Draft recommendations on the new electoral arrangements for London Borough of

Electoral review

July 2012

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

Tel: 020 7664 8534 Email: [email protected]

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

Licence Number: GD 100049926 2012

Contents

Summary 1

1 Introduction 4

2 Analysis and draft recommendations 6

Submissions received 6 Electorate figures 7 Council size 7 Electoral fairness 8 General analysis 8 Electoral arrangements 9 North Hackney 9 South-west Hackney 12 Central Hackney 14 South-east Hackney 16

3 What happens next? 19

4 Mapping 21

Appendices

A Glossary and abbreviations 22

B Table B1: Draft recommendations for London Borough of 25 Hackney

Summary

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

The review aims to ensure that the number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same. The Commission commenced the review in January 2012. This review is being conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description February 2012 Information gathering – Council invited to submit proposals for warding arrangements to LGBCE 10 April 2012 LGBCE’s analysis and formulation of draft recommendations 17 July 2012 Publication of draft recommendations and consultation on them 25 September 2012 Analysis of submissions received and formulation of final recommendations

Submissions received

The Commission received two submissions following an initial dialogue with the Council on council size. Following our invitation to the Council to make submissions on a draft electoral scheme for Hackney, we received three submissions including two borough-wide proposals, one on behalf of the Council and one from the Liberal Democrat group. An additional representation was received from the Conservative group on the Council. All submissions can be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Analysis and draft recommendations

Electorate figures

The London Borough of Hackney has forecast an increase in electorate of approximately 4% across the borough for the six-year period 2011–17. The most significant growth was forecast to take place in the Woodberry Down estate in the north of the borough, which is undergoing long-term redevelopment.

We noted that there appeared to be some discrepancies between the forecasts supplied by the borough at polling district level and the forecasts set out in its submission on new ward boundaries. We sought clarification from the Council with respect to these discrepancies. The Council subsequently resubmitted its forecasts, although some inconsistencies remain. Therefore, for consistency, we have referred only to the polling district level forecasts prepared by the Council in analysing submissions received and developing our own proposals.

1

We are broadly satisfied that the forecasts supplied for polling districts are the best available at this time and these form the basis of our draft recommendations for Hackney.

Council size

The London Borough of Hackney currently has a council size of 57 councillors. We received two submissions following our dialogue with the Council on council size. The Council proposed an unchanged council size of 57, based on the heavy workload currently placed on elected members and on the diversity of the borough. The Council argued that the ability to represent a diverse population may be compromised under a reduced council size. The Conservative group submission proposed an increased council size of 60, on the basis that this would ensure effective scrutiny arrangements.

We considered that insufficient evidence had been provided by the Conservative group to support a council size of 60. In particular, it was not clear why effective scrutiny required an increase in council size. We noted the view of the Council that a council size of 57 provided for effective governance and representation, and that representational roles may be adversely affected by a reduction in council size.

We therefore propose a council size of 57 members for the London Borough of Hackney.

General analysis

During our information gathering stage, we received three submissions on warding arrangements for the London Borough of Hackney. Two of these submissions – those of the Council and the Liberal Democrat group – were borough-wide proposals. The other submission, from the Conservative group, did not make detailed ward proposals but raised objections to the scheme submitted on behalf of the Council.

We have predominately based our draft recommendations for Hackney on the Council’s scheme and that of the Liberal Democrat group. However, in some areas of the borough we have put forward our own proposals to better reflect our statutory criteria.

Our draft recommendations provide for a 57-member council with 13 three-member wards and nine two-member wards. No ward is forecast to have a variance of more than 10% from the borough average by 2017.

What happens next?

There will now be a consultation period, during which time we encourage comment on the draft recommendations on the proposed electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Hackney contained in the report. We take this consultation very seriously and it is therefore important that all those interested in the review should let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with these draft proposals. We will take into account all submissions received by 24 September 2012. Any received after this date may not be taken into account. We would particularly welcome local views backed up by demonstrable evidence. We will consider all the evidence submitted to us during the consultation period before preparing our final recommendations. Express your views by writing directly to us at:

2

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

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

3

1 Introduction

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

2 We wrote to the London Borough of Hackney inviting the submission of proposals on warding arrangements for the Council. The submissions received during these stages of the review have informed our draft recommendations.

