New electoral arrangements for Richmond upon Thames Council Draft recommendations October 2019 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 England 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 2019

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 Richmond upon Thames? 2 Our proposals for Richmond upon Thames 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 6 North-east Richmond 8 South-east Richmond 10 Hampton Wick and Teddington 12 Hampton 14 Whitton and North Twickenham 16 Twickenham 18 Conclusions 21 Summary of electoral arrangements 21 Have your say 23 Equalities 27 Appendices 29 Appendix A 29 Draft recommendations for Richmond upon Thames 29 Appendix B 31 Outline map 31 Appendix C 33 Submissions received 33 Appendix D 34 Glossary and abbreviations 34

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 Richmond upon Thames?

7 We are conducting a review of Richmond upon Thames Council (‘the Council’) as the last review was completed in 1999 and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council area in England ‘from time to time’. In addition, we are conducting a review of the Council as the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Richmond upon Thames. 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 Richmond upon Thames 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 Richmond upon Thames

9 Richmond upon Thames should be represented by 54 councillors, the same number as there are now.

10 Richmond upon Thames should have 18 wards, the same number as there are now.

11 The boundaries of 15 wards should change; three will stay the same.

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, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, 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

Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for an 11-week period, from 29 October 2019 to 13 January 2020. 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 13 January 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 23 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 Richmond upon Thames. 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

21 May 2019 Number of councillors decided 28 May 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 5 August 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 29 October 2019 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 13 January 2020 forming final recommendations 31 March 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and draft recommendations

19 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 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; 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.

2019 2025 Electorate of Richmond upon Thames 139,327 147,069 Number of councillors 54 54 Average number of electors per 2,580 2,723 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 of our proposed wards for Richmond upon Thames will have good electoral equality by 2025.

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

Electorate figures 24 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 5.6% by 2025.

25 We 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.

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

5

Number of councillors

26 Richmond upon Thames Council currently has 54 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that retaining this number will 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 54 councillors – for example, 54 one-councillor wards, 18 three- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

28 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on ward patterns.

Ward boundaries consultation

29 We received 22 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included one partial borough proposal from the Conservative Group on Richmond upon Thames Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for wards in particular areas of the borough.

30 The partial scheme proposed a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. 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 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 did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

32 We received two submissions, from a councillor and a local resident, that commented on the external boundaries of Richmond upon Thames. However changes to the external boundaries of the authority are not within the scope of this review.

33 We visited the area in order to look at the various proposals on the ground. This tour of Richmond upon Thames helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

Draft recommendations 34 Our draft recommendations are for 18 three-councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting

6

community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

35 The tables and maps on pages 8–19 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Richmond upon Thames. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

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

36 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

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

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

North-east Richmond

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Barnes 3 -4% Kew 3 7% Mortlake & Barnes Common 3 3% North Richmond 3 5%

Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common 38 We received two submissions in response to our consultation regarding Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common wards, both from local residents.

39 One of the local residents proposed that we amalgamate Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common into one ward. A three-councillor ward with these boundaries would have poor electoral equality, with 100% more electors than the average for the authority. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

40 The other local resident proposed that the boundary between Mortlake & Barnes Common and North Richmond should be Clifford Avenue. Electors in Kingsway, Shalstone Road and Lower Richmond Road would move into Mortlake & Barnes Common ward. The respondent argued that electors here have more of an affinity with Mortlake & Barnes Common than North Richmond. This proposal would mean that Mortlake & Barnes Common would have an electoral variance of 10% more electors than the average for the rest of Richmond upon Thames by 2025. We do not feel that sufficient evidence has been provided to recommend a ward with an

8

electoral variance of 10%; however, we would be particularly interested to hear from electors in Kingsway, Shalstone Road and Lower Richmond Road about whether they feel that Clifford Avenue is the defining boundary in this area.

41 We are recommending a small amendment to the boundary between Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common to improve electoral equality across both wards. The boundary will move from Glebe Road to run around the perimeter of Barnes Green. Electors in Hillersdon Avenue, Laurel Road and The Crescent will move from Mortlake & Barnes Common ward into Barnes ward.

