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

3 Initial proposals for the South West region

  1. The South West region comprises: the county council area of Gloucestershire; the unitary authority areas of Wiltshire and Swindon;9 the four unitary authority areas of Bath and North East Somerset, Bristol, North Somerset, and South Gloucestershire;10 the county council area of Somerset; the county council area of Dorset and the unitary authority area of Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole;11 the county council area of Devon and the unitary authority areas of Plymouth and Torbay;12 and the unitary authority areas of Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly.13
  2. The region currently has 55 constituencies. Of these constituencies, only 23 have electorates within the permitted electorate range. The electorates of seven constituencies currently fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of 25 constituencies are above the 5% limit. Our initial proposal for the South West region is for 58 constituencies, an increase of three.
  3. In seeking to produce 58 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 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 part by the geography of the area.
  4. Our division of the South West region into sub-regions is a practical approach. We welcome counter-proposals from respondents to our consultation, based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals.
  5. The distribution of electors across the counties of the South West is such that allocating a whole number of constituencies to each county, with each constituency falling within the permitted electorate range, is not possible.
  6. Gloucestershire’s electorate of 483,442 results in a mathematical entitlement to 6.59 constituencies. This is too large for six whole constituencies, and too small for seven. It therefore needs to be paired in a sub-region with a neighbouring county or unitary authority. Wiltshire (including the Swindon unitary authority), has a combined electorate of 533,514, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 7.27 constituencies. While it may be possible to formulate a pattern of constituencies within Wiltshire, this is not the case in Gloucestershire, and we consider that pairing the two counties allows us to create a pattern of constituencies that better reflects the statutory factors across the sub-region as a whole. Having combined Gloucestershire and Wiltshire in one sub-region, we propose the allocation of 14 constituencies, an increase of one constituency. We consider that the constituency crossing the county boundaries should not be between Gloucestershire and Swindon unitary authority: doing so would mean that the town of Swindon would be divided between three constituencies, covering three council areas (Swindon, Wiltshire, and a Gloucestershire local authority). In our view, a constituency crossing between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire council would present a more suitable solution, as it keeps to a minimum the splitting of Swindon’s representation. We consider that options for proposals in the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire sub-region are limited, due to the natural geography and location of the major settlements, as well as the regional boundaries with West Midlands, the South East, and with Wales.
  7. The two unitary authorities in Dorset have a combined electorate of 587,471, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 8.0 constituencies. We therefore consider Dorset as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated eight whole constituencies, which is the same as the existing allocation.
  8. The electorate of Cornwall (including the Isles of Scilly) is 438,354 and results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.97 constituencies. We propose to treat Cornwall as a sub-region in its own right and have allocated to it six constituencies, which is unchanged from its existing number. Treating Cornwall as its own sub-region avoids the construction of a constituency that crosses the boundary between Cornwall and Devon, which was mathematically necessary in previous reviews.
  9. The electorate of the unitary authorities that constitute the former county of Avon, at 854,331, results in a mathematical entitlement to 11.64 constituencies. While it is possible to allocate 12 constituencies to Avon, the average electorate in the county would be 71,194, only 1,470 electors within the permitted electorate range, meaning that we would have limited flexibility in formulating a pattern of constituencies. The electorate of Devon (including Plymouth and Torbay) at 919,454 results in a mathematical entitlement to 12.53 constituencies. The electorate of Devon is such that it would be difficult to allocate a whole number of constituencies to the county without significant disruption to local ties. We therefore propose that the county be grouped with another county. However, we do not consider that this should be with Cornwall, given the strength of feeling against a constituency spanning the River Tamar at previous reviews. Somerset has an electorate of 425,570, which results in a mathematical entitlement to 5.8 constituencies, and while it is possible to allocate a whole number of constituencies to both Devon and Somerset, we propose that the two counties be grouped together. Given the limited flexibility in constructing constituencies within Avon, we also propose that it should form part of a sub-region with the other two counties, thereby creating a sub-region comprising Avon, Somerset and Devon. This results in a mathematical entitlement to 29.97 constituencies and an allocation of 30 constituencies to the sub-region, representing an increase of two from the current figure. We therefore propose three constituencies that cross county boundaries in this sub-region. Two would cross the county boundary between Avon and Somerset and the other would cross the county boundary between Somerset and Devon.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Gloucestershire and Wiltshire sub-region

  1. There are currently 13 constituencies in the area covered by this sub-region. With a combined mathematical entitlement to 13.86 constituencies, our initial proposals allocate 14 constituencies to the sub-region, an increase of one. Five of the existing constituencies are within the permitted electorate range. However, the remaining eight existing constituencies in the sub-region are above the electorate range. Furthermore, an increase in the total number of constituencies in the sub-region unavoidably results in significant change to many existing constituencies. As mentioned previously, a key consideration when developing proposals in this sub-region was identifying the most appropriate point to cross the county boundary constituency between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. We therefore propose a cross-county boundary constituency that extends along most of the boundary between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire. This constituency comprises wards that we consider are similarly rural in nature, from the existing The Cotswolds and North Wiltshire constituencies.
