Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the Eastern region

3 Initial proposals for the Eastern region

  1. The Eastern region comprises: the three unitary authority areas of Bedford, Central Bedfordshire and Luton;7 the county council areas of Cambridgeshire, and the unitary authority area of Peterborough;8 the county council area of Essex, and the unitary authority areas of Southend-on-Sea and Thurrock;9 and the county council areas of Hertfordshire, Norfolk, and Suffolk.
  2. The Eastern region currently has 58 constituencies. Of these constituencies, 25 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of seven constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of 26 constituencies are above the 5% limit.
  3. Our initial proposals for the Eastern region are for 61 constituencies, an increase of three.
  4. In seeking to produce 61 constituencies within the electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub‐regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authority areas together in sub-regions was therefore based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and in achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings such as those dictated in some part by the geography of the area.
  5. Our division of the Eastern region into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
  6. The distribution of electors across the six counties of the Eastern region is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county, with each constituency falling within the permitted electorate range, is not possible.
  7. Cambridgeshire has an electorate of 591,247 resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 8.06 constituencies. We have therefore considered Cambridgeshire as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated eight whole constituencies, an increase of one. The electorate of Norfolk at 675,778 results in a mathematical entitlement to 9.21 constituencies. We have therefore considered Norfolk as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated nine whole constituencies, the same as the existing number.
  8. Bedfordshire has an electorate of 467,322 resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 6.37 constituencies, meaning that it is not possible for Bedfordshire to be considered as a sub-region in its own right. A cross-county boundary constituency is therefore required. The electorate of Hertfordshire at 841,457 results in a mathematical entitlement to 11.47 constituencies. While it is possible for Hertfordshire to be considered as a sub-region in its own right, it would be extremely difficult in practice to construct constituencies that would each be within the permitted electorate range. We have therefore proposed a cross-county boundary constituency between Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, which groups three wards from the Central Bedfordshire unitary authority with the Hertfordshire town of Hitchin. This results in the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire sub-region being allocated 18 constituencies, an increase of one.
  9. Essex has an electorate of 1,348,788 resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 18.38 constituencies, meaning that it is possible for Essex to be considered as a sub-region in its own right. The electorate of Suffolk at 557,535 results in a mathematical entitlement to 7.60 constituencies, meaning that it is not possible for Suffolk to be considered as a sub-region in its own right. A cross-county boundary constituency is therefore required. We have proposed that Essex, rather than Cambridgeshire or Norfolk, be included in a sub-region with Suffolk. We consider that a county boundary crossing between Essex and Suffolk is potentially less disruptive than any other county boundary crossing, and we consider this better reflects the statutory criteria. We have therefore proposed a cross-county boundary constituency between Essex and Suffolk, which contains a number of wards from Braintree district, including the town of Halstead, and a number of wards from West Suffolk district, including the town of Haverhill. This results in the Essex and Suffolk sub-region being allocated 26 constituencies, an increase of one.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire sub-region

Bedfordshire

  1. There are currently six constituencies in Bedfordshire, one of which has an electorate within the permitted electorate range, two of which fall below and the remaining three are above the range. In our proposals, none of the six existing constituencies in Bedfordshire remain wholly unchanged, although the existing Bedford constituency is unchanged except to realign constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. However, there is only minor change across each of the other existing constituencies.
  2. In the south of the county, our proposals mean that only two wards change between the three proposed constituencies of Luton North, Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. The only change to the existing Luton North constituency is the inclusion of the Stopsley ward from the existing Luton South constituency. Although there are no direct, internal road links between the ward and the rest of the Luton North constituency, there are road links only a short distance across the constituency boundary. Furthermore, we consider the alternatives, such as the inclusion of the rural Toddington ward to the north, the dividing of the town of Dunstable, or dividing a ward in central Luton, would be unsatisfactory. The only other change to the existing Luton South constituency, other than to realign constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries, is the inclusion of the Eaton Bray ward from the existing South West Bedfordshire constituency. While this adds a large, rural element to a mostly urban constituency, we consider that there are no reasonable alternatives. Due to these changes, we consider that the existing constituency name is no longer appropriate, and we propose this constituency be called Luton South and South Bedfordshire, to reflect the areas the constituency covers. The only other change to the existing South West Bedfordshire constituency is a realignment with new local government ward boundaries. However, we propose it be called Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, to reflect the main population centres included in the constituency.
  3. As mentioned previously, the existing Bedford constituency is unchanged in our proposals other than to realign its boundaries with new local government boundaries. The only changes to the existing North East Bedfordshire constituency, other than realignment with new local government boundaries, are the inclusion of the Kempston Rural ward in the constituency, and the exclusion of the Stotfold and Langford, and Arlesey wards (which form part of the proposed cross-county boundary constituency with Hertfordshire). We consider that the reconfiguration of the constituency makes North Bedfordshire a more appropriate name than the existing name of North East Bedfordshire. The only change to the existing Mid Bedfordshire constituency, other than to realign it with local government ward boundary changes, is the exclusion of the Shefford ward (which again forms part of the proposed cross-county boundary constituency with Hertfordshire).

