The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South East
Berkshire, Hampshire and Surrey
Berkshire
Initial proposals
Of the eight existing constituencies in Berkshire, three are currently within the permitted electorate range: Reading East, Reading West, and Windsor. The remaining five constituencies are all above the permitted range: Newbury; Wokingham; Bracknell; Maidenhead; and Slough. Under our initial proposals we proposed changes to all existing constituencies in Berkshire. We proposed a single constituency containing most of the Borough of Reading, with three borough wards in the west and two in the south being included in the Mid Berkshire, and Earley and Woodley constituencies respectively. As a result of this configuration, we proposed Newbury and Wokingham constituencies respectively comprising the areas of the District of West Berkshire and District of Wokingham not otherwise included in the Mid Berkshire, and Earley and Woodley constituencies.
As the existing Slough constituency is above the permitted range, we proposed to include the wards of Langley Kedermister and Foxborough in the Windsor constituency. We also, for the reasons outlined above, proposed that the Windsor constituency include two wards from Surrey, namely Egham Town and Egham Hythe. As the Bracknell constituency was within the permitted range without the area of Wokingham Borough included in the existing constituency, and after some minor changes to realign to new local government ward boundaries, we proposed no additional changes. Consequentially, we proposed that the remainder of the District of Bracknell Forest area be included in the Maidenhead constituency.
In response to the consultation on the initial proposals, our proposed constituencies across Berkshire were broadly supported, except in Reading, where they were opposed by some who recommended returning to a two-seat configuration and leaving the existing Reading West and Reading East constituencies wholly or mostly unchanged. We received a counter proposal which achieved this by including a constituency which crossed the boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire.
The proposed Mid Berkshire constituency was mostly opposed by residents of the Borough of Reading, who argued that the wards of Kentwood, Norcot, and Tilehurst have little in common with the remainder of the constituency; however, representations from the West Berkshire component of this constituency were more favourable. Another objection made about the proposed Mid Berkshire constituency was that it contained the Ilsey villages, which some felt have more commonality with the proposed Newbury constituency (which was otherwise little commented on).
The proposed Earley and Woodley constituency also received a mix of representations, though the greater number were in support of our proposals. The proposed Wokingham constituency was strongly supported.
881. We received opposition to our proposal to include the Langley Kedermister and Foxborough wards in the proposed Windsor constituency, though those that acknowledged that some part of Slough Borough would have to be included in a Windsor constituency to avoid crossing the boundary between Berkshire and Buckinghamshire generally agreed that the initial proposals were the strongest option. The proposed crossing of the boundary between Berkshire and Surrey in the Windsor constituency was also unpopular, both as a matter of general principle and specifically the choice of the two Egham wards.
A small number of representations were received opposing the proposed Maidenhead constituency, with some respondents suggesting this constituency could contain less of the Bracknell Forest council area. We received a counter proposal that split wards to achieve this.
In light of the evidence received, our Assistant Commissioners considered recommending changes in Berkshire; however, they concluded that no counter proposals had been received which improved the scheme of constituencies across the county as a whole. In particular, they felt that counter proposals that crossed the county boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire would have weaker community links than the initial proposals, and noted that such counter-proposals necessarily disrupted the mostly supported initial proposals for the Earley and Woodley, and Wokingham constituencies.
They therefore did not recommend any changes to any of the initially proposed constituencies that are wholly within Berkshire (though they did propose changes to the Surrey component of the Windsor constituency, see below). We accepted the Assistant Commissioners’ recommendation, and therefore the revised proposals for Berkshire were unchanged from the initial proposals.
As no changes were made to our initial proposals for Berkshire, most responses to the revised proposals consultation, whether in support or opposition, simply restated the same points made during the earlier consultation phases. We did, however, receive a new proposal which retained the existing Reading East constituency wholly unchanged, and the existing Reading West constituency changed only by the exclusion of the Theale ward. This proposal recommended a constituency that crosses the county boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire, and also includes the towns of Earley and Shinfield, thereby dividing the existing Wokingham constituency into two proposed constituencies, rather than three, as in our revised proposals.
