REVIEW OF PARISH BOUNDARIES IN THE HORSHAM DISTRICT

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

INTRODUCTION

The Local Government and Rating Act 1997 gave to District Councils the power to conduct reviews of Parish boundaries in their areas. The last review in the Horsham District took place more than fifteen years ago and Horsham District Council therefore decided to undertake such a review.

This document:

· outlines the basis for the review;

· describes the procedure that Is being followed in conducting the review;

· sets out the proposals that have been made to the Council for changes in Parish boundaries and indicates the Council’s draft recommendation in each case;

· discusses the situation with regard to the unparished part of the Horsham District; and

· invites any interested person or organisation to submit their views on the draft recommendations, in writing, by 31st October 2000.

OBSERVATIONS AND REPRESENTATIONS ON THESE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

The draft recommendations contained in this document are published for consultation. The Council would positively welcome representations or expressions of view on the draft recommendations or any other issues raised in the document.

Please send your representations, in writing, to:

The District Secretary, Horsham District Council, Park House, North Street, Horsham, West Sussex RH12 1RL

If you would like any further information, please contact Lesley Morgan – 01403 215123 or e-mail lesley.morgan@horsham.gov.uk.

THE BASIS FOR THE REVIEW OF PARISH BOUNDARIES

In considering any suggestions for new or changed Parish boundaries or electoral arrangements, the District Council is required by the 1997 Act to:

“have regard to the need to reflect the identities and interests of local communities and to secure effective and convenient local government”.

The District Council cannot take into account any issues that are not included within the two criteria set out in the Act.

Parish Councils have two main roles: community representation and local administration. For both purposes, it is desirable that a parish should reflect a distinctive and recognisable community of interest with its own sense of identity. The feeling of the local community and the wishes of local inhabitants are the primary considerations.

The identification of a community is not a precise or rigid matter. The pattern of daily life and local centres for activities such as education, shopping, community activities and leisure pursuits will all have an influence, as will transport and means of communication. However, it should also be recognised that there could be circumstances where the focus of people’s day to day activities may not be reflected in their feeling of community identity.

The boundaries between parishes need to reflect the “no man’s land” between communities represented by areas of low population or barriers such as rivers, roads or railways. They should be easily identifiable and likely to remain so.

When it has conducted its review, the District Council will make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who will make the final decision as to the pattern of Parish boundaries and electoral arrangements in the Horsham District.

Those recommendations submitted by the Council may include proposals for:

· The establishment of a new parish either in an unparished area or by the aggregation or separation of existing parishes or parts of parishes;

· The abolition of a parish;

· The alteration of the area of a parish;

· Any necessary revisions to electoral arrangements arising from the recommendations.

The District Council can only consider proposals which come within one of these categories.

THE PROCEDURE THAT IS BEING FOLLOWED

(i) the District Council gave notice of the intention to conduct a review and invited representations. The review was formally publicised by way of a notice in the West Sussex County Times. In addition, each Parish Council was advised by letter and was specifically invited to submit proposals and representations.

(ii) the Council established an Electoral Arrangements Review Panel (‘the Panel’), consisting of five Councillors, to oversee the review, to consider representations received and to make recommendations thereon to the Council.

(iii) a wide range of representations and proposals were received, all of which were reported to and considered by the Panel. Many involved relatively minor transfers of areas of land and small numbers of properties between parishes. In these cases, the Council invited both the Parish Councils involved to comment on the proposals.

(iv) in three areas, the Council received proposals that were either more fundamental or were mutually exclusive. In these areas, meetings were promoted with the Parish Councils concerned (and in one case, a residents’ association) to discuss the proposals. These meetings helped to identify various alternatives in each area, which were then the subject of postal ‘referendums’ in the areas concerned.

(v) the postal ballots were conducted by sending a letter, an explanatory leaflet, a ballot paper and a reply paid envelope to each property in the Parishes concerned. Ballot papers were coded so that the Panel could assess the views of residents in the areas specifically affected as well as the wider view of the parish communities as a whole. The results of the ballots are referred to in the parts of this document dealing with the areas concerned.

(vi) taking account of the representations received since the review was announced and the further consultations that have taken place, the District Council has prepared the draft recommendations for changes to Parish boundaries, which are contained in this document. It has given notice and wide publicity to the draft recommendations and has invited representations with a closing date of 31st October 2000.

