The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
North West London
Initial proposals
As noted previously, our initial proposals treated North Central and North West London as one sub-region. This section of the report focuses on the North West area, covering the boroughs of: Brent; Ealing; Hammersmith and Fulham; Harrow; Hillingdon; Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea; that part of Richmond upon Thames which lies north of the River Thames; Westminster and the City of London, which includes 18 existing constituencies; and part of another. Of these, the following were below the permitted electorate range: Brent Central; Brent North; Brentford and Isleworth; Feltham and Heston; and Hampstead and Kilburn (which includes part of our subsequent North Central London sub-region). The following were above the permitted range: Chelsea and Fulham; Cities of London and Westminster; Ealing Southall; Kensington; Twickenham and Westminster North. The following were within the permitted range: Ealing Central and Acton; Ealing North; Hammersmith; Harrow East; Harrow West; Hayes and Harlington; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; and Uxbridge and South Ruislip.
In the Borough of Brent, we proposed a Brent Central constituency that was wholly within the borough, Hendon and Golders Green, and West Hampstead and Kilburn constituencies, both of which crossed the A5 into the boroughs of Barnet and Camden respectively, and a Kenton and Wembley West constituency, which included two wards from the Borough of Harrow. Our proposals for the Borough of Ealing were for minimal change. Ealing North was reconfigured solely to reflect new local government ward boundaries. We proposed moving the Walpole ward from Ealing Central and Acton to our proposed Southall constituency, and the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham wards of College Park & Old Oak, and Wormholt into our proposed Ealing Central constituency. We paired the centre of Hammersmith with the Chiswick area of the Borough of Hounslow, and Fulham with part of Chelsea, to propose our Hammersmith and Chiswick, and Fulham and Chelsea West constituencies.
In the Borough of Harrow, we proposed a configuration for the Harrow constituency, taking account of new local government ward boundaries, and crossed the A5 to propose a Stanmore and Edgware constituency including two wards from the Borough of Barnet. Across the Borough of Hillingdon we proposed a Hayes and West Drayton constituency very similar to the existing Hayes and Harlington, altered only to take account of new local government ward boundaries, and proposed minor changes to the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituencies for the same reason.
As we proposed including three Borough of Hounslow wards in the Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency, we needed to increase the number of electors in the Brentford and Isleworth constituency, and did so by including the Heston East ward, and the Borough of Richmond upon Thames ward of Whitton from the existing Twickenham constituency. As in our initial proposals we had paired the City of London with the Borough of Islington, as described previously, we grouped the Borough of Westminster with the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea and proposed Westminster and Chelsea East, and Kensington and Westbourne constituencies.
Our initial proposals in the Borough of Brent generated few responses in comparison to other areas, but were mostly opposed. The inclusion of the Alperton ward in the Brent Central constituency was opposed due to its separation from the rest of the constituency by the West Coast Main Line, London Overground and Underground, Southern railways, and Wembley Brook. The division of the wider Wembley area between the Brent Central and the Kenton and Wembley West constituencies was opposed for its breaking of community ties. The separation of the Harlesden community of the Harlesden & Kensal Green, and Roundwood wards between the proposed Brent Central, and West Hampstead and Kilburn constituencies, respectively, was also opposed for breaking community ties. We received counter proposals to either create separate constituencies for Wembley and Willesden, or to return to configurations more similar to the existing Brent North and Brent Central constituencies. A partial counter proposal which did not deal with any consequential effects was also received, which tried to resolve the Harlesden issue.
We received strong opposition to our inclusion of the two Harrow wards of Kenton East and Kenton West in the Kenton and Wembley West constituency. Respondents argued that the boundary between the boroughs of Harrow and Brent along Kenton Road (A4006) is a hard and distinct boundary, and residents of the two Kenton wards in Harrow use local services in neighbouring Borough of Harrow wards (and vice versa), rather than in Brent. They contended that the initial proposals would break local ties in the south-eastern part of the Borough of Harrow. We received counter proposals for Harrow and Brent that would retain Kenton East and Kenton West wards in a Harrow East constituency that would include all the wards in the existing Harrow East constituency, except for Wealdstone North, together with Queensbury as an orphan ward from the Borough of Brent. Respondents noted that the boundary between the Borough of Brent ward of Queensbury and the Borough of Harrow ward of Edgware is porous, running along residential roads, and that the Jubilee Line runs from Stanmore down through Queensbury ward, providing a key transport link between the areas of the proposed constituency. There was notable support for this counter proposal in local representations. Other counter proposals joined the Stanmore and Queensbury areas, but in a narrower and more elongated constituency that would divide the Kenton East ward from Kenton West ward. The composition of our initially proposed Harrow constituency represented little change from the existing constituency and was well supported.
