Dacorum draft recommendations

Hemel Hempstead

96 Significant growth is expected in Hemel Hempstead, particularly in the existing wards of Apsley Corner Hall and Hemel Hempstead Town. To accommodate this, the borough-wide schemes proposed creating two two-councillor wards in place of the existing three-councillor Apsley Corner Hall ward and adjusted the boundaries of Hemel Hempstead Town ward as necessary.

97 The Conservatives proposed an additional councillor in each of the existing Apsley Corner Hall and Hemel Hempstead Town ward areas, implying a council size of 53, two more than our minded-to decision, without the supporting detailed governance and community evidence, and boundaries. Secondly, under this proposal, some of the proposed wards like Boxmoor, Bennetts End, Leverstock Green and Woodhall Farm had poor electoral equality. Therefore, we did not adopt this proposal, although we considered the individual boundaries where they specified them.

98 We note the consensus around splitting Apsley Corner Hall into two on growth and community grounds and we have been persuaded to do so.

Adeyfield East, Adeyfield West, Hemel Hempstead Town and Highfield

99 In addition to the borough-wide proposals, we received comments from the Conservatives and two residents for this area. The borough-wide proposals shared many boundaries in common.

100 The existing Hemel Hempstead Town ward is forecast to have 35% more electors than the average for Dacorum Borough Council, by 2030, and all the proposals from Labour and the Liberal Democrats sought to address this by moving part of it into Adeyfield West and Highfield wards. They both proposed moving the Townsend and Wheatfield area into Highfield ward to improve the forecast electoral equality in both wards.

101 The main differences between the proposals pertained to whether St Paul’s Road and an area around Paradise/Wood Lane were included in Adeyfield West or in Hemel Hempstead Town ward.

102 The other difference was about in which of the Adeyfield wards to place Vauxhall Road. Labour’s 51-councillor proposal and the Liberal Democrats retained Vauxhall Road in Adeyfield West. Labour’s 52-councillor scheme moved it to Adeyfield East using the entirety of Longlands as an identifiable boundary. However, this latter proposal produced an Adeyfield East ward with 12% more electors than the average for Dacorum. Considering this poor electoral equality, and the fact that Labour also used the well-established existing boundary in its other proposal, we have not been persuaded to move Vauxhall Road into Adeyfield East ward.

103 The Liberal Democrats retained the St Paul’s Road area in Hemel Hempstead Town but consequently moved Paradise (road) and Wood Lane into Adeyfield West ward to achieve good electoral equality.

104 On careful consideration of the options, we considered that the St Paul’s Road area is a well-established community which would most likely look to the west for its community interests and amenities, and not eastwards as proposed by Labour. Therefore, we were persuaded to retain this area in Hemel Hempstead Town ward.

105 We also noted that the scale of developments in the Paradise area meant that the new developments were going to have to be split across Adeyfield West and Hemel Hempstead Town wards. All the proposals from Labour and the Liberal Democrats do this.

106 Having taken the decision to retain the St Paul’s Road area in Hemel Hempstead Town ward, we have adopted the Liberal Democrats’ proposal to move Paradise (road) and Wood Lane area into Adeyfield West ward. We note that this is a discrete area with good boundaries.

107 Labour also proposed splitting the industrial estate to the north and east of Adeyfield East and moving the area north of Swallowdale Lane into a ward to the north of the area. They did not give any supporting reasons for this, and we were not persuaded to adopt this proposal, as we considered that the industrial estate should be kept united in a single ward.

108 In summary, our draft recommendations for Adeyfield East, Adeyfield West and Hemel Hempstead Town wards are based on the Liberal Democrats’ proposals with a modification to Hemel Hempstead Town ward. Our draft recommendations for Highfield ward are based on proposals from both Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with one modification.

109 To provide for good electoral equality in Hemel Hempstead Town ward under a 52-councillor scheme, following decisions we made in Tring, we have moved the new development to the north of Hemel Hempstead Town ward, into Highfield ward. Without this, Hemel Hempstead Town ward would be forecast to have 11% more electors than the average for the local authority area.

110 Adeyfield East and Adeyfield West are two-councillor wards and are both forecast to have 6% more electors than the average for Dacorum Borough Council by 2030. Hemel Hempstead Town and Highfield wards are also two-councillor wards, each forecast to have 8% more electors per councillor than the average for the borough by 2030.  

