Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the London region

3 Initial proposals for the London region

  1. The London region comprises the 32 London boroughs and the City of London Corporation.8
  2. London currently has 73 constituencies. Of these, only 20 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of a further 20 constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of 33 constituencies are above the 5% limit.
  3. Our initial proposals for London are for 75 constituencies, an increase of two.
  4. In seeking to produce 75 constituencies within the permitted electorate range, our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub-regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of London boroughs and geographic boundaries such as the River Thames and the River Lee.
  5. Our division of London into five sub-regions is a practical approach, enabling us to allocate whole numbers of constituencies to each sub-region with the requisite flexibility to produce an arrangement of constituencies that all fall within the permitted electorate range. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation based on other groupings of London boroughs, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
  6. The North East London sub-region comprises the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, and Waltham Forest. These four boroughs have a total electorate of 662,740, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 9.03 constituencies. We have therefore allocated this sub-region nine constituencies, no change from the current number of constituencies across these four boroughs.
  7. The Newham and Tower Hamlets sub-region comprises these two boroughs. The combined electorates of Newham and Tower Hamlets, at 368,155, results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.02 constituencies. We have therefore allocated this sub-region five constituencies, an increase of one from the current number of constituencies in this pair of boroughs. When considering the allocation of constituencies across London, we identified that the River Lee would need to be
    crossed at some point, in order to achieve constituencies within the permitted electorate range. Given the greater number of transport links across the River Lee between the boroughs of Newham and Tower Hamlets than between many other boroughs bordering the Lee, we propose a Stratford and Bow constituency that
    crosses the Lee between these two boroughs.
  8. The North Central and North West London sub-region consists of the boroughs of Barnet, Brent, Camden, the City of London, Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Hammersmith and Fulham, Haringey,9 Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Islington, Kensington and Chelsea, Richmond upon Thames (that part which lies on the north side of the River Thames), and Westminster. The total electorate of the subregion, at 2,397,559, results in a mathematical entitlement to 32.66 constituencies. We have allocated the sub-region 32 constituencies,10 the same number as at present across these parts of London. It is mathematically possible to consider North Central London and North West London sub-regions separately, using the A5 road as a natural boundary. However, a North Central sub-region would require an average constituency size of 76,420 electors – very close to the upper limit of 77,062 – making it difficult in practice to create a configuration of constituencies here without dividing multiple wards between constituencies. Combining North Central and North West London into one sub-region requires an average constituency size of 74,924 electors, thereby allowing for greater flexibility.
  9. The South Central and South West London sub-region consists of the boroughs of Croydon, Kingston upon Thames, Lambeth, Lewisham, Merton, Richmond upon Thames (that part which lies on the south side of the River Thames), Southwark, Sutton, and Wandsworth. This sub-region has an electorate of 1,538,390, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 20.95 constituencies. We have therefore allocated 21 constituencies to this sub-region. It is mathematically possible to consider South Central London and South West London sub-regions separately. A South Central sub-region, comprising the boroughs of Croydon, Lambeth, Lewisham, and Southwark, would have an entitlement to 11.85 constituencies; a South West sub-region, comprising the boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Merton, Richmond upon Thames (South), Sutton, and Wandsworth, would have an entitlement to 9.10 constituencies. These sub-regions could therefore be allocated 12 and nine constituencies respectively. However, our investigations showed that it was difficult to create a practicable scheme of constituencies in a stand-alone South Central sub-region without dividing multiple wards, due to the electorates and configurations of the wards across these four boroughs.
  10. The South East London sub-region comprises the boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, and Greenwich. These three boroughs have a combined electorate of 583,610 and a mathematical entitlement to 7.96 constituencies, therefore we have allocated eight constituencies to this sub-region. The existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency crosses between our proposed South Central and South West, and South East sub-regions, since it crosses the boundary between the boroughs of Lewisham and Bromley. However, given that our proposed sub-regions are each entitled to an almost whole number of constituencies, we consider that adhering to these sub-regions would enable a better reflection of the statutory factors across the whole of South London than if we retained the existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the North East London sub-region

  1. There are currently nine constituencies in the North East London sub‑region. Our initial proposals are also for nine constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, four have electorates within the permitted electorate range: Dagenham and Rainham, Ilford North, Romford, and Walthamstow. Two have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and three above.
  2. The existing arrangement of constituencies in the North East sub-region pairs the borough of Barking and Dagenham with Havering, and Redbridge with Waltham Forest. Despite these pairings having mathematical entitlements to 4.13 and 4.90 constituencies respectively, potentially allowing us to allocate them four and five constituencies each, ward sizes negate the possibility of the pairings being retained without dividing wards between constituencies. Thus, these four boroughs are treated as one group of four, rather than two groups of two, and allocated nine constituencies.