In the Borough of Ealing, we received considerable opposition to our proposed transfer of Walpole ward from the Ealing Central and Acton constituency to the Southall constituency. Respondents cited Walpole’s strong ties with Ealing Broadway (the town centre area) and lack of connections with Southall. Many representations also opposed changing the name of the Ealing Southall constituency to simply Southall: residents of Hanwell Broadway, Northfield, and Walpole wards argued that they identified as part of Ealing, and advocated either retaining the current constituency name, or including West Ealing or Ealing West in the name. Some respondents, while opposing the name, did, however, support the inclusion of Walpole ward in the Southall constituency, describing Walpole ward’s close ties with its neighbouring Hanwell Broadway and Northfield wards.
Response to our initially proposed Ealing Central and Acton constituency was mixed, with some objections to the inclusion of the two Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham wards of College Park & Old Oak, and Wormholt in the constituency. Residents from the south-eastern corner of Wormholt ward voiced the strongest opposition, arguing that they were connected with Shepherd’s Bush and Hammersmith more widely, rather than Ealing or Acton. However, other respondents cited many shared local ties – including transport links, shopping facilities, and community organisations – across the boundary between the boroughs of Ealing, and Hammersmith and Fulham. They noted that Old Oak Common Lane, the borough boundary, is the principal shopping district for East Acton, a community that spans the two boroughs. Some respondents suggested that Old Oak should be included in the constituency name to recognise the expanding community in this area.
Response to our initial proposals for the Ealing North constituency was overwhelmingly positive, since no changes were proposed to the existing constituency except realignment with new local government ward boundaries.
Some counter proposals suggested maintaining the existing Ealing Central and Acton constituency unchanged (except for minor realignment with prospective local government ward boundaries) – enabling the Walpole ward to remain in the constituency, and the College Park & Old Oak, and Wormholt wards to be part of a Hammersmith-based constituency, but this required including North Hanwell ward in an Ealing Southall constituency, and the South Ruislip ward as an orphan from the Borough of Hillingdon in the Ealing North constituency. Another counter proposal suggested an unchanged Ealing Central and Acton constituency, and a Southall constituency that would include those parts of Heston East and Heston West wards (in the Borough of Hounslow) that lie north of the M4 motorway, thus requiring the splitting of two wards between constituencies.
In the north of the Borough of Hillingdon, we received some opposition to the division of the Harefield community, since our initial proposals included the Harefield Village ward in the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency and the Ickenham & South Harefield ward in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency.
Counter proposals united Harefield by including the Harefield Village ward together with the Ickenham & South Harefield ward in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, and including Ruislip Manor ward in the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency. While acknowledging that our initial proposals would divide Harefield, other respondents contended that this alternative would result in more disruption to the existing constituencies, and that including Ruislip Manor ward in a different constituency to South Ruislip ward would break ties between these two areas, and so supported our initial proposals.
Further south in the Borough of Hillingdon, the composition of our initially proposed Hayes and West Drayton constituency was largely supported. We did receive some representations advocating a return to the constituency’s existing name of Hayes and Harlington, since our proposed constituency was almost identical to the existing constituency.
In the Borough of Richmond upon Thames (north), residents of the Whitton ward voiced strong opposition to our initial proposals, which would transfer Whitton ward from the existing Twickenham constituency to the Brentford and Isleworth constituency. Respondents argued that our initial proposals would divide the Whitton community, which also spans the Heathfield ward. Despite being separated by a railway line, respondents referred to the Whitton and Heathfield wards as one single cohesive community, with many local services and amenities shared between the wards. Concerns were also expressed over Whitton becoming an orphan ward in a Hounslow-based constituency. Residents said that they identified with the Twickenham area, in the Borough of Richmond upon Thames, rather than Hounslow.
