Southwark Labour Party

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England from Southwark Labour Party

The Labour Party in Southwark welcomes the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s review of warding arrangements and their draft proposals.

We believe the pattern of warding proposed in the draft recommendations is sensible and an improvement on the current warding arrangements, which placed less emphasis on natural communities in order to create a uniform pattern of three-member wards.

We have some reservations regarding the boundaries in some areas and on ward names. The most significant of these is that we believe that our original proposal to form a three-member Denmark Hill ward would create a greater geographic coherence than the proposal to split this area into a two-member Champion Hill ward and a one member Half Moon ward. Elsewhere, we think the proposals in a few cases split natural communities in a way where some minor amendments could correct.

We have also discussed some of these matters with representatives of the other two political groups represented on the council. In these discussions, it is clear that the two largest political groups on the council (Labour and the Liberal Democrats, accounting for 61 of the 63 members) had some areas of agreement that are likely to be reflected in our responses.

Our submission is set out in five parts. The first four reflect the four geographical areas identified in the Commission’s draft recommendations (although we have moved Bridges ward over to the North East cluster of wards). The fifth part summarises the amendments sought in parts 1-4.

1. Central Southwark

We support the seven wards proposed in this part of the borough. They have strong community identities and the proposed ward names in this section of the draft proposals all reflect those communities. However, we propose some amendments to improve the community coherence in this area, particularly at its western end around Camberwell.

1.1 Brandon Estate Map 1: Brandon Estate We welcome the Commission’s proposal to include more of the Brandon Estate within Newington ward, and removing these areas from Camberwell Green ward. However, one small part of the estate remains in Camberwell Green in the draft proposals, which creates an anomaly in splitting the ‘Brandon 3’ area (the south eastern part of the housing estate) Brandon between these two wards. Estate We are therefore proposing that the remaining Brandon 3 areas are moved into Newington ward, uniting the whole Brandon Estate within one ward. Doing so would also improve electoral equality, by transferring 189 electors from Camberwell Green ward (which would have 5% more electors in 2021 in the Commission’s draft proposals) to Newington ward (which would have 2% less electors in the draft proposals). Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment These 189 electors live at the following Boundary of Brandon Estate properties that should be transferred:

 42-53 Glenfinlas Way, 97-101 Bethwin Road and 1-8 Kirwyn Way (seven low-rise blocks collectively known as “The Bungalows”)  The block of flats 9-38 Kirwyn Way  The block of flats 9-50 Laxley Close  The block of flats 51-57 Laxley Close

Newington’s electoral equality would improve from this change, from being 2% under the 2021 average number of electors per member to 1% under. This and the changes proposed under 1.2 and 1.3 below would improve the equality for Camberwell Green ward from 5% above the average to 3% above the average.

Map 2: Brandon 3 area

Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment Area covered by Brandon 3 Tenants & Residents Association

1.2 D’Eynsford Estate

Both the Labour and Liberal Democrat proposals to the Boundary Commission at the previous consultation stage proposed warding arrangements that united the D’Eynsford Estate within a single ward. However, the draft proposals retain the current split of this estate between Camberwell Green ward and the proposed St Giles ward. The D’Eynsford Estate is a relatively small housing estate with its own tenant management organisation and it would be more coherent to have this within a single ward whilst also enabling easier administration for the tenant management organisation.

We therefore propose realigning the ward Map 3: D’Eynsford Estate boundary that currently runs from Camberwell Church Street to Elmington Road through the estate to instead follow the length of Kimpton Road. This would place all of the D’Eynsford Estate within the proposed St. Giles ward. The map below shows the estate (blue boundary), D’Eynsford Estate the currently proposed ward boundary (in green) and our proposed revision (in red).

This revision would transfer the following electors:

 1-35 Kimpton Road from Camberwell Green ward to St Giles ward (21 electors)

 1-25 Don Phelan Close from Camberwell Green ward to St Giles ward (39 electors)

 128-164 Don Phelan Close from Camberwell Green ward to St Giles ward (71 electors)

 25-33 Camberwell Church Street from St Giles ward to Camberwell Green ward (1 elector)

This therefore transfers a net 130 electors from the proposed Camberwell Green ward to the proposed St Giles ward. Given that the currently proposed Camberwell Green ward would have 5% more electors than the average by 2021, this helps improve electoral equality in that ward. Whilst it would make the electoral equality of St Giles ward (4% over in the current proposals) slightly worse, this would still be within the 5% level and would also be corrected in part by other proposed changes that we are putting forward.

