The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South East
East Sussex and West Sussex
East Sussex
Initial proposals
Of the eight existing constituencies in East Sussex (including the City of Brighton and Hove unitary authority), three are within the permitted electorate range (Brighton Pavilion, Hove, and Lewes), one is below the permitted range (Brighton Kemptown), and the remaining four are above (Bexhill and Battle, Eastbourne, Hastings and Rye, and Wealden). When formulating our initial proposals we decided that it would be beneficial to the pattern of constituencies as a whole for one constituency to contain parts of both East Sussex and West Sussex. We therefore proposed an East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, the East Sussex portion of which was composed of wards from the west of the District of Wealden and the north of the District of Lewes.
We were able to propose minimal changes to the three constituencies in the City of Brighton and Hove. We proposed that Brighton Kemptown and Brighton Pavilion constituencies be changed only by transferring the Queen’s Park ward from the former to the latter, and the Hanover and Elm Grove ward from the latter to the former. We retained the boundaries of the existing Hove constituency, though we proposed to rename this constituency Hove and Brighton West.
We proposed that the existing Hastings and Rye constituency be retained unchanged, other than to exclude the Brede & Udimore, and Sedlescombe & Westfield wards, and minor other changes to realign to new local government ward boundaries. As a result of these changes, we proposed that the Bexhill and Battle constituency did not extend as far west as the existing constituency does. Instead, we proposed that the area around Heathfield be included in a Hailsham and Crowborough constituency comprising most of the eastern parts of the District of Wealden.
As we proposed that areas in the north of the District of Lewes be included in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, we proposed that the Lewes constituency should extend further east to include the areas of Stone Cross and Willingdon – this allowed us to propose an Eastbourne constituency that was coterminous with the local authority of the same name.
We received a mixed response to our initial proposals for the City of Brighton and Hove. Though there was support for our approach of making minimal change to these three constituencies, and there was particular support for preserving their external boundaries, it was also felt that what changes we had proposed were more than was strictly necessary. Our proposed name for the Hove and Brighton West constituency was particularly unpopular, with many responses suggesting that Hove and Portslade would be a preferable alternative name if any change were necessary at all. We also received a counter proposal which suggested that, rather than exchanging the Queen’s Park ward with the Hanover and Elm Grove ward, the latter could be split between Brighton Kemptown and Brighton Pavilion, thereby retaining the majority of both wards in their existing constituency. Some responses were also received which suggested that Peacehaven should be included in the name of the proposed Brighton Kemptown constituency to reflect the fact that this constituency extends beyond the city boundary.
Only a small number of responses were received concerning the proposed Hastings and Rye, and Bexhill and Battle constituencies, though the majority were supportive of the minor changes which we proposed to both. The majority of responses concerning the proposed Hailsham and Crowborough constituency were part of a campaign which broadly supported our proposals, but suggested that this constituency also include the Hartfield ward, and be called Sussex Weald.
The proposed Eastbourne constituency was positively received, though some objections were made by residents of the Lower Willingdon and Upper Willingdon wards. Those that recognised that some changes were necessary in order to bring the Eastbourne constituency into the permitted electorate range generally supported pairing these wards with Polegate in the proposed Lewes constituency.
The inclusion of wards to the north of Lewes in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency was strongly opposed. Respondents felt that villages such as Barcombe and Plumpton were strongly connected to Lewes and lacked any such connections to areas in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency. We received a counter proposal which suggested retaining these northern wards in the Lewes constituency, facilitated by alternative pairings of Hailsham and Uckfield, and East Grinstead and Crowborough as the constituency containing parts of East Sussex and West Sussex in this configuration.
In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we modify our initial proposals for East Sussex.
Our Assistant Commissioners agreed that the initial proposals for the City of Brighton and Hove were unnecessarily disruptive. They therefore recommended a counter proposal to split the Hanover and Elm Grove ward between Brighton Kemptown and Brighton Pavilion, and include the entire Queen’s Park ward in the Brighton Kemptown constituency. They also considered seeking views on the exact boundary of the split ward would be valuable during the consultation on the revised proposals.
