New electoral arrangements for Barking and Council Draft Recommendations March 2021 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2021

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Barking & Dagenham? 2 Our proposals for Barking & Dagenham 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 Barking, Gascoigne and Longbridge 8 Eastbury, Goresbrook, Riverside and View 11 and Village 16 , Mayesbrook, Parsloes and Valence 18 Alibon, Eastbrook & Rush Green and Heath 21 and Whalebone 24 Conclusions 27 Summary of electoral arrangements 27 Have your say 29 Equalities 33 Appendices 35 Appendix A 35 Draft recommendations for Barking & Dagenham Council 35 Appendix B 37 Outline map 37 Appendix C 38 Submissions received 38 Appendix D 39 Glossary and abbreviations 39

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Barking & Dagenham?

7 We are conducting a review of Barking & Dagenham Council (‘the Council’) as its last review was completed in 1999, and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council in England ‘from time to time’.2 In addition, the value of each vote in council elections varies depending on where you live in Barking & Dagenham. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Barking & Dagenham are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough.

Our proposals for Barking & Dagenham

9 Barking & Dagenham should be represented by 51 councillors, the same number as present.

10 Barking & Dagenham should have 19 wards, two more than at present.

11 The boundaries of all but one ward (Longbridge ward) should change.

How will the recommendations affect you?

12 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.

13 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to consider any representations which are based on these issues.

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).

2

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for a 10-week period, from 23 March 2021 to 31 May 2021. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.

15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 31 May 2021 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 29 for how to send us your response.

Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Barking & Dagenham. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

18 The review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

19 October 2020 Number of councillors decided 27 October 2020 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 11 January 2021 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 23 March 2021 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 31 May 2021 forming final recommendations 31 August 2021 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation3 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors4 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

20 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; and we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

21 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2020 2026 Electorate of Barking & Dagenham 141,874 174,332 Number of councillors 51 51 Average number of electors per 2,782 3,418 councillor

22 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All our proposed wards for Barking & Dagenham will have good electoral equality by 2026.

Submissions received 23 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2026, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2021. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 23% by 2026. This is due to a high level of development, predominantly in existing Abbey, Gascoigne, River and Thames wards.

3 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 4 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

25 We carefully considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

26 Barking & Dagenham Council currently has 51 councillors. We carefully looked at evidence provided by the Council and concluded that keeping this number the same would ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

27 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 51 councillors: for example, 51 one-councillor wards, 17 three- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

28 We received four submissions that related to the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns. The Barking & Dagenham Conservatives and a local resident supported our decision to retain 51 councillors. Conversely, one local resident suggested we increase the number by one to 52, in order to account for the large-scale residential development by the . Another local resident queried whether 51 councillors were required. However, we determined that the two latter submissions lacked detailed evidence as to why we should move away from the proposed number of 51 and how the authority would operate under an alternative council size. We have consequently based our draft recommendations on a warding pattern comprising 51 councillors.

Ward boundaries consultation

29 We received 22 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three borough-wide proposals from the Council, the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives and a local resident. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

30 The three borough-wide schemes provided for a mixed pattern of two- and three-councillor wards for Barking & Dagenham. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

31 Therefore, our draft recommendations are based on a combination of the three warding schemes we received, all of which contained various proposals that reflected the statutory criteria. Our draft recommendations also take into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals

6

did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

32 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 outbreak, there was a detailed virtual tour of Barking & Dagenham. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the draft recommendations.

Draft recommendations 33 Our draft recommendations are for 13 three-councillor wards and six two- councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

34 The tables and maps on pages 8–25 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Barking & Dagenham. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

• Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government.

35 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 35 and on the large map accompanying this report.

36 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

Barking, Gascoigne and Longbridge

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Barking Town North 3 2% Barking Town South 2 1% Gascoigne 3 4% Longbridge 3 -4%

Barking Town North and Barking Town South 37 We received a number of differing proposals in regard to the Barking area. The Council proposed a reconfiguration of the existing three-councillor Abbey ward, whilst the local resident’s scheme suggested a two-ward arrangement, proposing a Barking Town North ward and a Barking Town South ward. The Barking & Dagenham Conservatives suggested Barking Town and wards, separated by the railway line.