3 We are now conducting a full public consultation on the draft recommendations. Following this period of consultation, we will consider the evidence received and will publish our final recommendations for the new electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Hackney in late 2012.

What is an electoral review?

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

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

Why are we conducting a review in Hackney?

6 We decided to conduct this review because, based on December 2011 electorate figures, 37% of electoral wards have variances of over 10% from the average for the borough. This is forecast to improve only slightly by 2017, with 32% of wards forecast to have variances of over 10% from the average.

How will the recommendations affect you?

7 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve in the borough. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. In addition, your ward name may change.

8 It is therefore important that you let us have your comments and views on the draft recommendations. We encourage comments from everyone in the community, regardless of whether you agree with the draft recommendations or not. The draft

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

4 recommendations are evidence based and we therefore stress the importance of providing evidence in any comments on our recommendations, rather than relying on assertion. We will accept comments and views until 24 September 2012. After this point, we will be formulating our final recommendations which we are due to publish in the winter of 2012. Details on how to submit proposals can be found on page 19 and more information can be found on our website, www.lgbce.org.uk

What is the Local Government Boundary Commission for England?

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

Members of the Commission are:

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

Chief Executive: Alan Cogbill Director of Reviews: Archie Gall

5

2 Analysis and draft recommendations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Submissions received

15 Prior to, and during, the initial stages of the review, we visited the London Borough of Hackney and met with the Mayor, members and officers. We are grateful to all concerned for their co-operation and assistance. We received two submissions

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 6 relating to council size and three submissions at our information gathering stage, all of which may be inspected at both our offices and those of the Council. All representations received can also be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures

16 As part of this review, the Council submitted electorate forecasts for the year 2017, projecting an increase in electorate of approximately 4% over the period from 2011 to 2017.

17 Forecast electorate growth varied by area but was particularly high in the area covered by the Woodberry Down estate, which is undergoing long-term redevelopment. Substantial growth was also forecast in the Town area, with more modest growth forecast for the remainder of the borough.

18 We had some concerns with the way forecast electorate growth was calculated at polling district level. In particular, we were concerned that some polling district level forecasts may not reflect specific areas of housing growth.

19 Following a request for further information, the Council confirmed that the forecasts incorporated the effects of housing growth projected by the Authority, whose electorate forecasts were used as the basis for the Council’s own forecasts. We are therefore broadly satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time and these figures form the basis for our draft recommendations for Hackney.

20 We noted, however, that there were discrepancies between the polling district level forecasts and the figures submitted by the Council and Liberal Democrat group in setting out their recommendations for new warding arrangements. This discrepancy appears to be attributable to the use of an inconsistent methodology for the calculation of electorates for these proposed new wards.

21 The Council and Liberal Democrat group were invited to revise their submissions in the light of these discrepancies. However, inconsistencies remained in the revised submissions. For the purpose of consistency, we have therefore referred solely to polling district level forecasts in analysing submissions and developing our draft recommendations for warding arrangements for the London Borough of Hackney.

Council size

22 The Council currently has 57 councillors elected from 19 three-member wards. At the beginning of the electoral review, we met council officers and elected members to discuss council size. Following these discussions, we received two submissions on the most appropriate council size for the authority. A submission from the Council proposed retaining the existing council size of 57, while the Conservative group on the council proposed that council size should increase to 60.

23 The Council’s proposal for a membership of 57 was predominantly based on existing and anticipated future workload, as well as the diversity of the borough and 7 high levels of need amongst the population. The Council expressed concern that continued population growth in Hackney would undermine elected members’ ability to effectively represent electors if council size reduced.

24 The Council’s submission also noted that the diversity of the borough, and in particular its high proportion of social housing, generated higher casework for members than comparable authorities. The Council also stated that it was considering a revised framework for neighbourhood engagement which may place a greater burden on elected members.