The changes which we made to the proposed Windsor constituency were well supported by residents of the Berkshire component of this constituency, though some suggested that Windsor Great Park would be more reflective of the area the proposed constituency would comprise.
Having considered the evidence received, we are not recommending changes to the boundaries of our revised proposals for Berkshire. Strong consideration was again given as to whether or not to recommend a constituency which crosses the boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire. We acknowledge that such a solution would be less disruptive to the existing Reading East and Reading West constituencies than our revised proposals; however, we note that such a proposal would involve additional crossings of local authority boundaries, including dividing the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane between five constituencies. We also note that very few representations have been received which support a cross-county boundary constituency, particularly compared with the broadly positive reception to our Earley and Woodley constituency. Furthermore, we had concerns that the proposed constituency crossing the boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire under this counter proposal would result in the division of Tadley between constituencies.
We do, however, acknowledge that the name of our proposed Mid Berkshire constituency does not reflect that this constituency is a clear successor to the existing Reading West constituency. We therefore recommend that the name of this constituency is amended to Reading West and Mid Berkshire in our final recommendations. Consequently, we have also amended the name of our proposed Reading constituency to Reading Central.
Our final recommendations in Berkshire are therefore for constituencies of: Bracknell; Earley and Woodley; Maidenhead; Newbury; Reading Central; Reading West and Mid Berkshire; Slough; Windsor; and Wokingham. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Of the 18 existing constituencies in Hampshire, 13 are currently within the permitted electorate range, one constituency is below the permitted range, Romsey and Southampton North, and four are above: Basingstoke; Eastleigh; Fareham; and North West Hampshire. We proposed a constituency, Farnham and Bordon, that included parts of both Hampshire and Surrey, as doing so enabled us to propose a number of constituencies wholly unchanged. The initially proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency included six wards from the District of East Hampshire, the remainder of which was proposed as the East Hampshire constituency.
Our initial proposals included: Gosport; Havant; Portsmouth North; Portsmouth South; Southampton Itchen; Southampton Test; East New Forest; and West New Forest. These constituencies were unchanged from their existing configurations, although we did make a minor adjustment to the names of the latter two constituencies. Additionally, we proposed an Aldershot constituency changed only to align to new local government ward boundaries.
We proposed some changes to the existing Basingstoke and North East Hampshire constituencies, most significantly the inclusion of the entire ward of Basing & Upton Grey in the latter. In order to ensure both of these proposed constituencies were within the permitted electorate range, we divided the Oakley & The Candovers ward between the two, largely aligning the boundary with the M3 motorway.
As we proposed that North West Hampshire include the Tadley & Pamber, and Sherborne St. John & Rooksdown wards, it was necessary to reduce the electorate in the west of the existing constituency. We therefore proposed that the Anna, Bellinger, and Charlton & the Pentons wards be included in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency, the only other change to which being the exclusion of the Valley Park ward, which we proposed in the Eastleigh constituency.
In order to reduce the electorate of the Eastleigh and Fareham constituencies, we proposed a Hedge End constituency comprising areas around the River Hamble, including Titchfield, Shedfield, and Bursledon. We also proposed a Fareham and Waterlooville constituency which included the eponymous towns and rural areas of the lower Meon Valley between the two. Our proposed Winchester constituency extended further south than the existing constituency, to include the remainder of the City of Winchester local authority.
The response to our initial proposals for Hampshire was broadly positive, particularly for the eight unchanged constituencies along the coast of Hampshire, although the proposed name changes for the two New Forest constituencies were opposed, with respondents expressing a strong preference for retaining the existing constituency names, which use compass points as a suffix. It was also suggested that the proposed Havant constituency should be designated as a county constituency to reflect the less accessible areas of this constituency.