8

38 As part of our draft recommendations, we have decided to adopt the three- councillor Barking Town North ward proposed by the local resident. This is because we consider the area bounded by Wilmington Gardens and the railway line to be an extension of Barking town centre, making it an appropriate fit for our Barking Town North ward. This contrasts with the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal, which followed the railway line as a boundary. We determined that using the railway line here would separate the area bounded by Wilmington Gardens and the railway line from the bulk of Barking town centre. We have concluded that, in this area of the borough, the railway line does not act as a barrier between communities, with good road access across the railway line via Station Parade and Gurdwara Way. We also decided not to adopt the Council’s proposed boundary along Fanshawe Avenue and Salisbury Avenue, as we considered Wilmington Gardens and the edge of Barking Park to be a more identifiable boundary.

39 We have also proposed a two-councillor Barking Town South ward as part of our draft recommendations. However, we decided not to adopt the local resident’s Barking Town South ward in full, instead using various elements of the borough-wide schemes to create a ward we consider to better reflect our statutory criteria. Our Barking Town South ward will be bounded to the north by Road, as proposed by the local resident’s scheme. The southern boundary of our proposed ward will predominantly follow St Pauls Road and Ripple Road, which was proposed by the Council as the southern boundary of its Abbey ward. We agree with the Council that these major roads will act as a strong boundary between Barking town and our proposed Gascoigne ward. We have also followed the southern boundary along Town Quay and Highbridge Road, in order to achieve good electoral equality across wards.

40 Under our recommendations, Barking Town North and Barking Town South wards will have good electoral equality in 2026, with variances of 2% and 1% respectively. They will also, in our view, effectively reflect community identities.

Gascoigne 41 We also received a number of differing proposals for the area in and around the Gascoigne estate. The Council proposed the two-councillor wards of Roding and Gascoigne, with the boundary between the two running broadly along Gascoigne Road and The Shaftesburys. The local resident and Barking & Dagenham Conservatives proposed similar three-councillor Gascoigne wards, both following King Edward’s Road and St Pauls Road.

42 Our draft recommendations propose a three-councillor Gascoigne ward, bounded by the borough boundary, St Pauls Road, Ripple Road, the railway line and the A13. We were not persuaded by the Council’s proposal to divide the area into two wards along Gascoigne Road and The Shaftesburys, because we were concerned that this would split the Gascoigne estate between wards. However, we

9

have adopted its suggestion to include electors in the area bounded by King Edward’s Road and the railway line within a Gascoigne ward. We note that both the local resident and Barking & Dagenham Conservatives had placed this area within their Barking Town South and Barking Town wards respectively. We consider electors south of Ripple Road would fit more appropriately within our draft Gascoigne ward, with the road forming a strong boundary south of Barking town centre.

Longbridge 43 We received four submissions that specifically related to the area covered by the existing Longbridge ward. The Council proposed a three-councillor Longbridge ward bounded by the roundabout junction of Fanshawe Avenue and Longbridge Road in the west, extending to Woodbridge Road in the east. The local resident also proposed a three-councillor Longbridge ward, which retained the existing boundaries. Conversely, the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives suggested a two- councillor Longbridge (or Leftley) ward and a three-councillor Barking Park ward for this area. The two-councillor ward was supported by a local resident.

44 We carefully considered the submissions received for this area. While we note that the Council’s proposed ward would provide for good electoral equality, we decided not to adopt this proposal, as it split the Leftley estate along Woodbridge Road. We were also unable to adopt the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposals for this area. Given our decision to include a significant part of their Barking Park ward within Barking Town North ward, as detailed in paragraph 38, we would have been unable to adopt their proposals as part of our draft recommendations without heavily modifying the two wards to achieve good electoral equality.

45 The Barking & Dagenham Conservatives also suggested we transfer Waterside Close into a Longbridge ward. We decided not to adopt this proposal, as we consider the Mayes Brook to be a strong and identifiable boundary here.