The Assistant Commissioners felt that the name Hove and Brighton West was clearly unsatisfactory, and they therefore recommended the alternative name Hove and Portslade as the most likely to command local support. The Assistant Commissioners also considered recommending renaming the Brighton Kemptown constituency to Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven; however, they did not feel that sufficient evidence had been received to recommend this change.
It was also accepted by our Assistant Commissioners that the ties of the Hartfield ward were closer to the Hailsham and Crowborough constituency than the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency. They therefore recommended that we transfer the Hartfield ward, and also amended the name of the Hailsham and Crowborough constituency to Sussex Weald.
Our Assistant Commissioners also considered making changes to the Lewes constituency to address concerns raised in consultation. Although they acknowledged that wards to the north of Lewes clearly share strong ties to the town, they were not persuaded that any counter proposal received would better reflect the statutory factors. They therefore recommended we retain the initial proposals for the Lewes constituency.
We agreed with all of the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore we confirmed the initial proposals for the constituencies of: Bexhill and Battle; East Grinstead and Uckfield; Eastbourne; Hastings and Rye; and Lewes. We proposed changes to the boundaries of the proposed constituencies of: Brighton Kempton; Brighton Pavilion; East Grinstead and Uckfield; and Hailsham and Crowborough. We also proposed that the Hailsham and Crowborough, and Hove and Brighton West constituencies be renamed Sussex Weald, and Hove and Portslade, respectively.
Our revised proposals for the City of Brighton and Hove were generally well received. In our revised proposals report, we suggested that the split of the Hanover and Elm Grove ward could be adjusted further to align to the Queen’s Park Road, which representations had suggested was a natural topographical boundary – this suggestion was supported by several representations. We also requested representations on the subject of whether or not to change the name of the proposed Brighton Kemptown constituency to Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven. Again, responses we received on this question were largely supportive, as were responses to our revised name for the proposed Hove and Portslade constituency.
We did not receive any substantively new representations concerning the proposed Bexhill and Battle, Eastbourne, and Hastings and Rye constituencies. A small number of representations were received supporting our revisions to the Sussex Weald constituency.
We received more than 400 responses objecting to our proposed Lewes constituency, far more than in the initial proposals consultation. These responses largely came from the following wards, which we proposed be included in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency: Chailey; Barcombe & Hamsey; Ditchling & Westmeston; and Plumpton, Streat, East Chiltington & St. John. We received a counter proposal that returned the latter two wards to the Lewes constituency, and transferred the Buxted ward from the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency to the Sussex Weald constituency. Another counter proposal replicated this proposal, but also included the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward in Lewes, achieved by transferring the Hartfield ward from Sussex Weald to East Grinstead and Uckfield, thereby undoing a change made at the revised proposals stage. Both proposals additionally proposed that the Sussex Weald constituency include the Arlington ward, and the Bexhill and Battle constituency include the Stone Cross ward.
Having considered the evidence, we propose changes to our revised proposals for East Sussex. We accept that the topography of Brighton shapes community ties on either side of Queen’s Park Road, and as such we have adjusted our split of the Hanover and Elm Grove ward to align the boundary between the Brighton Kemptown and Brighton Pavilion constituencies to this road. We are also persuaded that Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven would be a more appropriate name, recognising that this constituency extends considerably beyond the boundary of Brighton.
We also note the large numbers of objections to our revised proposals for the Lewes constituency. Any solution to the concerns in this area would necessitate the transfer of the Buxted ward to the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, and we also note several representations which suggested making this change independently of concerns about Lewes – we have therefore proposed it as part of our final recommendations. We further noted counter proposals which suggested that the Arlington ward be transferred to the Sussex Weald constituency, and the Stone Cross ward be transferred to the Bexhill and Battle constituency; however, we have not recommended these changes be made, as, unlike in the case of Buxted, there is little evidence in representations that such a change would be welcome, and these changes are not necessary to address the substantive issue, namely the exclusion of wards north of Lewes from the Lewes constituency.