Apsley and Corner Hall

111 In addition to the borough-wide comments and those from the Conservatives, we received submissions from three residents.

112 A resident was of the view that the Roughdown area and Stratford Way should fall under the Boxmoor ward and be excluded from the existing Apsley & Corner Hall ward. In their view, this area is more connected geographically and physically to Boxmoor than Apsley and Corner Hall. One resident specified that Catlin Street and Roughdown Road were more ‘adjacent’ to Boxmoor than Apsley and another one stated that Stratford Way was geographically and socially more connected to Boxmoor than Apsley & Corner Hall ward.

113 We note that the Conservatives and the borough-wide proposals all excluded the above-mentioned streets from their proposals for this area. In light of this and the residents’ comments, we were persuaded to exclude these roads from any wards in this area.

114 As mentioned previously, the political groups all proposed the creation of two two-councillor wards to replace the existing Apsley & Corner Hall ward due to growth, and to reflect the two different communities in this area.

115 The Conservatives’ and the Liberal Democrats’ wards shared many similarities. They were of the view that all or most of the area south of Sempill Road and west of Lime Walk Primary School identified as part of Corner Hall and not Bennetts End. The difference between their Corner Hall ward was that the Conservatives included all of Belmont Road and the southern end of Lime Walk in this ward, while the Liberal Democrats excluded all of Lime Walk and the eastern end of Belmont Road from its proposals for Corner Hall ward. Their proposals for Apsley ward also differed in that in addition to Catlin Street and Roughdown Road, the Liberal Democrats also excluded Roughdown Avenue and Roughdown Common from their proposals for this area.

116 Labour’s proposals for Apsley ward produced a ward forecast to have 28% fewer electors than the average for the borough because they excluded a larger part of the existing ward from their proposed ward. They placed Ebberns Road in Corner Hall ward, and the large development on the former gasworks site in a ward to the west. We were not persuaded to create a ward with such poor variance, and we did not adopt this proposal as part of our draft recommendations. We also decided not to include Ebberns Road in Corner Hall ward because doing so would cut off residents of Evans Wharf, Imperial Way, Minoan Drive and Stephenson Wharf from vehicular access to the rest of their ward. We also consider that Belswains Lane and Lawn Lane are strong and identifiable boundaries, as proposed by the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats.

117 We were also not persuaded to include the residents at the southern end of Lime Walk in Corner Hall ward, as their access is to the east and not west.

118 Therefore, after careful consideration, we are adopting the Liberal Democrats’ proposal as part of our draft recommendations. We note that there are many shared boundaries with those proposed by the Conservatives.

119 Apsley and Corner Hall wards both have two councillors each. They are forecast to have 5% more and 8% fewer electors per councillor, respectively, than the average for Dacorum by 2030.

120 The Liberal Democrats gave an option to include residents of Windsor Court to the north of Lawn Lane in Corner Hall ward. We have not done so as part of our draft recommendations, but welcome comments, with community evidence, on this. We also welcome comments on whether the rest of Belmont Road, east of Risedale Road, ought to be included in Corner Hall ward.

Bennetts End and Leverstock Green

121 We received three submissions from residents in addition to the proposals from the Conservatives and the borough-wide ones about these wards.

122 Except for one resident who felt that revised boundaries could not be considered until ongoing expansion plans impacting on Leverstock Green were more ‘definite’, all the submissions expressed the view that Bennetts End ward should be expanded eastwards, on community identity grounds. This was because in their view part of the area recognised as Bennetts End was currently included in other wards, mainly Leverstock Green.

123 The Liberal Democrats stated that their proposals better reflect the division between Bennetts End and Leverstock Green. They proposed extending Bennetts End to the eastern edge of Longdean School, east of Kiln Ground, along Rant Meadow and east of Belsize Close north to St Albans Road. The Conservatives proposed a boundary further east along St Michaels Avenue and Tile Kiln Lane. As mentioned in the section on Apsley and Corner Hall wards, both groups proposed moving most or all of the area south of Sempill Road and west of Lime Walk Primary School into neighbouring Corner Hall ward.

124 On the other hand, Labour proposed retaining most of that area in Bennetts End ward and did not extend the boundaries significantly eastwards. Like the other proposals, it included Horselers and the whole of Great Elms Road in this ward. Its 52-councillor proposal retained the eastern boundary along Bennetts End Road, whereas its 51-councillor united most of it in Bennetts End ward.

