3 Revised proposals for the Eastern region
3.1 After the consultation on the initial proposals in 2021, we arranged for the appointment of two Assistant Commissioners for the Eastern region – Jane Kilgannon and David Brown QFSM – to assist us with the analysis of the representations received during the first two consultation periods. This included chairing public hearings held in the region to collect oral evidence, as follows:
-
- Cambridge: 17-18 March 2022
- Southend-on-Sea: 21-22 March 2022
- Ipswich: 24-25 March 2022
3.2 We asked the Assistant Commissioners to consider all the written and oral representations, and to make recommendations to us on whether our initial proposals should be revised, in light of evidence provided in the representations. It is important to stress that the Assistant Commissioners had no involvement in developing – and therefore no vested interest in supporting – our initial proposals. Accordingly, they came to the analysis with an independent mind, open to viable alternative proposals supported by evidence. We are very grateful for the thorough and methodical approach the Assistant Commissioners have taken to their work.
3.3 What follows in this chapter is:
-
- a brief recap of our initial proposals;
- a description of the views and counter-proposals put forward during the consultations;
- the Assistant Commissioners’ analysis of the strength of the arguments for adoption of any of those counter-proposals; and
- our decision on whether or not to make changes to our proposals in the given area.
3.4 A tabular summary of the revised constituencies we now propose appears in the Appendix to this report.
3.5 Throughout this chapter, where we refer to a respondent’s response, we do so by using the reference number, i.e. BCE-12345 (we only include an individual’s name if they gave permission for it to be published). This reference number corresponds with the representations that can be found on our consultation website at www.bcereviews.org.uk. All representations received in response to the first two consultations are publicly available on this website. The representations received in response to these revised proposals will be published at the end of the review.
Back to topSub-regions
3.6 In the initial proposals, we proposed to divide the Eastern region into four sub-regions: Bedfordshire was paired in a sub-region with the county of Hertfordshire; Cambridgeshire was treated as a standalone sub-region; Essex was paired in a sub-region with the county of Suffolk; and Norfolk was treated as a standalone sub-region.
3.7 There was little opposition to the proposed sub-regions of Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire, and Cambridgeshire. However, there was some opposition to the sub-regions of Essex and Suffolk, and Norfolk. In formulating the initial proposals, we considered that these sub-regions were the most satisfactory as: they allowed the theoretical entitlement of constituencies to be as evenly distributed as possible; there appeared few obvious places to cross the boundary between Norfolk and Suffolk; and the theoretical entitlement of the number of constituencies for Essex alone is such that it was considered difficult to create a coherent pattern of constituencies across the county without major reconfigurations of existing constituencies.
3.8 While there was some support for the proposed sub-regions, including from the Labour Party (BCE-79489 and BCE-95654), many respondents to the consultation contended that joining Norfolk with Suffolk, and having Essex as a standalone sub-region, would have multiple benefits. Respondents such as Councillor Carol Poulter (BCE-73423), proposed that joining Norfolk and Suffolk as a sub-region minimised the change required to existing constituencies, particularly across much of Suffolk, and allowed for a potentially better solution regarding local ties in a number of areas. This change in sub-region also allowed the existing Great Yarmouth constituency to remain wholly unchanged, and the existing Braintree constituency to be significantly less disrupted than in the initial proposals.
3.9 The Conservative Party (BCE-85500), the Liberal Democrats (BCE-94333), Councillor Poulter, Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE-78259), Councillor Elaine Bryce (BCE-71444), Robert Grimsey (BCE-69217), Stephen Britt (BCE-71343) and BCE-63334 all proposed that Norfolk and Suffolk join as a sub-region, with each proposing a Waveney Valley cross-county boundary constituency between the two counties, with slight variations. These respondents proposed that such a constituency between Norfolk and Suffolk would be a more coherent cross-county boundary constituency than the initially proposed Haverhill and Halstead constituency (between Essex and Suffolk), with established community ties, a shared local identity, and transport links. Respondents stated that the proposed Haverhill and Halstead constituency has weak internal connections, particularly regarding public transport, and that there are few community ties between the two towns.
3.10 The Green Party (BCE-96542) supported maintaining the sub-regions used in the initial proposals, although they proposed including the town of Newmarket in the cross-county boundary constituency with wards from the Braintree local authority. This was considered during the initial proposals, but we had concerns with this configuration, as to include the town – which is situated on the Cambridgeshire-Suffolk county boundary – in a cross-county boundary constituency with Norfolk, would potentially cause even more confusion than the existing arrangement, and would, in all likelihood, be unsupported locally. The Green Party also submitted a second counter-proposal ‘should the Commission be minded to consider a Suffolk/Norfolk sub-region’. In this counter-proposal, they proposed a cross-county boundary constituency including the towns of Newmarket and Thetford, as did Jonathan Stansby (BCE-88730) and Ric Brackenbury (BCE-94769). They said that such a constituency would bring more of The Brecks (which crosses the county boundary) together, including Thetford Forest and the closely-linked towns of Brandon and Thetford, and the constituency would cross the county boundary where the river is a less significant boundary than it is nearer the coast.
3.11 Counter-proposals such as BCE-79444 and Jonathan Stansby proposed combining Norfolk, Suffolk and Essex together in a single sub-region. This would require an extra, unnecessary cross-county boundary constituency, and as such is considered to be less strongly reflective of the statutory factors than the initial proposals and the other counter-proposals received during the two consultations.
3.12 Having considered these issues and reflected on the evidence received, our Assistant Commissioners accepted the rationale and the benefits contained in the counter-proposals for altering the sub-regional grouping to instead join Norfolk and Suffolk as a sub-region, and treat Essex alone. They recommended that there be a Waveney Valley cross-county boundary constituency between the counties of Norfolk and Suffolk, having been persuaded of the strong local ties, shared local identity, and good transport links. While they considered that a cross-county boundary constituency including the towns of Newmarket and Thetford had merit, they advised that such a constituency necessitated more disruption to the existing constituencies than a Waveney Valley constituency, and was also unsatisfactory due to it including the Suffolk town of Newmarket, with its close geographical proximity and local ties to Cambridgeshire, in a constituency with areas of Norfolk. We accept the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners and therefore propose Norfolk and Suffolk be combined to form a sub-region and Essex to form a standalone sub-region. The impacts of the decision to alter the sub-regional groupings on specific constituencies are discussed in detail under the relevant county sub-sections.
3.13 In the next sections of our report, we consider each of our now proposed subregions in turn, summarising our initial proposals, followed by the responses and counter-proposals received, our Assistant Commissioners’ consideration of this evidence and their recommendations, and our revised proposals on the basis of the evidence received, in accordance with the statutory rules for the 2023 Review.
Back to topBedfordshire and Hertfordshire
Bedfordshire
3.14 More than 100 of the representations received during the two public consultations related to the three proposed constituencies in the south of the county: Luton North, Luton South and South Bedfordshire, and Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard. These representations were largely related to issues in two wards: Eaton Bray and Stopsley. In the initial proposals, the ward of Stopsley was included in the proposed Luton North constituency from the existing Luton South constituency, and a number of representations highlighted the lack of direct road access between the Stopsley ward and the rest of the constituency, due to the ‘steep scarp slope of Bradgers Hill’ (Sarah Owen, MP for Luton North – BCE-71761). In the initial proposals the Eaton Bray ward was included in the proposed Luton South and South Bedfordshire constituency from the existing South West Bedfordshire constituency, and numerous representations (for example, BCE-81925) highlighted that much of the ward, particularly the village of Billington, is far more closely linked to Leighton Buzzard than it is to Luton in proximity, character and community ties.
3.15 A few counter-proposals were received in this area. The Conservative Party (BCE-85500), Jonathan Stansby (BCE-88730), BCE-79444, and Ric Brackenbury (BCE-94769) all proposed that the three wards that comprise the town of Houghton Regis (Houghton Hall, Tithe Farm, and Parkside) be included in the Luton North constituency. This would allow a South West Bedfordshire constituency that included both Eaton Bray and Caddington wards. Similarly, several representations, such as that from Rachel Hopkins, MP for Luton South (BCE-71619), BCE-80868, Mary Walsh (BCE-82843), and Jenny Best (BCE-82489), proposed that only the two wards of Tithe Farm and Parkside be included in the Luton North constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners considered this to be an unsatisfactory solution, as it would divide the town of Houghton Regis between the two constituencies, and we agree. Other counter-proposals included the Green Party proposal (BCE-96542) for a significantly different configuration for each of the two Luton constituencies, and the alternative in BCE-56498 to retain Stopsley ward in the existing Luton South constituency by exchanging two further wards between the Luton constituencies: these were both considered to cause unnecessary disruption to the existing constituencies.
3.16 In investigating alternative proposals, our Assistant Commissioners identified that it was possible to divide the ward of Dunstable-Icknield and include the eastern part in the Luton North constituency and the western part in the Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard constituency. While this would allow the Stopsley ward to be retained in a Luton South constituency and Eaton Bray to be retained in a South West Bedfordshire constituency, it would entail a split ward that would join polling districts in one unitary authority with a constituency otherwise wholly within a different unitary authority, and would divide the town of Dunstable between constituencies. For these reasons, they did not recommend this proposal to us.
3.17 It is clear that there is unlikely to be a solution for the Luton area that will attract widespread support. Given our Assistant Commissioners considered that the evidence to divide the Dunstable-Icknield ward was not sufficiently compelling, they were of the view that there are effectively only two feasible solutions: the initial proposals, and the Conservative Party counter-proposal to create a Luton North and Houghton Regis constituency. During the Assistant Commissioners’ site visit to Luton they observed that, while there are strong transport links between Houghton Regis and Luton, the two areas have distinct and separate characteristics, and they recommended to us that there be no changes to the initially proposed constituencies of Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, Luton North, and Luton South and South Bedfordshire. On balance, while acknowledging the benefits of the Conservative Party counterproposal – which retained the Eaton Bray ward in a South West Bedfordshire constituency, and Stopsley ward in a Luton South constituency – we consider that including the closely-linked towns of Houghton Regis and Dunstable in different constituencies (by including Houghton Regis in Luton North) would disrupt local ties, and unnecessarily result in constituencies that are further away from the existing pattern of constituencies. We therefore agree with our Assistant Commissioners and do not propose any changes to the composition of the initially proposed constituencies of Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard, Luton North, and Luton South and South Bedfordshire.
