Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for the Borough of Tower Hamlets

Electoral review

November 2012

Translations and other formats For information on obtaining this publication in another language or in a large-print or Braille version please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England:

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

The mapping in this report is reproduced from OS mapping by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, © Crown Copyright. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown Copyright and may lead to prosecution or civil proceedings.

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2012

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 3

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 5

Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 6 Council size 6 Electoral fairness 7 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 Tower Hamlets South 9 Tower Hamlets Central East 12 Tower Hamlets Central West 14 Tower Hamlets North 16 Conclusions 20

3 What happens next? 21

4 Mapping 23

Appendices

A Table A1: Draft recommendations for the London 25 Borough of Tower Hamlets

B Glossary and abbreviations 27

Summary

The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. The broad purpose of an electoral review is to decide on the appropriate electoral arrangements – the number of councillors, and the names, number and boundaries of wards or divisions – for a specific local authority. We are conducting an electoral review of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets to provide improved levels of electoral equality across the authority.

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in 2012.

This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description 27 March 2012 Consultation on council size Submission of proposals of ward patterns to the 20 June 2012 LGBCE LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft 12 September 2012 recommendations Publication of draft recommendations and consultation 13 November 2012 on them Analysis of submissions received and formulation of 8 January 2013 final recommendations

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

As part of this review, the Council worked with the Commission to submit electorate forecasts for 2018, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2013. These forecasts projected an increase in the electorate of approximately 16% between 2012 and 2018. This is clearly a large increase. However, having considered the evidence provided by the Council regarding developments, the methodology used, and seen evidence of large-scale developments on the ground in the borough, we are of the view that these projections are the best available at the present time. These figures form the basis of the draft recommendations.

Council size

The London Borough of Tower Hamlets currently has a council size of 51 councillors. Following preliminary discussions between the Commission and the Mayor and the various political groups on the Council, we received six submissions advocating four different council sizes, which varied from the existing council size of 51 to a significantly smaller one of 38. The Labour Group and two Labour councillors supported retaining the existing council size of 51. The Mayor, a cabinet member, and five Labour councillors proposed a reduction of six councillors to 45. The

1

Conservative Group proposed a reduction of nine councillors to 42. A Liberal Democrat councillor proposed a reduction of 13 to 38.

Having considered the evidence received, we were minded to consult on a council size of 45. We received 23 submissions during this consultation period. A number of representations supported a reduction in council size. Other submissions we received argued that the existing council size should be retained.

We considered all evidence received relating to council size and decided to propose a council size of 45 for Tower Hamlets. We then invited warding patterns based on this number.

During the consultation on warding patterns, we received five submissions regarding council size. Some of these opposed a reduction. In light of evidence received we are not persuaded to alter our earlier decision on council size. We are therefore content to adopt a council size of 45 as part of our draft recommendations.

General analysis

Having considered the submissions received during the consultation on warding patterns, we have developed proposals for the borough based on all three borough- wide schemes received from the Mayor, the Conservative Group and the Labour Group, subject to modifications in some areas to provide clearer boundaries and reflect evidence of community identity received from other local interests.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 7 January 2013. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

Review Officer Tower Hamlets Review The Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG [email protected]

The full report is available to download at www.lgbce.org.uk

You can also view our draft recommendations for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

2

1 Introduction

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body which conducts electoral reviews of local authority areas. This electoral review is being conducted following our decision to review the London Borough of Tower Hamlets’ electoral arrangements to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the authority.

2 We wrote to the Council as well as other interested parties inviting the submission of proposals on ward arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for Tower Hamlets in early 2013.

What is an electoral review?

4 The main aim of an electoral review is to try to ensure ‘electoral equality’, which means that all councillors in a single authority represent approximately the same number of electors. Our objective is to make recommendations that will improve electoral equality, while also trying to reflect communities in the area and provide for effective and convenient local government.

5 Our three main considerations – equalising the number of electors each councillor represents; reflecting community identity; and providing for effective and 1 convenient local government – are set out in legislation and our task is to strike the best balance between them when making our recommendations. Our powers, as well as the guidance we have provided for electoral reviews and further information on the review process, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why are we conducting a review in Tower Hamlets?

6 Based on December 2011 electorate data, 35% of the borough’s wards currently have a variance of more than 10%. Of these, one ward – – has an electoral variance of 47%.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. Your ward name may also change as a result of our recommendations.

8 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community,

1 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

3 regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft recommendations are evidence based and we would therefore like to stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will be accepting comments and views until 7 January 2013. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in spring 2013. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 21 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk. You can also view our draft recommendations for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

9 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England is an independent body set up by Parliament under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

Members of the Commission are:

Max Caller CBE (Chair) Professor Colin Mellors (Deputy Chair) Dr Peter Knight CBE DL Sir Tony Redmond Dr Colin Sinclair CBE Professor Paul Wiles CB

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

4

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

10 Before finalising our recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets, we invite views on these draft recommendations. We welcome comments relating to the proposed ward boundaries and ward names. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

11 As described earlier, our prime aim when recommending new electoral arrangements for Tower Hamlets is to achieve a level of electoral equality – that is, each elector’s vote being worth the same as another’s. In doing so we must have regard to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009,2 with the need to:

• secure effective and convenient local government • provide for equality of representation • reflect the identities and interests of local communities, in particular o the desirability of arriving at boundaries that are easily identifiable o the desirability of fixing boundaries so as not to break any local ties

12 Legislation also states that our recommendations are not intended to be based solely on the existing number of electors in an area, but also on estimated changes in the number and distribution of electors likely to take place over a five-year period from the date of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for the wards we put forward at the end of the review.

13 In reality, the achievement of absolute electoral equality is unlikely to be attainable and there must be a degree of flexibility. However, our approach is to keep variances in the number of electors each councillor represents to a minimum. We therefore recommend strongly that in formulating proposals for us to consider, local authorities and other interested parties should also try to keep variances to a minimum, making adjustments to reflect relevant factors such as community identity and interests. As mentioned above, we aim to recommend a scheme which provides improved electoral equality over a five-year period.