25 The Conservative submission made many similar points with respect to the diversity of the borough and high levels of need amongst the population. The group also argued that the Mayoral system in Hackney required increased scrutiny. For this reason, the submission stated that a council size of 60 was most appropriate for the Council.

26 We noted that the Council’s submission for a council size of 57 provided evidence on key areas, including existing and future workloads of members, roles and responsibilities of members, and the distinctive attributes of the borough. We did not consider that the Conservative group submission provided adequate evidence for increasing the membership of the Council by three.

27 On balance, we consider that sufficient evidence has been received to support the Council’s proposal for a council size of 57 members. As a consequence, these draft recommendations are based on a council size of 57 members for the London Borough of Hackney.

Electoral fairness

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

29 In seeking to achieve electoral fairness, we calculate the average number of electors per councillor. The borough average is calculated by dividing the total electorate of the borough (166,518 in 2012 and 172,679 by 2017) by the total number of councillors representing them on the council – 57 under our draft recommendations. Therefore, the average number of electors per councillor under our draft recommendations is 2,921 in 2012 and 3,029 by 2017.

30 Under the draft recommendations, none of our proposed 22 wards will have an electoral variance of greater than 10% from the average for the borough by 2017. We are therefore satisfied that we have achieved good levels of electoral fairness under our draft recommendations for Hackney.

General analysis

31 We received three submissions during our information gathering stage. The 8

Council and the Liberal Democrat group made borough-wide warding proposals. The Conservative group did not make a detailed submission on ward boundaries, but raised objections to the submission prepared by the Council.

32 Our draft recommendations provide for 13 three-member wards and nine two- member wards. Our proposals combine elements of the Council and Liberal Democrat group schemes, with amendments in particular areas to better reflect our statutory criteria.

Electoral arrangements

33 This section of the report details the submissions received, our consideration of them, and our draft recommendations for each area of Hackney. The following areas are considered in turn:

 North Hackney (page 9)  South-west Hackney (page 12)  Central Hackney (page 14)  South-east Hackney (page 16)

34 We have broadly based our draft recommendations on the Council scheme in North Hackney and South-East Hackney and the Liberal Democrat group scheme in South-West Hackney. In Central Hackney, we have again broadly based our proposals on the Council scheme but have proposed a number of amendments.

35 Details of the draft recommendations are set out in Table B1 on pages 25–7 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

North Hackney

36 The north of Hackney comprises the communities of , Upper Clapton, the Woodberry Down estate and the areas around Park and . The area is currently somewhat over-represented, with the Springfield and wards both having electorates more than 10% below the borough average.

37 The Council and Liberal Democrat group proposals in this area were substantially different. The Council proposed a new configuration of wards, with the Woodberry Down estate – currently divided between and wards – being united in a two-member ward. Brownswood would reduce to a two- member ward and consist of most of the area to the west of Green Lanes, while a new two-member Stamford Hill West ward would comprise the northern end of the existing Lordship ward and part of New River ward.

38 Under the Council’s proposals, a new Stamford Hill East ward would comprise parts of the existing Springfield, and New River wards, while a new Upper Clapton ward would comprise the southern end of Cazenove and Springfield. Finally, the boundaries of Clissold and wards in central Hackney would move north to Lordship Park and Manor Road, taking in the areas around Clissold

9

Park and .

39 The Liberal Democrat proposals were largely based on existing boundaries, with Brownswood ward taking in a larger proportion of the Woodberry Down estate, and New River (renamed Stamford Hill) losing areas to Lordship (renamed Abney) and reducing to two members. The submission also proposed a Cazenove ward which would include a western section of the existing Springfield ward and proposed that the southern boundary of the existing Springfield ward move south to take in part of the existing ward.

40 We were not persuaded that the Liberal Democrat group scheme in this area provided for the most effective balance between the statutory criteria. In particular, we did not consider it appropriate to maintain the divide of the Woodberry Down estate between two wards given the viability of the Council’s alternative proposal in this area that places the whole estate in a two-member ward.

