The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – London
South East London
Initial proposals
Of the nine existing constituencies in the South East London sub-region, the constituency of Lewisham West and Penge, which includes wards from the Borough of Lewisham, had an electorate within the permitted range. Seven constituencies – Beckenham; Bexleyheath and Crayford; Bromley and Chislehurst; Eltham; Erith and Thamesmead; Old Bexley and Sidcup, and Orpington – are currently beneath the permitted range, while the constituency of Greenwich and Woolwich fell above the permitted range.
In the Borough of Greenwich, we proposed a Greenwich and Woolwich constituency that would be changed from the existing constituency only by the transfer of the Glyndon ward to the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. Spanning the boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley, our proposed Erith and Thamesmead constituency was based on the existing constituency, but also included the Shooters Hill ward from the existing Eltham constituency. We proposed two constituencies that would be wholly within the Borough of Bexley: Bexleyheath and Crayford, and Sidcup and Welling. These largely follow the existing arrangement in the borough, albeit with boundaries realigned to new local government ward boundaries.
In the Borough of Bromley, we proposed three constituencies that would be wholly contained within the borough boundaries: Beckenham, Bromley, and Orpington. Given the borough’s mathematical entitlement to 3.24 constituencies, one additional constituency has to cross the boundary with a neighbouring borough. We proposed an Eltham and Chislehurst constituency that would span the boundary between the boroughs of Bromley and Greenwich, noting the continuous residential development and numerous road links across that boundary.
In the Borough of Greenwich, our initial proposals for the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency were strongly supported. Respondents acknowledged that the existing constituency was above the permitted electorate range, and they supported the proposed transfer of the Glyndon ward to the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. Many respondents considered that our initial proposals would maintain the integrity of the Greenwich, Woolwich, and Charlton communities, and they provided much detailed evidence of strong and long-standing community ties between these areas.
Additionally, many respondents specifically expressed opposition to counter proposals that would divide the Greenwich and/or Woolwich communities. Particularly strong opposition was voiced to counter proposals which would involve splitting at least one ward in the Woolwich area. Under one counter proposal, the Woolwich Riverside ward would be divided between a Greenwich and Deptford constituency, and an Erith and Thamesmead constituency, while the Woolwich Common ward would be included in an Eltham constituency. Under another counter proposal, both Woolwich Riverside and Woolwich Common wards would be divided between constituencies. Both of these counter proposals would result in the Woolwich area as a whole being divided into three constituencies.
Some respondents put forward counter proposals for constituencies crossing the northernmost part of the Greenwich-Lewisham borough boundary, thereby pairing parts of the Greenwich and Deptford areas. In opposition to this approach, respondents pointed out the geographical ‘barrier’ of the Deptford Creek and River Ravensbourne dividing Greenwich from Lewisham, as well as the open space of Blackheath and the A2 road.
We received a number of representations from residents of the Kidbrooke with Hornfair ward, arguing that the Hornfair part of the ward (polling districts KH1 and KH2, north of Shooters Hill Road) is part of the Charlton community and should be included in the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency – with the rest of Charlton – rather than an Eltham-based constituency (as in both the current arrangement and our initial proposals). Residents argued that they identify with Greenwich and use facilities in the Greenwich area, rather than in Eltham. Some respondents also noted that, under Greenwich’s new ward boundaries, the Hornfair area is included in the new Charlton Hornfair ward, with its boundary aligned to Shooters Hill Road. The Order for new wards in Greenwich was made in December 2021 – well after the statutory cut-off date.
Our initially proposed Erith and Thamesmead constituency, which would span the boundary of Greenwich and Bexley (as in the current arrangement), received a mixed response. There was general support for the communities of Abbey Wood, Belvedere, Erith, and Thamesmead remaining together in the same constituency. Our proposed addition of the Glyndon and Shooters Hill wards was welcomed by residents of Plumstead: the Plumstead community is currently divided between three constituencies, and residents welcomed that our initial proposals would unite Plumstead in a single constituency.
