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

Recommendations

Info

that * Brent was deficient in open space, and would be betterplaced than Barnet to develop the reservoir as a recreationalresource.55. We acknowledged that there was an element of arbitrarinessin the existing boundary, in that it bore no relation to presentdaygeographical features. However, the division of the reservoirbetween two authorities did not appear to us, on the evidenceavailable, to be an impediment to the area's effectivemanagement. Moreover, we saw no reason to amend our view that acommunity of interest extended across the Edgware Road in thisarea. The use of the road as a boundary between Kingsbury Roadand Brent Bridge would therefore, in our judgement, beinappropriate. Accordingly, we have decided to confirm ourinterim decision as final.BRENT'S BOUNDARY WITH HARROWa) Larger Scale Proposals56. Two suggestions were received from members of the public forthe transfer of part of north Brent to Harrow, in the event ofour deciding against partitioning Brent along the North CircularRoad. Both suggestions were submitted on the grounds that theresidents of Preston and North Wembley enjoyed a community ofinterest with Harrow, and looked to that Borough for shopping,leisure facilities and other services. Both representationssuggested that these areas had been neglected as a result oftheir geographical isolation at the northern part of Brent.57. The first suggestion (transferring approximately 20,000electors) recommended that the boundary should reflect the postaldistricts in Preston and North Wembley, by a realignment fromKingsbury Circle westwards along the Mall to Preston Road, southto East Lane, west to Watford Road, north to Sudbury Court Drivethen south-west along Sudbury Court Drive to rejoin the existingboundary. The second suggestion (transferring approximately17
35,000 electors) was for the boundary to be realigned westwardsfrom Stag Lane along Beverley Drive and south down Honeypot Laneto Kingsbury Circle. From this point the suggested boundary wouldpass south down Fryent Way and King's Drive, and west along thesouthern curtilages of Forty Avenue, East Lane, Sudbury CourtRoad and Sudbury Court Drive. It would then follow the easterncurtilage of Greenford Road as far as its junction with WhittonAvenues East and West.58. We considered that both suggested realignments would, ifadopted, divide local community centres and areas of continuousurban development. Nor were we convinced that ei ther of themreflected the pattern of community life in north Brent, or wouldenhance effective and convenient local government in the area.We therefore took an interim decision not to propose major changein this area.59. Five members of the public commented on our interim decision.One suggested a realignment along The Mall, Preston Road and EastLane, arguing that this would reflect the social and historicalties between north-west Brent and neighbouring areas in Harrow.Three other local residents sought a realignment along East Lane,in order to transfer the Sudbury Court Estate to Harrow. Afurther member of the public favoured the transfer of Sudbury andSudbury Court Wards to Harrow, on the grounds that many residentsof these wards shopped in Harrow, and made frequent use offacilities provided by that Borough.60. We considered all of these suggestions, and noted thatalthough they were submitted as alternatives to partitioningBrent, they would still have far-reaching effects on theprovision of local government services in North-West London. Thesuggested realignments appeared to us to cut arbitrarily throughresidential development, and to divide communities in Wembley.We therefore reaffirmed our earlier view that major change inthis area would cause considerable upheaval, and be detrimentalto effective and convenient local government. Accordingly. wehave decided to confirm our interim decision as final.18
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 and 18: y the radial routes traversing this
Page 19 and 20: divide Willesden between the Boroug
Page 21: oundary between authorities_as, in
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.

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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?