Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire
Bedfordshire
Initial proposals
- Of the six existing constituencies in Bedfordshire, only Bedford was within the permitted electorate range. Two constituencies (Luton North and Luton South) fell below the range and three (Mid Bedfordshire, North East Bedfordshire and South West Bedfordshire) were above. In formulating our initial proposals we proposed changes to all the existing constituencies in Bedfordshire. We proposed relatively minor modifications to the Bedford constituency in order to realign the constituency boundary with new local government ward boundaries. We included the Stopsley ward in our proposed Luton North constituency and the Eaton Bray ward in a Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency, from the existing South West Bedfordshire constituency. In formulating our initial proposals, we noted that the Stopsley ward had no direct road links to the Luton North constituency, as these were just outside of the constituency boundary. We proposed some further changes to the existing South West Bedfordshire constituency to realign the boundaries with new local government wards, and also renamed the constituency Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard to reflect the main population centres in the constituency.
- In the north of the county, we proposed a reconfiguration to the existing North East Bedfordshire constituency, so it again realigned with new local government wards, transferred the Stotfold and Langford ward to the new proposed cross-county Hitchin constituency and included the Kempston Rural ward. We also proposed this constituency be renamed North Bedfordshire, as we considered this name was more appropriate for the constituency. To bring the Mid Bedfordshire constituency within the permitted electorate range, we proposed the wards of Arlesey and Shefford also be included in our cross-county Hitchin constituency (detailed further in the Hertfordshire section of this report). The only other change we proposed to the Mid Bedfordshire constituency was to realign the constituency boundary with new local government wards.
Consultation on the initial proposals
- In response to the consultation on our initial proposals we received some support for our pattern of constituencies in Bedfordshire, particularly our proposed Mid Bedfordshire constituency, which was largely uncontentious. The majority of representations in the county were in regard to our proposed Luton North, Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituencies. Respondents opposed the Stopsley ward being included in the Luton North constituency, due to the lack of direct road access to the rest of the constituency and the geography of Bradgers Hill dividing the areas. We also received opposition to the inclusion of the Eaton Bray ward in the Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency, with respondents considering the area had shared community ties with Dunstable.We received various counter proposals which sought to reconfigure our proposed constituencies of Luton North, Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. One of the counter proposals was for the return of the Stopsley ward to Luton South, with Eaton Bray, along with the Caddington ward being included in a revised South West Bedfordshire constituency, and wards that formed the town of Houghton Regis (Houghton Hall, Tithe Farm, and Parkside) to be included in the Luton North constituency. We received variations on this counter proposal, for example, that only the two wards of Tithe Farm and Parkside be included in the Luton North constituency. We also received some representations commenting on the name of our proposed Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency. These largely proposed that the constituency should only be named Luton South.
- In the north of the county, we received a counter proposal that suggested the Kempston Rural ward be included in the Bedford constituency, which would retain all the named Kempston wards in the same constituency. However, we received a number of representations in opposition to this counter proposal, citing that the Kempston Rural ward was different in character to Bedford and was more similar to the wards of the more rural North Bedfordshire constituency. We also received some representations suggesting that the Bedford constituency be renamed Bedford and Kempston.
Revised proposals
- In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners investigated the various counter proposals. Most of the counter proposals received sought to retain the Stopsley ward in the Luton South constituency and the Eaton Bray ward in the South West Bedfordshire constituency, which our Assistant Commissioners considered had merit. However, these changes required consequential amendments to constituencies, particularly to our proposed Luton North, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituencies. They were not persuaded by the counter proposal to transfer the Tithe Farm and Parkside wards to the Luton North constituency, as they considered this would divide the town of Houghton Regis. They were also not persuaded by the counter proposal to transfer the Houghton Hall, Tithe Farm and Parkside wards to the Luton North constituency, as they considered doing so would not reflect the shared community ties between Houghton Regis and Dunstable.
- As part of their investigations, our Assistant Commissioners also identified that it was possible to include the Stopsley ward in the Luton South constituency and Eaton Bray in South West Bedfordshire by splitting the Dunstable-Icknield ward, with the eastern part being included in the Luton North constituency and the western part in the Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituency. While they considered this would reflect the community evidence received in terms of Stopsley and Eaton Bray, they were of the view that this alternative configuration would divide the town of Dunstable between constituencies.