  3. In developing our proposals, we considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the four existing constituencies with electorates within the permitted range. Due to local government ward boundary changes in the South Woodford and Woodford Green areas, the existing Ilford North constituency would have to be reconfigured to reflect the new ward boundaries. Although the existing Dagenham and Rainham, and Romford constituencies could theoretically be left wholly unchanged, the surrounding constituencies of Barking, Hornchurch and Upminster, and Ilford South are all above the 5% limit. Thus Dagenham and Rainham, and Romford would need to be reconfigured in order to accommodate necessary change in these neighbouring constituencies. The existing Walthamstow constituency is left wholly unchanged in our proposals.
  4. The existing Chingford and Woodford Green, and Leyton and Wanstead constituencies need to be adjusted slightly to realign with the new local government ward boundaries in the South Woodford, Wanstead Park, and Woodford Green areas, and to increase their electorates. Our proposed Leyton and Wanstead constituency therefore includes the South Woodford ward (in which part of the existing constituency is already contained) and our proposed Chingford and Woodford Green constituency additionally includes the Bridge ward from the existing Ilford North constituency. We consider that the inclusion of the Bridge ward would unite the Woodford area, particularly the Woodford Bridge community which, despite lying on the other side of the M11 motorway to the main part of Woodford, is closely connected to Woodford by the A113 road.
  5. In Redbridge, our proposed Ilford North constituency retains six wards from the existing constituency and extends southwards to include two wards, Cranbrook and Valentines, from the existing Ilford South constituency. It would be possible to include the Chadwell ward (from the existing Ilford South) and the Chadwell Heath ward (from the existing Dagenham and Rainham) rather than Cranbrook and Valentines wards, but we consider that the residential and transport links to the rest of the constituency from Cranbrook and Valentines wards are stronger than from Chadwell and Chadwell Heath wards. Our proposed Ilford South constituency therefore retains all its existing wards besides Cranbrook and Valentines, and extends eastwards to include the Chadwell Heath ward. Despite crossing the borough boundary between Barking and Dagenham, and Redbridge, and resulting in Chadwell Heath being an orphan ward11 in the proposed Ilford South constituency, we consider that the A12 road and the continuous residential development between Chadwell and Chadwell Heath wards provide practical links.
  6. The existing Barking constituency has an electorate which is above the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Valence ward is included in the Dagenham and Rainham constituency, to bring the Barking constituency within the permitted electorate range. The proposed Dagenham and Rainham constituency therefore includes Valence ward in place of Chadwell Heath ward.
  7. In Havering, the existing Hornchurch and Upminster constituency is above the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Emerson Park ward is transferred from the Hornchurch and Upminster constituency to the Romford constituency, noting the clear residential and road links between Emerson Park and Romford. In order to then bring the Romford constituency into the permitted electorate range, we propose dividing Hylands ward between the Hornchurch and Upminster, and Romford constituencies. The three polling districts making up the south-eastern part of the ward are included in our proposed Hornchurch and Upminster constituency, and the two polling districts making up the north-western part of the ward are included in our proposed Romford constituency. We consider that dividing Hylands ward would also present clear advantages in terms of community ties, in that the south-eastern part of the ward, where Hornchurch Sports Centre and Hornchurch High School are located, would be included with the rest of Hornchurch.
  8. While it is possible to create a pattern of constituencies across the boroughs of Barking and Dagenham, Havering, Redbridge, and Waltham Forest without dividing a ward, such a pattern would result in significantly more change to the existing constituencies and extensive breaking of local ties. Our proposals minimise disruption by requiring none of the existing nine constituencies to be changed by more than three wards. Walthamstow would remain wholly unchanged; Leyton and Wanstead would change only to realign with new ward boundaries; and five of the remaining seven constituencies would change only by one or two wards. We therefore consider that the inconveniences attendant upon dividing a ward would be outweighed by a considerably better overall reflection of the statutory factors across the sub-region.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Newham and Tower Hamlets sub-region

  1. Newham and Tower Hamlets together have a mathematical entitlement to 5.02 constituencies. This pair of boroughs currently has four constituencies, but significant growth in the number of electors in this area means that all four existing constituencies are considerably above the permitted electorate range, and an additional constituency is allocated to the sub-region. This further supports our proposal for a constituency crossing the River Lee in this sub-region. We propose a Stratford and Bow constituency, which crosses the Lee between the Stratford and New Town ward in Newham, and the Bow East ward and Bromley North ward in Tower Hamlets. We note the significant transport links across the river here, including the A118 road, the Central underground line, the Docklands Light Railway, and national rail services, as well as pedestrian crossing points.
