The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
North East London
Initial proposals
Of the nine existing constituencies in the North East London sub-region, four had electorates within the permitted electorate range: Dagenham and Rainham; Ilford North; Romford; and Walthamstow. The two constituencies of Chingford and Woodford Green, and Leyton and Wanstead, were beneath the permitted range, while the three constituencies of Barking, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Ilford South fell above the permitted range.
In our initial proposals for the Borough of Havering, we proposed bringing the existing Hornchurch and Upminster constituency within the permitted electorate range by transferring Emerson Park ward from the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency to the Romford constituency. To keep the Romford constituency within the permitted range without consequential further disruption to neighbouring constituencies, we proposed splitting Hylands ward between the Hornchurch and Upminster, and Romford constituencies.
In the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge, we proposed transferring Valence ward from the Barking constituency to the Dagenham and Rainham constituency; Chadwell Heath ward from the Dagenham and Rainham constituency to the Ilford South constituency; and Cranbrook and Valentines wards from the Ilford South constituency to the Ilford North constituency.
Our initial proposals for the Borough of Waltham Forest retained the existing Walthamstow constituency wholly unchanged. The existing Leyton and Wanstead constituency – which spans the boroughs of Waltham Forest and Redbridge – was adjusted to align with new local government ward boundaries in the Borough of Redbridge, and included the whole of South Woodford ward. The existing Chingford and Woodford Green constituency – also spanning the boroughs of Waltham Forest and Redbridge – was realigned with new local government ward boundaries, and additionally included the Borough of Redbridge ward of Bridge from the existing Ilford North constituency.
In response to the consultation on our initial proposals, our rationale for splitting a ward in the Borough of Havering was broadly supported. However, we received strong opposition to our proposed transfer of Emerson Park ward from the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency to the Romford constituency, including almost 600 unique representations and two online petitions. Residents of Emerson Park argued that they consider themselves part of the Hornchurch community and look to Hornchurch, rather than Romford, for local amenities. Several respondents also contended that Emerson Park provides key geographical and road links between the northern and southern parts of the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency, therefore its removal would undermine the constituency’s geographical cohesion.
Conversely, we also received notable support for our proposed transfer of Emerson Park ward, including over 150 representations and four petitions. Respondents argued that Emerson Park ward has strong community ties with its neighbouring Squirrel’s Heath ward, part of the existing Romford constituency. In terms of geography, some argued that Emerson Park ward is separated from the rest of the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency by the geographic boundaries of the River Ingrebourne to the east and the railway line to the south, whereas there are no geographic dividers between Emerson Park and Squirrel’s Heath.
We received a number of counter proposals and alternative suggestions for constituencies in the Borough of Havering. Some of these proposed transferring all or part of the Harold Hill area to the Romford constituency instead of Emerson Park. Others submitted that changes in the borough could be minimised by keeping Emerson Park ward in the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency, keeping Hylands ward wholly in the Romford constituency, and splitting Hacton ward between the Hornchurch and Upminster, and Dagenham and Rainham constituencies. Several representations advocated that we should consider Havering’s new ward boundaries, for which the Order was made in September 2021. They argued that using the new boundaries would better reflect community ties, in particular uniting the Elm Park community, and would avoid splitting new wards, and the confusion that may entail in the future.
Our initially proposed Barking, and Dagenham and Rainham constituencies attracted very few representations. However, our proposed transfer of Chadwell Heath ward elicited a greater response, since our proposal would make Chadwell Heath an orphan ward from the Borough of Barking and Dagenham in the Ilford South constituency, which otherwise comprises Borough of Redbridge wards, and would break community ties, as a petition told us that the Chadwell Heath community crosses the A118 into the neighbouring Whalebone ward. A counter proposal suggested moving Becontree ward into the Ilford South constituency instead, but this would also be an orphan ward, and divide the Becontree Estate. Our proposal did, however, receive a small amount of support, as the edge of the boroughs between the Chadwell and Chadwell Heath wards is not considered a boundary by some.