Hertfordshire

  1. There are currently 11 constituencies in Hertfordshire, eight of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range, with the remaining three constituencies all above the range. In our proposals, none of the existing Hertfordshire constituencies are wholly unchanged, although four constituencies are unchanged except to realign their boundaries with local government ward boundary changes. There are considerable reconfigurations for two of the existing constituencies in order to minimise change throughout the rest of the county.
  2. One of the areas of largest change in our proposals for Hertfordshire is the cross-county boundary constituency with Bedfordshire. We propose a Hitchin constituency that combines the Hertfordshire town of Hitchin with three Central Bedfordshire unitary authority wards (Stotfold and Langford, Arlesey, and Shefford). We consider these areas have established road links and local ties.
  3. The existing constituencies of North East Hertfordshire, Stevenage and Welwyn Hatfield are unchanged in our proposals, except to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government boundaries. There is relatively minor change to the existing Hertford and Stortford constituency, with the three wards of Stanstead Abbots, Great Amwell, and Hertford Heath no longer included in the constituency, in order to bring the electorate within the permitted range. These three wards are instead included in the neighbouring Broxbourne constituency. The only other change to the existing Broxbourne constituency is the exclusion of the Welwyn Hatfield borough ward of Northaw & Cuffley, which we propose be included in the Hertsmere constituency.
  4. The other area of large change in our proposals for Hertfordshire is in the south-western part of the county. We consider that a substantial reconfiguration of the existing South West Hertfordshire constituency is necessary to limit further change elsewhere in the county. The existing north–south configuration of the constituency runs from Tring, through Berkhamsted, to Rickmansworth. We instead propose a constituency named Harpenden and Berkhamsted, which has an east–west configuration from Tring, through Berkhamsted, to Harpenden. The constituency also includes the two Borough of Dacorum wards of Watling and Ashridge.
  5. The transfer of the Borough of Dacorum wards of Watling and Ashridge to the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency from the existing Hemel Hempstead constituency means that, to bring the Hemel Hempstead constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose the inclusion of the ward of Bovingdon, Flaunden and Chipperfield, currently in the existing South West Hertfordshire constituency. We also propose the Hemel Hempstead constituency no longer includes the Kings Langley ward, which under our initial proposals is included in the proposed Three Rivers constituency. While this leaves the Kings Langley ward as the only Borough of Dacorum ward in a constituency otherwise wholly coterminous with Three Rivers district (known as an orphan ward10), it is necessary in order to bring the constituency within the electorate range, and unites the village of Kings Langley, including the train station, in the same constituency.
  6. In our proposals, the reconfigured Watford constituency includes no wards from Three Rivers district. Instead, it contains the whole of the Borough of Watford, plus the Hertsmere borough ward of Bushey North, from the existing Hertsmere constituency. As is the case with the Kings Langley ward, while this creates an orphan ward, it is necessary to bring the constituency within the electorate range. We also consider the Bushey North ward has good road links with Watford. The only other change to the existing Hertsmere constituency is the inclusion of the Welwyn Hatfield borough ward of Northaw & Cuffley, which is currently included in the existing Broxbourne constituency.
  7. The existing St Albans constituency is unchanged except to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries to the west of the constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Cambridgeshire sub-region

