve during the period to 2002, with no ward expected to vary by more than 10 per cent from the average by that time. 12 Our draft recommendations are summarised at Appendix B. (a) Mole Valley District Council should be served by 41 councillors representing 20 wards; (b) the towns of Bookham (except Bookham South ward), Dorking and Fetcham should be rewarded, with a pattern of multi-member wards; (c) the ward boundaries between Ashtead and Leatherhead should be realigned with the M25 motorway; (d) significant boundary changes should be made to many of the rural wards in the district; (e) (f) there should be no change to the wards of Bookham South, Charlwood and Okewood; elections should continue to be held by thirds; (g) no change should be made to parish council electoral arrangements. Draft Recommendation Mole Valley District Council should comprise 41 councillors serving 20 wards. The Council should continue to hold elections by thirds. 11 Our proposals would have resulted in significant improvements in electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor in 19 of the 20 wards varying by no more than 10 per cent from the district average. This level of electoral 7
8
4. RESPONSES TO CONSULTATION 13 During the consultation on our draft recommendations report, 24 direct representations were received. A list of all respondents is available on request from the Commission. Mole Valley District Council 14 The District Council supported the proposals for no change to the numbers of electors to be contained within each of the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards, but opposed the realignment of the boundaries with the M25 motorway. It proposed minor modifications to the proposed Bookham North and Fetcham East and West wards but otherwise accepted our proposals in those towns. In the town of Dorking the Council opposed the proposed two-member Dorking North ward, preferring two-single member wards as put forward in its Stage One submission. In the rural area of the district the Council recommended a single-member ward comprising the Capel parish ward of Capel parish and a separate single-member ward comprising the parishes of Leigh and Newdigate, contending that the proposed Capel, Leigh & Newdigate ward would be too large to enable effective representation. The Council supported our draft proposals for a three-member Holmwoods ward and a single-member Beare Green ward. It also supported the proposal for no change to Charlwood ward but strongly opposed the recommendation for a two-member Leith Hill & Westcott ward, which would, in its view, combine two areas with little in common. It concluded by proposing that the existing singlemember wards of Leith Hill and Westcott should remain unchanged. Mole Valley Conservative Association 15 The Association accepted the majority of our draft proposals for Ashtead, Leatherhead, Fetcham and Bookham, as well as those for Beare Green. However it did not accept the proposal to integrate part of Commonside with Fetcham West ward, or that to merge the Leith Hill and Westcott wards. The Association opposed the proposed Holmwoods ward, preferring that the village of Holmwood remain in a rural based ward and supported Capel Parish Council with its proposal for a Capel with Cudworth ward. It also suggested a Newdigate with Leigh ward and a Betchworth, Buckland and Strood Green ward, and supported our proposals for Dorking except for the twomember Dorking North ward. Mole Valley District Labour Party 16 The Mole Valley District Labour Party broadly welcomed our recommendations for multi-member wards to address electoral imbalance. However, it opposed the realignment of the Ashtead and Leatherhead ward boundaries to the M25, the combining of Westcott and Leith Hill wards, and the proposed three-member Holmwoods and singlemember Beare Green wards. It argued that the largely rural communities of Box Hill, Headley and Pixham would be better served by a two-member ward, rather than through the creation of two new single-member wards. The Party supported the continuation of elections by thirds which, it stated, provides continuous accountability of the whole council to the electorate. Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party Dorking Branch 17 The Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party Dorking Branch supported the extension of multimember wards to cover northern Dorking and proposed that the two-member Box Hill ward should be retained with the addition of Pixham. It proposed that a two-member ward for North Holmwood should be retained and proposed the inclusion of the more rural part of the present North Holmwood ward into an enlarged two-member Holmwood & Beare Green ward. It did not support the warding of Brockham parish, and acknowledged that there were natural groupings between Betchworth, Brockham and Buckland, and Capel, Leigh and Newdigate. The submission also opposed our proposed two-member Leith Hill & Westcott ward. 9