42 Both wards would have good electoral equality by 2025.

North Richmond and Kew 43 We received one submission from a local organisation that suggested redrawing the wards across North Richmond and Kew. They suggested that the northern boundary of North Richmond should be Lower Mortlake Road. Electors north of here and south of The Avenue, currently in Kew ward, would form a newly created North Sheen ward. Electors north of The Avenue and south of the River Thames would remain in a Kew ward. This proposal would worsen electoral equality in North Richmond (8%) and Kew (9%). A North Sheen ward would have good electoral equality at 1%.

44 We do not feel that sufficient evidence has been provided to recommend a warding pattern with worse electoral equality than either our draft recommendations or the existing wards. We are therefore not recommending this proposal. However, we would be interested to receive feedback from local residents and organisations in this area about whether three two-councillor wards, as outlined above, would be a better reflection of communities in this area.

45 Our draft recommendations for North Richmond and Kew are based on the existing ward boundaries, with a small modification to the boundary to run behind the properties at 46–80 The Avenue.

46 North Richmond and Kew would have good electoral equality by 2025.

9

South-east Richmond

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors East Sheen 3 3% Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside 3 -6% South Richmond 3 -5%

East Sheen 47 We received one submission regarding the boundaries of East Sheen ward, from a local resident. The respondent suggested that East Sheen Common and Sheen Common Drive (currently in South Richmond ward) should be wholly included in East Sheen ward. We visited this area on our tour of the borough and felt that redrawing the boundary to include East Sheen Common in East Sheen would reflect local community interests and identities. We are therefore adopting this proposal.

Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond 48 We received three submissions regarding the boundary between South Richmond and Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside wards, from a councillor for South Richmond ward and two local residents. All three respondents argued that the areas of Ham and Petersham should form a stand-alone ward, while electors north of Star and Garter Hill should be included in South Richmond ward. The local

10

residents argued that there is a sense of separation between the communities of Ham and Petersham and those residents living north of Star and Garter Hill.

49 While we do consider that there is a sense of separation between these communities, a three-councillor Ham & Petersham ward would have poor electoral equality at -18%. A two-councillor Ham & Petersham ward would also have poor electoral equality at 20%. Because of the strong physical boundaries surrounding this ward (the river in the west, the authority boundary in the south and Richmond Park in the east), we consider that continuing to group Ham and Petersham with electors living north of Star and Garter Hill to be the best balance of our statutory criteria in this area.

50 Our draft Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond wards are therefore based on the existing ward boundaries here (with the exception of the small amendment to South Richmond ward referenced in paragraph 47). Both wards would have good electoral equality by 2025.

11

Hampton Wick and Teddington

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Hampton Wick & South Teddington 3 4% Teddington 3 -2%

Hampton Wick & South Teddington 51 We did not receive any submissions that suggested new boundaries for the existing Hampton Wick ward.

52 However, we did receive a detailed submission from a local councillor that argued in favour of reflecting the community of South Teddington in the name of the ward. The councillor proposed the name Hampton Wick & South Teddington. We are recommending adopting this proposal.

53 Hampton Wick & South Teddington would have good electoral equality by 2025.

Teddington 54 We received a submission from a local resident that argued for the inclusion of Southfield Gardens (and by extension Cusack Close) in Teddington ward, as

12

opposed to South Richmond ward. Including electors here in a draft Teddington ward would have fair electoral equality by 2025 at 7%. However, based on our tour of the area, we did not feel that this offered a particularly clear or identifiable boundary. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

55 We also received a submission from a local resident in the existing Hampton Wick ward that argued they felt a stronger affinity with Teddington; however, they did not propose an alternative ward boundary.

56 The Conservative Group proposed amending the boundary between Fulwell & Hampton Hill and Teddington, discussed further in paragraph 60. We are recommending adopting these proposals.

57 Teddington ward would have good electoral equality by 2025.

13

Hampton

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Fulwell & Hampton Hill 3 3% Hampton 3 -3% Hampton North 3 -5%

Fulwell & Hampton Hill 58 We received a submission from a councillor for Fulwell & Hampton Hill requesting that Fulwell Golf Course move from West Twickenham ward to Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward, based on the casework that is generated by a footpath that crosses through the golf course. This proposal only affects three electors and we include it as part of our draft recommendations.

