The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
South West London
Initial proposals
Our initial proposals treated South Central and South West London as one sub-region. There are currently 19 whole constituencies across these parts of London, and the majority of another constituency. Our initial proposals were for 21 constituencies. This section of the report focuses on the South West area, covering the boroughs of: Kingston upon Thames; Merton; that part of Richmond upon Thames which lies south of the River Thames; Sutton; and Wandsworth, which includes nine existing constituencies. Of these, Putney and Wimbledon fell below the permitted electorate range. Battersea, Kingston and Surbiton, and Richmond Park were above the permitted range. The following had electorates within the permitted range: Carshalton and Wallington; Mitcham and Morden; Sutton and Cheam; and Tooting.
In the southern part of the Borough of Richmond upon Thames, we proposed a Richmond Park constituency that included three wards from the Borough of Kingston upon Thames, one more than currently, but would not include the Coombe Vale ward, as does the existing constituency. We proposed a Kingston and Surbiton constituency contained entirely within the Borough of Kingston upon Thames. We included two Borough of Kingston upon Thames wards in our proposed Wimbledon constituency, which otherwise comprised wards from the Borough of Merton. We proposed a Mitcham and Morden constituency which included the Cannon Hill ward, and transferred the Longthornton ward to our proposed Croydon North constituency as an orphan ward from the Borough of Merton. Our proposed Carshalton and Wallington, and Sutton and Cheam constituencies, both wholly contained within the Borough of Sutton, were changed solely to reflect new local authority ward boundaries. In the Borough of Wandsworth, we were able to retain the Tooting constituency unchanged, and bring the Battersea, and Putney constituencies within the permitted electorate range by splitting the Fairfield ward, moving a single polling district between them at the A214 road.
In the Borough of Merton, we received over 200 representations opposing our proposed transfer of the Longthornton ward from the Mitcham and Morden constituency to the Croydon North constituency. Residents argued that they look to Mitcham, and the Borough of Merton more widely, for local services and amenities including schools, community groups, healthcare services, leisure facilities, and places of worship. Our initial proposals were therefore said to break local ties in Longthornton ward. Concern was also expressed over the ward becoming an orphan ward in a Croydon constituency. Respondents also contended that transferring the Longthornton ward to the Croydon North constituency would leave its neighbouring Pollards Hill ward geographically isolated. Several counter proposals sought to include the Longthornton ward in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, thus addressing this feedback from representations.
Elsewhere in the Borough of Merton, we received notable opposition to our proposed transfer of the Cannon Hill ward from the Wimbledon constituency to the Mitcham and Morden constituency. Residents contended that our initial proposals would break community ties, since they relied on local services, transport links, and social and recreational facilities in neighbouring Wimbledon wards, rather than in the Mitcham or Morden areas, which they rarely visited.
A number of respondents questioned why parts of Morden town centre, including Morden tube station and parts of the shopping area (at the southern end of Merton Park ward) would be included in our proposed Wimbledon constituency rather than the Mitcham and Morden constituency. Although the Merton Park ward is in the Wimbledon constituency currently, respondents took the view that all of Morden town centre should be in the Mitcham and Morden constituency.
One counter proposal included the Cannon Hill ward in the Wimbledon constituency and divided the Merton Park ward between the Wimbledon, and Mitcham and Morden constituencies. The authors noted that polling district data was not available for the Borough of Merton, since the wards were prospective, but they observed that the new Merton Park ward was very similar to the existing one. They therefore proposed transferring the existing RC polling district, comprising the southern half of the ward, to the Mitcham and Morden constituency – thereby uniting all of Morden town centre. They also proposed transferring the Wandle ward from the Wimbledon constituency to the Mitcham and Morden constituency. A number of respondents supported this. Other counter proposals included the whole of the Merton Park ward in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, in place of the Cannon Hill ward, and did not suggest a transfer of the Wandle ward. The proponents of this counter proposal argued that the Merton Park ward would be a better fit with the Mitcham and Morden constituency than the Cannon Hill ward because Merton Park contains part of Morden town centre.
Representations acknowledged that the Wimbledon constituency needed to gain electors from the Borough of Kingston upon Thames in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range. Our initial proposals to include the St. James and Old Malden wards, however, were almost unanimously opposed. Respondents noted that the St. James ward in particular looks to New Malden High Street (in Beverley ward) for local services, shopping, and community facilities. Residents of Old Malden ward said that they gravitate to Worcester Park (in the Borough of Sutton) or New Malden for local shopping and amenities – and if travelling further afield, they would look to Kingston Town or even Epsom and Ewell in Surrey, rather than Wimbledon. The railway line connecting Malden Manor with Wimbledon was seen as a physical barrier rather than a unifier and that most people regard it as a hard boundary to road traffic because of the railway level crossing at West Barnes Lane.