The inclusion of the Borough of Redbridge wards of Cranbrook and Valentines in our proposed Ilford North constituency was supported, as this was perceived to unite the area around Gants Hill. However, our proposal was also opposed by others who felt that it divided the area from central Ilford, and that we had not recognised the A12 as a significant barrier between these two wards and the rest of Ilford North.
There was some opposition to our proposed Chingford and Woodford Green, and Walthamstow configuration, largely focused on the A406 North Circular Road. Several representations suggested that we consider new ward boundaries for the Borough of Waltham Forest and use the A406 as the boundary. The Order for this was made on 17 May 2021.
Our minor realignment of the Leyton and Wanstead constituency, to take account of ward boundary changes, was largely supported for recognising ties between Wanstead and South Woodford, with some opposition for breaking ties between South Woodford and the wider Woodford community.
As we had already proposed splitting a ward in the Borough of Havering, our Assistant Commissioners considered that splitting the three existing wards of Emerson Park, Hacton and St. Andrew’s along new ward boundaries would be an acceptable solution in light of the conflicting evidence received regarding the Dagenham and Rainham, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Romford constituencies.
They considered that swapping Chadwell Heath ward for a different but still orphan ward from the Borough of Barking and Dagenham to be added to Ilford South would not provide a better solution than the initial proposals, as this would move the disruption and broken ties from Chadwell Heath ward to Becontree ward.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered splitting the Borough of Waltham Forest wards of Chapel End, and Hale End and Highams Park at the A406, but felt that the test for doing so had not been met, and that this would result in change to the existing Walthamstow constituency which was not otherwise required. We agreed with their view, and so changed the configuration of Dagenham and Rainham, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Romford and retained the initial proposals for Barking, Chingford and Woodford Green, Ilford North, Ilford South, Leyton and Wanstead, and Walthamstow.
Our proposed splits of Emerson Park, Hacton and St. Andrew’s were supported by those who wanted Emerson Park to stay as part of the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency, rather than to include it in the Romford constituency. Others felt that this resulted in more ward splits than necessary. There was a single request to take account of the new Havering-atte-Bower ward to further move the boundary between Hornchurch and Upminster, and Romford. A small number of respondents considered that, although we had united the Elm Park community, which crosses the existing constituency boundary into Hacton and St. Andrew’s wards, its community ties lie with Hornchurch, rather than with Dagenham, as we proposed.
A small number of representations cited our use of new ward boundaries in the Borough of Havering as precedent for a reconfiguration of the Barking, and Dagenham and Rainham constituencies on their new local government ward boundaries, as the Order for new boundaries in the Borough of Barking and Dagenham had been made on 15 December 2021. We received a small amount of opposition continuing the call for Chadwell Heath ward to be included in the Dagenham and Rainham constituency rather than the Ilford South constituency, but we also received some support for uniting the wider Chadwell area.
Opposition to South Woodford ward’s inclusion in the Leyton and Wanstead constituency continued at a low level during the final consultation period, as was our decision not to divide wards between the Chingford and Woodford Green, and Walthamstow constituencies.
We are not persuaded by proposals to divide existing wards along new ward boundaries in areas where there does not already exist a need to divide those wards in order to comply more closely with the statutory factors. As we set out in our policy on splitting wards at the beginning of the review, we will only consider new ward boundaries made by Order after 1 December 2020 in instances where we are persuaded to split a ward between constituencies. There did exist a need to divide wards between the Romford, and Hornchurch and Upminster constituencies in order to minimise disruption across the sub-region, so it was appropriate to do so there, but not elsewhere in North East London. Having considered the evidence regarding other changes, we consider that sufficient justification for departing from our revised proposals has not been demonstrated.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Barking; Chingford and Woodford Green; Dagenham and Rainham; Hornchurch and Upminster; Ilford North; Ilford South; Leyton and Wanstead; Romford; and Walthamstow. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
