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

Recommendations

Info

e simpler if Watford Road were in . the same authority as theproperties fronting it.70. Our interims-decision, was supported by the Brent NorthConservative Association.71 . We reaffirmed our view that the Pebworth Estate should remainin Brent: it is separated from Harrow by extensive playingfields, and appears to us to be linked to Wembley. In ourjudgement, the existing boundary along the southern perimeter ofthe playing fields is well-defined and does not detract fromeffective service provision. A realignment along the centre ofPebworth Road, as suggested by a local resident, would serve onlyto split the Pebworth Estate.72. We acknowledged.the concern of the Metropolitan Police overthe division of Sudbury Court Drive. However, the existingboundary - does not split properties, and we observed that arealignment to the centre of Sudbury Court Drive would not unitethe road in one authority. Similarly, we doubted the necessityof the other minor changes suggested by the Metropolitan Police.The boundary in the vicinity of Nos. 1025-1027 Harrow Roadfollows property curtilages and is not defaced. The secondsuggestion, affecting a short stretch of Watford Road betweenPebworth Road and Harrow School Farm, was contingent on ourconfirming as final our draft proposal for Northwick Park (seeparagraphs 86-100 below). Nevertheless, we did not consider thatan alignment to the eastern side of Watford Road in this areawould result in any significant benefits in terms of effectiveand convenient local government. Accordingly, we have decided toconfirm as final our interim decision to make no proposals forGreenford Road and Sudbury Court Drive.c) Area east of Honevpot Lane Mao 1Draft Proposal73. Brent suggested a realignment to rectify a defaced and illdefinedlength of boundary between Honeypot Lane and Burnt Oak21
Broadway (A5), by realigning the boundary north from the existingboundary at Turner Road and along the rear curtilages ofproperties in Mollison Way and the Highlands, to rejoin theboundary with Barnet at the A5. An identical suggestion wasreceived from the Labour Group of Harrow Councillors.74. Harrow also suggested a realignment in this area, followinga line east from Honeypot Lane, along Cumberland Road, theeastern part of Beverley Drive, Holyrood Gardens and Stag Laneto meet the boundary with Barnet at the AS. Its suggestion wassupported by the Harrow East Conservative Association and by onemember of the public, but was opposed by the Labour Group ofHarrow Councillors. A member of the public suggested arealignment identical to the western part of Harrow's suggestionbut, to the east, adhering to the entire length of BeverleyDrive/ and thence along Holmstall Avenue to meet the existingboundary farther south on the A5 '75. We considered -that the - current boundary, by dividingproperties and roads, was unsatisfactory and caused confusion.We agreed that, in the interests of effective and convenientlocal government, a more clearly identifiable boundary wasrequired. However, we noted that this is an extensivelydeveloped area of similar character, without any features orbreaks in development offering natural boundaries.76. We considered the suggestions submitted to us for boundarychanges in the area, together with other possible alternatives.We decided to adopt as our draft proposal a line from HoneypotLane, along the northern curtilage of Kingsbury Hospital, northalong the Jubilee Line railway and then east along the rearcurtilages of properties on the southern side of Beverley Driveand Holmstall Avenue, to meet the existing boundary with Barnetat the A5. We considered that such an alignment had the meritof offering the best defined boundary, without dividing focalpoints of community or shopping centres in this residential area.22
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 and 24: 35,000 electors) was for the bounda
Page 25: 65. Harrow suggested that the bound
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?