3.18 Some representations, such as the Association of British Counties (BCE-77313) and Lewis Baston (BCE-83029), said the name Luton South should be retained for the proposed constituency of Luton South and South Bedfordshire, claiming that the proposed name is too long, and unnecessary as the change to the boundaries is minimal. While it is acknowledged that the name is lengthy, we consider it appropriate to recognise the geographical extent of the proposed constituency, and in particular the crossing of a unitary authority boundary to include two mostly rural wards: we therefore feel it appropriate to retain South Bedfordshire in the proposed constituency name.
3.19 The Conservative Party (BCE-85500) submitted a counter-proposal proposing that the ward of Kempston Rural be included in the Bedford constituency, instead of in the North Bedfordshire constituency as in the initial proposals, in order to include ‘all the Kempston wards together in one constituency’. A substantial majority of representations received were opposed to this approach, with examples including the Labour Party’s representation given at the Cambridge public hearing (BCE-97335), Councillor Dr Ross Purves (BCE-91501) and Bedford Borough Council Labour Group (BCE-73650). These representations said that there is a significant difference in character between the Kempston Rural ward and the rest of the Bedford constituency, with areas like Turvey in particular a significant distance away, and that including the ward would not constitute minimal change. The Assistant Commissioners found the arguments against the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal to be sufficiently compelling, and as such recommended no change to the initially proposed Bedford, and North Bedfordshire constituencies. We agree.
3.20 A small number of representations, such as Patrick Hall (BCE-80069), argued for the Bedford constituency to be renamed Bedford and Kempston, stating that many locals already refer to it by this name. However, we determine that the proposed name of Bedford is satisfactory according to our naming policy, particularly as there have only been changes to realign to updated local government ward boundaries, and therefore propose no change to the name. There were few other issues raised during the public consultations regarding the two proposed constituencies of Bedford and North Bedfordshire.
3.21 The initially proposed Mid Bedfordshire constituency was relatively uncontentious: the Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no revisions to it, and we agree.
Hertfordshire
3.22 The proposed constituencies in the county of Hertfordshire received a broadly even mix of supporting and opposing representations. While we did receive counter-proposals in this area, we received comparably fewer than in other parts of the region. It is considered that this is because of the relatively high level of support, and that the electorate figures are so tight around the county that it is difficult to make minor amendments to individual constituencies without creating significant knock-on effects across much of the county. While there have been some contentious areas in the county, most of them cannot be readily addressed, either due to the electorate figures not allowing it, or because they would necessitate far-reaching negative effects across other areas of the county where the initial proposals were supported.
3.23 A significant number of representations drew attention to the proposed constituencies of St Albans, and Harpenden and Berkhamsted, regarding the Sandridge ward. The Sandridge ward is included in the existing Hitchin and Harpenden constituency, and was initially proposed to be included in the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency. Many respondents, including Sandridge Parish Council (BCE-63969) and Christopher Ford (BCE-78562), said that the ward, and in particular the Jersey Farm neighbourhood within it, should be included in the St Albans constituency, due to its close geographical proximity, shared local services, and community ties. While acknowledging this evidence, including either the whole of the Sandridge ward in the St Albans constituency, or only including the polling district containing Jersey Farm, would bring the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency below the permitted electorate range, which would require significant consequential changes elsewhere in the county in order to bring all of the constituencies within the permitted electorate range. As such, our Assistant Commissioners did not propose any changes to the proposed St Albans constituency. We agree.
3.24 Other representations regarding the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency were evenly divided between those supporting and opposing. Those in opposition, such as Mark Woods (BCE-56601), and Jim Wignall (BCE-74451), stated that the two towns have little in common regarding local ties and transport links, and that the constituency is split into two parts by the M1 motorway. Conversely, those in support, such as Justin Douglas (BCE-78117) and the Labour Party (BCE-79489), stated that there are links between the towns, and that the new configuration would be no worse than the existing Hitchin and Harpenden constituency. While our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that some aspects of the proposed Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency are not ideal, the electorate figures are so tight in this area that any attempt to reconfigure the Harpenden and Berkhamsted constituency would have consequential knock-on effects across the county. They therefore recommended no change to the constituency, and we agree.
3.25 Representations, including from Grant Shapps, MP for Welwyn Hatfield (BCE94852), drew attention to the Northaw & Cuffley ward, in particular the village of Newgate Street, which was included in the initially proposed Hertsmere constituency. The area of Newgate Street is in the existing Welwyn Hatfield constituency, but was not included in the constituency in the initial proposals, due to realignment to new local government ward boundaries. Respondents said that it should be retained in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency as in the existing arrangement. As it is not possible to include the whole of the Northaw & Cuffley ward in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency without removing another ward currently included, Grant Shapps MP provided a counter-proposal that proposed splitting the Northaw & Cuffley ward along the existing constituency boundary, in order to retain Newgate Street village in the Welwyn Hatfield constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners did not consider that the rationale for splitting this ward was sufficiently compelling, particularly as they considered dividing the ward would not provide other benefits to the pattern of constituencies in the county. Therefore, they recommended to us that there should not be any revisions to the proposed Welwyn Hatfield and Hertsmere constituencies. We agree with their assessment.
3.26 A number of representations received for the proposed Three Rivers constituency, including that of the Labour Party, were in support of the proposed composition. However, a number of respondents, including Michael Bruce (BCE-68454), Gagan Mohindra, MP for South West Hertfordshire (BCE-83467), and BCE-90540, said that the proposed Three Rivers name is inappropriately unspecific, given that there are various organisations around the country that use the name Three Rivers. In addition, respondents said that even in the local area, let alone across the country, people do not know what area Three Rivers refers to, or indeed which three rivers it references. A number of respondents therefore said that the existing South West Hertfordshire name should be retained, with Peter Whitehead (BCE-80297) stating that despite the proposed boundaries being significantly different from the existing boundaries, the existing name would still be appropriate to reflect the geographic area of the constituency and its place within the county. Furthermore, the constituency is not wholly coterminous with the Three Rivers local authority, as it included the Dacorum ward of Kings Langley, and as such the existing name would be a more accurate name than Three Rivers, and would likely resonate more with both locals and those further afield. It has also been highlighted that there is some historical precedent, as the proposed constituency boundaries are similar to those of the South West Hertfordshire constituency that existed from 1950 to 1983. Our Assistant Commissioners found these arguments suitably compelling, and as such recommended that the initially proposed constituency of Three Rivers instead be named South West Hertfordshire. We agree.
3.27 While the Hitchin constituency received support during the two public consultations, counter-proposals from BCE-79444 and Oliver Raven (BCE-85205) proposed that the cross-county boundary constituency should instead include the wards that comprise the town of Biggleswade, with wards in the North Hertfordshire and East Hertfordshire local authorities. The Assistant Commissioners considered that these counter-proposals had too many negative knock-on impacts on proposed constituencies that have been generally well supported. We agree with their assessment.
3.28 A number of representations, such as that of Alan Borgars (who spoke at the public hearing in Cambridge – BCE-97330) said that as the proposed Hitchin constituency crossed the county boundary, both counties included should have some form of representation in the name, with most proposing that either Stotfold, Shefford, or both be included in the name with Hitchin. On balance, our Assistant Commissioners considered that retaining the proposed name was preferable, as they considered both Stotfold and Shefford too small to be referenced and, while the three Bedfordshire wards included in the constituency are in a different county to Hitchin, many of the electors in these wards would likely see the Hertfordshire towns of Hitchin and Letchworth as their biggest local towns. They therefore considered that the name Hitchin alone is suitably representative: we agree and propose no change.
3.29 A number of representations were received regarding the proposed Hertford and Stortford, and Broxbourne constituencies. The majority of these representations were in opposition to the initial proposals, which included the three wards of Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, and Stanstead Abbots in the Broxbourne constituency, and not with the town of Hertford as in the existing Hertford and Stortford constituency. Respondents BCE-58351 and BCE-58911 said that the close proximity of Hertford Heath to the town, as well as shared amenities such as secondary schools, demonstrated the need for the two areas to be included in the same constituency. Although the Assistant Commissioners acknowledged these arguments, due to the tight electorate figures in this area, any attempt to include these wards in the Hertford and Stortford constituency requires a radical reconfiguration across a number of constituencies. For example, the Green Party’s counter-proposal (BCE-96542) retained the wards of Hertford Heath, Great Amwell, and Stanstead Abbots in a constituency with the town of Hertford, but this necessitated splitting the towns of Hertford and Bishop’s Stortford into two different constituencies, with knock-on impacts to constituencies across much of Hertfordshire. We agree with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners and propose no change to the Hertford and Stortford, or Broxbourne constituencies.
3.30 The initial proposals for the remainder of the constituencies in Hertfordshire (North East Hertfordshire, Stevenage, Watford, and Hemel Hempstead) did not elicit a large number of representations, and were largely uncontentious and supported. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended that they remain as initially proposed, and we agree.
Back to topCambridgeshire
3.31 More than 1,000 representations were received regarding the proposed constituencies of Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire, making it one of the areas in the region, and also the country as a whole, with the most representations received. In the initial proposals, the only changes to the Peterborough constituency were due to realignment to new local government ward boundaries. There were more substantial changes to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, with six Huntingdon local authority wards being transferred to the Huntingdon constituency, due to the existing North West Cambridgeshire constituency having a particularly high electorate of 95,684.
3.32 A large number of representations were received in response to the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal (BCE-85500), which put forward two newly configured Peterborough North and Peterborough South constituencies. This counter-proposal proposed that the three rural Peterborough unitary authority wards that are currently included in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency (Glinton & Castor, Barnack, and Wittering) be included in a Peterborough North constituency. Subsequently, it required the urban Peterborough wards of Central and West – that were initially proposed to be included in the Peterborough constituency (as they are in the existing arrangement) – to be included in their proposed Peterborough South constituency.