14 These recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the London Borough of Tower Hamlets or result in changes to postcodes. Nor is there any evidence that the recommendations will have an adverse effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums. The proposals do not take account of parliamentary constituency boundaries and we are not therefore able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Submissions received

15 Prior to, and during, the initial stages of the review, we visited the London Borough of Tower Hamlets (‘the Council’) and met with members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received 15 submissions during consultation on warding patterns, including three borough-wide schemes from the Mayor, Conservative Group and Labour Group. All of the

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 5 submissions may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

16 We would like to record our thanks to the Mayor, all members, and officers of the Council for the constructive way in which they have engaged with the electoral review process and for the detailed and high-quality representations they have submitted.

Electorate figures

17 At the start of the review, we requested electorate forecasts for 2018, broken down to polling district level. The Council, at that stage, did not provide us with data to the level of detail required. However, Council officers did provide a significant amount of developmental data. We then applied a methodology to this data which broke down the information to polling district level. These were checked with officers at the Council and subsequently updated to reflect new population data before being published on our website at the start of the consultation period on warding patterns.

18 During this consultation period, a number of Tower Hamlets councillors expressed concern about the electorate forecasts. Officers at the Commission subsequently met with the leaders of the groups, as well as with officers of the Council, to discuss the concerns. We then worked with the Council to provide updated electorate forecasts at polling district level. The Council subsequently provided us with electorate figures across the borough and accompanied this data with information regarding developments planned to 2018. This information detailed developments to street level to ensure accuracy.

19 The electorate forecasts project an increase of 16% between 2012 and 2018. This is clearly a large increase. However, having considered the evidence provided by the Council regarding developments, the methodology used, and seen evidence of large-scale developments on the ground in the borough, we are of the view that these projections are the best available at the present time and form the basis of the draft recommendations.

Council size

20 Preliminary discussions with the London Borough of Tower Hamlets began in October 2011. During the preliminary stage, we sought views on council size from the Mayor and political groups on the Council.

21 Subsequently, we received six submissions advocating four different council sizes, which varied from the existing council size of 51 to a significantly smaller council size of 38. The Labour Group and two Labour councillors supported retaining the existing council size of 51. The Mayor, a cabinet member and five Labour councillors proposed a reduction of six councillors to 45. The Conservative Group proposed a reduction of nine councillors to 42. A Liberal Democrat councillor proposed a reduction of 13 members to 38.

22 At our March 2012 meeting, we considered the evidence we had received on council size. We concluded that the evidence we had received justified a relatively modest reduction in the number of councillors and determined to consult on a council size of 45 members. This consultation ended on 8 May 2012.

6

23 We received 23 submissions during the consultation on council size. These were from the Conservative Group, the Labour Group, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, five local councillors, a residents’ association, and 13 local residents, one of whom submitted two representations. No further submission was received from the Mayor.

24 We carefully considered the information provided during the consultation period. A number of residents supported a reduction in council size to 45 members, although they provided only limited evidence regarding the Council’s management structures and representative roles. However, with the exception of the Labour Group, it was clear that there was a broad political consensus in favour of some reduction in council size.

25 We considered that the evidence received during the preliminary period and consultation justified a reduction in council size. While we noted the arguments regarding committee structures and workload made by the Conservative Group, we were concerned that a council size of 42 would leave only two non-executive councillors who would not be on one of the scrutiny panels or the main Overview & Scrutiny committee. In light of the need to allow for unplanned absence – especially given the heavy representational role described by the Labour group in each of its submissions – and to provide for a measure of flexibility for members, it was our view that a reduction to 42 members could potentially impact on the Council’s ability to discharge its functions effectively.

26 Given the recent establishment of a directly elected Mayor and the evidence provided to date, we considered that a council size of 45 would take account of the new executive arrangements, while not having a detrimental affect on elected members’ ability to effectively scrutinise the decisions of the authority or effectively represent their constituents.

27 We were therefore minded to adopt a council size of 45 elected members as the basis of this electoral review. A consultation on warding arrangements began on 20 June 2012 and ended on 11 September 2012.

28 During this period, we received five representations relating to council size. The Mayor reiterated his support for a council size of 45. Community Forum also stated that they were in support of a council size of 45. However, Jim Fitzpatrick MP, a local resident and a local organisation – the Community Network – argued against a reduction in councillors. The submissions argued that the increase in population placed a greater workload on councillors. However, we were of the view that these submissions were not supported by evidence relating to the management and governance structures of the Council. Having considered all the evidence received relating to council size, we have decided to adopt a council size of 45 as part of our draft recommendations.

Electoral fairness

29 Electoral fairness, in the sense of each elector in a local authority having a vote of equal weight when it comes to the election of councillors, is a fundamental democratic principle. It is expected that our recommendations will provide for electoral fairness, reflect communities in the area, and provide for effective and convenient local government.

7

30 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we work out the average number of electors per councillor. The borough average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the borough (171,598 in 2012 and 198,777 by 2018) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council, 45 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 3,813 in 2012 and 4,417 by 2018.

31 Under our draft recommendations, none of our proposed wards will have electoral variances of more than 10% from the average for the borough by 2018. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral equality for Tower Hamlets.

General analysis

32 During the consultation on warding patterns, we received 15 submissions, including detailed borough-wide schemes from the Mayor, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

33 Submissions were received from Jim Fitzpatrick MP, Rushanara Ali MP, and John Biggs AM. These respondents gave general support to the Labour Group submission in their entirety, with only Mr Fitzpatrick providing specific evidence related to the statutory criteria for the area of the (see paragraph 52).

34 The schemes received during the consultation on warding patterns provided competing warding arrangements for each part of the borough. The submissions provided by the Mayor and the Labour Group proposed mixed warding patterns of two- and three-member wards. The Conservative Group proposed a mixed warding pattern of single-, two- and three-member wards.

