Initial proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in the South East region

3 Initial proposals for the South East region

20. The South East region comprises the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, the Isle of Wight, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, and West Sussex. The region has a mixture of district and county councils, and unitary authorities.
21. The South East currently has 84 constituencies. Of these constituencies, 35 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of 47 constituencies currently fall above the 5% limit from the electoral quota, while the electorates of just two constituencies are below.
22. Our initial proposals for the South East are for 91 constituencies, an increase of seven. This includes two protected constituencies that must by law be allocated to the Isle of Wight, and which do not need to adhere to the restrictions of the statutory electorate range.
23. In seeking to produce 89 constituencies (not including the two Isle of Wight constituencies), our first step was to consider whether local authorities could be usefully grouped into sub-regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authority areas together in sub-regions was based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and in achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings, such as those dictated in some places by the geography of the area.
24. Our division of the South East into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
25. The distribution of electors across the nine counties of the South East is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies within each county, each falling within the permitted electorate range, is not possible.
26. Berkshire’s electorate of 635,137 results in a mathematical entitlement to 8.65 constituencies. However, to allocate Berkshire nine constituencies would require average constituency sizes so close to the minimum permitted electorate that it would be impossible to realise in practice without an undesirable number of ward splits and/or significant disruption to local community ties. We have therefore proposed a sub-region pairing Berkshire with the neighbouring counties of Hampshire and Surrey, which therefore includes two constituencies that cross from Berkshire to Surrey, and Surrey to Hampshire respectively. Although neither Hampshire, including the unitary authorities of Portsmouth and Southampton, nor Surrey, with respective mathematical entitlements to 18.44 and 11.72 constituencies, require these crossings to build constituencies within the permitted electorate range, this would result in the preservation of a greater overall number of existing constituencies, particularly along the coast of Hampshire. The sub-region of Berkshire, Hampshire, and Surrey together (with a total electorate of 2,848,212) has a mathematical entitlement to 38.81 constituencies; we have therefore allocated 39 constituencies, an increase of two. Of the two proposed constituencies that would cross county boundaries, one would combine the town of Windsor in Berkshire with the town of Egham in Surrey, and the other would combine the towns of Farnham and Haslemere in Surrey, with areas around the town of Bordon in Hampshire.
27. The electorate of Milton Keynes, at 188,273, is too large to be allocated two whole constituencies; therefore, it is necessary to pair Milton Keynes with Buckinghamshire in one sub-region, given that Buckinghamshire is the only local authority in the South East that shares a boundary with Milton Keynes. As it has a combined electorate of 587,087, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 8.00 constituencies, we propose to allocate eight constituencies to a Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes sub-region, an increase of one.
28. Oxfordshire’s electorate of 499,731 results in a mathematical entitlement to 6.81 constituencies. We therefore consider Oxfordshire as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated it seven constituencies, an increase of one.
29. The electorate of Kent, including the Medway unitary authority, is 1,325,000, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 18.05 constituencies. We therefore consider Kent as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated it 18 constituencies, an increase of one.
30. 30 The City of Brighton and Hove has 201,911 electors, which would result in an allocation of 2.75 constituencies. Given its historic links within East Sussex and the current configuration of constituencies, we considered that it would be appropriate to combine East Sussex with the City of Brighton and Hove when formulating a pattern of constituencies.
31. The electorate of East Sussex alone, at 414,451, results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.65 constituencies. When combined with the City of Brighton and Hove, this entitlement is 8.40 constituencies. Similar to the situation in Berkshire, mentioned above, a configuration of East Sussex and Brighton and Hove together with eight constituencies is mathematically possible, but would require average constituency sizes so close to the maximum permitted electorate that it would be impossible without an undesirable number of ward splits and/or significant breaking of local ties. We therefore consider a sub-region pairing East Sussex (including Brighton and Hove) with West Sussex which includes one constituency that would cross the boundary between East and West Sussex in the north. Although West Sussex, with a mathematical entitlement to 8.81 constituencies, could be configured alone, the total mathematical entitlement to 17.21 constituencies for the Sussex sub-region allows for a pattern of constituencies which better reflects community ties overall. We have therefore allocated 17 constituencies to this sub-region, an increase of one.
32. The legislation that governs the 2023 Review requires that the Isle of Wight must be allocated two ‘protected’ constituencies (i.e. not subject to the requirements of the permitted electorate range that apply elsewhere in England), intentionally thereby avoiding the need to have a constituency that includes both part of the island and part of the mainland. This allocation of two constituencies is an increase of one.