Mole Valley Liberal Democrats 18 The Liberal Democrats generally supported our draft recommendations. However, they reaffirmed their original proposal for no change to the singlemember wards of Leith Hill and Westcott, arguing that each community had a separate sense of identity. They also opposed the use of the M25 as a boundary between the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards. Overall the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats supported the mix of multi-member wards and argued for as many single-member wards in the rural areas of the district as practicable. Parish Councils 19 During Stage Three, nine representations were received from parish councils, three of which were included in the submission from Mole Valley District Council. The parish councils of Brockham, Charlwood and Ockley each supported the draft recommendations in relation to their own areas. 20 Abinger and Wotton parish councils both opposed our proposals to merge the existing singlemember Leith Hill and Westcott wards into a new two-member ward. Abinger Parish Council added that it was opposed to the merging of rural and urban areas which would, it claimed, lead to the character of Abinger being threatened. 21 Holmwood Parish Council supported our attempt to obtain a greater degree of electoral balance in line with the changing population [in] the area. However, it opposed the inclusion of the parish of Holmwood into a ward including a more urban area, adding that it believed there were no specific links between the parish of Holmwood and the more suburban area of North Holmwood. It was uneasy about the population imbalance, which in its view favoured the more urban area of North Holmwood. 22 Newdigate Parish Council opposed the draft recommendations as they affected the parish, arguing that there were greater ties with Leigh than with Capel. Capel Parish Council stated that the proposed merging of Capel, Newdigate and Leigh would produce too large a ward and that the area should rather be divided into two separate singlemember wards. Buckland Parish Council wished to retain the present Rural East ward. Other Representations 23 We received a further 13 direct representations in response to our draft recommendations, nine of which were from county or district councillors. Councillor Seabrook, representing Fetcham East ward, stated his preference for a greater number of single-member wards than had been proposed. He opposed the merging of the Dorking North East and North West wards, Leith Hill and Westcott wards and the parishes of Capel, Leigh and Newdigate. He supported the District Council s view on the boundary between the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards, its proposed amendment between Fetcham East and West wards and the retention of certain properties in Commonside within the Bookham North ward. Councillor Tatham, representing the district ward of Box Hill, argued the case for a greater number of singlemember wards because they produce, in his view, a greater degree of democratic accountability. Councillor Tatham also lodged his opposition to the proposed Leith Hill and Westcott ward. 24 District Councillors Watson and Ward, representing the present North Holmwood ward, both supported our proposals for a three-member ward covering the Holmwoods. The mixed nature of the ward would, in Councillor Ward s view, be a positive proposal. He was however opposed to the combining of Leith Hill and Westcott. Councillor Sewill representing the district ward of Charlwood was in favour of the proposal for no change to Charlwood ward. Councillor Wilkie representing the district ward of Okewood conducted a survey in his ward, the results of which showed support for our draft recommendations in this part of the district. Councillor Cooksey representing the district ward of Westcott was strongly opposed to our proposed merger of Leith Hill and Westcott wards, submitting a petition with 345 signatories also opposing the proposed merger. County Councillor Gollin, representing the Ashtead division, whilst supporting no change in Ashtead, contended that the proposed use of the M25 as a boundary would be against local wishes. 25 County Councillor Watson, representing the Dorking North division, supported our proposed Dorking North district ward. She added that she could not see the justification for Mickleham becoming part of a single-member ward, since it has strong links with Dorking. She argued for the creation of either a two-member ward linking 10
Box Hill, Headley, Pixham, Mickleham and Westhumble or a three-member Dorking North ward through the addition of Westhumble, Mickleham and Pixham to our proposed Dorking North ward. County Councillor Watson also supported our proposed Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland ward, but opposed the proposed Leith Hill with Westcott ward citing the differences in community and geography. 26 The Brockham Green Village Society opposed our recommendations regarding the village of Brockham, preferring no change. The Westcott Village Association opposed our proposal to combine the Westcott and Leith Hill wards. We also received three representations from local residents in the proposed Leith Hill & Westcott ward. One resident supported the proposal while two opposed it. 11
12