3.33 A significant number of representations supported this counter-proposal. Most of these, including from Paul Bristow, MP for Peterborough (BCE-96275, who also spoke at the Cambridge public hearing – BCE-97324), BCE-96606, and Councillor Ishfaq Hussain (BCE-97342), made similar arguments. They considered that the city of Peterborough ‘deserves two MPs’, and that the current situation is confusing for residents south of the River Nene, who incorrectly believe they are in the Peterborough constituency (they currently make up a large proportion of the North West Cambridgeshire constituency electorate). Also, Peter Graham (BCE-97323) stated that although the counter-proposal would result in more change than required from the existing constituencies, this is less relevant in this area, as it is already necessary to make significant changes to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency due to the existing high electorate. Furthermore, the Conservative Party during day one of the Cambridge public hearing (BCE-97337) said that due to realignment to new local government ward boundaries, the River Nene is crossed in the initial proposals in the Fletton & Woodston ward, and therefore the fact that their counter-proposal crosses the river is not an issue.
3.34 However, the majority of representations received opposed the Conservative Party counter-proposal, with examples including Allan Kempsell (BCE-80951), former MP for Peterborough, Lisa Forbes (BCE-90904), and several people who spoke at the Cambridge and Ipswich public hearings, such as the Labour Party (BCE-97335), William Burgess (BCE-97314) and Councillor Dennis Jones (BCE-97416). The main points in opposition to the counter-proposal – and in support of the initial proposals – were threefold. First, it was said that the Central and West wards both form key parts of the city, particularly Central ward, which contains the city centre including the main railway station, Peterborough Cathedral and one of the main mosques, and connections are mostly to other areas north of the River Nene, rather than south of it (Arjumand Rashid, BCE76537). These representations considered that the river is a clear demarcation between the proposed constituencies, except for a small area with relatively few residents where the ward itself now crosses the river due to realignment to new local government ward boundaries, whereas the counter-proposals would include two whole wards in a constituency otherwise entirely on the other side of the river. Second, it was said that the three rural wards of Glinton & Castor, Barnack, and Wittering are more similar in character to the rest of the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, and that it would therefore be better for them to remain in a constituency with other large rural areas, rather than be included in a constituency with mostly urban wards (Fitzwilliam Estates – BCE-82914). Finally, these representations pointed out that the city of Peterborough already has representation from two MPs (albeit one of those constituency names did not reference Peterborough), and that dividing the city in such a manner would not only be an unnecessary departure from the existing pattern of constituencies, but would also do little to reduce the confusion for local residents (Lisa Forbes).
3.35 There were very few other counter-proposals regarding the Peterborough area. One example (BCE-79444) included the Eye, Thorney & Newborough ward in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, with Fletton & Woodston ward instead being included in the Peterborough constituency. This would create a more urban and compact Peterborough constituency, but required crossing the River Nene more substantially than the initial proposals, and also moved far more electors from existing constituencies than do the initial proposals. Another example, from Jonathan Stansby (BCE-88730), proposed that the Fletton & Woodston ward be divided to allow the constituency boundary to follow the River Nene. While the electorate figures would allow for this, our Assistant Commissioners did not consider that there were sufficient reasons to justify a divided ward here, and we agree.
3.36 In view of the large number of representations and the significantly opposing views, the Assistant Commissioners visited Peterborough to better understand the issues. They considered that both the Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire constituencies as initially proposed, and the Conservative Party counter-proposal, have merit. However, on balance, they considered that the Conservative Party counter-proposal required unnecessary change to a large number of wards and electors, and that local ties would be broken, particularly between Central and West wards and neighbouring Peterborough wards further north and east. During their site visit to Peterborough, they recognised the importance of Central ward to the rest of the proposed Peterborough wards in the north, and considered that the River Nene does form a clear and definable boundary, and that the areas south of the river have a largely different character to those in the north. As such, they recommended to us that there be no changes to the boundaries of either of the initially proposed constituencies of Peterborough, and North West Cambridgeshire. Having considered their recommendations we agree that there should be no change.
3.37 There were also some representations that called for a change of name to the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, even if the boundaries remain the same as initially proposed. Most of these proposed including Peterborough in the name, in order to reflect the fact that a significant proportion of the electors in the constituency live in the city of Peterborough, with North Huntingdonshire and Peterborough West (John Goodier – BCE-74339), and South Peterborough and Ramsey (BCE-66968) being two such examples. While it is acknowledged that the initially proposed name is not ideal, we considered that none of the proposed alternative names for the North West Cambridgeshire constituency were particularly appropriate. We consider that the existing name is geographically accurate, and is consistent with many of the other constituency names across the county that use compass points as a reference.
3.38 A small number of respondents, including Shailesh Vara, MP for North West Cambridgeshire (BCE-82901), and a number of those who spoke at the Cambridge public hearing, opposed the separation of the villages of Great Gidding and Little Gidding from those of Steeple Gidding and Hamerton in the initial proposals: the ward of Stilton, Folksworth & Washingley containing the first two of these villages had been included in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, while the latter two villages are part of the Alconbury ward included in the Huntingdon constituency. In considering this issue, the Assistant Commissioners noted that including the whole ward of Alconbury in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency would create a particularly unsatisfactory shape to both the North West Cambridgeshire and Huntingdon constituencies. It would likely divide communities in other areas, and would crudely cross the A14 and A1(M) roads. Our Assistant Commissioners noted that it is possible, in terms of electorate figures, to divide the Alconbury ward, so that only the areas of Steeple Gidding and Hamerton are included in the North West Cambridgeshire constituency, as proposed by Jonathan Djanogly, MP for Huntingdon (BCE96602). However, they considered that the case for a split ward in this instance was not sufficiently compelling, as it affected relatively few electors, and did not result in any further benefits across the wider area. They therefore recommended no changes to the initial proposals for this constituency.
3.39 We recognise the community identity evidence received indicates that our initial proposals would divide the villages of the Giddings between constituencies. We considered whether to split the Alconbury ward, but on balance concluded that a persuasive case had not been made for splitting the ward, in the light of our policy and the statutory factors. We noted that the whole of the Alconbury ward could be transferred between constituencies, but had concerns that while this would reflect the community ties of the Giddings villages in the north of the ward, it might not reflect the communities in the southern part of the ward. We also recognised that this change was likely to result in a constituency with an odd shape, which is a statutory factor we must consider when formulating constituencies. Therefore, on balance, we propose that there be no change from the initial proposals, but we would welcome representations on whether including the whole of the Alconbury ward in the North West Cambridgeshire would better reflect community ties.
3.40 A substantial number of representations were received regarding the proposed Cambridge constituency. In the initial proposals, it was necessary for a ward currently included in the existing Cambridge constituency to be transferred to the South Cambridgeshire constituency. We proposed initially that this should be the Cherry Hinton ward. We received representations calling for each of Trumpington, Queen Edith’s, and Cherry Hinton wards to be included in the Cambridge constituency. While strong arguments have been made to include Queen Edith’s ward, with BCE-84325 and Chris Rand (BCE-58838) highlighting community ties (such as Homerton College and Addenbrooke’s Hospital), we feel it would be difficult to justify doing so, given that it is the only one of the three wards that is already not included in the existing Cambridge constituency. While we recognise the ward has clear ties to the rest of Cambridge, none of the evidence received during the two public consultations was sufficiently compelling to change this view.
3.41 We considered that the decision on which one of the other two wards to retain in the Cambridge constituency was more finely balanced. Numerous representations, including from the Labour Party (BCE-79489), the Liberal Democrats (BCE-94333) and the Chair of Cherry Hinton Ward Labour Party, Lydia Whitehead (BCE-80157), stated that Cherry Hinton has a longer history of being included with Cambridge, that there is a less defined separation between Cherry Hinton and Cambridge than between Trumpington and Cambridge, and that Cherry Hinton is the site of important cultural events such as the Cambridge Folk Festival. Conversely, some representations, including from Anthony Browne, MP for South Cambridgeshire (BCE-90889) and Michael Clegg (BCE84079) noted that the Trumpington ward is a rapidly developing urban area, with a significant number of tall residential buildings, that the ward ‘extends into the heart of the city’, and that Cherry Hinton has closer links and is more similar in character to both Queen Edith’s ward and the other areas of the South Cambridgeshire constituency than Trumpington. There have been few other issues in the proposed South Cambridgeshire constituency.
3.42 After consideration, the Assistant Commissioners were of the view that none of the evidence received during the public consultations for the inclusion of the Cherry Hinton ward in the Cambridge constituency was sufficiently persuasive to propose a change to the initial proposals. While they acknowledged the clear ties with Cambridge, they considered the ‘village’ feel of Cherry Hinton to be better suited to the character of the South Cambridgeshire constituency than would the more modern urban feel of Trumpington as it now is. Including the former ward in the South Cambridgeshire constituency also allows the whole of the village of Cherry Hinton to be included in one constituency, as opposed to being split between two, as it is in the existing arrangement, and allows the closely-linked wards of Cherry Hinton and Queen Edith’s to be included in the same constituency. By contrast, the Trumpington and Queen Edith’s wards appeared not as closely linked, and as Trumpington is becoming more urban in nature (as observed when our Assistant Commissioners visited the area), it would be more suited to the city constituency of Cambridge than the mostly rural constituency of South Cambridgeshire. The Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended no changes to the initial proposals for Cambridge, and we agree.
3.43 A very small number of representations also highlighted that the East Cambridgeshire constituency is not wholly contiguous in the west of the constituency, due to a small area of the Milton & Waterbeach ward to the east of the Cambridge North railway station being detached from the rest of the constituency. While we usually attempt to avoid such situations, there is no specific statutory factor regarding contiguous constituencies, and in this area in particular it is less relevant, as the issue is caused by an already non-contiguous ward – as created by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England – which also follows the local authority boundaries. The counterproposal from BCE-56498 includes the whole of Milton & Waterbeach ward in the Cambridge constituency, at the expense of Trumpington ward. This is considered unsatisfactory, as it would take less account of the existing constituency, and would also double the geographical size of the constituency due to the shape of the Milton & Waterbeach ward. The counter-proposals from Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE-78259) and Jonathan Stansby (BCE-88730) proposed splitting the Milton & Waterbeach ward in order to make the East Cambridgeshire constituency wholly contiguous. Our Assistant Commissioners’ assessment was that, while the initial proposal is not ideal, a constituency being very slightly non-contiguous as a result of an already non-contiguous ward is not a strong enough justification for the ward to be divided. We agree with the assessment of the Assistant Commissioners on this matter.
