The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – Eastern
Essex
Initial proposals
There are currently 18 constituencies in Essex, ten of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range, three falling below and five above. In our initial proposals, none of the existing Essex constituencies were wholly unchanged, although two were changed only to realign with new local government ward boundaries. There was only minimal change to the majority of the existing constituencies. The most substantial change was to the existing Braintree constituency, as a result of the cross-county boundary constituency with Suffolk, which we called Haverhill and Halstead.
The only change to the existing Clacton constituency was to realign it with new local government ward boundaries. The neighbouring Harwich and North Essex constituency was also affected by these ward boundary changes, and in our proposals we made further changes to the west of the constituency. The Prettygate ward, in the existing Colchester constituency, was included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, thereby bringing the Colchester constituency within the permitted electorate range without any further changes required, other than the realignment with new local government ward boundaries to the south and west of the constituency. In noting a general lack of direct road access over the River Colne between the Mersea & Pyefleet ward and the rest of the Harwich and North Essex constituency, we proposed this ward be included instead in the Witham constituency. The only other changes to the existing Witham constituency were to realign the boundaries with the new local government ward boundaries and the transfer of the Braintree district ward of Hatfield Peverel & Terling to our proposed Braintree constituency.
The only change to the existing Chelmsford constituency in our initial proposals was to include the Galleywood ward in our proposed Maldon constituency, which in turn would transfer the Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon ward to the proposed Braintree constituency.
The electorate of the existing Castle Point constituency is currently below the permitted electorate range, and therefore an additional ward needed to be included. The Thurrock unitary authority wards to the west either have electorates that are too large or have no direct road links. The inclusion of any of the wards from the Rochford district to the north would divide the town of Rayleigh, and the Lodge ward has no direct road access. We therefore proposed to include the Southend-on-Sea unitary authority ward of West Leigh, currently in the Southend West constituency, in the Castle Point constituency. While we acknowledged this would not be ideal, we considered that no alternatives would provide a superior solution for the area as a whole, when taking into account the statutory factors.
The Southend West constituency was itself also under the permitted electorate range, and further change was therefore required. We proposed to transfer the Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards from the Southend West constituency to the Rochford and Southend East constituency, with the A127 road to the south of the two wards forming a large part of the boundary between the two constituencies. In return, the St. Luke’s, Victoria, and Milton wards would move from Rochford and Southend East to Southend West. We considered an alternative that would have divided the West Leigh ward between constituencies and would have minimised changes to existing constituencies in this area. However, this would have meant that only two polling districts from the Southend-on-Sea unitary authority would be included in a constituency that would otherwise be wholly coterminous with the Borough of Castle Point. We also proposed that the Roche North & Rural ward be included in Rochford and Southend East from the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. No other changes were proposed to the existing Rayleigh and Wickford constituency, such that it would bring together parts of the town of Rochford in a single constituency, which would otherwise have been divided between constituencies due to local government ward boundary changes.
To reduce the electorate of the existing Thurrock constituency we proposed the inclusion of the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park, in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency, uniting the Tilbury Docks with the villages of West and East Tilbury. In order to bring the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency within the permitted electorate range, the Vange ward was transferred to the Basildon and Billericay constituency, which was otherwise unchanged.
We proposed a Saffron Walden constituency to include, from the existing Brentwood and Ongar constituency, the two wards of Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings. As we considered that this change made the existing constituency name of Brentwood and Ongar less appropriate, we proposed it simply be called Brentwood. The only change we proposed to the existing Epping Forest constituency was to transfer the Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward to the Harlow constituency: we considered this ward to have links with the wards of Roydon and Lower Nazeing (currently within the Harlow constituency). This inclusion brought the electorate of the Harlow constituency within the permitted range without dividing the town of Waltham Abbey, or having knock-on effects on the proposed Saffron Walden constituency. No further changes were proposed to the existing Harlow constituency, other than minor realignments with new local government ward boundaries.