Some representations proposed ways in which the Whitton ward could remain in the Twickenham constituency. One proposed transferring St Margarets & North Twickenham ward to the Brentford and Isleworth constituency instead of Whitton ward, and other respondents proposed transferring the Heathfield ward instead of Whitton ward. Another proposed splitting both St Margarets & North Twickenham ward and Twickenham Riverside ward, and transferring the eastern portions to the Richmond Park constituency across the River Thames, arguing that the eastern parts of these wards have close ties with Richmond. A further counter proposal suggested splitting both the Whitton and Heathfield wards between the Twickenham, and Brentford and Isleworth constituencies.
A small number of representations did, however, support our initial proposals for the Brentford and Isleworth constituency, noting strong community links between the Hounslow South and Whitton wards. Our proposed Feltham and Heston constituency was well supported in representations.
Our initial proposals for the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea generated very strong opposition: we received over 1,200 representations opposing the constituencies of Fulham and Chelsea West, Kensington and Westbourne, and Westminster and Chelsea East. Respondents expressed deep concern over the division of Chelsea into two constituencies, the division of South Kensington into three constituencies, and the division of the borough as a whole into three constituencies. Respondents also opposed the inclusion of three north Westminster wards (Harrow Road, Queen’s Park, and Westbourne) in a Kensington-based constituency, noting the hard geographical barriers of the Grand Union Canal and the Great Western Main Line railway dividing north Kensington from north Westminster, and therefore the lack of local ties or shared community between the two areas.
In response to our proposed division of the Chelsea area into Chelsea East and Chelsea West constituencies, many representations drew attention to the King’s Road – the ‘historic central artery’ of Chelsea – being divided into two constituencies. Respondents also argued that many quintessential Chelsea institutions and landmarks would be separated into different constituencies under our initial proposals, with the Royal Hospital (home to the Chelsea Pensioners) and Sloane Square, for example, being included in a constituency with parts of the City of Westminster. Respondents further noted that our proposals would divide several conservation areas and ‘character areas’ in Chelsea.
Representations about the South Kensington area highlighted that the three South Kensington wards – Brompton & Hans Town, Courtfield, and Queen’s Gate – would be included in three different constituencies, therefore breaking local ties. Several respondents noted that South Kensington tube station and the three South Kensington museums (the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum, and the Victoria and Albert Museum) would be included in a City of Westminster-based constituency. Courtfield ward, proposed to be included in the Fulham and Chelsea West constituency, was seen as a core South Kensington residential neighbourhood. It was also noted that our initial proposals would divide South Kensington conservation areas and residents’ associations between constituencies.
There was some support for our initial proposals, particularly for the Kensington and Westbourne constituency, but the evidence in support was limited compared with the evidence against our initial proposals.
We received a strongly supported counter proposal which sought to closely reflect the existing Chelsea and Fulham constituency, thereby keeping the Chelsea community together. It would include a proposed Kensington and Bayswater constituency that would keep the South Kensington community together, too, and link Kensington with the City of Westminster wards of Bayswater and Lancaster Gate rather than the three wards to the north of the borough. Residents in support of this cited extensive community ties between the Notting Hill and Bayswater areas, noting that the borough boundary was far more porous here than further north.
Another counter proposal suggested the same Chelsea and Fulham constituency as above, but joined Kensington with the two City of Westminster wards of Westbourne, and Knightsbridge & Belgravia, rather than the Bayswater and Lancaster Gate wards. Residents of the Knightsbridge & Belgravia ward opposed this counter proposal, arguing that their community ties were with southern parts of Westminster rather than Kensington.
Some representations expressed concern over the inclusion of the whole of Brompton & Hans Town ward in a Kensington-based constituency as the ward comprises two historically distinct areas: the northern Brompton part that identifies as South Kensington, and the southern Hans Town part that identifies as Chelsea. Some respondents proposed that we split the Brompton & Hans Town ward between the Kensington constituency and the Chelsea and Fulham constituency, and consequently move all or part of Redcliffe ward to the Kensington constituency to bring both constituencies within the permitted electorate range. While noting that it was regrettable that the Hans Town area would not be included in a Chelsea constituency, others did not support such a split-ward solution.