5. ANALYSIS AND FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS 27 As indicated previously, our prime objective in considering the most appropriate electoral arrangements for Mole Valley is to achieve electoral equality, having regard to the statutory criteria set out in the Local Government Act 1992 and Schedule 11 to the Local Government Act 1972, which refers to the ratio of electors to councillors being as nearly as may be, the same in every ward of the district or borough. 28 However, our function is not merely arithmetical. First, our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on existing electorate figures, but also on assumptions as to changes in the number and distribution of local government electors likely to take place within the ensuing five years. Second, we must have regard to the desirability of fixing identifiable boundaries, and to maintaining local ties which might otherwise be broken. Third, we must consider the need to secure effective and convenient local government, and reflect the interests and identities of local communities. 29 It is therefore impractical to design an electoral 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. However, our approach is that such flexibility must be kept to a minimum, consistent with the statutory criteria. 30 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, we consider that, if electoral imbalances are to be kept to the minimum, such an objective should be the starting point in any review. We therefore strongly recommend that, in formulating electoral schemes, local authorities and other interested parties should start from the standpoint of absolute electoral equality and only then make adjustments to reflect relevant factors, such as community identity. Regard must also be had to five-year forecasts of changes in electorates. We will require particular justification for schemes which result in, or retain, an imbalance of over 10 per cent in any ward. Any imbalances of 20 per cent and over should arise only in the most exceptional circumstances, and will require the strongest justification. Electorate Forecasts 31 During Stage One the District Council submitted rounded electorate forecasts for the year 2002, projecting an overall reduction in the electorate. We consulted Surrey County Council in order to refine the forecasts. We understood from officers of the District Council that they were content with the revised forecasts. An overall reduction in the electorate of 833 had been projected by the County Council over the five-year period, from 63,335 to 62,502. It was expected that the reduction in electorate would be fairly evenly spread across the district. 32 The electorate forecasts reflect assumptions as to rates and locations of housing development with regard to structure and local plans, and the expected rate of building over the five-year period. Advice from the District Council on the likely effect on electorates of changes to ward boundaries was obtained. We accepted that this is an inexact science and, having given consideration to the District Council s forecast electorates together with the revisions proposed by the County Council, were content that they represented the best estimates that could reasonably be made at the time. 33 During Stage Three the Brockham Green Village Society made reference to the County Council s projected decrease in electorate as more than a bit optimistic. No other comments were received. We have decided to reconfirm our use of the figures provided by the County Council, as they were used in our Draft Recommendations report, and formed the basis on which views were invited. Council Size 34 Our Guidance indicated that we would normally expect the number of councillors serving a district council to be in the range of 30 to 60. 35 Mole Valley District Council is at present served by 41 councillors. The Council did not propose any change to council size during Stage One. In our draft recommendations report we considered the size and distribution of the electorate, the geography and other characteristics of the area, 13
together with the representations received. We concluded that the statutory criteria and the achievement of electoral equality would best be met by retaining a council size of 41. In its Stage Three submission the District Council continued to support no change to the present council size, while further support was received from the Mole Valley District Labour Party. Having reconsidered our draft recommendations in light of the representations received, we are still of the view that 41 would be an appropriate council size for the District Council. Electoral Arrangements 36 Having considered all the representations received during Stage Three of the review, we have reviewed our draft recommendations. The following areas, based on existing wards, are considered in turn: (a) Ashtead (three wards) and Leatherhead (two wards); (b) Bookham (two wards) and Fetcham (two wards); (c) Dorking (four wards) and Box Hill ward; (d) Holmwood & Beare Green and North Holmwood wards; (e) (f) Brockham, Charlwood, Rural East and Rural South wards; Leith Hill, Okewood and Westcott wards. Ashtead (three wards) and Leatherhead (two wards) 37 The three wards in the town of Ashtead and the two wards in the town of Leatherhead presently have a good level of electoral equality. In the twomember ward of Ashtead Common the number of electors per councillor is 1 per cent above the district average, both initially and in 2002. The twomember Ashtead Park ward and three-member Ashtead Village ward vary by 2 per cent and 3 per cent below the district average number of electors per councillor (7 per cent and 5 per cent in 2002). 38 In the town of Leatherhead, the three-member Leatherhead North ward and the two-member Leatherhead South ward vary from the average number of electors per councillor by 2 per cent below and 2 per cent above the district average respectively (3 per cent above and 1 per cent above in 2002). 39 During Stage One, both the District Council and the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats proposed no change to the existing electoral arrangements in Ashtead and Leatherhead, a proposal supported during the Council s own consultation with regard to Ashtead by the Ashtead Residents Association, the County Councillor for Ashtead, the Epsom & Ewell Conservative Association and a local resident. With regard to the Leatherhead wards the proposal for no change was supported by the Leatherhead Society. However, the Mole Valley Conservative Group proposed a scheme for singlemember wards for both Ashtead and Leatherhead. 