3.44 Approximately 200 representations were received regarding the proposed St Neots constituency. Some of these were supportive, including from the Labour Party, South Cambridgeshire Conservative Association (BCE-75122), and Jonathan Djanogly MP (BCE-86241), highlighting that St Neots is the largest town in Cambridgeshire (after the cities of Cambridge and Peterborough), and that the A428 road provides a good connection throughout much of the proposed constituency. However, we received a larger number of opposing representations (for example BCE-59154 and BCE-87230). The most frequent issue in opposition was that most of the South Cambridgeshire local authority wards included in the constituency, especially those to the east (such as Histon & Impington, and Girton), have little connection to the town of St Neots, and have a far stronger connection to the city of Cambridge and other areas of South Cambridgeshire. Some said they should therefore either be in a constituency separate to the town of St Neots, or be referenced in the constituency name.
3.45 Counter-proposals in this area proposed either a St Ives constituency, with St Neots remaining with Huntingdon (BCE-61413 and Edward Carlsson Browne), or a large reconfiguration in the south of the county. A St Ives constituency appeared to have the benefit that some of the South Cambridgeshire wards that we have been told have little connection to the town of St Neots would have more of a connection to the town of St Ives. However, there would still be many wards with little connection to St Ives, and St Ives is a significantly smaller town than St Neots. Such a proposal would also necessitate disruption to the Huntingdon constituency, which is largely uncontentious.
3.46 Some respondents proposed the division of Cambridge into two constituencies (Malcolm Lynn, BCE-69231), while others proposed a ‘doughnut’ constituency around Cambridge (BCE-58939, BCE-91406, and Ric Brackenbury – BCE94769). Counter-proposals from BCE-94644 and Oliver Raven (BCE-85205) proposed significant reconfigurations from the initial proposals across much of Cambridgeshire, and Malcolm Lynn also proposed dividing the Great Staughton ward. Our Assistant Commissioners recognised that any large reconfigurations such as these would require a significant departure from the existing pattern of constituencies, and considered that there was not a sufficiently strong case for dividing the Great Staughton ward. While we acknowledge that parts of the constituency are more closely linked to Cambridge or other towns rather than to St Neots, we do not consider the counter-proposals to be persuasive, as we believe that they fail to create a more coherent constituency, and would unnecessarily and negatively disrupt the surrounding constituencies. As such, we are proposing no changes to the boundaries of the initially proposed St Neots constituency.
3.47 We received over 25 different options for an alternative name for the proposed St Neots constituency, highlighting both the demand for renaming, and also the difficulty in choosing a name that is representative of the constituency as a whole and would gain wide acceptance. Most of these representations state that the name St Neots is not wholly representative of a constituency that includes a number of wards from the South Cambridgeshire local authority. As such, most respondents supported either: a compass point name such as Mid Cambridgeshire or West Cambridge (as proposed by BCE-57741 and BCE-57234); or the addition of a Cambridgeshire village or town to the name such as St Neots and Cambourne or St Neots and Papworth (as proposed by BCE-57696 and Tom Mayer – BCE-71976). The Assistant Commissioners considered the request to change the name from just St Neots sufficiently compelling and as such, despite proposing no change to the boundaries, proposed that the constituency be named St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire, as proposed by Stephen Lees (BCE-68799). They considered that the reference of the compass point accorded with the approach to naming of many of the other Cambridgeshire constituencies, while including St Neots specifically in the name reflects the importance of the biggest town in Cambridgeshire. We agree with their recommendation to modify this constituency name.
3.48 The majority of the representations received for the proposed North East Cambridgeshire constituency were in support of the configuration. However, a few respondents, including those from Fenland District Council (BCE-65879), James Brown (BCE-70651), and Councillor Chris Boden (BCE-81507) said that, given the proposed constituency is coterminous with the local authority, it should be renamed Fenland. However, Edward Carlsson Browne contended that the name Fenland is too unspecific and could cause confusion, as the Fens is a generic term and ‘the Fens extend well beyond the boundaries of the eponymous district’. The Assistant Commissioners were not persuaded to propose a change to the name of the North East Cambridgeshire constituency, as they considered that the boundaries have only slightly changed from the existing pattern, and the proposed name is consistent with that across much of the county in that it references a compass-point area of Cambridgeshire. Furthermore, they agreed with the view that Fenland would be too unspecific, as the Fens encompass a significantly larger geographical area than the proposed constituency. We agree with the assessment of the Assistant Commissioners on this matter and propose no change to the name.
3.49 There were relatively few representations concerning the initial proposals for the proposed Huntingdon constituency. The proposals were largely uncontentious and supported, so the Assistant Commissioners recommended no revisions to them, and we agree.
Back to topEssex
3.50 During the initial proposals, it was proposed that Essex be included in a sub-region with Suffolk, with a cross-county boundary constituency of Haverhill and Halstead. As mentioned previously in the ‘Summary’ and ‘Sub-regions’ sections of this report, a number of representations and counter-proposals were received that supported Essex being treated on its own as a sub-region. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that these representations and the views contained within them were sufficiently compelling, and they recommended to us that Essex be treated as a sub-region on its own, rather than be paired with Suffolk, as in the initial proposals. They considered that there are numerous reasons for accepting this sub-regional change, with benefits across much of Essex, Suffolk and Norfolk. As previously outlined, we agree with this recommendation and propose Essex form its own sub-region as part of our revised proposals.
3.51 Our Assistant Commissioners recommended that the counter-proposal put forward by BCE-63334 (which is similar to that subsequently put forward by the Liberal Democrats) be adopted for Essex, apart from minor changes in the areas of Colchester and Southend-on-Sea. They recommended this counterproposal in preference to the Conservative Party counter-proposal (BCE-85500), which also treats Essex as a standalone sub-region, as they considered that it would result in a more coherent scheme across the county. They felt that it would minimise disruption to the existing constituencies, and allow more constituencies to remain either wholly unchanged or changed only to realign to new local government ward boundaries. While we acknowledge that the Conservative Party counter-proposal has its merits, such as the Braintree constituency remaining unchanged except to realign to new local government ward boundaries, we consider there to be significant disadvantages, such as their proposed Witham constituency, which would stretch from the Stanway ward west of Colchester, to the Galleywood ward south of Chelmsford. Counter-proposals that would treat Essex alone were also received from BCE-66878, Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE-78259), and Jonathan Stansby (BCE-88730). The Green Party (BCE-96542), while agreeing with the sub-regions used in the initial proposals, also created a counter-proposal with Essex alone. Overall, we agree with the recommendation of the Assistant Commissioners and consider that the counterproposal from BCE-63334 and the Liberal Democrats takes more account of the statutory factors than these other counter-proposals.
3.52 The initially proposed constituencies of Colchester, Harwich and North Essex, and Witham generated over 1,000 representations, making it (along with Peterborough and North West Cambridgeshire) one of the areas in the region, and also the country as a whole, with the most representations received. In the initial proposals the Lexden & Braiswick ward, part of which is included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency, was proposed to be wholly included in Harwich and North Essex, to realign with new local government ward boundaries. It was also necessary for one further ward currently included in the existing Colchester constituency to be included in the proposed Harwich and North Essex constituency. We proposed Prettygate, due to its links to the Lexden & Braiswick ward. The majority of representations called for these two wards to be included in the Colchester constituency, as respondents considered that both wards are physically very close to the centre of Colchester, have little to no connection to the coastal town of Harwich (which is on the far side of Colchester), and include numerous important transport and community links, such as a key arterial route into Colchester and numerous schools.
3.53 Over 150 representations were also received regarding the ward of Mersea & Pyefleet being included in the proposed Witham constituency, rather than being retained in the Harwich and North Essex constituency (as in the existing arrangement). We included this ward in the Witham constituency in the initial proposals as we considered that it allowed for a more coherent scheme across the county when Essex was paired in a sub-region with Suffolk, and it also removed the anomaly of the ward being disconnected from the rest of its existing constituency by a river with no connecting bridges within the constituency. Many representations, including BCE-73102, John Akker (BCE-83221) and BCE-83304, felt that, while there is no physical connection (due to the River Colne dividing the two areas), the ward is nonetheless more suited to being included in a more coastal constituency like Harwich and North Essex, rather than being included in a more inland rural constituency such as Witham. West Mersea Town Council (BCE-94955) also highlighted that there are poor transport links and community ties between the town of Witham and Mersea Island.
3.54 We received a number of counter-proposals relating to the Colchester area. Oliver Raven’s counter-proposal (BCE-85205) proposed that the Prettygate ward be retained in the Colchester constituency, with Highwoods ward, which mostly comprises newer housing developments, instead being included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. The Green Party supported a similar approach, but would also add the Stanway ward into Colchester, and transferred the St. Anne’s & St. John’s ward to Harwich and North Essex.
3.55 Counter-proposals that treat Essex as a sub-region on its own require the Essex constituencies to have a higher average electorate (approximately 74,900 rather than 73,000 in the initial proposals). One consequence of this is that, in order to create a coherent scheme across the county, it is effectively necessary to include either the Stanway ward or Mersea & Pyefleet ward in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, and for the two wards of The Bentleys & Frating, and The Oakleys & Wix to be included in the Clacton constituency, rather than remaining in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. The Liberal Democrats’ counterproposal (BCE-94333), as well as BCE-66878, Jonathan Stansby, and BCE79444, proposed the inclusion of the Stanway ward in Harwich and North Essex, bringing three wards containing areas of urban Colchester together (Stanway, Prettygate, and Lexden & Braiswick). The Conservative Party’s counter-proposal (BCE-85500) put forward a more radical reconfiguration that would create two Colchester constituencies: one in the north including the town of Harwich; and one in the south including Mersea & Pyefleet ward. There was some support for this proposal, including from Will Quince, MP for Colchester (BCE-94891) and BCE-95098, noting a historical precedent (as Colchester has previously been split into two constituencies in a similar manner), and that this would allow the Mersea & Pyefleet ward to be included in a Colchester constituency. However, there was also opposition to this approach, particularly during the second consultation phase, with respondents – including the Labour Party at the Cambridge public hearing (BCE-97335), BCE-71848, BCE-81280, and Sir Bob Russell, a former MP for Colchester (BCE-97391) – claiming that the last time Colchester was split into two the arrangement was disruptive, confusing and unpopular, and that a single, compact and wholly urban Colchester constituency, as is currently the case, should be retained with minimal change. While not mentioned by any of the respondents to the public consultations, the analysis of our Assistant Commissioners showed that it was possible to divide the ward of Lexden & Braiswick to include the three predominantly urban polling districts (Colchester AQ, AS, and AT), along with the whole of the Prettygate ward, in the Colchester constituency, with the Old Heath & The Hythe ward (currently included in the Colchester constituency) instead being included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency.