The electorate of the existing Saffron Walden constituency was significantly above the permitted range. As mentioned above, we proposed that two wards be transferred from the Brentwood constituency to the Saffron Walden constituency, enabling the four City of Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs, to be transferred from the Saffron Walden constituency to the Braintree constituency. Ten wards from the existing Braintree constituency, including the town of Halstead, were included in the cross-county boundary Haverhill and Halstead constituency between Essex and Suffolk. Additionally, the Hatfield Peverel & Terling ward was included in our proposed Braintree constituency, with further changes to realign constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. While the change to the existing Braintree constituency was significant, we considered it avoided a ‘domino effect’ of changes to a series of constituencies that would otherwise be caused by the cross-county boundary constituency. Furthermore, the town of Braintree would remain united within a single constituency.
As mentioned previously in this report, a large number of representations and counter proposals supported Essex being treated on its own as a sub-region, with particular opposition to the proposed Haverhill and Halstead constituency that crossed the boundary between Essex and Suffolk.
Our initially proposed constituencies of Colchester, Harwich and North Essex, and Witham generated over 1,000 representations, making it one of the areas in the country as a whole with the most representations received. In the initial proposals we had proposed that the Lexden & Braiswick ward, part of which is included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency, be wholly included in Harwich and North Essex, along with the Prettygate ward, due to the latter’s links to the Lexden & Braiswick ward. The majority of representations called for these two wards to be included in the Colchester constituency, as it was considered that both wards are physically very close to the centre of Colchester, have little to no connection to the coastal town of Harwich (which is on the far side of Colchester), and included numerous important transport and community links, such as a key arterial route into Colchester and numerous schools.
Over 150 representations were also received regarding the ward of Mersea & Pyefleet being included in the proposed Witham constituency, rather than being retained in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. Many representations said the ward’s primary links were to Colchester, but if it could not be included in that constituency, it was more suited to being included in a coastal constituency like Harwich and North Essex, rather than being included in a more inland rural constituency such as Witham. Poor transport links and community ties between the town of Witham and Mersea Island were also raised.
We received a number of counter proposals relating to the Colchester area, among which were: requests that the Prettygate ward be retained in the Colchester constituency (with Highwoods ward instead being included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency). Another counter proposal included the Stanway ward in Colchester, and transferred the St. Anne’s & St. John’s ward to Harwich and North Essex. A different counter proposal proposed instead the transfer of the Stanway ward to Harwich and North Essex, thereby bringing three wards containing areas of urban Colchester (Stanway, Prettygate, and Lexden & Braiswick) together in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. A more radical counter proposal created two Colchester constituencies, with the northern constituency including the town of Harwich, and the southern constituency including the Mersea & Pyefleet ward. While there was some support for this proposal, there was also opposition to this approach, with claims that the last time urban Colchester was split into two, the arrangement was disruptive, confusing and unpopular, and that a single, compact and wholly urban Colchester constituency, as is currently the case, should be retained with minimal change.
Our proposed Clacton constituency was wholly uncontentious. However, counter proposals that proposed a sub-regional change often necessitated a small change to the proposed Clacton constituency. This would transfer the two wards of The Bentleys & Frating, and The Oakleys & Wix from the existing and initially proposed Harwich and North Essex constituency to the Clacton constituency.
The proposed constituencies of Castle Point, Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East generated over 700 representations, most of them in opposition. The proposed transfer of the West Leigh ward from the Southend West constituency to Castle Point was by far the most significant issue in the representations received, with the opposition being almost unanimous. Numerous reasons were provided as to why West Leigh should remain in a Southend constituency, including that West Leigh is intrinsically linked to both Leigh and the rest of Southend; it has little to no connection to much of the Castle Point constituency; and is separated from Castle Point by a natural geographical barrier of the Salvation Army fields to the west. One counter proposal transferred the Lodge ward from the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency to the Castle Point constituency, thereby avoiding splitting the town of Leigh. Another proposed splitting the Pitsea South East ward of Basildon Council, to include the DO polling district (covering the villages of Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet) in the Castle Point constituency, and this alternative approach was well supported.
There was opposition to the proposed transfer of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards to the Rochford and Southend East constituency, as it was said this would break ties of these wards with the town of Leigh. There were also a number of representations that argued that the city centre wards – generally considered to be Victoria, Milton and Kursaal – should be kept together in one constituency, ideally the more urban Southend West, with the wards of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence remaining, as initially proposed, in Rochford and Southend East. Other counter proposals each outlined slight variations from the initial proposals for the Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East constituencies, while still including the West Leigh ward in the Castle Point constituency. Additionally, some counter proposals said that the only change to the existing Southend West constituency should be for it to take the St. Luke’s ward from the Rochford and Southend East constituency, while others called for Milton ward to transfer instead.