- Having investigated the alternatives and visited the area to observe the different configurations of constituencies, our Assistant Commissioners recommended to us that there be no changes to the Luton North, Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituencies. They considered that the alternative configurations would disrupt local ties and result in constituencies with far greater change to the existing pattern of constituencies. Our Assistant Commissioners were also not persuaded to rename the Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency as Luton South, as they considered that the initially proposed name reflected that the constituency was formed of wards from two different local authorities. Having considered the evidence and analysis of our Assistant Commissioners, we agreed with them that no changes to the initially proposed constituencies of Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, Luton North, and Luton South and South Bedfordshire would best reflect the statutory factors.
- Our Assistant Commissioners also investigated the counter proposal that sought to include the Kempston Rural ward in the Bedford constituency. They were persuaded by the evidence received suggesting this ward did not have shared community ties with Bedford, particularly as areas such as Turvey would be quite geographically distant from the constituency. They were also not persuaded to rename the Bedford constituency Bedford and Kempston, as they considered the existing constituency name was appropriate. They therefore recommended no changes to the initially proposed constituencies of Bedford and North Bedfordshire. We agreed with them.
- Our revised proposals for Bedfordshire were therefore identical to the pattern of constituencies we proposed for our initial proposals.
Consultation on the revised proposals
- We received relatively few representations that commented on the proposed pattern of constituencies in the sub-region. Our proposed constituencies of Luton North, Mid Bedfordshire, and North Bedfordshire received little comment, although those respondents commenting on the constituencies were generally in opposition.
- Our proposed Bedford constituency was largely supported, with many respondents stating that to not include the Kempston Rural ward in the constituency was positive.
- Our proposed Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency was mainly opposed, with respondents again concerned that the configuration of this constituency broke community ties. We received few comments on the proposed names of constituencies, although we received requests to rename our proposed Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituency as Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable. An alternative was also received that proposed renaming the constituency Southern Central Bedfordshire.
Final recommendations
- Having considered the evidence received, we are not persuaded to amend the boundaries or names of any of our proposed constituencies in Bedfordshire. We do not consider that any further evidence or argument has been provided that might justify changing the constitution of our revised constituencies. Our final recommendations in this sub-region covering Bedfordshire are therefore for constituencies of: Bedford; Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard; Luton North; Luton South and South Bedfordshire; Mid Bedfordshire; and North Bedfordshire. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Hertfordshire
Initial proposals
- Of the existing 11 constituencies in Hertfordshire, eight are within the permitted electorate range and three (Hertford and Stortford, South West Hertfordshire, and Watford) above it.
- We proposed a cross-county boundary Hitchin constituency that combined the town of Hitchin with three Central Bedfordshire unitary authority wards (Stotfold and Langford, Arlesey, and Shefford). We considered these areas to have established road links and local ties with Hitchin. The existing constituencies of North East Hertfordshire, Stevenage, and Welwyn Hatfield were unchanged in our proposals, except to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. Relatively minor change was proposed to the existing Hertford and Stortford constituency, with the three wards of Stanstead Abbots, Great Amwell, and Hertford Heath transferring to the Broxbourne constituency. The only other change to the Broxbourne constituency was that it would no longer include the Borough of Welwyn Hatfield ward of Northaw & Cuffley, which we proposed be included in the Hertsmere constituency.
- We considered that a substantial reconfiguration of the existing South West Hertfordshire constituency was necessary to limit further change elsewhere in the county. We therefore proposed a constituency named Harpenden and Berkhamsted, which had an east–west configuration from Tring, through Berkhamsted, to Harpenden, as opposed to the north–south axis of the existing constituency. It would also include the two Borough of Dacorum wards of Watling and Ashridge.
- The transfer of the Watling and Ashridge wards meant that, to bring the Hemel Hempstead constituency within the permitted electorate range, we proposed the inclusion of the Bovingdon, Flaunden and Chipperfield ward from the existing South West Hertfordshire constituency. We also proposed that Hemel Hempstead should no longer include the Kings Langley ward, which we included in our proposed Three Rivers constituency. While this meant the Kings Langley ward would be the only Borough of Dacorum ward in a constituency otherwise wholly coterminous with Three Rivers district, it was necessary in order to bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range, and united the village of Kings Langley – including the train station – in the same constituency.
- We proposed a reconfigured Watford constituency that included no District of Three Rivers wards, but instead included the whole of the Borough of Watford, plus the Borough of Hertsmere ward of Bushey North. While this also created an orphan ward,1 it was necessary to bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range. The only other change to the existing Hertsmere constituency was the inclusion of the Borough of Welwyn Hatfield ward of Northaw & Cuffley, from the existing Broxbourne constituency.
- The existing St Albans constituency was unchanged except to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries.