41 The Liberal Democrat group addressed this point in their submission, characterising the proposal to unite the estate in a single ward as ‘ghettoisation’ which would ‘not be good for the area’. However, the submission also acknowledges that it is an area with ‘a strong focus and sense of community’.

42 We were concerned that, given the viability of the Council’s proposal which unites the Woodberry Down estate in a single ward, a submission which maintains an arbitrary divide of the estate would not be conducive to community identity. We have therefore not adopted the Liberal Democrat group scheme in this area as part of our draft recommendations, instead adopting in principle the Council’s proposal for a two- member Woodberry Down ward.

43 We have also adopted the Council proposals for a two-member Brownswood ward, located entirely to the west of Green Lanes, as part of our draft recommendations. This is another cohesive community which appears to identify most strongly with neighbouring Finsbury Park, outside the borough boundary. This ward is forecast to have 9% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

44 The Council proposed to move the northern boundaries of Clissold and Stoke Newington wards to Lordship Park and Manor Road. This proposal would transfer the residential areas around and Abney Park Cemetery into wards centred on the community of Stoke Newington. We accept this revised boundary as we consider that it better defines the communities of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill areas than the existing wards.

45 We were also concerned that the Liberal Democrat group’s proposed Abney ward combined parts of the communities of Stoke Newington and Stamford Hill, and therefore divided these communities unnecessarily. We have therefore adopted the Council’s proposed boundary in this area as part of our draft recommendations, with some minor amendments.

46 The area of terraced housing along the north of Fairholt Road clearly has a stronger association with the terraced streets to its south than with Woodberry Down.

10

We therefore propose amending the boundary between the Council’s proposed Stamford Hill West and Woodberry Down wards so that it runs immediately to the south of the East Reservoir, rather than along the middle of Fairholt Road. This amendment has the effect of improving the forecast electoral equality of Woodberry Down ward, to 7% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

47 We also propose a minor amendment to the Council submission to avoid dividing the estate to the north of Amhurst Park between Stamford Hill East and Woodberry Down wards. Under our proposals this estate would be entirely contained within Woodberry Down ward.

48 The proposal to include the Fairholt Road terraces in Stamford Hill West means that this ward becomes somewhat oversized. To improve electoral equality, we therefore propose to transfer the residential area to the north of Northfield Road into Stamford Hill East ward.

49 We also considered the possibility of amending the boundary along Durley Road to avoid isolating the residential street of West Bank from its neighbouring area. However, any amendment to the boundary in this area would have an unacceptable impact on electoral equality, leaving either Stamford Hill West or Woodberry Down with a forecast electorate greater than 10% from the borough average by 2017.

50 We have therefore adopted the Council’s proposal to include West Bank in Stamford Hill West ward, maintaining the boundary along Durley Road. Stamford Hill West ward is forecast to have 4% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

51 At the north-east end of the borough, the Council’s proposed Stamford Hill East ward is predominantly located to the north of the Cazenove Road, while the community to the south of Cazenove Road is united in a new Upper Clapton ward. The Liberal Democrat group’s alternative scheme largely maintained existing boundaries, with Cazenove ward gaining a residential area to the south of Clapton Common and Springfield ward extended to include a residential area to the south of the railway line.

52 We were concerned that the Liberal Democrat group’s scheme did not adequately reflect community ties, particularly in respect of its proposals for Springfield ward which combined parts of the area identifying with Upper Clapton with parts of the Stamford Hill area. We do not believe this proposal has sufficient regard for community identity and so we have not adopted it as part of our draft recommendations.

53 We have instead adopted the Council’s proposals for this area as part of our draft recommendations, with some minor amendments. As well as the changes to the Stamford Hill East area described above, we also propose to include the area around Lampard Grove and Windus Road in Stamford Hill East ward. We consider this area has stronger connections to its north, and provides for a clearer boundary between the two wards.