35 Having carefully considered the proposals received, we are of the view that all three of the borough-wide submissions provided good electoral equality, broadly used clear boundaries, and included evidence of community identity.

36 Consequently, we have broadly based our draft recommendations on the proposals of all three borough-wide schemes, subject to modifications in some areas to provide clearer boundaries and reflect evidence of community identity received from other local interests.

37 Our proposals are for two single-member wards, 11 two-member wards, and seven three-member wards. A summary of the proposed electoral arrangements is set out in Table 1 and detailed in Table A1.

38 Our draft proposals result in a number of wards with electoral variances greater than 10% from the borough average in 2012. This is due to the significant development planned for the borough between 2012 and 2018, particularly in the areas of Bromley-by-Bow and on the Isle of Dogs. Each of our proposed wards is forecast to improve to within 10% of the borough average by 2018.

39 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations and would encourage interested parties from all parts of the borough to respond. As well as the pattern of warding arrangements proposed, we welcome comments on the ward

8 names we have proposed as part of the draft recommendations.

Electoral arrangements

40 This section of the report details the proposals we have received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Tower Hamlets. The following areas of the authority are considered in turn:

• Tower Hamlets South (pages 9–12) • Tower Hamlets Central East (pages 12–14) • Tower Hamlets Central West (pages 14–16) • Tower Hamlets North (pages 16–20)

41 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table A1 on pages 25–6 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Tower Hamlets South

42 Tower Hamlets South is a densely populated area comprising the areas of the Isle of Dogs and Limehouse.

43 The Mayor, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group all proposed different warding arrangements for this area. All schemes provided for good levels of electoral equality, generally used strong boundaries, and included evidence of community identity. Jim Fitzpatrick MP also made a representation in relation to this area.

The Isle of Dogs and Limehouse 44 This area comprises the existing wards of Limehouse, Millwall and Blackwall & . The submissions of the Mayor and the two political groups proposed mixed warding patterns of two- and three-member wards for this area.

Millwall South/ 45 All three borough-wide submissions proposed a two-member ward across the southern part of the Isle of Dogs. Each of the proposed wards used Millwall Outer Dock as a northern boundary, but proposed differing north-eastern boundaries. The Conservative Group proposed the boundary run along Pier Street. The Labour Group proposed to use Seyssel Street and Storers Quay. The Mayor proposed the boundary follow the backs of properties on Schooner Close. No rationale in terms of community identity or effective and convenient local government were provided for these boundaries in any of the submissions.

46 Having walked the area, we are of the view that the proposal of the Labour Group – to use Seyssel Street – provided the clearest boundary on the ground whilst providing for good levels of electoral equality. However, we noted that the Labour Group proposal to run the boundary along Storers Quay divided a clearly cohesive community. We therefore propose that, to reflect this community, the boundary should run along the rear of properties along the north side of Storers Quay.

47 The Mayor proposed an alternative north-western boundary for this ward. While the Labour and Conservative groups’ proposals continued along the Outer Docks’ landing area to the western borough boundary, the Mayor proposed a north-western

9 boundary which departed from the docks at Westferry Road. The Mayor’s proposed boundary would then run south to Masthouse Terrace, where the boundary turned west to the borough’s edge. This residential area was placed in a ward to its north.

48 No reason was provided by the Mayor for this boundary. In walking the area, we were of the view that the proposal arbitrarily split the community south of Millwall docks. Furthermore, we noted that the topographical detail of the area – a hill which reaches its highest point at the crossing beside the docks – provides a clear boundary between the areas north and south of the docks.

49 We have therefore decided to adopt the proposal of the Labour Group for this ward in its entirety as part of our draft recommendations, with the exception of the modification proposed for Storers Quay (paragraph 46). This ward would have 4% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

50 Two names were proposed for this ward. The Mayor and Conservative Group proposed that the ward be called Island Gardens, with the Conservative Group citing the gardens at the southern edge of the island, as well as the (DLR) Island Gardens station. The Labour Group proposed that this ward be named Millwall & Cubitt Town South, arguing that both Millwall and Cubitt Town were names ‘well established’ for the area.

51 We propose that this ward be named Millwall as part of our draft recommendations. Our perception of local identity is that the residential community of Millwall is reflected in this ward, while we perceive the community of Cubitt Town to be north of this proposed ward. Cubitt Town Library and Cubitt Town Junior School, for example, are both located north of Mudchute Park and close to Crossharbour DLR station.

Canary Wharf, Limehouse and Blackwall & Cubitt Town 52 The Labour Group proposed a three-member Millwall & Cubitt Town North ward and a two-member Blackwall ward for this area. The wards were east–west in orientation and crossed West India and Millwall Inner docks to span the Isle of Dogs peninsula. The Group argued that this orientation reflected the ‘development of the central area in the “Millennium Quarter” since the last review which results in one contiguous residential area across the middle of the Isle of Dogs’. Jim Fitzpatrick MP expressed his support for this ‘horizontal’ arrangement, arguing that it maintained ‘the long standing community identities on the island’.

53 The Labour Group also proposed a three-member Limehouse ward which was bounded by Westferry Road and Limehouse Link tunnel to the east but which crossed the major roads of Aspen Way and Commercial Road to the north. The Group argued that this ward ‘clearly reflects the local sense of where Limehouse is’.

54 The Conservative Group proposed a three-member Limehouse & ward and a three-member Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward. These wards were proposed to have north–south orientations to the east and west sides of the West India and Millwall Inner docks. The Group argued that the docks ‘act as a clear divide between the western and eastern sides of the Island; the only road crossing is Marsh Wall at its northern-most point’. The Group further proposed that its Limehouse & Canary Wharf ward should extend north-west, across Westferry Road, to include the majority of the ‘Limehouse Basin’. The Conservative Group argued that the housing

10 in this area ‘has been built in the last twenty-five years deliberately to create a “walk in suburb” for Canary Wharf’.