(vii) the Council will specifically

a) invite all Parish Councils in the District to comment on the draft recommendations;

b) advise the residents of all properties that it is proposed should transfer between Parishes, including those areas where postal 'referendums' have been held.

(viii) the Council will consider any representations that it receives in response to the draft recommendations and will then make recommendations to the Secretary of State, probably during November 2000.

(ix) the Secretary of State will consider the recommendations, may seek the advice of the Local Government Commission and may, if he thinks fit, give effect to all or any of the recommendations, with or without modifications.

(x) it is intended that any changes to Parish boundaries resulting from this review should take effect at the next Parish Council elections, which are planned for May 2003.

DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS

This section lists all the Parishes in the Horsham District in alphabetical order, indicates whether any proposals have been made for changes to the Parish boundaries and, if so, describes them and shows the Council's draft recommendations on those proposals. Where it is recommended that land and properties should be transferred from one Parish to another, the proposal is described under the heading of the first Parish alphabetically and is cross referenced from the other Parish(es) involved.

The three areas referred to above in which more widespread proposals were received (Steyning/Bramber, Ashington & Storrington & Sullington & Thakeham & Washington and the area of North Horsham Parish lying to the north of the Horsham bypass (A264) are dealt with in separate appendices.

In most cases, the boundaries of any changes are described. This document does not contain maps of the recommended changes, but maps are available for inspection at the Council’s offices at Park North, North Street, Horsham and Chanctonbury House, Church Street, Storrington.

In a few cases, the boundaries of proposed changes have not been finalised. The Council invites representations as to the boundaries for these recommended changes.

1. Amberley

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

2. Ashington

(i) Warminghurst

The hamlet of Warminghurst, which lies between Ashington and Thakeham, is currently within Ashington Parish. It has been represented to the Council, and is agreed by the two Parish Councils concerned, that Warminghurst has a greater community of interest with Thakeham than with Ashington.

At this stage, a boundary for the area that is recommended should transfer has not been finalised.

Draft Recommendation:

1. That the hamlet of Warminghurst transfer from Ashington Parish to Thakeham Parish;

2. That representations be invited as to the appropriate boundary of the area to be transferred

(ii) See Appendix B.

3. Ashurst

West Grinstead Parish Council proposed that a small area of land south of ‘The Capite’ should transfer from Ashurst Parish to West Grinstead Parish. Ashurst Parish Council objected to this proposal and the Panel considered that no justification had been made for the change on grounds either of the identity and interests of local communities and of securing effective and convenient local government.

Draft Recommendation:

That the boundaries of Ashurst Parish remain unchanged

4. Billingshurst

(i) Coneyhurst

Billingshurst Parish Council proposed that the boundary with West Chiltington Parish should be reviewed so that the whole of the hamlet of Coneyhurst should be included in Billingshurst Parish. West Chiltington Parish Council does not object to such a proposal, as long as it is in accordance with the wishes of affected residents.

Draft Recommendation:

1. That subject to the views of the affected residents, the whole of the hamlet of Coneyhurst be included in Billingshurst Parish;

2. That representations be invited as to the appropriate boundary of the area to be transferred

(ii) West Chiltington Lane/Valewood Lane, Billingshurst

It was proposed by Itchingfield Parish Council that this area should transfer from Billingshurst Parish to Itchingfield Parish. The Panel considered that, prima facie, it would appear that this area has a greater community of interest with Itchingfield Parish and Billingshurst Parish Council has indicated that it does not object to such a proposal, as long as it is in accordance with the wishes of affected residents.

Draft Recommendation:

That subject to the views of the affected residents, the area of West Chiltington Lane/Valewood Lane identified by Itchingfield Parish Council be included in Itchingfield Parish;

5. Bramber

(i) Bramber Bridge, The Street, Bramber

Bramber Parish Council proposed that the boundary in the vicinity of Bramber Bridge should be re-aligned to follow the stream, thereby transferring a small triangle of land from Steyning Parish to Bramber Parish. Steyning Parish Council does not object to this proposal and no properties are affected. The Panel considered that the proposed change would simplify the boundary in this area.

Draft Recommendation:

That a triangle of land at Bramber Bridge, The Street, Bramber be transferred from Steyning Parish to Bramber Parish.

(ii) See Appendix A.

6. Broadbridge Heath

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

7. Coldwaltham

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

8. Colgate

Faygate

The village of Faygate is currently divided between Colgate and Rusper Parishes, with the larger part being in Colgate Parish. Colgate Parish Council has proposed that Faygate should be wholly within Colgate Parish, with which it has a greater community of interest, and Rusper Parish Council has indicated that it does not object to this proposal.