  2. While there would be a degree of unavoidable disruption caused by the creation of an additional constituency, we have tried to preserve the four existing constituencies in Newham and Tower Hamlets as far as is practicable. Our proposed East Ham constituency retains eight wards from the existing East Ham constituency. The Beckton ward and Royal Docks ward are consequently included in our proposed West Ham and Beckton constituency. In Tower Hamlets, our proposed Poplar and Limehouse constituency retains nine of its existing wards and spans a similar geographical area, from the Isle of Dogs in the south, to Mile End in the north, and the Tower of London in the west. The areas of Bethnal Green, Spitalfields, Stepney, and Whitechapel then comprise our proposed compact constituency of Bethnal Green and Stepney.
Back to top

Initial Proposals for the North Central and North West London sub-region

  1. There are currently 32 constituencies in the North Central and North West London sub-region. Our initial proposals are also for 32 constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, ten have electorates within the permitted electorate range: Ealing Central and Acton; Ealing North; Finchley and Golders Green; Hammersmith; Harrow East; Harrow West; Hayes and Harlington; Islington North; Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner; and Uxbridge and South Ruislip. Nine have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and 13 above.
  2. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the ten existing constituencies with electorates within the permitted range. However, due to prospective local government ward boundary changes in the boroughs of Barnet, Ealing, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, and Hillingdon, all of the aforementioned constituencies besides Ealing Central and Acton, and Islington North, would by necessity have to be reconfigured to reflect the ward boundary changes. We also propose changing the Ealing Central and Acton, and Islington North constituencies to accommodate necessary change to neighbouring constituencies, and to enable the electorates of all our proposed constituencies to fall within the permitted electorate range.
  3. The existing distribution of constituencies across the North Central and North West sub-region means that the boroughs of Barnet, Ealing, Enfield, Hackney, Haringey, Hounslow, Islington, and that part of Richmond upon Thames that lies north of the River Thames, all contain a whole number of constituencies within the borough boundaries. However, due to growth and decline in the electorate size of wards, and the requirement for all our proposed constituencies to be within 5% of the electoral quota, we consider that exactly half of the existing constituencies in this sub-region require significant change, and that it is necessary to cross borough boundaries more frequently than in the existing arrangement.
  4. In Enfield, the three existing constituencies of Edmonton, Enfield North, and Enfield, Southgate, all have electorates that are below the permitted electorate range. The Edmonton and Enfield North constituencies, however, can be brought into the permitted range by realigning the constituency boundaries with prospective local government ward boundaries across the borough. We therefore propose an Edmonton constituency and an Enfield North constituency that remain largely similar to the existing constituencies. In order for the existing Enfield, Southgate constituency to be within the permitted electorate range, we propose that the constituency extends westwards into Barnet and includes the Brunswick Park and East Barnet wards. There are continuous residential development and numerous road links across the borough boundary here, and we consider that our proposed arrangement would unite the Cockfosters community in a single constituency. We also observe that the railway line running along the western edge of Brunswick Park and East Barnet wards would serve as a natural boundary to the constituency. We propose that this constituency be called Southgate and Barnet East.
  5. As a result of our proposal to cross from Enfield into Barnet, as outlined above, and given that the existing Chipping Barnet and Hendon constituencies have electorates above the upper limit, we consider that significant change is required in the arrangement of constituencies across the borough of Barnet. We propose a High Barnet and Mill Hill constituency, which includes six wards from the existing Chipping Barnet constituency, and two wards from the existing Hendon constituency (noting prospective local government ward boundary changes in the Mill Hill East and Woodside Park areas). Although our proposed constituency would span a geographically larger area than any of the existing Barnet constituencies, we note that the A5109 road, and Lullington Garth and Frith Lane, serve to join the eastern and western parts of the constituency.
  6. Our proposed Finchley and Muswell Hill constituency retains five wards from the existing Finchley and Golders Green constituency, and crosses the borough
    boundary with Haringey to include the three Haringey wards of Fortis Green, Highgate, and Muswell Hill. There are clear road links across the borough boundary, such as the A1, the A504, and the A1000.
  7. We propose two constituencies that cross the borough boundaries between Barnet and Harrow, and Barnet and Brent, thereby also crossing the A5 road. We acknowledge that the current arrangement of constituencies in the North Central and North West sub-region means that only one existing constituency, Hampstead and Kilburn, substantially spans both sides of the A5 until the borough of Westminster. However, we consider that crossing the A5 in a Barnet–Harrow constituency and a Barnet–Brent constituency would minimise disruption across the sub-region as a whole, and would achieve a better overall reflection of the statutory factors. To that end, we propose a Stanmore and Edgware constituency, comprising six wards from the existing Harrow East constituency and two wards, Burnt Oak and Edgware, from the existing Hendon constituency. We then propose a Hendon and Golders Green constituency, comprising seven wards from the existing Hendon constituency, and the two Brent wards of Kingsbury and Welsh Harp.