3.56 We have studied each of these options, and also the analysis of our Assistant Commissioners, who undertook a site visit to look at the areas for themselves. It is clear that this is a finely balanced issue, and that each proposal has strengths and weaknesses. Given our decision to treat Essex as a sub-region on its own, it is not possible for each of these three constituencies to remain the same as in the initial proposals, as the electorate of the rest of the county would be too high to create a coherent scheme; as such, some change is therefore inevitable. We consider that the most suitable way to create a coherent pattern of constituencies across Essex would be for one of either the Stanway or Mersea & Pyefleet wards to be included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. We note that the River Colne divides the Mersea & Pyefleet ward from the Tendring local authority wards that comprise the rest of the Harwich and North Essex constituency, with no bridge crossing until much further north near Colchester, outside of the ward. However, the Mersea & Pyefleet ward is currently included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency, whereas Stanway is included in the existing Witham constituency. Furthermore, representations were clear that the Mersea & Pyefleet ward has poor links west towards the town of Witham, with the ward instead sharing a coastal and maritime character with a number of communities in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. We also note that the River Colne has historically been a navigable river that linked the city of Colchester and its hinterland with the port of Brightlingsea. As such, we believe that retaining the Mersea & Pyefleet ward with Harwich and North Essex most closely fulfils the statutory requirements of maintaining existing constituencies and local ties, despite the geographical considerations in the area.
3.57 Regarding the issue of the Lexden & Braiswick, and Prettygate wards, we consider that, after assessing all of the evidence, these two areas appear to be an integral part of Colchester, with strong transport links, close geographical proximity, historical links and community ties regarding schools and other establishments. We also consider, however, that the Lexden & Braiswick ward as a whole is geographically large, is predominantly rural, and as such it would be inappropriate to be wholly included in an urban Colchester constituency. We therefore propose that this ward be split, with the three mostly urban polling districts (Colchester AQ, AS, and AT), which are divided from the rest of the ward by the A12 road and the railway line, being included in the proposed Colchester constituency, and the three rural polling districts (Colchester EJ, ET, and EU) remaining in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. A further benefit of splitting this ward is that it would allow the existing boundary in this area to be retained.
3.58 Our Assistant Commissioners also recommended that the entirety of the Prettygate ward be included with Colchester, as it is in the existing arrangement. Given that the whole of the Prettygate ward and part of the Lexden & Braiswick ward are proposed to be included in the Colchester constituency, it is necessary for one ward that was initially proposed to be included in the Colchester constituency to instead be included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, in order to bring both constituencies within the electorate quota.
3.59 This issue was carefully considered by the Assistant Commissioners in their recommendations to us, and it is clear to us that none of the options is without negative consequences. We consider that the Conservative Party’s counterproposal seemingly arbitrarily divided the city of Colchester, including the separation of the closely-linked areas of Lexden and Prettygate, and that it required an unnecessarily large departure from the existing constituency boundaries. We also consider that the counter-proposal submitted by both BCE-63334 and the Liberal Democrats required both the Stanway, and Mersea & Pyefleet wards to be included in different constituencies than they are in the existing arrangement, and that the inclusion of the Prettygate, and Lexden & Braiswick wards in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, is undesirable due to their close links to Colchester.
3.60 Based on the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners, with which we concur, we propose to include the ward of Old Heath & The Hythe in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. We note that a significant portion of this ward, including all of the village of Rowhedge, is currently included in the Harwich and North Essex constituency. Also, as the Mersea & Pyefleet ward is now proposed to remain in the Harwich and North Essex constituency, including the Old Heath & The Hythe ward provides a stronger link between Mersea & Pyefleet and the rest of the constituency, as it contains Fingringhoe Road (which becomes Old Heath Road) and the Colne Causeway bridge – the first bridge crossing the River Colne when driving from Mersea to Harwich. Furthermore, the town of Wivenhoe has links to the village of Rowhedge via the foot ferry. We acknowledge that a significant portion of the Old Heath & The Hythe ward is in the existing Colchester constituency and has close community ties to the city. However, this is true of any of the other options, such as the Greenstead, St. Anne’s & St. John’s, Highwoods, or Mile End wards; Old Heath & The Hythe is the only ward out of these options that has a significant portion already included in the existing Harwich and North Essex constituency.
3.61 In the initial proposals, the only changes to the Clacton constituency were to realign to new local government ward boundaries, and this was wholly uncontentious. However, as mentioned in the previous paragraphs, counter-proposals that proposed a sub-regional change often necessitated a small change to the proposed Clacton constituency. This small change would involve the two wards of The Bentleys & Frating, and The Oakleys & Wix – included in the existing and initially proposed Harwich and North Essex constituency – being included in the Clacton constituency. While this is further from the existing constituency than the initial proposals, and stretches the constituency further north, taking in parts of the A120 road, Assistant Commissioners considered that the significant, wider benefits of the sub-regional change in other areas far outweigh the disadvantages of these changes to the Clacton constituency, and therefore recommended this relatively small change to the constituency. We agree.
3.62 The proposed constituencies of Castle Point, Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East generated over 700 representations, most of them opposing the initial proposals. It is necessary for the existing Castle Point constituency to include an additional ward, as it is currently below the permitted electorate range. As such, the initial proposals included the West Leigh ward in the proposed Castle Point constituency, and this, along with the existing Southend West constituency’s electorate being below the permitted range, necessitated five wards being transferred between the two Southend constituencies (Eastwood Park, St. Laurence, St. Luke’s, Victoria, and Milton).
3.63 Separating the West Leigh ward from the Southend West constituency was by far the most significant issue in this area during the consultations, and the vast majority of representations received were regarding this change. These representations, with examples including those from the late Sir David Amess, former MP for Southend West (BCE-85553), Anna Firth, MP for Southend West (BCE-91536), BCE-85805, BCE-85464, BCE-69434, and BCE-67976 said that West Leigh should remain in a Southend constituency. The reasons were numerous, and included that West Leigh is intrinsically linked to both Leigh and the rest of Southend; has little to no connection to much of the Castle Point constituency; and is separated from Castle Point by a natural geographical barrier of the Salvation Army fields to the west.
3.64 There are limited options in this area due to the tight electorate figures and the nature of the physical geography. One option proposed by BCE-63334 and highlighted by the Liberal Democrats in their initial response (BCE-83748), was to transfer the Lodge ward from the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency to the Castle Point constituency. While this had the benefit of avoiding splitting the town of Leigh, and giving more flexibility within the two Southend constituencies, we had concerns with this configuration when developing our initial proposals due to clear negative consequences, in that it would divide the town of Rayleigh, and the ward has little to no direct transport links to the Castle Point constituency. Few counter-proposals supporting this option were received, and we received no compelling evidence that has changed our view of this option.
3.65 It is not possible to include the whole of the Pitsea South East ward in the Castle Point constituency, as doing so would bring both the Castle Point constituency above the permitted electorate range and the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency below the range, also making the latter a non-contiguous constituency by completely isolating the Pitsea North West ward. However, it is possible to divide the ward so that only the DO polling district, covering the villages of Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet, is included in the Castle Point constituency. This proposal was put forward by both the Conservative Party (BCE-85500) and in the Liberal Democrats’ later response (BCE-94333), and was supported by the Labour Party during the second consultation (BCE-95654).
3.66 Our Assistant Commissioners visited the area. They considered that West Leigh was an integral part of Leigh-on-Sea (it contains Leigh railway station) and they noted the considerable expanse of marshland and creeks that separate much of the ward from the Castle Point constituency. They also visited the Pitsea South East ward. They noted that while the A130 road lies between the communities of Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet in the ward, and the Castle Point areas to the east, the connecting A13 provides a direct transport link between the two, via the Sadlers Farm roundabout. They also noted a clear physical separation of open land between Bowers Gifford and North Benfleet and the towns of Pitsea and Basildon. They also noted that this approach would bring North Benfleet and South Benfleet into a constituency together. The added benefit of no longer proposing to include West Leigh ward in the Castle Point constituency is that it allowed more flexibility within the two Southend constituencies.
3.67 We have considered all of the evidence and agree with the recommendation of our Assistant Commissioners that dividing the Pitsea South East ward allows us to take most account of the statutory factors overall across multiple constituencies in south Essex. Splitting a ward requires a strong justification, particularly when part of a single ward from one local authority is included in a constituency wholly comprising wards from another local authority. However, we believe that in this instance it is the right option in order to increase the electorate of the Castle Point constituency to within the permitted range while also formulating a pattern of constituencies in the surrounding area that overall better reflects the statutory factors. We consider the main alternatives put forward to be more disadvantageous: the initial proposals were strongly opposed by local residents, who demonstrated how they would break local ties; and the Lodge ward option was supported by only a few respondents, has very weak transport connections, and would significantly disrupt local ties in Rayleigh.
3.68 In the initial proposals, five wards (Eastwood Park, St. Laurence, St. Luke’s, Victoria, and Milton) were exchanged between the constituencies of Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East, in order for both constituencies to be within the permitted electorate range. During the Southend-on-Sea public hearing, and in written representations, there was opposition to the Eastwood Park and St. Laurence wards being separated from the town of Leigh (for example BCE-85464 and Councillor Nigel Folkard – BCE-97366). There were also, however, a number of representations that the city centre wards – generally considered to be Victoria, Milton and Kursaal – should be kept together in one constituency, ideally the more urban Southend West, with the wards of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence remaining as initially proposed in Rochford and Southend East (for example, Shahid Nadeem – BCE-97362, Councillor Aston Line – BCE97363, and Martin Berry – BCE-97367).
3.69 Counter-proposals from Jonathan Stansby, Edward Carlsson Browne, and BCE-79444 each outlined slight variations from the initial proposals to the Southend West, and Rochford and Southend East constituencies, while still including the West Leigh ward in the Castle Point constituency (as in the initial proposals). Counter-proposals that would retain West Leigh ward in a Southend constituency were able to reduce the amount of disruption to the existing arrangement regarding the two Southend constituencies. The Conservative Party (BCE-85500) proposed that the only change to the existing Southend West constituency should be for the St. Luke’s ward to be included from the Rochford and Southend East constituency, while the Liberal Democrats (BCE-94333) and Oliver Raven (BCE-85205) called for the Milton ward to be included instead. Both options minimised change to the existing constituencies, but also have some disadvantages: the St. Luke’s ward option would create two peculiarly shaped constituencies, limiting access between the city centre and the rest of the constituency; and the Milton ward option divides the city centre wards between two constituencies.
