Issued by The

Boundary Commission for England

PROPOSALS FOR PARLIAMENTARY CONSTITUENCIES IN SOME OF THE NORTH LONDON BOROUGHS

The Commission announced revised recommendations for parliamentary constituencies in some North London boroughs and final recommendations for others on 1 May 2002.

Having considered the representations made in respect of the revised recommendations, the Commission propose to make no further changes and are, today, confirming their revised recommendations as their final recommendations.

FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS

Barking and Dagenham, and Havering – see page 3
Brent and Camden – see page 6
Ealing –see page 8
Enfield – see page 9
Hackney – see page 13
Harrow and Hillingdon – see page 15
Newham – see page 18
Tower Hamlets – see page 19
Westminster (and the City of London) – see page 20

CORRECTION

Error in an Assistant Commissioner’s report – see page 21

Provisional recommendations

The Commission’s provisional recommendations for each borough, or pair of boroughs, in North London were published in local newspapers on 22 March 2001. The Commission invited representations about their proposals which could be made until 29 April 2001. As a result of the representations received, the Commission decided that a local inquiry into their provisional recommendations for the London borough of Barnet was not required. Final recommendations for Barnet were announced on 12 September 2001.

The Commission held seven local inquiries into their provisional recommendations for:-

a) / Barking and Dagenham, and Havering
b) / Brent, Camden, Hammersmith and Fulham, Harrow, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Kensington and Chelsea, and Westminster (and the City of London)
c) / Ealing
d) / Enfield
e) / Hackney, Islington, Newham, and Tower Hamlets
f) / Haringey
g) / Redbridge, and Waltham Forest.

Revised and final recommendations

Following the local inquiries, the Commission announced revised recommendations (see the table below) for some North London boroughs on 1 May 2002 and published details of these in local newspapers on 9 May 2002. The Commission invited representations about their revised recommendations which could be made until 9 June 2002. Final recommendations (see the table below) for other North London boroughs were also announced on 1 May 2002.

a) / Barking and Dagenham, and Havering – revised recommendations for all four constituencies.
b) / Brent, Camden, and Westminster (and the City of London) – revised recommendations for all six constituencies.
c) / Ealing – revised recommendations for all three constituencies.
d) / Enfield – revised recommendations for all three constituencies.
e) / Hackney – revised recommendations for both constituencies.
f) / Hammersmith and Fulham, and Kensington and Chelsea – final recommendations for all three constituencies.
g) / Haringey – final recommendations for both constituencies.
h) / Harrow, and Hillingdon – revised recommendations for two constituencies and final recommendations for three constituencies.
i) / Hounslow – final recommendations for both constituencies.
j) / Islington – final recommendations for both constituencies.
k) / Newham, and Tower Hamlets – revised recommendations for two constituencies and final recommendations for two constituencies.
l) / Redbridge, and Waltham Forest – final recommendations for all five constituencies.

Final recommendations announced today

Details about each borough or pair of boroughs for which final recommendations are being announced today are set out in the following pages of this news release.

The final recommendations are illustrated in outline on the attached maps. Please note the copyright warning on each map. The letters on the maps, where they are used, refer to the boroughs and the numbers refer to the borough wards. The maps are to be used in conjunction with the ward lists which are printed on the reverse of each map. These lists show the names and numbers of the wards. They also show the 2000 ward electorates on which the Commission are required, by law, to work.

All the wards mentioned in this document are the new wards which came into effect at the local government elections on 2 May 2002.

BARKING AND DAGENHAM, AND HAVERING

Following publication of the revised recommendations the Commission received 453 representations, of which 56 were letters of support. These included letters from the Conservative Party, whose counter-proposal was adopted by the Assistant Commissioner, and the Labour Party who, whilst “regretting the revised recommendations”, accepted that all the issues had been fully debated at the local inquiry.

Three hundred and ninety-seven representations, including 383 proforma letters, objected to the revised recommendations. The main issues raised in the objections are set out below.

The Havering Borough wards of Elm Park, Rainham and Wennington, and South Hornchurch

The vast majority of the objections resulted from a proforma that was issued by the Romford & Hornchurch Third Way group. The representations objected to the inclusion of the Havering Borough wards of Elm Park, Rainham and Wennington, and South Hornchurch in the revised Dagenham and Rainham seat.

Other issues

Two representations objected to the division of the existing Hornchurch seat between the revised Dagenham and Rainham, and Hornchurch and Upminster seats. Another objected to the division of Dagenham between the revised Barking, and Dagenham and Rainham seats.

