The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
South Central London
Initial proposals
As outlined previously, our initial proposals treated South Central and South West London as one sub-region. This section of the report focuses on the South Central area, covering the boroughs of Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham, and Southwark, which includes ten existing constituencies and most of the existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency. Of the existing constituencies, the following fell above the permitted electoral range: Bermondsey and Old Southwark; Camberwell and Peckham; Croydon Central; Croydon North; Croydon South; Dulwich and West Norwood; Lewisham; Deptford; and Streatham. Lewisham East, and Lewisham West and Penge had electorates within the permitted range, and Vauxhall was above the permitted range.
In the Borough of Croydon we proposed constituencies of Croydon East and Croydon South which were entirely within the borough, a Croydon North constituency which included the orphan ward of Longthornton from the Borough of Merton, and a Norwood constituency which included two wards that make up the West Norwood area from the Borough of Lambeth. As part of our initial proposals, we proposed to split the Borough of Croydon ward of Waddon between constituencies.
We proposed constituencies of Clapham and Brixton, and Streatham within the Borough of Lambeth, and a Vauxhall and Camberwell constituency which included three wards from the Borough of Southwark. In the Borough of Southwark we proposed constituencies of Bermondsey and Borough, and Peckham, similar to the existing constituencies of Bermondsey and Old Southwark, and Camberwell and Peckham, and a Dulwich and Sydenham constituency which had four wards each from the boroughs of Lewisham and Southwark. We proposed constituencies of Deptford, and Lewisham East in the Borough of Lewisham, changed from the existing in order to take account of new local government ward boundaries.
Our initial proposals for the Borough of Croydon were received with a mixture of support and opposition. Our proposed Croydon South constituency was widely supported, with respondents noting that our initial proposals kept together the communities of Purley, Coulsdon, Kenley, Sanderstead, Croham, and South Croydon, which are of a similar character and well connected by key transport arteries such as the A23 road and Southern rail routes. Very little concern was expressed over our proposed split of the Waddon ward.
We did, however, receive opposition from the Woodside and Addiscombe community regarding our proposed inclusion of the Woodside ward in the Norwood constituency rather than the Croydon East constituency with its Addiscombe neighbours. Respondents argued that the Woodside and Addiscombe areas had been in the same constituency for over 60 years, and that Woodside residents look south to Addiscombe for shopping, health and community services, and had transport links towards central Croydon. Including Woodside in a different constituency to Addiscombe would therefore break long-standing local ties. Respondents also highlighted that the Brighton Main Line represented a physical barrier between the Woodside ward and the rest of the proposed Norwood constituency to its north, which would particularly isolate the residents of Towpath Way and Canal Walk in the south-western corner of the ward. We received a petition expressing concern that Davidson Road, lying parallel to Towpath Way and Canal Walk, would be divided between two constituencies under our initial proposals.
However, some respondents argued that the Woodside ward shares local ties with the South Norwood area to its north, pointing out that the South Norwood leisure centre, country park, social club and mosque are all located in Woodside ward. They contended that the Brighton Main Line is permeable around South Norwood town centre – and noted that South Norwood ward in fact spans the railway line to the north of Norwood Junction station, whereas the tram line running along the southern edge of the Woodside ward presents a hard boundary. Several representations highlighted that Croydon Council’s Local Plan had designated South Norwood and Woodside as one place, with Addiscombe as another distinct place. One counter proposal included the Woodside ward in a Croydon North East and Penge constituency, which would cross the borough boundary with the Borough of Bromley.
We received another counter proposal in which the Woodside ward would remain together with Addiscombe in the Croydon East constituency, and consequently the Selsdon Vale & Forestdale ward would be transferred to the Croydon South constituency. This counter proposal would not require Waddon ward to be split. A similar arrangement for Croydon East and Croydon South constituencies was presented in another counter proposal which included splitting the South Croydon ward in order to bring the Croydon North constituency into the permitted electorate range.