40 The proposals by the Conservative Group for single-member wards were expanded upon in some detail in our Draft Recommendations report. In both our structural review work and in our electoral reviews, we have been sensitive to local preferences and practices and have put forward a mix of singleand multi- member ward recommendations. In four of the main settlements in Mole Valley Ashtead, Bookham, Leatherhead and Fetcham the present pattern of multi-member wards is well established. We concluded that the present wards in Ashtead and Leatherhead secured a good level of electoral equality and endorsed in principle the proposition for no change. 41 However, we also proposed a realignment of the southern and western boundaries of the Ashtead wards with the M25 motorway and the eastern boundary of the Leatherhead wards with the motorway and the A243 road. This did not involve the transfer of any electors but would make the boundaries more appropriate and recognisable. 42 During Stage Three, our proposals for no change in principle to these wards were welcomed by the District Council, the Mole Valley Conservative Association, the Mole Valley District Labour Party, the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats, County Councillor Gollin representing Ashtead ward and Councillor Seabrook representing Fetcham East ward. However, the majority of these respondents opposed our recommendation to realign the existing ward boundaries with the M25. 43 The present ward boundaries in this area were established (using field boundaries) in the mid- 1970s, some time before the M25 motorway was constructed. That road now cuts between Ashtead and Leatherhead and the District Council, in its consultation prior to finalising its initial submission, considered recommending alterations to the ward boundaries to reflect the new road (which would not involve the transfer of any electors). However, during the consultation period we received fairly strongly held views from many respondents that we should maintain the present ward boundary between Ashtead and Leatherhead. 14
44 The respondents argued that the use of the M25 as a boundary would lend local credence to the notion that the motorway would become a natural boundary for an expanded Greater London area in the future, something which local residents have long sought to oppose. However, in our view the M25 would provide a clear and identifiable boundary, unlike the current boundary, and any possible future expansion of Greater London is not a relevant consideration in this review. 45 We accept that the proposal to realign the existing wards with the M25 appears to have little support locally. However, we believe we would be failing in our duty to secure boundaries that are more appropriate and recognisable if we did not acknowledge such a distinct topographical feature as the M25. Therefore, we propose to endorse our draft recommendations for the Ashtead and Leatherhead wards. Map A2 in Appendix A details our final recommendations in Ashtead and Leatherhead. Bookham (two wards) and Fetcham (two wards) 46 The two-member ward of Bookham North is currently under-represented, with the number of electors per councillor varying from the district average by 26 per cent (23 per cent in 2002). The three-member Bookham South ward presently has a reasonable level of electoral equality, with the number of electors per councillor 5 per cent below the average (6 per cent in 2002). The two-member wards of Fetcham East and Fetcham West are both currently over-represented, with 11 per cent and 6 per cent above the average number of electors per councillor respectively, (11 per cent and 4 per cent in 2002). 47 In order to secure improved electoral equality for the towns of Bookham and Fetcham, the Council argued in its Stage One submission that this part of the district should be looked at as a whole, contending that the area merited 10 councillors rather than the present nine, assuming a 41-member council size. We concurred with this view, and our draft proposals for this area were based on the Council s Stage One scheme (albeit with a slight modification to the boundary between the proposed Bookham North and Fetcham West wards involving 11 electors). 48 Our proposals were for an unchanged threemember Bookham South ward and a transfer of 517 electors from Fetcham West ward to Bookham North ward, the latter of which would be allocated an additional (third) member. We also proposed a boundary modification (affecting 372 electors) between the two-member Fetcham East and Fetcham West wards. Overall, the number of electors per councillor in the four wards would vary by no more than 5 per cent from the average initially, and no more than 7 per cent by 2002. 49 During Stage Three, our proposals for Bookham and Fetcham generally received support from the District Council, the Liberal Democrats, the District Labour Party, the Conservative Association and Councillor Seabrook representing Fetcham East ward. However, our proposal to transfer part of Commonside from Bookham North to Fetcham West was opposed by the District Council, the Conservative Association and Councillor Seabrook. 