Some respondents put forward the same counter proposal for the boroughs of Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames, albeit with different constituency names. They proposed including the Borough of Kingston upon Thames wards of Coombe Hill and Coombe Vale in the Wimbledon constituency, rather than the St. James and Old Malden wards. This proposal was generally well supported in representations. Residents argued that the two Coombe wards are a single community which would be divided into different constituencies under our initial proposals and that they look to Wimbledon for retail and leisure services. Respondents drew attention to Coombe Lane (A238) as a road and bus link between Coombe and Wimbledon, and emphasised that Wimbledon Common was a shared amenity, in addition to other shared amenities such as schools and Kingston Hospital. Some respondents pointed out that certain residents of the two Coombe wards are eligible to vote for ‘Conservators’ responsible for the preservation of Wimbledon Common, and must pay a levy towards the management of Wimbledon and Putney Commons, making it a shared political and financial connection.
Others expressed some concern at the proposed transfer of the Coombe Hill and Coombe Vale wards to the Wimbledon constituency. While acknowledging that it was no more disruptive than our initial proposals, they were concerned that Wimbledon Common and the A3 road, which at this point is a six-lane highway, divides the Coombe wards from Wimbledon.
Under the counter proposal that transfers the Coombe wards rather than the Malden wards to the Wimbledon constituency, Grove ward, comprising Kingston town centre, was transferred to the Richmond Park constituency. It was argued that Grove ward has coherent links northwards to the residential Canbury and Tudor wards (as demonstrated by the Kingston Town neighbourhood committee that covers these three wards), and that the River Thames binds Kingston town centre to Richmond. It was noted that the Norbiton ward, directly east of Grove ward, could also be considered for transfer to the Richmond Park constituency, but respondents suggested that Norbiton’s links northwards were much poorer than were Grove’s links northwards. In arguing the case for including the Grove ward in the Richmond Park constituency, it was asserted that this arrangement would unite Kingston town centre. Concern, however,was expressed that the transfer of Grove ward would distance Kingston town centre from its surrounding communities such as Surbiton, which look to Kingston for their main services and amenities.
Another counter proposal submitted that the Beverley and St. James wards should be included in the Wimbledon constituency, thereby retaining the Old Malden ward in a Kingston and Surbiton constituency. This was in support of our initial proposals for the Richmond Park constituency and therefore did not propose the transfer of the Grove ward. Other counter proposals received for this part of London were primarily those that suggested crossing the River Thames in one or more constituencies. We received some requests from respondents in the Borough of Kingston upon Thames to consider using the new local government ward boundaries for the borough. The Order for new wards in Kingston upon Thames was made in April 2021, and the new wards came into effect at the May 2022 local elections – well after the statutory cut-off date.
Our initial proposals for the boroughs of Sutton and Wandsworth were well supported, since they presented very minimal change from the existing constituencies in these boroughs, and continued to wholly align to their respective borough boundaries.
In the Borough of Wandsworth, respondents accepted that our proposed split of the Fairfield ward was necessary in order to prevent a reconfiguration of all three Wandsworth constituencies. One highlighted that splitting the ward along the A214 road, as we proposed, would actually better reflect community ties in the area, since the road represents a natural boundary between the Battersea and Wandsworth communities. Others advocated using the Borough of Wandsworth’s new local government ward boundaries – similarly to Kingston upon Thames, the Order for new wards in Wandsworth was made in April 2021 and implemented in May 2022. They suggested how the new wards may be grouped into three Wandsworth constituencies, but did not provide any electorate numbers or estimations. Others considered that the new boundaries need not be considered. We received a request to incorporate the northern tip of the existing Earlsfield ward into the Putney constituency, to avoid the creation of a polling district containing one elector for future general elections.
In assessing the representations and counter proposals received for the boroughs of Merton, Kingston upon Thames, and Richmond upon Thames, our Assistant Commissioners noted that it was possible to retain the Longthornton ward in the Mitcham and Morden constituency without any consequential implications to the overall pattern of constituencies in the Borough of Merton. They were persuaded by the many representations from Longthornton ward that it should be included in a constituency with Mitcham, not with Croydon. They were also persuaded by the evidence that the Cannon Hill ward has ties to Raynes Park and the wider Wimbledon area. They considered that the Merton Park ward would make a better fit with the Mitcham and Morden constituency than the Cannon Hill ward, since the Merton Park ward encompasses parts of Morden town centre.
Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the split of the Merton Park ward as suggested in a counter proposal had some merit in terms of community ties at the northern and southern extents of the ward, but that it would divide the residential Merton Park neighbourhood in the middle of the ward. The split would also require the transfer of the Wandle ward from the Wimbledon constituency to the Mitcham and Morden constituency, but the Assistant Commissioners considered that the Wandle ward has stronger ties to Wimbledon. They noted that the split of the Merton Park ward was not necessary for the integrity of this particular counter proposal: the Merton Park ward could be wholly transferred to Mitcham and Morden, and the Wandle ward could remain in Wimbledon, without impacting the counter proposal for the rest of the Merton, Kingston, and Richmond areas.