11

54 With these amendments, Stamford Hill East ward would be forecast to have 8% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

55 The amendment to the boundary with Stamford Hill East results in a deterioration of electoral equality in Upper Clapton ward. We therefore propose an amendment to the boundary of Upper Clapton in the Mount Pleasant Hill and Alcester Crescent area. Moving the boundary to the railway line unites the area to the north of the railway in a single ward, providing for a much stronger boundary while improving electoral equality in Upper Clapton. This revised Upper Clapton ward is forecast to have 6% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

South-west Hackney

56 The south-west of Hackney comprises the communities of , , , and . It is somewhat under- represented on existing boundaries, with both Hoxton and De Beauvoir wards forecast to have electorates more than 10% greater than the borough average by 2017.

57 The Council’s submission proposed a Hoxton North ward comprising parts of the existing De Beauvoir and Hoxton wards, with Downham Road forming the northern boundary, incorporating the post-war De Beauvoir estate. The proposed Hoxton South ward would comprise the majority of the existing Hoxton ward, while Haggerston ward would remain unchanged with the exception of the transfer of a small area west of Stanway Street into the new Hoxton North ward. The proposed ward would also remain unchanged, and include most of the community around London Fields.

58 In order to retain De Beauvoir as a three-member ward, the Council proposed that it be extended across Kingsland Road to include the centre of and form a new three-member ward named Dalston & De Beauvoir.

59 In contrast, the Liberal Democrat group proposed a pattern of one three- member and five two-member wards in this area. The area to the south of the Regent’s Canal would comprise three two-member wards named Hoxton, Wenlock and South Shoreditch, while De Beauvoir would become a two-member ward, retaining its eastern boundary along Kingsland Road and a new southern boundary following the Regent’s Canal.

60 The Liberal Democrat group submission also proposed that Haggerston become a two-member ward, with an area of predominantly social housing to the north of the canal being transferred to Queensbridge ward. Queensbridge ward would in turn lose the residential area in the immediate vicinity of London Fields to a new London Fields ward.

61 In principle, we consider that the Liberal Democrat group scheme provides for stronger boundaries and better reflects community identities in this area. We were concerned that the Council’s proposed Dalston & De Beauvoir ward combined two distinct communities across the Kingsland Road, with poor connectivity between the two areas. The De Beauvoir ward proposed by the Liberal Democrat group, in our

12 view, provides a better reflection of the boundaries of the De Beauvoir Town area. This ward is forecast to have 8% more electors than the borough average by 2017.

62 The Council’s proposed Haggerston ward is largely unchanged from the existing boundaries, but we do not consider that it reflects community identities as strongly as the alternative proposal from the Liberal Democrat group. In particular, the community and communication links between the Haggerston area and the residential and commercial developments of southern Shoreditch are weak. We believe that the Liberal Democrat group proposals for three two-member wards in this area provide for a much stronger reflection of communities.

63 However, the Liberal Democrat group’s proposed South Shoreditch and Wenlock wards would both be somewhat over-represented, with both wards forecast to have electorates more than 10% smaller than the borough average by 2017. We therefore propose to amend the Liberal Democrat group proposals to improve electoral equality.

64 We propose to transfer the residential estate east of Provost Street and south of Murray Grove into South Shoreditch ward. This would mean the South Shoreditch ward would have an equal number of electors per councillor to the borough average by 2017. We also propose to rename this ward Shoreditch as we consider the name South Shoreditch may be confusing.

65 In order to improve the electoral equality of Wenlock ward, we propose to transfer the estates around Buckland Street and Cherbury Street into Wenlock ward from Hoxton ward. This is a densely populated area of medium- and high-rise flats, with connections to the south as well as to the north. The transfer of this estate, together with the amendment to the Shoreditch boundary, means Wenlock is forecast to have 4% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

66 This amendment leaves Hoxton ward somewhat undersized. We therefore propose to move the eastern boundary of Hoxton ward to the railway line, east of the Kingsland Road boundary, as proposed by the Liberal Democrat group. With this amendment, Hoxton is forecast to have 1% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

67 We also propose that Haggerston remains a three-member ward. To provide for satisfactory electoral equality, we propose the area around Brownlow Road and Pownall Road be transferred from Queensbridge ward to Haggerston ward. This would unite the areas of social housing on either side of Queensbridge Road, which are split between wards on the existing boundaries. The three-member Haggerston ward is forecast to have 9% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