55 The Mayor proposed a two-member Millwall ward, a two-member Canary ward, and a three-member Blackwall & Cubitt Town ward for this area. Like the Conservative proposal, the Mayor used the Millwall Inner Dock as a boundary, but proposed a split along Marsh Wall and Byng Street to separate the area west of the Inner Dock into two wards. The Mayor also proposed to link an area south of Millwall Outer Dock with the area proposed to be included in his Millwall ward (as described in paragraph 47). The Mayor further stated that the housing in the Limehouse Basin was ‘better suited to West India Quay’, and therefore linked the Limehouse Basin with Canary Wharf in his proposed Canary ward, as the Conservative Group had done.

56 We also received a submission from Limehouse Community Forum. The Forum argued that the Limehouse area had very different problems, issues, and concerns from the Canary Wharf area. The Forum stated that it was important to keep in mind the disparities ‘between what is primarily an international financial centre and a small local river-based community’. The submission stated that the Forum viewed the extent of Limehouse as bounded by West India Dock Road/Westferry Road to the east, Commercial Road to the north, and the to the west.

57 Having toured the area on foot, we are of the view that the Limehouse Basin is bounded by very strong boundaries on all sides. We observed on our tour of the area that Westferry Road, West India Dock Road and Commercial Road all require difficult, lengthy crossings and that the residential housing within the area looked towards the river. We are therefore of the view that an arrangement which linked the Limehouse Basin with areas north of Commercial Road or with Canary Wharf does not provide for effective and convenient local government or reflect the interests of local communities. We therefore propose a single-member Limehouse ward bounded by these major roads. We are of the view that this provides for strong boundaries and reflects the persuasive evidence of community identity we received. Under our proposal, the Limehouse ward would have 1% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

58 To the south of Limehouse, we investigated the alternative warding configurations proposed for the Canary Wharf and Blackwall areas. We were concerned that the Labour Group’s proposed east–west warding pattern did not reflect the communication links and communities in the area. We noted that under their proposal the main crossing point over Inner Dock was the Pepper Street footbridge. Conversely, we considered that north–south warding configurations for this area better reflected the communication links and communities. We observed the strong north–south road links in the area and that the developments either side of West India and Millwall docks look towards these arterial roads, rather than towards the docks.

59 We have therefore decided to adopt the Conservative Group’s proposal for Blackwall & Cubitt Town as part of our draft recommendations, subject to modifications to its boundary with Millwall (already discussed in paragraphs 45–6) and in the north-east corner with Poplar South (discussed in paragraph 66). We also decided to adopt the Conservative’s proposed Limehouse & Canary Wharf ward, subject to the modification for the single-member Limehouse ward. However, we also propose that the ward be named West India to reflect the historical associations of 11 the local area with the West India Docks. Under our draft recommendations, the wards of West India and Blackwall & Cubitt Town would have 3% more and 1% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018, respectively.

Tower Hamlets Central East

60 Tower Hamlets Central East is a densely populated urban area comprising the areas of Poplar, East India, Lansbury, and Bromley-by-Bow.

61 The Mayor, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group all proposed differing warding arrangements for this area. All schemes provided for good levels of electoral equality, generally used strong boundaries and included evidence of community identity.

Poplar, Mile End and Bromley 62 This area comprises the existing wards of East India & Lansbury, Bromley-by- Bow, and Mile End East. The submissions of the Mayor and the two political groups proposed mixed warding patterns of single-, two-, and three-member wards for this area.

Poplar and East India 63 The three borough-wide submissions proposed very different arrangements for this area. The Conservative Group proposed a single-member Poplar South ward and a three-member Poplar North ward. Under this proposal, Poplar South was bounded to its south by the six-lane Aspen Way, to its north by Commercial Road and East India Dock Road, and to the west by West India Dock Road. The Group argued that the ward was bounded by ‘unusually strong boundaries’ and represented an area with ‘particular community interest’. The Group further argued that its Poplar North ward, which used main roads and the Canal as boundaries, ended the ‘arbitrary division of ’ under the current boundaries.

64 The Labour Group proposed a three-member East India & Lansbury ward which crossed East India Dock Road and divided Poplar High Street using an alleyway between the Leisure Centre and Tower Hamlets College. The Mayor proposed an East India & Lansbury ward which used East India Dock Road as part of its southern boundary. For the remainder of the Poplar area, the Mayor linked the majority of areas below East India Dock Road into his proposed Canary and Blackwall & Cubitt Town wards. This arrangement crossed the six-lane highway of Aspen Way, which can only be physically crossed by a footbridge at Poplar DLR station.

65 Having walked the area and crossed the Aspen Way highway using the footbridge, we are in agreement with the Conservative Group that the area of Poplar South is bounded to the north, south and west by very strong boundaries. We consider that an arrangement which crosses Aspen Way or East India Dock Road would not provide for effective and convenient local government or reflect community identity. We have therefore decided to adopt the Conservative Group’s proposal for the area as part of our draft recommendations, with two modifications to provide for improved electoral equality and to ensure that the boundaries follow ground detail.

66 The Conservative Group’s proposed eastern boundary for Poplar South used Brunswick Road before following the to Aspen Way. Due to the Blackwall Tunnel being mainly underground, we were concerned that the boundary

12 was not easily identifiable and would arbitrarily split Naval Row and the areas east and west of the tunnel. We have therefore decided to extend the boundary of the Poplar South ward east along Aspen Way, across the roundabout on Road to the eastern borough boundary. This modification links the non-residential area around the Town Hall with Poplar South. We are of the view that this modification provides for a clearer, more consistent boundary by following Aspen Way to its conclusion at the roundabout. It results in the Poplar South ward having 10% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

67 We also propose a modification to the western boundary of Poplar North. Under the Conservative Group’s proposal, Poplar North would have an electoral variance of 10% more electors than the borough average by 2018. However, due to the warding arrangements proposed for Bromley-by-Bow (paragraphs 68–72), the ward to its immediate west in Mile End would have an electoral variance of 21% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018. To improve electoral equality, we therefore propose that the western boundary of Poplar North be modified to run along the western edges of either side of Lindfield Street, rather than along Burdett Road further west. This amendment provides for improved electoral equality in Mile End and, by retaining the Festival Quarter developments in Poplar North, also provides reasonable electoral equality in this ward. This modification would result in the Poplar North ward having 9% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018.