In the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, we received over 400 representations opposing the division of the existing Dulwich and West Norwood constituency into four different constituencies. Respondents argued that, although spanning the two boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, the existing constituency unites communities such as Herne Hill, Gipsy Hill, and West Dulwich, which are divided by the borough boundary. Our initial proposals would therefore break community ties in these areas, particularly in Herne Hill, which would be divided into three constituencies, and also in West Norwood, whose town centre and high street would be divided into two constituencies.
Other arguments in opposition contended that our initial proposals would pair boroughs lacking any community, geographical, or administrative connections. Respondents pointed out that West Norwood, proposed to be joined with wards from Croydon in the Norwood constituency, is geographically separated from Croydon by the Norwood Ridge. Similarly, the Dulwich area, proposed to be joined with wards from Lewisham in the Dulwich and Sydenham constituency, is divided from Lewisham by the Sydenham Hill Ridge and Dulwich Woods.
One counter proposal addressed many of these concerns by presenting a Dulwich and West Norwood constituency based on the existing constituency, which would include the following communities together in the same constituency: Herne Hill; Dulwich; Dulwich Village; Gipsy Hill; West Dulwich; and West Norwood. This was well supported in representations. Another proposed a similar Dulwich West constituency, but included the Borough of Lambeth ward of Tulse Hill in place of the Champion Hill ward from the Borough of Southwark, and split Knight’s Hill ward from the Borough of Lambeth between the proposed Dulwich West, and Norwood and Streatham constituencies. Another suggested configuration, rather than crossing the boundary between the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, proposed a Norwood constituency that would consist of the Borough of Lambeth wards of the existing Dulwich and West Norwood constituency (plus two additional Borough of Lambeth wards), and a Dulwich and Sydenham constituency similar to our initial proposals. Others took a similar approach to this in the Borough of Lambeth and paired Dulwich with Camberwell in a constituency that would be wholly within the Borough of Southwark. Others supported our initial proposals for the Dulwich and Sydenham constituency, and separated the Borough of Lambeth wards currently in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency into two different constituencies: Norwood, and Brixton East and Camberwell.
We received representations from two campaigns relating to the proposals for the Borough of Lambeth as a whole. One campaign opposed our initial proposals here for being unnecessarily disruptive and breaking local ties in the West Norwood area in particular. The campaign also noted that transport links primarily run north–south in the borough, whereas our initially proposed Clapham and Brixton constituency and Streatham constituency extended from the eastern to the western boundaries of the borough, with poor internal transport connections. This campaign supported the counter proposal as described above which proposed three constituencies that would be wholly contained within the Borough of Lambeth, two of which (Streatham and Vauxhall) would be very similar to the existing constituencies. Conversely, there were representations supporting our initial proposals for the Streatham constituency and opposing any counter proposals that would remove the Tulse Hill or Brixton Hill wards from the Streatham constituency, on the grounds that these counter proposals would break local ties.
Several respondents from the Borough of Lambeth expressed concern that our initial proposals did not take into account their new local government ward boundaries. The Order for new wards in the Borough of Lambeth was made in January 2022 – well after the statutory cut-off date.
A number of themes emerged regarding our initial proposals for the Vauxhall and Camberwell constituency, which would span the northern part of the boundary between the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. Opposition was expressed by some residents of the St. George’s ward in the Borough of Southwark that they would be separated from their neighbouring areas of Elephant and Castle, and Borough. Most representations also noted the developments and regeneration taking place around Elephant and Castle, arguing that the related issues would be best served by one MP.
Camberwell residents voiced strong opposition to the prospective division of the Camberwell area between constituencies. Respondents outlined strong community ties, shared local services, and a shared sense of identity between the two wards of Camberwell Green and St. Giles. A number of respondents also opposed the Camberwell Green ward being linked with the Vauxhall area, arguing that Camberwell as a whole has much stronger links with Peckham than with Vauxhall.
Several counter proposals sought to retain the two Camberwell wards together in a single constituency and include the St. George’s ward from the Borough of Lambeth in a Bermondsey‑based constituency. A different suggestion proposed a Vauxhall and Camberwell constituency identical to our initial proposals except for the transfer of the St. George’s ward to a Bermondsey-based constituency.