  8. With regard to our proposed Stanmore and Edgware constituency, we note that the town of Edgware itself spans the boroughs of Barnet and Harrow, with continuous residential development across the A5 (which also acts as the borough boundary) and road connections such as the A5100 / B461 into the Canons Park area. With regard to our proposed Hendon and Golders Green constituency, we again note the continuous residential development across the A5 between the Colindale and Queensbury areas. We also observe that the West Hendon ward itself spans both sides of the A5, and that although the Brent Reservoir and Welsh Harp Nature Reserve separate the West Hendon and Kingsbury areas, Cool Oak Lane provides a road link across the reservoir.
  9. Elsewhere in Brent, our proposed Brent Central constituency is changed by two wards from the existing constituency, in addition to realignment with prospective local government ward boundaries. Our proposed changes decrease the electorate of the existing Brent Central constituency in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range. The existing Brent North constituency, also currently above the upper limit, is reconfigured in our proposals to include two Harrow wards, while retaining only seven of its existing wards. We consider that crossing the boundary with Harrow to include the Kenton East and Kenton West wards would present advantages in bringing the Kenton community (which spans the two boroughs) into a single constituency. We propose calling this constituency Kenton and Wembley West.
  10. In Harrow, the existing Harrow West constituency is altered in our proposals to align the constituency boundaries with prospective local government ward boundaries in the Pinner and Wealdstone areas. To bring this constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose that it includes the Wealdstone North ward. Doing so would also unite more of the Wealdstone area in the same constituency. We propose naming this constituency Harrow, since it would cover the central Harrow area, and its compass point would no longer be appropriate, given that we also propose changing the name of the existing Harrow East constituency.
  11. Due to prospective local government ward boundary changes in the Eastcote, Ickenham, and Pinner areas, the existing Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, are reconfigured in our proposals to realign with the prospective ward boundaries. The Ickenham & South Harefield ward is included in our proposed Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, meaning that the constituency would extend further north than it does at present. However, we note the geographical proximity and main road links from Ickenham to Uxbridge, and Harvil Road linking South Harefield to Ickenham. Other than this change in the Ickenham area, our proposed Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner constituency, and Uxbridge and South Ruislip constituency, are very similar to the existing constituencies.
  12. Further south in the borough of Hillingdon, we propose that the existing Hayes and Harlington constituency remains unchanged except to realign the constituency boundary with prospective local government ward boundary changes in the Hillingdon Heath, West Drayton, and Westways Farm areas. The geographical extent of the constituency would remain the same. We propose, however, that the constituency be named Hayes and West Drayton, to better reflect the main population centres.
  13. In Hounslow and that part of Richmond upon Thames that lies north of the River Thames, the electorates of the three existing constituencies are all above the permitted electorate range. To bring the Twickenham constituency and the Feltham and Heston constituency within the permitted range, we propose reducing them in size by one ward each. Our proposed Twickenham constituency therefore includes all of its existing wards except the Whitton ward, and our proposed Feltham and Heston constituency includes all of its existing wards except the Heston East ward. The Heston East and Whitton wards would consequently be included in our proposed Brentford and Isleworth constituency – which would retain all of its existing wards except the three easternmost wards of Chiswick Gunnersbury, Chiswick Homefields and Chiswick Riverside. These three Chiswick wards would then be grouped with the central portion of the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, to form a Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency. We consider that our proposed arrangement results in a more compact Brentford and Isleworth constituency. Despite crossing the borough boundary between Hammersmith and Fulham, and Hounslow, our proposed Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency has clear internal links, and we consider that Chiswick has greater accessibility to Hammersmith than to Brentford.
  14. With a mathematical entitlement to 2.91 constituencies, the borough of Ealing could potentially be allocated three constituencies contained wholly within the borough boundary. However, due to the electorate size and the arrangement of wards in Ealing, this would be difficult to achieve in practice without dividing wards. We also consider it necessary for at least one constituency to cross the boundary of Ealing borough in order to formulate a pattern of 32 constituencies across the North Central and North West sub-region that all have electorates within the permitted range. Our proposed Ealing Central and Acton constituency therefore crosses the borough boundary with Hammersmith and Fulham to include the College Park & Old Oak ward and the Wormholt ward from the northern part of the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. There are plentiful transport links across the borough boundary here, and East Acton underground station being located in the College Park & Old Oak ward signifies that the East Acton area itself spans the borough boundary.
  15. Elsewhere in Ealing, the existing Ealing North constituency is unchanged in our proposals except to realign the constituency boundary with prospective local government ward boundaries in the Greenford area. The existing Ealing, Southall constituency currently has an electorate below the permitted range. We therefore propose that the Walpole ward, currently in Ealing Central and Acton, should be included in this constituency to bring it within range. Continuous residential development and the A4020 and B452 roads link Walpole ward with the surrounding Hanwell Broadway and Northfield wards. We propose naming this constituency Southall.