As previously described, most representations regarding the City of London opposed it being joined with Islington South and advocated that it should remain paired with the City of Westminster. The majority of counter proposals presented a Cities of London and Westminster constituency based on the existing constituency. Some counter proposals suggested that the City of London should be joined with wards from the Borough of Camden as well as the City of Westminster. These respondents cited cultural, business, and transport links between the two Borough of Camden wards of Bloomsbury, and Holborn & Covent Garden, and the surrounding areas in the cities.
Given the approach taken by many counter proposals to treat the A5 road as a dividing line until the City of Westminster, we received several proposals for a constituency crossing between the City of Westminster and the Borough of Brent – joining the most southern wards of Brent with the north-western wards of Westminster, albeit in different configurations. These noted the clear divide of the A5 between the boroughs of Brent and Camden contrasted with the residential roads that mark the Borough of Brent and City of Westminster boundary, with good transport links such as the A404 Harrow Road and the Bakerloo Line linking Edgware Road in the City of Westminster to Harlesden in the Borough of Brent.
Our Assistant Commissioners recognised that the counter proposals for two constituencies wholly within the Borough of Brent described earlier could be interchanged without affecting the wider pattern of constituencies. They noted that the counter proposal for the Brent Central and Brent North constituencies would reflect the existing constituencies more closely than the counter proposal for the Wembley, and Willesden and Kingsbury constituencies, but also that, under the former, the Alperton ward would still be included in the Brent Central constituency, as in our initial proposals, and isolated from the rest of the constituency. They were persuaded by the evidence provided in representations that this arrangement would break local ties in the Alperton ward and would not reflect the geography of the area. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the inclusion of all the Wembley wards in one constituency would make considerable sense, reflecting those representations that had emphasised the cohesiveness of the Wembley wards. The Assistant Commissioners also noted that this would use the River Brent and an extensive portion of the A4140 road as a boundary between the Wembley, and Willesden and Kingsbury constituencies, which appeared to be a logical geographic boundary. They acknowledged that under both counter proposals the Harlesden & Kensal Green ward would be included in a different constituency to the Roundwood ward, and therefore local ties would potentially be broken in the Harlesden area. However, they considered that any alternative constituency configurations that kept the two wards together would result in knock-on disruption and the breaking of local ties elsewhere.
On balance, the Assistant Commissioners considered that the second counter proposal for Brent would better reflect the statutory factors overall than the first. They recommended, however, that the Willesden and Kingsbury constituency simply be named Willesden, since it would not encompass all of the Kingsbury community.
Our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded that the Harrow East constituency as proposed by several respondents would address the concerns from residents of the Kenton East and Kenton West wards, and would present an arrangement similar to the existing Harrow East constituency. While acknowledging it would not be ideal to include the Queensbury ward as an orphan ward from the Borough of Brent, they considered that the ward would make a logical extension to the constituency, given the permeability of the borough boundary along the northern edge of the ward, and the arguments set out in representations. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that the counter proposal for a Harrow East constituency, as outlined above, should be adopted.
Since the composition of our initially proposed Harrow constituency was well supported, and represented little change from the existing constituency, our Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any revisions to the composition of this constituency. However, they recommended naming the constituency Harrow West, as they considered that the existing name should be retained because the constituency would remain largely unchanged, and that it made sense to mirror the compass point reference in the Harrow East constituency.
In light of their assessments across the boroughs of Ealing, and Hammersmith and Fulham, our Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to our initial proposals for the constituencies of Ealing North, Ealing Central and Acton, and Southall, except for reverting the name of our initially proposed Southall constituency to Ealing Southall. They also recommended no changes to our initial proposals for the Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners saw merit in the counter proposal which united both the Harefield wards of the Borough of Hillingdon in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, and which transferred the Ruislip Manor ward to the Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency. They noted that this solution would address representations from the Harefield area and, while they acknowledged concerns over local ties being broken between Ruislip Manor and South Ruislip wards, they observed that Ruislip Manor ward is geographically divided from South Ruislip ward by Yeading Brook and the Chiltern Main Line railway line. They also considered that the alternative solution would unite more of Ruislip town centre in the same constituency. Conversely, the Assistant Commissioners did acknowledge that the alternative solution would represent greater change from the existing constituencies than our initial proposals, and would pair the densely populated Uxbridge area with rural Harefield. Emphasising the finely balanced nature of the decision, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the alternative solution for the constituencies of Uxbridge and South Ruislip, and Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, should be adopted: they considered that this would provide a better reflection of the local ties overall.