One representation supported the inclusion of the two Borough of Southwark wards of Camberwell Green and Newington in a Vauxhall constituency, highlighting that Newington ward contains Kennington Underground station, and many residents of the existing Vauxhall constituency (especially in the Borough of Lambeth ward of Prince’s) use this station regularly. This response also argued that the inclusion of the Newington ward form the Borough of Southwark would bring together the entirety of Kennington Park and its surrounding housing estates, and further outlined school links between the Camberwell Green ward and its neighbouring Lambeth wards, as well as the uniting thread of Camberwell New Road, which is used as a shopping district by residents of Camberwell Green ward and the two Borough of Lambeth wards of Newington and Vassall. This, and a number of other responses proposed, however, that the existing constituency name of Vauxhall should be retained, since the Camberwell part of the constituency would not be significantly larger than any of the other communities currently within the Vauxhall constituency.
The composition of our initially proposed Bermondsey and Borough constituency was generally well supported, but we received some opposition to the proposed name. Respondents either argued for the retention of the existing name (Bermondsey and Old Southwark), or advocated for the inclusion of Rotherhithe in the name of the constituency, contending that Rotherhithe is an important (and growing) population centre with its own distinct identity.
Our initial proposals for the Lewisham East constituency and the Deptford constituency did not generate much comment, since they would be unchanged from the existing constituencies except for realignment with new local government ward boundaries. Some respondents expressed opposition to a counter proposal for the Borough of Lewisham, particularly noting it would be divided into five constituencies, only one of which would be contained wholly within the borough boundary. Respondents highlighted that this counter proposal would break local ties between Lee Green and Hither Green in the east of the borough, and also contended that the Lee Green and Grove Park wards, which would be included in the counter proposal’s Eltham and Blackheath constituency, have no ties to Eltham despite their proximity.
A different counter proposal for the Borough of Lewisham, however, was supported. Although it would represent more change from the existing constituencies than our initial proposals, respondents generally supported the proposed transfer of the Bellingham ward to the Lewisham East constituency, and the Blackheath ward to the Deptford-based constituency. It would also unite Beckenham Place Park in one constituency, and better reflect community ties. It was argued that the Blackheath population had become more oriented towards central Lewisham and the boundary between the areas is blurred, therefore it would make sense to include the Blackheath ward in a constituency with the Lewisham Central ward.
Others were critical of counter proposals which would divide both the Brixton and Streatham communities between multiple constituencies.
When considering potential revisions to our initial proposals in the boroughs of Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham, and Southwark, our Assistant Commissioners recognised that the approach they decided to pursue for Croydon and Lambeth would ultimately dictate their choices for Southwark and Lewisham. They noted that counter proposals were not as easily interchangeable as they were in parts of North London, since the counter proposals tended to present significantly different solutions.
In assessing the options for the boroughs of Croydon and Lambeth, the Assistant Commissioners observed that those counter proposals that suggested configuring the Borough of Lambeth with coterminous constituencies all consequently proposed a constituency including wards from the boroughs of Croydon and Bromley in the Crystal Palace area. However, those counter proposals did not treat the Borough of Lambeth as a self-contained area with all proposed constituencies crossing between the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, or the boroughs of Lambeth and Croydon.
Our Assistant Commissioners saw the merit in the counter proposals to treat the Borough of Lambeth as self-contained, with three whole constituencies aligned to the borough boundaries. They noted that some of those proposals would also closely reflect the boundaries of the existing Vauxhall and Streatham constituencies. They considered that this arrangement for Lambeth would therefore strongly reflect the statutory factors within that borough. They also considered, however, that this would have significant knock-on consequences for the Borough of Southwark, such as dividing the Peckham community, and that the Borough of Lewisham would be divided into five different constituencies. Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the Borough of Lewisham ward of Bellingham would become an orphan ward in a Beckenham and Bromley Town constituency. The Assistant Commissioners were persuaded that Bellingham’s links were overwhelmingly with Lewisham rather than with Beckenham or Bromley. Taken together, this evidence convinced our Assistant Commissioners to recommend keeping the sub-regions as initially proposed.
