The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
North Central London
Initial proposals
Our initial proposals treated North Central and North West London as one sub-region. There are currently 32 constituencies across these parts of London, and our initial proposals were also for 32 constituencies. This section of the report focuses on the North Central area, covering the boroughs of: Barnet; Camden; Enfield; Hackney; Haringey and Islington; which includes 13 existing constituencies, and the majority of one other. Of these the following are above the permitted electorate range: Chipping Barnet; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hampstead and Kilburn (which includes part of our subsequent North West London sub-region); Hendon; Holborn and St Pancras; Hornsey and Wood Green; and Tottenham. The following are below the range: Edmonton; Enfield North; Enfield Southgate; and Islington South and Finsbury. Finchley and Golders Green, and Islington North have electorates within the permitted range.
In our initial proposals, we proposed three constituencies that would cross the A5 road: Stanmore and Edgware, that would cross between the boroughs of Barnet and Harrow; Hendon and Golders Green, that would cross between the boroughs of Barnet and Brent; and West Hampstead and Kilburn, that would cross between the boroughs of Camden and Brent. The Borough of Barnet was divided into five constituencies in our initial proposals. In addition to the two constituencies spanning the A5 which included parts of the Borough of Barnet, we proposed a Finchley and Muswell Hill constituency that would span the boroughs of Barnet and Haringey, and a Southgate and Barnet East constituency that would include two Borough of Barnet wards in an otherwise Borough of Enfield centred constituency. One proposed constituency, High Barnet and Mill Hill, was wholly contained within the Borough of Barnet.
In the Borough of Enfield, we proposed an Enfield North constituency and an Edmonton constituency that would be unchanged from the existing constituencies except for realignment with new local government ward boundaries. In the Borough of Haringey, we proposed a Tottenham constituency that would include two Borough of Hackney wards, while West Green and White Hart Lane wards were transferred to the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency. Our proposed Hackney North and Stoke Newington, and Hackney South and Shoreditch constituencies were based on the existing Hackney constituencies, although the Borough of Hackney ward of Dalston was included in the Islington North constituency under our initial proposals. We also proposed that Tufnell Park ward, from the Borough of Islington, be transferred to the Borough of Camden-based Kentish Town and Bloomsbury constituency, which would result in two orphan wards in this area. We proposed that the City of London be paired with the Borough of Islington in a City of London and Islington South constituency. Our third proposed constituency covering the Borough of Camden (in addition to Kentish Town and Bloomsbury, and West Hampstead and Kilburn) was Camden Town and St John’s Wood, that crossed the borough boundary with Westminster.
As described previously, this sub-region was largely opposed, due mainly to the breaking of community ties created by the number of borough boundaries that were crossed, and the consequent significant change to the existing pattern of constituencies. The A5 is considered by most to be a significant boundary to the communities on either side, between Barnet on the eastern side, and Brent and Harrow on the west. Others did note that the Edgware community includes a small part of the Borough of Harrow, but the majority of it lies in the Borough of Barnet. Our Hendon and Golders Green constituency was supported by community and faith groups, but opposed by those who felt that, as well as the A5 road, the Welsh Harp reservoir was a further substantial geographic barrier.
Our proposed Finchley and Muswell Hill constituency received a mixed response, with those in support mentioning community, transport and faith ties across the area, while those who opposed it cited the lack of such ties, and that we were dividing the Muswell Hill area. We received strong opposition to the inclusion of East Barnet and Brunswick Park wards in the proposed Southgate and Barnet East constituency. The East Coast Main Line railway, which we had considered a physical boundary across the area, was felt by many to be a uniting feature, particularly at New Barnet, which includes areas on both sides of the line. We received counter proposals to reduce the number of constituencies including wards from outside of the Borough of Barnet from the initially proposed four, to one, which were supported for preserving more community ties.
