Local organisations` submissions to the Surrey County Council

Local organisations’ submissions to the Surrey County Council electoral review
This PDF document contains 14 submissions from local organisations in Surrey.
Some versions of Adobe Acrobat allow the viewer to move quickly between bookmarks.
Click on the submission you would like to view. If you are not taken to that page, please scroll
through the document.
New Electoral Arrangements for Surrey County Council
Chipstead Residents Association comments
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the above.
Our considered view is that parts of the proposed electoral boundaries in respect
of divisions 31 and 35 are misplaced.
We have 2 main concerns in relation to the village of Chipstead:
1. Its proposed separation from the village of Mugswell and surrounding
areas.
2. Its proposed separation from St. Margaret’s Church.
Neither of these is logical and both fly in the face of hundreds of years of
community synergies all, apparently, for the purpose of equalising the numbers of
voters.
The main claim the Council makes for the positioning of the boundary between
divisions 31 and 35 is that White Hill/Hogscross Lane represent “the main road”
linking the east to the west of the area.
This is simply not the case – for the most part they are narrow, winding country
lanes. To imply they should be seen as a significant vehicular route is a serious
issue for Chipstead and, perhaps, further evidence that the County Council is
unaware of the traffic problems in this very rural area.
The Chipstead Residents Association was formed at the end of the 2nd World War
and has thrived ever since. It is no coincidence that the make-up of its
membership spans both north and south of this claimed route without distinction.
Our much-preferred alternatives are to move the proposed southernmost
boundary of division 31 either:
1. Further south, to reflect the existing ward boundary, but with the
easternmost edge following the A23, or
2. Further north, to follow the path of Outwood Lane/Chipstead Valley Road.
Based on the County Council’s current proposals, division 31 is relatively large
and division 35 small. We recognise that alternative 1 above would exacerbate
that problem and, without a wider review, is therefore probably unworkable.
Alternative 2, however, would have less effect on the respective numbers of
electors in divisions 31 and 35 and these could be mitigated by a further review
of the western boundary of division 35, where Lower Kingswood residents have
already questioned strongly the logic of their separation from Kingswood.
Chipstead Residents Association
October 9th 2011
1st October 2011
The Review Officer (Surrey)
Local Govt Boundary Commission For England
Layden House
76-86 Turnmill Street
London EC1M 5LG
By Email To: reviews@gbce.org.uk
Dear Sirs
PROPOSED BOUNDARY CHANGES CHOBHAM SURREY – OBJECTION
On behalf of the committee I write to confirm our formal objection to your
proposal to hive off a proportion of this village for county election purposes. In
discussions with a wide range of villagers we have not found anybody in
favour.
This proposal flies in the face of common sense and at least one of your
stated key factors in determining these matters, namely, that the new
divisions should – as far as possible – reflect the natural communities of
Surrey. You proposal would carve up Chobham which currently represents
one of the few self contained entities left in Surrey.
Furthermore the break up of the village in this way would be to the detriment
of the democratic process, particularly in the event of a number of elections
taking place on the same day, which would require those voters cut off from
the village by your proposal to go to two different polling stations. As we are
sure you are aware it is difficult to get busy people to one polling station and
to expect them to go to two is likely to have an adverse affect on the turnout.
In your own words this will not lead to convenient local government.
We ask you to reconsider the matter and abandon this proposal
Yours faithfully
James Osbourn
For the Committee of The Chobham Society
RA of E & E
residents associations of epsom and ewell
Treasurer: Keith Lugton,
The Review Officer
Surrey Review
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Layden House
76-86 Turnmill Street
London EC1M 5LG
30 August 2011
Dear Sir,
In our letter dated 31 March 2011, we made many suggestions relating to the divisions of
Surrey County Council in the Borough of Epsom and Ewell. We are pleased to note that
nearly all of your draft recommendations relating to Epsom and Ewell are in line with the
suggestions we made in that letter, although there is no mention of our submission in the
report.
There is one area where we differ very strongly from your recommendations. You
recommend that Windmill Avenue, Park Hill Road, Langton Avenue and Hampton Grove
should be in the Epsom West division rather than in Ewell division. We are not aware of
any submission which would lead to or support your draft recommendation in this area.
The residents of Windmill Avenue, Park Hill Road, Langton Avenue and Hampton Grove
see themselves very definitely as living in Ewell. Moreover they live to the east of Ewell.
By definition Epsom West division is to the west of Epsom and on both counts (Epsom and
West) that division is not the appropriate place for the residents of these roads.
You say that one of your main considerations is reflecting community identity. Attempting
to place Windmill Avenue, Park Hill Road, Langton Avenue and Hampton Grove in the
Epsom West division utterly fails to reflect community identity for the residents of these
roads. Indeed it is likely to make them feel disenfranchised and therefore less likely to
exercise their right to vote. In our view any review should try to encourage people to vote
not discourage them.
We urge you in the strongest terms to ensure that Windmill Avenue, Park Hill Road,
Langton Avenue and Hampton Grove are returned to their logical place as part of Ewell
division, which is where the residents would expect to be.
Yours sincerely,
Keith Lugton, Treasurer
Page 1 of 3
Dunkeyson, Nicholas
From:
Dunkeyson, Nicholas
Sent:
10 October 2011 08:50
To:
Murphy, Sarah
Subject:
FW: Electoral Review - Surrey County Council - draft recommendations
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status:
Red
From: Lower Kingswood RA
Sent: 09 October 2011 23:38
To: Reviews@
Subject: Electoral Review - Surrey County Council - draft recommendations
Dear Sir/Madam
Some 6 months back we raised objections to the LGBCE initial recommendations concerning
the Surrey County Council Electoral Review which, as they currently stand, seek to "move"
Lower Kingswood from the present SCC division of Banstead South to the new Merstham &
Banstead South division. We were disappointed to note that our objections, along with those of
Reigate & Banstead Borough Councillor Lynne Hack, appear to have been acknowledged - but
ignored in terms of the continuation of the previously announced proposals to "move" Lower
Kingswood.
Having again discussed the matter at a recent Committee meeting, I have been instructed by my
fellow Committee members to re-emphasise our objections to these proposals.
Our objections are on the following grounds:
The LGBCE’s own criteria include the following:
Community identity – division boundaries should recognise and support strong community links,
such as parishes, shared facilities and community links.
 Effective and convenient local government – divisions should be coherent with good internal
communication links.
 Where possible the Commission recommends that any pattern of divisions proposed seeks coterminosity with district or borough wards.
Taking each of these in turn:
Community identity:





There are in excess of 1,100 households in Lower Kingswood – including the outlying areas of
Margery, Mogador etc. – with a variety of local community/voluntary groups, churches, school,
shops etc. Our Residents’ Association publishes a quarterly newsletter (which is distributed free
to all local households) and maintains the local community website. The largest local employer is
Fidelity Investments in Millfield Lane – based on the site of what used to be the ‘Kingswood
Press’.
The boundary between the proposed new divisions of Merstham & Banstead South and Tadworth,
Walton & Kingswood runs along Chipstead Lane/Hogcross Lane with this being classified as being
a "main road". Firstly there is no way in which this unclassified road can be described as anything
other than a narrow winding lane and secondly this demarcation will serve to separate the
properties on the north side of Chipstead Lane from those on the south side, when in fact ALL
residents of Chipstead Lane think of themselves as residents of Lower Kingswood.
Kingswood Primary School (in Lower Kingswood) takes pupils from the immediate area – along
with those areas to the north; many children leaving to attend senior school attend The Beacon
school to the north.
Many of the community/voluntary groups have links to the north of Lower Kingswood and there is
a shared ministry with the Church of the Wisdom of God (in Lower Kingswood) and St Andrews (in
19/10/2011
Page 2 of 3
Kingswood).
Historically this part of the north of the Borough has formed part of the Ecclesiastical Parish of Ewell
and the (detatched) Liberty of Kingswood. Kingswood Liberty was bounded on the west & north by
Banstead, on the east by Chipstead & Gatton and on the south by Reigate. The Ewell Parochial
Trusts still exist for charitable purposes.
 Lower Kingswood forms one of the areas in the north of the Borough covered by the Banstead History
Centre – based in Banstead Library; this is run in association with Surrey County Council.
 Lower Kingswood’s Residents’ Association is also a member of the Banstead & District Federation of
Residents’ Associations. Lower Kingswood residents supported the campaign to preserve swimming
facilities at the Banstead Leisure Centre, the Federation was able to organise and secure the support
of all relevant Residents’ Associations.
 There are NO links whatsoever to any organisations or groups within Merstham.
Effective and convenient local government:

From the point of view of public transport, the buses serving Lower Kingswood only run in a
north/south direction – northbound to Epsom (via Tadworth) or Sutton (via Tadworth & Banstead) and
southbound only to Redhill – there is NO way of getting to such areas as Merstham without a change
of bus. The nearest railways stations are at Kingswood or Tadworth – both to the north.
 The main road running (north/south) through Lower Kingswood is the A217/Brighton Road – traffic
issues along this road are shared by the communities to the north in Kingswood, Tadworth, Burgh
Heath etc.
 Lower Kingswood shares other issues with communities to the north - e.g. planning, and the recent
debate regarding the new water pipeline being laid by Sutton & District Water from Mogador to Burgh
Heath.
 The distance from Lower Kingswood to Merstham (which is to the south/east) is nearly 5 miles by car –
much of it using unclassified roads (longer if one were to travel only via ‘A’ roads). Much of this
journey is essentially across open land or farmland.
Co-terminosity with Borough wards:

For Borough Council purposes Lower Kingswood falls within ‘Kingswood with Burgh Heath’ – to the
north.
 The recently publicised initial proposals from the Boundary Commission for England for the
Parliamentary constituency of Reigate continue to show Lower Kingswood as an integral part of
Kingswood with Burgh Heath, with Merstham being shown as an entirely separate entity.
 Lower Kingswood shares a Neighbourhood Policing team with Tadworth, Walton, Kingswood,
Netherne & Hooley whilst Mertham has a team to itself.
Conclusion:





Lower Kingswood has NO commonality in any way whatsoever with the Merstham community – there
are no local, environment, social or environmental links.
Lower Kingswood has ALWAYS been a part of Kingswood and the community to the north and all
matters that concern or confront the area to the north – including planning, education, transport etc.
Geographically Lower Kingswood lies to the north of the North Downs escarpment and Merstham to
the south of the escarpment and this geographic separation has always served to divide the “north” of
the Borough from the “south”. This should, in our view, give the clearest east/west demarcation.
We understand that our current Banstead South County Councillor (Michael Gosling) has already
written to you suggesting how it may be possible to realign the divisional boundaries with the added
advantage of producing more natural boundaries along community lines.
Finally, our Committee noted that the overall outcome of the current proposals is to increase the
number of County Councillors from 80 to 81 and we note that this contrasts with the review being
conducted by the Boundary Commission for England whose initial proposals seek to reduce the
number of Parliamentary constituencies from 650 to 600 with a consequent saving to taxpayers. We
wonder why such an approach was not adopted in the LGBCE review for our County Council which
would lead in a reduction of divisions to (say) 74 - with a consequent saving for Council Tax payers
in terms of allowances, expenses etc?
19/10/2011
Page 3 of 3
--
Robert Brown - Secretary
Lower Kingswood Residents' Association
Internet site: http://www.lowerkingswood.org.uk
19/10/2011
Page 1 of 1
Dunkeyson, Nicholas
From:
Dunkeyson, Nicholas
Sent:
10 October 2011 12:51
To:
Murphy, Sarah
Subject:
FW: Tyrrells Wood to become part of Dorking
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status:
Red
From:
Sent: 10 October 2011 11:58
To: Reviews@
Cc: John Mackinder
Subject: Tyrrells Wood to become part of Dorking
Attention: The Review Officer (Surrey)
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
Dear Sir
I am writing as Chairman of the Tyrrells Wood Estate Association to inform you that we have
taken advice concerning the recommendation of the Boundary Commission to include us within
the Dorking Hills seat and are very strongly opposed to the proposal which would relegate us to
a distant part of the administrative area. We do not feel that our interests can be properly
understood and we cannot see any one good reason for the change that is proposed.
We wish to record the strongest opposition to this proposal.
Yours faithfully
Dr John Mackinder
19/10/2011
Page 1 of 1
From: John Jennings
Sent: 28 September 2011 11:24
To: Reviews@
Subject: Surrey - objection to Weston Green proposals for The Dittons
On behalf of the Trustees of this local and historic Charity I write to object to the mutilation of
the historic identity of Weston Green for the sake of bureacratic convenience: 






the proposed new division boundary breaks local ties and splits the historic Weston Green
community which has since the middle ages been linked to the ancient ecclesaistical parish
of Thames Ditton.The Parish of All Saints' Weston is the daughter parish of Thames
Ditton and has a clear identity and provides a strong focus for the Weston Green
community which will inevitably be damaged by these proposals.
the current division boundary is clear, easily identifiable and familiar to those who live
here.
running a boundary along the centre of Ember Lane is a complete nonsense.
the new proposals fail to take account of Weston Green as a parish and its community
interests
carving up Weston Green between Esher and East Molesey cuts against localism and the
cohesion of the existing community.
the Thames Ditton centre, elderly facilities and library are all heavily used by Weston
Green people.
we are served well by an active Thames Ditton & Weston Green Residents Association
which thankfully supports and preserves all that is good in the local community.
The sensible alternative is to move the Hinchley Wood Homes currently placed into the Dittons
Division into the Hinchley Wood division where they belong
We cannot understand why you should not seek to preserve the identity of the Weston Green
community rather than cutting across Borough Ward boundaries in such an arbtrary
fashion
Yours truly,
-John Jennings, Company Secretary & Administrator to the Trustees
Walsingham Care-The Home of Compassion Charity
A Charitable Limited Company Registered in England and Wales
03/10/2011