Bromley-by-Bow and Mile End 68 The Conservative Group proposed a two-member Bromley North ward, a two- member Bromley South ward and a three-member Burdett ward for this area. The two Bromley wards were divided north and south of the overground railway line. The Bromley North ward followed Bow Road as a northern boundary but departed the road at the railway line to run north-east to the borough’s eastern edge.

69 The Labour Group proposed a three-member Mile End ward and a three- member Bromley-by-Bow ward. The Group’s Bromley-by-Bow ward linked much of the area included within the Conservative’s proposed two Bromley wards, with the exception of the ‘British Estate’ north of the railway line, which the Group placed into its Mile End ward. The Group argued that the British estate was accessed from the A11 (Bow Road) to the north, that it had close links to the roads around Wellington Way and that the residents of the latter were ‘served by a mosque on the British estate and the Methodist church on Merchant Street’. The Labour Group also argued that the areas north and south of the railway line – divided by the Conservative Group – were linked by Devons Road and that its proposal maintained ‘the identity of this area’.

70 The Mayor proposed a two-member Bromley-by-Bow ward encompassing the area east of the DLR railway line and linked by Devons Road and the A12. He argued that this area constituted the ‘distinct historical area and community of Bromley-by-Bow’.

71 A submission from Councillor Aston argued that while he agreed with the Conservative proposal on the whole, Bromley North should use Bow Road as its northern boundary and extend west to encompass the British estate. He argued that this arrangement offered ‘real representation of communities’.

72 Having toured the area, we are of the view that the overground railway line used as a boundary by the Conservative Group provides for the strongest boundary in the 13 area. We observed that there was a geographical divide between estates on both sides of the railway line along Devons Road. We are also of the view that Councillor Aston’s proposal, which extends Bromley North ward around the British estate, reflected evidence received from the Labour Group which linked the British estate with properties around Wellington Way. We also consider Bow Road a much clearer northern boundary than that proposed by the Conservative Group. We therefore propose to adopt Councillor Aston’s proposals for Bromley North and Bromley South as part of our draft recommendations. Under our draft recommendations, the wards of Bromley North and Bromley South would have 1% fewer and 1% more electors than the borough average by 2018, respectively.

73 As a result of our recommendations for Bromley, a three-member ward for Mile End would have an electoral variance of 21% fewer electors than the borough average. We therefore propose a modification to the south-east boundary of the ward around Bartlett Park to improve electoral equality. This modification is outlined in more detail in paragraph 67. For the remainder of the ward, we have decided to adopt Councillor Aston’s proposed Burdett ward without further modification to its boundaries. However, we propose that the ward be named Mile End to reflect the local community. Under our proposal, Mile End would have 2% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2018.

Tower Hamlets Central West

74 Tower Hamlets Central West is a densely populated urban area comprising the areas of , , and .

75 The Mayor, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group all proposed differing warding arrangements for this area. All schemes provided for good levels of electoral equality, generally used strong boundaries and included evidence of community identity.

Stepney, Whitechapel, Shadwell, and Wapping 76 This area comprises the existing wards of St Dunstan’s & Stepney Green, Shadwell, Whitechapel and St Katharine’s & Wapping. The Mayor, the Conservative Group and the Labour Group proposed competing warding patterns of two- and three-member wards for this area. We received an additional two submissions for this area from a local resident and the London Dockers Club.

Stepney 77 The Labour Group proposed a two-member Stepney West ward and a two- member Stepney East ward. These wards were proposed to have an east–west orientation and were split along Bromley Street and Redman’s Road, uniting the properties along Stepney Green in the Stepney East ward. The Group argued that these arrangements maintained estates within the same ward and incorporated an area ‘recognised as Stepney by the local residents’. The Labour Group proposed that the southern boundary of its Stepney West ward should extend south of Commercial Road to Cable Street. However, the southern boundary of the Labour Group’s proposed Stepney East ward did not extend as far south as Commercial Road. Instead, the boundary proposed by the Group would follow the minor road of Salmon Lane.

14

78 The Mayor and Conservative Group both proposed north–south arrangements which used Commercial Road as a southern boundary and split the Stepney area vertically. The Mayor proposed a boundary along Jubilee Street. The Conservative Group proposed that the boundary should use West Arbour Street. The Conservative Group argued that, although its boundary did ‘not follow any major road or dominant physical feature, this is the case at the moment also, and the proposed boundary does not divide any estates’. The Conservative Group argued that the current ward boundary along Jubilee Street – which was proposed by the Mayor – divided the Clichy estate. The Mayor did not provide any community evidence in support of his proposed boundary along Jubilee Street.

79 Having walked the area, we are of the view that the diverse estates and housing in Stepney are linked by Stepney Way, which runs east–west in the area. We are of the view that neither the Mayor nor the Conservative Group provided for strong boundaries in their submissions. We are further of the view that the Mayor’s proposal split a cohesive estate along Jubilee Street.

80 We therefore consider that the arrangement proposed by the Labour Group provides for strong east and west boundaries and keeps communities together within the Stepney area. However, we were concerned that the Group’s proposed southern boundary of Stepney West crossed the busy Commercial Road. To provide for both clear boundaries and reflect local communities, we therefore propose that the southern boundary for the Stepney West ward should run along Commercial Road. As a result of the recommendations for Limehouse (paragraph 57), we also recommend that the southern boundary for Stepney East should be Commercial Road.

81 As a result of these modifications, an electoral imbalance of -22% would result in the Stepney West ward. We therefore propose two further modifications to ensure improved levels of electoral equality in the ward.