Few representations or counter proposals were received regarding the proposed South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency, other than the proposal to split the ward of Pitsea South East mentioned previously, and a further proposal to make a minor adjustment in the south-west of the ward near Thurrock. It was counter proposed that the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park be retained in the Thurrock constituency, as in the existing arrangement, with the Chadwell St. Mary ward instead included in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency. The rationale behind these proposals was that the town of Tilbury and the Tilbury Docks are closely linked to the town of Grays in the Thurrock constituency, with which they share transport links and community ties.
The Braintree constituency was significantly reconfigured in our initial proposals and a large number of representations were received in opposition to this. Most of these stated that the proposed Braintree constituency was very different to the existing constituency, with a peculiar shape, and few links to the Chelmsford local authority wards that would be included (namely: Writtle; Chelmsford Rural West; Broomfield and The Walthams; and Boreham and The Leighs). We received a counter proposal, for a constituency comprising the towns of Braintree, Witham and Halstead, and a Mid-Essex Rural constituency that would stretch from areas west of Chelmsford, to Mersea Island south of Colchester. Counter proposals that called for Essex to be considered as a sub-region in its own right generally proposed a Braintree constituency that would be either unchanged from the existing constituency (apart from to realign to new local government ward boundaries), or have minor changes, with The Colnes ward being included in the Witham constituency and The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards being included from the Saffron Walden constituency.
We received a number of representations regarding the significant change proposed for Saffron Walden constituency, mostly during the second consultation, and these were almost exclusively in opposition to the proposal. Counter proposals retained the four Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs in the Saffron Walden constituency, but required the Uttlesford local authority to be divided between three constituencies (rather than one as in the existing pattern): The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards would be included in an alternatively configured Braintree constituency; and the Hatfield Heath, and Broad Oak & the Hallingburys wards would be transferred to the Harlow constituency from the existing Saffron Walden constituency, with Harlow including wards from three different local authorities. The Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward was proposed to be retained in the Epping Forest constituency, which would then be wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement.
The representations received regarding the proposed Brentwood constituency were mostly in opposition, but relatively few in number. Counter proposals that called for Essex to be a subregion on its own proposed that the Maldon constituency retain the ward of Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon, and a number of representations included all of the wards from the Maldon local authority in a single constituency, as well as a number of wards from the Colchester local authority.
We received around 40 representations regarding the proposed Chelmsford constituency, split roughly equally between those supporting and opposing the initial proposals. Those supporting said that the Galleywood ward is the most appropriate ward to be included in the Maldon constituency, while opposing representations said that it should be retained by dividing the town of Chelmsford into two constituencies. Other representations said that the Goat Hall ward should no longer be included in the Chelmsford constituency.
The inclusion of the Vange ward from South Basildon and East Thurrock was the only change to the existing Basildon and Billericay constituency and was largely uncontentious.
There was little opposition to the inclusion of the whole of the Roche North & Rural ward in the proposed Rochford and Southend East constituency, and there were very few responses in relation to the proposed Rayleigh and Wickford constituency (essentially unchanged other than this ward transfer).
Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the counter proposals and representations calling for Essex to be treated as a separate sub-region in its own right, and the views contained within them, were sufficiently compelling, and they recommended to us that Essex be treated as a subregion on its own, rather than be paired with Suffolk, as in the initial proposals. They considered that there were numerous reasons for accepting this sub-regional change, with benefits across much of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. As previously outlined, we agreed with this recommendation and proposed Essex form its own sub-region as part of our revised proposals.