125 On our tour of the area we noted that the community appeared to flow across both sides of Bennetts End Road. We also noted that residents of Acorn Road, Belsize Road and Sylvan Close, off the northern end of Bennetts End Road, do not have vehicular access to the rest of the existing Leverstock Green ward to the east. Therefore, we considered that they will possibly look west across Bennetts End Road for a significant part of their community interests. This was in line with a resident’s comment and most of the proposals we received.

126 While we were not persuaded that the community extended as far east as St Michael’s Avenue, we considered that the community most likely included the western end of Peascroft Road and the roads off it. We considered that the Liberal Democrats’ eastern boundary best reflected what we saw while on tour.

127 However, as explained in paragraphs 28 and 29 we have had to revise the figures for two polling districts in this area. While we recognise that the Liberal Democrats’ proposal is likely to reflect community identity, we have had to recalculate the variances based on the correct figures. This means that their variances are not what was initially thought, regardless of whether the council size was 51, 52 or 53.

128 Under their proposals, Bennetts End and Leverstock Green wards are forecast to have 17% more and 23% fewer electors per councillor than the district average under a 51-councillor scheme, or 20% more and 22% fewer electors per councillor, with 52 councillors. We considered changing Bennetts End to a three-councillor ward and Leverstock Green to a two-councillor ward. However, this still produced wards with very poor electoral equality: 22% fewer and 15% more electors per councillor, or 20% fewer and 17% more electors per councillor than the average for the borough. The variances were similarly poor under a 53-councillor scheme. We did not consider that adopting any of these offered the best balance of our statutory criteria.

129 Accordingly, we looked to see how much of the area east of Bennetts End Road, Leys Road and Great Elms Road we could move into Bennetts End ward. We found it challenging to identify where to draw the boundary between Bennetts End and Leverstock Green. We considered using Peascroft Road as a boundary, but our tour convinced us that both sides of that road shared a community and ought to be in the same ward.

130 We also noted that there was a consensus about Horselers being part of Bennetts End ward, and some agreement about Bond Close and Pinecroft, as most of the proposals placed them in Bennetts End ward, too.

131 Accordingly, as part of our draft recommendations, we have created a Bennetts End ward based on the different proposals we received. We include both sides of Bennetts End Road and the Belsize Road area in this ward. We also include Horselers and unite both sides of Bennetts End Road in this ward.

132 The boundary between Leverstock Green and Bennetts End wards runs north to south from the east of Belsize Road and Sylvan Close, between St Albert the Great Catholic Primary School and the community sports facility, along the back of the properties on the eastern side of Bennetts End Road to Barnacres Road and Hill Common. Its southern boundary mostly runs along the boundary of Nash Mills parish. However, while we have included Bond Close in Bennetts End ward, we have excluded Pinecroft, which we include in Nash Mills ward to the south. This is because including Pinecroft residents in Bennetts End cuts them off from the rest of their ward. We note that this is in line with comments from a resident of Nash Mills. We welcome comments on this.

133 With regards to Leverstock Green ward, we have based the southern boundary on one of Labour’s proposals and have not run it along Nash Mills parish boundary. This is because the parish boundary is neither strong nor clear in several places including in Woodfield Drive where it passes through some properties. Furthermore, a few properties would have no direct access to the rest of their ward without crossing into another ward.

134 We welcome comments and proposals, with evidence of community ties, on an alternative boundary between Bennetts End and Leverstock Green that also fits in with the wider warding pattern in the borough.

135 Bennetts End and Leverstock Green are two- and three-councillor wards, respectively, forecast to have 5% and 7% fewer electors per councillor than the average for the borough by 2030.

Boxmoor, Chaulden & Warners End and Gadebridge & Spring Fields

136 We received submissions from Councillor Anderson and four residents in addition to the borough-wide and Conservatives’ proposals.

137 Labour proposed retaining most of the boundaries of the existing wards in this area. In Boxmoor ward it proposed the inclusion of Roughdown area, and Whiteleaf Road, east of Stratford Way. Although the proposals excluded the KD Plaza area, it resulted in a ward forecast to have 18% more electors than the average for the borough under a 52-councillor scheme, and 16% with 51 councillors. We considered these variances too high and did not adopt these boundaries.