  1. Cambridgeshire currently has seven constituencies, only one of which has an electorate within the permitted range, and the remaining six all above. The number of constituencies above the electorate range has led to the sub-region being allocated an entire additional constituency, which in turn means substantial change across the area is unavoidable. In our proposals none of the existing constituencies are wholly unchanged, although one constituency is only changed to realign its boundaries with new local government ward boundaries.
  2. The existing Peterborough constituency is the only constituency in Cambridgeshire currently within the electorate range, and in our proposals it remains unchanged, other than to realign with new local government ward boundaries. We identified that it is possible to create a Peterborough constituency that is more compact around the city centre, crossing the River Nene. However, we consider that the constituency remaining unchanged more closely reflects the statutory criteria, especially given the knock-on impacts such a reconfiguration would have on the North West Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon constituencies.
  3. In our proposals there is minimal change to the existing North East Cambridgeshire constituency, which becomes wholly coterminous with the District of Fenland. The three East Cambridgeshire district wards of Sutton, Downham Villages, and Littleport, currently included in the existing North East Cambridgeshire constituency, are instead included in our proposed East Cambridgeshire constituency. Further changes are required to bring the East Cambridgeshire constituency within the permitted electorate range, with a number of South Cambridgeshire district wards no longer included. This allows the constituency to become coterminous with East Cambridgeshire district, other than the inclusion of the two South Cambridgeshire district wards of Milton & Waterbeach, and Cottenham, both of which have road connections with Ely via the A10. These changes mean that the existing name of South East Cambridgeshire becomes less appropriate, and we therefore propose it be called East Cambridgeshire to better reflect the configuration of the constituency.
  4. The only change to the existing Cambridge constituency in our proposals, other than to realign with new local government ward boundaries, is the inclusion of the Cherry Hinton ward in the South Cambridgeshire constituency. It was not possible to include all the wards of the City of Cambridge in the Cambridge constituency, with two wards required to be included in another constituency. The inclusion of the Cherry Hinton ward in the South Cambridgeshire constituency allows us to combine in the same constituency the area of Cherry Hinton that is located in the South Cambridgeshire district with the area of Cherry Hinton that is located within the City of Cambridge local authority. This arrangement also allows for the Trumpington ward to remain in the Cambridge constituency; despite local government ward boundary changes, the area to the north of the ward has strong links to, and is only a short distance from, Cambridge city centre. While the Queen Edith’s ward undoubtedly has strong local ties to Cambridge, it is not included in the existing Cambridge constituency. We consider that the issue of which of the three wards of Queen Edith’s, Cherry Hinton, and Trumpington should be included in the Cambridge constituency is a finely balanced argument, and we welcome views on this during the public consultation.
  5. In addition to the inclusion of the Cherry Hinton ward, further changes are required to the existing South Cambridgeshire constituency to bring it within the permitted electorate range. In our proposals, the South Cambridgeshire district wards of Fen Ditton & Fulbourn, Balsham, and Linton are included in the South Cambridgeshire constituency. Furthermore, a number of wards in the northern part of South Cambridgeshire district are included in the proposed St Neots constituency. The proposed St Neots constituency also includes the Huntingdonshire town of St Neots and the village of Fenstanton, both currently included in the existing Huntingdon constituency. We consider the A428 and A14 roads provide transport links across the Huntingdonshire and South Cambridgeshire district boundary, and throughout the majority of the St Neots constituency. The electorates of the existing Huntingdon constituency (85,109), and particularly the existing North West Cambridgeshire constituency (95,684), are significantly above the permitted range. This means that substantial change is inevitable. In addition to realigning with new local government boundaries, in our proposals the Huntingdonshire district wards of Holywell-cum-Needingworth, Somersham, Warboys, and Sawtry are transferred from the existing North West Cambridgeshire constituency to the proposed Huntingdon constituency. No further changes are required to the northern part of the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, other than to realign the constituency boundaries with local government ward boundary changes.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Essex and Suffolk sub-region