1.3 Junction of Southampton Way and Benhill Road

This is a relatively small change proposed, transferring 22 electors from St Giles ward to Camberwell Green ward. The purpose of this proposal is to provide a clearer boundary between the wards at this point, rather than have a boundary separating adjoining properties. The Commission’s proposals replicate the current ward boundary, but that boundary’s relevance has been superseded by new homes built in the intervening period.

The revision would move the following properties to Camberwell Green ward:

 6-18 Benhill Road (21 electors)  98 Southampton Way (1 elector)

The map below shows the Commission’s draft proposal in green and our proposed amendment in red.

Map 4: Southampton Way/ Benhill Road junction

1.4 Area surrounding Peckham Academy

The Commission have adopted proposals for Map 5: Area around Peckham Academy the boundary between St Giles ward and Rye Lane ward similar to those put forward by the Draft Commission proposals Labour Party, which proposed adding the area Labour’s proposed amendment Western edge of Peckham bounded by Peckham Road, Lyndhurst Way town centre and the railway line to the old Brunswick Park ward. However, it differs in one key respect – it also transfers the area surrounding Peckham Academy (bound by Peckham High Street, Bellenden Road, Highshore Road and Lyndhurst Way) to St Giles ward.

We believe that this creates significant difficulties: the proposed St Giles ward is a Camberwell-based ward whilst the proposed Rye Lane ward is very clearly a Peckham- based one.

The proposed boundary cuts through parts of Peckham town centre, dividing it between three wards (Peckham, Rye Lane and St Giles) and puts a very ‘Peckham’ institution – the academy – into St. Giles, along with the Peckham Job Centre. Bellenden Road, an important local shopping street, is divided between Rye Lane and St Giles wards in the draft proposals. Our concern is that having a town centre divided in such a way reduces the focus on its needs and its sense of place.

We are therefore proposing a reversion to the originally proposed boundary by the Labour Party – to simply run this boundary along Lyndhurst Way. This would remove 62 electors from the already quite large St Giles ward (the current proposals have 4% more electors here than the average by 2021) and transfer them to the smaller Rye Lane ward.

Given that our proposals above regarding the D’Eynsford Estate increase the size of the electorate in St Giles ward (see section 1.2), this proposal also helps ameliorate that increase.

This proposal would see the following properties transfer from Rye Lane ward to St Giles ward:

 The flats at 1 Basing Court (12 electors)  Bryanston House, Basing court (5 electors)  18 Bellenden Road (6 electors)  38-40 Bellenden Road (2 electors)  52-58 Bellenden Road (9 electors)  2 Collyer Place (4 electors)  12-38 Peckham High Street (9 electors)  Marcus House, Peckham High Street (15 electors)

1.5 Minor amendments to Nunhead ward

The currently proposed Nunhead ward is slightly under the average number of electors per member in the 2021 projections. We propose two small additions to the ward that will improve the sense of community.

The first of these is to transfer the addresses on the Map 6: west side of Nunhead Green from Rye Lane ward to Nunhead Green Nunhead ward (the newly built homes at 1-5 Nunhead Green). This would ensure that all the properties around the Green are in the same ward and ensure that all the community facilities for Nunhead based around the Green, including the library and the new community centre are in Nunhead ward (we also proposed uniting these facilities in a single ward in our initial proposals). This transfer moves 13 electors from Rye Lane ward to

Nunhead ward. Site of new Nunhead Community Centre The map to the right shows the Commission’s draft and 1-5 Nunhead proposed boundary for the area around Nunhead Green Green in green and our proposed amendment to this in red.

The second proposal transfers numbers 45 to 47 Culmore Road from Old Kent Road ward to Nunhead ward. Whilst the Commission’s proposed boundary between these two wards replicates that initially proposed by the Labour Party, on reflection we think that these properties (with 9 electors) are better placed in Nunhead ward as they relate more to the Brimmington Estate to the south rather than any properties in Old Kent Road ward and makes Brimmington Park the boundary. We have illustrated this in the map below (the green line represents the draft proposal, the red our proposed revision to the boundary between Nunhead ward and Old Kent Road ward).

Map 7: Culmore Road

1.6 Other comments regarding Central Southwark

 We support the proposed Camberwell Green ward, subject to the proposed adjustments set out in sections 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3 of our submission above. We support the retention of the current ward name.