138 To address the forecast overrepresentation in Gadebridge ward, Labour proposed a minor amendment to the boundary between it and the existing Chaulden & Warners End ward by including the area between Berkhamsted Road, Boxted Road and Warmark Road in Gadebridge ward.

139 The Liberal Democrats’ proposals unite both sides of Northridge Way in Chaulden & Warners End ward and place the Roughdown area up to Stratford Way in Boxmoor ward. They also propose a modification to the boundary between Chaulden & Warners End and Gadebridge wards in the same area as Labour. However, they propose moving a wider area: the eastern side of Boxted Road, south of Berkhamsted Road and north of Galley Hill.

140 The Conservatives and Councillor Anderson submitted identical suggestions about changing the boundary between Boxmoor and Aspley ward to its south. They suggested that one option would be to include London Road residents and the new developments north of Hemel Hempstead station in Boxmoor ward.

141 As mentioned in the section on Aspley and Corner Hall, several residents expressed the view that residents of certain roads in the Roughdown area identified as living in Boxmoor. Noting that this agreed with the borough-wide schemes, we have been persuaded to include Catlin Road, Roughdown Road and Stratford Way in Boxmoor ward, on community identity and geographical grounds. We have also included a development north of Hemel Hempstead Station in Boxmoor. We have not extended Boxmoor as far as Two Waters Way to include Whiteleaf Road, on electoral equality grounds.

142 We also carefully considered the options for the boundary between Chaulden & Warners End and Gadebridge wards. We considered that the boundary along a section of Galley Hill was more identifiable than the one on Warmark Road proposed by Labour, which we considered might split close neighbours across wards.

143 Accordingly, we have based our draft recommendations on the Liberal Democrats’ proposals. They suggest renaming Gadebridge ward, Gadebridge & Spring Fields to reflect the communities within the new ward.

144 We make one modification to their proposals by including residents on the western side of Old Fishery Lane, south of River Bulbourne in Boxmoor ward. This is in line with comments we received from a resident who stated that their community was with the rest of Old Fishery Lane in Boxmoor, and not in Chaulden & Warners End ward to the north, across Chaulden Meadows.

145 Boxmoor and Chaulden & Warners End wards are three-councillor wards forecast to have 7% and 6% more electors per councillor, respectively, than the average for the borough, by 2030. Gadebridge & Spring Fields is a two-councillor ward forecast to have 2% more electors than the average for Dacorum, by 2030.

146 As mentioned in the section on Bovingdon, Flaunden & Chipperfield, another resident wanted Felden Lane included in Boxmoor ward. For reasons given in the section on Kings Langley & Felden, we have not adopted this proposal.

Grovehill and Woodhall Farm

147 In addition to the borough-wide submissions, we received comments from Councillor Wyatt-Lowe and two residents.

148 Labour proposed extending the existing Grovehill ward to take in some of Woodhall Farm and Adeyfield East wards, including part of the industrial area south of Redbourn Road, on electoral equality grounds. Under its 51-councillor proposal, its Grovehill & Cupid Green ward also included residents of the Admiral Avenue/Burgundy Drive area and the Three Cherry Trees Caravan Site. The resultant Woodhall Farm ward was forecast to have 14% fewer electors per councillor than the average for Dacorum, by 2030. As part of its 52-councillor scheme, its proposed Grovehill & Cupid Green ward included the caravan site but not the Admiral Avenue/Burgundy Drive area. Labour retained the existing boundary east of Woodhall Wood and The Astley Cooper School.

149 The Liberal Democrats proposed extending the existing Woodhall Farm ward westwards into Grovehill thereby creating a Woodhall & Grovehill East ward also for electoral equality reasons. The proposed ward includes an area of Grovehill, north of Washington Avenue, east of St Agnells Lane. They stated that including this area with Woodhall was not ideal, but they felt that it was the best solution and the proposed ward name reflects the different communities within it. They also state that there are footpaths linking the north of this part of Grovehill to Woodhall.

150 Councillor Wyatt-Lowe advocated the retention of the existing boundaries for Woodhall Farm ward because of its location. She was of the view that the existing ward had self-defining boundaries which would be difficult to change. She stated that residents in ‘Woodhall Farm, Hunters Oak and Swallowfields’ had a real sense of community which was reflected in current ward boundaries.