59 We received a submission from a local resident that requested electors in Fairlight flats, Arundel Close, The Garth, Jeffs Close (and by extension Longford Court) be included in our draft Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward as opposed to Hampton North on the basis of community ties. We visited this area on our tour of the borough and felt that Longford River forms a strong and identifiable boundary between electors here and electors in Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward. We are therefore not adopting this proposal.

14

60 The Conservative Group proposed amending the boundary of the existing Teddington ward, to include electors on Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way in Fulwell & Hampton Hill, to improve electoral equality in Teddington. We are recommending adopting this proposal.

Hampton and Hampton North 61 We are recommending a small modification to the existing Hampton North ward to include all electors along Queens Road and Hartland Road in our draft Hampton North ward. We are also proposing to move electors at 147–181 Burtons Road into Hampton North. We feel this proposal offers a stronger boundary, as well as improving electoral equality between Fulwell & Hampton Hill and Hampton North.

62 The Conservative Group recommended altering the boundary between Hampton and Hampton North to improve electoral equality between the two wards, proposing that the boundary run behind the properties on the south side of Broad Lane, as opposed to down the centre of the road.

63 We visited this area on our tour of the borough and felt that this was a sound proposal. We are therefore recommending adopting it, with a slight modification around Garside Close, which we feel is better suited in our draft Hampton North ward.

64 Fulwell & Hampton Hill, Hampton and Hampton North would have good electoral equality by 2025.

15

Whitton and North Twickenham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors St Margarets & North Twickenham 3 7% Whitton 3 4% Whitton South 3 -7%

St Margarets & North Twickenham 65 St Margarets & North Twickenham ward is forecast to have 11% more electors than the average for Richmond upon Thames by 2025. We therefore sought to reduce the number of electors in this ward, in order to deliver better electoral equality for the area.

66 The Conservative Group proposed to move the ward boundary between Whitton and St Margarets & North Twickenham from the Duke of Northumberland’s River to run along Whitton Road, before turning south, along Chudleigh Road, to meet Chertsey Road. The boundary would then run east along Chertsey Road, before turning north along London Road to meet the authority boundary. Electors in Chudleigh Road, Palmerston Road, Glebe Side, Marlow Crescent and Burnside Close would move into Whitton ward from St Margarets & North Twickenham ward.

67 We visited this area of Twickenham on our tour of the borough and did not feel that the proposal to run the boundary behind the properties on Chudleigh Road

16

would offer a particularly strong or clearly identifiable boundary. We did, however, feel that the proposal to use Chertsey Road was sound. Our draft recommendations are therefore based on the Conservative scheme, with an amendment to use Chertsey Road as the boundary between St Margarets & North Twickenham and Whitton.

68 We would be particularly interested to hear from electors near Twickenham Stoop, in Gladstone Avenue, Denehurst Gardens and Rosecroft Gardens, about whether they are better included in St Margarets & North Twickenham ward or Whitton ward.

Whitton and Whitton South 69 The Conservative Group proposed renaming the existing Heathfield ward Whitton South to better reflect community identity. We are recommending this proposal.

70 We are recommending one small amendment to the boundary between Whitton and Whitton South wards to use the railway line north of Nelson Road as the boundary. Electors in Argyle Avenue and Whitton Waye, and electors at 300–368 Nelson Road, will move from Whitton South into Whitton ward. This proposal was supported by two local residents.

71 St Margarets & North Twickenham, Whitton and Whitton South would have good electoral equality by 2025.

17

Twickenham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors South Twickenham 3 -5% Twickenham Riverside 3 -2% West Twickenham 3 0%

South Twickenham and West Twickenham 72 The Conservative Group proposed a small amendment to the ward boundary between South Twickenham and West Twickenham, to include 120–136 Mereway Road and all of Colne Road within South Twickenham ward. We are recommending this proposal, with a modification to also include Briar Road and 2–26 Staines Road in South Twickenham ward, as we feel this offers a more distinct boundary.