46 Therefore, we have decided to retain the existing Longbridge ward as part of our draft recommendations, as suggested by the local resident. We consider that this ward will reflect communities effectively, and it will provide for good electoral equality, with an electoral variance of -4% in 2026.

10

Eastbury, Goresbrook, Riverside and Thames View

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Eastbury 3 -7% Goresbrook 3 2% Riverside 3 -4% Thames View 2 3%

Eastbury 47 We received four submissions relating to Eastbury ward. All the borough-wide proposals for this area were largely based upon the existing Eastbury ward, which is broadly bounded by the railway line to the north and by the A13 to the south. The only significant difference between the three proposals related to where the eastern boundary should be placed. The Council proposed to retain the existing boundary along Flamstead Road, while the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives suggested following Arden Crescent and Gale Street. They also transferred a substantial number of electors north of Woodward Road into their proposed Porters ward. The local resident’s scheme proposed a two-councillor ward that broadly followed Canonsleigh Road. Another local resident opposed any possible abolition of Eastbury ward.

11

48 We have decided to adopt the Council’s three-councillor Eastbury ward as part of our draft recommendations, using Flamstead Road as the eastern boundary. While we acknowledge that the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal to use Gale Street could form a clearer and more identifiable boundary, this proposal was reliant on transferring electors north of Woodward Road into our Mayesbrook ward in order to achieve good electoral equality. However, we agree with the Council that the railway line in this area forms a natural boundary, and we were not persuaded to place electors south of the railway line in our proposed Mayesbrook ward. Our justification for not adopting the local resident’s boundary along Canonsleigh Road is discussed in the next section, which outlines our recommendations for the adjacent Goresbrook ward.

49 We have also transferred Castle Green Place into Eastbury ward. We consider electors residing here are part of the Eastbury community and would be more effectively represented as part of Eastbury ward. Both the Council and Barking & Dagenham Conservatives had suggested this as part of their borough-wide schemes.

50 We have also decided to include the industrial estate south of Ripple Road in this ward. While there are no electors here, we consider the area would more appropriately fit within Eastbury ward as it would better reflect road access routes.

51 The local resident suggested that the ward be named Rippleside rather than Eastbury. However, we are persuaded by the evidence provided by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives that the current name better represents the local community, with Eastbury Primary School and situated within the ward. We have therefore decided not to adopt the local resident’s ward name change. However, we would particularly welcome comments on the name of this ward. Our proposed Eastbury ward will have an electoral variance of -7% by 2026.

Goresbrook 52 Although our draft recommendations for a three-councillor Goresbrook ward are based on elements suggested in each of the borough-wide schemes, our proposed ward most closely resembles the one outlined by the Council.

53 The western boundary of our proposed ward follows along Flamstead Road. While we note the local resident’s proposed boundary along Canonsleigh Road, we could not adopt this as part of our draft recommendations as it would require us to include a substantial number of electors between Goresbrook Park and Heathway in our proposed Dagenham Dock ward in order to achieve good electoral equality. However, we agree with the Council and the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives that the Heathway represents a clear, natural divide between our proposed Goresbrook, Dagenham Dock and Village wards. Consequently, we propose a Goresbrook ward bounded by Flamstead Road in the west, and Heathway to the

12

east. The southern boundary of our Goresbrook ward follows Goresbrook Road, as a result of our decision to include several hundred electors south of this road in our proposed Riverside ward. We justify this boundary in our next section, specifically paragraphs 60 to 63.

Riverside and Thames View 54 A high level of development is expected in this part of the borough, resulting in the existing Thames ward being vastly under-represented by 2026. This therefore necessitated a significant change to ward boundaries in this area in order to meet our statutory criteria. This was recognised by three local residents, who all stressed that the area required a warding pattern that would account primarily for the extensive development.

