651.-london-borough-of-brent-and-its-boundaries-with-barnet,-camden,-ealing,-hammersmith-and-fulham,-harrow,-knc-and-westminster

Recommendations

Info

that the continued existence of the authority was in theinterests of effective and convenient local government. Indeed,on this second round of consultation, substantially fewer localresidents wrote to us to seek the restoration of Wembley as anindependent authority; we reflected whether this lower level ofresponse might have resulted from the different policies andpriorities now being pursued by Brent Council.41. The South Kenton and Preston Park Residents' Associationcommented on what they considered to be the divisive effects ofthe North Circular Road and adjoining industrial estates. Severalother respondents, including the Preston Amenities ProtectionAssociation, complained that effective and convenient localgovernment in Wembley was being impaired by its forcedassociation with Willesden. A Brent councillor suggested that theBorough was an artificial creation which had failed to engage theloyalty of its inhabitants. He argued that both Wembley andWillesden could function effectively as separate and independentauthorities.42. The Rt Hon Sir Rhodes Boyson MP and the Brent NorthConservative Association suggested that, in rejecting calls forthe abolition or partition of Brent, we had given insufficientweight to public opinion. Sir Rhodes considered that the recreationof smaller local government units in London would accordboth with the wishes of the people and with the spirit of theGovernment's Consultation Paper on the Structure of LocalGovernment, which was published in 1991.43. We gave careful consideration to all these points, but didnot feel that the reasoning behind our interim decision had beenundermined. In taking account of the representations we receivedfrom the residents of north Brent, we had to bear in mind thatthe wishes of the people are only one of the factors to which weare enjoined to have regard by the Secretary of State. Weacknowledged the strength and sincerity of the feelings expressedin those representations, but nevertheless we doubted whethersufficient account had been taken of the need to make suitableand effective provision for Willesden, in the event of a formalseparation from Wembley. It seemed likely that any proposal to13
divide Willesden between the Boroughs adjoining Brent's southernboundary would meet with strong opposition from, the potentialrecipients; in this context we noted Westminster's objection toour draft proposal-to transfer the Carlton Ward of Brent to itsarea.44. We reaffirmed our view that major restructuring, involvingeither the abolition or partition of Brent, would causesignificant disruption to local government services in north-westLondon, and would therefore run contrary to the purpose of thecurrent review. Accordingly. we have decided to confirm ourinterim decision as final. - . • -WIDER IMPLICATIONS OF OUR DRAFT PROPOSALS45. While we had concluded that radical change to Brent would beinappropriate in the context of this review, we felt there wereseveral areas where the Borough's boundaries were unsatisfactory,and where some intermediate change was necessary in order torectify anomalies and reflect communities of interest. Ourproposals for change were published in our draft proposals letterof 31 July 1991.46. In responding to our draft proposals, Brent, together withother respondents, commented on their cumulative effect on theBorough as a whole. We took full account of these broaderobjections when reviewing each individual draft proposal. •47. In particular. Brent objected to the possible loss both ofindustrial land (particularly at Park Royal) and of two districthospitals. The Council estimated that 47% of its PrimaryEmployment Areas, as defined in the public consultation draft ofits Unitary Development Plan, would be transferred toneighbouring Boroughs if our draft proposals were implemented infull. The Council argued that this would seriously erode Brent'sindustrial base. In particular, it stressed the strategicimportance to the Borough of the commercial premises at ParkRoyal and Honeypot Lane, situated on its boundaries with Ealingand Harrow respectively. We acknowledged that the retention of14
Page 2 and 3: LOCAL GOVERNMENTBOUNDARY COMMISSION
Page 4 and 5: ; . CONTENTSParagraphsIntroduction
Page 6 and 7: THE RT HON MICHAEL HOWARD QC, HPSEC
Page 8 and 9: .In the notice we said that, from t
Page 10 and 11: espect of these radical suggestions
Page 12 and 13: 21. Two members of the public submi
Page 15 and 16: esidents of north Brent for radical
Page 17: y the radial routes traversing this
Page 21 and 22: oundary between authorities_as, in
Page 23 and 24: 35,000 electors) was for the bounda
Page 25 and 26: 65. Harrow suggested that the bound
Page 27 and 28: Broadway (A5), by realigning the bo
Page 29 and 30: library, and had delayed doing so o
Page 31 and 32: north along the Bakerloo railway li
Page 33 and 34: proposal to transfer the college an
Page 35 and 36: ejoining the existing boundary at W
Page 37 and 38: therefore decided to confirm as fin
Page 39 and 40: Bridgewater Road, to the west of On
Page 41 and 42: 121. The Baling Conservative Associ
Page 43 and 44: the area. Brent Trades Union Counci
Page 45 and 46: ear" curtilages of properties in Mo
Page 47 and 48: government. We have . therefore dec
Page 49 and 50: 149. Hammersmith and Fulham, having
Page 51 and 52: e' more effectively and convenientl
Page 53 and 54: South-Kilburn area. . Ten residents
Page 55 and 56: which it received part of its fundi
Page 57 and 58: BRENT'S BOUNDARY WITH CAMDENKilburn
Page 59 and 60: Signed K F J ENNALS (Chairman)G R P
Page 61 and 62: LOCATION DIA«AMIHARROW LBBARNET LB
Page 63 and 64: HARROW LB
Page 65 and 66: HARROW LBEALNG LB
Page 67 and 68: BRENT LBALING LBC) Crown Copyright
Page 69 and 70:
KENSINGTONAND CHELSEA LB
Page 71 and 72:
MAPNO.CONSEQUENTIAL CHANGESAREAREF.
show all

651.-london-borough-of-brent-and-its-boundaries-with-barnet,-camden,-ealing,-hammersmith-and-fulham,-harrow,-knc-and-westminster

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?