With Essex treated as a stand-alone sub-region, it is not possible for the Colchester, Harwich and North Essex, and Witham constituencies to remain the same as in the initial proposals, as the electorate of the rest of the county would be too high to create a coherent scheme. In view of the conflicting evidence with regard to which wards should be included, or otherwise, in the Colchester constituency, our Assistant Commissioners decided to visit the area and to observe for themselves the links between the different wards and the city centre.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the River Colne divides the Mersea & Pyefleet ward from the Tendring local authority wards that comprise the rest of the Harwich and North Essex constituency, with no bridge crossing until much further north near Colchester, outside of the ward. However, the Mersea & Pyefleet ward is currently included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency, whereas Stanway is currently in the Witham constituency. Furthermore, representations were clear that the Mersea & Pyefleet ward has poor links west towards the town of Witham, with the ward instead sharing a coastal and maritime character with a number of communities in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. They also noted that the River Colne has historically been a navigable river that linked the City of Colchester and its hinterland with the port of Brightlingsea. As such, they considered that the most suitable way to create a coherent pattern of constituencies across Essex would be for the Stanway ward to be included in the Witham constituency, and for the Mersea & Pyefleet ward to be included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. They considered that this would most closely fulfil the statutory requirements of maintaining existing constituencies and local ties, despite the geographical considerations in the area.
Regarding the issue of the Lexden & Braiswick, and Prettygate wards, our Assistant Commissioners noted during their visit that these two areas appeared to be an integral part of Colchester, with strong transport links, close geographical proximity, historical links and community ties regarding schools and other establishments. They also considered, however, that the Lexden & Braiswick ward as a whole is geographically large, with a significant rural element, and the latter part could justifiably not be included in an urban Colchester constituency. They accordingly recommended that our initial proposals should be revised, and that this ward be split, with the three mostly urban polling districts (Colchester AQ, AS, and AT), which are divided from the rest of the ward by the A12 road and the railway line, being included in the proposed Colchester constituency, and the three rural polling districts (Colchester EJ, ET, and EU) remaining in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. This would also allow the existing constituency boundary in this area to be retained.
Our Assistant Commissioners also recommended that the entirety of the Prettygate ward be included with Colchester, as it is in the existing arrangement. However, to accommodate the whole of the Prettygate ward and part of the Lexden & Braiswick ward in the Colchester constituency, it was necessary for another ward that was initially proposed to be included in the Colchester constituency to instead be transferred to the Harwich and North Essex constituency, in order to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
This issue was carefully considered by the Assistant Commissioners in their recommendations to us, and it was clear to us that none of the options is without negative consequences. We considered that the counter proposal to divide the City of Colchester, including the separation of the closely-linked areas of Lexden and Prettygate, required an unnecessarily large departure from the existing constituency boundaries. We also considered that the counter proposals that included the Prettygate, and Lexden & Braiswick wards in the Harwich and North Essex constituency were undesirable due to their close links to Colchester.
Based on the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners, we proposed the transfer of the ward of Old Heath & The Hythe to the Harwich and North Essex constituency. We noted that a significant portion of this ward, including all of the village of Rowhedge, is already included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency. Also, as the Mersea & Pyefleet ward was now proposed to remain in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, including the Old Heath & The Hythe ward would provide a stronger link between Mersea & Pyefleet and the rest of the constituency, as it contains Fingringhoe Road (which becomes Old Heath Road) and the Colne Causeway bridge – the first bridge crossing the River Colne when driving from Mersea to Harwich. Furthermore, the town of Wivenhoe has links to the village of Rowhedge via the foot ferry. We acknowledge that a significant portion of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward is in the existing Colchester constituency and has close community ties to the city. However, this is true of any of the other options, such as the Greenstead, St. Anne’s & St. John’s, Highwoods, and Mile End wards, which our Assistant Commissioners also visited; Old Heath & The Hythe is the only ward out of these options that has a significant portion already included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency.
Our initially proposed Clacton constituency was wholly uncontentious. With the change to a stand-alone Essex sub-region, however, the transfer of two wards to Clacton from the Harwich and North Essex constituency mentioned above became necessary. While this is further from the existing constituency than the initial proposals, and stretches the constituency further north, taking in parts of the A120 road, our Assistant Commissioners considered that the significant, wider benefits of the sub-regional change in other areas far outweighed the disadvantages of these changes to the Clacton constituency, and therefore recommended this relatively small change to the constituency. We agreed and revised the initial proposals for the Clacton constituency.