Further south in the Borough of Hillingdon, our Assistant Commissioners observed that the composition of our initially proposed Hayes and West Drayton constituency was largely supported; accordingly, they recommended no changes to the composition of this constituency, but in noting the representations on the name, they recommended that its existing name of Hayes and Harlington should be retained in light of the local support.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the evidence in opposition to our initial proposals for the Whitton ward was more compelling than that in support, but they found that the counter proposals to resolve this either left the Whitton community divided, as in the split-ward or Heathfield ward solutions detailed earlier, created constituencies that were not within the permitted electorate range, or relied on constituencies being created which crossed the River Thames, which has been widely accepted as the sub-region boundary.
Following their analysis, and further noting that our proposed Feltham and Heston constituency was well supported in representations, our Assistant Commissioners concluded that no alternative option or counter proposal would better reflect the statutory factors overall than our initial proposals for Richmond upon Thames (north) and Hounslow. Therefore, the Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to the initially proposed constituencies of Brentford and Isleworth, Feltham and Heston, and Twickenham.
Recognising the strength of opposition to our initial proposals in the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the quality of evidence received, our Assistant Commissioners carefully considered the counter proposals received. They concluded that the widely supported counter proposal would effectively address the issues raised in representations and present a logical solution for the constituencies of Chelsea and Fulham, and Kensington and Bayswater. They considered that the proposal to include the City of Westminster wards of Bayswater and Lancaster Gate in the Kensington-based constituency would make more sense in terms of community ties than would the alternative of the wards of Knightsbridge & Belgravia, and Westbourne. They noted the suggestion for splitting the Brompton & Hans Town ward and Redcliffe ward, in order to include the Hans Town area in the Chelsea and Fulham constituency, but they concluded that there was insufficient justification for splitting a ward since there was no wider benefit to be gained beyond the immediate location. In light of their analysis, the Assistant Commissioners recommended that the more widely supported counter proposal for the constituencies of Chelsea and Fulham, and Kensington and Bayswater, be adopted.
Before settling on a recommendation for a constituency joining the City of London with Westminster, our Assistant Commissioners noted the proposal for a constituency that would join the City with parts of Camden and Westminster, but as this would involve combining three local authorities in one constituency, and it would not align with their preferred new sub-regions, the Assistant Commissioners did not pursue this approach.
Our Assistant Commissioners observed that either the Abbey Road or Church Street ward – both located directly to the east of the A5 – could be included in their Cities of London and Westminster constituency. Most representations supported including the Abbey Road ward in a Cities of London and Westminster constituency, and Church Street ward in a Paddington and Kilburn constituency. Others included the Abbey Road ward in a Paddington and Kilburn constituency and the Church Street ward in a Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners visited the area to help them decide which was the most appropriate solution for the Abbey Road and Church Street wards. Their observations showed that the Church Street ward was somewhat separated from the wards to its north, south, and east by the Grand Union Canal, Marylebone Road, and the Chiltern Main Line railway. In contrast, they observed the shared community of St John’s Wood between the Abbey Road and Regent’s Park wards to its east. Walking down the A5, the Assistant Commissioners noted that the road narrowed between the Church Street ward and Little Venice ward to its west, with increasingly more shops and cafes on either side of the road, and a lively sense of community cohesion. The Assistant Commissioners therefore concluded that the Church Street ward would fit better with the Paddington and Kilburn constituency, and the Abbey Road ward with the Cities of London and Westminster constituency.
They recommended, however, that the Paddington and Kilburn constituency be named Queen’s Park and Little Venice, to reflect the community of Queen’s Park spanning the Brent-Westminster borough boundary, and to capture an identifiable area of the Westminster part of the constituency.
Our revised proposals attracted a mixture of support and opposition across the Borough of Brent. While our Wembley and Willesden constituency proposals were largely supported, the division of the Harlesden community between both constituencies was opposed, and counter proposals were received which attempted to keep them together. One of these provided constituencies broadly similar to ours in the Borough of Brent, but which in consequence created an almost discontiguous Harrow West constituency. Another sought to split the ward of Harlesden & Kensal Green in order to minimise the division of the area, but did so at the centre of Harlesden’s shopping area.