68 To improve electoral equality in Queensbridge ward, we propose the northern boundary of the ward move from Richmond Road to Forest Road. This is consistent with the Liberal Democrat group submission and transfers an area of housing with connections to its south as well as to its north. We also propose Queensbridge ward be renamed London Fields to better reflect community identity. This ward is forecast to have 3% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

13

Central Hackney

69 Central Hackney comprises the communities of Stoke Newington, Dalston, and Lower Clapton, as well as the historic settlement of . The area is slightly under-represented on current boundaries, particularly in the area of Dalston ward, which is forecast to have 20% more electors than the borough average by 2017.

70 As set out in the south-west Hackney section, we were not persuaded that the Council’s proposed Dalston & De Beauvoir ward had sufficient regard for our statutory criteria. The ward combines two areas with weak community ties on either side of Kingsland Road.

71 The Council proposed to make minor amendments to the ward to accommodate its proposed Dalston & De Beauvoir ward, transferring a residential area between Graham Road and the railway line into Hackney Central to improve electoral equality.

72 The Council also proposed a new three-member Shacklewell ward combining the southern end of the existing Stoke Newington ward with the northern end of Dalston ward. It also proposed to move the northern boundary of Clissold and Stoke Newington wards north to Lordship Park and Manor Road in order to accommodate its changes in the north of the borough. Minor changes were also proposed to Leabridge ward, with Hackney Downs ward proposed to remain unchanged.

73 The Liberal Democrat group submission proposed a significantly different warding pattern. It proposed a new two-member London Fields ward comprising parts of the existing Hackney Central and Queensbridge wards. Hackney Downs ward was proposed to take in parts of Hackney Central and wards, while the area of the existing Hackney Downs ward north of Downs Road was divided between Stoke Newington and a new two-member Clapton ward.

74 The Liberal Democrat group submission also proposed a Shacklewell ward consisting of an area almost completely different to that proposed by the Council. This ward would be a two-member ward comprising parts of the existing Clissold, Dalston and Stoke Newington wards.

75 Dalston ward remained a three-member ward under the Liberal Democrat group proposal, losing some territory to the new Shacklewell ward but gaining parts of the existing Hackney Central ward. Finally, as discussed in the north Hackney section, Leabridge ward (renamed Millfields) lost its northern end to the revised Springfield ward and a larger area to the King’s Park ward (renamed Clapton Park) while gaining a small area from Chatham ward. The revised Millfields ward would also be a two- member ward.

76 We are concerned that the Liberal Democrat group submission does not have sufficient regard for community identities in this part of Hackney, and that some of its proposed boundaries appear somewhat arbitrary. As discussed in the north Hackney section above, we also believe that a northern boundary of Lordship Park and Manor Road provides a better reflection of community identity in the Clissold and Stoke

14

Newington wards.

77 Overall, we believe the Council’s proposals provide for stronger boundaries and a better reflection of the statutory criteria in this area. However, as stated above, we do not consider the Council’s proposed Dalston & De Beauvoir ward has sufficient regard for community identity or effective and convenient local government.

78 As an alternative, we propose a two-member Dalston ward, comprising the north-east section of the Council’s proposed ward with parts of Hackney Central and a small part of the Shacklewell ward to provide for satisfactory electoral equality. This ward is forecast to have 6% fewer electors than the borough average by 2017.

79 We also propose Hackney Central becomes a two-member ward, with the area around Amhurst Road transferring into our proposed Shacklewell ward. This new Hackney Central ward is forecast to have 5% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

80 As a consequence of our proposed amendments, it is necessary to reduce the electorate of Shacklewell ward to maintain satisfactory electoral equality. We propose that an area bounded by Farleigh Road and Manse Road should remain within Stoke Newington ward, rather than being transferred into the new Shacklewell ward. This comprises around 1,500 electors and would mean Shacklewell ward has 1% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

81 This proposal reduces the need to transfer electors between Clissold and Stoke Newington wards as set out in the Council’s submission. We have therefore not adopted the Council’s proposals in the area straddling Londesborough Road, which is included in Clissold ward as part of our draft recommendations.