Initial proposals for the Buckinghamshire sub-region

33. Buckinghamshire, including the Milton Keynes unitary authority, is mathematically entitled to 8.00 constituencies and this results in an increase from seven to eight constituencies allocated for the sub-region. Only one constituency has an electorate within the permitted electorate range (Chesham and Amersham), with the other six constituencies all exceeding the permitted electorate range. The electorates of some of these remaining constituencies are significantly above the permitted range (such as Milton Keynes South at 96,543, Milton Keynes North at 91,730, and Aylesbury at 86,002).
34. As a recently established unitary authority, Buckinghamshire is temporarily using the county electoral divisions of the now-defunct Buckinghamshire County Council as its electoral divisions (from hereon referred to as wards), in lieu of a full review from the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. The consequence of this is that the wards used for this Review are unusually large, both geographically and in terms of electorate size, for a primarily rural area. Our proposals are therefore limited by the difficulties posed by these wards, including the inability to prevent division of some communities without an unreasonable number of divided wards or geographically expansive constituencies that do not reflect local ties.
35. Although Chesham and Amersham has the ability to remain unchanged, we consider that it is necessary to slightly modify the constituency, in order to accommodate a less disruptive pattern for adjacent constituencies. We propose that Chesham and Amersham would include the wards of Hazlemere and Beaconsfield. We also consider that a division of the Chiltern Ridges ward between the proposed Chesham and Amersham, and Princes Risborough constituencies, is necessary to reflect community ties in the area. Under our initial proposals, two polling districts (Asheridge Vale and Lowndes) that include part of the town of Chesham would be included within the Chesham and Amersham constituency. The remaining part of the Chiltern Ridges ward, which is more rural in nature, would be included in our Princes Risborough constituency. While both constituencies would still be within the permitted range without the division of this ward, we consider that doing so avoids dividing the town of Chesham, and therefore better reflects the statutory factors.
36. By including the Beaconsfield ward in the Chesham and Amersham constituency, we were able to retain the current Beaconsfield constituency otherwise unchanged. Of course, the name Beaconsfield would clearly no longer be appropriate; therefore, we propose to call this constituency Marlow and South Buckinghamshire. Similarly, transferring the Hazlemere ward from the existing Wycombe constituency to Chesham and Amersham allows the former to fall within the permitted electorate range with no further changes, other than to realign with changed local government ward boundaries. Although we noted that the village of Hazlemere is included in the High Wycombe urban area, we consider that it has a sufficiently independent identity, as well as road links to the east via the A404 (Amersham Road), such that it could be excluded without dividing the town of High Wycombe. We therefore propose to call this constituency High Wycombe, reflecting the focal point of the constituency.
37. We propose a Princes Risborough constituency, largely comprising the southern part of the Aylesbury Vale area of Buckinghamshire Council. We recognise that this constituency extends over a large geographic area and that the town of Princes Risborough is a relatively small focal point. However, we consider that the constituency has a consistent rural character, and that other configurations of constituencies we looked at in this and the surrounding area would not better reflect the statutory factors.
38. We propose that the Aylesbury constituency would include the town of Aylesbury itself, along with the wards of Ivinghoe and Wing to the north and east of the town. Although we acknowledge that this represents a departure from the existing orientation of the Aylesbury constituency, we consider that this proposed constituency is well connected via the A418 and B489 (Lower Icknield Way).
39. We propose that the remaining wards at the north of the Buckinghamshire unitary authority, including the town of Buckingham, be included in a constituency that crosses the boundary with the unitary authority of Milton Keynes around Bletchley. A constituency that crosses this boundary is necessary, as the mathematical entitlement for the Borough of Milton Keynes to 2.57 constituencies prevents the allocation of a whole number of constituencies, and electorate can only be added from Buckingham, unless a regional boundary is crossed. Although we recognise that both Buckingham and Bletchley have their own identities, we note that a Buckingham and Bletchley constituency would still represent a more natural pairing of communities than alternative county-crossing pairings, which would rely on links with much smaller, less well-connected settlements.
40. The Borough of Milton Keynes is currently divided into two constituencies, Milton Keynes North and Milton Keynes South, which, as mentioned above, have electorates significantly above the permitted electorate range. We have therefore proposed substantial reconfiguration for both constituencies, with a boundary between the two constituencies that runs in part along the M1 motorway. We consider that our proposed boundary between the two constituencies in Milton Keynes reflects a change in character between the built-up area of central Milton Keynes, and more suburban areas to the north that have a character distinct from the original new town development. To reflect this reconfiguration, we propose to change the names of both constituencies. We propose to call the northern constituency Newport Pagnell, after the largest distinct settlement in the area, and the southern constituency Milton Keynes, as it would contain the majority of the town of Milton Keynes itself, including an undivided centre. We would particularly welcome representations on this proposed boundary and these proposed names during the public consultation.

Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub-region

41. Oxfordshire is mathematically entitled to 6.81 constituencies, resulting in an allocation of seven constituencies, an increase of one. None of the six existing constituencies can remain unchanged, as they all have electorates greater than the permitted electorate range. Although the average constituency size for seven constituencies (71,390) is on the lower end of the permissible range, Oxfordshire’s relatively small ward sizes still allow for flexible configurations and as such we consider Oxfordshire on its own.
42. Although it is impossible to retain any constituencies entirely unchanged, we propose an arrangement that would allow for minimal change to two constituencies: Henley and Oxford East. The Henley constituency would be brought within the permitted electorate range, and entirely within the South Oxfordshire local authority, by transferring the northern Launton & Otmoor ward to the Bicester constituency. We have additionally proposed that the Sandford and the Wittenhams ward be included in the neighbouring Wantage constituency, such that the Henley constituency is configured entirely east of the Thames. We propose more significant reconfiguration in the Wantage constituency, which would become more compact while maintaining its two major settlements. We additionally propose that the constituency be called Didcot and Wantage, to reflect both major population centres on either side of the local authority boundary it crosses.
43. The other constituency we have proposed with only minor changes is Oxford East, which would fall within the permitted electorate range by transferring two wards west of the River Cherwell (Carfax & Jericho, and Holywell) to the Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. This configuration would have the additional benefit of allowing Oxford city centre to be configured together in Oxford West and Abingdon, which can also be made more compact by transferring two northern wards to the Bicester constituency. Although this configuration would leave some nearby communities that are part of the current Oxford West and Abingdon constituency, such as Yarnton, outside of an Oxford constituency, we note that these settlements are in a separate local authority (Cherwell), and could therefore sensibly be paired with other areas.
44. In the north of Oxfordshire, electorate growth in the towns of Banbury and Bicester, which are currently both included in the existing Banbury constituency, is such that it is not possible to keep the two towns in the same constituency. Therefore, we propose a Banbury constituency that is now oriented south-westward, crossing the local authority boundary into West Oxfordshire, and would include the town of Chipping Norton. We also propose that a Bicester constituency would contain the eastern half of Cherwell district (including the village of Kidlington), as well as extending west to include the town of Woodstock in West Oxfordshire.
45. We propose that the Witney constituency comprises the remaining wards of West Oxfordshire district, including the towns of Burford and Carterton, and extends south across the River Thames into the Vale of White Horse district. This configuration would include the town of Faringdon and the village of Kingston Bagpuize which are both well connected to the proposed constituency via the A4095 (Radcot Road) and A415 (Abingdon Road) respectively.

Initial proposals for the Berkshire, Hampshire, and Surrey sub-region

46. There are currently 37 constituencies in this sub-region, 20 of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range. The sub-region as a whole is mathematically entitled to 38.81 constituencies, and so we propose an allocation of 39 constituencies, an increase of two. As mentioned above, anallocation of nine constituencies to Berkshire (with a mathematical entitlement to 8.65 constituencies) would result in an average constituency size of 70,571 electors. Our options were limited due to local authority and regional boundaries that restrict the ability to consider different constituency patterns within Berkshire and we therefore decided to propose a constituency crossing into Surrey. We consider that the strength of transport links and community ties would favour crossing from Berkshire into Surrey rather than Hampshire.
47. We consider that an arrangement where Hampshire is treated alone would be undesirable, due to the disruption of existing constituencies. There are 13 existing constituencies in Hampshire that are within the permitted electorate range, however an allocation of 18 constituencies (with a mathematical entitlement to 18.44 constituencies) would result in an average constituency size of 75,173, necessitating change to the majority of those constituencies. Although there are configurations which can achieve that average size within Hampshire, we consider that an additional constituency which crosses the boundary between Hampshire and Surrey would allow for a greater preservation of the existing constituencies.
48. We therefore consider that a sub-region of the three counties of Berkshire, Hampshire, and Surrey, including two county-crossing constituencies, would allow for a pattern of constituencies that would maintain more existing constituency boundaries and achieve minimal disruption elsewhere.