It was noted, however, that Plumstead extends only partially into Shooters Hill ward, and the remainder of the ward identifies separately as a distinct Shooters Hill community. It is therefore ‘a ward of two halves’. Residents of the Shooters Hill part of the ward were strongly opposed to potentially being transferred from the Eltham constituency to the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. They argued that Shooters Hill has strong historic links with Eltham – and Woolwich – but minimal connection with Erith or Thamesmead. We also received a campaign from Shooters Hill residents opposing their proposed removal from the Eltham constituency.
Recognising that Shooters Hill ward contains two distinct communities, some respondents said that we should consider using Greenwich’s new ward boundaries, which separate Plumstead and Shooters Hill into different wards.
In response to comments from the residents of Shooters Hill and Plumstead, and comments from the residents of Hornfair, one counter proposal split both the Shooters Hill, and Kidbrooke with Hornfair wards using existing polling districts. Polling districts SH1, SH2, and SH3 from Shooters Hill ward (which cover the Shooters Hill community) would be included in the Eltham-based constituency, while polling districts SH4, SH5, SH6, and SH7 (largely covering the Plumstead part of the ward) would remain with the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. Polling districts KH1 and KH2 from Kidbrooke with Hornfair ward (covering the Hornfair area) would be included in the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, while polling districts KH3, KH4, KH5, and KH6 would remain in the Eltham-based constituency. It was argued that splitting the wards in this way would address residents’ concerns about community ties, and would mean the constituency boundaries would align more closely – although not exactly – with the Borough of Greenwich’s new ward boundaries.
Our initial proposals for two constituencies wholly contained within the Borough of Bexley – Bexleyheath and Crayford, and Sidcup and Welling – were well supported, since the proposed constituencies would be mostly unchanged from the existing arrangement except for realignment with new ward boundaries in the borough (which were implemented in 2018) and the addition of the Northumberland Heath ward to the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency. Respondents noted that these minor adjustments would enable the whole of the Bexleyheath community, which extends into the West Heath and Northumberland Heath areas, to be united in a single constituency, and the whole of Welling would be united in a single constituency. There was opposition, however, to the proposed name Sidcup and Welling: respondents argued that Old Bexley should be preserved in the name of the constituency due to its historical significance. They suggested retaining the existing name, or changing the name to Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling.
We received a counter proposal which supported our initial proposal for the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, but provided a counter proposal for the remainder of the boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley. This counter proposal would retain the Shooters Hill ward in an Eltham constituency, resulting in consequential changes to the Bexley constituencies: the two Welling wards would be included in different constituencies, and the Chislehurst ward from the Borough of Bromley would be included as an orphan ward in a Sidcup and Chislehurst constituency. It noted the good road connections across the A20 road between the two areas, and their similar characters. Others opposed this view, considering the A20 to be a significant barrier, and that the separation of the two Welling wards would break community ties in Welling. The counter proposal also transferred the Slade Green & Northend ward from the Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency to the Erith and Thamesmead constituency; this was opposed by those who argued that the ward’s ties are primarily south to Crayford rather than west to Erith.
Other counter proposals, similar to that described above, sought to retain the Shooters Hill ward in an Eltham constituency, but would then involve significant changes to the existing constituencies in the Greenwich and Woolwich areas and across the Borough of Bexley. Notably, these would adhere to the borough boundary between Greenwich and Bexley in the Thamesmead area (contrary to the existing constituency arrangement). This was opposed by those who considered that the boundary here is porous and indistinct, and that the Thamesmead community includes parts of both boroughs.
Our initial proposals for the Eltham and Chislehurst constituency would combine the Eltham area of the Borough of Greenwich with the Chislehurst area of the Borough of Bromley. We received over 300 representations opposing this proposed constituency, with most respondents arguing that Eltham and Chislehurst are two very different communities in different London boroughs, with limited community, social, or transport connections between the areas. The A20 road, running through the Coldharbour and New Eltham ward towards the south of the Borough of Greenwich, was referenced as a strong dividing line. Chislehurst residents said that they look to Bromley for social activities, shopping, community groups, and local services, so our initial proposals would break local ties between Chislehurst and Bromley.