1 We use this term to refer to a single ward of one local authority in a constituency where all other wards are from one or more other local authorities.
Back to topConsultation on the initial proposals
- Our proposed constituencies received a broadly even mix of supporting and opposing representations. We received relatively few counter proposals for alternative patterns of constituencies.
- A significant number of representations objected to the inclusion of the Sandridge ward in the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency, from the existing Hitchin and Harpenden constituency. Many respondents considered that the ward, and in particular the Jersey Farm neighbourhood within it, should be included in the St Albans constituency, due to its close geographical proximity, shared local services, and community ties. Other representations regarding the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency were evenly divided between those supporting and opposing. Those in opposition stated that the two towns have little in common regarding local ties and transport links, and that the constituency is split into two parts by the M1 motorway. Conversely, those in support stated that there are links between the towns, and that the new configuration would be no worse than the existing Hitchin and Harpenden constituency.
- Some representations objected to the inclusion of the Northaw & Cuffley ward, in particular the village of Newgate Street, in our proposed Hertsmere constituency. The area of Newgate Street is in the existing Welwyn Hatfield constituency, but was not included in the constituency in the initial proposals, due to the realignment to new local government ward boundaries. It was argued that it should be retained in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency. However, as it was not possible to include the whole of the ward in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency without removing another ward currently in the constituency, a counter proposal was received that proposed splitting the Northaw & Cuffley ward along the existing constituency boundary, to retain Newgate Street village in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency.
- A number of representations received for the proposed Three Rivers constituency supported our proposed boundaries, but respondents also said that the proposed Three Rivers name was inappropriately unspecific. It was claimed that, even in the local area, let alone across the country, people do not know what area Three Rivers refers to, or indeed which three rivers it references. A number of representations therefore proposed that the existing South West Hertfordshire name remained appropriate and should be retained. It was also noted that the constituency would not be wholly coterminous with the Borough of Three Rivers, as it would include the Borough of Dacorum ward of Kings Langley, and as such the existing name would be a more accurate name than Three Rivers, and would likely resonate more with both locals and those further afield.
- While we received support for our proposed Hitchin constituency, two counter proposals suggested that the cross-county boundary constituency should instead include the wards that comprise the town of Biggleswade, with wards from the North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire local authorities. Furthermore, a number of representations said that, as the proposed Hitchin constituency would cross the county boundary, both counties included should be reflected in the constituency name, with most proposing that either Stotfold, Shefford, or both be included in the name with Hitchin.
- A number of representations were received regarding the proposed Hertford and Stortford, and Broxbourne constituencies. The majority of these were in opposition to the initial proposals, which included the three wards of Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, and Stanstead Abbots in the Broxbourne constituency, rather than with the town of Hertford ,as in the existing Hertford and Stortford constituency. It was suggested by respondents that the close proximity of Hertford Heath to the town, as well as shared amenities such as education services, demonstrated the need for the two areas to be included in the same constituency.
- The initial proposals for the remainder of the constituencies in Hertfordshire – North East Hertfordshire, Stevenage, Watford, and Hemel Hempstead – did not elicit a large number of representations, and were largely uncontentious and supported.
Revised proposals
- While there had been some contentious areas in the county, most of them could not be readily addressed, either due to the electorate figures not allowing for it, or because they would necessitate far-reaching consequential changes to constituencies across other areas of the county, where the initial proposals were supported.
- While our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the evidence of the links of the Sandridge ward with St Albans, including either the whole of the ward in the St Albans constituency, or only the polling district containing Jersey Farm, would result in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency being below the permitted electorate range. This would then require significant consequential changes elsewhere in the county. Our Assistant Commissioners did not propose any changes to the proposed St Albans constituency, and we agreed with them for these reasons.
- While our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that some aspects of the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency are not ideal, they also noted that there was some support. The electorate figures are so tight in this area that any attempt to reconfigure the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency would have consequential knock-on effects across the county. They therefore recommended no change to the constituency, and we agreed.
- With regard to the Northaw & Cuffley ward, we did not consider that the rationale for splitting this ward was persuasive; in particular we considered that dividing the ward would not provide other benefits to the pattern of constituencies in the county. We therefore proposed no revisions to the proposed Welwyn Hatfield and Hertsmere constituencies.
- We noted the evidence about the name of our proposed Three Rivers constituency. We agreed with our Assistant Commissioners that the evidence and arguments put forward were suitably compelling, and as such we proposed that the name of the constituency should revert to South West Hertfordshire as part of our revised proposals.