At this stage, a boundary for the area that is recommended should transfer has not been finalised.

Draft Recommendation:

1. That the village of Faygate should be wholly within Colgate Parish;

2. That representations be invited as to the appropriate boundary of the area to be transferred

9. Cowfold

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

10. Henfield

(i) Catslands

Woodmancote Parish Council has proposed that three properties at Catslands have a greater community of interest with Woodmancote Parish than with Henfield Parish and has indicated a suitable boundary for the proposed change. Henfield Parish Council has indicated that it has no objection to this proposal.

Draft Recommendation:

That the three properties at Catslands be transferred from Henfield Parish to Woodmancote Parish.

(ii) Eastout, Hundred Steddle, Little Hundred and Kentons Cottages

Woodmancote Parish Council has proposed that these properties have a greater community of interest with Woodmancote Parish than with Henfield Parish. Henfield Parish Council has indicated that it has no objection to this proposal. A boundary has been suggested by Woodmancote Parish Council that will involve the transfer of an additional property at Holedean Farm.

Draft Recommendation:

That Eastout, Hundred Steddle, Little Hundred, Kentons Cottages and Holedean House be transferred from Henfield Parish to Woodmancote Parish.

11. Itchingfield

Itchingfield Parish Council suggested four changes to the boundaries of the Parish:

(i) Madgeland Farm, Shipley

It was proposed that this area should transfer from Shipley Parish to Itchingfield Parish. Shipley Parish Council strongly opposed this proposal and the Panel considered that no justification had been made for the change on grounds either of the identity and interests of local communities and of securing effective and convenient local government.

Draft Recommendation:

That no change be made to Parish boundaries in the vicinity of Madgeland Farm, Shipley

(ii) Elmhurst Farm/Five Oaks Road, Slinfold

Itchingfield Parish Council proposed that this area should transfer from Slinfold Parish to Itchingfield Parish. The Panel considered that, prima facie, it would appear that this area has a greater community of interest with Itchingfield Parish and Slinfold Parish Council has indicated that it does not object to such a proposal, as long as it is in accordance with the wishes of affected residents.

Draft Recommendation:

That subject to the views of the affected residents, the area of Elmhurst Farm/Five Oaks Road, Slinfold identified by Itchingfield Parish Council be included in Itchingifeld Parish;

(iii) West Chiltington Lane/Valewood Lane, Billingshurst

See Billingshurst above

(iv) Land at the junction of A264 and Itchingfield/Christs Hospital Lane

It was proposed that this small triangular area of land should transfer from Slinfold Parish to Itchingfield Parish. The land does not include any properties and the Panel considered that the proposed change would simplify boundaries in this area. Slinfold Parish Council has indicated that it does not object to such a proposal.

Draft Recommendation:

That a triangle of land at the junction of A264 and Itchingfield/Christs Hospital Lane be transferred from Slinfold Parish to Itchingfield Parish.

12. Lower Beeding

(i) Holme Farm, Winterpit Lane

Nuthurst Parish Council originally proposed changes to its joint boundary with Lower Beeding Parish to which Lower Beeding Parish Council objected. Nuthurst Parish Council subsequently amended its proposal so that the whole of the present Holme Farm buildings would be in the parish of Lower Beeding. It was understood that the owner of Holme Farm considered that his main community of interest was with Lower Beeding rather than Nuthurst.

Draft Recommendation:

That the present Holme Farm buildings be wholly included within the Parish of Lower Beeding.

(ii) Boundary between Nuthurst and Lower Beeding Parishes at Monks Gate/Maplehurst

Nuthurst Parish Council submitted three alternative proposals for changing the boundary at Monks Gate and Maplehurst. Lower Beeding Parish Council objected to the proposals and the Panel considered that no justification had been made for the change on grounds either of the identity and interests of local communities and of securing effective and convenient local government.

Draft Recommendation:

That no change be made to Parish boundaries at Monks Gate/Maplehurst.

13. North Horsham

See Appendix C.