One counter proposal transferred the Lodge ward from the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency to the Castle Point constituency. While this avoided splitting the town of Leigh, and gave more flexibility within the two Southend constituencies, it would divide the town of Rayleigh, and the ward has little to no direct transport links to the Castle Point constituency. We were therefore not persuaded to adopt this approach.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited the Southend and Castle Point areas. They considered that West Leigh was an integral part of Leigh-on-Sea and noted the considerable expanse of marshland and creeks that separates much of the ward from the Castle Point constituency. They also visited the Pitsea South East ward, and noted that, while the A130 road lies between the communities of Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet in the ward, and the Castle Point areas to the east, the connecting A13 provides a direct transport link between the two, via the Sadlers Farm roundabout. They also noted a clear physical separation of open land between Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet and the towns of Pitsea and Basildon, and that a split ward here would bring North Benfleet and South Benfleet into a constituency together. To no longer include the West Leigh ward in the Castle Point constituency would also have the benefit of allowing more flexibility within the two Southend constituencies.
We considered all of the evidence and agreed with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners. We believed that dividing the Pitsea South East ward in this instance was the right option, in order to increase the electorate of the Castle Point constituency to within the permitted range while also formulating a pattern of constituencies in the wider surrounding area that overall better reflects the statutory factors. The initial proposals were strongly opposed by local residents, who demonstrated how they would break local ties; and the Lodge ward alternative was supported by only a few respondents, has very weak transport connections, and would significantly disrupt local ties in Rayleigh. We consequently considered the main alternatives put forward to be more disadvantageous.
The Assistant Commissioners considered that the option for the Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East constituencies that took most account of the statutory factors would be to adopt the approach that kept the city centre wards together, but in the more urban Southend West constituency. They therefore recommended a constituency comprising the whole of the existing Southend West constituency except the wards of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence (which would transfer to the Rochford and Southend East constituency as in the initial proposals), with the additional inclusion of the three wards of Milton, Victoria and Kursaal. While we acknowledged it is possible to minimise change further, the Assistant Commissioners considered this was not preferable, given the less optimal shape and accessibility of the constituencies that would result, and the strong ties of the city centre wards to each other and to the west that would be broken. In respect of the inclusion of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence in the Rochford and Southend East constituency, they noted evidence that these wards contained the residential parts of Southend-on-Sea closest to the airport, and arguments that there would therefore be value having both the airport, and those most likely to be impacted by it, represented by the same MP. While noting representations that stated these two areas have connections to Leigh, the Assistant Commissioners during their site visit to the area also felt that the A127 road does form a clear and readily identifiable boundary, and that the benefits gained overall from the distribution of wards they had recommended across the rest of the area outweighed the disadvantages.
Finally, in this area, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that this more compact western Southend constituency be renamed Southend Central and Leigh, as they considered that this better reflected both the inclusion of the city centre wards and the distinct and strong community identity of Leigh in the west of the city. We agreed with their conclusions and proposed that the constituency be renamed.
Few representations or counter proposals were received regarding the proposed South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the arguments to retain the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park in the Thurrock constituency, with the Chadwell St. Mary ward instead included in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency.
Counter proposals that called for Essex to be considered as a sub-region in its own right generally proposed a Braintree constituency that would either be unchanged from the existing constituency (apart from to realign to new local government ward boundaries), or have minor changes, with The Colnes ward being transferred to the Witham constituency and The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards being taken from the Saffron Walden constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that there were merits in the Braintree constituency being unchanged other than to realign to new local government ward boundaries. However, they considered that the changes put forward by counter proposals were preferable, as it would allow for a pattern of constituencies across the rest of Essex that more closely reflect the statutory factors, while still allowing the existing Braintree constituency to be mostly retained.
Overall, despite some disadvantages, such as the Uttlesford local authority being divided between three constituencies, our Assistant Commissioners accepted the counter proposals that retained the four Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs in the Saffron Walden constituency: The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards would be included in an alternatively configured Braintree constituency; and the Hatfield Heath, and Broad Oak & the Hallingburys wards would be transferred to the Harlow constituency from the existing Saffron Walden constituency, with Harlow including wards from three different local authorities. The Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward would be retained in the Epping Forest constituency, which would then be wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement. We agreed with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners and accordingly altered our initial proposals for these constituencies.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted the representations that opposed the changes to the Saffron Walden constituency. Reconfiguring the sub-regions meant that the Saffron Walden constituency no longer needed to include the two wards of Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings, which could be retained in a Brentwood and Ongar constituency, as numerous counter proposals put forward. We accepted this revision, as it allowed for the Brentwood and Ongar constituency to be unchanged except to realign to new local government ward boundaries. As a consequence, we were able to retain the existing name of Brentwood and Ongar in our revised proposals.