There was considerable support (over 150 representations) for a counter proposal for a Chislehurst and Mottingham constituency, which was identical in configuration to another counter proposal’s configuration of a Chislehurst and Bromley Common constituency. The counter proposal would join the Chislehurst area with other wards in the Borough of Bromley and one ward – Coldharbour and New Eltham – from the Borough of Greenwich. Respondents argued that the borough boundary between Bromley and Greenwich is indistinct and the A20 road (and, to a lesser extent, the Dartford Loop Line railway that acts as the northern boundary to Coldharbour and New Eltham ward) represents the actual dividing line between communities. Respondents from Mottingham highlighted that the Mottingham community spans the Bromley-Greenwich boundary, and that therefore this counter proposal would unite all of Mottingham in a single constituency. Conversely, a number of respondents argued that the counter proposal would divide the New Eltham community, which lies either side of the Dartford Loop Line, and thus either side of the proposed constituency boundary.
To accommodate their proposed Chislehurst and Mottingham or Chislehurst and Bromley Common constituency, the counter proposal included an Eltham and Blackheath constituency that would cross the borough boundary between Greenwich and Lewisham. It argued that there is a continuous urban area at the crossing point, and that the constituency would be connected internally by two railway lines. They also highlighted that the Eltham constituency already contains a part of Blackheath, so the proposal would unite more of the Blackheath community (which spans Greenwich and Lewisham boroughs) in one constituency. As previously noted, there was opposition to this proposal from respondents in the Borough of Lewisham.
In the Borough of Bromley, we received strong opposition to our initial proposals regarding the Petts Wood and Knoll ward, which would be transferred from the existing Orpington constituency to our proposed Bromley constituency. It was contended that our initial proposals would break community ties, since Petts Wood and Knoll ward has long-standing historical and administrative links with Orpington, and the ward boundary extends all the way to Orpington High Street. It was also argued that the ward is separated from Bromley by railway lines. There was notable support for the counter proposal discussed above in this area, which would keep Petts Wood and Knoll ward in the Orpington constituency, and split the neighbouring Cray Valley West ward between its proposed Orpington, and Chislehurst and Bromley Common constituencies. Some representations proposed splitting the Petts Wood and Knoll ward, so that at least the Knoll part of the ward (the southern portion of the ward extending from central Orpington to Crofton Lane) could remain in the Orpington constituency. Alternatively, other counter proposals suggested splitting the Darwin ward (situated further south in the Borough of Bromley) and transferring part of Darwin ward and the whole of the Biggin Hill ward from the Orpington constituency to the Bromley constituency, so that Petts Wood and Knoll ward could remain in the Orpington constituency.
We received few comments regarding the rest of our proposed Bromley constituency, but there was some support for our proposed inclusion of the Bickley ward, and the Plaistow and Sundridge ward in our Bromley constituency, given the wards’ proximity to and ties with Bromley town centre. Some concern was expressed over the inclusion of Hayes and Coney Hall ward in our Bromley constituency; it was argued that the Coney Hall community looks to West Wickham – which was included in the Beckenham constituency in our initial proposals.
Our initially proposed Beckenham constituency, which would join together the Beckenham and Penge areas, was greeted with a mixed response. Some Penge residents outlined that they identify more closely with Lewisham or Crystal Palace and Upper Norwood in terms of culture, socio-economic status, and outlook. Conversely, others argued that Penge and Beckenham make a natural fit, and share many local services and recreational amenities, such as Crystal Palace park and The Spa at Beckenham. Respondents noted that our initial proposals would unite all of Beckenham town centre in a single constituency (part of Beckenham town centre lies in the Clock House ward, which is currently in the Lewisham West and Penge constituency). Others also supported the proposed inclusion of the Clock House ward in the Beckenham constituency. Some respondents pointed out that our initial proposals would reflect the pre-2010 Beckenham constituency. Many respondents argued that, if our initial proposals were to be adopted, Penge should be included in the constituency name, to recognise this sizeable and historic community. We also received some counter proposals which suggested constituencies linking parts of the boroughs of Bromley and Croydon in the Crystal Palace area.
