The 2023 Review of Parliamentary Constituency Boundaries in England – Volume one: Report – South East
Kent
Initial proposals
Of the 17 existing constituencies in Kent, ten are within the permitted electorate range, and the remaining seven are all above the permitted range: Ashford; Canterbury; Dartford; Folkestone and Hythe; Rochester and Strood; Sittingbourne and Sheppey; and Tonbridge and Malling. Under our initial proposals, we proposed two constituencies, Gillingham and Rainham, and Gravesham, to be wholly unchanged from their existing configurations, and two further constituencies, Canterbury, and Dover and Deal to be changed only to realign with changes to local government wards, though we did amend the name of the latter to recognise that the two towns are similarly sized.
We additionally recommended three constituencies with minimal changes to remain wholly within their existing boundaries. We proposed a Rochester and Strood constituency which excluded the Rochester South and Horsted ward, a Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency which excluded the West Downs, and Teynham and Lynsted wards, and a Tunbridge Wells constituency which excluded the Hawkhurst and Sandhurst ward, but all three were otherwise unchanged from their existing configurations.
As the existing Dartford constituency was above the permitted electorate range, we proposed that the Darenth and the Wilmington, Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley wards be included in the proposed Sevenoaks constituency, and that the Hartley and Hodsoll Street ward be included in the proposed Tonbridge constituency. We additionally proposed that the Ash and New Ash Green ward be transferred from the existing Sevenoaks constituency to the proposed Tonbridge constituency.
We proposed to pair the towns of Maidstone and Malling in a single constituency. This configuration necessitated the inclusion of the Aylesford South and Ditton wards from the existing Chatham and Aylesford constituency, which was otherwise changed only by the inclusion of the Rochester South and Horsted ward.
The allocation of 18 constituencies to Kent meant that it was necessary to propose a constituency without an obvious predecessor. We proposed that this constituency comprise the majority of the rural area of the Ashford local authority, as well as areas in the south of the Maidstone local authority, and in the east of the Tunbridge Wells local authority, to be called Weald of Kent. As four wards from the existing Faversham and Mid Kent constituency were proposed to be transferred to the Weald of Kent constituency, we proposed to balance the electorate of the proposed Faversham and Mid Kent constituency by including the Charing, Downs North, and Downs West wards, as well as the Teynham and Lynsted, and West Downs wards discussed above.
As a consequence of our initial proposals for Faversham and Mid Kent, and Weald of Kent, it was necessary to reorientate the existing Ashford constituency. We proposed that this constituency should extend east from the town of Ashford to include the wards of Bircholt, North Downs West, and North Downs East. Other than the transfer of these three wards to the proposed Ashford constituency, and the transfer of the Saxon Shore ward to the proposed Weald of Kent constituency, our proposed Folkestone and Hythe constituency was unchanged from the existing constituency.
Although both the existing North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies are within the permitted electorate range, changes to local government boundaries in the Canterbury local authority meant that it is not possible to retain the existing constituencies without splitting wards. We therefore proposed a compact East Thanet constituency, including the wards of Dane Valley, Margate Central, and Salmestone, and a rural West Thanet constituency including the wards of Little Stour & Ashstone, and Sandwich.
During the initial proposals consultation, our proposals to retain the existing Gravesham, and Gillingham and Rainham constituencies were received favourably, with the latter in particular attracting a sizeable petition in support of our proposals. Our proposals for only minor changes to the Dover and Deal, and Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituencies were similarly well received, with particular support for our proposed name in the former case.
Our proposed Canterbury constituency was well received other than by the residents of the Sturry ward, which we proposed be included in the West Thanet constituency. Residents of this ward argued that their community and local government ties are much closer with Canterbury than with Thanet. Other issues were raised concerning the proposals for West Thanet, including a lack of physical and community connectivity between the north and east Kent coasts, and the fact that such a constituency would contain parts of three local authorities. Our proposed East Thanet constituency, however, was received much more positively, with some comments suggesting that our proposals represented an improvement on the existing configuration, which divides Margate between constituencies. We received a counter proposal which suggested exchanging the Margate Central and Dane Valley wards for the Little Stour & Ashstone, and Sandwich wards, which would restore the existing north/south configuration of constituencies in Thanet, with Salmestone being the only whole ward in a different constituency compared with the existing configuration.
Our proposal to exclude the Rochester South and Horsted ward from the Rochester and Strood constituency, and include this ward in Chatham and Aylesford, drew a mixed response. While some agreed with our initial proposals that this ward is the best to remove to bring the Rochester and Strood constituency within the permitted range, we also received a counter proposal that suggested that the River ward would be a better alternative to limit the division of Rochester. We received arguments for and against both propositions during the initial consultation phase.