  16. In the boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea, the existing Chelsea and Fulham constituency and Kensington constituency both have electorates beneath the permitted electorate range, and therefore require reconfiguring. Given our proposed changes in the central and northern part of Hammersmith and Fulham (namely, the inclusion of two northern Hammersmith wards in the Ealing Central and Acton constituency, and the inclusion of ten central Hammersmith wards in the Hammersmith and Chiswick constituency) we propose a Fulham and Chelsea West constituency. This constituency would extend a little further north than the existing Chelsea and Fulham constituency, but include only the western part of Chelsea. Our proposed Kensington and Westbourne constituency retains 12 wards from the existing Kensington constituency, and crosses into the borough of Westminster at the northernmost part of the borough boundary to include the Harrow Road, Queen’s Park, and Westbourne wards. Despite the Grand Union Canal and the railway lines from Paddington station running along or close to the borough boundary here, we consider that road links such as the B412 and A4207 would connect the Kensington part of the constituency to the Westminster part.
  17. Across the City of London and the borough of Westminster, change is necessary because the existing Cities of London and Westminster constituency and the existing Westminster North constituency both have electorates beneath the 5% limit. The City of London, having an electorate of just 6,304, needs to be paired with a neighbouring borough. We propose to pair the City of London with Islington, to create a City of London and Islington South constituency, which includes all the existing wards from the Islington South and Finsbury constituency. We consider that the City of London has as good transport links north towards Islington as it does west towards Westminster. We recognise that this pattern deviates from the existing pairing of the City of London and Westminster to form a constituency. We welcome representations during the consultation on whether our proposals best reflect community ties, along with any alternative configurations of constituencies. Our proposed Westminster and Chelsea East constituency includes all the Westminster wards from the existing Cities of London and Westminster constituency (taking into account prospective local government ward boundary changes in the Lancaster Gate and Marylebone areas), as well as the Bayswater ward, and two wards from the borough of Kensington and Chelsea: Brompton & Hans Town ward and Royal Hospital ward. We note the numerous road links across the borough boundary here, and we consider that the Belgravia, Brompton, East Chelsea, and Knightsbridge areas share a similar character.
  18. In the north of the borough of Westminster, we propose a constituency that crosses into the borough of Camden: our proposed Camden Town and St John’s Wood constituency extends from Maida Vale in the west, to Camden Town and Regent’s Park in the east, and Hampstead Town in the north. The existing Hampstead and Kilburn constituency, which crosses the borough boundary between Brent and Camden, is reconfigured to extend further west and includes the Harlesden & Kensal Green ward, rather than the Belsize ward and the Hampstead Town ward. We propose that this constituency be called West Hampstead and Kilburn. While we acknowledge that our proposed arrangement divides the Hampstead area between two constituencies, we consider a reconfiguration in this area to be necessary in order to produce a practicable scheme of constituencies across the whole sub-region that complies with the permitted electorate range.
  19. The existing Holborn and St Pancras constituency, which comprises the eastern half of the borough of Camden, has an electorate above the 5% limit. Given that the Camden Town, Gospel Oak, and Haverstock wards currently in this constituency would be included in our proposed Camden Town and St John’s Wood constituency, we are required to cross the borough boundary with Islington to bring this third Camden constituency into the permitted electorate range. We propose including the Tufnell Park ward from Islington, and calling this constituency Kentish Town and Bloomsbury, to better reflect the main areas covered by the constituency. It is possible to include either the Junction ward or the Tufnell Park ward from Islington, but we consider that the Tufnell Park ward is geographically closer and has better community links with the rest of the proposed constituency. We also note that, despite the aforementioned changes in the central Camden area and the inclusion of Tufnell Park as an orphan ward, our proposed constituency would cover the same north–south geographical extent as the existing Holborn and St Pancras constituency, and retain nine of its wards.
  20. The existing Islington North constituency has an electorate within the permitted electorate range. However, given our proposal to include the Tufnell Park ward in the Kentish Town and Bloomsbury constituency, the existing Islington North would need to gain electors from elsewhere. We therefore propose including the Dalston ward from the borough of Hackney in place of the Tufnell Park ward. While we acknowledge that our proposed arrangement would mean the Dalston ward being an orphan ward, we note the clear road and rail links providing connections across the Islington–Hackney boundary between the Dalston and Mildmay areas.
  21. In Hackney, the two existing constituencies are both above the permitted electorate range. To bring the existing Hackney South and Shoreditch constituency into range, we propose that it should retain all its existing wards except the King’s Park ward. The King’s Park ward would be included in our proposed Hackney North and Stoke Newington constituency, which would retain all its existing wards other than the Dalston ward, as previously mentioned, and the Brownswood ward and Woodberry Down ward in the north of the borough. The geographical extent of the two Hackney constituencies would therefore remain broadly similar to the existing arrangement.