In determining which Borough of Kingston upon Thames wards to include in the Wimbledon constituency, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by the evidence that the two Coombe wards would make a more logical extension to the constituency than the initially proposed Old Malden and St. James wards. They considered that the counter proposal would keep the three Malden wards together, and the two Coombe wards together, and they considered that there was persuasive evidence of community ties between Coombe and Wimbledon. They considered the counter proposal to transfer the Beverley and St. James wards to the Wimbledon constituency would present some of the same issues that arose at the initial proposals consultation, in terms of dividing the Malden community. Furthermore, they considered it would also make the Old Malden ward particularly isolated.
While acknowledging it may not be ideal to transfer the Grove ward to the Richmond Park constituency, given the potential breaking of local ties between Kingston town centre and its surrounding communities in Surbiton, Norbiton, and further afield, our Assistant Commissioners ultimately considered that the counter proposal would enable a pattern of constituencies in the Borough of Kingston upon Thames that better reflected the statutory factors than our initial proposals. If one ward was required to be transferred to the Richmond Park constituency, they considered that the Grove ward would make a more logical choice than the Norbiton ward. They noted that the narrow salient extending at the east of Grove ward accommodated a waste disposal centre rather than a residential area, so they were not concerned by the unusual shape of the resultant constituencies.
In light of their assessments, our Assistant Commissioners recommended the adoption of the counter proposal, as considered above, for the boroughs of Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames, namely, a Richmond Park and Kingston Town constituency, and a Surbiton and The Maldens constituency. They noted the requests we had received to consider the new ward boundaries in the Borough of Kingston upon Thames, but determined that this was unnecessary given they were not persuaded to split any ward. The Assistant Commissioners subsequently recommended the adoption of a Wimbledon and Coombe constituency retaining the Wandle ward and not including any part of the Merton Park ward. They then recommended a Mitcham and Morden constituency including the whole of the Merton Park ward.
Given the support received for our proposed Carshalton and Wallington, and Sutton and Cheam constituencies, our Assistant Commissioners recommended to not change them as part of the revised proposals.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted those representations suggesting a pattern of constituencies using the new ward boundaries in the Borough of Wandsworth but, as was the case with the Borough of Kingston upon Thames, they were not persuaded that splitting multiple wards across the borough was necessary. They recognised, however, that our policy allows for the consideration of new ward boundaries when determining exactly how to split a ward, and therefore investigated whether the existing Fairfield ward could be divided in a different way to better align with Wandsworth’s new ward boundaries. They discovered, however, that such a solution was not practicable. In light of their assessments, our Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to our initial proposals for the Borough of Wandsworth, and we agreed.
We agreed with our Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations for the Borough of Merton, but had reservations over whether their recommendations for the Borough of Kingston upon Thames were an improvement over our initial proposals, noting that the A3 road in this area presents a significant barrier between Coombe and Wimbledon. We also had concerns regarding the transfer of the Grove ward to a Richmond-based constituency, since this ward contains Kingston town centre and therefore provides key services and amenities for residents across the existing Kingston and Surbiton constituency. We did accept, however, our Assistant Commissioners’ arguments that their recommendations responded to consultation feedback, and did not break ties within the distinct Malden community and within the distinct Coombe community, and included them in our revised proposals in order to consult on them publicly. However, we proposed that their recommended Richmond Park and Kingston Town constituency should be called Richmond Park and Kingston Central.
We agreed with their assessments and proposed that our initial proposals for the boroughs of Sutton and Wandsworth should be maintained.
Our revised proposals in the boroughs of Kingston upon Thames and Richmond upon Thames were strongly opposed. Respondents informed us that including the Grove ward from the Borough of Kingston upon Thames in a Richmond-based constituency would separate the main shopping area for the borough from many of its users across the Surbiton area, and from the Norbiton ward in particular, which looks towards the Grove ward for their local services. Residents across the Borough of Kingston upon Thames were concerned that Kingston Hospital would now be in the Wimbledon and Coombe constituency, as this lies within the Coombe Hill ward. There was also a feeling expressed that our proposed Surbiton and The Maldens constituency lacked cohesion and identity, as its local centre would now be part of the Richmond Park and Kingston Central constituency while the new constituency would have no centre. There was a small amount of support for the Coombe wards to be included in a Wimbledon-based constituency, but this was mainly from residents of the Wimbledon area, rather than from Coombe residents. Suggestions to use the new ward boundaries for the Borough of Kingston upon Thames were repeated.