 We support the proposed Nunhead ward, which brings together the communities focused around Nunhead Green and Queen’s Road station. We have suggested some minor amendments in section 1.5 above to improve this community focus further. We support the retention of the ward name.

 We support the creation of an Old Kent Road ward on the basis proposed by the Commission as a coherent community area that recognises the importance of the forthcoming regeneration of that area (with the slight amendment noted in 1.5 above). We also support the name Old Kent Road ward.

 We support the proposed Peckham ward, which closely resembles the current ward of that name, as it defines a clear community interest. We support the retention of the current ward name.

 We support the proposed Rye Lane ward, subject to the amendment proposed in section 1.4 above. With this amendment, the proposed ward has a clearer focus around Rye Lane than the current ward whilst improving its electoral equality. The proposed name change removes some confusion regarding the current one and restores the name for the ward used by the Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell.

 We support the proposed St Giles ward, subject to the amendments set out above in sections 1.2, 1.3 and 1.4. We support the proposed new name as one that is more clearly recognised than ‘Brunswick Park’, as it references both the most significant landmark building in the ward (St Giles church, Camberwell’s parish church) and the old hospital – both of which lie in the centre of the ward.

2. North East Southwark and Bridges ward

We support creating five three-member wards for this part of the borough, and broadly support the pattern proposed by the Commission. We are including the proposed Bridges ward in this section as it has a Bermondsey identity, as opposed to the Borough and Walworth identities in the other North West Southwark proposals.

We are proposing some amendments to improve the community coherence in this area in two areas: along the boundary between North Bermondsey and Rotherhithe wards and on the margins of Bridges ward. We are also proposing one name change.

2.1 Boundary between North Bermondsey and Rotherhithe wards

Firstly, in our initial submission to the Commission, we proposed that those electors in the ROT5 polling district north of the principal Southwark Park carriageway be transferred to Riverside ward and the remainder be retained in Rotherhithe ward. Given the Commission’s proposal to transfer a larger part of Surrey Docks ward to Rotherhithe ward than we envisaged, this would no longer be possible if adequate electoral equality is to be achieved.

However, the inclusion of a section of the Map 8: north side of Rotherhithe New Road within Pedworth Estate North Bermondsey ward, as proposed by the Commission, would result in areas that clearly identify as Rotherhithe being placed in a ‘Bermondsey’ ward. Rotherhithe New Road east of the railway identifies strongly as being part of Rotherhithe.

We therefore propose that the Pedworth estate is transferred from the proposed North Bermondsey ward to Rotherhithe Pedworth Estate ward, using a line between Raymouth Road and Southwark Park that follows Nelldale Road, Abbeyfield Road and Dilston Grove. This line would put the entirety of the Pedworth Estate in Rotherhithe ward and Abbeyfield Estate within North Bermondsey ward. Draft Commission proposals This change would improve electoral Labour’s proposed amendment equality by moving 478 electors from North Bermondsey ward (5% above the 2021 average number of electors per member in the Commission’s proposals) to Rotherhithe ward (1% under that average). The resulting variances would be 1% and 3% above the average respectively.

Secondly, in our discussion with the Liberal Democrats regarding the Commission’s draft proposals, representatives of both parties agreed that it would be preferable to put the entirety of Southwark Park in one ward or the other, for the purposes of better administration. Given the boundary of the

8 park, we propose therefore that the park is put in Rotherhithe ward and its western boundary with the Kirby, Slippers Place and Abbeyfield Estates becomes the ward boundary. This second amendment does not affect electorate size.

Map 9: Southwark Park

Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment

2.2 Boundaries of Bridges ward Map 10: Bermondsey Square In our discussions with the Liberal Democrats following the publication of the draft proposals, both sides thought the sense of community of this proposed ward would be improved by two additions: the triangle bound by Bermondsey Street, Abbey Street and Tower Bridge Road from Chaucer ward and the rectangle bound by Spa Road, Neckinger, Arts Lane-Grange Yard, The Grange and Grange Road from the proposed South Bermondsey ward.

The former revision would transfer 184 electors from Chaucer ward to Bridges ward whilst the latter would transfer 136 electors from South Bermondsey ward to Bridges ward. This Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment 9 would improve the electoral equality of South Bermondsey ward (5% above the 2021 average number of electors per member under the Commission’s Draft Proposals) to 3% above that average.

