Southwark Liberal Democrat Group
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ward, Lucy From: Mayers, Mishka on behalf of reviews Sent: Tuesday, 05 April, 2016 10:44 AM To: Ward, Lucy Subject: FW: Lib Dem group submission for LB Southwark draft wards consultation Attachments: Detail of proposed changes to draft wards LBS.pdf; Draft comments LBS review.pdf; New wards 1 to 7.pdf; OPTION 1 Nunhead and Queens Rd.pdf; OPTION 2 Nunhead n and nunhead s.pdf; Supporting Notes.pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged From: Roger Giess Sent: 04 April 2016 01:15 To: reviews <[email protected]> Subject: Lib Dem group submission for LB Southwark draft wards consultation Dear Sirs, Please find attached the response from the Southwark Council Lib Dem group to the consultation on the draft warding arrangements for the London Borough of Southwark. The submission includes an explanation of the amendments to the draft we would make together with our calculations of new projected electorates. We would be pleased to provide further details of the calculations if that would assist. We also include some sketched maps to illustrate the changes we are proposing. These show the ward as we intend tinted yellow with those areas we propose removing edged red and those new areas to be brought in edged green. I would be grateful if you would acknowledge receipt. Kind regards Roger Giess on Behalf of Southwark Borough Council Liberal Democrat group. 1 Southwark Council Lib Dem Group comments on draft ward boundary review Ward Comments 1 Camberwell Green We support this ward except for a small amendment. We would move the border with St Giles to the west to run along D'Eynsford Rd and Camberwell Green to Camberwell Church St. This ensures that all the D'Eynsford Estate is put together, is a clearer boundary on the ground and provides (with other changes to the proposed Rye Lane ward) for more equal electorates in these wards by 2021. 2 Nunhead The LGBCE was right to conclude that Nunhead Cemetery was closely identified with Nunhead and should be in a Nunhead-based ward. The same can be said of the neighbouring reservoir site. Also we agree there is no acceptable place to split Ivydale Rd. However, we believe this proposed ward still needs significant changes to best meet the statutory criteria. The LGBCE's proposed new Nunhead ward excludes residents of streets on three sides of the cemetery who closely identify with Nunhead - in the process creating an awkward "finger" for the proposed Peckham Rye ward. It also excludes the Nunhead Reservoir site next to the cemetery from the Nunhead ward. It excludes Southwark Council's Nunhead Estate (on Nunhead Close off Peckham Rye). It excludes large parts of the Nunhead Green Conservation Area, which runs from Nunhead Green south to Garden Rd/Forester Rd and north to Dr Harold Moody Park between Sturdy Rd and Ellery St. Indeed the brand new housing development at Nunhead Green itself will be outside the proposed ward. Historically Nunhead is said to have grown up around St Antholin's parish church, whose site is now occupied by what is now known as The Lighthouse Cathedral on Nunhead Lane - but outside the LGBCE's proposed Nunhead ward. Despite these parts of Nunhead being excluded, the proposed Nunhead ward does include residents living well to the north off Queen's Rd, an area that we suggest identifies as Peckham. Helpfully, in recent years Nunhead community groups have organised "Nunhead Beats the Bounds" - a group walk around the edges of the Nunhead area. They have gone to the borough boundary at Brenchley Gardens, the eastern edge of Peckham Rye and then north as far as Queen's Rd. This area is a little too big for the three member ward but we think it does broadly reflect the community that identifies as Nunhead and should be the basis for a Nunhead ward or wards. We make two proposals below to accommodate 5 councillors for this area. One uses the strongest boundary lines practicable whereas the other has electorates tighter to the projected average by 2021. We would favour either over the current proposals. 3 Old Kent Road We support this ward. We remain sceptical it is can be said now that there is a community united by Old Kent Road. However we accept that this is the direction of development with the planned regeneration of the Old Kent Road corridor so that during its lifetime this ward will gain coherence. 