14. Nuthurst

(i) Holme Farm

See Lower Beeding above

(ii) Boundary between Nuthurst and Lower Beeding Parishes at Monks Gate/Maplehurst

See Lower Beeding above

(iii) 1 and 2 Stanford Cottages, Sedgwick Lane

The present boundary between Nuthurst and Southwater Parishes passes through the curtilages of 1 and 2 Stanford Cottages, Sedgwick Lane. Nuthurst Parish Council proposed a change to boundaries that would include both properties wholly within Nuthurst Parish. The Panel agreed that, in the interests of securing effective and convenient local government, the boundaries should be adjusted in this area to included the whole of the properties in one Parish but was concerned that the proposed boundary followed garden boundaries rather than natural features such as roads, footpaths etc. Adjusting the boundary to follow Sedgwick Lane would incorporate the whole of the properties in Southwater Parish and the Panel considered that no evidence had been given as to the identity and interests of local communities or as to the wishes of the residents in the two properties.

Draft Recommendation:

That subject to the views of the affected residents, the boundary between Nuthurst and Southwater Parishes be adjusted so that the whole of Nos 1 and 2 Stanford Cottages, Sedgwick Lane is contained within Southwater Parish.

(iv) St Johns College

The former St Johns College, which has been converted for residential purposes, lies on the boundary between Nuthurst Parish and the unparished part of Horsham town. Nuthurst Parish Council made representations that residents of this area had a greater community of interest with Horsham town than with Nuthurst Parish.

Draft Recommendation:

That the area of the former St Johns College be transferred from Nuthurst Parish to the unparished area of Horsham town.

15. Parham

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

16. Pulborough

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

17. Rudgwick

Pensfold Farm, Naldretts Lane

Rudgwick and Slinfold Parish Councils are agreed that Pensfold Farm, which is currently in Slinfold Parish, has a greater community of interest with Rudgwick Parish and that, subject to the views of the residents, should therefore be transferred to Rudgwick Parish.

Draft Recommendation:

That subject to the views of the affected residents, Pensfold Farm, Naldretts Lane be transferred from Slinfold Parish to Rudgwick Parish.

18. Rusper

(i) Faygate

See Colgate above

(ii) North Horsham

See Appendix C

19. Shermanbury

Shermanbury Grange and Wagstaff Cottages

West Grinstead Parish Council proposed that Shermanbury Grange and Wagstaff Cottages should transfer from Shermanbury Parish to West Grinstead Parish. Shermanbury Parish Council objected. The Panel considered that, geographically, these properties are much closer to Shermanbury than Partridge Green, which is the main village centre of West Grinstead Parish. It also considered that no justification had been made for the change on grounds either of the identity and interests of local communities and of securing effective and convenient local government.

Draft Recommendation:

That Shermanbury Grange and Wagstaff Cottages remain within Shermanbury Parish.

20. Shipley

(i) Madgeland Farm, Shipley

See Itchingfield above

(ii) Rascals Wood and properties to the west of Shipley Road, Shipley

Southwater Parish Council proposed that its boundary with Shipley Parish should be adjusted to include within Southwater Parish the area known as Rascals Wood and properties to the west of Shipley Road. Shipley Parish Council did not object to simplification of the boundary on the western side of Shipley Road but did object strongly to the extension of Southwater southwards to include Rascals Wood. The Panel considered that the Rascals Wood area is close to the built up area of Southwater but a considerable distance from Shipley village. It therefore considers that the identity and interests of local communities and the securing of effective and convenient local government would best be served by transferring the areas suggested to Southwater Parish.

Draft Recommendation:

That the boundary between Southwater and Shipley Parishes be adjusted:

a. to include the area known as Rascals Wood in Southwater Parish; and

b. to include properties on the western side of Shipley Road in Southwater Parish.

(iii) Saucelands Cottage and Bungalow, Coolham

The owner of Saucelands Cottage and Bungalow requested that these properties should be included within Shipley Parish as the occupiers of these properties had a greater community of interest with this Parish than with Thakeham Parish, where they were currently located.

Draft Recommendation:

That the boundary between Shipley and Thakeham Parishes be adjusted to include Saucelands Cottage and Bungalow in Shipley Parish.

21. Slinfold

(i) Elmhurst Farm/Five Oaks Road, Slinfold

See Itchingfield above

(ii) Land at the junction of A264 and Itchingfield/Christs Hospital Lane

See Itchingfield above

(iii) Pensfold Farm, Naldretts Lane

See Rudgwick above

22. Southwater

Rascals Wood and properties to the west of Shipley Road, Shipley

See Shipley above

23. Steyning

(i) Bramber Bridge, The Street, Bramber

See Bramber above

(ii) See Appendix A.