50 In our Draft Recommendations report we proposed to transfer five properties from Commonside (11 electors) from Bookham North ward to Fetcham West ward in order to tidy up the Council s proposed boundary. However, in its Stage Three submission the Council argued that these properties were only accessible by vehicle from Bookham. This would mean that in order to reach their allotted polling station in Fetcham those electors would have to travel into and through Bookham. On reflection, we accept this argument and now propose that these properties remain in Bookham North ward (see Map A3). 51 The Council also drew our attention to the proposed boundary between Fetcham East and Fetcham West wards. Two properties in Cannon Way (12a and Willow Cottage) are located to the north-east of the railway line. However, vehicular access to those two properties is available only via an unmade road leading from Cannon Way proper, which passes under the railway line. Moreover, the existing polling station for the electors at those properties is in Cannon Way. The Council therefore contended that the two properties should remain in Fetcham East ward. We are content to accept this modification to the proposed boundary between Fetcham East and Fetcham West wards, and put this forward as our final recommendation(see Map A3). Dorking (four wards) and Box Hill ward 52 There is presently a considerable degree of electoral inequality in the town of Dorking. The single-member wards of Dorking North East and Dorking North West are presently under-represented, varying from the average number of electors per councillor by 20 per cent and 23 per cent respectively (17 and 15 per cent in 2002). The two-member 15
wards of Dorking South East and Dorking South West, on the other hand, are over-represented, varying from the average number of electors per councillor by 15 per cent and 29 per cent respectively (10 per cent and 32 per cent in 2002). 53 The two-member ward of Box Hill, which is situated to the north and north-east of Dorking, consists of four distinct areas the parishes of Headley and Mickleham, and the unparished areas of Box Hill and Westhumble. The ward is overrepresented on the District Council, varying by 20 per cent from the average number of electors per councillor (16 per cent in 2002). We concluded that Dorking plus the ward of Box Hill should be considered together, and should be represented by seven councillors in total rather than the present eight. 54 As part of our draft recommendations, we adopted a proposal put forward by the Council, the Liberal Democrats and the Conservative Group. The proposal was for the rural area of Box Hill and the parish of Headley to form a new singlemember ward of Box Hill & Headley, varying from the average number of electors per councillor by 4 per cent initially (9 per cent in 2002). We also proposed that the parish of Mickleham and the neighbouring community of Westhumble should be placed with the Pixham area of Dorking to create a new single-member Mickleham, Westhumble & Pixham ward. The resultant ward would secure a good level of electoral equality, with a variance of only 1 per cent initially and equal to the average number of electors per councillor by 2002. 55 In the remainder of the urban area of Dorking, however, both single-member and multi-member ward schemes were put to us. As discussed in our Draft Recommendations report, we approached the task of achieving appropriate electoral arrangements for Dorking from a standpoint of endeavouring to secure consistency across the whole district. Although there are presently two single-member wards in the northern part of Dorking, they are the only such wards in the district s urban or suburban areas. 56 Therefore, we proposed that the single-member wards put forward by the Council and the Conservative Association for northern Dorking should be placed together as a two-member Dorking North ward. The number of electors per councillor would vary from the district average by 1 per cent initially, becoming 4 per cent in 2002. In the southern part of the town, we concurred with the District Council s proposal for a three-member Dorking South ward (albeit with a boundary modification between Dorking South and our proposed Holmwoods ward). The three-member Dorking South ward would have an electoral variance of 6 per cent initially, 8 per cent in 2002. 57 During Stage Three, the District Council, the Conservative Association and Councillor Seabrook opposed our proposal to create a two-member Dorking North ward. However, the proposal was supported by the Mole Valley District Labour Party, the Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party - Dorking Branch, and the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats, whilst a multi-member ward approach found favour with County Councillor Watson. 58 In respect of the more rural area, the Mole Valley District Labour Party and the Dorking Branch of the Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party believed that our proposed wards of Box Hill & Headley and Mickleham, Westhumble & Pixham should be merged together to form a new two-member ward. In contrast, the Mole Valley Conservative Association, the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats and Councillor Tatham stated the case for single-member wards because, it was argued, they produce a greater degree of democratic accountability. 