  22. In Haringey, the two existing constituencies have electorates above the 5% limit. We propose reconfiguring the existing Tottenham constituency to include the two Hackney wards of Brownswood and Woodberry Down in place of the West Green ward and White Hart Lane ward, taking into account the prospective local government ward boundary changes in the Tower Gardens area. These proposed changes bring the constituency into the permitted electorate range, and we consider that the main community areas of Tottenham would still be included in a single constituency. Our proposed Hornsey and Wood Green constituency retains seven of its existing wards and extends eastwards to include the West Green ward and White Hart Lane ward. As previously discussed, the three westernmost Haringey wards – Fortis Green, Highgate, and Muswell Hill – would then be included in our proposed Finchley and Muswell Hill constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the South Central and South West London sub-region

  1. There are currently 20 constituencies in the South Central and South West London sub-region.12 Our initial proposals are for 21 constituencies, an increase of one. Of the existing constituencies, six have electorates within the permitted electorate range: Carshalton and Wallington, Lewisham East, Lewisham West and Penge, Mitcham and Morden, Sutton and Cheam, and Tooting. Two have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and 12 above.
  2. In developing our proposals, we considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the six existing constituencies with electorates within the permitted range. In the borough of Lewisham, we noted that the existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency (which crosses the boundary with Bromley) would have to change for the purposes of adhering to our proposed sub-regions. Prospective local government ward boundary changes in the borough would also see the existing Lewisham East constituency changed to realign with the prospective ward boundaries. Similarly, prospective ward boundary changes in Sutton mean that the two existing Sutton constituencies need to be adjusted to realign with the prospective boundaries. We considered that the existing Mitcham and Morden constituency would have to change to accommodate change to neighbouring areas, but we propose that the existing Tooting constituency remains wholly unchanged.
  3. Lewisham’s mathematical entitlement to 2.59 constituencies means that the borough cannot accommodate a whole number of constituencies. Our proposals for Lewisham comprise a Lewisham East constituency, which is unchanged from the existing configuration except to realign the constituency boundaries with prospective local government ward boundaries; a Deptford constituency, which is also unchanged from the existing Lewisham, Deptford constituency except to realign with prospective ward boundaries; and a Dulwich and Sydenham constituency, which crosses the borough boundary with Southwark. Our proposed Dulwich and Sydenham constituency consists of those same Lewisham wards which are currently in the Lewisham West and Penge constituency, and four Dulwich wards from the borough of Southwark. We note the clear road and residential links across the borough boundary here.
  4. Elsewhere in Southwark, the existing Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency and Camberwell and Peckham constituency are both above the permitted electorate range, thereby requiring reconfiguration. Our proposed Bermondsey and Borough constituency retains eight wards from the existing Bermondsey and Old Southwark constituency and spans largely the same geographical area, extending along the River Thames from the Rotherhithe area to Blackfriars Bridge. We propose that the constituency be called Bermondsey and Borough to better reflect the main areas and population centres. Our proposed Peckham constituency includes eight wards from the existing Camberwell and Peckham constituency, and takes into account local government ward boundary changes in the Burgess Park area. The Camberwell Green ward, Newington ward, and St. George’s ward are included in our proposed Vauxhall and Camberwell constituency, which spans the boroughs of Lambeth and Southwark. This proposed reconfiguration in the Camberwell area gives rise to our proposed constituency names, that is, the inclusion of ‘Camberwell’ in the name of the Vauxhall-based constituency, rather than in the name of the Peckham-based constituency.
  5. In Lambeth, the existing Streatham constituency is above the permitted electorate range, and given our proposed changes to the existing Vauxhall constituency, as outlined above, we consider that change is necessary elsewhere in the borough. We propose a Clapham and Brixton constituency, which includes two wards from the existing Dulwich and West Norwood constituency, two wards from the existing Streatham constituency, and three wards from the existing Vauxhall constituency. Our proposed Streatham constituency then includes all the existing Streatham wards except the Clapham Common ward and Thornton ward, and additionally includes the Thurlow Park ward. We consider that our proposed arrangement unites more of the Clapham area in a single constituency, and minimises disruption to the existing Streatham constituency. When considering alternative arrangements in this part of Lambeth, we noted that it would be possible to include the Herne Hill ward in place of the Brixton Hill ward in our proposed Streatham constituency. While potentially bringing more of the Brixton area together into a single constituency, and producing a more compact shape for Clapham and Brixton, we observed that this arrangement would increase the geographical north–south span of the Streatham constituency, to the extent that it would encompass several distinct communities and areas. The presence of Brockwell Park at the southern end of Herne Hill ward would also effectively isolate that part of Herne Hill lying north of the park from the rest of the constituency. We therefore consider that our proposed arrangement better reflects the statutory factors, but we would particularly welcome local views on the alternative outlined above.