24 and 25 Storrington and Sullington

See Appendix B

26. Thakeham

(i) Warminghurst

See Ashington above.

(ii) Saucelands Cottage and Bungalow, Coolham

See Shipley above

(iii) See Appendix B

27. Upper Beeding

Small Dole

Upper Beeding Parish Council proposed that the hamlet of Small Dole, part of which is a separate ward of Upper Beeding Parish Council, should be created as a separate parish. Small Dole is partly in Upper Beeding Parish and partly in Henfield Parish and the Panel noted that a similar suggestion in 1996 had been strongly rejected at a community meeting called to discuss the issue. It was not aware of any change in circumstances that would suggest that the community view had changed.

Draft Recommendation:

That Small Dole should not be created as a separate parish.

28. Warnham

Since the last review of Parish boundaries in the Horsham District, the A24/A264 Horsham northern bypass has been constructed. A result is that a small part of Warnham Parish, in the area of Warnham Nature Reserve and Rookwood Golfcourse, has been cut off from the rest of the Parish and now has a greater community of interest with Horsham town.

Draft Recommendation:

That the area of Warnham Parish to the south and east of the A24/A264 Horsham northern bypass be transferred to be part of the unparished area of Horsham town.

29. Washington

See Appendix B.

30. West Chiltington

Coneyhurst

See Billingshurst above.

31. West Grinstead

See Shermanbury above.

32. Wiston

No changes to Parish boundaries are recommended.

33. Woodmancote

See Henfield above.

THE UNPARISHED AREA OF THE HORSHAM DISTRICT

When the Horsham District was formed as a result of the 1974 reorganisation of local government, the area of the former Horsham Urban District Council (Horsham town), was unparished.

As a strong advocate of Parish Councils, Horsham District supported the establishment of non-statutory Neighbourhood Councils in the unparished area, which have operated since 1976. The Neighbourhood Councils are elected in accordance with the regulations for Parish Council elections and are consulted and involved by the District Council as if they were Parish Councils. Their expenses are met by the District Council but Neighbourhood Councils suffer from the lack of statutory powers and duties or the power to raise a precept to meet expenditure. There is also concern in some parished areas that, as well as meeting the cost of Parish Council services in their own areas, they also contribute towards the cost of services in the unparished area that would otherwise be provided by Parish Councils.

At the last review of Parish boundaries in the Horsham District, the establishment of Parish Councils in Horsham town was proposed. However, following the local inquiry, the Secretary of State concluded that there was so little support for the proposal that he did not include it in the final arrangements.

In November 1995, the District Council undertook a postal referendum of the unparished area to ascertain whether there was support for the establishment of statutory Parish Councils in Horsham town.

On a turnout of over 40%, an overwhelming majority voted that they did not wish to have Parish Councils in the town.

As part of its review of Parish boundaries, Horsham District Council has again considered whether to recommend that Parish Councils should be established in the town area. There is no evidence that the views of residents has changed but, during the consultation period on the draft recommendations contained in this document, the Council will undertake a sample telephone survey throughout the Horsham District and will consider the results together with any representations that it receives on the draft recommendations.

APPENDIX A

STEYNING AND BRAMBER

In response to its invitation to Parish Councils and other interested individuals or organisation to submit proposals for changes to Parish boundaries, the Council received a number of competing suggestions for the area of Steyning and Bramber.

As a result, the Panel invited the two Parish Councils to a meeting to clarify their proposals and to identify a number of alternatives on which public consultation could be undertaken.

The issues identified were:

a) The Maudlyn area of Bramber Parish lies to the western (Steyning) side of the Steyning bypass. Does it have a greater community of interest with Steyning rather than Bramber and would it be in the interests of securing effective and convenient local government best be served by transferring that area from Bramber to Steyning?

b) There are two areas of the boundary between Steyning and Bramber in the Maudlyn area where either the boundary passed through recently constructed properties or the boundary appeared illogical.

c) The construction of the Steyning bypass has largely separated the Kings Barn area of Steyning from the rest of the parish. Geographically, this area is closer to Bramber and the question was raised whether this area should transfer from Steyning to Bramber.

The issues were converted into four main options as follows:

Option 1 – No change

Option 2 – The whole of the Maudlyn area to transfer from Bramber Parish to Steyning Parish

Option 3 - The transfer of eight properties from Steyning Parish to Bramber Parish and 18 properties from Bramber Parish to Steyning Parish to address the boundary illogicalities

Option 4 - The Kings Barn area to transfer from Steyning to Bramber and the Maudlyn area to transfer from Bramber to Steyning i.e. the Steyning bypass to become the boundary between the two parishes.