Counter proposals called for the Maldon constituency to retain the ward of Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon, which would minimise disruption from the existing constituency, as every ward in the existing constituency would be retained and there would be the single addition of the Galleywood ward. The Assistant Commissioners found this sufficiently persuasive, and we subsequently adopted the change in our revised proposals.
With regard to the representations received about the proposed Chelmsford constituency, we noted that they were split roughly equally between those supporting and opposing the initial proposals. However, our Assistant Commissioners did not consider any change to the initially proposed constituency was necessary. We agreed, and did not revise our proposals for this constituency.
The inclusion of the Vange ward from South Basildon and East Thurrock was the only change to the existing Basildon and Billericay constituency and was largely uncontentious. We agreed with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners to make no revisions to our initial proposals here.
Approximately 700 representations on our revised proposals were received with regard to the Colchester, Harwich and North Essex, and Witham constituencies. Most were in opposition, but around 200 were in support.
Those in support argued that Prettygate and Lexden were now correctly included in Colchester, and that, if one ward needed to be excluded from Colchester, Old Heath & The Hythe was the least worst option. Those representations supporting the revised proposals also said that the following estuary communities were now kept together in a single constituency: Hythe; Rowhedge; Alresford; Wivenhoe; Brightlingsea; and Mersea. Those in opposition argued that the Old Heath & The Hythe ward is an important historical area, with the old port, and Hythe station, and many links to Colchester, including simple proximity. Two petitions were received, both opposing the inclusion of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward in Harwich and North Essex.
One counter proposal included the Mile End ward (from Colchester) and the Stanway ward (from Witham) in Harwich and North Essex; the Old Heath & The Hythe ward was returned to Colchester; and the Mersea & Pyefleet ward was included in Witham (as in the initial proposals). Another counter proposal included the St. Anne’s & St. John’s, and Greenstead wards in Harwich and North Essex, the Stanway ward in Colchester, and the Mersea & Pyefleet ward in Witham. Many other counter proposals were received, among them those which instead excluded the Greenstead ward from Colchester. There were further counter proposals that included the Stanway and Greenstead wards in Harwich and North Essex, and the Mersea & Pyefleet ward in Witham; those which proposed a different split of Colchester; those which proposed a Colchester that is similar to the initial proposals; and those which involve further ward splits.
Few representations were received regarding the Harwich and North Essex, and Witham constituencies, other than regarding their relation to Colchester or to Clacton (in the case of Harwich and North Essex, discussed below). Some suggested that Harwich and North Essex should simply be named North East Essex, and that Witham be renamed Witham and West Colchester.
Around 90 representations were received regarding the revised Clacton constituency, almost all opposing the transfer in of the two wards of The Bentleys & Frating, and The Oakleys & Wix from the Harwich and North Essex constituency. The main thrust of this opposition was that residents here consider themselves as residing in inland wards, with links to other rural communities, and the wards would not be a suitable inclusion in a coastal constituency. One representation suggested that The Oakleys & Wix ward be split between constituencies.
Very few representations were received with regard to the Thurrock, South Basildon and East Thurrock, and Basildon and Billericay constituencies, although there was a request that South Basildon and East Thurrock be renamed Stanford and Pitsea.
We also received very few representations about the revised Braintree constituency, with no stand‑out themes, although one counter proposal argued for a change to Braintree and Saffron Walden. There were relatively few representations about the revised Saffron Walden constituency itself, although most were in opposition. Some of these proposed that the name be changed to North West Essex to better reflect the totality of the constituency, much of which is not near Saffron Walden. We received two counter proposals, one calling for a small change, the other arguing that Felsted & Stebbing, and The Sampfords should remain within Saffron Walden, and Boreham and The Leighs should be moved to the Witham constituency (thereby creating an orphan ward).