Our proposals for Aldershot, North East Hampshire, Basingstoke, North West Hampshire, and Romsey and Southampton North were objected to by several respondents. Among the issues raised were the division of Yateley between the proposed Aldershot and North East Hampshire constituencies, the exclusion of the Old Basing and Rooksdown areas from the Basingstoke constituency, and the inclusion of the Charlton & the Pentons ward in the Romsey and Southampton North constituency. The inclusion of the Bassett and Swaythling wards from the City of Southampton in this constituency was also opposed, although this aspect of the proposed constituency is unchanged from the existing configuration. We received a number of counter proposals which addressed some of these issues; however, some respondents noted in support of our proposals that it is difficult to resolve all of these concerns without resorting to a number of split wards.
We received a large number of representations in support of our proposed Winchester constituency, many of which commented that our proposals for this constituency were better aligned with local authority boundaries than the existing constituency. We did, however, receive representations which regretted the lack of an obvious successor to the existing Meon Valley constituency. This view was widely shared among residents of the Denmead, and Southwick & Wickham wards, which we proposed as part of the Fareham and Waterlooville constituency. This constituency was also opposed by residents of both eponymous towns, who argued that there is no community of interest between the two, with residents of Fareham in particular expressing a preference for an alternative that would more closely resemble the existing configuration. We received a number of counter proposals which sought to propose a constituency similar to the existing Meon Valley, though many of these necessitated dividing Fareham between two or more constituencies.
The proposed Eastleigh constituency attracted few representations, except for a small number in opposition to the inclusion of the Valley Park ward. The proposed Hedge End constituency received a mix of representations in support and in opposition; however, the most common concern was that the name of this constituency was not sufficiently representative, with some suggesting Hamble Valley to reflect the river that is central to the proposed constituency.
The largest number of representations in Hampshire during the initial proposals consultation were made concerning the proposed East Hampshire, and Farnham and Bordon constituencies. While a number of responses were supportive of our proposals for East Hampshire, particularly noting the inclusion of additional areas of the East Hampshire district in this constituency, a greater number were opposed to the inclusion of wards in the Farnham and Bordon constituency. These representations centred on two key themes: general opposition to any constituency containing parts of both Surrey and Hampshire, and specific opposition to the division of the Bordon and Whitehill area, which many respondents felt is a single settlement. Some that accepted the principle of a cross-county boundary constituency commented that including the Whitehill Hogmoor & Greatham ward in the proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency would be a solution to this latter concern.
In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we make changes to our initial proposals for Hampshire.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered the many counter proposals we received which affected constituencies in Hampshire. As above, they did not feel that there was merit in recommending a constituency which crossed the boundary between Hampshire and Berkshire. They also felt that none of the other counter proposals which sought to address issues in the north of Hampshire represented an improvement on the initial proposals.
Consideration was also given to counter proposals which suggested retaining a close analogue to the existing Meon Valley constituency. The Assistant Commissioners noted that adopting this counter proposal would require changes to our proposed Winchester constituency that have been supported during the consultations. On balance, they were not persuaded to modify the proposed Winchester constituency and therefore did not recommend modifying the configuration of constituencies in this part of the county.
The division of the Bordon and Whitehill area under the initial proposals was acknowledged by the Assistant Commissioners to be problematic. While they agreed with the substance of our initial recommendation that the proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency should contain parts of both Surrey and Hampshire, they agreed with a counter proposal which suggested that the Whitehill Hogmoor & Greatham ward should be included in this constituency too. This counter proposal balanced the electorate of the proposed East Hampshire constituency by including all of the Oakley & The Candovers ward, thereby reuniting a ward which we proposed to be split in the initial proposals. The Assistant Commissioners did not agree with this aspect of the counter proposal, as they felt that the split ward had been broadly well received, and that the resulting East Hampshire constituency would have poor connectivity. They therefore recommended retaining the split of Oakley & The Candovers from the initial proposals, but transferring the part proposed in the North East Hampshire constituency to the revised East Hampshire constituency. This counter proposal also had some consequential effects for constituencies in Surrey, which are discussed below.