A public consultation document and ‘ballot paper’ was sent to every property in Steyning and Bramber Parishes, together with an explanatory leaflet and a reply paid envelope. The ballot papers were coded so that the response could be identified from the areas directly affected.

The results and analysis of the consultation are set out on the attached sheet.

In the light of the consultation exercise, the following draft recommendation is made:

Draft Recommendation

That no change be made to Parish boundaries in the Maudlyn/Kings Barn areas of Bramber and Steyning Parishes.

Review of Parish Boundaries
Steyning/Bramber area
Results of public consultation
	Area	Code	Forms			Option								No
						1		2		3		4		preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	% of	No.	% of	No.	% of	No.	% of	No.	% of
							returned		returned		returned		returned		returned
1	Steyning Parish (less properties in 3 and 5)	S	2270	768	33.8	201	26.2	199	25.9	49	6.4	92	12.0	227	29.6
2	Properties proposed by Bramber to transfer from Bramber to Steyning	BS	18	14	77.8	12	85.7	0	0.0	1	7.1	0	0.0	1	7.1
3	Properties proposed by Bramber to transfer from Steyning to Bramber	SB	8	8	100.0	2	25.0	4	50.0		0.0	2	25.0	0	0.0
4	Remainder of Maudlyn area	M	182	139	76.4	99	71.2	18	12.9	10	7.2	9	6.5	3	2.2
5	Remainder of Kings Barn area	K	352	218	61.9	112	51.4	44	20.2	20	9.2	24	11.0	18	8.3
6	Remainder of Bramber Parish (i.e. Bramber less 2 and 4)	B	141	57	40.4	39	68.4	8	14.0	2	3.5	2	3.5	6	10.5
	TOTALS		2971	1204	40.5	465	38.6	273	22.7	82	6.8	129	10.7	255	21.2

APPENDIX B

STORRINGTON, SULLINGTON, THAKEHAM, WASHINGTON AND ASHINGTON

In response to its invitation to Parish Councils and other interested individuals or organisation to submit proposals for changes to Parish boundaries, the Council received a number of competing suggestions for the area of Storrington, Sullington, Thakeham, Washington and Ashington.

As a result, the Panel invited the Parish Councils and Heath Common Residents Association to a meeting to clarify their proposals and to identify a number of alternatives on which public consultation could be undertaken.

The issues identified were:

a) Should the parishes of Storrington and Sullington combine to form one parish?

b) The area known as Heath Common is currently divided between four parishes – Sullington, Thakeham, Washington and Ashington. Should it have a separate defined identity and, if so, should this be by way of a separate new Parish or as a ward of an existing parish?

c) Part of the Heath Common area is known as Washington Common. If Heath Common is given a separate identity, should this area remain part of Washington Parish?

d) Sullington Parish Council suggested that two areas known as ‘the Davis Estate’ and ‘Crescent Rise’, which are on the boundary between Sullington and Thakeham Parishes, have a greater community of interest with Sullington than with Thakeham. There was a similar question as to whether residents in an area of Sullington Parish known as Hillside have a greater community of interest with Sullington or Heath Common.

The issues were converted into a series of questions, which were included in a public consultation document and ‘ballot paper’, which was sent to every property in Storrington, Sullington, Thakeham and Washington Parishes and to that part of Ashington Parish that lies within the Heath Common area. Residents were also sent an explanatory leaflet and a reply paid envelope. The ballot papers were coded so that the response could be identified from the areas directly affected.

The results and analysis of the consultation are set out following the draft recommendations.

In the light of the consultation exercise, the following draft recommendations are made:

Draft Recommendations

1. That the parishes of Storrington and Sullington be combined to form a single parish, with each area retaining its identity as a ward of the combined parish.

2. That representations be invited as to an appropriate name for the new parish.

3. That the Heath Common area be given a separate defined identity, by way of a new Parish comprising the area delineated by the Heath Common Village Design Statement but excluding the area of Washington Common east of Georges Lane and south of Rock Road, which will remain in Washington parish.