We received very few representations about the Brentwood and Ongar constituency, although one representation requested that The Rodings be kept together in the same constituency. We received around 15 representations about the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency, mostly in opposition, but no significant new evidence was raised.
We received significantly more representations – mostly in opposition – concerning the Chelmsford and Maldon constituencies. Many of these either mentioned both constituencies, or were submitted in connection with comments concerning other constituencies. However, these included no significant new evidence in relation to these constituencies. Some counter proposals called for the Maldon constituency to be renamed Maldon and South Chelmsford.
We received very few representations about the Epping Forest constituency, and only a slightly higher number regarding Harlow. Although most were in opposition, there was also support. We received fewer than ten representations with regard to the Castle Point constituency: while there was some opposition, there was also praise for the split of the Pitsea South East ward, in view of the ward’s separation from Basildon.
We received around 400 further representations concerning the Southend constituencies, with a slight numerical majority opposed to our revised proposals. Those in support agreed that the A127 is a definitive boundary between the proposed Southend Central and Leigh, and Rochford and Southend East constituencies, considered the shapes to be logical, and supported keeping the three city centre wards together in a predominantly urban constituency. Almost all those in opposition argued that including the St. Luke’s ward in Southend West, with no other changes, is the best solution on the basis of the minimal change involved. Those in opposition also suggest that the Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards have strong links to Leigh. Others stated that, of the three wards it was proposed be moved from Southend East to Southend Central and Leigh, two are either wholly or largely east of The Pier and Victoria Avenue, which they contend are the natural borders between East and West Southend.
We received over 60 representations specifically about the Rochford and Southend East constituency, largely in support. Those in support argued that the revised proposals are a better reflection of their area, in that the mostly rural constituency contains more rural elements. However, some representations highlighted the difference between the Kursaal ward and Leigh, asserting they should not be included together in the same constituency. We received some proposals for alternate names, including Southend East and Rochford, or Southend Outer and the Roche.
In view of the continued significant opposition to our proposals in the Colchester and Southend constituencies, we undertook a further site visit to the areas.
We considered that the A127 did provide an identifiable boundary between the Eastwood Park ward – in particular – and the St. Laurence ward with the rest of Southend. We noted that there are minimal crossings southwards and, on entry into the Eastwood Park ward, most of the roads appear to run northwards or east-west, and not south to Southend. Also, on the south side of the A127 there was considerable residential development, whereas on the north side of the road, at least closest to the road, the land use was mainly industrial. The A127 continues as a boundary between the St. Laurence ward and the rest of Southend. The proximity of Southend Airport to the A127 was observed (the airport runway actually crosses the boundary between the Roche South ward in Rochford and the St. Laurence ward), and the A127 continues to mark the boundary between St. Laurence and the Prittlewell ward to its south. However, despite our observations, we were mindful that the residents of both wards have stated strongly and clearly in the representations that they consider themselves to be part of Southend and that there are particularly strong links with the town of Leigh-on-Sea.
The south-east of the St. Laurence ward was observed to have links with the rest of Southend via the Prittlewell ward. We observed that the St. Luke’s ward was well linked to the Victoria and Kursaal wards, although we also considered it to have strong links to the St. Laurence ward via the A1159 Eastern Avenue, which is effectively the extension of the A127.
We also observed the links between the Milton, Victoria and Kursaal wards, which, it had been stated, formed the core of the city centre, and of their links both westwards and eastwards. It had been suggested by some respondents that within this area was the historic boundary between West and East Southend. From our observations, it seemed clear that the Milton ward is the core of Southend, containing the main shopping and retail centre. The Victoria ward to the north was very close to the centre, as was the Kursaal ward, despite being separated from Milton by the A1160 road. It was noted that the three main railway stations were located in each of these three wards: Southend Central in Milton, Southend Victoria in Victoria, and Southend East located just inside the Kursaal ward. The three wards also come together at the A1160 roundabout, just metres from the main shopping district, and the pleasure beach extends seamlessly from the Milton ward across to Kursaal. We considered that the argument that the three wards were, in effect, the city centre carried considerable strength, and acknowledged the sentiments that all three wards should be included in the same constituency.