Berkshire

49. There are currently eight constituencies in Berkshire. Of the existing constituencies, three (Reading East, Reading West, and Windsor) are within the permitted electorate range. All of the remaining five constituencies are above the 5% limit.
50. As mentioned above, we consider that in order to allocate a whole number of constituencies, a ninth constituency should be proposed, which is largely contained within Berkshire, but crosses the boundary into Surrey. Therefore we have proposed that the Windsor constituency include the Egham Town and Egham Hythe wards from the Borough of Runnymede in Surrey. As the electorate of the existing Slough constituency is above the permitted range, we consider that the Windsor constituency would be best suited to gain wards from Slough as it is the only adjacent constituency within Berkshire. We have therefore proposed that the Windsor constituency additionally include the wards of Colnbrook with Poyle, Foxborough, and Langley Kedermister from the Borough of Slough. Our proposed Slough constituency would retain the ward of Langley St. Mary’s. Although this configuration leaves the village of Langley divided between two constituencies, we noted that it results in less disruption than alternative arrangements which would require the transfer of more central wards in Slough or Windsor.
51. In West Berkshire, we propose dividing the Downlands ward. We propose that the civil parish of Beedon is included in the Mid Berkshire constituency, in order to bring the constituency’s electorate within the permitted range, and that the rest of the ward is included in the Newbury constituency. The division of this ward would have the additional benefit of allowing for a more compact Newbury constituency, which still includes the town of Thatcham, while also eliminating the need for the Mid Berkshire constituency to stretch the length of the West Berkshire local authority.
52. Although both current Reading constituencies can remain unchanged, we propose both are reconfigured to account for the increased electorates of surrounding constituencies, which also better reflects local ties in the surrounding communities. This includes a Wokingham constituency that is contained entirely within the Borough of Wokingham, and an Earley and Woodley constituency that consists of a number of suburban wards to the south and east of the town of Reading, including the Whitley and Church wards of the Borough of Reading. With three other wards, centred around Tilehurst, included in the Mid Berkshire constituency, this leaves the remainder of the Borough of Reading to be configured in a constituency that we propose be simply named Reading, as changes elsewhere would mean that there would no longer be a constituency that could appropriately be called Reading West.
53. We propose a Maidenhead constituency that includes the western part of the Windsor and Maidenhead local authority, centred around the town of Maidenhead, as well as the three outlying rural wards of the Borough of Bracknell Forest. This in turn allows for a more compact Bracknell constituency, which includes the entirety of the built-up area of the town of Bracknell while maintaining the existing link with the town of Sandhurst via the A3095 (Foresters Way).