The Commission also received a counter-proposal from Councillor L A Smith who suggested further changes to the revised Barking, and Dagenham and Rainham seats. He proposed that the Barking and Dagenham wards of Chadwell Heath and Whalebone should be located in the Barking seat, so as to not divide Dagenham between constituencies. The Commission noted that this was contrary to their policy of not creating seats with detached parts. Under the counter-proposal, the Chadwell Heath and Whalebone wards would have been separated from the Barking seat by the Alibon, Heath, Parsloes, and Valence wards that Councillor Smith proposed should be located in the Dagenham and Rainham seat.

Decision

The Commission noted that their decision to revise the provisional recommendations had been based on all the evidence submitted to the Assistant Commissioner at the local inquiry. They also considered that, with the exception of the counter-proposal from Councillor Smith, all of the issues raised in the further representations had been thoroughly discussed at the local inquiry.

The Commission also noted the level of support that the revised recommendations had received. As the counter-proposal from Councillor Smith produced a seat with detached parts, contrary to their policy, the Commission decided that it should be rejected. They concluded that no persuasive new evidence had been submitted to them to warrant change to their revised recommendations.

Final recommendations

The Commission now confirm their revised recommendations for the four seats in Barking and Dagenham, and Havering as their final recommendations. No further representations will be considered.

Composition of constituencies

The final recommendations which will be embodied in the report to be submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of the general review, and which are shown on the map included in this news release, are for the following four constituencies (2000 electorates are shown in brackets):-

BARKING BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (72,498). Eleven wards of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:- Abbey, Alibon, Becontree, Eastbury, Gascoigne, Goresbrook, Longbridge, Mayesbrook, Parsloes, Thames, Valence.

DAGENHAM AND RAINHAM BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (71,205). Six wards of the London Borough of Barking and Dagenham:- Chadwell Heath, Eastbrook, Heath, River, Village, Whalebone; three wards of the London Borough of Havering:- Elm Park, Rainham and Wennington, South Hornchurch.

HORNCHURCH AND UPMINSTER BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (79,496). Eight wards of the London Borough of Havering:- Cranham, Emerson Park, Gooshays, Hacton, Harold Wood, Heaton, St Andrew’s, Upminster.

ROMFORD BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (69,536). Seven wards of the London Borough of Havering:- Brooklands, Havering Park, Hylands, Mawneys, Pettits, Romford Town, Squirrel’s Heath.

2000 WARD ELECTORATES TO BE USED THROUGHOUT REVIEW

Barking and Dagenham / 114,479
1. / Abbey / 6,560
2. / Alibon / 6,559
3. / Becontree / 7,096
4. / Chadwell Heath / 6,891
5. / Eastbrook / 7,250
6. / Eastbury / 6,993
7. / Gascoigne / 5,955
8. / Goresbrook / 7,005
9. / Heath / 7,037
10. / Longbridge / 6,794
11. / Mayesbrook / 6,638
12. / Parsloes / 6,557
13. / River / 7,095
14. / Thames / 5,862
15. / Valence / 6,479
16. / Village / 6,899
17. / Whalebone / 6,809
Havering / 178,256
1. / Brooklands / 10,154
2. / Cranham / 10,135
3. / Elm Park / 9,677
4. / Emerson Park / 9,469
5. / Gooshays / 10,367
6. / Hacton / 9,333
7. / Harold Wood / 9,644
8. / Havering Park / 9,718
9. / Heaton / 9,338
10. / Hylands / 9,801
11. / Mawneys / 9,797
12. / Pettits / 10,392
13. / Rainham and Wennington / 9,439
14. / Romford Town / 10,043
15. / St Andrew's / 10,836
16. / South Hornchurch / 10,108
17. / Squirrel's Heath / 9,631
18. / Upminster / 10,374

BRENT, AND CAMDEN

The Commission received thirty representations following publication of their revised recommendations. Of these, six supported the revised recommendations, particularly the decision to pair Brent with Camden: this included the Labour Party.

Twenty-two letters of representation objected to the two boroughs being paired. All but one of these suggested either that the status quo should be retained, whereby Camden is not paired with another borough, or that Brent should be paired with Westminster, as originally proposed by the Commission.