In noting the opposition to our revised proposals we therefore reconsidered the alternatives. Although we considered that our revised proposals had merit, we accepted that the revised proposals transferred five wards between the two constituencies, whereas many of the representations suggested that we should adopt a minimal change option that would move just one ward between the constituencies, and still retain the three city centre wards in a single constituency. We concluded that the counter proposals that suggested minimal change did better reflect the statutory criteria and that we should alter our revised proposals and adopt the minimal change option. This would mean that the Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards would remain in a western Southend constituency, with the St. Luke’s ward (the only ward that would change constituency) also being included in the western constituency. The Milton, Victoria and Kursaal wards would remain in the eastern Southend constituency. However, we considered that the adoption of these proposals would necessitate changes to the constituency names. We recommend that the Southend Central and Leigh constituency (as in our revised proposals) be renamed Southend West and Leigh. In acknowledging that Southend-on-Sea had achieved city status during the course of this review, and that the city centre wards would be contained within one constituency, we recommend that the name of the Rochford and Southend East constituency be reversed, and that the constituency be renamed Southend East and Rochford.
Given the representations received in regards to our pattern of constituencies in the Colchester area we decided to conduct a site visit. We observed that the Stanway ward appeared largely rural in nature, except to the north in closer proximity to Colchester. The City of Colchester sign appears at the boundary between the Stanway and Prettygate wards. The links of the Prettygate and Lexden area of the Lexden & Braiswick ward were evident, as were their links with Colchester city centre. Both are older and similar in nature to the centre of Colchester, particularly Lexden, which appears to be more historical in nature.
Our observations of the Mile End ward confirmed its position as being part of the core of Colchester, containing the main railway station and hospital. The Highwoods ward in the north of the city contains much new housing development, including Colchester Business Park, and the links through this ward into the St. Anne’s & St. John’s ward appeared to be a seamless continuation of the built environment, although St. Anne’s & St. John’s is clearly more like ‘old’ Colchester.
Similarly seamless were the links between the St. Anne’s & St. John’s ward through the Greenstead ward. It was noted that to the east of the Avon Road, the built-up area of Colchester ended abruptly on the east with a substantial rural element and higher terrain in the adjacent Wivenhoe ward. It appeared clear that Greenstead (which included Hythe railway station) looked westwards to Colchester.
Our observations of the northern part of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward confirmed that it was very evident that this part of the ward, which is currently in the Colchester constituency, and which comprises Hythe and Old Heath, is indeed very much a part of Colchester. There is a mix of substantial new residential building – much of it high rise – and much older, more traditional neighbourhoods that appeared to bear a close resemblance to the rest of Colchester and the city centre: the area had a distinctly urban feel. South of this area there is some open countryside – where the existing constituency boundary was located – before the community of Rowhedge, which is currently in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency. The southern part of the ward is therefore noticeably rural and shares many characteristics with the Mersea & Pyefleet ward to its south, which was also visited. Though our observations might support the case for a split of the ward, this is not feasible numerically: the electorate of the revised Colchester constituency is already 76,843, allowing for only around another 200 electors to be included, but there are almost 8,600 electors of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward (with most of these residing in the urban part that we would otherwise look to include in Colchester).
We fully acknowledge and understand the views of those who consider that the Old Heath & The Hythe ward is part of Colchester. However, the electorates in this area do not permit the inclusion of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward in the Colchester constituency without excluding another ward with at least as strong ties to the city. We also considered that the inclusion of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward in the Harwich and North Essex constituency provided for a crossing of the River Colne. We therefore propose no change to our revised proposals for the Colchester, Witham, and Harwich and North Essex constituencies.
With regard to the remaining constituencies in Essex, in light of the generally low level of response to our revised proposals, and mix of support and opposition among those, we do not propose further change to our revised proposals, apart from recommending that the Saffron Walden constituency should be renamed North West Essex, to better reflect the composition of the constituency.
Our final recommendations for Essex are therefore for constituencies of: Basildon and Billericay; Braintree; Brentwood and Ongar; Castle Point; Chelmsford; Clacton; Colchester; Epping Forest; Harlow; Harwich and North Essex; Maldon; North West Essex; Rayleigh and Wickford; South Basildon and East Thurrock; Southend East and Rochford; Southend West and Leigh; Thurrock; and Witham. The areas covered by these constituencies are listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