The names of our proposed Wembley and Willesden constituencies were opposed by those who considered the existing names of Brent North and Brent Central were appropriate, given their similar configuration to the existing constituencies. Others considered that the Willesden constituency should be named Brent, without any further designator. Both the name and configuration of our Queen’s Park and Little Venice constituency were opposed. Some wanted Kilburn mentioned in the name, or Maida Vale, and arguments against its configuration focused on the lack of a single community identity or coherence across the area, citing wealth disparities across its extent.
Our revised proposals for two constituencies in the Borough of Harrow were largely supported, with only little opposition to the Borough of Brent ward of Queensbury being included as an orphan ward. We received several alternative name suggestions for both, with suggestions that the Harrow East constituency be named Stanmore and Queensbury, and for Harrow West to be named Harrow, Harrow Central, or Harrow on the Hill.
Opposition continued, albeit at a lower level, to our including the Borough of Ealing Walpole ward in the Ealing Southall constituency due to its proximity and ties with the Ealing Broadway ward and the rest of our Ealing Central and Acton constituency. We also received mixed views on the inclusion of the two Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham wards of College Park & Old Oak, and Wormholt, in our Ealing Central and Acton proposal, with competing views on whether this configuration reflected community ties. We also received suggestions that the Ealing North constituency should instead be named Greenford and Northolt, and that the Ealing Central and Acton constituency should be named Acton and Central Ealing, Ealing Acton, or Ealing and Acton.
We received continued support for our proposed Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency. We also received again the counter proposal to include the Borough of Ealing ward of Southfield, as this includes part of the wider Chiswick community, making this a three-borough constituency, and to consequently transfer the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham wards of White City and Shepherd’s Bush Green to the Ealing Central and Acton constituency. It was separately suggested that the White City ward be included in the Ealing Central and Acton constituency, and Wormholt ward in the Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency.
Very few comments were received regarding our proposed Borough of Hillingdon constituencies, other than to rename the Hayes and Harlington constituency as either Hayes and Heathrow, or Hayes and West Drayton. We received little further evidence regarding our including the Harefield and South Harefield villages in our proposed Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency. Rather, we received evidence that the Ruislip Manor ward would have its strong local ties with the South Ruislip ward broken if we were to proceed with our revised proposals for this and the Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency. Those respondents who commented on this area largely supported we revert to the initial proposals.
Residents of the Borough of Richmond upon Thames ward of Whitton maintained their strong opposition to being included in the Borough of Hounslow-based constituency of Brentford and Isleworth. We received further counter proposals to split the Whitton ward or the Hounslow West ward, or the Hounslow Central ward combined with a more significant reconfiguration to create constituencies of Feltham and Hanworth including the Heathfield ward, which includes part of the Whitton community, Heston and Isleworth, and a Twickenham constituency which would include the Whitton ward. It was also suggested that Brentford and Isleworth be named Brentford and Hounslow Town. Our proposals for Brentford and Isleworth, and Feltham and Heston constituencies received very few other comments.
Our revised proposals across the City of London, City of Westminster, and the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea were largely supported. Returning the City of London to a Cities of London and Westminster constituency was welcomed, as were the Kensington and Bayswater, and Chelsea and Fulham constituencies. Residents of the Hans Town part of the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ward of Brompton & Hans Town maintained their suggestion to be included in the Chelsea and Fulham constituency, suggesting that the ward either be split, or that the Redcliffe ward be included in the Kensington and Bayswater constituency instead. A further counter proposal was received for a City of Westminster and Kensington South constituency including the City of London, and therefore including parts of three boroughs, and a Kensington North constituency including the City of Westminster wards of Harrow Road, Queen’s Park, and Westbourne. Two name changes were suggested, Fulham and Chelsea, as Fulham would be the larger part of the reconfigured constituency, and Kensington and Lancaster Gate.