As for central Bromley and Beckenham, we received a counter proposal for a Beckenham and Bromley Town constituency that would join the Bromley Town ward with the Beckenham area to its west and include the Bellingham ward from Lewisham. The proponent of this counter proposal considered that the Bromley Town ward, currently part of the Bromley and Chislehurst constituency, has links with the wards of Copers Cope and Shortlands to its west. Respondents welcomed the proposed inclusion of the Hayes and Coney Hall, and West Wickham wards in the same constituency under this counter proposal. Others were highly critical of this counter proposal for the Borough of Bromley as a whole, as every constituency would include parts of other boroughs, two would include orphan wards, another would include a split ward, and Bromley town centre would be separated from nearby residential areas that look to it for shopping and local services.
When considering whether to recommend any revisions to our initial proposals for the South East London sub-region, our Assistant Commissioners first noted the overwhelmingly positive response to our initial proposals for Bexley borough, and for the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency. They agreed with respondents from Greenwich and Woolwich that the counter proposals would break strong local ties across the Greenwich and Woolwich areas and, in some cases, result in significant disruption to other existing constituencies.
Regarding the Shooters Hill ward, our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged the differing views put forward by residents of Plumstead and Shooters Hill. They recognised that dividing the Shooters Hill ward along the new ward boundaries, as some respondents had suggested, would make sense in terms of community ties. They also acknowledged the representations from Hornfair residents and appreciated that they would gravitate more naturally towards Charlton and Greenwich than towards Eltham. Our Assistant Commissioners carefully considered the counter proposal to divide both the Shooters Hill, and Kidbrooke with Hornfair wards using existing polling districts. They observed that it was also possible to include the Shooters Hill part of Shooters Hill ward in the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, rather than the Eltham-based constituency, noting that residents of Shooters Hill had cited ties with Woolwich as well as with Eltham. The Assistant Commissioners, however, ultimately considered that splitting these wards – whether using existing or new boundaries – would present very isolated benefits and therefore would not meet our criteria to justify ward splitting. They further considered that splitting the Kidbrooke with Hornfair ward would represent a greater change to existing constituency boundaries, since the whole ward is currently part of the Eltham constituency.
The Assistant Commissioners also assessed those counter proposals that would keep the whole of Shooters Hill ward in an Eltham-based constituency, as in the existing arrangement. They noted the counter proposal keeping the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency the same as in our initial proposals, but they considered that the resultant changes to the Bexley constituencies would break a number of local ties in the Borough of Bexley. They considered that other counter proposals would result in even more disruption to existing constituencies and local ties in the Borough of Bexley, as well as significant disruption to the existing Greenwich and Woolwich constituency. They agreed that, despite its being divided by a borough boundary, the community of Thamesmead should remain united in an Erith and Thamesmead constituency. The Assistant Commissioners observed that other counter proposals divided the Woolwich community, splitting at least one ward in Woolwich, and caused knock-on disruption elsewhere in South London.
On balance, our Assistant Commissioners were minded to recommend maintaining our initial proposals for the four constituencies of Bexleyheath and Crayford, Erith and Thamesmead, Greenwich and Woolwich, and Sidcup and Welling. While acknowledging that the Shooters Hill community would potentially be better placed in a constituency with Eltham (or Woolwich) rather than with Erith and Thamesmead, they considered that our proposal to include the Shooters Hill ward in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency would at least unite the Plumstead area – a move which had been well supported in representations.