We accept that the ties of the following three wards are to Lewes, and note that they are part of the existing Lewes constituency: Ditchling & Westmeston; Plumpton, Streat, East Chiltington & St. John; and Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey. However, it is not possible to retain this arrangement without reverting to our initial proposals for the Sussex Weald/Hailsham and Crowborough constituency, which we did not feel was justified, given the response to that constituency across all consultation periods. We therefore considered what subset of wards could be included in the Lewes constituency in order to best address the concerns raised.
We note that either the Ditchling & Westmeston, and the Plumpton, Streat, East Chiltington & St. John wards, or the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward, could be included in the Lewes constituency, but either solution creates an issue of poor internal connectivity. However, on balance, we have decided on the former as our final recommendation. We are aware that the connecting roads between these two wards and Lewes run through the south of the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward, which we are retaining in the proposed East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, or briefly through the Brighton Pavilion constituency in the Stanmer area. We acknowledge that this is not an ideal arrangement; however, we feel that the A272 and A275 road links in the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward are far stronger than the links that would otherwise connect the other two wards to the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency. Serious consideration was given as to whether it would be appropriate to split the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward in order to resolve this geographic anomaly; however, we ultimately decided that a number of other constituencies across the country have similar issues regarding road connections. In this instance our view is that there would be no wider benefits from the proposed splitting of a ward, and therefore, in keeping with our policy, we did not feel splitting the Chailey, Barcombe & Hamsey ward was appropriate. Therefore, we propose that the Ditchling & Westmeston, and Plumpton, Streat, East Chiltington & St. John wards should be included in our proposed Lewes constituency as part of our final recommendations.
Our final recommendations in East Sussex are therefore for constituencies of: Bexhill and Battle; Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven; Brighton Pavilion; Eastbourne; East Grinstead and Uckfield; Hastings and Rye; Hove and Portslade; Lewes; and Sussex Weald. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
Of the eight existing constituencies in West Sussex, two are within the permitted electorate range (Crawley, and East Worthing and Shoreham), and the remaining six are all above (Arundel and South Downs; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Chichester; Horsham; Mid Sussex; and Worthing West). We retained the Crawley constituency wholly unchanged in the initial proposals.
As discussed above, we proposed that the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency contain parts of both East Sussex and West Sussex. The West Sussex portion of this constituency comprised ten wards in the north of the District of Mid Sussex, the remainder of which we proposed be included in the Mid Sussex constituency. We proposed that the Horsham constituency contain only wards from the District of Horsham, and therefore our proposals for this constituency extended it slightly further south-east than the existing constituency, to include the Cowfold, Shermanbury & West Grinstead ward.
As it was necessary for the remaining five constituencies in West Sussex to have a very high average electorate, substantial changes to the existing pattern of constituencies was necessary. In particular, we decided to propose Arundel and Littlehampton, and Shoreham constituencies which combined coastal areas with areas of the South Downs. We also proposed a Worthing constituency which contained the majority of the Borough of Worthing.
We proposed a Bognor Regis constituency which extended to the west to include the North Mundham & Tangmere, Selsey South, and Sidlesham with Selsey North wards. Other than these wards, and the Fittleworth ward which we proposed in the Arundel and Littlehampton constituency, we proposed that the Chichester constituency contain the remainder of the District of Chichester.
Our proposed East Grinstead and Uckfield, and Mid Sussex constituencies attracted a mixed response. As elsewhere in the South East region, there was opposition to the principle of constituencies containing parts of more than one administrative county, though some representations noted that East Grinstead was historically part of East Sussex. Our proposal to extend the Mid Sussex constituency further south to incorporate Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint was well received, with respondents commenting that this arrangement would be an improvement on the existing pattern of constituencies, which includes these towns in the Arundel and South Downs constituency. Responses from the north of the proposed Mid Sussex constituency were more negative, particularly from the rural wards of Ardingly and Balcombe, and High Weald. We received a counter proposal to include these wards in the Mid Sussex constituency, and instead transfer the Hassocks ward to the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency.