59 County Councillor Watson urged the Commission to consider recommending either a two-member ward linking Box Hill, Headley, Pixham, Mickleham and Westhumble, or the creation of a three-member ward through the addition of Westhumble, Mickleham and Pixham to the proposed Dorking North ward. 60 We have reconsidered our draft recommendations for Dorking in the light of the views expressed. Some respondents support our proposals for the town (or parts of it) while others oppose them. We have not been persuaded that the northern part of Dorking is so different to other urban and suburban areas in Mole Valley as to warrant it having single-member wards when the other areas will all have multi-member wards. Equally, we have not been persuaded that our proposed singlemember Mickleham, Westhumble & Pixham ward can be improved upon either by placing the Pixham area back into a Dorking-based ward or by placing the more rural parts of the proposed ward with neighbouring rural areas. 61 We believe our draft recommendations to strike the best balance between the need to secure electoral equality, the need to treat each area consistently and to respect community identities. Accordingly, we confirm our draft recommendations for the town of Dorking and the neighbouring present ward of Box Hill as final. Details of our final recommendations can be seen on Map A4 in Appendix A. 16
Holmwood & Beare Green and North Holmwood wards 62 These two wards presently suffer from a substantial degree of electoral imbalance. The twomember Holmwood & Beare Green ward is overrepresented, varying below the average number of electors per councillor by 29 per cent (31 per cent in 2002). The two-member North Holmwood ward, on the other hand, is under-represented, varying by 35 per cent above the average. This level of under-representation is forecast to worsen (to 47 per cent) over the next five years, a contributory factor to this being the housing development around the northern edge of the Rough Rew area. 63 Our draft recommendations for this area were based on the District Council s proposal to place the parish of Holmwood with the existing twomember North Holmwood ward to form a new three-member Holmwoods ward (albeit with a boundary modification between its proposed Dorking South and Holmwoods wards). We also adopted the Council s proposal to form a singlemember Beare Green ward from the Beare Green parish ward of Capel parish. The number of electors per councillor in the Holmwoods ward would vary by 2 per cent initially (10 per cent in 2002). In the single-member Beare Green ward the number of electors per councillor would equal the district average initially (varying by 3 per cent in 2002). 64 During Stage Three our proposals for this area were supported by the District Council, the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats and District Councillors Watson and Ward. The Mole Valley Conservative Association supported the proposal for Beare Green ward. 65 Holmwood Parish Council opposed the proposal to include the parish in the new Holmwoods ward, arguing that there was no specific link between the parish of Holmwood and the more urban area of North Holmwood. The Parish Council was also uneasy about the population distribution within the proposed ward which, it argued, favoured the more urban area of North Holmwood. 66 The Mole Valley District Labour Party (supported by the Dorking Branch of the Party) put forward an alternative proposal for this area which involved the creation of a two-member ward for much of urban Holmwood and a separate two-member ward consisting of the parish of Holmwood, the parish ward of Beare Green and part of the present North Holmwood ward. Under its proposals the level of electoral equality would be broadly similar to that attained under our draft recommendations, with neither ward varying by more than 10 per cent from the average. However, while the Labour Party s proposals may alleviate some of the concerns of Holmwood Parish Council, we have borne in mind the fact that most other respondents have supported our draft proposals for this area, particularly that for a singlemember Beare Green ward. 67 While we acknowledge the concerns expressed by Holmwood Parish Council, particularly in relation to the mixed urban/rural nature of the proposed Holmwoods ward, we remain of the view that our draft recommendations for this part of the district, as supported by the District Council and others, are the most appropriate. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for a threemember Holmwoods ward and a single-member Beare Green ward as final. Details of the northern boundary of our proposed Holmwoods ward are shown in Appendix A on Map A4. Brockham, Charlwood, Rural East and Rural South wards 68 The single-member Brockham ward, comprising solely the parish of that name, is considerably under-represented at present, with the number of electors per councillor being 44 per cent above the district average (36 per cent in 2002). The single-member Charlwood ward, comprising solely the parish of that name, varies by only 2 per cent above the district average (8 per cent in 2002). 69 The present level of electoral imbalance in certain parts of Mole Valley is exemplified by the present wards of Rural East and Rural South. The twomember Rural East ward, which comprises the parishes of Betchworth, Buckland and Leigh, has an electorate of 1,915, while the Rural South ward, which comprises the Capel parish ward of that name and the parish of Newdigate, contains a larger number of electors (2,389) but is only represented by one district councillor. Rural East ward is overrepresented by 38 per cent (37 per cent in 2002) while Rural South ward has the largest variance in the district, being under-represented by 55 per cent (56 per cent in 2002). 70 During Stage One the Council proposed the retention of the existing Brockham ward (a proposal also supported by Brockham Parish Council) and that the present Rural East ward be retained on its present boundaries, but represented by only one district councillor. The Council also proposed that two new single-member wards be established, one for the parish of Newdigate and 17
