The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Eastern
Cambridgeshire
Initial proposals
Of the seven existing constituencies in Cambridgeshire, only Peterborough was within the permitted electorate range. The remaining six constituencies were all above the range. Therefore, as set out earlier in our report, Cambridgeshire was allocated eight constituencies in formulating the initial proposals, which largely resulted in significant changes to the existing pattern of constituencies.
In formulating our initial proposals, we retained the existing Peterborough constituency broadly unchanged, proposing the boundary be realigned with new local government wards. We identified when formulating our initial proposals that it was possible to configure the Peterborough constituency in a different manner, albeit significantly altered from the existing constituency, and sought views on this alternative during consultation on our initial proposals.
We proposed a North East Cambridgeshire constituency, that would be coterminous with the District of Fenland, no longer including the District of East Cambridgeshire wards of Downham Villages, Littleport, and Sutton. We proposed that these three wards be included in a reconfigured East Cambridgeshire constituency, along with all the other District of East Cambridgeshire wards, and the two District of South Cambridgeshire wards of Cottenham, and Milton & Waterbeach.
In order to bring the Cambridge constituency within the permitted range, we proposed that the City of Cambridge ward of Cherry Hinton be included in the South Cambridgeshire constituency, to join the City of Cambridge ward of Queen Edith’s already in the latter constituency. In formulating our initial proposals, we identified that either ward of Cherry Hinton or Trumpington could be included in the South Cambridgeshire constituency and specifically sought views on this possible alternative during the consultation on the initial proposals.
We proposed further changes to the South Cambridgeshire constituency, namely to include the District of South Cambridgeshire wards of Balsham, Fen Ditton & Fulbourn, and Linton in the constituency, and transferred the eight northern wards of the District to our proposed St Neots constituency, which was also proposed to take the District of Huntingdon wards covering the town of St Neots and village of Fenstanton from the existing Huntingdon constituency. In turn, we proposed transferring the wards of Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Sawtry, Somersham and Warboys from the existing North East Cambridgeshire constituency into our proposed Huntingdon constituency, thereby bringing both the Huntingdon and North East Cambridgeshire constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
We received a significant number of representations commenting on our initial proposals for Cambridgeshire. The majority of these were in regard to our proposed Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire constituencies. We received a counter proposal that suggested these two constituencies be reconfigured to form Peterborough North and Peterborough South constituencies. A large number of representations were received in support of this counter proposal, with respondents citing that a constituency crossing the River Nene was not an issue. However, we also received a significant number of representations in opposition to this counterproposal, with respondents saying that they considered this counter proposal broke local ties in the City of Peterborough and that the River Nene provided an easily identifiable boundary. We received some other counter proposals for the Peterborough area, which generally sought to configure a more compact and urban-focused Peterborough constituency.
We received some other representations commenting on our proposed North West Cambridgeshire constituency. Some of these considered the constituency should be renamed to include a reference to the City of Peterborough, given the constituency included a number of electors from the City. We also received some representations that considered our proposed North West Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon boundary would break close ties between ‘the Giddings’ villages of Great Gidding, Little Gidding, Steeple Gidding and Hamerton. We received a counter proposal that suggested dividing the Alconbury ward in order for all the above villages to be included in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency.
In the City of Cambridge, we received a mixture of support and opposition to our initial proposals, with a number of respondents proposing alternative configurations. We received a large number of competing representations, arguing for the inclusion of one or other of the Cherry Hinton, Queen Edith’s or Trumpington wards in the Cambridge constituency. While the Queen Edith’s ward is not included in the existing Cambridge constituency, some respondents considered this broke community ties in the area, particularly as the ward included local facilities and services such as Homerton College and Addenbrooke’s Hospital. Evidence in relation to strong community ties to Cambridge was, however, also received in relation to the Cherry Hinton and Trumpington wards: Cherry Hinton had a long association with Cambridge and was home to a number of cultural events, while Trumpington was highlighted as the site of significant development and therefore presented a more continuous urban character flowing from the city centre. We also received other counter proposals for Cambridge that proposed the City be split into two constituencies with the surrounding rural areas.
We received some representations that were concerned that our proposed East Cambridgeshire constituency was discontiguous due to a small part of the Milton & Waterbeach ward being detached from the constituency. Some respondents sought to resolve this matter in counter proposals, through either reconfiguring constituencies or splitting the Milton & Waterbeach ward.