55 The three borough-wide schemes all broadly attempted to keep the separate from the Barking Riverside development. The Council proposed a two-councillor ward and a three-councillor Thames ward, dividing the two wards along the river, incorporating electors east of Chelmer Crescent and Glenmore Way into its proposed Thames ward. The local resident’s proposed Riverside East and Riverside West wards also followed Chelmer Crescent, but instead included electors east of Havering Way in Riverside East ward. The proposed boundary would follow Thames Road, the edge of Crossness Road and then Ascot Road. The Barking & Dagenham Conservatives divided their proposed Thames View and Ford wards along Renwick Road and Thames Road.

56 As part of our draft recommendations, we have decided to propose a two- councillor Thames View ward and a three-councillor Riverside ward. The boundaries we propose most closely resemble the proposals submitted by the local resident, with some minor modifications to provide for clearer and more identifiable boundaries.

57 We acknowledge that the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposed ward boundary along Renwick Road and Thames Road would be strong and identifiable. However, this proposal was contingent on development at the former Ford stamping plant being included in their proposed Ford ward, and several hundred electors north of the A13 being included in their Thames View ward, in order to achieve good electoral equality across wards. We consider that the former Ford stamping plant would fit more suitably within our proposed Dagenham Dock ward, given its proximity to the adjacent development. We also consider that the A13 forms a strong boundary that will effectively separate our Gascoigne and Thames View wards. Therefore, we have not adopted their proposed boundaries as part of our draft recommendations.

58 We determined from our virtual tour of the area that the Thames View estate is a distinct community, and that any proposals for this area should minimise splitting

13

the estate between wards. For this reason, we consider the local resident’s boundary preferable to one proposed by the Council, which transferred a significant amount of the Thames View estate into its proposed Thames ward. We also agree with the local resident that electors residing on Galleons Drive and its adjacent roads should also be in a single ward. This is in contrast to the Council’s proposal, which placed electors between Crossness Road and Davey Gardens in its proposed Creekmouth ward.

59 Therefore, our proposed boundary between our Riverside and Thames View wards broadly follows the proposals made by the local resident. However, as mentioned in paragraph 56, we propose two minor amendments: firstly, we have decided to place the boundary south of Thames Road in order to keep future development along the road within a single ward; secondly, as a locally recognised landmark, we have used the Barrier as the point where the ward boundary meets the borough boundary.

60 In order to achieve good electoral equality for any ward comprising the Barking Riverside development, it was necessary to either include a substantial number of electors from the Thames View estate in the ward or incorporate several hundred electors that reside around the A13. This was recognised by the three borough-wide schemes, which all proposed boundaries that breached the A13.

61 We do recognise that the A13 potentially forms a substantial boundary here and that electors north of the road may identify more strongly with the Goresbrook community. However, given our decision to not substantially divide the Thames View estate between wards, we agree with the borough-wide schemes that including electors north of the A13 in our Riverside ward is the most viable option to achieve good electoral equality across wards.

62 The Council and the local resident both proposed placing electors south of Goresbrook Road, predominantly in the Burdetts Road area, into their respective Thames and Riverside East wards. Conversely, the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives kept this area in a Goresbrook ward, instead placing the developments at the former Ford stamping plant, Merrielands Crescent and the former job centre in their Ford ward.

63 After careful consideration, we have decided that the boundary between our proposed Riverside and Goresbrook wards should follow Goresbrook Road entirely, broadly following the suggestion made by the Council and the local resident. As outlined in paragraph 57, we were not persuaded by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal to include the stamping plant development in their Ford ward. We also note that, by following Goresbrook Road in its entirety, electors in the Burdetts Road and Scrattons Farm areas have good road access to the rest of the ward via Choats Manor Way and Choats Road.

14

64 After carefully considering the various ward names proposed, we have decided to name the two wards for this area Thames View and Riverside, as we consider that these names best represent the communities in each ward. We nonetheless welcome views on any alternative ward names for this area, or if any of the proposed names submitted within the borough-wide schemes are more appropriate.