4 Peckham This proposed ward is projected to have the smallest electorate of any 3-member ward, and be 5% below average. We can see no reason to have such an outlier where it is possible to include electors with strong ties to Peckham and so deliver better equality of electorates . We suggest including electors living west of Carlton Grove currently proposed to be in Nunhead ward by extending the eastern boundary of Peckham ward all the way south to Queen's Road. This includes in the Peckham ward residents of the Acorn Estate and those who will live in the development site to the south facing Queen's Road. These electors live a short walk from Peckham town centre but have little connection to Nunhead. Moving them to Peckham ward would bring Peckham ward far closer to the average electorate by 2021. Peckham town centre is now and will continue to be divided between this ward and the ward immediately to the south (currently The Lane, but to become Rye Lane). Most of the town centre shopping district and Peckham Rye railway station (the central Peckham station) is in this ward to the south. We would therefore rename this ward Peckham North and the new ward to its south containing the bulk of the current The Lane ward as Peckham South. 5 Peckham Rye We think this ward has been badly drawn. Despite the presumed intention, it continues to be a ward that straddles Peckham Rye and includes electors who look both to Dulwich and to Nunhead. If the intention had been for a ward based on communities around Peckham Rye then it ought to have included streets on the eastern parts of the proposed Goose Green and Dulwich Hill wards too (as with the present Peckham Rye ward). We suggest two ways of reorganising this area so that the electors to the east of the park are in a Nunhead based ward while those to the west (in streets off Colyton Rd and Homestall Road, and those on Honor Oak Rise) are included in an version of the proposed Dulwich Hill ward. There would therefore not be a ward straddling Peckham Rye. 6 Rye Lane This ward is the southern part of Peckham. We are happy to accept the strong northern border at Peckham Rd. However, in our view, the other borders are poor. To the east it stretches too far towards Nunhead by including the Nunhead Estate and residents in the Nunhead Green Conservation Area and even residents living on Nunhead Green itself. These electors should be in a Nunhead based ward. The most natural eastern boundary here is the main road of Peckham Rye/Copeland Road, which at this point has little commercial or town centre activity. The proposed southern boundary is entirely unconvincing and without any clear demarcation and, from the submission on which the proposal is based, appears to be drawn with no evidence of community ties but simply to make up the numbers for a ward based on Lordship Lane. The most natural southern boundary for the Rye Lane ward is the main road, East Dulwich Road. This road and Goose Green is a clear dividing point and are the current northern boundary of East Dulwich ward. Finally the western boundary excludes electors looking strongly to Peckham, placing them in the Camberwell based St Giles ward. The residents being transferred from the current The Lane ward into St Giles have a Peckham post code. It would transfer those living next to the Harris Academy, which has strong associations with Peckham having received substantial support from Lord Harris of Peckham. This area's Peckham identity is further reflected in business names along Peckham Rd here, not least Peckham Fire Station. It has also resulted in a rather large St Giles ward, which is projected to be 5% over average size. It is therefore easy to accommodate this boundary moving further west in order to reduce the oversized proposed St Giles. In doing so it facilitates those parts of the D'Eynesford Estate in Camberwell Green ward being included with the rest of that estate in the proposed St Giles ward. 7 St Giles See comments on Rye Lane. It is unfortunate that the proposal does not take the opportunity for a realignment of the western boundary with Camberwell Green ward to include the remainder of the D'Eynesford Estate (ie including all the homes on Kimpton Rd and Don Phelan Close). Clearly this would make the proposed St Giles ward even larger, however we suggest that it can be accommodated by moving the boundary with Rye Lane ward to the west as we have proposed. 8 North Bermondsey We support this ward. 9 Rotherhithe We support this ward. However we can see a case for excluding the approximately 250 electors of the Osprey Estate between Lower Rd and Greenland Dock, and instead placing them in Surrey Docks ward. This would give a tidier boundary with easier access for the ward on the west of Greenland Dock. The estate is currently in Surrey Docks ward and the proposed boundary line here is not very distinct.