Our initial proposals for the Borough of Enfield attracted few comments, which perhaps reflects the limited change we proposed here. Our proposals across the Borough of Haringey were largely opposed. Many asserted that West Green ward is an integral part of the Tottenham constituency, and counter proposed that the Harringay ward should be transferred to the Hornsey and Wood Green constituency instead. A smaller number of people also said that White Hart Lane ward should remain in Tottenham, as part of it, the Tower Gardens Conservation Area, had been part of the constituency previously. A small number of counter proposals suggested splitting one or both of the West Green and White Hart Lane wards to keep those parts which identify most strongly as Tottenham within the proposed constituency. Some counter proposals also suggested linking Wood Green with Southgate, part of the Borough of Enfield, but these suggestions were also opposed, in part because Wood Green is considered the civic centre of the Borough of Haringey, and to link it with any part of the Borough of Enfield would break community ties with the rest of the borough.
Our proposed inclusion of the two Borough of Hackney wards of Brownswood and Woodberry Down in the Tottenham constituency was almost unanimously opposed on the grounds of breaking community ties, particularly between the Stamford Hill West and Woodberry Down wards. Some suggested that the Brownswood ward should be part of an Islington North constituency, and a small number suggested that the transfer of the two wards made sense due to the physical divide created by Clissold Park and the Woodberry Wetlands and reservoirs.
Our inclusion of the Borough of Hackney ward of Dalston in our proposed Islington North constituency was opposed as this ward is considered by some as the heart of Hackney, and includes key community and cultural institutions for the borough. These objections gave rise to counter proposals that De Beauvoir ward would be better transferred to an Islington-based constituency if any part of the borough should be removed.
Including Tufnell Park in a Borough of Camden-based Kentish Town and Bloomsbury constituency was strongly opposed by those who felt that the area looked to the Borough of Islington for all its services and that they have few connections with the Borough of Camden, or Kentish Town in particular, but there was also a small amount of support who did see some links.
The City of London’s transfer to our proposed City of London and Islington South constituency was supported by those residents in the City who saw education, entertainment and shopping links with the Borough of Islington, but opposed by those who wished to maintain the longstanding links with the City of Westminster.
In the Borough of Camden, our proposed Camden Town and St John’s Wood, and West Hampstead and Kilburn constituencies were strongly opposed for dividing the close-knit Hampstead community, with many preferring a counter proposal for a Hampstead and Highgate constituency, similar to one which existed from 1983 to 2010. We did receive some support for our West Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, as some felt that the Kilburn High Road unites the areas on opposite sides of the boundary between the boroughs of Brent and Camden. Most counter proposals, however, chose to use the A5 road as the dividing line between the North Central and North West London sub-regions. As previously described, our initial proposals for the Kentish Town and Bloomsbury constituency were largely opposed due to the inclusion of Tufnell Park ward as an orphan ward from the Borough of Islington. We also received opposition to the proposed name of the constituency, with several respondents citing the long historical precedent of the name St Pancras and arguing that the existing constituency name of Holborn and St Pancras should be retained. There was some support for the composition of our proposed constituency, however, in light of the challenges faced in north London.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered the finely balanced and often conflicting evidence received during public consultation. Counter proposals in the Borough of Barnet focused on differences in which parts would need to be included with other boroughs while minimising change to existing constituencies. They recommended a pattern of constituencies which retained the Brunswick Park and East Barnet wards in the Chipping Barnet constituency, kept the Finchley and Golders Green constituency unchanged apart from such changes as necessary due to new ward boundaries, transferred Edgwarebury ward into Chipping Barnet from Hendon, and included Friern Barnet in a Hornsey and Friern Barnet constituency.
When considering the boroughs of Enfield and Haringey, our Assistant Commissioners considered that counter proposals which swapped the Borough of Haringey wards of West Green and Harringay would provide for a Tottenham constituency broadly similar in configuration to the existing. They accepted that there was no ideal solution for the Borough of Enfield, given the minimal change they recommended in the Borough of Barnet. They therefore recommended Edmonton and Enfield North constituencies similar to the existing, and a Southgate and Wood Green constituency to include parts from both boroughs, thereby restricting significant change to a single constituency.