Hampshire

54. There are currently 18 constituencies in Hampshire. Of the existing constituencies, 13 are within the permitted electorate range. Of the remaining five constituencies, one is below the 5% limit (Romsey and Southampton North) and four are above the 5% limit (Basingstoke, Eastleigh, Fareham, and North West Hampshire). As mentioned above, we consider that allocating 18 constituencies to Hampshire would result in significant disruption to the existing pattern of constituencies, including the need to change most of the 13 that are within the permitted electorate range. We have therefore proposed a constituency that crosses the boundary with Surrey, so as to better preserve existing constituencies within Hampshire.
55. Doing this allows eight constituencies to remain wholly unchanged, namely: East New Forest, Gosport, Havant, Portsmouth North, Portsmouth South, Southampton Itchen, Southampton Test, and West New Forest. We additionally propose an Aldershot constituency which is changed only to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries. Although we noted that this proposed constituency divides the town of Yateley, a combination of changing local government boundaries and large electorates in this corner of Hampshire presents difficulties; we considered that other configurations of constituencies we looked at in this and the surrounding area would not better reflect the statutory factors.
56. We propose minimal changes for Basingstoke and North East Hampshire, two of the constituencies that are currently within the permitted electorate range. We consider that a division of the Oakley & The Candovers ward between these two constituencies, in the Borough of Basingstoke and Deane, would allow both constituencies to better reflect local ties. This division would include the village of Oakley and its surrounds in the Basingstoke constituency and include the civil parishes of the Candovers, Dummer, and Popham in the North East Hampshire constituency, largely aligning to a physical boundary of the M3 motorway. The division of this ward additionally prevents a ‘domino’ effect (disrupting multiple local authority boundaries and an unchanged constituency), which would otherwise be required to achieve the statutory requirements on electorates.
57. Although the existing East Hampshire constituency falls within the permitted electorate range, we propose a reconfiguration that allows for a constituency that crosses the boundary into Surrey. We consider that this Farnham and Bordon constituency would feature strong links between the eastern wards of East Hampshire district and the Borough of Waverley. We therefore propose an East Hampshire constituency that includes all wards in East Hampshire district other than those included in the proposed Farnham and Bordon constituency.
58. We propose that the Winchester constituency, which also currently falls within the permitted electorate range, be changed so that it would fall entirely within the City of Winchester district. We propose that the constituency extend southwards to include the town of Bishop’s Waltham, and that the Chandler’s Ford and Hiltingbury wards of Eastleigh district be transferred to the Eastleigh constituency.
59. In order to bring the Romsey and Southampton North constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose including additional wards further north in the Borough of Test Valley around the town of Andover. This has the additional benefit of also bringing the North West Hampshire constituency within the permitted electorate range; this constituency would maintain Andover as its major settlement and extend slightly further east to include all of the town of Tadley to the north of Basingstoke.
60. In order to reduce the number of electors in the two constituencies of Eastleigh and Fareham, we propose a more substantial reconfiguration in this area of Hampshire. We propose a constituency that would pair the towns of Fareham and Portchester with the town of Waterlooville, including rural elements of the lower Meon Valley that sit between those two settlements. This constituency would be called Fareham and Waterlooville. The remainder of the Borough of Fareham, including Titchfield, would be included in a constituency situated around the River Hamble, extending north-west to include the town of Hedge End from Eastleigh district and the community of Whiteley from the Winchester local authority. We propose that this constituency would be called Hedge End; we particularly welcome representations on whether an alternative name would be more appropriate.
61. We recognise that the configuration of these two constituencies divides the Fareham local authority and that our proposals include an orphan ward.⁹ However, we consider that other configurations of constituencies in this and the surrounding area would not better reflect the statutory factors, particularly with regard to the unchanged constituencies that make up the rest of the south Hampshire conurbation.
62. We propose that the Eastleigh constituency consists of the remainder of the Eastleigh local authority, including the town of Eastleigh itself, as well as the Valley Park ward from the Test Valley local authority. Although this is another orphan ward, we noted that the town of Valley Park is situated within the greater built-up area around Eastleigh and Chandler’s Ford.