Map 11: Spa Road

Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment

Chaucer’s electoral equality would become worse (from 2% below to 4% below) but still within the 5% maximum used in the commission’s proposals. However, it would resolve the current anomaly of having an area that clearly identifies as ‘Bermondsey’ (surrounding Bermondsey Square) in a ward that mostly relates to ‘Borough’ as an identity – by locating the square in a Bermondsey-focused ward.

Bridges ward’s electoral equality would worsen with these two changes: from the proposed 3% above the 2021 average to 6% above. However, this disparity is only 45 electors more than that in the Commission’s proposed Camberwell Green ward and 52 more than in its currently proposed North Bermondsey ward. If the Commission decided to support only one of these two proposed changes to Bridges ward, the disparity would fall to below 5%.

2.3 The name ‘Bridges ward’

The Commission considered two proposals it received to name a ward similar to its Bridges ward proposal: London Bridge ward (proposed by the Liberal Democrats) and Tower Bridge ward (proposed by Labour). It decided to compromise between the two by suggesting Bridges ward as a name but invited comments.

In the discussion between the Labour Party and Liberal Democrat councillors on the council’s cross- party working party on the boundary proposals, neither felt satisfied by the proposed name.

We are therefore proposing the name Leathermarket ward, which has close associations with the old Leathermarket in the west of the ward and the leather trade that was important throughout the ward from the middle ages to the 1980s (and still has a legacy in the Fashion and Textiles Museum on Bermondsey Street). Leathermarket Joint Management Board manages many of the council

10 homes in the west of the proposed ward and the old Metropolitan Council of Bermondsey had a Leathermarket ward encompassing the west and south of the proposed ward.

Another alternative could be West Bermondsey ward.

2.4 Other comments regarding North East Southwark

 We support the proposed boundaries and name for Surrey Docks ward. The boundaries are clearer than the current ward of that name, with a greater focus on the new developments built by the London Development Corporation. Surrey Docks as a name has a clear identity.

 Other than the issues on the western boundary discussed above under 2.1, we support the proposed Rotherhithe ward. The Commission’s proposal to transfer the Osprey Estate and Chilton Grove areas from the south west of Surrey Docks ward, and the LIV1 polling district from Livesey ward, into Rotherhithe ward creates a more coherent community interest than the current arrangements. We also agree with the retention of the name Rotherhithe ward.

 Again, other than the issues identified in section 2.1, we support the proposed North Bermondsey ward.

 We support the proposed South Bermondsey ward, albeit with the proposed minor amendment set out in section 2.2 above.

 Whilst the proposed Bridges ward is a slightly awkward shape, we believe it makes sense in the context of other wards. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 set out how the sense of community within the ward could be improved through minor boundary changes and a change of name.

3. North West Southwark

As discussed above, our comments regarding Bridges ward are included in our section on North East Southwark. This part of our submission therefore covers the remaining six wards in this part of the Commission’s draft proposals.

Two of our concerns mentioned previously - the boundary between Camberwell Green ward and Newington ward around the Brandon Estate (see section 1.1) and between Bridges ward and Chaucer ward (see section 2.2) impact on boundaries of the six wards. There is one other boundary issue in this section that needs further consideration.

3.1 Boundary between North Walworth ward and South Walworth ward

The Commission’s draft proposals adopt a similar boundary between these two wards to that originally proposed by the Labour Party. However, on further discussion with the community and ward councillors, a concern was raised that Faraday Gardens would be split by this boundary. Furthermore, the northern part of Faraday Gardens that is transferring to North Walworth ward links to the churchyard of St Peter’s Church to form a continuous open space. We are therefore of the view that it would be more sensible to include all of this open space within one ward.

We are therefore proposing that the entirety of that park is transferred to the proposed South Walworth ward. This would not involve the transfer of any electors but would improve administrative arrangements as any issues regarding this small park, and any dealings with the local friends group for the park, would only need to involve one set of councillors rather than two.

Map 12: Faraday Gardens

Faraday Gardens

St Peter’s Churchyard

Draft Commission proposals Labour’s proposed amendment

3.2 Ward names

Other than the issues covered in sections 1.1, 2,2 and 3.1 of our submission, we believe that the ward boundaries proposed by the Commission are the best pattern that could be achieved for the borough’s electoral arrangements. We fully support the proposed names of Chaucer ward, Newington and North Walworth wards.

However, there has been some concern relating to names. “Bankside and Borough ward” feels a little clumsy (it is the only ward name in the borough’s history to use “and” in its name) and parts of Southwark usually considered as Borough lie in the proposed Chaucer and St George wards. We still believe that a reversion to the pre-2002 name “Cathedral ward” would be clearer.