Across the boroughs of Hackney and Islington, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the evidence to retain Islington North unchanged from its existing configuration, and to add the De Beauvoir ward from the Borough of Hackney to the Islington South constituency, which allowed them to recommend keeping Dalston ward in Hackney South and Shoreditch. They were unable to identify alternative patterns of constituencies which better reflected the statutory criteria than the initial proposals for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, particularly as it would result in significant consequential changes to the pattern of constituencies.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered that counter proposals for Borough of Camden constituencies based on the Hampstead and Highgate areas, and the existing Holborn and St Pancras constituency would provide for a coherent configuration. Their recommendations united the Hampstead area and both parts of Highgate even though one of the Highgate wards would be an orphan ward from the Borough of Haringey. We agreed with all their recommendations for the North Central London sub-region.
Our revised proposals were largely supported across the majority of the Borough of Barnet, with significant opposition to the Friern Barnet ward being transferred to a Borough of Haringey-based constituency, with some suggesting that the ward should be divided at the A406 North Circular Road. There were a small number of counter proposals to either include the Edgwarebury ward in the Hendon constituency, or for the East Finchley ward to be the orphan ward added to a Borough of Haringey-based constituency. Both options would be likely to create more disruption to the Chipping Barnet, and Finchley and Golders Green constituencies than in the revised proposals.
In the Borough of Enfield, our revised proposals were heavily opposed for a number of reasons. In objecting to our reconfiguration of Enfield Southgate across three constituencies, one of which would extend from the north of the borough into the Borough of Haringey to create a Southgate and Wood Green constituency which crossed borough boundaries and the A406, respondents told us that there was little community of interest spanning such a long and thin area. The transfer of the Winchmore Hill ward to the Edmonton constituency and the transfer of the Grange Park ward to the Enfield North constituency both elicited much opposition, in part because people felt that these two wards formed a single community, although the transfer of the Grange Park ward did also receive a small amount of support. There was a general feeling expressed that the initial proposals were better across the Borough of Enfield, causing less disruption to existing constituencies than the revised proposals.
Our revised proposals for the Borough of Haringey were largely opposed, and considered more disruptive to communities than our initial proposals, as they split the borough across four constituencies, none of which would be entirely within the borough. Respondents opposed the division of the existing Hornsey and Wood Green constituency between three proposed constituencies, and our Southgate and Wood Green proposal, which paired the civic centre of the Borough of Haringey with parts of the Borough of Enfield.
In the Borough of Camden, our Hampstead and Highgate constituency was well supported, but with mixed views expressed on our linking the Highgate wards from the boroughs of Camden and Haringey. Some respondents considered that Hampstead Heath is a unifying feature, and others considered it a physical divide, and those on each side look more to their own borough rather than across the Heath. There was some opposition to our separation of the Kentish Town North ward from the Kentish Town South ward, one suggested solution being that Gospel Oak ward should be included in the Hampstead and Highgate constituency, and both wards of Kentish Town should be included in our Holborn and St Pancras proposal, but there was a counter argument that Gospel Oak should remain in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency. Apart from this, our revised Holborn and St Pancras constituency was largely supported, although there was a suggestion that it should be called Holborn and Camden Town. There was some opposition to our return to using the A5 road as the sub-region boundary, as residents felt that at its southern end, it was a local high street rather than a dividing feature.
Our Islington North revisions were unanimously supported. Our Islington South proposal received mixed views, both with regard to the name, which some felt should remain as Islington South and Finsbury, and opposition to the inclusion of De Beauvoir as an orphan ward from the Borough of Hackney.
We received few responses to our proposals for two Borough of Hackney-based constituencies other than as noted above regarding De Beauvoir ward being transferred to our proposed Islington South constituency. There was a suggestion that, as we had proposed dropping Finsbury from the name of Islington South, the two constituencies in this borough should be named Hackney North and Hackney South.