82 Firstly, we propose that the north-east boundary of the Stepney West ward be extended to run along the backs of the properties on the east side of Stepney Green. This ensures that the houses along Stepney Green are not divided between wards. To the east, we propose to extend the ward’s eastern boundary to Belgrave Street, a road with housing consistent with much of the housing in Stepney West. For the remainder of Stepney West and Stepney East, we have decided to adopt the Labour Group submission without modification. As a result of our recommendation, the wards of Stepney East and Stepney West would have 5% fewer and 7% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018, respectively.

Shadwell, Wapping, and Whitechapel 83 The Labour Group proposed a three-member Wapping & Shadwell ward which extended north across The Highway to Cable Street. The Conservative Group proposed a two-member Shadwell ward and a two-member St Katharine’s & Wapping ward. The Group proposed using Commercial Road and The Highway as northern and southern boundaries for its proposed Shadwell ward, and the entirety of The Highway as a northern boundary for its proposed St Katharine’s & Wapping ward.

84 The Mayor proposed an identical St Katharine’s & Wapping ward to the Conservative Group. However, he proposed extending a Shadwell ward west to include a narrow stretch of housing between Cable Street and The Highway. The 15

Mayor also proposed that Shadwell ward should extend east and split the Limehouse Basin. This proposal crossed The Highway and included properties west of the Limehouse locks in a Shadwell ward.

85 We also received submissions from a resident and the London Dockers Club relating to this area. Both submissions argued that The Highway and Commercial Road made strong boundaries. Both submissions also argued that those properties south of The Highway, currently in Shadwell ward, should be placed with those in St Katharine’s & Wapping.

86 Having walked this area, we are of the view that the Conservative proposal for Shadwell used very strong boundaries and linked identifiable communities between Commercial Road and The Highway. We have therefore decided to adopt the Conservative proposal for Shadwell ward without modification as part of our draft recommendations. We also decided to adopt the identical Conservative and Mayoral proposal for St Katharine’s & Wapping ward without modification. Under our draft recommendations the wards of Shadwell and St Katharine’s & Wapping would have 2% fewer and 5% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018, respectively.

87 As a result of these proposals, we propose a Whitechapel ward which is bounded by The Highway, Whitechapel Road, Canon Street Road and Sidney Street. We are of the view that this ward has easily identifiable boundaries, provides for good levels of electoral equality and keeps communities together. Under our proposal, the Whitechapel ward would have 4% fewer electors than the borough average by 2018.

Tower Hamlets North

88 Tower Hamlets North is a densely populated urban area comprising the areas of , and Bow.

89 The Mayor, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group all proposed differing warding arrangements for Bethnal Green, Weavers, and Spitalfields. The Mayor and Labour Group proposed identical configurations for the area of Bow. All schemes provided for good levels of electoral equality, generally used strong boundaries, and included evidence of community identity.

North-west Tower Hamlets: Bethnal Green, Weavers and Spitalfields 90 This area comprises the existing wards of Spitalfields & Banglatown, Weavers, Bethnal Green North, Bethnal Green South and Mile End & Globe Town. The submissions of the Mayor and the two political groups for this area proposed mixed warding patterns of two- and three-member wards.

Weavers and Spitalfields 91 The Labour Group proposed a three-member Weavers ward in the north-west of the borough. The ward extended between the western borough boundary and Road, crossing Warner Place and Squirries Street. It proposed Bethnal Green Road as a southern boundary. The Group argued that these were ‘natural boundaries’ and stated that its proposed ward linked residents’ groups which worked together, as well as schools which served the area.

16

92 The Mayor and Conservative Group both proposed very similar arrangements for a two-member Weavers ward which, in contrast to the Labour Group, crossed Bethnal Green Road using a north–south orientation. The Conservative Group stated that this arrangement linked ‘an increasingly mixed and diverse community in the bustling area of and Bethnal Green Road’.

93 The proposals from the Mayor and Conservative Group for Weavers diverged at their southern and eastern boundaries. To the south, the Mayor’s proposals crossed the railway line and proposed Quaker Street/Buxton Street as a southern boundary. The Conservative Group, in contrast, proposed the railway line as a southern boundary, arguing that the line was a ‘natural boundary’ and that the area to the south had ‘a close affinity with Spitalfields’.

94 To the east of the ward, the Conservative Group proposed the existing boundary of Warner Place, while the Mayor departed from Warner Place at Wellington Row to include the Jesus Green Hospital Estate in his proposed St Peter’s ward (paragraph 102). The Mayor stated that the estate was unique, and that it formed part of the Jesus Green Conservation Area, alongside St Peter’s Church and Square.

95 Having walked this area, we are of the view that Bethnal Green Road is a uniting factor in the area and that it provides a focal point for the communities to its north and south. We are therefore of the view that a north-south orientation which crosses Bethnal Green Road more accurately reflects local communities. We also consider that, to the south, the railway line provides for a very strong boundary. In contrast, an arrangement which uses Quaker Lane/Buxton Street as a boundary arbitrarily splits Brick Lane.

96 Furthermore, while we acknowledge the unique nature of the Jesus Green Hospital Estate, we consider that the Mayor’s arrangement does not provide for a strong boundary. We have therefore decided to adopt the Conservative proposal for Weavers ward without modification as part of our draft recommendations. Under our proposal, the ward would have 8% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

97 To the immediate south of Weavers, the three borough-wide submissions argued for similar warding arrangements for the Spitalfields area. Aside from the differences proposed for the northern extent of the ward, all three proposals linked together the same areas east and west of Brick Lane. Furthermore, all three submissions proposed Whitechapel Road as a strong southern boundary, with minor differences proposed for the eastern boundary.

98 A proposal for Spitalfields was also received from a local resident, who proposed a single-member Spitalfields & Liberties ward which crossed the railway line. The resident’s arguments were mainly focused upon the historical boundaries of the former Spitalfields parish and included the area immediately around Brick Lane.