15

Dagenham Dock and Village

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Dagenham Dock 3 -7% Village 3 -7%

Dagenham Dock and Village 65 We received different warding proposals relating to the area covered by the existing River and Village wards. The Council’s and the local resident’s schemes proposed two three-councillor wards, dividing the two wards broadly along the existing boundary, which follows the northern edge of the Rylands estate.

16

Alternatively, the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives proposed a two-councillor Dagenham Village ward and a three-councillor Dagenham Park ward, divided along Church Elm Lane and Rainham Road South.

66 After careful consideration, we decided to base out draft recommendations on the boundary proposed by the Council and local resident. We consider the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal split communities, where the boundary along Rainham Road South cut off The Leys area from the rest of the ward. Our proposed boundary most closely resembles the one proposed by the Council, but we have included the entirety of Broad Street within our Dagenham Dock ward.

67 The western boundary of our Dagenham Dock and Village wards follows Heathway, as suggested by the Council and the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives. We agree that this road forms a strong and identifiable boundary between wards and were not persuaded by the local resident’s suggestion to include electors west of this road within our proposed Dagenham Dock ward. Our proposed boundary also extends along Chequers Lane until it reaches the River Thames, thereby placing the developments at Beam Park and the former Ford stamping plant within our Dagenham Dock ward.

68 We propose to retain the existing ward name of Village, as we consider the current name effectively reflects the communities within it. However, we propose the name Dagenham Dock for the adjacent ward, as proposed by the local resident. We consider the Council’s retention of the River name unsuitable, given its similarity to the proposed Riverside ward that adjoins it. We were also unable to adopt the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ suggestion of Dagenham Park given our decision to keep the park within our Village ward. We nonetheless welcome any views on alternative ward names during the current consultation.

69 Our proposed Dagenham Dock and Village wards will have good electoral equality, with both wards anticipated to have electoral variances of -7% in 2026.

17

Becontree, Mayesbrook, Parsloes and Valence

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Becontree 2 -3% Mayesbrook 3 3% Parsloes 3 6% Valence 3 -8%

Becontree 70 Our draft recommendations for Becontree ward are based on a combination of the proposals made by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives and the local resident. Our proposed two-councillor Becontree ward is almost entirely bounded by Bennett’s Castle Lane in the east, as per the Conservatives’ proposal, but our southern boundary follows Longbridge Road, as suggested by the local resident. The rest of the ward is formed by the borough boundary.

18

71 We decided not to adopt the Council’s Becontree ward as we consider the boundaries not to be as clear and identifiable as the ones we have proposed. We also note, from the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ submission, that our proposed ward will contain the Becontree shopping parade and Becontree Primary School. Based on this evidence, we are content that our proposal will reflect community identities.

72 We have named this ward Becontree. However, we would welcome comments on the name of this ward, given we received a submission from a local resident who opposed the name of the ward, but did not provide an alternative. Our proposed Becontree ward will have an electoral variance of -3% by 2026.

Mayesbrook 73 Our draft recommendations for this ward are based on a combination of the proposals made in the three borough-wide schemes. The southern boundary of our proposed Mayesbrook ward follows the railway line, which we consider to be strong boundary, as per the Council and local resident schemes. Our eastern boundary will follow Gale Street, as per the Council submission, allowing to be wholly contained in a single ward. The northern boundary, as suggested by the local resident, follows Longbridge Road, which we consider to be a ward boundary recognisable to local electors.

74 We were not persuaded by the Council’s suggestion to incorporate part of the Leftley estate within a Mayesbrook ward. We were concerned that such a proposal would split the estate and would therefore not reflect community identities. We have therefore retained the Mayes Brook as our western boundary, as suggested by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives and the local resident.

75 The Council and local resident proposed retaining the name of Mayesbrook for this ward, while the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives proposed the name Porters. We have decided to name the ward Mayesbrook, as we consider local electors will identify strongly with , which will form a substantial part of the ward.