82 However, we accept the proposal to transfer a smaller area around Oldfield Road into Stoke Newington ward, and also propose transferring the Ayrsome Road area into Stoke Newington to provide for better electoral equality. With these amendments, Stoke Newington ward and Clissold ward are forecast to have 4% more and 6% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017 respectively.

83 To the east, we have adopted the Council’s proposal to retain the existing Hackney Downs ward, as it has clear boundaries and good electoral equality. Hackney Downs is forecast to have 1% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

84 A minor amendment to the northern boundary of Leabridge ward has already been addressed in the north Hackney section of this report. We also propose a minor change in the south of the ward to better reflect community ties and provide for good electoral equality. This change would transfer all of the terraced properties immediately north of Hospital into Leabridge ward. This unites this residential area in a single ward and means that Leabridge is forecast to have 2% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017. We also propose the ward is renamed , to reflect the name of the road and area after which it is named.

15

South-east Hackney

85 The south-east area of the borough comprises the communities around Clapton Park, Hackney , Homerton and Park. Under current electoral arrangements, King’s Park ward is forecast to have 14% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

86 The Council proposed only minor changes to the wards in this area. Most notably, they proposed to move the boundary of King’s Park ward from Glyn Road to Brooksby’s Walk, taking in an area of terraced housing from Chatham ward. The redrawn King’s Park ward is forecast to have 6% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2017.

87 The Council also proposed to amend the boundary between Leabridge and Chatham wards so that it ran along Glenarm Road. As discussed above, we consider it would be more appropriate for this area of terraced housing to be united in a single ward, and so propose as an alternative that the boundary runs along the rear of the properties on Clifden Road, immediately to the north of Homerton hospital.

88 The Council also proposed a minor amendment between Victoria and Wick wards to include the entirety of Meynell Crescent in Wick ward. We have adopted this boundary as part of our draft recommendations.

89 The Liberal Democrat group scheme in this area was also based on existing ward boundaries, but proposed more substantial changes. It proposed that Chatham ward – renamed Homerton ward – should lose an area to the proposed Hackney Downs ward, as discussed above. To balance electoral equality, it proposed that the boundary between Homerton and Victoria wards should move south to Well Street. Victoria ward would be renamed , and its electoral equality would be improved with the inclusion of an area to the west of Mare Street, transferred from Queensbridge ward.

90 The Liberal Democrat group also propose transferring a social housing estate to Wick ward from Homerton ward, while King’s Park ward – renamed Clapton Park ward – would gain a residential area west of Chatsworth Road from Leabridge ward (renamed Millfields ward in the Liberal Democrat group submission).

91 We were not persuaded that the Liberal Democrat group’s proposed changes in this area made for a better balance between the statutory criteria. Some proposed boundaries appeared to divide areas of social housing, while others – such as the inclusion of an area to the west of Mare Street in South Hackney ward – appeared arbitrary.

92 We therefore propose to adopt the Council’s proposed warding pattern in this area, with three minor amendments. The first is the change to the boundary between Lea Bridge ward and Chatham ward, discussed above. We also propose to transfer a building facing onto Chatsworth Road from King’s Park ward to Lea Bridge ward. This unites all the properties facing Chatsworth Road in a single ward.

93 To improve electoral equality in Chatham ward, we propose moving the

16 southern boundary from Brenthouse Road to Loddiges Road. This transfers an area of social housing into Chatham ward from Victoria ward, with equally strong connections to its north as to its south.

94 We also propose changing the name of Chatham ward to Homerton ward to better reflect the local community. Wick ward is renamed for the same reason.

95 With our proposed amendments, Hackney Wick, Homerton, King’s Park and Victoria wards are forecast to have 8% fewer, 5% fewer, 6% fewer and 1% more electors per councillor than the average for the borough by 2017.

17

Conclusions

96 Table 1 shows the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality, based on 2012 and 2017 electorate figures.