151 Both residents questioned why Piccotts End was part of Grovehill ward. One was of the view that it ought to be part of Gadebridge ward or the ‘Old Town & Highfield areas of Hemel Hempstead’ as it was closer to either of those areas and that its needs were reflective of the Old Town. The other resident advocated for it to be included in (Hemel Hempstead) Town ward.

152 We carefully considered the different boundaries proposed to us. As mentioned in the section on Adeyfield, Highfield and Hemel Hempstead, we were not persuaded to split the industrial estate on both sides of Swallowdale Lane across wards. On further consideration of Labour’s proposals, we noted that residents of Admiral Avenue/Burgundy Drive area would be separated from most of their ward and we did not adopt these proposals.

153 With regards to the Liberal Democrats’ proposals, on our tour of the area we noted that the proposed boundary along Washington Avenue and St Agnells Lane appeared to split the Grovehill community across wards. We agree that this is not ideal and have not been persuaded to adopt these boundaries.

154 After careful consideration, we note that Woodhall Farm is a self-contained area limited by the borough boundaries as stated by Councillor Wyatt-Lowe. Accordingly, we have been persuaded to retain the boundaries of the existing wards in this area even though doing so produces a Woodhall Farm ward with a higher variance than we would typically recommend. However, we consider this the best balance of our statutory criteria, as it would avoid splitting communities in either of the two wards in this area.

155 We also considered the residents’ comments about Piccotts End. We note that the inclusion of Piccotts End in Grovehill ward uses Leighton Buzzard Road (B440) and Link Road (A4147) as strong and identifiable boundaries. Furthermore, while moving the area out of Grovehill ward produced a ward with good electoral equality in Gadebridge & Spring Fields ward, Grovehill would have 11% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average. At the same time, including it in either Hemel Hempstead Town or Highfield wards produced wards with 13% more electors per councillor than the average for the district in those wards. On careful consideration, we have concluded that using strong boundaries and having wards with good electoral equality are a better balance of our statutory criteria in this instance.

156 Grovehill is a three-councillor ward forecast to have 9% fewer councillors than the average for Dacorum by 2030. Woodhall Farm ward is a two-councillor ward forecast to have 13% more electors per councillor than the average for the borough by 2030.

Nash Mills

157 In addition to the borough-wide proposals, we received submissions from Councillor Maddern and several residents about this area.

158 Labour’s 52-councillor scheme placed Nash Mills and Kings Langley parish in a single ward and one resident was of the view that Nash Mills could be split up and merged with ‘Bennetts End, Apsley and possibly Kings Langley’. All the other respondents advocated for Nash Mills and Kings Langley parishes to be in separate wards, on community identity grounds.

159 Under its 51-councillor scheme, Labour proposed a Nash Mills ward based on the existing ward with modifications around Barnacres Road, Chambersbury Lane, Horselers and Pinecroft. It excludes Horselers, a section of Barnacres Road and Pinecroft from its proposals for this area.

160 Councillor Maddern and other respondents were of the view that Nash Mills parish was part of Hemel Hempstead, and different from Kings Langley. Councillor Maddern felt that including it in a ward with Kings Langley would be moving it out of town and that it would lose its identity. One resident was of a similar view that Nash Mills parish had its own identity.

161 Several respondents, including the Liberal Democrats, wanted a ward that was coterminous with the parish boundaries. One resident said this would bring ‘clarity to the residents’. The resident also advocated for Pinecroft to be included in Nash Mills ward and also Nash Mills parish because it can only be accessed from there.

162 As mentioned in the section on Kings Langley & Felden, we were not persuaded to create a ward made up of Nash Mills and Kings Langley parishes.

163 We considered creating a ward coterminous with Nash Mills parish boundaries. However, we noted that the parish boundary is neither strong nor clear in some areas including in Woodfield Drive, Market Oak Lane and Silverthorn Drive where it cuts through some properties.

164 Instead, we have based our draft recommendations on the boundaries proposed in Labour’s 51-councillor scheme which does not use the parish boundary where it is unclear. We make one modification and include Pinecroft in this ward to reflect its access.

165 We are unable to change parish boundaries e.g., to include Pinecroft in Nash Mills parish. This can only be done by Dacorum Borough Council through a Community Governance Review.

166 Nash Mills ward is a single-councillor ward, forecast to have 9% more electors than the average for Dacorum Borough Council by 2030.