Surrey

63. There are currently 11 constituencies in Surrey. Of the existing constituencies, five have electorates within the permitted range; however, only three of these could remain wholly unchanged, due to changes to local government ward boundaries. All of the remaining six constituencies are above the 5% limit.
64. As mentioned above, we propose a Windsor constituency that crosses the boundary with Berkshire, around the town of Egham, as well as a constituency that crosses the boundary with Hampshire, in the south-west of Surrey. We propose that this constituency, which includes a number of towns along the county council border, be called Farnham and Bordon, to reflect the two main population centres. We consider that the transport links between Haslemere and Liphook, along the rail line and A3 (Portsmouth Road), as well as north/south road links between Farnham and Bordon, along the A325 and A287, indicate a community of interest despite the county council boundary.
65. Of the three constituencies which can be retained wholly unchanged, we propose no alterations only to the Spelthorne constituency, which is coterminous with the Borough of Spelthorne. We propose that two wards (Normandy and Pirbright) from the existing Woking constituency be transferred to Surrey Heath, such that the Woking constituency would become coterminous with the Woking local authority. With electorates having increased to the east of the existing Mole Valley constituency, we propose that it would include the three wards for the town of Horley, as well as the South Park & Woodhatch ward, from the Borough of Reigate and Banstead. We therefore propose that the constituency be called Dorking and Horley to reflect both major population centres as well as the constituency including parts of two local authorities.
66. We propose minimal changes to the two constituencies shared between the Runnymede and Elmbridge boroughs. As the water-meadow of Runnymede lies within the Egham wards, which (as previously mentioned) we propose to include in the Windsor constituency, the name ‘Runnymede and Weybridge’ is clearly no longer appropriate; therefore, we propose a Weybridge and Chertsey constituency with broadly similar boundaries. We propose that the Cobham & Downside ward be transferred from the existing Esher and Walton constituency to our proposed Weybridge and Chertsey constituency. We propose no further changes to either constituency other than minor changes to the boundary between these constituencies to align with changes to local government boundaries.
67. We consider that the Reigate constituency would not be able to remain unchanged despite falling within the permitted electorate range, due to the need to align with changes to local government boundaries and the adjacent East Surrey constituency. This latter constituency is largely contained within Tandridge district, which is mathematically entitled to 0.89 constituencies, so needs to include wards from elsewhere, but is penned in by boundaries with two other counties in the South East region, as well as with London. We therefore propose that the East Surrey constituency include the Hooley, Merstham & Netherne ward from the Reigate and Banstead local authority. We subsequently propose a Reigate constituency comprising the northern part of the Reigate and Banstead local authority, including two wards (Nork, and Tattenham Corner & Preston) that were previously included in the Epsom and Ewell constituency.
68. We propose that the Epsom and Ewell constituency, which previously included wards from three different local authorities, would consist of the entirety of the Borough of Epsom and Ewell with only one authority crossing, into Mole Valley district, to include the towns of Leatherhead and Ashtead.
69. In order to bring the Surrey Heath constituency to within the permitted range, we propose that it include, in addition to the entirety of Surrey Heath district, the wards of Normandy and Pirbright, but that the three wards consisting of the villages of Ash and Ash Vale are transferred to the Godalming and Ash constituency.
70. We propose that the Guildford constituency be reconfigured, such that it is entirely within the Borough of Guildford, including a number of rural wards to the northeast of the town. The village of Cranleigh, which was previously in the Guildford constituency, would be included with its closer neighbour Godalming from the same Borough of Waverley, along with Ash in a Godalming and Ash constituency which crosses the local authority boundary between the Borough of Guildford and the Borough of Waverley. These two settlements are the two major population centres in an otherwise largely rural constituency.
71. Our proposals in the Berkshire, Hampshire, and Surrey sub-region mean that 13 constituencies (one third of the total allocation of constituencies in the sub-region) are either unchanged, changed only to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries, or are changed by the transfer of just one ward.

Initial proposals for the Sussex sub-region

72. There are currently 16 constituencies in this sub-region, five of which have electorates that are within the permitted electorate range. The sub-region as a whole is mathematically entitled to 17.21 constituencies; we therefore propose an allocation of 17 constituencies, an increase of one.

East Sussex, including Brighton and Hove

73. There are currently eight constituencies in the area covered by East Sussex and the City of Brighton and Hove. Of the existing constituencies, three have electorates within the permitted electorate range. However, only two of these could remain wholly unchanged, due to changes to local government ward boundaries. Of the remaining five constituencies, one is below the 5% limit (Brighton Kemptown) and four are above the 5% limit (Bexhill and Battle, Eastbourne, Hastings and Rye, and Wealden).
74. Of the three constituencies that fall within the permitted electorate range, we propose no alterations to Hove; however, we propose that this constituency be called Hove and Brighton West to better recognise its distinct local communities. In order to increase the electorate for the Brighton Kemptown constituency, we propose exchanging a ward with the adjacent constituency of Brighton Pavilion, which would otherwise be unchanged. Specifically, this configuration would transfer the Queen’s Park ward to Brighton Pavilion, and the Hanover and Elm Grove ward to Brighton Kemptown, thus achieving minimal change for both Brighton constituencies, and preserving the existing eastern boundary of Brighton Kemptown that extends into Lewes district. We propose more substantial change to Lewes, in part due to local government ward boundary changes in Wealden district that alter the eastern boundaries of the existing Lewes constituency. We propose that five wards to the north of the town of Lewes be included in the new constituency crossing the boundary with West Sussex to the north (see below), using the River Ouse and the South Downs as geographic boundaries of the Lewes constituency.
75. We propose minimal change for the existing Eastbourne constituency, removing the two Willingdon wards, such that the constituency would become coterminous with the Borough of Eastbourne. In order to reduce the number of electors in the Hastings and Rye constituency, we propose the transfer of the Brede & Udimore, and Sedlescombe & Westfield wards to the Bexhill and Battle constituency. This configuration would maintain the four major eponymous settlements of both constituencies, as well as the major A259 road link between Hastings and Rye. The Bexhill and Battle constituency would, therefore, shift slightly eastwards and fall within the permitted electorate range by no longer including the wards around the town of Heathfield.
76. We propose a Hailsham and Crowborough constituency that largely comprises Wealden district, with links between the two towns maintained via Heathfield. We considered whether the name ‘Wealden’ remains appropriate, given that this name was not reflective of the fact that our proposals would see four different constituencies containing parts of Wealden district. We therefore propose the name Hailsham and Crowborough to better reflect the major settlements in the constituency; however, we welcome representations on whether an alternative name would be more appropriate.
77. We consider that a constituency crossing between East Sussex and West Sussex would allow for a better pattern of constituencies across the sub-region as a whole. We therefore propose an East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, which would combine the town of East Grinstead in Mid Sussex district with the town of Uckfield in Wealden district and areas around the village of Newick in Lewes district; principal transport links for this constituency would be the A22 and A272 (Goldbridge Road). We did consider other combinations of wards to be included in this constituency, but concluded that our proposed constituency would cause less overall disruption to existing constituencies. We additionally considered configurations that would feature multiple constituencies crossing between East and West Sussex, but similarly concluded that this would result in unnecessary disruption to both counties.