Table 1: Summary of electoral arrangements – draft recommendations

Draft recommendations 2012 2017 Number of councillors 57 57 Number of wards 22 22 Average number of electors per councillor 2,921 3,029 Number of divisions with a variance more 0 0 than 10% from the average Number of divisions with a variance more 0 0 than 20% from the average

Draft recommendation The London Borough of Hackney should comprise 57 councillors serving 22 wards, as detailed and named in Table B1 and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

18

3 What happens next?

97 There will now be a consultation period of 10 weeks, during which everyone is invited to comment on the draft recommendations on future electoral arrangements for the London Borough of Hackney contained in this report. We will fully take into account all submissions received by 24 September 2012. Any submissions received after this date may not be taken into account.

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

99 Express your views by writing directly to:

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

Submissions can also be made by using the consultation section of our website, www.lgbce.org.uk

100 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 made during consultation will be placed on deposit locally at the offices of the London Borough of Hackney and at our offices in Layden House (London) and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.

101 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers, such as postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, irrespective of whom they are from.

102 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.

103 After the publication of our final recommendations, the review will be implemented by order subject to Parliamentary scrutiny. A draft Order – the legal

19

document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. When made, the draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the next elections for the London Borough of Hackney in 2014.

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

20

4 Mapping Draft recommendations for Hackney

105 The following map illustrates our proposed ward boundaries for the London Borough of Hackney:

 Sheet 1, Map 1 illustrates in outline form the proposed ward boundaries for Hackney.

21

Appendix A

Glossary and abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Local Government Boundary The Local Government Boundary Commission for England or LGBCE Commission for England is responsible for undertaking electoral reviews. The Local Government

22

Boundary Commission for England assumed the functions of the Boundary Committee for England in April 2010

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

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

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

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

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

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

Parish (or Town) council electoral The total number of councillors on 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

23

they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

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

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

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

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

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

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

24

Appendix B

Table B1: Draft recommendations for London Borough of Hackney

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor %

1 Brownswood 2 6,024 3,012 3% 6,616 3,308 9%

2 Clissold 3 9,421 3,140 7% 9,644 3,215 6%

3 Dalston 2 5,427 2,714 -7% 5,692 2,846 -6%

4 De Beauvoir 2 6,060 3,030 4% 6,555 3,278 8%

5 Hackney Central 2 6,175 3,088 6% 6,352 3,176 5%

6 Hackney Downs 3 8,819 2,940 1% 9,019 3,006 -1%

7 Hackney Wick 3 8,179 2,726 -7% 8,331 2,777 -8%

8 Haggerston 3 7,964 2,655 -9% 8,234 2,745 -9%

25

Table B1 (cont.): Draft recommendations for London Borough of Hackney

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor %

9 Homerton 3 8,486 2,829 -3% 8,646 2,882 -5%

10 Hoxton 2 5,847 2,924 0% 6,144 3,072 1%

11 King’s Park 3 8,358 2,786 -5% 8,577 2,859 -6%

12 Lea Bridge 3 9,184 3,061 5% 9,284 3,095 2%

13 London Fields 3 8,540 2,847 -3% 8,802 2,934 -3%

14 Shacklewell 3 8,719 2,906 -1% 9,003 3,001 -1%

15 Shoreditch 2 5,818 2,909 0% 6,069 3,035 0%

16 Stamford Hill East 3 9,425 3,142 8% 9,851 3,284 8%

26

Table B1 (cont): Draft recommendations for London Borough of Hackney

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from average electors per from average councillors (2011) (2017) councillor % councillor %

17 Stamford Hill West 2 6,103 3,052 4% 6,287 3,144 4%

18 Stoke Newington 3 9,258 3,086 6% 9,485 3,162 4%

19 Upper Clapton 3 8,389 2,796 -4% 8,524 2,841 -6%

20 Victoria 3 9,019 3,006 3% 9,209 3,070 1%

21 Wenlock 2 5,689 2,845 -3% 5,843 2,922 -4%

22 Woodberry Down 2 5,614 2,807 -4% 6,512 3,256 7%

Totals 57 166,518 – – 172,679 – –

Averages – – 2,921 – – 3,029 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by the London Borough of Hackney.

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.

27