In our cross-party discussions (which included one of the Liberal Democrat councillors for the current Cathedrals ward) we concluded that St George’s ward sounded better and more clear to the local community than the proposed St George ward (without the apostrophe ‘s’).

With the inclusion of the entirety of Faraday Gardens within South Walworth ward that we propose, we consider that the retention of the name Faraday ward would be preferable to the draft proposal of South Walworth ward, to give continuity for the majority of electors in that ward.

3.3 Other comments regarding North West Southwark

 We support the proposal to split the current Cathedrals ward into a three-member northern ward and a two-member southern ward. We also agree that this is best achieved using the proposed boundary along Webber Street and the railway line.

 We support the proposed boundaries of Chaucer ward (subject to the minor amendment set out in section 2.2 above regarding the Bermondsey Square area) and retaining that ward name.

 We support the proposed revision of Newington ward to use Hampton Street and the railway line as boundaries, and the extension of the ward southwards to include more of the Brandon Estate. Section 1.1 above outlines how that extension could be further improved by including the remainder of that estate.

 We support the proposed boundaries of North Walworth ward and South Walworth ward, with the amendment set out in our section 3.1 above which would not impact on any electors.

4. South Southwark

Our only proposed boundary change in this section of the Commission’s draft proposals relates to Champion Hill and Half Moon wards. We also propose different ward names for two of the Dulwich wards.

4.1 Champion Hill ward and Half Moon ward

In our original submission to the Commission, we proposed a three-member Denmark Hill ward covering the same area as the two-member Champion Hill ward and one-member Half Moon ward set out in the Commission’s draft proposals. We still believe that a three-member Denmark Hill ward would be a better arrangement.

One strong concern with both the current and proposed warding arrangements is the division of the Sunray Conservation Area between two wards when this residential area has a very clear sense of place and common identity. This conservation area encompasses Sunray Estate, a small estate of 154 cottage-style properties that were developed in the 1920’s as Dulwich’s version of a garden city. More detail can be found here: http://www.exploringsouthwark.co.uk/sunray-estate/4591071171

The map below shows the conservation area and how this is split between the two wards in the Commission’s draft proposals (the green line). The map is taken from the council’s appraisal of that Conservation area: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ah UKEwipq6Hn2ujLAhXFVBQKHfojCUwQFggjMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.southwark.gov.uk%2Fdo wnload%2Fdownloads%2Fid%2F1087%2Fsunray_estate&usg=AFQjCNGhqe1E3XYw- ShwfIVGgiYHRQuSDg&bvm=bv.117868183,bs.1,d.ZWU

Map 13: Sunray Conservation Area Champion Hill ward

Half Moon ward

The Commission accepted a similar argument in uniting the whole of Red Post Hill into a single ward, revising the current boundary that follows that road, in its draft proposals. That improvement would be retained, as well as resolving the Sunray Estate issue, if a single three-member ward were created rather than the proposed splitting of this area in the draft proposals.

4.2 Ward names

The remaining ward boundaries in the south of the borough are a good fit with local communities. In relation to ward names, we have one concern and one further amendment for consideration.

Our concern relates to the proposed name of Dulwich Wood ward whose boundaries are similar to the current and historic College ward, a name with a very long history that is extremely well recognised by the local community. As the map to the right of the old Metropolitan Borough of Camberwell (copied from Wikipedia) shows, a variant of the ward name has been in use for a century since 1916.

We therefore strongly beleive that it would be best to retain the name College ward to describe this historic ward. If however the Commission wished to include the term Dulwich in the name, then an alternative would be to revise the name to Dulwich College ward.

Our proposed amendment is in relation to Dulwich Hill ward. Whilst this is a name that we initially proposed, there has been a little confusion locally as to which hill this refers to. A clearer name would be Dawson’s Hill ward, as this is a name more in use nowadays for the hill and also references Dawson’s Heights, the large and prominent housing estate at the top of the hill.

4.3 Other comments

The single member Dulwich Village ward clearly relates to a part of the borough with a distinct identity and has the merits of not only defining the interests of that community well but also being very close to the average number of electors per member by the year 2021.