4. That the area known as the Davis Estate remain in Thakeham Parish.

5. That the area known as Crescent Rise remain in Thakeham Parish.

6. That the area known as Hillside remain in Sullington Parish.

Review of Parish Boundaries
Storrington/Sullington/Thakeham/Washington/Heath Common
Results of public consultation
	Question 1:	Should Storrington and Sullington combine to form a single parish, with each area retaining its identity as a ward of the combined parish?
	Area	Code	Forms			Yes		No		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	343	50.37	185	27.17	149	21.88
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	219	63.48	88	25.51	34	9.86
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	38	31.40	42	34.71	40	33.06
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	26	30.59	21	24.71	36	42.35
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	16	28.07	16	28.07	22	38.60
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	21	19.63	34	31.78	51	47.66
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	16	33.33	24	50.00	6	12.50
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	36	24.49	50	34.01	54	36.73
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	12	35.29	7	20.59	14	41.18
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	30	35.71	37	44.05	16	19.05
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	7	43.75	7	43.75	2	12.50
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	764	44.29	511	29.62	424	24.58

	Question 2:	Should the Heath Common area have a separate, defined identity?
	Area	Code	Forms			Yes		No		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	155	22.76	191	28.05	316	46.40
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	103	29.86	82	23.77	154	44.64
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	32	26.45	47	38.84	41	33.88
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	29	34.12	31	36.47	23	27.06
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	52	91.23	3	5.26	2	3.51
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	87	81.31	15	14.02	4	3.74
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	28	58.33	11	22.92	7	14.58
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	107	72.79	33	22.45	5	3.40
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	10	29.41	14	41.18	9	26.47
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	20	23.81	27	32.14	35	41.67
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	7	43.75	5	31.25	4	25.00
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	630	36.52	459	26.61	600	34.78

Question 3:	If Heath Common were to have a separate identity:
	(a) should it be:
Area	Code	Forms			A separate parish		Ward of Sullington		Ward of Thakeham		Ward of Washington		No preference
		Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
						of returned		of returned		of returned		of returned		of returned
Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	67	9.84	140	20.56	26	3.82	36	5.29	354	51.98
Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. Sullington less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	24	6.96	108	31.30	11	3.19	29	8.41	145	42.03
Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. Thakeham less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	9	7.44	13	10.74	35	28.93	3	2.48	47	38.84
Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. Washington less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	11	12.94	5	5.88	3	3.53	37	43.53	16	18.82
Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	53	92.98	1	1.75	1	1.75	2	3.51		0.00
Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	84	78.50	2	1.87	1	0.93	13	12.15	3	2.80
Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	23	47.92	8	16.67	3	6.25	2	4.17	7	14.58
Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	94	63.95	3	2.04	35	23.81	3	2.04	4	2.72
Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	3	8.82	1	2.94	15	44.12	4	11.76	9	26.47
Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	8	9.52	11	13.10	17	20.24	2	2.38	39	46.43
Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	6	37.50	3	18.75		0.00	1	6.25	4	25.00
TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	382	22.14	295	17.10	147	8.52	132	7.65	628	36.41

	Question 3(b):	Should the area known as Washington Common remain part of Washington parish?
	Area	Code	Forms			Yes		No		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	9.00	331	48.60	33	4.85	283	41.56
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	159	46.09	30	8.70	140	40.58
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	72	59.50	3	2.48	39	32.23
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	80	94.12	1	1.18	3	3.53
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	6	10.53	32	56.14	17	29.82
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	25	23.36	64	59.81	17	15.89
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	12	25.00	18	37.50	15	31.25
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	42	28.57	58	39.46	39	26.53
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	17	50.00	2	5.88	14	41.18
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	45	53.57	4	4.76	23	27.38
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	6	37.50	4	25.00	5	31.25
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	795	46.09	249	31.32	595	34.49

	Question 4(a):	Should the area known as the Davis Estate:?
	Area	Code	Forms			Remain in Thakeham		Transfer to Sullington		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	146	21.44	193	28.34	279	40.97
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	67	19.42	145	42.03	119	34.49
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	52	42.98	29	23.97	29	23.97
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	12	14.12	17	20.00	50	58.82
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	6	10.53	10	17.54	38	66.67
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	16	14.95	20	18.69	65	60.75
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	9	18.75	8	16.67	30	62.50
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	48	32.65	29	19.73	62	42.18
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	18	52.94	5	14.71	9	26.47
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	61	72.62	20	23.81	3	3.57
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	2	12.50	5	31.25	6	37.50
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	437	25.33	481	27.88	690	40.00