99 Having walked the area, we are of the view that the Mayor’s eastern boundary – along Cambridge Heath Road, Darling Road and the western edge of the Burial Ground – provides for the clearest boundary. Furthermore, we consider that the local resident’s proposal arbitrarily divided the Brick Lane community and did not use strong boundaries.

17

100 We received different proposals for ward names for the Spitalfields area. The Mayor and the Labour Group argued that the ward should be named Spitalfields & Banglatown, as at present. The Labour Group argued that this name ‘reflects the historic area of Spitalfields and its more recent, additional identity as Banglatown’. The Conservative Group stated that the ward should be named simply Spitalfields, arguing that ‘the Bangladeshi community lives across the borough’ and that to include ‘Banglatown’ in the name ‘implies that the Bangladeshi community in Tower Hamlets is restricted to the Spitalfields area alone’. The local resident argued that ‘Spitalfields & Liberties’ reflected the inclusion of the former Liberties of Norton Folgate and Old Artillery Ground.

101 Having considered the proposals for the names for this ward, we have decided to adopt the name Spitalfields as part of our draft recommendations. Under our proposal, this ward would have 8% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

Bethnal Green 102 The Mayor proposed a three-member St Peter’s ward which extended between the Jesus Green Hospital Estate to Cambridge Heath Road and along and Approach roads to the Grand Union Canal. The proposed ward also straddled Bethnal Green Road, linking the estates via Squirries Street and Cambridge Heath Road. The Conservative Group proposed a two-member Cambridge Heath ward which used an identical north-east boundary (along the canal, Old Ford and Approach roads) but which used Bethnal Green Road as a southern boundary.

103 South of Bethnal Green Road, the Labour Group and the Conservative Group proposed almost identical two-member Bethnal Green wards. Both proposals extended east–west between Squirries Road and Globe Road, crossing Cambridge Heath Road, and used Bethnal Green Road as a northern boundary. The Labour Group argued that this arrangement linked together ‘well established and active residents’ associations’, while the Conservative Group argued that the ward linked together ‘conjoined’ communities. The Conservative Group added that there were ‘extensive transport links with Cambridge Heath Road acting as a spine for both sides of the ward’.

104 As discussed in paragraph 95, having walked the area, we consider that Bethnal Green Road is a focal point for the local communities and that a north–south ward which straddles the road provides the best reflection of community identity in the area. We have therefore decided to adopt the Mayor’s proposal for St Peter’s ward as part of our draft recommendations, with the only modification being the use of Warner Place as a north-western boundary, as already discussed. Under draft recommendations, the St Peter’s ward would have 2% more electors than the borough average in 2018.

105 As a result of our draft recommendations for St Peter’s ward and use of Cambridge Heath Road as a ward boundary, we also propose a three-member Bethnal Green ward, as proposed by the Mayor in his submission. This ward uses strong boundaries, links together communities north and south of Roman Road – as also proposed by the Labour and Conservative groups – and provides for a reasonable level of electoral equality. Under our proposal, the Bethnal Green ward would have 7% more electors than the borough average by 2018.

18

Bow 106 This area comprises the existing wards of Bow East and Bow West. The submissions of the Mayor and the two political groups proposed mixed warding patterns of two- and three-member wards for this area.

107 The Conservative Group proposed a two-member Park ward and a three- member Bow ward on an east–west orientation, using Roman Road as a boundary between the two wards and containing the entirety of Victoria Park in a single ward. The Group argued that Roman Road (a community market street) acted ‘more as a clear dividing line between estates… than it acts as a community focus’. The Conservative Group further argued that there were increasing issues relating to Victoria Park and that ‘councillors who represent the whole park, rather than there being an artificial dividing line across the middle of the park, will be able to represent the residents who surround the park’.

108 The Mayor and the Labour Group proposed identical warding arrangements for this area, using the existing boundaries and a north–south orientation. The Labour Group argued that, ‘due to the position of tube stations on the A11, the flow of pedestrian traffic is mostly north–south’. The Mayor argued that Roman Road runs through the whole area of Bow and was ‘used by most Bow residents’. The Mayor and the Labour Group also both proposed that Victoria Park be divided between the Bow East and Bow West wards, using a path across the park as a boundary.

109 Having walked the area, we were of the view that Roman Road acted as a community focal point for the area. In particular, we observed the busy market stalls along the narrow part of Roman Road east of St Stephen’s Road. We viewed the road as a uniting factor for estates to the north and to the south, and therefore consider that the Conservative Group’s proposal would divide a community. Furthermore, we are of the view that the Mayor and the Labour Group’s proposals unite communities around Roman Road and use the strong boundary of St Stephen’s Road.

110 However, we are also of the view that Victoria Park should be contained wholly within one ward. In our view, a boundary around the perimeter of the park provides for a stronger boundary on the ground. We therefore propose that the north-western boundary of Bow East should be extended west along the Hertford Union Canal and Old Ford Road to contain the whole of Victoria Park in the Bow East ward.

111 The Mayor and the Labour Group both proposed the name Bow West for the ward comprising the western part of the area. However, for the ward comprising the eastern part of the area, the Labour Group proposed the name Bow East & Fish Island, while the Mayor simply proposed Bow East. The Labour Group argued that ‘Fish Island’ was now widely used by residents and local businesses in the area. The Group further argued that the name had also ‘been formally acknowledged in regeneration strategies put forward by the Greater London Authority, the Olympic Park Legacy Company, and Tower Hamlets Council’. However, the Labour Group also noted that the name is used ‘in the surrounding areas of Bow, and Stratford’.

112 Having considered the evidence provided, we are of the view that the names Bow East and Bow West more accurately reflect the communities represented by the warding arrangements on the ground within the borough of Tower Hamlets. We have therefore decided to adopt the proposal of the Mayor for the ward names of Bow 19

West and Bow East as part of our draft recommendations. Under our proposal, the wards of Bow East and Bow West would have 2% fewer and 5% more electors than the borough average by 2018, respectively.