When assessing other counter proposals for the boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham, our Assistant Commissioners considered that the proposal to retain a Dulwich and West Norwood constituency had merit, given the persuasive evidence received. While noting that the proposed arrangement for a Dulwich and West Norwood constituency would necessitate some significant change to the existing Vauxhall and Streatham constituencies, the Assistant Commissioners considered that it would enable a pattern of constituencies in the rest of Southwark and Lewisham more similar to the existing arrangement than other counter proposals. The Borough of Lewisham would be divided into only three constituencies under this counter proposal, closely reflecting the existing pattern. While the Borough of Southwark would be divided into five constituencies under this counter proposal, two would be wholly contained within the borough, and the Assistant Commissioners considered that the proposed Bermondsey and Borough constituency, Peckham constituency, and Dulwich and West Norwood constituency would all be clearly related to the pattern of existing constituencies.
The Assistant Commissioners further considered that this counter proposal’s configuration of the Lewisham West and East Dulwich constituency would unite the Forest Hill and Honor Oak communities in the same constituency, although acknowledging that East Dulwich would be separated from Dulwich Village.
Our Assistant Commissioners observed that the Brixton area is currently divided into three constituencies, and that this counter proposal accordingly appeared, to them, to represent an improvement for Brixton compared with both the existing pattern and our initially proposed Clapham and Brixton constituency. They also considered that other counter proposals would continue to divide the Brixton community.
The Assistant Commissioners observed that this counter proposal’s configuration of the Streatham and Thornton Heath constituency comprised the four core Streatham wards, and therefore would not divide the Streatham community. However, they recognised that we had received very few representations from the Norbury area, and so considered that they were not in a position to make an informed judgement about local ties of the Norbury community.
Turning their attention further south in the Borough of Croydon, the Assistant Commissioners saw the benefits of including the Woodside and Addiscombe wards together in the same constituency, given the strength of the representations outlining community ties between Woodside and Addiscombe, and the significant barrier of the Southern Main Line railway. They noted that counter proposals to keep the Woodside and Addiscombe wards together in a Croydon East constituency included the consequential transfer of the Selsdon Vale & Forestdale ward to the Croydon South constituency, which would divide the town of Selsdon into two constituencies and break local ties in the Selsdon community.
While favouring this counter proposal, on the whole, above the other counter proposals received for the South Central London area, the Assistant Commissioners did recognise some of its potential drawbacks, including the division of Selsdon, the Thornton ward split, and the separation of the two Norbury wards. They identified, however, that it was possible to amend the counter proposal to address these issues: the Waddon ward in the Borough of Croydon could be split instead of the Thornton ward in the Borough of Lambeth (by transferring two polling districts, WDN5 and WDN6, to the Croydon South constituency, rather than just WDN6 as in our initial proposals); the Norbury & Pollards Hill ward could then be transferred from the Croydon North constituency to a Streatham and Thornton Heath constituency, to bring the two Norbury wards together in the same constituency; and consequently the Woodside ward could be transferred from the Croydon East constituency to the Croydon North constituency, to enable both Selsdon wards to remain together in the Croydon East constituency. The Assistant Commissioners recognised that this plan would separate Woodside from Addiscombe, but they noted the evidence we had received in support of Woodside being linked with the South Norwood ward to its north. To help them understand the practical implications of this revised version of the counter proposal, our Assistant Commissioners visited the area.
On visiting the Waddon ward, our Assistant Commissioners were not convinced that dividing the ward along the western boundary of the WDN5 polling district would present a desirable solution. They considered that the resultant constituency boundary would run through residential streets and divide a homogeneous neighbourhood. The Assistant Commissioners then visited the Norbury & Pollards Hill, and Norbury Park wards, observing a strong sense of the Norbury community identity. They considered that the railway line was not a significant barrier between these two wards, since the road continued directly under the railway line and the houses on either side of the railway were similar in appearance. The Assistant Commissioners therefore considered that the two Norbury wards were strongly linked, and that including them together in the same constituency would represent an improvement on the counter proposal discussed above.