We received a small number of representations concerning the proposed Crawley and Horsham constituencies, but those comments we did receive were broadly positive. The remaining five constituencies in West Sussex collectively attracted more than 1,300 representations, the vast majority of which were in opposition to our proposals. The pairing of the built-up coastal conurbation with areas of the South Downs in the Arundel and Littlehampton, and Shoreham constituencies was particularly unpopular. Responses (particularly from the Pulborough, Coldwaltham & Amberley, Storrington & Washington, and West Chiltington, Thakeham & Ashington wards) expressed a strong preference for being included in a single constituency focused on the South Downs.
The inclusion of the North Mundham & Tangmere, Selsey South, and Sidlesham with Selsey North wards in the Bognor Regis constituency was also vehemently opposed, on the grounds that the initial proposals broke local ties on the Manhood Peninsula. Responses from these wards emphasised a strong preference for retaining existing links to the Chichester constituency.
The proposed Worthing constituency received a mixed response. While some responses were supportive of the idea of including the majority of the Worthing borough in a single constituency, some responses noted that including the Cokeham and Peverel wards in this constituency meant that the Adur District was unnecessarily divided, and also that two Worthing Borough wards needed to be excluded from the proposed Worthing constituency rather than one.
We received several counter proposals concerning the constituencies in this area. Some counter proposals made relatively limited suggestions, such as transferring the Pulborough, Coldwaltham & Amberley, and Storrington & Washington wards to the Arundel and Littlehampton constituency; the Cokeham, Peverel, and Offington wards to the Shoreham constituency; and the Salvington ward to the Worthing constituency. Others proposed a more substantial reconfiguration of constituencies in West Sussex, with the aim of better reflecting the existing constituencies.
In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we modify our initial proposals for West Sussex.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the response to the Crawley and Horsham constituencies was broadly positive, and therefore recommended that the initial proposals be retained for these constituencies. They considered recommending that the Ardingly and Balcombe, and High Weald wards be included in the Mid Sussex constituency; however, they did not feel that including the Hassocks ward in East Grinstead and Uckfield would be an acceptable consequence of taking this proposal forward. They therefore also recommended that we retain the initial proposals for the Mid Sussex constituency, and the West Sussex portion of the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency.
The large response to our initial proposals for the Arundel and South Downs, Bognor Regis, Chichester, Shoreham, and Worthing constituencies was noted, and it was felt by our Assistant Commissioners that significant revisions to these constituencies were necessary to reflect the level of concern raised in consultation. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that the two salient issues were the division of the Manhood Peninsula, and the need to restore a single constituency containing the majority of the rural South Downs; however, they felt that no counter proposal successfully resolved both issues without introducing unacceptable new issues.
Drawing on ideas from several counter proposals, the Assistant Commissioners recommended their own proposal for these constituencies. This proposal retained the existing East Worthing and Shoreham constituency unchanged, and restored the existing pairing of Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and now also included the town of Rustington in this constituency. The Arundel and South Downs constituency recommended in this scheme extended further west than the existing constituency to include wards in the north of the Chichester district. In order to keep all proposed constituencies within the permitted electorate range, the Assistant Commissioners proposed splits of the Goodwood and Felpham East wards.
We agreed with all of the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore we confirmed the initial proposals for the Crawley, Horsham, and Mid Sussex constituencies, and the West Sussex portion of the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency. We made revised proposals for the constituencies of: Arundel and South Downs; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Chichester; East Worthing and Shoreham; and Worthing West.
During the revised proposals consultation phase, we received around 200 representations concerning the Ardingly and Balcombe, and High Weald wards, far more than in the earlier consultation phases. The counter proposal to include these wards in the Mid Sussex constituency, and instead include the Hassocks ward in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency was again advanced, though this was also explicitly opposed by a number of other representations. We received very few new representations concerning the proposed Crawley and Horsham constituencies.
The remaining five constituencies in West Sussex again attracted the largest response of anywhere in the South East region, more than 1,000 representations in total. Our revised proposal to retain the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency wholly unchanged received a mixed response. While we received several representations which expressed support for this constituency having a singularly coastal focus, we received a surprising number of representations which suggested returning to a pattern of constituencies similar to the initial proposals. Responses to our proposed Worthing West constituency mainly focused on opposition to the inclusion of the rural Angmering & Findon ward, which many felt was more suited to the Arundel and South Downs constituency.