West Sussex

78. There are currently nine constituencies in West Sussex. Of the existing constituencies, two have electorates within the permitted electorate range– we propose that the Crawley constituency, which is coterminous with the Crawley local authority, is retained wholly unchanged. However, we propose more significant reconfiguration of the existing East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. All of the remaining seven constituencies are above the 5% limit.
79. The size of the electorate in the Mid Sussex local authority is such that the towns of Burgess Hill, East Grinstead and Haywards Heath are too large for all three to be included in the same constituency, as they currently are. Of these, we noted that East Grinstead is well connected to East Sussex via the A22 (Lewes Road), and therefore is best suited to a cross-county constituency. We therefore propose that the town of East Grinstead and four surrounding rural wards are included in the East Grinstead and Uckfield constituency, as mentioned above. We further noted that the towns of Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill have close community ties and strong transport connections. As such, we propose a Mid Sussex constituency that includes both these towns and extends to the southern limit of Mid Sussex district.
80. As a consequence of our proposed Crawley, East Grinstead and Uckfield, and Mid Sussex constituencies, we consider that the five western local authorities of West Sussex (Adur, Arun, Chichester, Horsham, and Worthing) could be allocated six constituencies. We consider that a configuration attempting to preserve the ‘coastal strip’ of constituencies between Bognor Regis and Shoreham is possible; however, we noted that this would result in a greater number of divided communities than our proposals.
81. We therefore propose a Shoreham constituency that extends north away from the coast along the A283 (Steyning Road) into Horsham district. We propose a Horsham constituency centred around the town of Horsham and that is entirely contained within its local authority.
82. As the Borough of Worthing is mathematically entitled to 1.14 constituencies, some division of the local authority would be unavoidable. We consider that the transfer of the two northernmost wards (Offington and Salvington) of the local authority would present the least disruption, as both wards contain some rural element, and have communities that are well connected to the north and west, suiting them to be included in the Arundel and Littlehampton constituency. This in turn influenced the proposed Worthing constituency, which would include two wards from Adur district (Cokeham and Peverel) – we note that this divides the adjacent civil parishes of Sompting and Lancing.
83. We propose an Arundel and Littlehampton constituency, which extends north from the coast into the South Downs National Park, with transport links along the A284 and A27 (Arundel Road). This constituency contains wards from three local authorities, including an orphan ward (Fittleworth) from Chichester district. Although we recognise that this proposed constituency covers a large geographic area, we noted that the existing Arundel and South Downs constituency includes wards from four local authorities.
84. We propose a Bognor Regis constituency centred around the town of Bognor Regis, which would include three wards from Chichester district, including the town of Selsey. We propose a Chichester constituency entirely contained within Chichester district, including a north-easterly extension which would preserve a link between the towns of Midhurst and Petworth along the A272 in the South Downs National Park.