  6. Croydon’s mathematical entitlement to 3.46 constituencies means that the borough is unable to accommodate a whole number of constituencies and therefore at least one of its constituencies must extend beyond the borough boundary. We accordingly propose a Norwood constituency, which comprises the Woodside ward from the existing Croydon Central constituency, four wards from the existing Croydon North constituency, and the two Lambeth wards of Gipsy Hill and Knight’s Hill. We consider that, despite crossing the borough boundary from Croydon to Lambeth and presenting a significant change from the existing configuration in this area, our proposed Norwood constituency has numerous internal transport links and comprises areas of a similar residential character. The railway line on its south-western edge acts as a natural boundary. Our proposed name arose from the fact that the constituency would cover the areas of Norwood New Town, South Norwood, Upper Norwood, and West Norwood.
  7. Our proposed Croydon North constituency extends from the Waddon ward to the Norbury & Pollards Hill ward in Croydon, and crosses the boundary with Merton to include the Longthornton ward. We note the continuous residential development and the Northborough Road link across the borough boundary here. Our proposed Croydon East and Croydon South constituencies take into account local government ward boundary changes in the Selsdon area; otherwise, the two constituencies cover broadly similar geographical areas to the existing Croydon Central and Croydon South constituencies. However, in order to bring our proposed Croydon South constituency into the permitted electorate range, we propose dividing Waddon ward between the Croydon North and Croydon South constituencies: the WDN6 polling district at the south-eastern corner of Waddon ward would be included in the Croydon South constituency, and the remaining polling districts would be included in the Croydon North constituency. It is possible to divide Fairfield ward, rather than Waddon ward, but we consider it more appropriate for Fairfield ward to be included wholly in one constituency rather than Waddon ward, since parts of the commercial centre of Croydon are located in Fairfield ward.
  8. Due to the electorate size and the configuration of wards across the boroughs of Croydon and Lambeth, we have not been able to propose a pattern of constituencies across these two boroughs without dividing a ward. In our investigations, we identified that it was possible to produce an arrangement whereby three constituencies were contained wholly within Croydon, thereby reducing the number of borough boundary crossings. However, this arrangement necessitated dividing three wards in Lambeth in order for all the constituencies to fall within the permitted electorate range. We therefore consider that including Longthornton ward as an orphan ward in our proposed Croydon North constituency and dividing only one ward in Croydon provides a more satisfactory solution than dividing three wards in Lambeth.
  9. In the borough of Sutton, the two existing constituencies of Carshalton and Wallington, and Sutton and Cheam are unchanged in our proposals except to realign the constituency boundaries with prospective local government ward boundaries.
  10. Wandsworth’s mathematical entitlement to 3.02 constituencies means that the borough can also accommodate a whole number of constituencies. The existing Tooting constituency has an electorate within the permitted range, and we propose to leave this constituency wholly unchanged. The existing Battersea constituency is above the 5% limit, while the existing Putney constituency is below. We propose dividing the Fairfield ward between the Battersea and Putney constituencies to bring them both within range. The easternmost polling district of Fairfield ward, FFD, is included in our proposed Battersea constituency, and the remaining polling districts are included in our proposed Putney constituency. The ward would thereby be divided along the A214 road, a natural boundary. We noted that it was possible to create an arrangement of constituencies in Wandsworth without dividing a ward, but that any such arrangement would necessitate a complete reconfiguration of all three existing constituencies, dividing communities and breaking local ties. Our proposals, however, result in minimal disruption to the existing pattern of constituencies.
  11. In Kingston upon Thames and that part of Richmond upon Thames that lies south of the River Thames, the existing Kingston and Surbiton constituency and the existing Richmond Park constituency are both above the permitted electorate range. We propose reducing the size of the existing Richmond Park constituency by one ward, Coombe Vale, which is included in our proposed Kingston and Surbiton constituency. To then bring the Kingston and Surbiton constituency into the permitted range, we propose that two of its existing wards should be in a constituency that crosses the borough boundary with Merton. We therefore propose a Wimbledon constituency that includes the two Kingston upon Thames wards of Old Malden and St. James. In our investigations, we considered different possible configurations of wards to be included in the Wimbledon constituency, but we decided that the greater number of transport links across the borough boundary from the Old Malden and St. James wards rendered them the most appropriate wards to be included in this constituency. In the Merton part of our proposed Wimbledon constituency, all the existing Wimbledon wards are retained other than the Cannon Hill ward.
  12. The existing Mitcham and Morden constituency, although within the permitted electorate range, needs to be reconfigured in our proposals in order to accommodate necessary changes across the rest of the South Central and South West London sub-region. Our proposed Mitcham and Morden constituency retains all of its existing wards other than the Longthornton ward, and includes the Cannon Hill ward from the existing Wimbledon constituency. It is possible to include the Abbey ward rather than the Cannon Hill ward in our proposed Mitcham and Morden constituency, but given the strong ties between Abbey ward and central Wimbledon, we consider that transferring the Cannon Hill ward would be less disruptive.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the South East London sub-region

  1. The South East London sub-region currently has eight constituencies.13 Our initial proposals are also for eight constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, none have electorates within the permitted electorate range. Seven have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and one above.