Before settling their recommendations for the Borough of Bexley and the north of the Borough of Greenwich, our Assistant Commissioners considered the strong opposition to our initial proposals for the Eltham and Chislehurst constituency. They recognised the merits of counter proposals in joining the Chislehurst community with other parts of Bromley, and including the Eltham area in a separate constituency to Chislehurst, but noted that some of the main arguments put forward in support of this counter proposal also applied to our initial proposals. For example, many respondents supported one counter proposal on the grounds that it would unite the Mottingham community, which spans the Greenwich-Bromley boundary. Our Assistant Commissioners observed that our initial proposals would also unite the Mottingham community in the same way. We had also received many representations from residents of the streets south of the A20 in the south-eastern part of Coldharbour and New Eltham ward (such as Brownspring Drive and Domonic Drive), supporting the counter proposal on the basis that they look to Chislehurst rather than Eltham for their local services; our Assistant Commissioners noted that our initial proposals would again address these residents’ views, by joining the Coldharbour and New Eltham ward with both the Chislehurst ward and the Mottingham and Chislehurst North ward.
Understanding that the A20 is considered a hard boundary by many respondents living in the area, our Assistant Commissioners noted that the A20 does not align with the boundary of Coldharbour and New Eltham ward, but runs through the ward, with the Dartford Loop Line representing the actual ward boundary. No counter proposals had suggested splitting the Coldharbour and New Eltham ward to reflect the A20 as a hard geographic barrier. However, recognising that the community of New Eltham spans the railway line in the eastern parts of the Coldharbour and New Eltham ward and Eltham South ward, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by those representations expressing concern that counter proposals would divide the New Eltham community and break local ties in this area.
Furthermore, our Assistant Commissioners noted that the counter proposal would pair the core Eltham wards with three wards in Lewisham borough and, in light of the representations received from Lewisham, they considered that this approach would break local ties in the Lee Green and Hither Green areas and cause significant disruption to the existing constituency arrangement in Lewisham and Southwark. While accepting the argument that the counter proposed Eltham and Blackheath constituency would unite more of the Blackheath community in the same constituency, our Assistant Commissioners observed that the Blackheath Westcombe ward would still remain in the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, and therefore the commercial centre of Blackheath and a significant portion of the surrounding residential area would still be divided across different constituencies. They therefore considered that the counter proposal’s arrangement would not represent a significant improvement on our initial proposals for this area.
When assessing counter proposals for the Borough of Bromley, the Assistant Commissioners noted that other counter proposals would not traverse either the Bromley-Greenwich or the Bromley-Bexley borough boundary. These proposed a Bromley and Chislehurst constituency that would be wholly within the Borough of Bromley and similar to the existing Bromley and Chislehurst constituency. Other counter proposals would both join parts of the boroughs of Bromley and Bexley in their proposed Orpington and Sidcup constituency, but also proposed a Bromley and Chislehurst constituency that would be wholly within the Borough of Bromley. Our Assistant Commissioners considered, however, that all these counter proposals would cause significant consequential disruption elsewhere. They saw merit in a suggested Orpington constituency, in that it would retain the Petts Wood and Knoll ward, and also acknowledged the advantages of its proposed Beckenham and Bromley Town constituency in terms of keeping the Hayes and Coney Hall, and West Wickham wards together. Our Assistant Commissioners were, however, concerned by the proposed separation of the Bromley Town ward from its surrounding wards of Bickley, and Plaistow and Sundridge – and also Bromley Common and Keston – since these wards all have close ties to Bromley town centre.
In assessing the representations in response to our initial proposals for the three constituencies contained wholly within the Borough of Bromley, our Assistant Commissioners considered that the key issue generating wholesale opposition from respondents was the transfer of the Petts Wood and Knoll ward from the Orpington constituency to the Bromley constituency. They therefore sought to identify alternative patterns of constituencies that would enable the Petts Wood and Knoll ward to remain in the Orpington constituency. Their investigations indicated that this would not be possible without splitting at least one ward in the borough. A potential solution involved splitting the Farnborough and Crofton ward (currently in the Orpington constituency) between the Orpington and Bromley constituencies, and splitting the Shortlands ward (currently in the Beckenham constituency) between the Bromley and Beckenham constituencies – allowing Petts Wood and Knoll ward to remain wholly in the Orpington constituency. To help them assess the implications of these potential ward splits ‘on the ground’, and also to gain a better understanding of some of the issues in Chislehurst, and the Coldharbour and New Eltham ward, they visited the area.