Essex

  1. There are currently 18 constituencies in Essex, ten of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range, three fall below and five are above. In our proposals, none of the existing Essex constituencies remain wholly unchanged, although two are unchanged except to realign with new local government ward boundaries. However, there are only minimal changes to the majority of the existing constituencies. The most substantial change is to the existing Braintree constituency, as a result of the cross-county boundary constituency with Suffolk.
  2. The only change to the existing Clacton constituency in our proposals is to realign it with new local government ward boundaries near the villages of Weeley and Tendring. The neighbouring Harwich and North Essex constituency is also affected by these ward boundary changes, and in our proposals there are further changes to the west of the constituency. The Prettygate ward, in the existing Colchester constituency, is included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, thereby bringing the Colchester constituency within the permitted electorate range without any further changes required, other than the realignment with new local government ward boundaries to the south and west of the constituency. Furthermore, given the lack of direct road access over the River Colne between the Mersea & Pyefleet ward and the rest of the Harwich and North Essex constituency, we propose this ward is included instead in the Witham constituency, to better reflect the transport links in this area. The only other changes to the existing Witham constituency are to realign the boundaries with the new local government ward boundaries to the north-west of the constituency, and the exclusion of the Braintree district ward of Hatfield Peverel & Terling (which is now included in our proposed Braintree constituency), in order to bring the Witham constituency within the electorate range.
  3. The only change to the existing Chelmsford constituency in our proposals is the exclusion of the Galleywood ward (which is now included in our proposed Maldon constituency), in order to bring the Chelmsford constituency within the permitted electorate range. The transfer of the Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon ward to the proposed Braintree constituency is the only other change to the existing Maldon constituency.
  4. The existing Castle Point constituency is currently under the permitted electorate range, and therefore an additional ward needs to be included. The Thurrock unitary authority wards to the west either have too large electorates or have no direct road links. The inclusion of any of the wards from the Rochford district to the north would divide the town of Rayleigh, and the Lodge ward has no direct road access. We therefore propose to include the Southend-on-Sea unitary authority ward of West Leigh, currently in the Southend West constituency, in the Castle Point constituency. While we acknowledge this is not ideal, we consider that no alternatives would provide a superior solution regarding the statutory factors.
  5. The Southend West constituency is also under the permitted electorate range, therefore further change is required. Due to the relatively large electorate size of the wards in the Southend-on-Sea unitary authority, minimising disruption is difficult. We therefore propose that five wards be transferred between the Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East constituencies, in order for them to both be within the permitted electorate range. The Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards are transferred from the Southend West constituency to the Rochford and Southend East constituency, with the A127 road to the south of the two wards forming a large part of the boundary between the two constituencies. The St. Luke’s, Victoria, and Milton wards are transferred from the Rochford and Southend East constituency to the Southend West constituency. We did consider an alternative that would have divided the West Leigh ward between constituencies and would have minimised changes to existing constituencies in this area. However, this alternative would mean that only two polling districts from the Southend-on-Sea unitary authority would be included in a constituency that would otherwise be wholly coterminous with the Borough of Castle Point. We consider the inconveniences that are likely to be attendant from this to be greater than the benefits of minimising change to existing constituencies. We have proposed one further change to the Rochford and Southend East constituency, with the inclusion of the Roche North & Rural ward from the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. This brings both constituencies within the electorate range, with no further change required to the existing Rayleigh and Wickford constituency, and brings together parts of the town of Rochford in a single constituency that would otherwise have been divided between constituencies due to local government ward boundary changes.
  6. The electorate of the existing Thurrock constituency is currently above the permitted range. We therefore propose the inclusion of the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park, which are in the existing Thurrock constituency, in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency, uniting the Tilbury Docks with the villages of West and East Tilbury. In order to bring the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency within the permitted electorate range, the Vange ward is included in the Basildon and Billericay constituency. The existing Basildon and Billericay constituency is otherwise unchanged.
  7. We propose the inclusion, from the existing Brentwood and Ongar constituency, of the two wards of Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings, in the Saffron Walden constituency. We consider that this change makes the existing constituency name of Brentwood and Ongar less appropriate, and therefore we propose it simply be called Brentwood. The only change to the existing Epping Forest constituency is to transfer the Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward to the Harlow constituency: we consider the ward has links with the wards of Roydon and Lower Nazeing that are currently within the Harlow constituency. The inclusion of this ward in the Harlow constituency results in the electorate of the Harlow constituency being within the permitted electorate range without dividing the town of Waltham Abbey, or having knock-on effects on the proposed Saffron Walden constituency. No further changes are required to the existing Harlow constituency, other than minor realignments with new local government ward boundaries.
  8. The electorate of the existing Saffron Walden constituency at 86,605 is currently significantly above the electorate range, and therefore substantial change is required. As mentioned previously, we have proposed that two wards be transferred from the Brentwood constituency to the Saffron Walden constituency. Furthermore, we propose that the four City of Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs, which are currently within the existing Saffron Walden constituency, be included in the Braintree constituency. Further change is proposed to the existing Braintree constituency, as ten wards, including the town of Halstead, are included in the cross-county boundary constituency between Essex and Suffolk. Additionally, the Hatfield Peverel & Terling ward is included in the proposed Braintree constituency, and there are also changes to realign constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. While the change to the existing Braintree constituency is significant, it avoids a ‘domino effect’ of changes to a series of constituencies that would otherwise be caused by the cross-county boundary constituency. Furthermore, the town of Braintree remains united within a single constituency, and the A131 provides road connections with the rest of the constituency.