The Assistant Commissioners were also persuaded by representations made concerning the names of the proposed Hedge End, West New Forest, and East New Forest constituencies, and recommended that we revise the names of these constituencies to Hamble Valley, New Forest West, and New Forest East respectively.
We agreed with these recommendations, and therefore we confirmed the initial proposals for twelve constituencies in Hampshire, proposed boundary changes for three constituencies (East Hampshire, Farnham and Bordon, and North East Hampshire), and proposed name changes for three constituencies (Hamble Valley, New Forest West, and New Forest East).
In the revised proposals consultation, the proposed eight unchanged south coast constituencies were again supported, in particular the revised names of the two New Forest constituencies.
Few responses were received concerning our revised proposal to include part of the Oakley & The Candovers ward in East Hampshire, but those we did receive generally opposed our proposal. The division of Yateley between Aldershot and North East Hampshire, the exclusion of areas of urban Basingstoke from the Basingstoke constituency, and the inclusion of Charlton & the Pentons in Romsey and Southampton North rather than North West Hampshire were again commented upon by a small number of respondents, including in new counter proposals which suggested splitting one or more wards in order to resolve some of these issues.
We received a number of responses supportive of our proposal to include the Whitehill Hogmoor & Greatham ward with the remainder of the Bordon and Whitehill area in the Farnham and Bordon constituency, although these responses generally expressed regret that our proposals did not avoid crossing the boundary between Surrey and Hampshire altogether. Some respondents suggested that the name Wey Valley would be a more descriptive name for this constituency.
We again received a sizeable number of representations in support of the proposed Winchester constituency, offset by a smaller number which preferred a version of the existing Meon Valley constituency – counter proposals to this effect were again advanced, but without substantively new evidence in support of such a configuration. The proposed Fareham and Waterlooville constituency was again negatively received, though the only new suggestion was that we consider Forest of Bere as an alternative name for this constituency.
The proposed Eastleigh constituency again attracted only a small number of representations, which expressed opposition to the inclusion of Valley Park and West End, which respondents felt are better suited to the constituencies of Romsey and Southampton North, and Hamble Valley respectively. Our revised name for the Hamble Valley constituency was broadly supported, though the reaction to the proposed boundary was again mixed.
Having considered the evidence, we are not recommending any changes to the boundaries of our proposed constituencies in Hampshire. As discussed above, we are not recommending a constituency that crosses the boundary between Berkshire and Hampshire; however, we considered whether alternative changes could be made to repair broken ties in Yateley, and between Charlton & the Pentons, and Andover. We concluded that this was impossible without either dividing an unacceptable number of wards, or disrupting a number of constituencies which were well received during the consultation periods.
We also considered whether or not to retain the divide of the Oakley & The Candovers ward, given that the whole ward could be included in the East Hampshire constituency. We note that the inclusion of the Oakley part of this ward in the Basingstoke constituency has been generally well supported, and that our proposed split of this ward approximately follows the M3, which we consider to be a sensible physical boundary. We additionally note that, while there is good evidence of transport and community linkages between Oakley and Basingstoke, there is no such evidence for linkages with East Hampshire. We therefore feel that it would be pragmatic to retain this divided ward in our final recommendations.
We note the sustained opposition to our proposed Fareham and Waterlooville constituency. We again considered whether or not to make changes to this constituency; however, we note that counter proposals received either divide Fareham in half, or else disrupt the large number of constituencies on the Hampshire coast that could otherwise be retained wholly unchanged. We have therefore concluded that the revised proposals best reflect the statutory factors.