Crossing the borough boundary from the Norbury area to the Streatham area, our Assistant Commissioners considered that these areas merged together with little discernible difference between the Norbury Park and Streatham South wards. In contrast, along Crown Lane (the A214, which is also the borough boundary between Croydon and Lambeth in the Upper Norwood/West Norwood area) they observed that the summit of the Norwood Ridge marked a notable topographical boundary between the West Norwood area and Croydon, as representations had outlined. Therefore, they considered that a cross-borough constituency between Norbury and Streatham made more sense ‘on the ground’ and better reflected the statutory factors.
When visiting the Woodside ward, our Assistant Commissioners considered that the railway lines did, on the whole, present a significant physical barrier between the Woodside ward and South Norwood ward to its north. They considered that the railway line was not such a strong divide around Norwood Junction station, since South Norwood Hill merged into Portland Road here and there continued to be shops and services on either side of Portland Road south-east of the railway. However, to the south of Norwood Junction the railway line was a much more significant barrier, with a single road bridge over it and, on visiting Canal Walk and Towpath Way, our Assistant Commissioners sympathised with residents’ concerns that this road and the surrounding area would be extremely isolated if included in a constituency with wards to its north rather than to its south.
Following their site visits, the Assistant Commissioners explored further options for the Waddon and Woodside areas. They alighted upon a solution that would enable the whole of the Waddon ward to remain in a single constituency, and that would enable most of the Woodside ward to remain in a constituency with its southerly Addiscombe neighbours – while not dividing the town of Selsdon as a consequence. This solution involved adding the Park Hill & Whitgift ward to the Croydon South constituency, and splitting the Woodside ward by including all its polling districts except WDS1 in the Croydon East constituency. WDS1 would be included in a constituency with the South Norwood ward to its north. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the WDS1 polling district, in the north-eastern corner of the ward, was the one part of Woodside that could be said to link seamlessly with the South Norwood ward – which traverses the railway line in this area – to the extent that residents of this part of the ward would likely identify more with the South Norwood community than the Woodside community. Regarding the Park Hill & Whitgift ward, they considered that much of the residential area of the ward was an extension of the South Croydon neighbourhood, and therefore made a logical addition to the Croydon South constituency.
In light of their assessments, and mindful of the careful balancing of a number of issues, our Assistant Commissioners recommended the adoption of an amended version of this counter proposal for the Borough of Croydon and part of the Borough of Lambeth, as outlined in the solution above. Given the reconfiguration proposed, they also recommended that the names Croydon East and Croydon South should be retained.
In the Borough of Lambeth, the Assistant Commissioners recommended a Lambeth Central constituency closely aligned with the counter proposal’s Clapham and Brixton constituency, but including the whole of the Thornton ward. Since the constituency would not encompass all of the Brixton community, our Assistant Commissioners considered that Lambeth Central would be a more appropriate name. They acknowledged those representations encouraging us to take account of the Borough of Lambeth’s new local government ward boundaries, but they considered that using post-December 2020 ward boundaries across the borough was not necessary given they were not persuaded to split any wards.
The Assistant Commissioners subsequently recommended the adoption of a counter proposal for the rest of the boroughs of Lambeth, Southwark, and Lewisham – namely, the following constituencies of: Dulwich and West Norwood; Vauxhall and Camberwell; Bermondsey and Borough; Peckham; Lewisham West and East Dulwich; Lewisham East; and Lewisham North and Deptford. They recommended, however, that the Vauxhall and Camberwell constituency should simply be named Vauxhall, in light of the arguments presented for the retention of this name. They also recommended that the Bermondsey and Borough constituency should be named Bermondsey and Old Southwark, maintaining its existing name. They considered that this would be in greater accordance with our policy on naming than would the inclusion of Rotherhithe in the name, since the shape and character of the revised constituency would reflect that of the existing constituency. While acknowledging that this configuration would maintain the division of the Camberwell community – an issue that had generated notable opposition in the consultation periods – the Assistant Commissioners considered that no other counter proposal would better reflect the statutory factors across the sub-region as a whole. We agreed with their recommendations.