We considered a number of counter proposals for the Borough of Barnet which sought to resolve opposition across the boroughs of Enfield and Haringey, by returning to something similar to our initial proposals. Our investigations indicated that resolving these matters would require changes to a number of constituencies across this sub-region, including different configurations to those we had previously proposed. We identified a counter proposal that would modify the pattern of constituencies in the boroughs of Barnet, Enfield, and Haringey. We noted that, under this configuration, the boundary between the proposed Hendon and Golders Green constituency would be different, specifically, separating the Childs Hill and Golders Green wards, where we had received considerable evidence that these wards shared community ties. We therefore considered it necessary to visit the area. We noted little difference, and no discernible boundary between the two wards, which had the feel of a single community, and concluded that they should not be separated.
e also observed the boundary of the boroughs of Barnet and Enfield. In contrast, our visit to the East Barnet ward showed us that, although the New Barnet community and shopping area straddles the East Coast Main Line and boundary with the Barnet Vale ward, it also had a similar feel at its north-eastern corner with the Cockfosters ward in the Borough of Enfield, and the wider Cockfosters community, which appeared to us to cross that boundary. We observed that the railway is in a tunnel at the boundary between Brunswick Park and Whetstone wards, and so does not obstruct travel at all here. But, as at Cockfosters, Brunswick Park is extremely close to Southgate ward in the Borough of Enfield, and has a similar feel, particularly at its eastern corner. We felt that, as both wards looked to both Barnet and Enfield boroughs in some regards, this might give us flexibility to resolve opposition to our Enfield and Haringey proposals. Having investigated alternatives, we have not identified a different pattern of constituencies that we consider would better reflect the statutory factors. We acknowledge the considerable number of representations received concerning our proposed Southgate and Wood Green constituency, some of which commented on the geographic extent and shape of our proposed constituency. However, we noted that the existing Enfield Southgate constituency is not too dissimilar in terms of shape or extent given it extends from the north to the south of the borough. Finally, we have also been mindful of the support for the pattern of constituencies we proposed in our revised proposals in this part of the sub-region. As previously set out, this pattern would need to be completely reconfigured under any alternative.
However, we did reflect further on the evidence received suggesting that the Borough of Enfield wards of Grange Park and Winchmore Hill should be kept together in the same constituency, preferably in a Southgate-based constituency. We were not able to identify an alternative configuration that would achieve this outcome without significant disruption to the pattern of constituencies as outlined above. However, we noted a counter proposal that identified that the aforementioned wards could remain together, albeit as part of an Edmonton and Winchmore Hill constituency. This also required the transfer of the Ponders End ward from Edmonton to Enfield North to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range. Given the evidence received, we have decided to adopt this proposal as part of our final recommendations.
Although our revised proposals across the Borough of Haringey were largely opposed, we found that there was not persuasive evidence to depart from our revised proposals for the Hornsey and Friern Barnet, and Tottenham constituencies, as further change here would create more disruption across the rest of the sub-region.
The division of Kentish Town between two Borough of Camden constituencies cannot be resolved by a simple exchange including the Gospel Oak ward, but we did find that a split of the Primrose Hill ward might resolve some of the concerns across this area. We investigated this alternative and visited the area. We observed in the Kentish Town area that, while the railway between the two wards was a substantial physical feature, it did not divide the area, with the main shopping area crossing the railway. We visited the Primrose Hill ward to observe the proposed ward split and considered that the two sides of the ward are divided by the hill itself, with the Primrose Hill community being on the east side, and the west side being part of the wider Swiss Cottage area. Combined with transferring Gospel Oak ward into Hampstead and Highgate, both Kentish Town wards can be included in the Holborn and St Pancras constituency. We did not feel that a name change was appropriate, as Camden Town is not a new area for the constituency, which is broadly similar to the existing configuration. As views were divided regarding the Highgate wards, we felt that there was not persuasive evidence to make any further change to our Hampstead and Highgate proposal.
No additional evidence has been received to warrant changing our proposals for the Islington North constituency. We are persuaded that retaining the name Islington South and Finsbury is appropriate, as it is similar to the existing constituency. Although this constituency includes the orphan De Beauvoir ward from the Borough of Hackney, we do not consider an alternative pattern would better reflect the statutory factors. Therefore, we have decided not to modify our revised proposals in the Borough of Hackney and confirm them as final.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Chipping Barnet; Edmonton and Winchmore Hill; Enfield North; Finchley and Golders Green; Hackney North and Stoke Newington; Hackney South and Shoreditch; Hampstead and Highgate; Hendon; Holborn and St Pancras; Hornsey and Friern Barnet; Islington North; Islington South and Finsbury; Southgate and Wood Green; and Tottenham. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