  2. With an electorate of 81,509, the existing Gloucester constituency is too large to form a single constituency, and thus has to be reduced in order to bring it within the permitted electorate range. We considered the possibility of transferring three wards that form the community of Quedgeley to The Cotswolds constituency. However, we consider that transferring wards from the north of Gloucester city to a Tewkesbury constituency would better satisfy the statutory factors. The City of Gloucester ward of Longlevens is currently not in the existing Gloucester constituency. We propose that this ward should remain in the Tewkesbury constituency, and be joined by the City of Gloucester wards of Elmbridge and Barnwood. We did consider including the City of Gloucester ward of Kingsholm & Wotton in the Tewkesbury constituency, rather than the Barnwood ward, but considered that Kingsholm & Wotton had a particularly strong association with the Gloucester identity, containing half of Gloucester railway station, the council offices, the Premiership rugby club, and Gloucestershire Royal Hospital.
  3. The electorate of the existing Cheltenham constituency is, at 79,980, above the permitted electorate range. The Cheltenham borough wards of Prestbury and Swindon Village are currently included in the existing Tewkesbury constituency; we propose that they continue to be included in the Tewkesbury constituency. We have additionally included the Borough of Cheltenham ward of Springbank in the Tewkesbury constituency, in order to bring the Cheltenham constituency within the permitted electorate range
  4. At 83,818, the electorate of the existing Tewkesbury constituency is above the
    permitted range. In formulating our constituencies for Gloucester and Cheltenham, we have increased the electorate size of this constituency further by including one more ward from the Borough of Cheltenham and two additional wards from the City of Gloucester. To bring the constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose the transfer of seven Tewkesbury district wards from the existing Tewkesbury constituency to the neighbouring The Cotswolds constituency, including the Winchcombe and Isbourne wards, together with five wards that form the geographical area between our proposed Gloucester and Cheltenham constituencies.
  5. The existing Forest of Dean constituency is the only constituency in the county of Gloucestershire within the permitted electorate range; in our proposals it remains wholly unchanged.
  6. The existing Stroud constituency is too large to remain unchanged, with an electorate of 84,573. In order to bring the Stroud constituency within the permitted electorate range we have transferred the four Stroud district wards of Hardwicke, Painswick & Upton, Bisley, and Chalford from the existing Stroud constituency to our proposed The Cotswolds constituency. These changes result in the existing Stroud constituency falling below the permitted electorate range. Consequently, we propose expanding the existing constituency southwards to include the two Stroud district wards of Kingswood and Wotton-under-Edge.
  7. As mentioned previously, we are proposing considerable change to the
    boundaries of the existing The Cotswolds constituency. We propose extending the constituency westwards to include seven wards from the existing Tewkesbury constituency, together with four wards from the existing Stroud constituency. However, due to the transfer of other wards to the proposed cross-county boundary constituency (see below), the resulting The Cotswolds constituency actually covers a more compact geographic area than the existing constituency.
  8. Twenty wards from the existing The Cotswolds constituency, including the town of Cirencester, would be included in the new cross-county boundary constituency, together with seven wards from the existing North Wiltshire constituency, including the town of Malmesbury: the A429 road links both of these towns. We propose that this constituency be named Cirencester and North Wiltshire, reflecting its composition. This arrangement ensures that the cross-county boundary constituency does not extend into the unitary authority of Swindon.