  2. Since our proposed sub-regions do not require a constituency that crosses the borough boundary between Lewisham and Bromley (as is the case with the existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency), and given that all the existing constituencies in the South East London sub-region have to be reconfigured to comply with the permitted electorate range, we consider that a significant degree of change is necessary across the sub-region.
  3. Bromley has a mathematical entitlement to 3.24 constituencies, meaning that a whole number of constituencies cannot be contained within the borough boundary, and one constituency is required to cross the boundary with either Bexley or Greenwich. We outline below our reasons for proposing a constituency that crosses the boundary between Bromley and Greenwich. Elsewhere in Bromley borough, we propose a Beckenham constituency, a Bromley constituency, and an Orpington constituency. Our proposed Beckenham constituency comprises four wards from the existing Beckenham constituency, and three wards from the existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency. Despite these changes to the existing Beckenham constituency, we consider that the name ‘Beckenham’ would still be appropriate for our proposed constituency, given that it would still include the centre of Beckenham and its surrounding areas.
  4. Our proposed Bromley constituency consists of two wards from the existing Beckenham constituency, three wards from the existing Bromley and Chislehurst constituency, and the Petts Wood and Knoll ward from the existing Orpington constituency. We note that Bromley Common is located in the two wards currently in the Beckenham constituency (Bromley Common and Keston ward, and Hayes and Coney Hall ward) and we observe the clear north–south road links, such as the A21, running from these two wards to the centre of Bromley town. We also note the continuous residential development and the road and rail links from the Petts Wood and Knoll ward to the rest of the proposed Bromley constituency. To bring the existing Orpington constituency into the permitted electorate range, we propose that the Cray Valley West ward be included in this constituency in place of the Petts Wood and Knoll ward.
  5. When considering a constituency that would extend from Bromley borough into either Bexley or Greenwich borough, we noted that Bromley is separated from Bexley by the A20 road, which runs along the borough boundary, and by areas of woodland and open space in the north-eastern part of the Chislehurst ward. However, there are continuous residential development and numerous road links across the Bromley–Greenwich boundary. We therefore consider a crossing into Greenwich to be the more attractive option in terms of community ties. To that end, we propose an Eltham and Chislehurst constituency, which comprises six wards from the existing Eltham constituency, and the two Bromley borough wards of Chislehurst, and Mottingham and Chislehurst North.
  6. Elsewhere in the borough of Greenwich, our proposed Greenwich and Woolwich constituency retains six of the seven wards from the existing Greenwich and Woolwich constituency. The Glyndon ward is included in our proposed Erith and Thamesmead constituency, along with the Shooters Hill ward from the existing Eltham constituency. We consider that this arrangement presents the advantage of uniting the Plumstead community in a single constituency: it is divided between three constituencies in the existing configuration.
  7. In the borough of Bexley, our proposed Sidcup and Welling constituency is unchanged from the existing Old Bexley and Sidcup constituency except to realign the constituency boundaries with new local government ward boundaries in the Welling area. We consider that our proposed name better reflects the main population centres of the constituency.
  8. Our proposed Bexleyheath and Crayford constituency extends further north than the existing constituency, to reflect new ward boundaries in the West Heath area, and to include the Northumberland Heath ward. These changes are required to bring the constituency into the permitted electorate range. While we note that the Erith community is divided between two constituencies in our proposed arrangement, we consider that no alternative arrangement would better reflect the statutory factors across the sub-region as a whole.
Back to top

8 In the remainder of this document, general references to ‘borough’ should be taken to include the Corporation, where the context permits, unless expressly stated otherwise.
9 Our initial proposals for the borough of Haringey are based on estimated electorate figures, which have been agreed with the Electoral Registration Officer for Haringey.
10 The statutory formula for distribution of numbers of constituencies to different parts of the UK (and applied by us equally to the English regions) allocates 75 constituencies to London as a whole, though a simple pro-rata calculation creates a mathematical entitlement to 75.63. North Central and North West London, as a larger sub-region, is the optimal place to accommodate this difference, as it allows more flexibility to still propose constituencies that have electorates within the permitted range.
11 ‘Orphan ward’ refers to a ward from one local authority, in a constituency where the  remaining wards are from at least one other local authority.
12 The existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency is divided between our proposed South Central and South West London, and South East London sub-regions. It has been counted in the South Central and South West sub-region, since the majority of its wards are in this sub-region.
13 The existing Lewisham West and Penge constituency is divided between our proposed South Central and South West London, and South East London sub-regions. It has been counted in the South Central and South West sub-region, since the majority of its wards are in this sub-region.

Back to top