3.70 The Assistant Commissioners considered that the option that took most account of the statutory factors would be to adopt the approach that kept the city centre wards together, but in the more urban Southend West constituency. They therefore recommended a constituency comprising the whole of the existing Southend West constituency except the wards of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence (which would be included in the Rochford and Southend East constituency as in the initial proposals), with the additional inclusion of the three wards of Milton, Victoria and Kursaal. While it is possible to minimise change further, along the lines of the Conservative Party’s proposal, the Assistant Commissioners considered this was not preferable, given the less optimal shape and accessibility of the constituencies that would result, and the strong ties of the city centre wards to the west that would be broken. In respect of the inclusion of Eastwood Park and St. Laurence in the Rochford and Southend East constituency, they noted evidence that these wards contained the residential parts of Southend-on-Sea closest to the airport, and arguments that there would therefore be value having both the airport and those most likely to be impacted by it represented by the same MP. While noting representations that stated these two areas have connections to Leigh, the Assistant Commissioners during their site visit to the area also felt that the A127 road does form an identifiable and easily understood physical boundary, and that the benefits gained overall from the distribution of wards they had recommended across the rest of the area outweighed the disadvantages.
3.71 The Assistant Commissioners recommended that this more compact western Southend constituency be named Southend Central and Leigh, as they considered that this better reflects both the inclusion of the city centre wards and the distinct and strong community identity of Leigh in the west of the city. We agree with their conclusions.
3.72 Few representations or counter-proposals were received regarding the proposed South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency, other than the proposal to divide the ward of Pitsea South East mentioned previously, and a further proposal to make a minor adjustment in the south west of the ward near Thurrock. In the initial proposals, the Thurrock constituency was unchanged except for the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park, which were included in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency. The Conservative Party (BCE-85500), the Labour Party (BCE-79489) and the Green Party (BCE96542), along with members of the public Edward Carlsson Browne (BCE78259), BCE-79444, Oliver Raven (BCE-85205), and Jonathan Stansby (BCE88730), proposed that the two wards of Tilbury St. Chads, and Tilbury Riverside and Thurrock Park be retained in the Thurrock constituency, as in the existing arrangement, with the Chadwell St. Mary ward instead included in the South Basildon and East Thurrock constituency in order to bring the constituencies within the permitted electorate range. This was put forward on the basis that the town of Tilbury and the Tilbury Docks are closely linked to the town of Grays in the Thurrock constituency, with which they share transport links and community ties. Our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded by these arguments, and as such recommended this change. We agree and include this modification as part of our revised proposals.
3.73 In the initial proposals, the Braintree constituency was significantly re-configured from the existing arrangement, due in large part to the proposed Haverhill and Halstead cross-county boundary constituency. Around 100 representations were received on the initially proposed Braintree constituency, almost exclusively in objection, with James Cleverly, MP for Braintree (BCE-91218), and Councillor John McKee (BCE-73221) being examples. Most of these stated that the proposed Braintree constituency is vastly different to the existing constituency, with a peculiar shape, and few links to the Chelmsford local authority wards that are included (namely Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs).
3.74 Peter Long, of the Witham & District Branch Co-operative Party (BCE74106) submitted a counter-proposal that was supported by a number of representations, including several at the Southend-on-Sea public hearing, such as Jack Coleman (BCE-97379). This counter-proposal would establish a constituency comprising the towns of Braintree, Witham and Halstead, and a Mid-Essex Rural constituency that would stretch from areas west of Chelmsford, to Mersea Island south of Colchester. While there are merits in the option of a Braintree, Halstead and Witham constituency, this is dependent on the accompanying proposal for a Great Notley and Haverhill constituency, which would be outside of the permitted electorate range.
3.75 Counter-proposals that called for Essex to be considered as a sub-region in its own right generally proposed a Braintree constituency that would be either unchanged from the existing constituency (apart from to realign to new local government ward boundaries), or have minor changes, with The Colnes ward being included in the Witham constituency and The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards being included from the Saffron Walden constituency. Our Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that there are merits in the Braintree constituency being unchanged other than to realign to new local government ward boundaries. However, they considered that the proposal put forward by the Liberal Democrats (BCE-94333) and BCE-63334 was preferable, as it would allow for a pattern of constituencies across the rest of Essex that more closely reflect the statutory factors, while still allowing the existing Braintree constituency to be mostly retained, unlike the initial proposals.
3.76 The electorate of the existing Saffron Walden constituency is significantly above the permitted electorate range, and as such, substantial change is required. In the initial proposals, Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs wards were included in the proposed Braintree constituency from the existing Saffron Walden constituency, and the Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings wards were included in the proposed Saffron Walden constituency from the existing Brentwood and Ongar constituency. In the initial proposals, the transfer of the Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward from the Epping Forest to the Harlow constituency was the only change proposed in those two constituencies. A number of representations were received regarding this change, mostly during the second consultation, and almost exclusively in opposition to the proposals (for example, BCE-88676).
3.77 The counter-proposals from BCE-63334 and the Liberal Democrats, which form much of our configuration of constituencies in our proposed Essex sub-region, necessitate a change to the three proposed constituencies of Saffron Walden, Harlow, and Epping Forest. Both respondents proposed retaining the four Chelmsford wards of Writtle, Chelmsford Rural West, Broomfield and The Walthams, and Boreham and The Leighs in the Saffron Walden constituency (as in the current arrangement). While some respondents from these wards stated they have little connection to the town of Saffron Walden, others said they also have little connection to the town of Braintree (with which they were initially proposed to be included), and to include the wards with Saffron Walden at least reduced disruption to the existing arrangement. These counterproposals also required the Uttlesford local authority to be divided between three constituencies (rather than one as in the existing pattern): The Sampfords, and Felsted & Stebbing wards would be included in an alternatively configured Braintree constituency (as discussed above); and the Hatfield Heath, and Broad Oak & the Hallingburys wards would be transferred to the Harlow constituency from the existing Saffron Walden constituency. In this proposal, therefore, the Harlow constituency would include wards from three different local authorities. Finally, the Broadley Common, Epping Upland and Nazeing ward would be retained in the proposed Epping Forest constituency, which would then be wholly unchanged from the existing arrangement. Overall, despite some disadvantages, our Assistant Commissioners accepted these recommended revisions, as they allowed for a significantly better pattern of constituencies across the county overall. We agree with their assessment.
3.78 Around 20 representations, mostly in opposition, were received regarding the proposed Brentwood constituency. In the initial proposals, the two wards of Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings, from the existing Brentwood and Ongar constituency, were included in the proposed Saffron Walden constituency in order to bring the latter within the permitted electorate range. Due to this change, a name change was proposed to simply call the constituency Brentwood. It is these changes that the majority of the representations received, such as Jim Padfield (BCE-68075), were concerned about. Reconfiguring the sub-regions, as we are now proposing, means that the Saffron Walden constituency no longer needs to include the two wards of Moreton and Fyfield, and High Ongar, Willingale and The Rodings, and therefore they are able to be retained in a Brentwood and Ongar constituency, as numerous counter-proposals put forward. We accept this revision, as it minimises change from the existing Brentwood and Ongar constituency, allowing it to be unchanged except to realign to new local government ward boundaries. Due to there being minimal change, and the village of High Ongar being retained in the constituency, it is also proposed that the existing name of Brentwood and Ongar be retained.
3.79 In the initial proposals, the only changes to the existing Maldon constituency were the addition of the Galleywood ward, and the inclusion of the Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon ward in the Braintree constituency. Few representations or counter-proposals were received regarding these changes. However, counter-proposals from the Liberal Democrats, BCE-63334, and BCE66878, which call for Essex to be a sub-region on its own, proposed that the Maldon constituency retain the ward of Little Baddow, Danbury and Sandon. This would minimise disruption from the existing constituency, as every ward in the existing constituency would be retained and there would be the single addition of the Galleywood ward. The Assistant Commissioners found this sufficiently persuasive, and as such we are content to propose the change in our revised proposals.
3.80 The Conservative Party, as well as a number of others who also supported Essex as a sub-region on its own, proposed a Maldon constituency that included all of the wards from the Maldon local authority in a single constituency, as well as a number of wards from the Colchester local authority. While our Assistant Commissioners considered there was merit in this proposal, in that it had more regard for the Maldon local authority boundary, they did not find it sufficiently persuasive as it would entail an unnecessarily large departure from the existing arrangement for both the Maldon and Witham constituencies, and they considered that such a change would have negative implications across other areas of the county.
3.81 Around 40 representations were received regarding the proposed Chelmsford constituency, split roughly equally between those supporting and opposing the initial proposals. Those supporting said that the Galleywood ward is the most appropriate ward to be included in the Maldon constituency (Councillor Stephen Robinson, BCE-70693), while opposing representations said that it should be retained by dividing the town of Chelmsford into two constituencies (BCE59220). The latter would be a major departure from the existing constituency, with an impact across much of the county, and as such we do not accept these alternatives and propose no change. Counter-proposals from BCE-79444 and BCE-94644 were the only other two to propose a revision to the initially proposed Chelmsford, with both saying Goat Hall ward should no longer be included. Our Assistant Commissioners did not consider this preferable as it failed to minimise disruption from the existing constituency and was likely to break local ties. We agree.
3.82 In the initial proposals, the only change to the existing Basildon and Billericay constituency was the inclusion of the Vange ward from South Basildon and East Thurrock. This change was largely uncontentious, and the Assistant Commissioners accordingly recommended no revisions, which we agree with.
3.83 In the initial proposals, the Roche North & Rural ward, which is divided between the existing constituencies of Rayleigh and Wickford, and Rochford and Southend East, was wholly included in the proposed Rochford and Southend East constituency. There were no further changes to the Rayleigh and Wickford constituency. This single change was largely uncontentious, and we propose no changes to the initial proposals.
Back to topNorfolk and Suffolk
Norfolk
3.84 The change in sub-regions (detailed in the sub-region section above) necessitates change across much of Norfolk. This reconfiguration of Norfolk means that changes from the initial proposals are proposed to eight of the nine constituencies in the county.