Parsloes 76 Our proposed Parsloes ward most closely resembles the proposal made by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives, but we are recommending some modifications to the ward, based on evidence provided in the two other borough-wide schemes. We agree with the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives that Wood Lane and Heathway form strong, identifiable boundaries and we have adopted these as the northern and eastern boundaries of our ward. However, as outlined in paragraph 73, we have followed Gale Street, as proposed by the Council, as the western boundary of the ward. This means Parsloes Park would no longer be split between wards, as at present. All the borough-wide schemes proposed used the railway line as the southern boundary and named the ward Parsloes.

19

77 A local resident provided community evidence suggesting that we keep the area around Hewett Road in Mayesbrook ward. However, we could not adopt this proposal as placing this area into our proposed Mayesbrook ward would result in an electoral variance of 15%. We consider this electoral variance too high to accept. However, the local resident did suggest that the area comprising Durell Road, Haskard Road and Wren Road is similar in nature to the Hewett Road area, and that they could be kept within a single ward. Our proposed Parsloes ward includes all these roads.

78 Under our draft recommendations, Parsloes ward will have good electoral equality in 2026 and will, in our view, reflect community identities.

Valence 79 The borough-wide schemes each proposed various configurations for a three- councillor Valence ward. Each provided for a ward with a good electoral equality that broadly followed clear and identifiable boundaries. Therefore, we have decided to base our draft recommendations for this ward on a combination of the proposals made to us, in order to create a ward that will provide the best balance of our statutory criteria.

80 Our western boundary for Valence ward follows Bennett’s Castle Lane, as proposed by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives. However, our southern and eastern boundary follows Wood Lane in its entirety. This therefore incorporates aspects of each proposal, all of which used Wood Lane as a boundary to varying degrees. For the northern boundary, we have followed almost the entirety of Green Lane. We were not persuaded that any of the borough-wide schemes, all of which included electors north of Green Lane in Valence ward, followed clear and identifiable boundaries.

81 A local resident stated their preference to be part of Valence ward, stating they were in a Valence ward prior to the previous electoral review, before being transferred to the current Heath ward. However, placing this local resident in our proposed Valence ward would result in the ward boundary running further south than the one proposed along Wood Lane. We consider Wood Lane to be a strong and identifiable boundary and were not persuaded that enough community evidence had been provided for us to move away from this decision.

82 Our Valence ward will be bounded by Bennett’s Castle Lane, Wood Lane and Green Lane. We consider following these major roads will create a cohesive ward, with clear boundaries that will be recognisable to local electors. We also consider the ward will reflect local communities, with Valence Primary School, Valence House and Valence Park all located at the centre of the ward.

20

Alibon, Eastbrook & Rush Green and Heath

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Alibon 2 8% Eastbrook & Rush Green 2 -1% Heath 2 7%

Alibon 83 We received three proposals relating to this ward. The Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ and the local resident’s schemes proposed identical two-councillor wards, bounded by the railway line, Heathway, Oxlow Lane and the LondonEast-UK Business and Technical Park. The Council’s proposal was similar, but extended the ward further west, following Monmouth Road rather than Heathway as the western boundary, while also incorporating Kingsley Close, Robinson Road and Muggeridge Road. The Council’s ward would be represented by three councillors.

21

84 We have decided to adopt warding arrangements proposed by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives and the local resident as part of our draft recommendations. Based on observations made from our virtual tour, we agree that Heathway acts as a strong and identifiable boundary that will be recognisable to local electors. Furthermore, by extending the ward westward to incorporate the LondonEast-UK Business and Technical Park, we consider that our proposed ward will reflect community identities, where we agree with the Council that the existing Alibon ward boundary along Wantz Road divides communities.

85 We decided not to adopt the Council’s proposal to include Kingsley Close, Robinson Road and Muggeridge Road into our Alibon ward as it would result in an electoral variance of 11%, which is a slightly higher electoral variance than what we would usually accept.

86 We have decided to name this ward Alibon, as proposed by the Council and the Conservatives, as opposed to Pondfield, which was suggested by the local resident in recognition of the park located in the ward. This is because we consider the name Alibon to be more identifiable to local electors, with the ward containing Richard Alibon Primary School on Alibon Road. However, we welcome comments regarding the name of this ward, in addition to the boundaries proposed.