The response to our revised Arundel and South Downs constituency was highly positive from residents of the existing constituency; however, this was offset by considerable opposition to the revised Chichester constituency. Respondents suggested that the Easebourne, Fernhurst, Harting, and Midhurst wards do not have a shared community of interest with the rest of the South Downs. Our proposal to split the Goodwood ward was unpopular, particularly as it divided the Goodwood estate between two constituencies. Many representations suggested that Pagham and Bersted wards would be a poor fit in the Chichester constituency.
We again received a number of counter proposals for these constituencies. These proposals differed in a number of ways, but broadly agreed that the Chichester constituency should contain additional wards to the north, including some or all of the Eastbourne, Goodwood, Harting, and Midhurst wards, and that the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency should contain the Bersted and Pagham wards. Several of these proposals made alternative suggestions for split wards, including some which deviated from polling district boundaries.
Having considered the evidence, we are not recommending changes to our proposals for Arundel and South Downs, Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Chichester, and Worthing West. We note that, as in earlier consultation phases, the number of responses to our revised proposals for these constituencies were among the highest in the region, and very serious consideration was given to the possibility of making changes in our final recommendations. We therefore considered counter proposals received and also investigated our own alternative proposals that might resolve the objections received. We identified a counter proposal which would resolve some of the objections received, but required the inclusion of part of the Yapton ward in the Arundel and South Downs constituency. We noted that Yapton was not presently included in such a constituency. Furthermore, we identified that either East Preston or Rustington would need to be divided in order to reduce the electorate of the Worthing West constituency. We considered these alternatives would also break community ties, particularly as the best alternative we identified required dividing Rustington along the main shopping area, which we considered would break community ties.
We note the objections to our proposals from the rural wards to the north of Chichester, though we respectfully disagree that this area lacks ties to the rest of the proposed Arundel and South Downs constituency. We feel that there are good road links via the A272, and, having visited the area, we noted that these wards are of a similar character to other South Downs wards – indeed, the South Downs National Park is headquartered in Midhurst. We also considered whether the Goodwood Estate, which is divided under our revised proposals, constituted a special geographic consideration, which would convince us of the need to revise our proposals. Though we note from the representations received on this topic that the Estate is clearly a focus of local identity, we do not agree that any particular representational challenges arise as a result of its division between constituencies. Rather, we feel that our proposed division of the Goodwood ward, which runs through a very sparsely populated part of the Estate, avoids the need to split wards in coastal areas, which would more obviously divide communities.
We also considered whether the inclusion of the Pagham and Bersted wards in the Chichester constituency should be revised, particularly given that several counter proposals received agreed that these wards should be included in the Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency. We note the many representations that stated these wards are closely tied to Bognor Regis, and, having visited the area, we agree with this assessment; however, we also note that this argument was advanced largely by residents of Chichester, rather than Pagham and Bersted residents themselves, from whom very few representations were received. Given this relative lack of objection, we feel that, although our proposals do break ties between these wards and Bognor Regis, this is preferable to breaking ties elsewhere along the coast of West Sussex, which would inevitably arise from including these wards in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. Finally, in light of the objections received, we reconsidered our proposal to include the Angmering & Findon ward in the Worthing West constituency. Although again we accept that this ward is of a more similar character to the rural South Downs than the coastal conurbation, we feel that the alternatives, namely to disrupt the otherwise wholly unchanged East Worthing and Shoreham constituency, or to divide the town of Rustington, are less preferable than retaining our revised proposals.
We considered again whether changes could be made to the boundary between the East Grinstead and Uckfield, and Mid Sussex constituencies. While we acknowledge that community ties in the Mid Sussex district are broken by the necessity of a constituency that contains parts of West Sussex and East Sussex, particularly in places such as Handcross at the extremity of the Ardingly and Balcombe ward, we note the broad support for the Mid Sussex constituency, and correspondingly the lack of evidence that the Hassocks ward would be a better fit in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency than areas in the north of the Mid Sussex district.
Our final recommendations in West Sussex are therefore for constituencies of: Arundel and South Downs; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton; Chichester; Crawley; East Worthing and Shoreham; Horsham; Mid Sussex; and Worthing West. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