Finally, we considered alternative names for constituencies in Hampshire. While we note the support for Forest of Bere as an alternative name for the Fareham and Waterlooville constituency, we feel that this name is not sufficiently descriptive of the area covered by the constituency, and therefore have retained the name Fareham and Waterlooville in our final recommendations. Similarly, while we acknowledge support for the name Wey Valley instead of Farnham and Bordon, we feel that this name would not reflect the Hampshire component of this cross-county boundary constituency, and hence have retained the name Farnham and Bordon in our final recommendations.
Our final recommendations in Hampshire are therefore for constituencies of: Aldershot; Basingstoke; East Hampshire; Eastleigh; Fareham and Waterlooville; Gosport; Hamble Valley; Havant; New Forest East; New Forest West; North East Hampshire; North West Hampshire; Portsmouth North; Portsmouth South; Romsey and Southampton North; Southampton Itchen; Southampton Test; and Winchester. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Of the 11 existing constituencies in Surrey, five are currently within the permitted electorate range (Mole Valley; Reigate; Runnymede and Weybridge; Spelthorne; and Woking), and the remaining six are above (East Surrey; Epsom and Ewell; Esher and Walton; Guildford; South West Surrey; and Surrey Heath). As discussed above, we initially proposed two constituencies which contained parts of Surrey and another county: the proposed Windsor constituency, which included the Surrey wards of Egham Town and Egham Hythe, and Farnham and Bordon, which combined the western part of the Borough of Waverley with six wards from Hampshire.
We proposed that the Spelthorne and Woking constituencies be coterminous with the local authorities of the same names. In the former case, this represents no change from the existing configuration, and in the latter case, changed only by the exclusion of the Normandy and Pirbright wards, which we proposed be included in the Surrey Heath constituency, along with the whole of the Surrey Heath district.
As this proposed Surrey Heath constituency could not accommodate the wards of Ash Vale, Ash Wharf, and Ash South and Tongham, we proposed that these wards be included in a Godalming and Ash constituency, along with the wards of Pilgrims, Shalford, and Tillingbourne, and the eastern part of the Borough of Waverley. This allowed us to propose a Guildford constituency that would be wholly within the borough of the same name.
As the proposed Weybridge and Chertsey constituency, renamed from Runnymede and Weybridge, would no longer include the two Egham wards (we proposed these wards be included in the Windsor constituency), we proposed to extend this constituency to the south, to include the wards of Cobham & Downside, Weybridge St. George’s Hill, and the whole of the Oatlands & Burwood Park ward. The exclusion of these same wards were the only changes we proposed to the existing Esher and Walton constituency under our initial proposals.
We noted that a proposed Epsom and Ewell constituency could continue to include all of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell; however, we proposed that this constituency should extend further south, rather than east as at present, to include the town of Leatherhead. Consequently, we proposed that the Reigate constituency include the Nork, and Tattenham Corner & Preston wards, and that the Dorking and Horley constituency comprise the majority of the District of Mole Valley (excluding Ashtead and Leatherhead) and the south of the Borough of Reigate and Banstead. Our proposed East Surrey constituency contained all of the District of Tandridge, and the Borough of Reigate and Banstead ward of Hooley, Merstham & Netherne.
As discussed above, both proposed constituencies which crossed county boundaries drew representations in opposition; however, among residents of the Surrey component of the constituency, our proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency attracted little comment beyond generalised opposition to the principle of crossing the boundary between Surrey and Hampshire. The proposed inclusion of the two Egham wards in the proposed Windsor constituency drew greater opposition, with many suggesting that the connections of these wards are much stronger with Surrey, particularly Runnymede, than with Berkshire. We received a counter proposal which suggested that the two Englefield Green wards and the Virginia Water ward would be a better fit in a Windsor constituency, and allow the Egham wards to be included in the Weybridge and Chertsey constituency. Additionally, we received several counter proposals which removed either or both of our proposed cross-county boundary constituencies, by proposing alternative configurations of sub‑regions.