  9. There are currently two constituencies in the unitary authority of Swindon. The existing North Swindon constituency has an electorate that is too large, at 82,561, whereas the electorate of the South Swindon constituency, at 72,994, is within the permitted range. However, due to changes to local government wards in the authority, the Mannington and Western, and Covingham and Dorcan wards are now divided between the two existing constituencies. The inclusion of the whole of these two wards in the South Swindon constituency would bring the North Swindon constituency within the permitted electorate range. However, the electorate of the South Swindon constituency would then be too large and would need to be reduced. We therefore propose that the two Swindon wards of Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway be included in our proposed East Wiltshire constituency. We did explore the option of including the Ridgeway ward in our proposed South Swindon constituency, with the Chiseldon and Lawn ward instead being included in our proposed East Wiltshire constituency. However, we did not consider that this option better satisfied the statutory factors. The northern part of the Chiseldon and Lawn ward is largely urban and we considered that the largely rural Ridgeway ward would be a more appropriate ward for inclusion in the predominantly rural East Wiltshire constituency. We propose the constituencies in Swindon are renamed Swindon North and Swindon South, in accordance with our constituency naming policy.
  10. Due to our proposed cross-county boundary constituency created between Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, our proposals result in significant changes to the existing configuration of constituencies in Wiltshire. As outlined previously, we propose including seven wards from the existing North Wiltshire constituency in the Cirencester and North Wiltshire constituency.
  11. The existing Chippenham constituency, with an electorate of 77,475, is currently above the permitted range. To accommodate changes elsewhere, we propose an entirely reconfigured Chippenham constituency, which comprises the towns of Chippenham, Royal Wootton Bassett, and Calne, between which there are links by A roads. While we recognise that this represents a significant change to the existing constituency boundaries, we consider that it helps to achieve a better
    regard to the statutory factors across the whole sub-region.
  12. Local government ward boundary changes in Wiltshire have, in a number of cases, made it difficult to respect the existing constituency boundaries. We therefore propose a Melksham and Devizes constituency, which comprises the towns of Corsham, Melksham, Bradford-on-Avon, and Devizes. We recognise that this would represent substantial change from the existing constituency boundaries, as well as transferring the town of Devizes out of the existing constituency that bears its name. However, we consider that, given the changes we are proposing in the north of the county, this configuration best reflects the statutory factors across Wiltshire as a whole.
  13. In our proposals, the existing Devizes constituency would no longer include the town of Devizes nor the ward of Bromham, Rowde & Roundway, which we propose be included in our proposed Chippenham constituency. Consequently we propose to rename this constituency East Wiltshire. Our proposed East Wiltshire constituency would also include the two Swindon wards of Wroughton and Wichelstowe, and Ridgeway, together with the three wards that comprise the town of Amesbury.
  14. We also propose changes to the existing Salisbury constituency. In our proposals, the town of Amesbury would be included in our proposed East Wiltshire constituency. We propose increasing the electorate of the Salisbury constituency by bringing within it the whole of the Wiltshire ward of Fovant and Chalke Valley, together with the Wiltshire ward of Tisbury.
  15. With an electorate of 78,207, the existing South West Wiltshire constituency is above the permitted range but local government ward boundary changes mean that the proposed constituency only requires relatively minor changes. Our proposals would only require the Tisbury ward to be transferred to the Salisbury constituency, as mentioned above. Our proposals would also avoid dividing the county town of Trowbridge, by retaining all the wards that comprise Trowbridge in this constituency. We propose that the existing South West Wiltshire constituency be renamed Trowbridge and Warminster to reflect the two largest towns in the constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Dorset sub-region

  1. There are currently eight constituencies in the sub-region, which comprises the two unitary authorities of Dorset, and Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole. Six of the existing constituencies currently have electorates within the permitted range, with the existing Mid Dorset and North Poole constituency having an electorate below the permitted range, and the West Dorset constituency having an electorate above the range. As previously outlined, we identified that the eight constituencies could continue to be wholly contained within the ceremonial county of Dorset.
  2. The existing Bournemouth East, Bournemouth West, Poole, and Christchurch constituencies are all within the permitted electorate range, but due to changes to local government ward boundaries, retaining these constituencies wholly unchanged would divide a number of wards between constituencies. Therefore, the only changes we propose to these constituencies is to realign constituency boundaries with new ward boundaries.
  3. Due to the new ward boundaries, the Dorset ward of West Purbeck in the Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency has expanded to the coast, meaning that its inclusion in the Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency would bisect the existing South Dorset constituency. Instead, we propose that the West Purbeck ward should be included in the South Dorset constituency. Consequently, we propose that the existing Mid Dorset and Poole North constituency be extended northwards to include the Dorset ward of Stour & Allen Vale, which was previously in the North Dorset constituency. The North Dorset constituency requires further changes to realign constituency boundaries with local government ward boundaries. We propose including the whole of the Dorset wards of Chalk Valleys, and Puddletown & Lower Winterborne in the North Dorset constituency.