Our revised proposals across the Borough of Croydon were both supported and opposed. Residents of the Park Hill & Whitgift ward considered that their ties lay to the north, citing transport links across the ward into the two Addiscombe wards to support their request that they should not be included in the Croydon South constituency. Representations regarding the Woodside ward were mixed, with some supporting our split of the ward, with the southern part of the ward being linked with the two Addiscombe ward in our proposed Croydon East constituency. However, others opposed the split, arguing that this would divide a close-knit community, and that the entire ward should be included in the Croydon East constituency. Still others considered that the entire ward belongs with the South Norwood ward rather than with the Addiscombe East and Addiscombe West wards.
We received several counter proposals to attempt to resolve these issues in different ways. One included the Park Hill & Whitgift ward in a Croydon East constituency, the Woodside ward in a Croydon West and South Norwood constituency, and split the Waddon ward at the A232 Duppas Hill Road between the two to bring both within the permitted electorate range. Another kept the wards of Addiscombe East, Addiscombe West, Park Hill & Whitgift, and Woodside together in a Croydon North East constituency with the South and Upper Norwood areas, but created an elongated Croydon West and Purley constituency in order to achieve this. One counter proposal kept the Park Hill & Whitgift ward in the Croydon South constituency as we proposed, but included the two Addiscombe wards in a Croydon West configuration, and the Woodside ward in a Croydon East constituency reaching from South Norwood to New Addington. Another alternative suggested splitting the Waddon ward as we had in our initial proposals, and the Woodside ward in a different way to our revised proposals, linking more of it with the South Norwood ward. The final counter proposal received for this area split the Waddon ward along the A232 Duppas Hill Road as described above, and the Broad Green ward between a Croydon North constituency including the Addiscombe East, Addiscombe West, South Norwood and Woodside wards, and included the Park Hill & Whitgift ward in a Croydon Central constituency extending from the split Broad Green and Waddon wards to New Addington in the south of the borough.
Some of our proposed constituency names in the Borough of Croydon were opposed, with suggestions that the Croydon East constituency should be named Addington and Addiscombe, and that Croydon South should be named Coulsdon and Purley, but these attracted little support. There was some opposition to the name of our proposed Croydon West and South Norwood constituency, with the most popular alternative being Croydon West, with Croydon North, and Croydon and South Norwood also suggested. A small number of representations opposed our Streatham and Croydon North revised proposal for pairing parts of the Borough of Croydon with the Borough of Lambeth, but no viable counter proposals were provided at the final consultation stage to resolve this. It was suggested that the constituency might instead be called Streatham and Upper Norwood, Croydon North and Streatham, or Streatham and Croydon North.
The biggest issue across the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark was the substantial opposition to the lack of any Camberwell-centred constituency and the consequent breaking of community ties, as both our initial and revised proposals divided this area between three constituencies. Residents of the Champion Hill ward in the Borough of Southwark drew particular attention to our revised proposal to include them in the Dulwich and West Norwood constituency. They preferred our initial proposal for the ward to be included in the Peckham constituency, with which they considered they had strong ties, entirely within the Borough of Southwark, rather than the two-borough constituency of Dulwich and West Norwood where they considered their issues would be forgotten within the much larger areas of the majority of that constituency. The majority of representations received also objected to none of the proposed successor constituencies including Camberwell in their names. Suggested alternative names for our Peckham constituency included Peckham and Camberwell, Peckham and East Camberwell, and Camberwell, Peckham and Walworth. Alternatives for our proposed Vauxhall constituency included Camberwell and Vauxhall, Vauxhall and West Camberwell, and Waterloo.
Other than from the Champion Hill ward, our proposed Dulwich and West Norwood constituency was supported for resolving concerns raised at earlier stages of consultation by residents of: Dulwich; Gipsy Hill; Herne Hill; West Dulwich; and West Norwood. One respondent suggested that our Dulwich and West Norwood constituency should instead be named Dulwich and Brixton.