Our proposal to include the Cobham & Downside ward in Weybridge and Chertsey was very unpopular, with a great many respondents arguing that this ward and the neighbouring Oxshott & Stoke D’Abernon ward form a single community, particularly noting that Cobham and Stoke D’Abernon share a train station. We received a counter proposal which suggested that both of these wards should be included in the Esher and Walton constituency, as at present, and that instead the Hersham Village ward should be included in Weybridge and Chertsey; however, this was itself strongly opposed by some representations made during the secondary consultation. Some respondents also objected to our proposed name for the Weybridge and Chertsey constituency: most of them felt that the existing Runnymede and Weybridge constituency name was sufficiently descriptive of this new constituency.
We received very few representations concerning our proposals for Spelthorne and Woking, but those we did receive were supportive of these constituencies aligning to local authority boundaries. Our proposed Surrey Heath constituency was also little commented on, although we did receive a small number of representations opposed to the inclusion of the Normandy and Pirbright wards in this constituency. Respondents generally stated that these wards share a greater community of interest with the Guildford constituency, which was otherwise supported by nearly all representations received.
Our proposed Godalming and Ash, and Dorking and Horley constituencies were both opposed, albeit in relatively small numbers. The primary theme of responses from these constituencies was the lack of community ties between the eponymous towns in both instances. We received a number of counter proposals which affected these constituencies, some of which suggested alternative pairings of large settlements in this area, such as Ash and Guildford, or Reigate and Horley. The inclusion of the Hooley, Merstham & Netherne ward in our proposed East Surrey constituency was also opposed by a small number of respondents.
The changes which we proposed to the existing Epsom and Ewell constituency were broadly well received, with respondents commenting that Leatherhead has good connections with Epsom and Ewell. Supportive representations also noted that this proposal would reduce the number of local authorities in the Epsom and Ewell constituency from three, at present, to two.
By far the largest number of responses to our initial proposals in Surrey concerned the exclusion of the South Park & Woodhatch ward from the Reigate constituency. We received more than 700 responses in opposition to the proposal to include this ward in the Dorking and Horley constituency, with many commenting that the ward forms an integral part of the town of Reigate. We received a number of counter proposals which included this ward in a Reigate constituency, ranging from small single ward transfers between constituencies, to widespread reorganisation of constituencies in Surrey, such as those discussed above.
In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we modify our initial proposals for Surrey.
Having visited the area, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded that the areas of Virginia Water and Englefield Green would have a greater community of interest with the proposed Windsor constituency than the two Egham wards, and they therefore recommended that these wards be exchanged. They also agreed that our proposal to name the constituency Weybridge and Chertsey was unnecessary, as the existing name of Runnymede and Weybridge would still accurately describe the proposed constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners also agreed with respondents that the wards of Cobham & Downside, and Oxshott & Stoke D’Abernon reflect a single community, and therefore these wards should be represented together. They also, however, considered it essential that the Hersham Village ward be retained in the Esher and Walton constituency, given the ward’s clear ties to both towns, and did not feel that sufficient evidence had been presented that the same ties exist between Esher, Walton, and the rural areas to the south. Our Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that the Cobham & Downside and Oxshott & Stoke D’Abernon wards be included in the Runnymede and Weybridge constituency, and that the Oatlands & Burwood Park ward be included in Esher and Walton.
Given both the quantity and quality of evidence received concerning the South Park & Woodhatch ward, our Assistant Commissioners felt that it was essential to make changes to our proposals, to ensure that this ward be included in the Reigate constituency. Although they considered counter proposals which more radically reconfigured constituencies in Surrey, they felt that these options would be less compliant with the statutory factors. They therefore recommended a counter proposal which included the South Park & Woodhatch ward in the Reigate constituency, the Ewhurst ward in the Dorking and Horley constituency, and the Elstead and Thursley ward in the Godalming and Ash constituency (as well as some consequential effects to constituencies in Hampshire, discussed above).