Having visited the area, they considered that a split of the Darwin ward would enable the formulation of the pattern of constituencies that best reflected the statutory factors. Their investigations confirmed that it was possible to avoid splitting both the Shortlands ward and the Petts Wood and Knoll ward by splitting only the Darwin ward instead: this would involve transferring the DA1 polling district, and the whole of the Biggin Hill ward, from the Orpington to the Bromley constituency. Since the Darwin ward encompasses a largely rural area, the Assistant Commissioners considered that the split would be unlikely to divide an individual community, as was more likely in the built-up area. They also noted that the A233 – the main road running through Biggin Hill – continues northwards to Bromley and that therefore, although geographically distant, Biggin Hill could be seen as reasonably well connected to Bromley town. Due to the shape of the Biggin Hill ward, however, the Assistant Commissioners noted that transferring the ward to the Bromley constituency would divide part of the Biggin Hill community in the south-east of the town. A solution was identified in the Borough of Bromley’s new ward boundaries, since the new Biggin Hill ward unites those parts of the Biggin Hill community that were separated under the existing Biggin Hill ward. This solution would therefore involve splitting the existing Darwin ward in three ways: polling district DA1 would be included in the Bromley constituency, as would those parts of polling districts DA5 and DA7 that lie in the new Biggin Hill ward. The remainder of Darwin ward would be included in the Orpington constituency. They considered that this solution had merit, in that it would require only one ward to be split (under both the existing and new boundaries), rather than two wards in other potential solutions, and would enable the whole of the Petts Wood and Knoll ward to remain in the Orpington constituency.
In light of their site visits and their analysis of representations and counter proposals across the South East London sub-region, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we adopt an amended version of our initial proposals for the Bromley and Orpington constituencies as outlined above – which would keep the Petts Wood and Knoll ward in the Orpington constituency, and transfer the Biggin Hill ward and part of Darwin ward to the Bromley constituency in alignment with the new ward boundary surrounding Biggin Hill. They also recommended that we should maintain our initial proposals for the Beckenham constituency, noting the support for the uniting of Beckenham town centre, but that we should change the name to Beckenham and Penge in recognition of the significant Penge community.
Regarding the boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley, our Assistant Commissioners recommended no changes to our initial proposals for the constituencies of Bexleyheath and Crayford, Erith and Thamesmead, Greenwich and Woolwich, and Sidcup and Welling – except for reverting the name of Sidcup and Welling to its existing name of Old Bexley and Sidcup. They were persuaded by evidence of the historical significance of the Old Bexley name and noted that our proposed constituency was relatively unchanged from the existing constituency. Finally, our Assistant Commissioners did not recommend any changes to our initially proposed Eltham and Chislehurst constituency. They acknowledged the strong opposition to the joining of the Eltham and Chislehurst communities in a constituency, but they considered that any practicable alternatives would result in significant consequential disruption to other existing constituencies and the breaking of community ties elsewhere. We agreed with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners.
We continued to receive support for our proposed Greenwich and Woolwich constituency, and opposition from the Plumstead and Shooters Hill areas for the same reasons as described earlier. We received a counter proposal to split the Glyndon ward along the new ward boundaries for the Borough of Greenwich so that the areas that were considered by some residents to be the Woolwich part of that ward could be included in the Greenwich and Woolwich constituency. We also received a small number of suggestions that our proposed Erith and Thamesmead constituency should instead be named either Plumstead and Erith, or Thamesmead and Plumstead.