Eastbrook & Rush Green 87 The borough-wide schemes proposed a broadly similar warding arrangement for this area of the borough. All three proposed a near identical two-councillor ward. The only significant difference between the three schemes was the Council’s western boundary, which extended slightly further across Rainham Road South to incorporate electors residing at Panyers Gardens, Ashbrook Gardens and Webbscroft Road in the ward.

88 Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford) proposed an alternative warding pattern for this area, instead suggesting a single-councillor Rush Green ward and a three- councillor Dagenham East ward. We decided not to adopt this warding arrangement as a single-councillor Rush Green ward would result in an electoral variance of 29%. We consider that this variance is too high to accept, given the need to ensure that local electors have a vote of broadly equal weight.

89 Therefore, we have decided to base our proposals on the borough-wide schemes. We consider that this ward best reflects our statutory criteria, effectively reflecting community identities while also providing for good electoral equality. We have also decided to adopt the name Eastbrook & Rush Green, as suggested by the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives, to reflect the communities that will comprise this ward.

22

90 We decided not to adopt the Council’s proposal to include electors residing at Panyers Gardens, Ashbrook Gardens and Webbscroft Road in Eastbrook & Rush Green ward, as we consider Rainham Road North to be a strong and identifiable boundary here. However, we were persuaded to adopt their suggestion of transferring Central Park into Eastbrook & Rush Green ward. We agree with the Council’s statement that, because there is no clear divide between Central Park and Eastbrookend Country Park, it would be conducive to effective and convenient local government to place the two parks in one ward.

91 One local resident suggested that the existing ward should be transferred to Havering. This, however, falls outside the scope of the current electoral review.

Heath 92 Our draft recommendations for Heath ward most closely resemble the proposal made by the local resident, who suggested a two-councillor Heath ward bounded by Heathway, Wood Lane, Oxlow Lane, Rainham Road North and Central Park. This is because we consider the western boundary formed by Heathway and Wood Lane to be strong and identifiable, as well as recognisable to local electors. We were not persuaded that the proposals made by the Council and the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives (which included electors west of these two roads into Heath ward) would reflect community identities.

93 We have nonetheless adopted the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal to include electors on Gosfield Road and Terling Road in Heath ward, in order to achieve good electoral equality for our proposed Whalebone ward. We have also transferred Central Park into Eastbrook & Rush Green ward, as outlined in paragraph 90.

23

Chadwell Heath and Whalebone

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Chadwell Heath 3 0% Whalebone 3 9%

Chadwell Heath and Whalebone 94 We received six submissions that related to this area. The Council and the local resident proposed an identical three-councillor Chadwell Heath ward bounded by the borough boundary and High Road, and a broadly similar Whalebone ward.

24

Alternatively, the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives proposed a two-councillor Chadwell Heath North ward, comprising the estate and parts of Chadwell Heath south of the A12. They also proposed a three-councillor Chadwell Heath South ward, which incorporated the remainder of the Chadwell Heath community, together with nearly all of the existing Whalebone ward. A potential north/south divide of Chadwell Heath was also endorsed by Andrew Rosindell MP.

95 Andrew Rosindell also suggested several other possible warding arrangements for the area. His preferred proposal was to create a three-councillor Chadwell Heath ward bounded by the borough boundary and railway line, stating that the latter would act as a significant barrier between Mr Rosindell’s proposed Chadwell Heath ward and suggested or Whalebone South ward. However, while we recognise that the railway line represents a strong boundary here, this ward would result in an electoral variance of 36% for Chadwell Heath ward. We consider this variance too high and would not provide for good electoral equality, so we were unable to adopt these proposals as part of our draft recommendations.

96 The Chadwell Heath South Residents’ Association proposed a single-councillor Marks Gate ward (which was also supported by a local resident), bounded by the borough boundary and the A12, and a three-councillor Chadwell Heath ward, which extended down from the A12 to the railway line. Whilst we acknowledge that the A12 and the railway line do form clear boundaries in this area, this warding proposal also results in unacceptably high electoral variances of 50% and -19% respectively. We have therefore decided not to adopt this proposal as part our draft recommendations.