We agreed with all of the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore we confirmed the initial proposals for six constituencies in Surrey (East Surrey; Epsom and Ewell; Guildford; Spelthorne; Surrey Heath; and Woking), and proposed boundary changes to the Dorking and Horley, Esher and Walton, Godalming and Ash, Reigate, and Runnymede and Weybridge constituencies. We also proposed a name change to the last of these, and boundary changes to the Surrey component of the Windsor constituency.
Responses from the Surrey component of the proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency were broadly negative, with several respondents noting that, while there is a strong community of interest between the Waverley Borough wards in this constituency, those community ties do not extend across the county boundary. Although responses supported our proposal to include the two Egham wards in our revised proposal for Runnymede and Weybridge, and our revised Windsor constituency was generally well supported by residents of its Berkshire component (as discussed above), we did receive a small number of representations suggesting that Virginia Water and Englefield Green share no more of a community of interest with Windsor than Egham does, and so should not be included in a constituency which crosses county boundaries.
We again received almost no substantive representations concerning the proposed Woking and Spelthorne constituencies, but representations that made general comments about the South East region were supportive of both constituencies.
Our revised proposals for Runnymede and Weybridge, and Esher and Walton, which exchanged the Oatlands & Burwood Park ward for the Oxshott & Stoke D’Abernon ward, were supported by more than 150 representations. Responses from both wards agreed with our assessment that the former’s local government ties to Esher evidenced a clear local connection, and that respecting the latter’s ties with Cobham & Downside should be prioritised over ties with Esher.
The response to our revised proposal for Reigate, including the South Park & Woodhatch ward, was positive; however, the consequential change to Dorking and Horley, in which we proposed to include the Ewhurst ward, was unpopular, on the grounds that it broke ties between Ewhurst and Cranleigh. The other consequential change in the revised proposals, the transfer of the Elstead and Thursley ward to the proposed Godalming and Ash constituency, did not attract many representations. The lack of commonality between the named settlements in the Godalming and Ash, and Dorking and Horley constituencies was again commented upon, and we received new counter proposals affecting these constituencies, including one which paired Godalming with Guildford, and another which paired Farnham with Ash and Aldershot, thereby crossing the boundary between Surrey and Hampshire in a different place.
Respondents from the Normandy and Pirbright wards again opposed being included in the proposed Surrey Heath constituency. We received a counter proposal which suggested transferring the former to the Guildford constituency, with Surrey Heath instead taking the ward of Longcross, Lyne & Chertsey South.
A small number of submissions were made concerning the proposed East Surrey, and Epsom and Ewell constituencies; however, no new arguments were advanced concerning either.
Having considered the evidence, we are not persuaded to amend any of our revised proposals for Surrey. We note objections to the inclusion of the Ewhurst ward in our proposed Dorking and Horley constituency; however, including this ward in Godalming and Ash would require significant changes to constituencies which had been well supported. We considered dividing the Borough of Guildford ward of Tillingbourne between the proposed Dorking and Horley and Godalming and Ash constituencies in order to include the Ewhurst ward in Godalming and Ash; however, we were unpersuaded that this change would be less divisive for local communities than our revised proposals.
We also considered the counter proposals we received for alternative constituencies in Surrey. We do not feel that the evidence received suggested that pairing Guildford with Godalming, or Farnham with Ash, would be an improvement on our revised proposals. While we appreciate that the ties of the Normandy ward may be stronger with Guildford than with Surrey Heath, we note that including the Longcross, Lyne & Chertsey South ward in Surrey Heath would unnecessarily extend the constituency into a third local authority.
Our final recommendations in Surrey are therefore for constituencies of: Dorking and Horley; East Surrey; Epsom and Ewell; Esher and Walton; Farnham and Bordon; Godalming and Ash; Guildford; Reigate; Runnymede and Weybridge; Spelthorne; Surrey Heath; and Woking. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