We received approximately 200 representations commenting on our proposed St Neots constituency. Some of these representations were supportive of our proposal. However, we also received opposition to the configuration of the constituency, particularly that it included wards from the District of South Cambridgeshire. Respondents stated that residents in these wards shared few community ties with St Neots, but instead had connections with other parts of South Cambridgeshire and the City of Cambridge itself. Counter proposals either suggested a St Ives constituency or a reconfiguration of a number of constituencies in the south of the county. We also received a number of representations that commented on the proposed constituency name of St Neots. Many of these considered that the name of the constituency was not representative and proposed alternatives such as Mid Cambridgeshire or West Cambridgeshire.
The majority of representations received in relation to our proposed North East Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon constituencies were supportive. In the case of the former constituency, however, there were requests to rename it as Fenland or the Fens.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered the evidence received in relation to our proposed Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire constituencies. They noted that a number of respondents supported the alternative proposal we had aired in the initial proposal report. These representations considered that the existing configuration of the Peterborough constituency was confusing. However, they also noted the significant number of representations that supported our initial proposals and opposed the alternative. Given the conflicting evidence received, the Assistant Commissioners decided to visit the area. From their observations they considered that the alternative pattern would divide the centre of Peterborough between constituencies, breaking local ties in the city centre. They also considered that, given the existing Peterborough constituency only required minimal change, the alternative presented significant disruption. They therefore proposed no changes to the initial proposals for Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire. They were also not persuaded to amend the name of the proposed North West Cambridgeshire constituency, as they considered this name reflected the geographic extent of the constituency.
They reflected on the evidence received that the initial proposals would break community ties in the Giddings. They investigated the counter proposals received, noting that the issue could be addressed by the transfer of the Alconbury ward to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency. However, they considered this configuration resulted in the aforementioned constituency and Huntingdon being unsatisfactory. They also identified that the Alconbury ward could be split between constituencies. However, they were not persuaded to recommend this proposal given the splitting of the ward in this instance provided no wider benefit to the pattern of constituencies in the county.
The Assistant Commissioners considered the competing arguments concerning the proposed Cambridge constituency. They noted that cases had been proposed for including each of the Cherry Hinton, Queen Edith’s and Trumpington wards. They were not persuaded to include the Queen Edith’s ward in the Cambridge constituency, particularly as it was not part of the existing configuration. Having considered all the evidence presented in relation to the other two wards, they noted that Cherry Hinton shared community ties with Queen Edith’s and felt that the inclusion of both wards in the proposed South Cambridgeshire constituency was better than the existing arrangement. They also noted the new developments in the Trumpington ward and considered that the ward was a better fit in an urban constituency than in rural South Cambridgeshire. Our Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no change to either of the proposed Cambridge or South Cambridgeshire constituencies.
Our Assistant Commissioners assessed the evidence received in relation to the inclusion of the Milton & Waterbeach ward in the East Cambridgeshire constituency. They noted that the majority of the representations commented that this part of this ward was detached from the remainder of the constituency. Having considered the evidence, they were of the view that, while we would usually attempt to avoid such situations, there is no specific statutory factor regarding contiguous constituencies, and in this area in particular it is less relevant, as the issue is caused by an already non-contiguous ward – as created by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England – which also follows the local authority boundaries. They were therefore not minded to revise the proposed constituency.
The Assistant Commissioners considered the conflicting evidence received in relation to the proposed St Neots constituency. They were not minded to adopt any of the counter proposals received, as they considered these resulted in significant disruption to the pattern of constituencies in large parts of the county, for which we had received support during consultation. However, they did consider that the proposed name of St Neots did not adequately reflect the extent of the constituency. They therefore proposed the constituency be renamed St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the majority of representations received in relation to the proposed Huntingdon and North East Cambridgeshire constituencies were supportive. They noted the alternative names proposed for the North East Cambridgeshire constituency, but were not persuaded that the alternatives of Fenland or the Fens would be more representative. They therefore proposed no change to either constituency.
Having considered the evidence received, we agreed with the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners. Therefore, the boundaries of our revised proposals were identical to those previously proposed, with the only change being the revised name of St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire.