We received a small amount of opposition to our proposed Lewisham West and East Dulwich constituency as it was suggested it broke community ties between Dulwich and East Dulwich. We also received alternative proposals for the constituency name. There were suggestions that it should instead be named East Dulwich and Forest Hill, Forest Hill and East Dulwich, Sydenham and East Dulwich, or Lewisham West and Dulwich Hill.
Our revised Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency elicited little response other than a proposal to change the name to Bermondsey and North Southwark. We received a counter proposal for five constituencies in the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark, to be reconfigured as: Clapham and Brixton; Camberwell and Peckham; Dulwich and West Norwood; Lewisham West and Nunhead; and Vauxhall. It made the case that this would reunite Camberwell, avoid a division of Nunhead, keep East Dulwich together with Dulwich, unite all of Brixton, and unite Stockwell.
Apart from the previously mentioned Lewisham West and East Dulwich responses to our revised proposals for the Borough of Lewisham, other representations commented on constituency names. Alternatives received included that our proposed Lewisham East should instead be named Lewisham South East, that Lewisham North and Deptford should be named Lewisham Central and Deptford, Deptford, Lewisham North, or Lewisham Deptford, as it is currently.
As outlined above, we received further calls to consider the new local government ward boundaries in the Borough of Lambeth. However, we would only consider aligning with new ward boundaries in instances where we propose to split a ward. Therefore, we have decided not to modify the proposed constituency boundaries.
Given the opposition to our proposals for the Park Hill & Whitgift ward in the Borough of Croydon, we considered whether any of the counter proposals put forward might resolve these concerns. None of them appeared to us to resolve the issue without creating knock-on effects, such as the previously opposed separation of the Woodside ward from the Addiscombe area, or the pairing of Croydon town centre with the more distant Purley through what might be considered a bottleneck. We found that none of the alternatives were demonstrably more in accordance with the statutory factors than our revised proposals. We considered that the evidence to change the configuration of our proposed Streatham and Norbury constituency was not extensive, and no credible alternatives were provided. We did, however, find that some of the suggested names were more representative of their borough identity, and so recommend that Croydon West and South Norwood should be named Croydon West, and that Streatham and Norbury should be named Streatham and Croydon North.
We found that the five-constituency counter proposal for the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark had some merit, but did result in significant consequential modifications being required. Although it appeared that it might unite the Stockwell area, and the Brixton area within separate constituencies, our Lambeth Central proposal was not opposed in these areas. Although the counter proposal included most of the East Dulwich area in its Dulwich and West Norwood configuration, it excluded the Borough of Southwark ward of Dulwich Hill, into which that area extends. We also considered that it divided the centre of the Peckham area by including the Borough of Southwark wards of Nunhead & Queen’s Road, and Rye Lane in different constituencies. The Newington ward from the Borough of Southwark would also be an orphan ward in a Vauxhall constituency otherwise made up of Borough of Lambeth wards. While this configuration would provide for a constituency including Camberwell, we considered that the counter proposal was likely to break community ties in a number of areas. However, we do propose to rename the Lambeth Central constituency as Clapham and Brixton Hill, as we consider this constituency better reflects the areas comprising the constituency. Similarly, we noted that a number of representations commented on Camberwell no longer being included in a constituency name. We considered that, as the proposed Vauxhall constituency includes the Camberwell Green area, this constituency should be named Vauxhall and Camberwell Green.
Given the lack of any substantive opposition to our proposals for the rest of the Borough of Lewisham, we recommend no change to the configurations of constituencies here. However, we are minded to rename the two constituencies entirely within the borough as Lewisham East and Lewisham North. We consider these constituency names better reflect the areas comprising the constituencies.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Bermondsey and Old Southwark; Clapham and Brixton Hill; Croydon East; Croydon South; Croydon West; Dulwich and West Norwood; Lewisham East; Lewisham North; Lewisham West and East Dulwich; Peckham; Streatham and Croydon North; and Vauxhall and Camberwell Green. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