We also support the creation of the three-member Goose Green ward. This proposed ward and the proposed Dulwich Hill ward together encompass the majority of the East Dulwich area, generally accepted as representing the SE22 postcode area. Together the two wards better represent that community than the current warding arrangements, where parts of SE22 are represented by College, East Dulwich, Peckham Rye, South Camberwell, The Lane and Village wards. Not giving the name ‘East Dulwich’ to either Goose Green or Dulwich Hill wards helps make clear that both have an equally valid claim to that identity. Goose Green itself is the most prominent local landmark in the proposed ward of that name.

Notwithstanding the concern regarding the ward names set out in 4.2, we support the boundaries of the proposed two-member Dulwich Wood and Dulwich Hill wards.

5. Summary of proposed changes

Ward 2021 electorate in 2021 variance in Labour Party’s proposed Resulting 2021 Resulting 2021 Commission’s draft Commission’s draft amendment electorate variance proposals proposals Bankside and 11,095 -4% Change name to 11,095 -4% Borough (3,698 per member) Cathedral ward (3,698 per member) See section 3.3 Bridges 11,937 +3% Amendments to 12,257 +6% (3,979 per member) boundaries with Chaucer (4,086 per member) & South Bermondsey. Change name to Leathermarket ward. See section 2.2 & 2.3 Camberwell 12,212 +5% Amendments to 11,914 +3% Green (4,071 per member) boundaries with (3,971 per member) Newington & St Giles See sections 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 Champion Hill 7,774 +1% Merge with Half Moon 11,722 +1% (3,887 per member) ward to form 3 member (3,907 per member) Denmark Hill ward. See section 4.1 Chaucer 11,302 -2% Amendment to boundary 11,118 -4% (3,767 per member) with Bridges ward (3,706 per member) See section 2.2 Dulwich Hill 7,387 -4% Change name to 7,387 -4% (3,693 per member) Dawson’s Hill ward (3,693 per member) See section 4.2 Dulwich Village 3,885 +1% None 3,885 +1% (3,885 per member) (3,885 per member) Dulwich Wood 7,538 -2% Change name to 7,538 -2% (3,769 per member) College ward (3,769 per member) See section 4.2 Goose Green 11,194 -3% None 11,194 -3% (3,731 per member) (3,731 per member) Half Moon 3,948 +2% Merge with Champion n/a n/a (3,948 per member) Hill ward. See section 4.1 Newington 11,322 -2% Amend boundary with 11,511 -1% (3,774 per member) Camberwell Green (3,837 per member) See section 1.1 North 12,205 +5% Amend boundary with 11,727 +1% Bermondsey (4,068 per member) Rotherhithe (3,909 per member) See section 2.1 North 11,237 -3% Amend boundary with 11,237 -3% Walworth (3,746 per member) South Walworth – no (3,746 per member) impact on electorate See section 3.1 Nunhead 11,453 -1% Amend boundaries with 11,475 -1% (3,818 per member) Old Kent Road and Rye (3,825 per member) Lane See section 1.5 Old Kent Road 11,981 +3% Amend boundary with 11,972 +3% (3,994 per member) Nunhead (3,991 per member) See section 1.5 Peckham 11,042 -5% None 11,042 -5% (3,681 per member) (3,681 per member) Peckham Rye 7,669 -1% None 7,669 -1% (3,834 per member) (3,834 per member) Rotherhithe 11,462 -1% Amend boundary with 11,940 +3% (3,821 per member) North Bermondsey (3,980 per member) See section 2.1 Rye Lane 11,728 +1% Amend boundaries with 11,777 +2% (3,909 per member) Nunhead and St Giles (3,926 per member) See sections 1.4 & 1.5 South 12,125 +5% Amend boundary with 11,989 +3% Bermondsey (4,042 per member) Bridges ward (3,996 per member) See section 2.2

Ward 2021 electorate in 2021 variance in Labour Party’s proposed Resulting 2021 Resulting 2021 Commission’s draft Commission’s draft amendment electorate variance proposals proposals South 11,169 -4% Amend boundary with 11,169 -4% Walworth (3,725 per member) North Walworth – no (3,725 per member) impact on electorate. See section 3.1 Change name to Faraday ward See section 3.2 St George 7,810 +1% Change name to 7,810 +1% (3,905 per member) St George’s ward (3,905 per member) See section 3.2 St Giles 12,080 +4% Amend boundaries with 12,126 +5% (4,027 per member) Camberwell Green and (4,042 per member) Rye Lane See sections 1.2, 1.3 & 1.4 Surrey Docks 11,739 +1% None 11,739 +1% (3,913 per member) (3,913 per member)