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

Recommendations

Info

61. Having rejected major change, we.considered the suggestionsreceived for minor changes to this boundary. Our interimdecisions and final proposals are set out in the followingparagraphs.b) Greenford Road and Sudburv Court Drive62. Brent submitted suggestions for change in the areas ofGreenford Road and Sudbury Court Drive. Harrow submitted similarsuggestions, prior to the submission of its radical proposal torealign this boundary further to the south. Both Brent andHarrow suggested realigning the boundary along Greenford Road,between its junction with Sudbury Hill and the existingBrent/Baling boundary, thereby transferring a number ofproperties on the eastern side of Greenford Road from Harrow toBrent. Brent did not specify the exact line of the realignment.Harrow suggested using the eastern side of the highway.63. These suggestions were supported by Harrow East ConservativeAssociation but opposed by a petition containing 270 signaturesfrom the Sudbury Hill (Harrow) Residents' Association, andrepresentations from seven members of the public.64. Linked with its suggestions for Greenford Road, Brentsuggested a boundary change in the area of Sudbury Court Drive.The effect would have been to realign the boundary from thenorthern end of Greenford Road, north up Sudbury Hill to thenorth-western curtilage of No. 5 Sudbury Hill and then along therear curtilages of properties on the north-western side ofSudbury Court Drive, to join the existing boundary at the rearof 36 Littleton Road. Such a realignment would have transferredproperties on the eastern side of Sudbury Hill and the northernside of Sudbury Court Drive, together with one property inHermitage View, from Harrow to Brent. In the event of our notadopting this realignment, Brent suggested that Nos. 20-24Sudbury Court Drive be transferred from Harrow to Brent. Boththese suggestions were opposed by four members of the public.19
65. Harrow suggested that the boundary in this area be realignedalong the length of Sudbury Court Drive and north-east alongWat ford Road to the south-east corner of the rugby footbal1ground at Northwick Park. The effect would have been to transferfive roads north of Sudbury Court Drive, known as the PebworthEstate, from Brent to Harrow. This suggestion was supported bythe Harrow East Conservative Association and by eight members ofthe public, one of whom proposed that it be extended to followthe natural feature of high ground south of Sudbury Court Road.66. The present boundary in this area is well defined andundefaced. Accordingly, as we had received no evidence that thesuggestions from Brent and Harrow would result in any significantbenefits in terms of improvements to effective and convenientlocal government, we took an interim decision to make noproposals.67. Brent did not comment on our interim decision. However,Harrow restated its view that the Pebworth Estate looked to thenorth, and should be transferred to its area. A local residentsuggested that only the northern side of Pebworth Road should betransferred to Harrow.68. Harrow, the Wembley division of the Metropolitan Police anda member of the public all disputed our view that the boundaryis well-defined in Sudbury Court Drive. They pointed out that theroad is split between two authorities, with three properties(Nos. 20-24) being in Harrow. The Metropolitan Police informedus that this division had led to properties at the western endof Sudbury Court Drive being excluded from the localneighbourhood watch scheme. All these respondents suggested thatthe boundary be realigned to the centre of Sudbury Court Drive,between Hermitage View and the junction with Sudbury Court Road.69. The Metropolitan Police also suggested two other minoramendments: first, to transfer Nos. 1025-1027 Harrow Road toHarrow; and second, to align the boundary to the easterncurtilage of Watford Road b.etween Pebworth Road and Harrow SchoolFarm. The police argued that, for operational purposes, it would20
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 and 22: oundary between authorities_as, in
Page 23: 35,000 electors) was for the bounda
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

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

Delete template?

Save as template?