We received a small number of representations concerning the proposed Dartford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridge constituencies, but those we did receive generally opposed our proposals. Most strongly opposed was the inclusion of the Darenth, and Wilmington, Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley wards in the proposed Sevenoaks constituency – respondents noted that the former could be retained in the Dartford constituency without requiring consequential changes, and a counter proposal received proposed splitting the latter to retain as much within the Dartford constituency as possible. Similarly, respondents from the Ash and New Ash Green, and Hartley and Hodsoll Street wards expressed a preference for being included in the Sevenoaks constituency instead of the proposed Tonbridge constituency, even though the latter is not part of the existing Sevenoaks constituency.
There was also a mixed but mostly negative response to our proposed Maidstone and Malling constituency. While a minority of supportive representations suggested there were strong links between the two towns, a greater number suggested that the former has closer ties to areas such as Bearsted to the east, and the latter has a more rural focus, and thus should remain connected with Tonbridge, as in the existing scheme of constituencies.
The proposed Weald of Kent constituency was generally well received, except for the inclusion of the Hawkhurst and Sandhurst ward, which a small number of respondents felt disrupted the existing Tunbridge Wells constituency unnecessarily. We received a number of counter proposals suggesting wards which could be added to the Weald of Kent constituency from the proposed Faversham and Mid Kent constituency, in order to allow the existing Tunbridge Wells constituency to be retained wholly unchanged. One such proposal was to include the Charing, and Downs West wards in the Weald of Kent constituency, and the Downs North ward in the Ashford constituency, given that the response to including these wards in the initially proposed Faversham and Mid Kent constituency was broadly negative.
Almost all the responses received concerning our proposed Ashford, and Folkestone and Hythe constituencies came from the North Downs East and North Downs West wards, and were universally negative. Such representations argued that settlements such as Hawkinge are closely tied to Folkestone and have no community of interest with Ashford.
In light of the representations received, our Assistant Commissioners recommended that we modify our initial proposals for Kent.
Our Assistant Commissioners agreed that the initial proposals unnecessarily disrupted the Tunbridge Wells constituency, which could have been proposed wholly unchanged. They therefore recommended we include the Hawkhurst and Sandhurst ward in the Tunbridge Wells constituency, and the Charing, Downs North, and Downs West wards in the Weald of Kent constituency. The Assistant Commissioners considered whether further changes to the Weald of Kent constituency could be recommended to alleviate the concerns raised about the inclusion of the North Downs East and North Downs West ward in the proposed Ashford constituency. However, they concluded that, despite the opposition received, the initial proposals were the best way of sufficiently reducing the electorate of the Folkestone and Hythe constituency.
Consideration was also given as to whether or not to recommend changes to our initial proposals for constituencies in Thanet. Our Assistant Commissioners noted that it would be possible to retain the existing north/south division of these two constituencies; however, they felt that the resulting division of Margate would be unacceptable given the positive representations received concerning the East Thanet constituency. They therefore recommended retaining the initial proposals for East and West Thanet, though they did recommend that we adopt the name Herne Bay and Sandwich to reflect both coastlines of this proposed constituency.
Our Assistant Commissioners noted the several objections to the proposed Dartford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridge constituencies; however, they considered that it would not be possible to meaningfully improve these constituencies with respect to the statutory factors without disrupting the neighbouring Gravesham constituency, which was proposed both unchanged from the existing constituency and coterminous with the Borough of Gravesend. In particular, they did not feel that there was justification for splitting wards in this area. They therefore recommended that the initial proposals be retained for these constituencies. Although the Assistant Commissioners noted concern over the exclusion of the Rochester South and Horsted ward from the Rochester and Strood constituency, they did not feel that including the River ward in Chatham and Aylesford instead would address concerns over the division of Rochester. They therefore recommended that the initial proposals be retained for these constituencies too.
We agreed with all of the recommendations of the Assistant Commissioners, and therefore we confirmed the initial proposals for fourteen constituencies in Kent, and the boundaries of the West Thanet constituency, though we proposed the name of this constituency be revised to Herne Bay and Sandwich. We proposed revisions to the boundaries of three proposed constituencies (Faversham and Mid Kent, Tunbridge Wells, and Weald of Kent).
Our revisions to the proposed Faversham and Mid Kent and Weald of Kent constituencies attracted very few representations, though there was some support for our revised proposal to retain the existing Tunbridge Wells constituency wholly unchanged. We received a small number of representations suggesting that the Leeds ward be included in Faversham and Mid Kent instead of Weald of Kent, in order to better reflect the existing pattern of constituencies.