The inclusion of the Borough of Merton ward of Merton Park in our proposed Mitcham and Morden constituency was strongly opposed, with residents saying that their ties, both economically and culturally, were all with Wimbledon rather than Morden, in spite of the close proximity of the ward to the rest of Morden, and that it includes Merton Civic Centre, Morden station, and much of Morden’s shopping area. Counter proposals were suggested which split the Merton Park and Wandle wards, or included the Cannon Hill ward in the Mitcham and Morden constituency instead of Merton Park, as in our initial proposals, which had been previously opposed.
We received very few comments on our proposals for the Borough of Sutton. Those we did receive supported our revised proposals for constituencies of Carshalton and Wallington, and Sutton and Cheam. We received a few responses in opposition to our revised proposals in the Borough of Wandsworth, some continuing the request to use the new ward boundaries, and one to avoid the potential creation of a polling district for a single elector at the northern tip of the Earlsfield ward, but we received no detailed counter proposals departing from our revised proposals for constituencies of Battersea, Putney and Tooting.
As both our initial and revised proposals as to which wards from the Borough of Kingston upon Thames should be included in a Wimbledon-based constituency were heavily opposed, we decided to visit both the Old Malden and Coombe areas, to assess for ourselves the physical divides between them and the Borough of Merton. We travelled from Motspur Park station into St. James ward along West Barnes Lane and Motspur Park. We observed that the local authority boundary between the boroughs of Merton and Kingston upon Thames appears to be indistinct at this point and that the community of Motspur Park spans both sides of the boundary, with the station and other amenities in West Barnes ward in the Borough of Merton, while the park itself and Motspur Park road is in St. James ward, in the Borough of Kingston upon Thames. We continued along Malden Road through New Malden in order to observe the boundary between the St. James ward and the Beverley ward, noting that New Malden’s shopping area begins in Beverley ward. We considered that residents of the St. James ward, at least those north of the A3 road, might look to New Malden for local amenities, but that the shopping area itself did not cross the boundary between the St. James and Beverley wards. However, we observed that the Beverley ward was highly integrated with the Coombe Vale ward, at least in the area south of Clarence Avenue/Langley Grove. Reaching the Coombe Hill ward, we observed Coombe Lane and proceeded to Wimbledon on the A238 Coombe Lane. We crossed the A3 road and considered that it was a significant barrier, with six lanes of fast-moving traffic and no obvious pedestrian alternative. Our conclusion after considering our observations alongside the evidence received across three public consultations, was that the Old Malden and St. James wards were the most appropriate to include in a Wimbledon constituency. We considered these wards have the best physical links among the options explored, and that this pattern would also allow us to keep the Grove ward with the Norbiton ward, and the wider Surbiton community.
Given the strong evidence received across all our public consultations that both the Cannon Hill and Merton Park wards should be included in a Wimbledon-based constituency rather than a Mitcham and Morden constituency, we again investigated the various counter proposals submitted.
We noted that the counter proposal to include both wards in the Wimbledon constituency required the transfer of the Wandle ward to the Mitcham and Morden constituency. We considered this configuration would separate that community, as most residents of the Wandle ward live on the west bank of the River Wandle, and the part which lies in the east side of the river only has one road link, which is back across the river towards Wimbledon. We also investigated the possibility of splitting either or both of the Cannon Hill or Merton Park wards, but considered that, as this would provide no wider sub-regional benefit, it did not meet our threshold for dividing a ward.
We therefore considered that the only options available to us were the configurations of the initial proposals and revised proposals. We decided to visit both wards in order to see for ourselves their links with Morden and Wimbledon. We observed the John Innes conservation area in the northern part of the Merton Park ward and we also noted the proximity of much of the ward to Morden. We considered that most of the ward was geographically closer to Morden town centre than to Wimbledon town centre. On visiting the Cannon Hill ward, we noted that the main roads across the ward, Martin Way and Hillcross Avenue, both lead to Morden town centre. We considered that the two wards have ties to both Wimbledon and Morden but, in having to determine a pattern of constituencies that are all within the permitted electorate range, we considered that the links of the Cannon Hill ward to the Mitcham and Morden constituency were better. We propose as part of our final recommendations that the Cannon Hill ward be included in the Mitcham and Morden constituency, and that Merton Park be included in the Wimbledon constituency.
We considered again whether it would be appropriate to use new ward boundaries for the Borough of Wandsworth in order to devise a more future-proofed configuration of constituencies but, given the high levels of support for our proposals at the earlier two consultation stages, we concluded that this would not justify our departing from the December 2020 boundaries. We also considered the potential difficulties in creating a small polling district and concluded that this would be entirely manageable within the local authority election team. We therefore propose no further change here.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Battersea; Carshalton and Wallington; Kingston and Surbiton; Mitcham and Morden; Putney; Richmond Park; Sutton and Cheam; Tooting; and Wimbledon. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
