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

Recommendations

Info

the Grand Union Canal and part of the northern perimeter of theGuinness estate.138. We considered Guinness' suggestion that an area of landbetween Coronation Road and the Western Avenue should be unitedwith the major part of its estate in Brent. However, we notedthat this land - although owned by Guinness - was covered largelyin railway tracks, and we could see no justification in terms ofeffective and convenient local government for transferring it toBrent.139. In order to rectify anomalies in Coronation Road and ActonLane, we have decided to adopt as part of our final proposal arealignment along the rear curtilage of the former British Railfreight depot in Coronation Road, and along the northerncurtilage of Acton Lane as far as the line of our draft proposalat the Watford-Euston railway. East of this point, we consideredthat, as the Freightliner Terminal at Willesden Junction wasoperationally linked to the railway system, it should be in thesame authority - Brent - as the sidings to the north.Accordingly, we have decided to confirm as final that part of ourdraft proposal running east from Acton Lane to the boundarybetween Ealing and Hammersmith and Fulham.BRENT'S BOUNDARIES WITH HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM AND THE ROYALBOROUGH OF KENSINGTON AND CHELSEA140. In response to our letter of 31 July, Westminster CouncilConservative Group submitted a new suggestion to realign Brent'ssouthern boundary to the Grand Union Canal, between the Old Oakrailway sidings and Ladbroke Grove. It described the Grand Unionas a natural boundary. The effect of the suggestion would havebeen to transfer to Brent an industrial estate, two cemeteriesand residential areas at College Park and Kensal Rise.141 . Whilst acknowledging that the canal was one of a numbersignificant physical features running east-west through thisarea, we had no evidence to suggest that its use as a boundaryin this area would result in more effective and convenient local41
government. We have . therefore decided not to pursue theConservative Group's suggestion.BRENT'S BOUNDARY WITH HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAMCollege Park Maps 7 and 8Draft Proposal .142. Brent suggested the transfer to its area of some residentialand industrial property located south of the Harrow Road.Hammersmith and Fulham suggested using a side of road realignmentin Harrow Road. It also submitted a minor suggestion to clarifythe boundary in the vicinity of Willesden Junction.143. We doubted whether these minor realignments would addressthe essential arbitrariness of the existing boundary, which didnot appear to reflect patterns of communities in this area. Weobserved that College Park is separated from other residentialareas in Hammersmith and Fulham by a number of divisive features,including the Watford to Euston and Baling to Paddington railwaylines, St. Mary's Cemetery, the Grand Union Canal and WormwoodScrubs. This contrasted with College Park's proximity toresidential and shopping areas in Brent, such as Harlesden. Wefelt that, in view of its geographical position, College Parkcould be more effectively and conveniently administered fromBrent. Accordingly, we decided to adopt as our draft proposal arealignment along the Watford to Euston railway line, therebytransferring College Park to Brent.Final Proposal144. Brent supported our draft proposal, as did a Brentcouncillor and a member of the public. However, it was stronglyopposed by Hammersmith and Fulham. We also received 77representations from College Park residents, a petitioncontaining 554 signatures, and 21 letters from pupils of KenmontPrimary School, all opposing our draft proposal,145. Although many respondents acknowledged that College Park isphysically separate from other residential areas in Hammersmithand Fulham, they denied that this had caused problems in terms42
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 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: ear" curtilages of properties in Mo
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?