  4. As previously mentioned, we propose that the West Purbeck ward be included in the South Dorset constituency. The existing West Dorset constituency, with an electorate of 81,091, is above the permitted electorate range. In our proposed configuration, it would not be possible to include both the Winterborne & Broadmayne, and Chickerell wards in the West Dorset constituency. We therefore propose that the Chickerell ward from the existing West Dorset constituency be exchanged for the Upwey & Broadwey ward from the existing South Dorset constituency.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Avon, Somerset and Devon sub-region

  1. The Avon, Somerset and Devon sub-region that we propose has a combined mathematical entitlement to 29.97 constituencies, an increase of two from the existing figure. In the existing pattern of constituencies, Bristol effectively forms a self-contained sub-region. Unfortunately, two of the four existing constituencies in the unitary authority of Bristol have electorates that are significantly above the permitted range, particularly in Bristol West, which now is the largest constituency by electorate in England (apart from the existing Isle of Wight constituency) with 99,859 electors; as a result there needs to be a cross-local authority boundary constituency with a neighbouring local authority.
  2. We considered that, to best satisfy the statutory factors, a cross-local authority boundary constituency should be proposed that crosses the unitary authority boundary between the City of Bristol and South Gloucestershire. South Gloucestershire already contains some of the northern Bristol suburbs and new development, and extending at least one Bristol constituency northwards into South Gloucestershire might fit with this pattern of development: for example, Bristol Parkway station is located within the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency. However, we considered this would cause considerable disruption to both the existing Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency and the wider South Gloucestershire unitary authority. We therefore propose a Bristol North East constituency that expands eastwards into South Gloucestershire. Although the existing Bristol East constituency is within the permitted electorate range, we propose that our Bristol North East constituency would contain the three Bristol city wards of Frome Vale, Eastville, and Hillfields from the existing Bristol East constituency, and the Bristol city ward of Lockleaze from the existing Bristol North West constituency, together with the four South Gloucestershire wards of New Cheltenham, Kingswood, Woodstock, and Staple Hill & Mangotsfield. We consider that the configuration of this constituency would reflect community ties, particularly given the continuous development across the local authority boundaries. We consider that the case for extending the Bristol constituencies either northwards or eastwards is finely balanced, but feel that our proposals better satisfy the statutory factors. However, we would particularly welcome representations concerning our proposals in this area.
  3. As mentioned previously, with an electorate of 74,322, the existing Bristol East constituency is within the permitted range. However, it has been necessary in our proposals to reconfigure the Bristol East constituency. In addition to the transfer of the three wards identified above from the existing Bristol East constituency to our proposed Bristol North East constituency, and in order to reduce the large electorates of the existing Bristol South and Bristol West constituencies, we propose that the wards of Lawrence Hill and Easton, from the existing Bristol West constituency, and Knowle, from the existing Bristol South constituency, be included in the proposed Bristol East constituency. Apart from the inclusion of the Knowle ward in our proposed Bristol East constituency, we propose to leave the existing Bristol South constituency otherwise unchanged.
  4. The existing Bristol West constituency, with an electorate of 99,859, is significantly above the permitted range. To bring the Bristol West constituency within the permitted range, in addition to the changes outlined above, we propose that the Bishopston & Ashley Down ward be included in our proposed Bristol North West constituency, which is otherwise unchanged apart from the transfer of the Lockleaze ward to the Bristol North East constituency. We propose that the existing Bristol West constituency be renamed Bristol Central to better reflect the nature of the constituency and its relative location among the Bristol constituencies.
  5. The electorate of the existing Thornbury and Yate constituency, at 69,688, is slightly below the permitted range, and has to be increased. To achieve this, we propose expanding the constituency to include the South Gloucestershire ward of Pilning & Severn Beach. Aside from this, there are no further proposed changes, apart from those needed to realign the constituency with local government ward boundaries. We also propose some further minor changes to the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency, with the inclusion of the Emersons Green ward in this constituency from the existing Kingswood constituency. We consider that the ward has good transport links with the rest of the constituency, along the A4174 road (the Filton ring road).
  6. The existing Kingswood constituency has an electorate that is below the
    permitted range and has been reconfigured significantly in formulating our pattern of constituencies for Bristol, particularly the Bristol North East constituency. Three wards from the existing constituency, plus the whole of the Staple Hill & Mangotsfield ward, have been included in our proposed Bristol North East constituency. As part of the reconfiguration of constituencies in this area, we propose that 11 Bath and North East Somerset wards from the existing North East Somerset constituency are included with the four remaining Kingswood wards of Hanham, Longwell Green, Bitton & Oldland Common, and Parkwall & Warmley wards to create a Keynsham and North East Somerset constituency.