Conservative Party counter-proposal for the Mapesbury and Queens Park wards

The Conservative Party, whilst accepting the pairing of Brent with Camden, objected to the composition of the Brent Central, and Hampstead and Kilburn seats. They counter-proposed that the Mapesbury ward of Brent should be transferred from the revised Brent Central seat to the revised Hampstead and Kilburn seat with the Queens Park ward of Brent being transferred in the opposite direction. Ten letters of representation supported the Conservative Party position, including one from the Camden Borough Council Liberal Democrats.

Decision

The Commission noted that it was claimed that the Conservative Party counter-proposal would unite both sides of the Kilburn Road in one constituency but that no new evidence was advanced in support of the counter-proposal. The Commission considered the evidence that had been submitted in the representations made before the local inquiry in respect of the provisional recommendations, the evidence given at the local inquiry, and the report submitted by the Assistant Commissioner. They noted that the Assistant Commissioner had recommended, and they had agreed, the adoption of a combination of two counter-proposals that had been submitted in respect of the provisional recommendations by the Labour Party and Brent Council Liberal Democrat Group.

The Commission also noted that the Labour Party counter-proposal had been presented by their representative at the inquiry and had been fully discussed. Whilst the counter-proposal submitted by the Brent Council Liberal Democrat Group had not been personally presented at the inquiry it was on record. The Conservative Party had therefore had an opportunity to comment on all the counter-proposals at the inquiry.

The Commission considered that the Assistant Commissioner had given everyone present at the inquiry every opportunity to state their case, their preferences, and to oppose the other proposals that had been submitted both before and during the inquiry. They concluded that those matters relating to Brent and Camden had received a full and thorough examination, particularly in respect of which borough Brent should be paired with and which wards should figure in the cross-borough constituency, and that they would not make change to their revised recommendations.

Final recommendations

The Commission confirm their revised recommendations for the four seats in Brent and Camden as their final recommendations. No further representations will be considered.

Composition of constituencies

BRENT CENTRAL BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (71,073). Nine wards of the London Borough of Brent:- Dollis Hill, Dudden Hill, Harlesden, Kensal Green, Mapesbury, Stonebridge, Tokyngton, Welsh Harp, Willesden Green.

BRENT NORTH BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (71,398). Nine wards of the London Borough of Brent:- Alperton, Barnhill, Fryent, Kenton, Northwick Park, Preston, Queensbury, Sudbury, Wembley Central.

HAMPSTEAD AND KILBURN BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (74,573). Three wards of the London Borough of Brent:- Brondesbury Park, Kilburn, Queens Park; seven wards of the London Borough of Camden:- Belsize, Fortune Green, Frognal and Fitzjohns, Hampstead Town, Kilburn, Swiss Cottage, West Hampstead.

HOLBORN AND ST PANCRAS BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (78,307). Eleven wards of the London Borough of Camden:- Bloomsbury, Camden Town with Primrose Hill, Cantelowes, Gospel Oak, Haverstock, Highgate, Holborn and Covent Garden, Kentish Town, King's Cross, Regent's Park, St Pancras and Somers Town.

2000 WARD ELECTORATES TO BE USED THROUGHOUT REVIEW

Brent / 168,548
1. / Alperton / 7,641
2. / Barnhill / 8,421
3. / Brondesbury Park / 8,107
4. / Dollis Hill / 7,412
5. / Dudden Hill / 7,914
6. / Fryent / 7,795
7. / Harlesden / 7,802
8. / Kensal Green / 7,384
9. / Kenton / 7,892
10. / Kilburn / 9,027
11. / Mapesbury / 8,760
12. / Northwick Park / 7,911
13. / Preston / 7,795
14. / Queens Park / 8,943
15. / Queensbury / 8,340
16. / Stonebridge / 8,615
17. / Sudbury / 8,405
18. / Tokyngton / 7,637
19. / Welsh Harp / 8,075
20. / Wembley Central / 7,198
21. / Willesden Green / 7,474
Camden / 126,803
1. / Belsize / 7,208
2. / Bloomsbury / 6,619
3. / Camden Town with Primrose Hill / 7,495
4. / Cantelowes / 7,048
5. / Fortune Green / 6,878
6. / Frognal and Fitzjohns / 6,812
7. / Gospel Oak / 6,943
8. / Hampstead Town / 6,838
9. / Haverstock / 7,013
10. / Highgate / 7,428
11. / Holborn and Covent Garden / 6,942
12. / Kentish Town / 7,460
13. / Kilburn / 6,605
14. / King's Cross / 6,814
15. / Regent's Park / 7,226
16. / St Pancras and Somers Town / 7,319
17. / Swiss Cottage / 7,331
18. / West Hampstead / 6,824

EALING

The Commission received six representations following publication of their revised recommendations. Five of these representations supported the revised recommendations and included letters from Ealing Borough Council and the Labour Party. The one letter of opposition was sent by a member of the public who objected to the Northfield ward being in a different seat to the Walpole ward.