In response to the consultation on the revised proposals we again received representations in relation to our proposed North West Cambridgeshire and Peterborough constituencies. The majority of representations in relation to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency were positive, particularly as it had only been minimally changed from the existing constituency. However, some opposition was received, including repeated concerns that the southern boundary of the constituency would split the Giddings villages between constituencies. We also received some representations that suggested the North West Cambridgeshire constituency should be renamed as North Huntingdonshire, or include a reference to Peterborough in the constituency name, such as West Peterborough and Ramsey.
Our proposed Peterborough constituency again received a mixed response during consultation. Those who opposed the configuration repeated concerns that the area to the north of the River Nene in the Fletton & Woodston ward was not included in the constituency. We received a counter proposal to resolve this, which suggested transferring the Fletton & Woodston ward to the Peterborough constituency, and the Eye, Thorney & Newborough ward to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency.
We received over 100 representations in opposition to our proposed St Neots constituency. A number of these respondents put forward similar arguments to earlier consultations that the constituency did not reflect community ties. We also received a counter proposal, which suggested a reconfigured St Neots constituency that would cross the county boundary and include wards from North East Bedfordshire, which was stated to better reflect community ties and the local growth of the area. We also received some representations that commented on the proposed constituency name. While some were supportive, we received alternatives such as West Cambridgeshire, Mid Cambridgeshire, or Mid Cambridgeshire and St Neots.
In the City of Cambridge, we again received representations commenting on which of the Cherry Hinton, Queen Edith’s and Trumpington wards should be included in the constituency. As at previous consultations, we received some support for the inclusion of Trumpington ward.
We generally received few representations commenting specifically on our proposed constituencies of East Cambridgeshire, Huntingdon, North East Cambridgeshire, and South Cambridgeshire. However, among those, we received a representation requesting we rename East Cambridgeshire as Ely and East Cambridgeshire to reflect the prominence of the town in the constituency, and to also reflect consistency with our proposed St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire constituency. There was also a request that North East Cambridgeshire be renamed North Cambridgeshire.
We again note the competing evidence received in relation to our proposed North West Cambridgeshire and Peterborough constituencies. We investigated the proposal that sought to transfer the Fletton & Woodston ward to the Peterborough constituency, and the Eye, Thorney & Newborough ward to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency. We are not persuaded by the evidence received to adopt this proposal. We are particularly concerned that it would result in the North West Cambridgeshire being geographically odd in shape, given it would wrap around the northern part of Peterborough. We again considered the representations in relation to the division of the Giddings villages by the southern boundary of the North West Cambridgeshire constituency. We acknowledge the concerns of many of those who live in the villages of ‘The Giddings’ – namely Great Gidding; Little Gidding; Steeple Gidding; and Hamerton – that these communities would be separated by our proposals. However, we noted that the Alconbury ward boundary followed the civil parish boundary between the Little Gidding, and the Hamerton and Steeple Gidding civil parishes, and we did not consider that splitting the Alconbury ward would be justified given the lack of any identifiable wider benefits elsewhere in the region, or the county. We were not, therefore persuaded to alter our revised proposals with regard to ‘The Giddings’. Finally, we are not minded to amend the name of either the Peterborough or North West Cambridgeshire constituencies. We consider the names of both are representative of the areas represented in each.
We have considered the representations and counter proposal received in relation to the St Neots constituency. The counter proposal did not follow local government wards, would cross the county boundary, and would thereby significantly disrupt the pattern of constituencies in Bedfordshire, which had generally been supported. We are therefore not minded to modify the boundaries of the proposed constituency. We are also not minded to modify the name of the proposed constituency, as we consider St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire to adequately reflect the geography of the constituency.
We again noted the competing evidence received in relation to our proposed Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire constituencies, but in the absence of any persuasive new arguments or evidence being presented, we are not minded to modify our proposals. We consider that including the Cherry Hinton ward in the Cambridge constituency instead of the Trumpington ward would likely break community ties between Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s.
We note that our proposed constituencies of East Cambridgeshire, Huntingdon, and North East Cambridgeshire were all generally supported during the revised proposal consultation. However, we are minded to change the name of our proposed East Cambridgeshire constituency to Ely and East Cambridgeshire. We consider this name would better reflect the area encompassed by the constituency.
Our final recommendations for Cambridgeshire are therefore for constituencies of: Cambridge; Ely and East Cambridgeshire; Huntingdon; North East Cambridgeshire; North West Cambridgeshire; Peterborough; St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire; and South Cambridgeshire. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