Suffolk

  1. There are currently seven constituencies in Suffolk, two of which are within the permitted electorate range, and the other five constituencies are all above the range. Of the two existing constituencies within the range, the existing Ipswich constituency is retained wholly unchanged in our proposals, while the existing South Suffolk constituency is unchanged except to realign with local government ward boundary changes.
  2. We propose a cross-county boundary constituency that includes wards from the districts of West Suffolk and Braintree for a number of reasons. First, it allows the existing South Suffolk constituency to remain unchanged, other than to realign its boundaries with local government ward boundary changes. Second, it minimises change throughout the two counties more than the other options we identified. Also, the River Stour provides a less defined boundary between Essex and Suffolk near the town of Haverhill than elsewhere, and the surrounding wards share similar rural characteristics. We propose this constituency, which includes 13 West Suffolk district wards, including the town of Haverhill, and ten Braintree district wards, including the town of Halstead, be named Haverhill and Halstead.
  3. The towns of Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket are included in a constituency we propose be named Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket. This avoids either of the two historic Suffolk towns being included in a cross-county boundary constituency with Essex. The two towns also have road connections along the A14. The town of Mildenhall, and the surrounding wards in the northern part of West Suffolk district, currently in the existing West Suffolk constituency, remain in a constituency with the town of Newmarket.
  4. The existing Ipswich constituency remains wholly unchanged. In our proposals, the wards of Kelsale & Yoxford, and Halesworth & Blything are no longer included in the Suffolk Coastal constituency. The only other change to the existing Suffolk Coastal constituency is near the village of Wickham Market, in order to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. There is minimal change to the existing Waveney constituency in our proposal, with the Bungay & Wainford ward no longer being included, in order to bring the constituency within the electorate range. However, we also propose the name be changed from Waveney to Lowestoft, as the district the constituency was named after no longer exists, and the new name reflects the main population centre in the constituency.
  5. There are three wards in the northern part of the Borough of Ipswich that are not included in the existing Ipswich constituency: Whitehouse, Castle Hill and Whitton. In our proposals, these wards continue to not be included in the Ipswich constituency. Instead they, along with a number of Mid Suffolk district wards and three East Suffolk district wards (Carlford & Fynn Valley, Kesgrave, and Rushmere St. Andrew), all of which are also currently in the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency, are included in a constituency with the town of Stowmarket. We propose that the constituency be named Ipswich North and Stowmarket in order to reflect the main population centres covered by this constituency.
  6. We also propose a North Suffolk constituency that includes wards from the north-eastern part of West Suffolk district, across to the towns of Framlingham and Bungay in East Suffolk district. This constituency also includes the Kelsale & Yoxford, and Halesworth & Blything wards that are currently in the existing Suffolk Coastal constituency. While this constituency contains wards from three local authorities, we consider them all to have a shared rural character and have good road connections along the A143 and B1117.
  7. In formulating our initial proposals we did identify some alternative configurations in this part of the county. One configuration used the River Deben as a boundary between a constituency containing Borough of Ipswich wards of Gainsborough, Priory Heath, and Bixley in south-east Ipswich and the town of Felixstowe, and an East Suffolk constituency. However, we considered this resulted in unnecessarily large changes to both the existing Ipswich and Suffolk Coastal constituencies. Another configuration attempted to minimise change to the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency. However, this created a particularly narrow-shaped constituency, which included wards from northern Ipswich up to Bungay in the north of the county, which we considered did not reflect the statutory requirements as closely as the proposed North Suffolk constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Norfolk sub-region