Initial proposals for the Kent sub-region

85. Kent, including the Medway unitary authority, is mathematically entitled to 18.05 constituencies: its allocation of 18 constituencies is an increase of one. Ten constituencies in the sub-region have electorates within the permitted electorate range. All of the remaining seven constituencies are above the 5% limit.
86. In developing our proposals, we propose that two constituencies (Gillingham and Rainham, and Gravesham) are preserved wholly unchanged and a further two constituencies (Canterbury, and Dover and Deal) are changed only to realign with changes to local government wards. Additionally, we propose only minimal change to Tunbridge Wells, configuring it to become more compact by no longer including the Hawkhurst and Sandhurst ward.
87. We consider that it would not be possible to retain the Sevenoaks, and Faversham and Mid Kent constituencies unchanged, due to their adjacency with existing constituencies now above the permitted electorate range. We propose that the Sevenoaks constituency include the Wilmington, Sutton-at-Hone & Hawley, and Darenth wards from Dartford district, creating a local authority crossing around the River Darent, which would also bring together the South Darenth community that crosses the current boundary. The Dartford constituency would therefore be located entirely within Dartford district, as it no longer needs to include the Hartley and Hodsoll Street ward. We propose that the Faversham and Mid Kent constituency includes two additional wards from the Borough of Swale, so as to bring the Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency within the permitted electorate range without disrupting the main population centre of Sittingbourne town. It would additionally include rural wards from both the Ashford and Maidstone districts, largely using the M20 motorway as a boundary to the south except around the built-up Maidstone area.
88. While both the existing North Thanet and South Thanet constituencies could be retained with only minor changes to realign constituency boundaries with changes to local government ward boundaries, we propose a more substantial reconfiguration that would avoid disruption to the adjacent Canterbury constituency. We therefore propose an alteration to the existing pattern of constituencies around Thanet, resulting in East Thanet, a compact constituency, wholly contained within the Thanet district, consisting of a built-up area of seaside towns including Ramsgate, Margate and Broadstairs. We propose a West Thanet constituency, which contains coastal communities including Herne Bay and Sandwich as well as more inland rural areas.
89. With a large increase in electorate size around Ashford district, the constituencies in this area (all of which are over the permitted electorate range) need to be reconfigured to meet the statutory requirements. We propose that the Folkestone and Hythe constituency becomes more compact, being entirely contained within Folkestone and Hythe district and oriented along the coast, with the North Downs East and North Downs West wards being included in the Ashford constituency. The proposed Ashford constituency would be centred around the town of Ashford itself, with its only rural elements extending along the M20 motorway to the east towards the North Downs wards. The remainder of the Ashford district south of the M20 motorway, including the town of Tenterden, would be included in the Weald of Kent constituency, which would additionally extend to include the western wards of Tunbridge Wells district and the southern rural wards of Maidstone district.
90. We have been able to propose minimal reconfiguration for the Rochester and Strood constituency within the Medway unitary authority, with the transfer of only one ward (Rochester South and Horsted) to the adjacent Chatham and Aylesford constituency. Although this ward does contain a small number of electors from the town of Rochester, we consider it preferable to bring Rochester and Strood within the permitted electorate range than either the Rochester East ward (which contains a greater part of the Rochester community) or the River ward (which would divide the area around Rochester railway station).
91. Chatham and Aylesford would continue to cross between the Medway unitary authority and Kent, maintaining its boundaries around the town of Snodland. We propose greater reconfiguration in the centre of Kent, with the Aylesford South and Ditton wards now included in the Maidstone and Malling constituency, in order for it to achieve a more compact configuration with better links between the towns of East Malling, West Malling, and Maidstone, along the A20 (London Road) and Maidstone railway line. This configuration leaves the Tonbridge constituency, centred around the eponymous town, to include the remainder of the Tonbridge and Malling district, along with the town of Edenbridge and the civil parish of Ash-cum-Ridley, both from the Sevenoaks district.

Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight sub-region

92. As discussed earlier, the Isle of Wight is specifically allocated two whole constituencies. While the legislation does not state that the two constituencies should have similar sized electorates, we considered that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the legislation to divide the island broadly equally in terms of electorate, without neglecting community ties. We will, however, consider deviating from this principle if representations suggest there is particular strength of feeling that we should do so.
93. We considered a number of configurations for dividing the island between constituencies. We propose dividing the island into East Isle of Wight and West Isle of Wight constituencies. Although the western constituency is larger in terms of geographical size, we consider that there is an element of rural and coastal communities in both constituencies.

9 ‘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.