3.85 The issue in Norfolk that received the most representations during the consultations was the proposed transfer of the two North Norfolk wards of Stalham and Hickling to the Great Yarmouth constituency. This arrangement was considered necessary if Norfolk was to be treated as a sub-region on its own, in order to create a coherent pattern of constituencies across the county. The majority of representations, which mostly came from residents of the two wards of Stalham and Hickling, opposed the proposals, stating that the two wards were very different from the rest of the Great Yarmouth constituency, in particular to the town of Great Yarmouth itself. The differences referenced by respondents – such as Duncan Baker, MP for North Norfolk (BCE-71049), and Hickling Parish Council (BCE-84188) – were that Great Yarmouth has a distinct character, with significantly different issues to North Norfolk. They also highlighted the differences in physical geography between the rural areas of Stalham and Hickling (which include a designated area of outstanding natural beauty) and the mostly urban area of Great Yarmouth. Our Assistant Commissioners noted that the change in sub-region allowed the two wards to be retained in the North Norfolk constituency, while still allowing for a coherent pattern of constituencies across the county, and retaining Stalham and Hickling wards in the North Norfolk constituency allowed the Great Yarmouth constituency to be both wholly unchanged and wholly coterminous with the local authority boundary. We agree with this recommendation and as such we propose the Great Yarmouth constituency be unchanged from the existing arrangement.
3.86 In the initial proposals, there was further change to the existing North Norfolk constituency, with the five wards of Lancaster North, Lancaster South, The Raynhams, Stibbard, and Walsingham, which include the town of Fakenham, included from the existing Broadland constituency. This was largely a consequence of Stalham and Hickling wards being included in the proposed Great Yarmouth constituency. Few representations were received regarding this change, although those that were received were largely supportive, including Fakenham Town Council (BCE-96639) and BCE-53555. They said that the town of Fakenham is one of the largest towns in the North Norfolk local authority and should therefore be included in a constituency with most of the rest of the local authority, and that the five wards have little in common with the rest of the existing Broadland constituency they are currently in. Retaining Stalham and Hickling wards in the North Norfolk constituency, as we are now proposing, allows these five wards, which include the town of Fakenham, to be retained in the Broadland constituency. The Assistant Commissioners acknowledged that a small majority of respondents supported the inclusion of these five wards in the North Norfolk constituency, but felt that retaining them in the Broadland constituency would minimise disruption to the existing arrangement for both the North Norfolk and Broadland constituencies. We accept their conclusion and recommendation.
3.87 In the initial proposals, further change was made to the Broadland constituency, with the inclusion of the Upper Wensum and Lincoln wards from the existing Mid Norfolk constituency. The Assistant Commissioners recommended that these two wards be retained in the Mid Norfolk constituency under our revised proposals. We agree with this proposal. The only change to the boundaries of the existing Broadland constituency would accordingly be for the wards of Drayton North and Drayton South to be included in the Norwich North constituency (detailed below). However, our Assistant Commissioners were persuaded to propose a change to the constituency name. It was put to us, including by Jerome Mayhew, MP for Broadland, at the Ipswich public hearing (BCE-97392), that the name Broadland is not reflective of the constituency as a whole, and that as Fakenham is an important town in the area, and one that is in the North Norfolk local authority rather than the Broadland local authority, it should be included in the name. We agree with this, and we therefore propose the constituency name be changed to Broadland and Fakenham.
3.88 In the initial proposals, the ward of Thorpe Hamlet would be included in the Norwich North constituency from the existing Norwich South constituency. The Norwich South constituency would be changed further to include the Old Costessey ward from the existing South Norfolk constituency. While there were only a small number of representations regarding the two proposed Norwich constituencies, they presented strong views and evidence. Some representations, particularly those received during the Ipswich public hearing – such as from Councillor Adam Giles (BCE-97388) and Councillor Steve Morphew (BCE-97389) – supported the initial proposals. They said that much of the Thorpe Hamlet ward is north of the river and therefore has more connection to the Norwich North constituency, and that this change therefore meant the boundary between the two constituencies more closely followed the River Wensum. Conversely, opposing representations, including from Chloe Smith, MP for Norwich North, who also spoke at the Ipswich public hearing (BCE-97423), stated that the Thorpe Hamlet ward contains crucial areas of the city centre such as the railway station, the football stadium, one of the cathedrals, and numerous shops, restaurants and other facilities, which are more closely linked to the Norwich South constituency that contains much of the rest of the city centre.
3.89 It is difficult to keep the two Norwich constituencies as initially proposed and create a coherent scheme across the county when adopting the sub-regional change. As such, a number of counter-proposals supported the Thorpe Hamlet ward being retained in the Norwich South constituency, and the Old Costessey ward being retained in the South Norfolk constituency, as in the existing arrangement. During a site visit to the area, the Assistant Commissioners agreed that the ward of Thorpe Hamlet did contain a significant portion of the city centre, and that to include it in the Norwich North constituency, as initially proposed, while having some benefits, would divide the city centre between two constituencies, with many city centre landmarks and services being included in a constituency that is more suburban in character than the Norwich South constituency. They recommended that we retain the Thorpe Hamlet ward in the Norwich South constituency, as in the existing arrangement, and we agree with that recommendation.
3.90 As the electorate of the existing Norwich North constituency is below the permitted electorate range, additional electors must be included in the constituency, and two options were proposed in the representations. The Conservative Party proposed that the two wards of Drayton North and Drayton South be included in the Norwich North constituency, while the Liberal Democrats and BCE-63334 called, alternatively, for the ward of Spixworth with St. Faiths to be included in Norwich North. On their site visit to the area, the Assistant Commissioners observed that despite the odd shape of the two Drayton wards, there are good transport links to the Norwich North constituency, and a similar suburban character across both areas. The peculiar shape of the two wards is largely due to areas with few or no inhabitants. On the contrary, the Spixworth with St. Faiths ward is almost entirely rural and the A1270 road separates much of the ward from the Norwich North constituency. Furthermore, the Assistant Commissioners noted the historical precedent for the village of Drayton being included in a Norwich North constituency. They therefore recommended that the two Drayton wards be included in the Norwich North constituency. We accept that recommendation, but the decision is a finely balanced one, as we note that the new constituency boundary may be considered to break ties between Drayton and the neighbouring village of Taverham, as well as seemingly dividing the Thorpe Marriott residential area (although it would be coterminous with the boundary of Drayton Parish Council). We also noted that despite the apparent physical barrier of the A1270, there appears to be good direct road access from the main population centre of Spixworth village in the Spixworth and St. Faiths ward into north Norwich by both Buxton Road and North Walsham Road. We therefore particularly welcome further views and evidence – especially from local residents – as to which of these wards is best included in the Norwich North constituency.
3.91 There were very few representations received regarding the proposed South West Norfolk, Mid Norfolk, and South Norfolk constituencies. Despite this, the sub-regional change now proposed – and particularly the cross-county constituency with Suffolk – necessitates changes to these constituencies. Following the site visit by our Assistant Commissioners, and the evidence which supported the argument for a cross-county constituency spanning the River Waveney, we accepted their recommendations for a Waveney Valley constituency. This would be configured as proposed by Councillor Carol Poulter (BCE-73423), including six wards from the existing South Norfolk constituency: namely Bressingham & Burston, Diss & Roydon, Beck Vale, Dickleburgh & Scole, Harleston, Bunwell, and Ditchingham & Earsham. The proposed Waveney Valley constituency is discussed in further detail in the section on Suffolk, as the majority of the proposed constituency would be composed of Suffolk wards.
3.92 The inclusion of these six Norfolk wards in the Waveney Valley constituency means that the South Norfolk constituency requires additional electors from elsewhere. In accordance with the recommendations of our Assistant Commissioners, we propose that the Old Costessey ward, included in the initially proposed Norwich South constituency, and the Easton ward, included in the initially proposed Mid Norfolk constituency, both be retained in the South Norfolk constituency, as in the existing arrangement. Furthermore, as set out in numerous counter-proposals, we propose that the town of Wymondham (comprising the Central Wymondham, North Wymondham and South Wymondham wards) – part of the existing Mid Norfolk constituency – be included in the South Norfolk constituency. While not currently included in the existing South Norfolk constituency, the town of Wymondham is in the South Norfolk local authority, and while few representations were received regarding this area, there was support for Wymondham being included in a constituency composed exclusively of other South Norfolk local authority wards, for example from Howard Collins (BCE-65020) and BCE-58397. Wymondham is the largest town in the South Norfolk local authority, and is considered to have strong links to other areas in the constituency.
3.93 The changes we have proposed to the South Norfolk and Broadland constituencies have a consequential beneficial impact – in terms of the statutory factors – on both the Mid Norfolk and South West Norfolk constituencies. The Mid Norfolk constituency would now retain the wards of Necton, Launditch, Hermitage, Upper Wensum, and Lincoln (which are all in the existing constituency of Mid Norfolk). The wards of Harling & Heathlands, and Guiltcross, would also be retained in the South West Norfolk constituency, as in the existing arrangement. Our revised proposals therefore allow both constituencies to much more closely resemble their existing configurations, with the South West Norfolk constituency only being changed from the existing boundary to realign to new local government ward boundaries.
3.94 In the initial proposals, the North West Norfolk constituency was unchanged except to realign its boundaries with new local government ward boundaries. This elicited few representations, was largely uncontentious and mostly supported (for example, BCE-66651). The Assistant Commissioners recommended no revisions, and we therefore propose no change to this constituency as initially proposed.
Suffolk
3.95 The largest issue in Suffolk during the consultations, by number of representations received, was the initially proposed Haverhill and Halstead cross-county boundary constituency between Suffolk and Essex. Almost all of the representations received regarding this constituency opposed it, although the Labour Party (BCE-95654) supported it. Most of these representations, such as that from Halstead Town Council (BCE-65834) and Matt Hancock, MP for West Suffolk (BCE-97354), highlighted the lack of ties between the two towns, and particularly poor public transport links, which it was said are effectively non-existent. Furthermore, the representations stated that many of the West Suffolk local authority wards that were included in the constituency look towards the towns of Newmarket or Bury St Edmunds and not south to Essex, while the Braintree local authority wards included look mostly towards the town of Braintree and not to Suffolk in the north. Some respondents, such as James Cleverly MP (BCE-67477) considered the consequential impacts to both the Braintree and West Suffolk constituencies unnecessarily disruptive, while others, such as Councillor Bobby Bennett (BCE-84242) pointed to the River Stour as a well-defined physical barrier. Due to the mathematical entitlement of Suffolk to 7.60 constituencies, it is necessary to have a cross-county boundary constituency that includes wards from Suffolk with wards from another county.