  1. There are currently nine constituencies in Norfolk, three of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range, two fall below and four above. In our proposals, none of the existing Norfolk constituencies are wholly unchanged, although one is unchanged except to realign its boundaries with local government ward boundary changes. However, there are no substantial changes to any existing constituencies.
  2. While it is possible to retain the existing Great Yarmouth constituency wholly unchanged, remaining coterminous with the Great Yarmouth borough boundaries, this would result in more significant changes to constituencies throughout the county. This is because Norfolk’s mathematical entitlement to 9.21 constituencies means that the average electorate size of the nine constituencies needs to be at the upper end of the permitted electorate range. A wholly unchanged Great Yarmouth constituency would have a particularly low electorate of 70,077, increasing the electorate size of the remaining constituencies further, and causing significant disruption. As such, in our proposals the wards of Hickling and Stalham, currently in the existing North Norfolk constituency, and which have local ties and road links to the neighbouring Great Yarmouth borough wards of East Flegg and West Flegg via the A149, are included in the Great Yarmouth constituency. This change is compensated for by the inclusion of the town of Fakenham in the North Norfolk constituency.
  3. The existing Norwich North constituency is below the permitted electorate range and therefore change is required. In order to avoid the constituency extending into the rural areas to the north, which we consider would also weaken internal transport links for the Broadland constituency, we have proposed the inclusion of the Thorpe Hamlet ward – which is currently in the Norwich South constituency – in the Norwich North constituency. While this does involve dividing part of the city centre, and Norwich Cathedral being located in the Norwich North constituency rather than Norwich South constituency, the majority of the ward is north of the River Wensum and has links to the area of Thorpe St Andrew to the east. This also allows us to include the South Norfolk district wards of Old Costessey and New Costessey in the Norwich South constituency. No further changes are proposed to the two Norwich constituencies.
  4. The electorate of the existing South Norfolk constituency at 86,421 is significantly above the permitted electorate range. The inclusion of the Old Costessey ward in the Norwich South constituency means that the transfer of the Easton ward to the Mid Norfolk constituency is the only other ward change required to bring the South Norfolk constituency within the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Mid Norfolk constituency be extended further south, to the border with Suffolk. Although this would exceed the permitted electorate range, the electorate of the Mid Norfolk constituency is reduced by transferring the Breckland district wards of Upper Wensum and Lincoln to the Broadland constituency (to compensate for the transfer of Fakenham to North Norfolk), and the wards of Hermitage, Launditch, and Necton to the South West Norfolk constituency. This brings all three constituencies within the permitted electorate range.
  5. The North West Norfolk constituency is unchanged except to realign its boundaries with new local government ward boundaries to the south of the constituency.
Back to top

7 Hereafter together referred to as Bedfordshire.
8 Hereafter together referred to as Cambridgeshire.
9 Hereafter together referred to as Essex.
10 ‘Orphan ward’ refers to a ward from one local authority, in a constituency where the rest of the wards are from at least one other local authority.

Back to top