Conclusion

113 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2012 and 2018 electorate figures

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements:

Draft recommendations 2012 2018 Number of councillors 45 45 Number of electoral wards 20 200 Average number of electors per councillor 3,813 4,417 Number of wards with a variance more 9 0 than 10% from the average Number of wards with a variance more 1 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation Tower Hamlets Council should comprise 45 councillors serving 20 wards as detailed and named in Table A1 and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

20

3 What happens next?

114 There will now be a consultation period of eight weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets contained in this report. We will take into account fully all submissions received by 7 January 2013. Any received after this date may not be taken into account.

115 We have not finalised our conclusions on the electoral arrangements for Tower Hamlets and welcome comments from interested parties relating to the proposed ward boundaries, number of councillors and ward names. We would welcome alternative proposals backed up by demonstrable evidence during the consultation. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations.

116 Express your views by writing directly to:

Review Officer Tower Hamlets Review Local Government Boundary Commission for England Layden House 76–86 Turnmill Street London EC1M 5LG

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, consultation.lgbce.org.uk or by emailing [email protected]

117 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all the representations received will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of Tower Hamlets Council and at our offices in Layden House (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk. A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

118 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.

119 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.

120 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets in 2014.

21

121 This report has been screened for impact on equalities; with due regard being given to the general equalities duties as set out in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. As no potential negative impacts were identified, a full equality impact analysis is not required.

22

4 Mapping

Draft recommendations for Tower Hamlets

122 The following maps illustrate our proposed ward boundaries for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets:

• Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed wards for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets.

You can also view our draft recommendations for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets on our interactive maps at http://consultation.lgbce.org.uk

23

24

Appendix A

Table A1: Draft recommendations for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Number of Variance Number of Variance from Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name Electors per from Average Electors per Average Councillors (2012) (2018) Councillor % Councillor % 1 Bethnal Green 3 13,701 4,567 20% 14,215 4,738 7% Blackwall & 2 3 8,866 2,955 -22% 13,151 4,384 -1% Cubitt Town 3 Bow East 3 10,809 3,603 -6% 13,047 4,349 -2%

4 Bow West 2 8,944 4,472 17% 9,239 4,620 5%

5 Bromley North 2 6,367 3,184 -17% 8,774 4,387 -1%

6 Bromley South 2 6,079 3,040 -20% 8,881 4,441 1%

7 Limehouse 1 4,195 4,195 10% 4,441 4,441 1% 8 Mile End 3 11,120 3,707 -3% 13,001 4,334 -2% 9 Millwall 2 8,802 4,401 15% 9,159 4,580 4%

10 Poplar North 3 9,640 3,213 -16% 12,049 4,016 -9%

11 Poplar South 1 4,061 4,061 6% 4,872 4,872 10% 12 Shadwell 2 8,278 4,139 9% 8,653 4,327 -2% 13 Spitalfields 2 8,748 4,374 15% 9,501 4,751 8%

25

Table A1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for the London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward Name Electors per from Average Electors per from Average Councillors (2012) (2018) Councillor % Councillor % St Katharine's & 14 2 7,909 3,955 4% 8,379 4,190 -5% Wapping 15 St Peter's 3 12,551 4,184 10% 13,498 4,499 2%

16 Stepney East 2 7,509 3,755 -2% 8,405 4,203 -5%

17 Stepney West 2 8,123 4,062 7% 8,211 4,106 -7%

18 Weavers 2 8,390 4,195 10% 9,563 4,782 8%

19 West India 2 7,859 3,930 3% 9,078 4,539 3%

20 Whitechapel 3 9,647 3,216 -16% 12,660 4,220 -4% Totals 45 171,598 – – 198,777 – – Averages – – 3,813 – – 4,417 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by the London Borough of Tower Hamlets

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors.

26

Appendix B

Glossary and abbreviations

AONB (Area of Outstanding Natural A landscape whose distinctive Beauty) character and natural beauty are so outstanding that it is in the nation’s interest to safeguard it

Constituent areas The geographical areas that make up any one ward, expressed in parishes or existing wards, or parts of either

Council size The number of councillors elected to serve on a council

Electoral Change Order (or Order) A legal document which implements changes to the electoral arrangements of a local authority

Division A specific area of a county, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever division they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the county council

Electoral equality When one elector’s vote is worth the same as another’s

Electoral imbalance Where there is a difference between the number of electors represented by a councillor and the average for the local authority

Electorate People in the authority who are registered to vote in elections. For the purposes of this report, we refer specifically to the electorate for local government elections

27

Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Commission for England in April 2010

Multi-member ward or division A ward or division represented by more than one councillor and usually not more than three councillors

National Park The 13 National Parks in England and Wales were designated under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act of 1949 and can be found at www.nationalparks.gov.uk

Number of electors per councillor The total number of electors in a local authority divided by the number of councillors

Over-represented Where there are fewer electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Parish A specific and defined area of land within a single local authority enclosed within a parish boundary. There are over 10,000 parishes in England, which provide the first tier of representation to their local residents

Parish council A body elected by electors in the parish which serves and represents the area defined by the parish boundaries. See also ‘Town council’

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on arrangements any one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

28

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

PER (or periodic electoral review) A review of the electoral arrangements of all local authorities in England, undertaken periodically. The last programme of PERs was undertaken between 1996 and 2004 by the Boundary Commission for England and its predecessor, the now-defunct Local Government Commission for England

Political management arrangements The Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 enabled local authorities in England to modernise their decision-making process. Councils could choose from two broad categories; a directly elected mayor and cabinet or a cabinet with a leader

Town council A parish council which has been given ceremonial ‘town’ status. More information on achieving such status can be found at www.nalc.gov.uk

Under-represented Where there are more electors per councillor in a ward or division than the average

Variance (or electoral variance) How far the number of electors per councillor in a ward or division varies in percentage terms from the average

Ward A specific area of a district or borough, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors can vote in whichever ward they are registered for the candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the district or borough council

29

30