3.96 Those who opposed the Haverhill and Halstead proposal, instead proposed a pairing of Suffolk with Norfolk, generally supported one of two options: either a Waveney Valley constituency or a Newmarket and Thetford constituency. The rationale put forward in support of a Waveney Valley constituency is that there is a shared local character on both sides of the River Waveney, with the river being a uniting factor rather than a division, and that the A143 road provides a strong transport connection east-west across much of the proposed constituency (Robert Grimsey, BCE-69217). Furthermore, Geoffrey Holdcroft (BCE-93742) referenced The New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership to highlight the commercial links in the area. The reasons given in support of a Newmarket and Thetford constituency, put forward by the Green Party (BCE-96542) and Ric Brackenbury (BCE-94769) among others, are that it would bring much of The Brecks into a single constituency, including Thetford Forest, and crosses the county boundary where it is less defined than in other areas.
3.97 Representations received said that a Waveney Valley constituency would better reflect the statutory factors. Firstly, many considered that creating a Newmarket and Thetford constituency would appear to cause more disruption to existing constituencies across both Norfolk and Suffolk. Secondly, representations (for example, BCE-59012) were received from residents of Newmarket who stated that they should, in fact, be included with Cambridgeshire and not Suffolk, and therefore to include the town in a cross-county boundary constituency with Norfolk instead would go directly against local sentiment and cause even more disruption and confusion than the existing arrangement.
3.98 Our Assistant Commissioners decided to see the River Waveney area for themselves during a site visit, and observed that the physical geography and socio-economic characteristics on both sides of the river seemed to be similar, and noted the evidence that had been provided of good and numerous community ties spanning the river. They did not consider that the river and county boundary between Norfolk and Suffolk would therefore be an impediment to a successful cross-county constituency here. They therefore concluded that a cross-county constituency be recommended to us here, and that it be called Waveney Valley, as proposed by a large number of respondents. There were, however, two options for a Waveney Valley constituency received, differing in the detail of their composition: that put forward by the Conservative Party (BCE-85500) and the Liberal Democrats (BCE-94333); or Councillor Carol Poulter’s counter-proposal (BCE-73423). While the Conservative Party’s counterproposal would reduce the amount of change from the existing arrangement of constituencies, Councillor Poulter’s counter-proposal would result in even less change. One of the reasons for this is that Councillor Poulter’s proposal would include the town of Stowmarket in the Bury St Edmunds constituency, as in the existing arrangement, thereby minimising disruption to the existing constituencies and moving significantly fewer electors. Furthermore, Councillor Poulter’s proposal allowed for the towns of Wickham Market and Framlingham, two areas with close community ties, to remain in a constituency together. It also proposed a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency which, despite some changes from the existing arrangement, would be more closely aligned to the existing constituency than either the initial proposals or the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal. This would also allow the ward of Kelsale & Yoxford to remain in the Suffolk Coastal constituency, linking it to the town of Saxmundham and to other areas with which it has community ties. Finally, the Risby ward would be retained in a West Suffolk constituency, thereby moving fewer electors from their existing constituency, giving the constituency a better shape, and more coherence than in the Conservative Party’s counter-proposal.
3.99 Our Assistant Commissioners therefore recommended a cross-county constituency as set out in the counter-proposal submitted by Councillor Poulter. We accept their recommendation, and propose that the constituency should be called Waveney Valley, as we consider that it would be appropriately reflective of the nature of the constituency, with the River Waveney running directly through the centre of the proposed constituency.
3.100 In the initial proposals, we proposed a constituency that would include the towns of Bury St Edmunds and Newmarket, along with a number of rural West Suffolk local authority wards. We received a relatively small number of representations regarding this constituency, although they were almost exclusively in opposition. This opposition generally drew attention to the fact that both the existing West Suffolk and Bury St Edmunds constituencies were significantly reconfigured in the initial proposals, with the existing Bury St Edmunds constituency in particular being divided between four proposed constituencies (BCE-74649). Furthermore, the initial proposals resulted in areas like Rougham and Stowmarket being separated from Bury St Edmunds, with which they are said to have strong community ties. Many counter-proposals in favour of a Norfolk-Suffolk sub-region recommended constituencies that are more similar to the existing West Suffolk and Bury St Edmunds constituencies, with only relatively minor changes required. In light of revisions elsewhere, we now propose a West Suffolk constituency that would change only to include the Bardwell, Barningham, Stanton, and Ixworth wards, as well as small changes to realign with updated local government ward boundaries.
3.101 Councillor Poulter’s proposal would retain the town of Stowmarket in the same constituency as Bury St Edmunds, as in the existing arrangement. Our Assistant Commissioners considered this preferable to other alternatives put forward, as not only would it minimise disruption to the existing constituency, but it would also reflect the views expressed in representations stating that the two towns have much in common. For example, a number of people who spoke at the Ipswich public hearing, such as Katherine West (BCE-97396), were of the view that the two towns have strong community ties and transport links, particularly with new housing developments being built along the A14 road corridor.
3.102 Similarly, the North Suffolk constituency, which under the initial proposals would include a large number of rural wards from the West Suffolk, Mid Suffolk, and East Suffolk local authorities, elicited a small number of representations, with the majority being in opposition. While the Ipswich Constituency Labour Party and Ipswich Borough Labour Party (BCE-80893) stated that the constituency would have a cohesive rural character, those in opposition, such as West Suffolk Constituency Labour Party (BCE-67608), said that the constituency would be too vast, with poor internal transport links and no sizable town to act as a focal point. Others, such as Mike Porter (BCE-61706) said that the roads in Suffolk tend to run north-south rather than east-west, and that such a constituency would be a significant change from the existing constituencies, creating unnecessary disruption. In a number of counter-proposals, and in our revised proposals, the proposed North Suffolk constituency is largely replaced by the Waveney Valley constituency discussed above. Dr Daniel Poulter, MP for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (BCE-92875) submitted a counter-proposal, which he stated should only be taken into account if the sub-regions were to stay the same as in the initial proposals. While we considered that his proposal had merit, as we are proposing to change the sub-regions, this alternative was not adopted.
3.103 The initial proposals included an Ipswich North and Stowmarket constituency, which included the three Ipswich wards of Whitehouse, Castle Hill, and Whitton, and the three East Suffolk wards of Rushmere St. Andrew, Kesgrave, and Carlford & Fynn Valley, each of which are in the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency. Also included were a number of Mid Suffolk wards, including the town of Stowmarket. This proposed constituency received some support, for example from Thérèse Coffey, MP for Suffolk Coastal (BCE-82425), although the majority of respondents were in opposition to the proposals, such as Councillor Elaine Bryce (BCE-71444). The support centred on the connections between the two towns, with the A14 road providing a strong transport link. Those in opposition stated that Stowmarket has more links to the town of Bury St Edmunds, and has little connection to the town of Kesgrave, on the far side of Ipswich. Furthermore, representations said that the communities of Wickham Market and Framlingham have strong ties, and should be retained within the same constituency (for example Sarah Cornick, BCE-97398). The Conservative Party counter-proposal supported the proposed Ipswich North and Stowmarket constituency, but Councillor Poulter’s counter-proposal would include Stowmarket with Bury St Edmunds, allowing Wickham Market and Framlingham to be included in a reconfigured Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency that is more similar to the existing arrangement. Our Assistant Commissioners considered that this solution would better reflect the statutory factors of both avoiding breaking local ties, and minimising disruption to existing constituencies. We agree and therefore propose a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency that includes all of the wards from the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency, except for six wards in the north that are included in the proposed Waveney Valley constituency.
3.104 In the initial proposals, the only changes to the existing Suffolk Coastal constituency would be to transfer the Kelsale & Yoxford ward into the North Suffolk constituency, and to realign the constituency with updated local government ward boundaries near the towns of Wickham Market and Halesworth. This proposed constituency received relatively few representations. Thérèse Coffey MP (BCE-82425), and a few other respondents supported the proposals due to there being very little change. However, some said that the village of Wickham Market has more links to Framlingham than to areas of the Suffolk Coastal constituency (both towns are currently included in the existing Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency). Others, such as Julia Ewart (BCE-97395), also stated that the ward of Kelsale & Yoxford has close links to Saxmundham and other wards in the Suffolk Coastal constituency in which they are currently included. Our Assistant Commissioners considered the representations that call for Wickham Market to be included in a Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency, and the Kelsale & Yoxford ward to be included in Suffolk Coastal, sufficiently persuasive, and recommended we adopt these changes as our revised proposals for these constituencies. We agree with their recommendation.
3.105 A number of counter-proposals, such as that from Jonathan Stansby (BCE-57513) proposed a more radical reconfiguration, with the Suffolk Coastal constituency being split into two, and the town of Felixstowe forming a constituency with eastern Ipswich, which he felt would be more compact than the proposed narrow Suffolk Coastal constituency. While there is some merit in this proposal, it would require a significant departure from the existing arrangement, would likely break community ties, and would have knock-on implications across much of the county. In accordance with our Assistant Commissioners’ recommendations, we have not adopted these counter-proposals.
3.106 In the initial proposals, the Ipswich constituency would be wholly unchanged from the existing constituency, and very few representations were received. Some, including Tom Hunt, MP for Ipswich (BCE-97405), supported the initial proposals due to there being no change, although others (such as BCE-56396) opposed them, as they felt Ipswich should be evenly divided between two constituencies. We consider that there are insufficient grounds to alter the Ipswich constituency, as this would represent an unnecessary departure from the existing arrangement, and would likely have negative implications across the county.
3.107 The constituencies of South Suffolk – which was initially proposed to be unchanged other than to realign it with updated local government ward boundaries – and Lowestoft – the only change to which in the initial proposals would be to transfer out the Bungay & Wainford ward – were both largely uncontentious. Our Assistant Commissioners accordingly recommended no changes to either constituency as initially proposed, and we agree with them.
Back to top