  7. As the existing Bath constituency has an electorate that is below the permitted range, this has been increased in our proposals by the inclusion of the largely rural Bath and North East Somerset wards of Bathavon North and Newbridge. The electorate of the existing North Somerset constituency at 80,869 is above the permitted range and has to be reduced. We therefore propose that the Yatton ward be included in our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency. No further change is proposed for the North Somerset constituency. The electorate of the existing Weston-super-Mare constituency is also too large. We propose bringing this constituency within the permitted electorate range by including the three largely rural North Somerset wards of Blagdon & Churchill, Banwell & Winscombe, and Congresbury & Puxton in our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency.
  8. With all of the existing constituencies in Somerset having electorates that are considerably over the permitted range, significant change is unavoidable. Our proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency is accordingly a significant alteration to the existing Wells constituency. In addition to the wards included in the proposed constituency as outlined previously, it would also include the East Polden and West Polden wards from the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency. Furthermore, the proposed constituency would no longer include the town of Burnham-on-Sea, nor the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward. The proposed Wells and Mendip Hills constituency would extend to the Bristol Channel (as the existing Wells constituency already does, but at a different point) and cross the county boundary between Somerset and Avon at the North Somerset unitary authority. In naming this constituency Wells and Mendip Hills, we have sought to reflect the main population centre and a significant geographical feature that covers much of the area.
  9. The reconfiguration of constituencies in the wider Avon area means that we are proposing a further cross-county boundary constituency between Avon and Somerset. We propose including six Bath and North East Somerset wards, including the town of Midsomer Norton, in a Frome constituency. Geographically, this constituency is considerably smaller than the existing Frome and Somerton constituency. We propose including 13 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency, together with the South Somerset district ward of Bruton, which would be an orphan ward.14 The Frome constituency would also include the Ashwick, Chilcompton and Stratton ward from the existing Wells constituency.
  10. Our proposed Glastonbury and Somerton constituency would contain a total of 15 wards from the existing Frome and Somerton constituency, including the town of Somerton itself, and seven wards from the existing Wells constituency, including the towns of Glastonbury and Street, with which Glastonbury has close ties. We also propose transferring the South Somerset district ward of Hamdon to our proposed Glastonbury and Street constituency.
  11. Several of the wards in the existing Yeovil constituency have been changed due to local government ward boundary changes; we propose making slight adjustments to realign the constituency boundaries with these changes. Our proposals maintain the entirety of the town of Yeovil within the constituency
  12. The existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency has an electorate that is significantly above the permitted range, at 85,448. To bring this constituency within the permitted electorate range we propose a Bridgwater constituency, which would contain the four wards that comprise the town of Burnham-onSea (from the existing Wells constituency) and 13 wards from the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency (including those covering the town of Bridgwater itself).
  13. We propose that a cross-county boundary constituency called Tiverton and Minehead be formed from wards from the Mid Devon, and Somerset West and Taunton local authorities. As previously mentioned, 13 wards from the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency would, in our proposals, be included in the Bridgwater constituency. We therefore propose including the remaining wards from the existing Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency, together with eight wards from the existing Tiverton and Honiton constituency, and three wards from the existing Taunton Deane constituency, in a proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency. We also propose including the whole of the two Somerset West and Taunton district wards of South Quantock, and Wiveliscombe & District, which are both currently divided between constituencies (following local government ward changes), in our proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency. We propose that the reconfigured Taunton Deane constituency be called Taunton, as the Taunton Deane district after which it was originally named no longer exists.
  14. As a result of the inclusion of eight wards (including those comprising the town of Tiverton itself) from the existing Tiverton and Honiton constituency in our proposed Tiverton and Minehead constituency, we propose renaming the remaining Tiverton and Honiton constituency, Honiton. We propose extending this constituency westwards to include four wards from the existing East Devon constituency, including the towns of Ottery St Mary and Sidmouth. We consider that the East Devon constituency name does not accurately reflect its location, following the transfer of four East Devon council wards to our proposed Honiton constituency, and the inclusion of additional wards to the west (see below). We therefore propose that the constituency be renamed Exmouth.