Decision

The Commission noted that the issues relating to the location of the Northfield and Walpole wards had been thoroughly discussed at the local inquiry. It had been decided that the Ealing, Southall seat should be the one to be allocated seven rather than eight wards and that this did not allow for the Walpole ward to be located in that seat. The Commission decided they would make no change to their revised recommendations.

Final recommendations

The Commission now confirm their revised recommendations for the three seats in Ealing as their final recommendations. No further representations will be considered.

Composition of constituencies

The final recommendations which will be embodied in the report to be submitted to the Secretary of State at the end of the general review, and which are shown on the map included in this news release, are for the following three constituencies (2000 electorates are shown in brackets):-

EALING CENTRAL AND ACTON BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (71,258). Eight wards of the London Borough of Ealing:- Acton Central, Ealing Broadway, Ealing Common, East Acton, Hanger Hill, South Acton, Southfield, Walpole.

EALING NORTH BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (72,971). Eight wards of the London Borough of Ealing:- Cleveland, Greenford Broadway, Greenford Green, Hobbayne, North Greenford, Northolt Mandeville, Northolt West End, Perivale.

EALING, SOUTHALL BOROUGH CONSTITUENCY (62,341). Seven wards of the London Borough of Ealing:- Dormers Wells, Elthorne, Lady Margaret, Northfield, Norwood Green, Southall Broadway, Southall Green.

2000 WARD ELECTORATES TO BE USED THROUGHOUT REVIEW

Ealing / 206,570
1. / Acton Central / 8,747
2. / Cleveland / 9,289
3. / Dormers Wells / 8,694
4. / Ealing Broadway / 8,694
5. / Ealing Common / 9,069
6. / East Acton / 8,986
7. / Elthorne / 8,988
8. / Greenford Broadway / 9,327
9. / Greenford Green / 9,536
10. / Hanger Hill / 9,305
11. / Hobbayne / 9,080
12. / Lady Margaret / 9,204
13. / Northfield / 9,220
14. / North Greenford / 8,954
15. / Northolt Mandeville / 9,178
16. / Northolt West End / 9,102
17. / Norwood Green / 8,631
18. / Perivale / 8,505
19. / South Acton / 8,634
20. / Southall Broadway / 8,925
21. / Southall Green / 8,679
22. / Southfield / 8,838
23. / Walpole / 8,985

ENFIELD

Following publication of the revised recommendations the Commission received 799 representations and two petitions. The first petition was from the Ponders End Residents Association containing 3,894 separately signed letters and the second, from Stephen Twigg MP, containing 692 signatures. The Conservative Party supported the revised recommendations in their entirety.

Grange ward

Seventy-four of the representations supported the revised recommendation to locate the Grange ward in the Enfield, Southgate seat.

Highlands ward

Two representations supported the revised recommendation to locate the Highlands ward in the Enfield North seat.

Palmers Green ward

The revised recommendation to locate the Palmers Green ward in the Enfield, Southgate seat was supported by 441 of the representations that were received, as well as by the petition submitted by Stephen Twigg MP.

Ponders End ward

The revised recommendation to locate the Ponders End ward in the Edmonton seat was opposed by 280 representations, as well as by the separately signed letters that formed the petition submitted by the Ponders End Residents Association. One representation approved of the Ponders End ward being located in the Edmonton seat.

Labour Party counter-proposal

Whilst the Labour Party supported the decision to locate the Palmers Green ward in the Enfield, Southgate seat, they objected to the other parts of the revised recommendations. In this respect they submitted a counter-proposal that reiterated their original view that:-

a)the Grange ward should be located in the Edmonton seat and not in the Enfield, Southgate seat, as contained in the revised recommendations;

b)the Ponders End ward should be located in the Enfield North seat and not in the Edmonton seat, as contained in the revised recommendations; and

c)the Highlands ward should be located in the Enfield, Southgate seat and not in the Enfield North seat, as contained in the revised recommendations.

Counter-proposal from Mr Chris Hughes

The Commission also received a counter-proposal from Mr Chris Hughes in which he suggested that a total of six wards be transferred between the seats that formed the revised recommendations. He submitted that:-