We visited Harlesden in the Borough of Brent in order to ascertain whether the proposed split of the Harlesden & Kensal Green ward might help to avoid dividing the wider Harlesden community, travelling on into the Roundwood ward to observe links between the two wards. We observed that Harlesden has an extensive and busy town centre area, contained within the Harlesden & Kensal Green ward, whereas the Roundwood ward is more residential, with some smaller parades of shops along Church Road (A407). We noted that the counter proposal that suggested the ward split would use Park Parade and part of Harlesden High Street as a constituency boundary. On visiting these areas, we observed that they are very much part of Harlesden’s cohesive town centre, with shops and local amenities either side of the roads. Therefore, we considered that dividing the ward as such would divide the centre of Harlesden, and accordingly we were not persuaded by this counter proposal. The alternative counter proposal to keep both wards together and in a single constituency created substantial disruption to the existing pattern of constituencies across the Borough of Harrow. We were not, therefore, persuaded by this alternative proposal and we concluded that our revised proposals provided the most appropriate configuration across the borough. We considered the names for the two Brent constituencies and concluded that their orientation directed us to name them Brent East, and Brent West. Our consideration of the evidence provided found that our proposed Queen’s Park and Little Venice constituency crossed the A5 where it formed a community shopping area for both sides of the road, and had good transport links between otherwise disparate areas. We agreed with those who considered that a reference to Maida Vale should be included in the name.
Our revised proposals for the Harrow East and Harrow West constituencies were largely supported. We do not consider the suggested names to be any more appropriate than those we proposed, and consider that the compass point designators provide for appropriate distinction between the constituencies, and the borough.
We are not persuaded that the evidence to change our revised proposals across the Borough of Ealing is persuasive, as attempting to resolve the inclusion of Walpole ward in the Ealing Central and Acton constituency would result in more substantial change to the existing constituencies than we propose. Nor are we persuaded to change any of our proposed names, given that the configuration of each of the three constituencies is similar to the existing constituencies of Ealing Central and Acton, Ealing North, and Ealing Southall, and that the Acton community extends across the boundary into the College Park & Old Oak, and Wormholt wards we are including from the Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham.
Our revised proposals across the Borough of Hillingdon were largely supported, apart from concerns that our revised proposal now divided the communities in the Ruislip Manor area. We have considered the evidence received concerning the Harefield and Ruislip Manor areas in all consultation periods. We considered that the evidence received concerning Ruislip Manor to be more persuasive. Therefore, under our final recommendations, we have reverted to our initial proposals for the two constituencies of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip. It was suggested by some respondents that this constituency be named Uxbridge but, as it is similar in configuration to the existing constituency, we considered that it would not be appropriate to remove the name of a substantial part of the constituency.
We have not received sufficiently persuasive evidence to change our revised proposals for the Borough of Hounslow. We note the opposition to the inclusion of the Borough of Richmond upon Thames ward of Whitton in the Brentford and Isleworth constituency, but consider that the counter proposals continue to divide the wider Whitton area, either by splitting this ward, by including the Heathfield ward in a neighbouring constituency instead of the Whitton ward, or crossing the sub-region boundary at the River Thames when this boundary is widely accepted as appropriate to the wider pattern of constituencies.
When considering the evidence for further change across the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the City of Westminster, we note that the counter proposal to include the Borough of Kensington and Chelsea ward of Brompton & Hans Town in the Chelsea and Fulham constituency would also move much of the South Kensington area, including its London Underground station, and the museums and galleries that we were told should remain in a Kensington-based constituency. Dividing the ward might mitigate this, but we consider that this would not resolve any larger issues across the sub-region or region and so does not meet our criteria for doing so. In fact, it would require the splitting of an additional ward, creating further consequential changes to our proposed Kensington and Bayswater constituency. With regard to the names, as Bayswater is a larger area than Lancaster Gate, and the proposed Chelsea and Fulham constituency is so similar to the existing configuration, we consider our revised proposal names to be the most appropriate in light of all the evidence received. We note the broad support for our revised Cities of London and Westminster constituency, and propose no further change.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Brent East; Brent West; Brentford and Isleworth; Chelsea and Fulham; Cities of London and Westminster; Ealing Central and Acton; Ealing North; Ealing Southall; Feltham and Heston; Hammersmith and Chiswick; Harrow East; Harrow West; Hayes and Harlington; Kensington and Bayswater; Queen’s Park and Maida Vale; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; Twickenham; and Uxbridge and South Ruislip. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