  15. The electorate of the existing Exeter constituency, at 80,676, is above the
    permitted range and the constituency also has a number of wards that cross the boundaries of existing constituencies following local government ward changes. We therefore propose that the three City of Exeter wards of Topsham, St. Loyes and Priory be wholly included in the proposed Exmouth constituency. Apart from these changes, the existing Exeter constituency is otherwise unchanged.
  16. In our initial proposals, we have managed to retain the existing North Devon constituency wholly unchanged. To the south, we propose that the existing Newton Abbot, Torbay, and Central Devon constituencies are changed only to realign with changes to local government ward boundaries. We recognise the Central Devon constituency would still contain wards from four different local authorities, but considered that any alternatives would require significant changes to constituencies that otherwise require only minor changes.
  17. We are proposing relatively minor changes be made to the existing Totnes constituency, with the inclusion of the Charterlands ward from the existing South West Devon constituency in the proposed constituency. The existing Torridge and West Devon, and South West Devon constituencies are otherwise largely unchanged in our proposals: the only additional change we propose is to transfer the two West Devon District wards of Buckland Monachorum and Burrator from the Torridge and West Devon constituency to our proposed South West Devon constituency. In our proposals, the Torridge and West Devon constituency would continue to contain the whole of the District of Torridge, together with nine West Devon district wards. To reflect the fewer West Devon district wards that are now included, while also recognising the main West Devon population centre it includes, we propose that the constituency be renamed Torridge and Tavistock.
  18. In the City of Plymouth, the existing Plymouth Moor View constituency has an electorate below the permitted range, while the neighbouring Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency has an electorate above that range. Due to the large electorates of the City of Plymouth wards, there is no solution that allows for both constituencies to fall within the permitted electorate range through the transfer of a single ward. Although there is one configuration that brings both constituencies within the permitted electorate range by exchanging two wards, the result of this configuration would be the inclusion of the Devonport ward in the Plymouth Moor View constituency, thereby constructing a constituency that contains rural areas, inland from Plymouth, in the same constituency as the historic port. We consider that this is unsatisfactory and likely to break community ties between Devonport, Plymouth Hoe and the Barbican. In order to retain these community ties, we propose that the Peverell ward be divided in the centre of Plymouth, broadly along the Outland Road, close to Home Park, home of Plymouth Argyle Football Club. Under this proposal, three polling districts are included in the Plymouth Sutton and Devonport constituency, with the remaining polling districts included in the Plymouth Moor View constituency. This would result in minimal change to both constituencies.
Back to top

Initial proposals for the Cornwall sub-region

  1. Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly has a combined electorate of 438,354, resulting in a mathematical entitlement to 5.97 constituencies. Therefore, the sub-region has been allocated six constituencies. Four existing constituencies have electorates that are within the permitted range. The two existing constituencies of St Austell and Newquay, and Truro and Falmouth have electorates above the permitted range, at 77,129, and 80,488 respectively. We therefore propose relatively minor changes to the existing constituencies in the county. The existing North Cornwall constituency is wholly unchanged in our proposals, and the three existing constituencies of South East Cornwall, St Austell and Newquay, and St Ives are changed only to realign them with new local government ward boundaries. Under these proposals, the Isles of Scilly would remain in the St Ives constituency.
  2. To bring the Truro and Falmouth constituency within the permitted electorate range, we propose including the whole of the Perranporth ward, and the Threemilestone & Chacewater ward in our proposed Camborne and Redruth constituency. However, because of the significant changes to ward boundaries in Cornwall, and our inclusion of whole wards within constituencies, it is necessary to now include additional wards within the Truro and Falmouth constituency to bring it back within the permitted electorate range. We therefore propose including within the constituency the Constantine, Mabe & Mawnan ward, and the whole of the Falmouth Trescobeas & Budock ward from the Camborne and Redruth constituency. We consider that there are close geographic links along Falmouth Bay and communication links between these wards and the rest of the proposed Truro and Falmouth constituency. In addition to the inclusion of the whole of the wards mentioned previously in our proposed Camborne and Redruth constituency, we further propose including in this constituency the whole of the wards of Lanner, Stithians & Gwennap, and St Agnes, which are currently divided between existing constituencies following local ward boundary changes.
Back to top

9 Hereafter referred to together as Wiltshire.
10 Hereafter referred to together as Avon.
11 Hereafter referred to together as Dorset.
12 Hereafter referred to together as Devon.
13 Hereafter referred to together as Cornwall.
14 ‘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.

Back to top