We received few responses to our proposed Bexleyheath and Crayford, and Old Bexley and Sidcup constituencies, other than suggestions to also add Welling to the latter and name it Old Bexley, Sidcup and Welling. We did receive a counter proposal to split the Borough of Bexley wards of West Heath, and St. Mary’s & St. James, in order to avoid including the Shooters Hill ward from the Borough of Greenwich in the Erith and Thamesmead constituency. We continued to receive opposition to our proposed Eltham and Chislehurst constituency due to the perceived lack of ties between these areas across the local authority boundary between the boroughs of Bexley and Bromley, but no new counter proposals to address this were received.
Our proposed Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency generated responses with both a little support, but mostly opposition. Some Bromley residents considered that they had little connection with Biggin Hill, and some Biggin Hill residents considered their town to have a similar character to Orpington, but that if their postcode were to change from TN to BR, they would welcome being included in a Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency. Some supported our Assistant Commissioners’ previously rejected consideration to split the Petts Wood and Knoll, and Shortlands wards between alternative Bromley and Orpington constituencies, as some respondents considered this would maintain an urban Bromley constituency and a more rural Orpington constituency. Some residents of the Orpington constituency, concerned about noise from London Biggin Hill Airport, supported the inclusion of the Biggin Hill ward in the Orpington constituency so that both it and they were in a single constituency, allowing for a single MP who could deal with the issue on their behalf.
We received few comments regarding our proposed Beckenham and Penge constituency other than regarding its name. Some were concerned that when abbreviated it might be confused with the initials of a political party, and suggested that it might alternatively be named Penge and Beckenham, or Beckenham.
We have considered again the suggestion to use new local authority ward boundaries across the Borough of Greenwich and concluded that we are able to recommend a configuration which meets the statutory factors without splitting local authority wards as they existed on 1 December 2020. Little new or compelling evidence has been received to justify amending further either the Greenwich and Woolwich, or Erith and Thamesmead constituencies.
We considered that the otherwise unsupported counter proposal to split wards in the Borough of Bexley had little merit, as it appeared to us to consider only the transfer of electors between constituencies, and not the other statutory factors. Little other evidence regarding the configuration of the Bexleyheath and Crayford, and Old Bexley and Sidcup constituencies was received. We considered that it would be inappropriate to add Welling to the name of the Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency, as the configuration is close to that of the existing constituency.
We noted the continuing opposition to our proposed Eltham and Chislehurst constituency, but our investigations found that the counter proposals were all more disruptive to the pattern of constituencies than our revised proposals, and would divide the Mottingham community, which is currently divided across the local authority boundary between the boroughs of Greenwich and Bromley.
We considered that responses to our proposed Bromley and Biggin Hill, and Orpington constituencies had received competing evidence during the consultation periods. We noted that including the Petts Wood and Knoll ward in a Bromley constituency was opposed at the first two consultation stages for breaking that ward’s ties with the centre of Orpington, but a split of that same ward, and of the Shortlands ward, is supported by those who oppose our revised proposal for the Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency. Those who opposed our revised proposals made no mention of ties being broken between Biggin Hill and Orpington, asserting instead that they were of a similar character. We noted that Biggin Hill’s road links are more directly with Bromley than with Orpington, using the A233, and that public transport routes connected Bromley and Biggin Hill. The counter proposal to divide the Shortlands, and Petts Wood and Knoll wards would do so using polling district boundaries, and not the new local authority ward boundaries for which an Order was made on 1 April 2021. This contrasts with our proposed split of the Darwin ward, which does make use of the new ward boundaries. On the balance of the evidence provided, we consider our Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency and Orpington constituency to be an appropriate configuration when considering the statutory factors and our own guidance.
Our final recommendations in this sub-region are therefore for constituencies of: Beckenham and Penge; Bexleyheath and Crayford; Bromley and Biggin Hill; Eltham and Chislehurst; Erith and Thamesmead; Greenwich and Woolwich; Old Bexley and Sidcup; and Orpington. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