- With regard to our proposed Hitchin constituency, we noted the counter proposals that the cross-county boundary constituency should instead include the wards that comprise the town of Biggleswade, with wards from the North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire local authorities. However, we considered that these counter proposals required significant consequential changes to proposed constituencies that had been generally well supported in consultation. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that retaining the proposed name of Hitchin was preferable, as they considered both Stotfold and Shefford too small to be referenced and, while the three Bedfordshire wards included in the constituency are in a different county to Hitchin, many of the electors in these wards would likely see the Hertfordshire towns of Hitchin and Letchworth as their biggest local towns. They therefore considered that the name Hitchin alone is suitably representative. We agreed and proposed no change.
- Although we acknowledged the opposition to the proposed transfer of the three wards of Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, and Stanstead Abbots to the proposed Broxbourne constituency, due to the tight electorate figures in this area, we noted that any attempt to retain these wards in the Hertford and Stortford constituency would require a radical reconfiguration across a number of constituencies. For example, a counter proposal retained these three wards in a constituency with the town of Hertford, but only by splitting the towns of Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford into two different constituencies, with changes required to constituencies across much of Hertfordshire. We considered that such a reconfiguration in this area was not warranted, and we proposed no change to the Hertford and Stortford, or Broxbourne constituencies.
- As the initial proposals for the remainder of the constituencies in Hertfordshire – North East Hertfordshire, Stevenage, Watford, and Hemel Hempstead – did not elicit a large number of representations, and were largely uncontentious, we proposed no further alterations to these constituencies.
Consultation on the revised proposals
- Relatively few representations were received for the constituencies of: Hitchin; North East Hertfordshire; Stevenage; Welwyn Hatfield; Hertford and Stortford; Hemel Hempstead; Watford and South West Hertfordshire, and those that were received were generally in support, with no significant new issues.
- There remained some opposition to the inclusion of the Northaw & Cuffley ward in the Hertsmere constituency, but there was overwhelming support for the name of the proposed Three Rivers constituency to return to the name South West Hertfordshire.
- There continued to be significant opposition to the St Albans constituency, mostly with renewed calls for the Jersey Farm area to be included in St Albans, although no significant new evidence or counter proposals were received. There was very little opposition to the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency, with some representations saying our proposals were better than the existing Hitchin and Harpenden constituency. One representation, however, suggested including the Kimpton ward in Harpenden and Berkhamsted, to allow Sandridge to be included in St Albans, despite this creating an orphan ward. There were some new arguments for the constituency to be renamed North West Hertfordshire. Approximately 20 representations were received in opposition to the Broxbourne constituency, with around ten received that were still in opposition to the proposed Hertsmere constituency, but no new significant issues were raised in the representations. Generally, apart from the issue of the Sandridge ward and Jersey Farm area, the revised proposals generated relatively little opposition.
Final recommendations
- We noted the overwhelming support for the name of the proposed Three Rivers constituency to return to the name South West Hertfordshire.
- We noted that we had received some opposition to our revised proposals and therefore investigated the alternatives. However, we also noted that, in general, our revised proposals had generated relatively little opposition. There remained some opposition to the inclusion of the Northaw & Cuffley ward in the Hertsmere constituency, and more notably, opposition to our proposals to include the Sandridge ward in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency. Much of this opposition continued to come from the Jersey Farm area, in particular. We considered again the representation suggesting the inclusion of the Kimpton ward in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency, to allow the Sandridge ward to be included in St Albans constituency, despite this counter proposal creating an orphan ward. While we acknowledge the evidence of the close links of the Jersey Farm area with St Albans we are not persuaded that compelling evidence has been received to transfer the Kimpton ward. Our investigations identified that, to include either the whole or part of the Sandridge ward in the St Albans constituency, without other changes, would result in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency falling below the permitted electorate range. We further investigated alternative splits of the Sandridge ward, but considered these would require dividing the Jersey Farm area between constituencies. There was otherwise very little opposition to the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency. However, there were some new arguments for the constituency to be renamed North West Hertfordshire.
- Having considered all the evidence received and the general level of support that our proposals had garnered, we are not persuaded to modify our revised proposals in the county. We consider that a modification to the St Albans, and Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituencies would not provide for a pattern of constituencies in other parts of the county that best reflected the statutory criteria.
- Our final recommendations for Hertfordshire are therefore for constituencies of: Broxbourne; Harpenden and Berkhamsted; Hemel Hempstead; Hertford and Stortford; Hertsmere; Hitchin; North East Hertfordshire; South West Hertfordshire; St Albans; Stevenage; Watford; and Welwyn Hatfield. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.