the other for the parish ward of Capel, communities which are at present represented jointly in the singlemember Rural South ward. The Council proposed no change for the single-member ward of Charlwood, a proposal that received support from Charlwood Parish Council. The Liberal Democrats, the Conservative Group and Councillor Pharo- Tomlin each argued for a pattern of single-member wards for the whole of this area. 71 However, in our view the level of electoral equality in some of the proposed wards was unacceptable. In order to improve the level of electoral equality in this area, we proposed to create two new two-member wards from the present wards of Brockham, Rural East and Rural South, and to retain unchanged the present single-member Charlwood ward. 72 We proposed a new two-member ward comprising the parishes of Brockham, Betchworth and Buckland which would initially vary from the average number of electors per councillor by 11 per cent, a figure that was projected to improve to 8 per cent by 2002. We also proposed a new two-member ward comprising the parishes of Leigh and Newdigate and the Capel parish ward of Capel parish, which would equal the average number of electors per councillor both initially and in 2002. The single-member Charlwood ward would continue to vary from the average number of electors per councillor by 2 per cent (8 per cent in 2002). 73 At Stage Three, the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats, the Mole Valley District Labour Party, Charlwood Parish Council and Councillor Sewill supported our proposals for no change to the existing single-member Charlwood ward. No comments against this proposal were received and we are therefore content to recommend it as final. 74 Our recommendation to create a two-member Brockham, Betchworth & Buckland ward received support from the District Council, the District Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, Brockham Parish Council and County Councillor Watson. The Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party (Dorking Branch) was opposed to any warding of Brockham parish, and acknowledged that there was a natural grouping between Betchworth, Brockham and Buckland. Brockham Green Village Society and Buckland Parish Council were both opposed to the recommendation, preferring no change. 75 With regard to our proposal for a two-member Capel, Leigh & Newdigate ward we received support from the Mole Valley Constituency Labour Party (Dorking Branch), the Mole Valley District Labour Party and the Mole Valley Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats argued that the proposed Capel Leigh and Newdigate ward was the least unacceptable combination which achieves reasonable electoral equality. 76 The District Council contended that the proposed ward was too big and recommended one single-member ward comprising the Capel parish ward and another one comprising the parishes of Leigh and Newdigate. Councillor Seabrook expressed a preference for single-member wards for the area. The Mole Valley Conservative Association believed that it was illogical to place Leigh with Newdigate and Capel and expressed its support for the single-member ward proposals from Capel Parish Council submitted during Stage One. 77 While Newdigate Parish Council was opposed to any subdivision of Newdigate into different district wards, the Parish Council felt that the parish as a whole shared greater ties with Leigh than with Capel. Capel Parish Council believed that the proposed merging of Capel, Newdigate and Leigh would produce too large a ward and that the area should instead be divided into two separate wards. 78 Our proposal for Brockham, Betchworth & Buckland ward appears to enjoy local support, with the only respondents opposed to it arguing either for schemes with poor electoral equality or for no change. As we explained in the draft recommendations report, a no change proposal is not acceptable due to the high level of electoral inequality that would remain in the Brockham and Rural East wards. Given the general level of support and the reasonable level of electoral equality that would result, we are confirming as final our proposal for a two-member Brockham, Betchworth & Buckland ward including the ward name. The number of electors per councillor would vary from the district average by 11 per cent, but a projected decrease in electorate in the ward would result in an electoral variance of 8 per cent by 2002. 79 There is some support for a two-member Capel, Leigh & Newdigate ward. However, other respondents have argued that the ward would be too large and have produced alternative single-member warding arrangements, some of which would involve the warding of Brockham parish. Our proposed ward appears to be relatively similar in size to the existing Leith Hill ward, which, as expanded upon below, many respondents have argued should be retained. We have already accepted the proposal for no change to Charlwood ward and have reaffirmed our proposal to create a two-member Brockham, Betchworth & Buckland ward, thereby limiting alternative options for Capel, Leigh and Newdigate. 18