73 We received a submission from a local resident arguing that First Cross Road should be included within South Twickenham ward. We are recommending this proposal.

74 Both wards would have good electoral equality by 2025.

Twickenham Riverside 75 The partial scheme that we received from the Conservative Group proposed retaining the existing ward boundaries of Twickenham Riverside. As the ward is

18

forecast to have good electoral equality by 2025, we are recommending retaining the existing boundaries.

76 The Conservative Group proposed adding ‘East Twickenham’ to the name of Twickenham Riverside, to better reflect the community here. On balance, we do not consider Twickenham Riverside & East Twickenham to be an effective ward name. We would, however, be interested to receive feedback from local residents and organisations in this area as to whether this would be a more suitable name for the ward.

19

20

Conclusions

77 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Richmond upon Thames, referencing the 2019 and 2025 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

2019 2025 Number of councillors 54 54 Number of electoral wards 18 18 Average number of electors per councillor 2,580 2,723 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 0 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Draft recommendations

Richmond upon Thames Council should be made up of 54 councillors representing 18 three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Mapping

Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Richmond upon Thames. You can also view our draft recommendations for Richmond upon Thames on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

21

22

Have your say

78 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.

79 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Richmond upon Thames, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

80 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

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

Review Officer (Richmond upon Thames) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

82 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Richmond upon Thames 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.

83 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.

23

84 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Richmond upon Thames?

85 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?

86 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?

87 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 deposit at our offices 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.

88 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.

89 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.

90 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

24

Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Richmond upon Thames in 2022.

25

26

Equalities 91 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.

27

28

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Richmond upon Thames

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Barnes 3 7,314 2,438 -6% 7,871 2,624 -4%

2 East Sheen 3 7,489 2,496 -3% 8,426 2,809 3% Fulwell & 3 3 7,785 2,595 1% 8,445 2,815 3% Hampton Hill Ham, Petersham 4 & Richmond 3 7,274 2,425 -6% 7,689 2,563 -6% Riverside 5 Hampton 3 7,742 2,581 0% 7,907 2,636 -3%

6 Hampton North 3 7,142 2,381 -8% 7,797 2,599 -5%

Hampton Wick & 7 3 8,007 2,669 3% 8,485 2,828 4% South Teddington

8 Kew 3 8,400 2,800 9% 8,770 2,923 7% Mortlake & Barnes 9 3 8,006 2,669 3% 8,439 2,813 3% Common 10 North Richmond 3 8,126 2,709 5% 8,579 2,860 5%

11 South Richmond 3 7,931 2,644 2% 7,755 2,585 -5%

29

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % South 12 3 7,238 2,413 -6% 7,803 2,601 -5% Twickenham St Margarets & 13 3 8,413 2,804 9% 8,778 2,926 7% North Twickenham

14 Teddington 3 7,951 2,650 3% 8,025 2,675 -2% Twickenham 15 3 7,636 2,545 -1% 7,999 2,666 -2% Riverside 16 West Twickenham 3 7,962 2,654 3% 8,144 2,715 0%

17 Whitton 3 7,168 2,389 -7% 8,532 2,844 4%

18 Whitton South 3 7,743 2,581 0% 7,625 2,542 -7%

Totals 54 139,327 – – 147,069 – –

Averages – – 2,580 – – 2,723 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Richmond upon Thames 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.

30

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Barnes 2 East Sheen 3 Fulwell & Hampton Hill 4 Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside 5 Hampton 6 Hampton North 7 Hampton Wick & South Teddington 8 Kew 9 Mortlake & Barnes Common 10 North Richmond

31

11 South Richmond 12 South Twickenham 13 St Margarets & North Twickenham 14 Teddington 15 Twickenham Riverside 16 West Twickenham 17 Whitton 18 Whitton South

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

32

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: https://www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/richmond-upon- thames

Political Groups

• Conservative Group (Richmond upon Thames Council)

Councillors

• Councillor R. Brown (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor J. Cardy (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor B. Newton Dunn (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor S. Nicholson (Richmond upon Thames Council)

Local Organisations

• Friends of Murray Park • The Richmond Society

Local Residents

• 15 local residents

33

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

34

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

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