The proposed East Thanet, and Herne Bay and Sandwich constituencies again drew a mixed response, the former being broadly well received and the latter largely opposed, with little sense that the name change which we proposed to the latter constituency had meaningfully alleviated concerns about its lack of internal connectivity. We received an amended counter proposal which proposed retaining the existing North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies unchanged except for small changes to realign to new local government ward boundaries. This proposal included a split of the Sturry ward, including the area south of the railway line in the Canterbury constituency. The breaking of ties between Sturry and Canterbury attracted a small number of representations in opposition to our proposals, as it had in the initial consultation phases. No new representations were received concerning the proposed Dover and Deal constituency.
As in the consultation on our initial proposals, the overwhelming majority of responses concerning the proposed Ashford, and Folkestone and Hythe constituencies concerned the inclusion of the North Downs West and North Downs East wards in the former rather than the latter constituency. We received a new counter proposal which suggested retaining the northern part of the existing Folkestone and Hythe constituency unchanged by including the New Romney, Romney Marsh, and Walland & Denge Marsh wards in the Ashford constituency.
Our decision to retain the initial proposals for the Chatham and Aylesford, Gillingham and Rainham, Gravesham, Rochester and Strood, and Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituencies was broadly supported by the small number of responses we received concerning these constituencies.
We received additional representations concerning the proposed Dartford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridge constituencies, largely restating arguments made during consultation on the initial proposals. Although we did not propose any changes to our initial proposals for the Maidstone and Malling constituency, this constituency attracted a higher proportion of responses in the revised proposals consultation than previously. We received nearly 100 representations from the Kings Hill and Wateringbury wards which suggested that community ties would be broken if the existing connection between this area and Tonbridge were to be ended.
Several counter proposals were received during the revised proposals consultation which suggested changes to our proposals in West Kent, including restating of counter proposals advocated during consultation on the initial proposals. Two different counter proposals suggested that the Darenth and the Wilmington, Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley wards could be included in the Dartford constituency, and the Ash and New Ash Green, and Hartley and Hodsoll Street wards could be included in the Sevenoaks constituency by including the Ebbsfleet ward in the Gravesham constituency, though these proposals disagreed on the consequential changes necessary for all constituencies to be within the permitted range. It was also noted that the Wateringbury ward could be included in the Tonbridge constituency with no other changes required, and that the Kings Hill ward could also be included in Tonbridge if wider changes were made.
Having considered the evidence received, we propose changes to our revised proposals for Kent. We noted that it may be possible to address concerns with our proposed Dartford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridge constituencies; however, resolving these issues required the inclusion of the Ebbsfleet ward in the Gravesham constituency. We had concerns with this proposal given Ebbsfleet had clear ties to Dartford and that it modified the unchanged Gravesham constituency which had been supported during the consultation periods. We noted, however, that the Darenth and Wateringbury wards could be included in the Dartford and Tonbridge constituencies respectively, without further changes to the pattern of constituencies. We therefore recommend both these changes, affecting the Dartford, Sevenoaks, Tonbridge, and Maidstone and Malling constituencies.
We accept that including the Leeds ward in the Faversham and Mid Kent constituency, rather than in Weald of Kent, would better reflect the existing pattern of constituencies, and so we have also accepted this counter proposal in our final recommendations.
We strongly considered dividing the Sturry ward in order to recommend that the existing North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies be retained with only minimal changes. We acknowledge that doing so would better reflect the existing pattern of constituencies; however, we also note that the revised proposals for the Canterbury and East Thanet constituencies have been broadly well received. While we recognise that there may be a lack of community ties between the Little Stour & Ashstone, and Sandwich wards and the rest of the proposed Herne Bay and Sandwich constituency, we are unpersuaded that this is a sufficient concern to justify dividing the Sturry ward. We have therefore confirmed our revised proposals for Canterbury, East Thanet, and Herne Bay and Sandwich as our final recommendations.
Our final recommendations in Kent are therefore for constituencies of: Ashford; Canterbury; Chatham and Aylesford; Dartford; Dover and Deal; East Thanet; Faversham and Mid Kent; Folkestone and Hythe; Gillingham and Rainham; Gravesham; Herne Bay and Sandwich; Maidstone and Malling; Rochester and Strood; Sevenoaks; Sittingbourne and Sheppey; Tonbridge; Tunbridge Wells; and Weald of Kent. These constituencies are composed of the areas listed in Volume two and shown on the maps in Volume three of this report.