	Question 4(b):	Should the area known as Crescent Rise:?
	Area	Code	Forms			Remain in Thakeham		Transfer to Sullington		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	181	26.58	198	29.07	279	40.97
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	80	23.19	138	40.00	111	32.17
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	72	59.50	21	17.36	22	18.18
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	22	25.88	11	12.94	48	56.47
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	10	17.54	12	21.05	33	57.89
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	19	17.76	14	13.08	58	54.21
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	12	25.00	10	20.83	25	52.08
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	69	46.94	18	12.24	51	34.69
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	32	94.12	1	2.94		0.00
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	59	70.24	16	19.05	6	7.14
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	5	31.25	4	25.00	6	37.50
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	561	32.52	443	25.68	639	37.04
	Question 4(c):	Should the area known as Hillside:?
	Area	Code	Forms			Remain in Sullington		Transfer to Heath Common		No preference
			Sent	Returned	%	No.	%	No.	%	No.	%
							of returned		of returned		of returned
1	Storrington Parish	ST	1969	681	34.59	287	42.14	42	6.17	330	48.46
2	Sullington Parish less Heath Common area and Hillside (i.e. less 7 and 11)	SU	846	345	40.78	180	52.17	20	5.80	130	37.68
3	Thakeham Parish less Heath Common area, Davis estate etc., Crescent Rise etc.(i.e. less 8, 9 and 10)	T	425	121	28.47	62	51.24	13	10.74	40	33.06
4	Washington Parish less Heath Common area (i.e. less 6)	W	310	85	27.42	28	32.94	5	5.88	49	57.65
5	Heath Common - Ashington	HCA	77	57	74.03	9	15.79	18	31.58	28	49.12
6	Heath Common - Washington	HCW	141	107	75.89	20	18.69	25	23.36	55	51.40
7	Heath Common - Sullington	HCS	64	48	75.00	18	37.50	8	16.67	21	43.75
8	Heath Common - Thakeham	HCT	239	147	61.51	33	22.45	58	39.46	49	33.33
9	Crescent Rise etc., Thakeham	CRT	65	34	52.31	17	50.00	3	8.82	14	41.18
10	Davis Estate etc., Thakeham	DET	155	84	54.19	45	53.57	6	7.14	29	34.52
11	Hillside, Sullington	H	36	16	44.44	7	43.75	4	25.00	1	6.25
	TOTALS		4327	1725	39.87	706	40.93	202	11.71	746	43.25

APPENDIX C

NORTH HORSHAM PARISH

In response to its invitation to Parish Councils and other interested individuals or organisation to submit proposals for changes to Parish boundaries, the Council received two suggestions for the area of North Horsham Parish.

(i) Holbrook and Roffey

North Horsham is the largest Parish in the District with a population of some 20,500. It is divided into wards – Holbrook and Roffey – and operates largely on a Ward basis. The division between the Wards is a railway line and there are only two crossings of the railway line within the Parish. Representations were received that the railway line has the effect that there is little, if any, community of interest between Holbrook and Roffey and that the two are, effectively, separate communities.

As a result, the following draft recommendations are made:

Draft Recommendations

1. That North Horsham Parish should be divided into two Parishes, Holbrook and Roffey, on the existing Ward boundaries.

2. That a full postal or representative telephone survey of the residents affected be undertaken.

(ii) Area north of the A24/A264 Horsham northern bypass

Since the last review of Parish boundaries in the Horsham District, the A24/A264 Horsham northern bypass has been constructed. As a result, an area of North Horsham Parish (Holbrook ward) is now separated from the main area of the Parish and the Council received representations that this area now looks towards the adjoining Parish of Rusper rather than to North Horsham.

The Panel decided to undertake a public consultation exercise with the relatively small number of residents in the area affected. Each was sent a consultation letter, a ‘ballot paper’ which asked them to indicate whether their preference was to remain as part of North Horsham Parish or to transfer to Rusper Parish, an explanatory leaflet and a reply paid envelope.

The result of the consultation exercise is as follows:

Forms			Remain in N Horsham		Transfer to Rusper		No preference
Sent	Returned	%	No.	% of	No.	% of	No.	% of
				returned		returned		returned
67	42	59.7	15	37.5	16	40.0	7	12.5

In the light of the consultation exercise, the following draft recommendation is made:

Draft Recommendation

That no change be made to the North Horsham (Holbrook ward)/Rusper Parish boundary in the area north of the A24/A264 Horsham northern bypass.