97 After carefully examining the various proposals received, we have decided that the Chadwell Heath and Whalebone wards proposed by the Council and local resident provide the best reflection of our statutory criteria and have broadly adopted them as part of our draft recommendations. While we note that the Barking & Dagenham Conservatives’ proposal would provide for good electoral equality, we were not persuaded that their boundaries were sufficiently clear and identifiable. Furthermore, we were concerned that they could divide communities between wards. For example, we were of the view that their proposed Chadwell Heath South ward would split the recently developed Lymington Fields estate.

98 Our recommended Chadwell Heath and Whalebone wards will have electoral variances of 0% and 9% respectively, meaning both wards will provide for good electoral equality.

25

26

Conclusions

99 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Barking & Dagenham, referencing the 2020 and 2026 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Draft recommendations

2020 2026 Number of councillors 51 51

Number of electoral wards 19 19 Average number of electors per councillor 2,782 3,418 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 12 0 from the average

Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 6 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Barking & Dagenham Council should be made up of 51 councillors serving 19 wards representing 13 three-councillor wards and six two-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Barking & Dagenham. You can also view our draft recommendations for Barking & Dagenham on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

27

28

Have your say

100 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.

101 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Barking & Dagenham, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

102 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

103 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Barking & Dagenham) LGBCE PO Box 133 Blyth NE24 9FE

104 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Barking & Dagenham which delivers:

• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.

105 A good pattern of wards should:

• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.

29

106 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Barking & Dagenham?

107 Community identity:

• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?

108 Effective local government:

• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?

109 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 representations will be placed 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.

110 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, 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.

111 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.

112 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

30

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Barking & Dagenham in 2022.

31

32

Equalities 113 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

33

34

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Barking & Dagenham Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Alibon 2 6,600 3,300 19% 7,352 3,676 8% Barking Town 2 3 8,000 2,667 -4% 10,429 3,476 2% North Barking Town 3 2 2,489 1,245 -55% 6,886 3,443 1% South 4 Becontree 2 6,161 3,081 11% 6,599 3,299 -3%

5 Chadwell Heath 3 9,046 3,015 8% 10,294 3,431 0%

6 Dagenham Dock 3 5,430 1,810 -35% 9,508 3,169 -7% Eastbrook & Rush 7 2 6,343 3,172 14% 6,757 3,379 -1% Green 8 Eastbury 3 8,809 2,936 6% 9,522 3,174 -7%

9 Gascoigne 3 6,746 2,249 -19% 10,618 3,539 4%

10 Goresbrook 3 9,502 3,167 14% 10,469 3,490 2%

11 Heath 2 6,032 3,016 8% 7,323 3,662 7%

12 Longbridge 3 9,122 3,041 9% 9,871 3,290 -4%

35

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 13 Mayesbrook 3 9,881 3,294 18% 10,607 3,536 3%

14 Parsloes 3 10,075 3,358 21% 10,917 3,639 6%

15 Riverside 3 6,076 2,025 -27% 9,867 3,289 -4%

16 Thames View 2 4,037 2,019 -27% 7,045 3,522 3%

17 Valence 3 8,742 2,914 5% 9,478 3,159 -8%

18 Village 3 8,632 2,877 3% 9,579 3,193 -7%

19 Whalebone 3 10,151 3,384 22% 11,202 3,734 9%

Totals 51 141,874 – – 174,322 – –

Averages – – 2,782 – – 3,418 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Barking & Dagenham Council.

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

36

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater- london/barking-and-dagenham

37

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/barking-and-dagenham

Local Authority

• Barking & Dagenham Council

Political Groups

• Barking & Dagenham Conservatives

Members of Parliament

• Andrew Rosindell MP (Romford)

Local Organisations

• Chadwell Heath South Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 18 local residents

38

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

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

Electoral inequality 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

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

39

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 any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

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

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

40 Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE