From: Gill, Councillor Kieron Sent: 04 November 2018 12:58 To: reviews Cc: Ethapemi, Councillor Tony; Gbajumo, Councillor Erica Subject: Support for Brent Council's Proposal 1 Attachments: Support for proposal one.docx; ATT00001.htm

Dear Electoral Commision,

Please find enclosed a letter from Councillors Tony Ethapemi, Erica Gbajumo and Kieron Gill in relation to the up coming Ward Boundary changes occurring in Brent.

Your sincerely,

Kieron Gill Councillor Park, Brent. Co‐councillor with Tony Ethapemi and Erica Gbajumo.

The use of Brent Council's e‐mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.

1 Dear Electoral commission,

We would like to wholeheartedly endorse the new Brent Ward Map that has been created by Brent Council (specifically their “Proposal 1” (link below*)). We think this map is undoubtedly the best for what we feel are several very strong reasons

– it was created by the only body with the expertise to overcome the many technical obstacles to the creation of such a map, namely Brent Council.

– in a similar vein it was created by the only body that is not partisan and this map was thus created from a neutral point of view to meet the technical specifications you spelt out. I think it’s worth mentioning that all the other maps that will come your way will lack this neutrality and will have been created by people with the specific purpose of gaining a political advantage. It is thus the most equitable option for all.

It is however worth mentioning that these ward maps will have political implications and the only point we would make with respect to that is that Brondesbury Park, as outlined in Proposal 1, largely remains as it was, and its value as a ward comes from the fact that it is the most politically competitive ward in the whole of Brent, and that such political competition has been empirically proven to push political parties to optimise their performance for their voters/residents and thus is a social good. Thus it is a uniquely well-balanced ward and this is excellent for democracy.

Lastly we feel two person wards have serious drawbacks namely;

-two member wards will not function if one of the councillors is sick or has poor work outputs-9,000 people for one councillor!

-two member wards mean you provide a worse service to your residents- harder to get a councillor, less cover if the other is busy, less pooled knowledge/skills etc.

So we would wish to make plain that we wholeheartedly endorse Brent Council’s Proposal one, for what we hope you’d agree are excellent reasons.

Councillor Tony Ethapemi

Councillor Erica Gbajumo

Councillor Kieron Gill

*http://democracy.brent.gov.uk/documents/s74542/06b.%20Proposal%201 %20-%20Full%20Borough%20Map.pdf

From: Hector, Councillor Claudia Sent: 04 November 2018 15:25 To: reviews Subject: Ward patten boundaries for south east Brent Attachments: ward.pdf; ATT00001.htm

The initial proposals that were published for Brent in both cases showed what amounted to the carving up of Kensal Green ward (no 20) into Brondesbury ward (no 11), for the most part, plus some streets added to Queen’s Park (no8) and (no 15).

Clearly something has to be done to bring the numbers of voters in relation to the numbers of councillors into alignment with the overall aim of about 4,000 plus per councillor. However the choice of Kensal Green as the ward to carve up is arbitrary, to say the least.

Kensal Green has more voters than Brondesbury Park. It also has a distinct identity. If any ward should be chosen for being carved up it should be Brondesbury. However most local people who have taken an interest in this think that the best way forward for everyone is for all three wards, KG, BP and QP, to continue as two councillor wards. This has the advantage of our being able to draw our boundaries such that it makes a very close fit to the locality known as Kensal Green, and keeps all three wards at a manageable size. We can give some streets to Harlesden which needs more residents.

The residents of Kensal Green are proud of their identity. We have numerous community groups with “Kensal” in their name. Sent from my iPad

The use of Brent Council's e‐mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.

1 From: Chan, Councillor Jumbo Sent: 04 November 2018 19:59 To: reviews Subject: [Submission] Support for a Kensal Green ward Attachments: Kensal Green ward.pdf

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to you as both a resident of and councillor for Kensal Green ward in the . I am attaching a warding pattern proposal which includes a modified version of the current Kensal Green ward (see 'Kensal Green ward.pdf'), and I wish to write in support of it.

I believe that we currently have a thriving and distinct community. I am proud to be a member of and councillor supporting groups such as Kensal Green Residents' Association, Friends of Kensal Rise Library, Kensal Green Fingers, Kensal Green Streets and many more other groups which are centred around the current Kensal Green ward.

I understand that Brent Council has created two proposals which seeks to omit Kensal Green ward, and instead, subsume it into a two much larger Brondesbury Park and Queen's Park wards. I believe this is a grave oversight, as it will not only tear apart and destroy a unique community which is very different to these two latter wards, but moreover, will lead to poor governance and unwieldy administration as these two wards will be far too big. If one were to ask residents of Kensal Green whether they feel they live in Brondesbury Park and Queen's Park, and they will resoundingly deny such an assertion.

As you can see in the attached warding pattern proposal, some of the current Kensal Green ward is lost to Harlesden. However, residents have told me that they would very much like to keep most of Kensal Green ward as it is (including Cholmondeley Avenue, Radcliffe Avenue, Ancona Road, Spezia Road, Leghorn Road, Rucklidge Avenue, Palermo Road, Odessa Road and all of Furness Road), as well as extend the ward eastwards to Chamberlayne Road (which currently belongs to Queen's Park ward).

According to the attached warding proposal, the population distribution means that – if the wards are divided into Kensal Green, Brondesbury Park and Queen's Park wards, rather than two bigger Brondesbury Park and Queen's Park wards – there might only be two rather than the current three councillors. If this means three more cohesive and governable wards than the two massive and unwieldy Brondesbury Park and Queen's Park wards, then it is a sacrifice worth making.

In supporting the attached warding proposal, which seeks to keep a Kensal Green ward, I have sought to take into account that each ward have the same number of voters, cohesive community interests and identities, and effective and convenient local government. If you would like any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Jumbo

Cllr Jun Bo (Jumbo) Chan Labour Councillor for Kensal Green Ward, and resident of

1

The use of Brent Council's e‐mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.

2

From: Long, Councillor Janice Sent: 04 November 2018 23:24 To: reviews Subject: LONDON BOROUGH OF BRENT ELECTORAL BOUNDARY REVIEW

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

Dear Sir

I am writing to express my support for the proposals by Brent Labour Party and the Brent & Harrow Co- operative Party for the boundary review in LB Brent.

And I also endorse one of the main principles behind the proposal, that the North Circular Road is a major physical barrier that divides communities. There are some road level crossings but the NCR is mainly crossed by pedestrians using footbridges or underpasses. You use these when you have to get to a place on the other side of the NCR, eg Brent Park Tesco or Town Centre but it has meant there is little community connection.. You cannot easily cross the NCR by bicycle and the inability to easily cross the NCR has led to lower cycling rates in the north of the borough.

I have been a councillor since 1994 and have served in several wards. Since 2014 I have been a councillor in Dudden Hill ward, part of which runs along the NCR by Neasden Town Centre. There is an underpass from Neasden Shoppings Centre and a footbridge near the edge of the ward that takes you across to the Welsh Harp reservoir. I have never had need to use the footbridge. The underpass is used by people who live north of the NCR to access Neasden shopping centre. But residents of the Town Centre and its neighbouring streets have little reason to cross the NCR and go north.

When events are held in the Town centre, eg Council consultation events, the Neasden Festival, as a councillor I ask people where they live. Many respond by giving addresses in or CWH6 but very few are from the area north of the NCR.

I have attended events at St Catherines Church (now the polling station for CDU1 and CDu2) where many people who attend come from Dollis Hill ward. There are bus routes linking Neasden Town Centre / St Catherine's church with Dollis Hill ward. And I have been invited to attend a remembrance day service on 11th November described as “A special service to remember the 83 residents of Neasden & Dollis Hill who died during Word War I.”

The vicar at St Catherines has helped organise carol singing in Neasden Town centre each December and despite being invited (and accepting) no-one from Neasden Methodist Church, north of the NCR, actually attends.

The postal district of Neasden is large. It covers the Neasden Temple, IKEA, Neasden Town Centre, McDonalds, . But the postal area is too big to form a single community.

The reservoir is in Neasden Recreation Ground, both are in the current Welsh Harp ward. For 2016 and 2017 there was a Welsh Harp Festival held on the Recreation Ground. These were distinct and separate from the Neasden Festivals which were held in the Town Centre and St Catherine’ Church.

1 On a similar theme there is an annual Chalkhill Festival held on Chalkhill Park. This is sponsored by the Chalkhill Community Trust Fund and is a larger more established festival. This is attended mainly by residents from the .

The local primary school for Neasden Town centre is Braincroft school, in Dollis Hill ward. And the local Secondary school is Crest Academy. Wycombe Primary in Aboyne Road, north of the NCR, is attended by some children as Braincroft is not rated as a Good school. But as the school is full most children attend the local school, Braincroft.

So I believe that to unite a local community the best ward structure is to combine CWH6 and CDU1 & CDU2 with the current Dollis Hill ward (CDO1-4). As proposed by Brent Labour Party and Brent & Harrow Co-operative Party. CDO1 3590 CDO2 1237 CDO3 3015 CDO4 1562 Sub Total a 9404 CDU1 1434 CDU2 1244 Sub Total b 12082 CWH6 858 Grand Total 12940

I cannot understand the Council statement in the General Purposes Committee report of 31st October that this makes the proposed ward 20% too large. I acknowledge that it makes CDU3 with an island effect but that is determined by the road layout of Neasden Lane and Dudden Hill Lane joining at Neasden Grange. You have to access the Town centre by crossing Dudden Hill Road by the lights near Dollis Hill Lane or walking along the pavement by the Underpass to get to the footbridge across the A4088. Too often you see pedestrians trying to cross the road around The Grange as there is no pedestrian link to the Town Centre. Therefore it already has that island feel. Also Southview Avenue is a dead end road with only a pedestrian exit at the Neasden Lane end. Also it is not an island as much as the current isolated CWH6.

I found the Council proposals for the area. bizarre. It proposed a ward (Neasden) that crossed the NCR.

The current CWH6 area is an outlying area, surrounded by the NCR, Jubilee/Metropolitan lines and A4088 / Neasden underpass. It is connected to the rest of the current Welsh Harp ward by an underpass at the southerly end of the polling district. It has slightly better connections to the Neasden Town Centre area with a footbridge over the A4088 and a stretch of street properties on Neasden Lane. Altogether it is an odd area which has poor connections with the rest of the current Welsh Harp ward marginally better connections to the Town Centre, and therefore an enlarged Dollis Hill ward.

The Verney Street area (CWH5) is not easily accessed from Neasden Town Centre. If you use the underpass from the Town Centre you have to walk up Neasden Lane North to the lights beyond the large roundabout. It is not a pleasant walking route to the Town Centre given the heavy traffic. And there is no cycle route if you wish to cycle north from the Town Centre. The area (CWH5) can be accessed via another underpass at the most southerly part of CWH6. That takes you to the southern most point of CWH5. It is not therefore part of the Town centre and should not be in the same ward. The Council proposal for a ward crossing the NCR called Neasden creates a geographically awkward ward.

And the Mayor of London has used the NCR to act as a border for the Low Emission Zones. As the NCR in Brent is a six lane motorway this is a logical decision. Therefore I suggest a ward that crosses the NCR is not sensible and an expanded Dollis Hill ward should be implemented.

2 I msut also make it clear I have no intention of standing as a candidate in a new Dollis Hill ward. As a resident of Green getting to the current Dollis Hill ward is not easy, requiring two buses or a forty minute walk from my home through Gladstone Park. It is easier to get to many wards in Brent North using the Jubilee and Metropolitan lines!

Yours sincerely Cllr Janice Long

Cllr Janice Long Dudden Hill Ward, LB Brent

The use of Brent Council's e‐mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.

3 From: Nerva, Councillor Neil Sent: 05 November 2018 17:28 To: reviews Cc: Southwood, Councillor Eleanor; Denselow, Councillor James Subject: BRENT Submission Attachments: NN submission boundary 2018 pdf.pdf

Dear Sir/ Madam

Please find attached submission

Thanks

Neil

Cllr Neil Nerva Brent Council ‐ Queens Park Vice Chair LGiU

The use of Brent Council's e‐mail system may be monitored and communications read in order to secure effective operation of the system and other lawful purposes.

1

Submission to the Review of Local Government Boundaries in the London Borough of Brent

From

Cllr Neil Nerva Cllr James Denselow Cllr Eleanor Southwood

Councillors for Brent Council - Queens Park

November 2018

1

Introduction

This submission is written in accordance with the criteria stipulated by the Local Government Commission for Boundaries in England. Our starting point is that the North Circular Road must be accepted as the major barrier dividing the north from the south of the borough. We have also taken into account the way in which railway lines divide areas and have based our proposal on the preservation of local communities as far as possible.

The reduction in the number of councillors from 63 to 57 and the changes in the size of wards over time require a major re-think of the way in which Brent is divided into wards.

The River Brent was the historical boundary between the Boroughs of and Willesden when they merged to form Brent in 1965. It has little more than historical importance however, and the public at large have little awareness of what is essentially a small stream. The North Circular Road ( NCR), by contrast, is a major boundary especially to pedestrians. This road is a 3-lane dual carriageway with a motorway “feel” and has few crossing points. It is therefore proposed that the NCR form a hard boundary. For further information see below

The adaption of an internal hard boundary would suggest twenty six councillors in the area south of the North Circular and thirty one to the north of the NCR. This approach recognises that much of the projected building development work and population growth will take place in the north of the borough.

The last review was mandated to adapt three member wars throughout. Brent at present has twenty one wards each having three members, making a total of sixty three members. This submission is based on the Boundary Commission announcement that the new council is likely to comprise fifty seven members. In theory the new council could be based on a nineteen ward – three member model. However however analysis suggests that such an arrangement would continue to result in at least one ward straddling the NCR

We consider that the complexity of re warding means that the rewarding should be undertaken with a preference for three members wards broadly based on current wards, with a limited number of two-member wards as outlined. This is to ensure that new boundaries best link with geographical communities and make the NCR a hard boundary

This proposal achieves the reduction of six councillors by abolishing the current Kensal Green ward and by creating three two-member wards elsewhere. We believe that the new Harlesden ward should be based around Harlesden town centre and that therefore it makes sense to include the western part of the current Kensal Green ward within it. The eastern part of the current Kensal Green ward would be shared between the new Brondesbury ward and the new Queens Park ward. We would reduce Brondesbury and Welsh Harp to two member wards and create a new ward, the rationale for which being both the need to reduce the size of and the need to take account of the major building developments in that area.

A Note on Methodology

The basis of these numbers are the polling district population estimates on the Commission web site for 2024. In many cases it has been necessary to vary from existing polling district boundaries. This has been done using the existing (2018) electoral registration rolls on a street by street basis.

2

It is proposed that where a ward uses a street as a boundary, it should either run down the middle of the street or (if both sides of the road are included) the boundary should be the fence line. As stated above, we also believe that a pattern of boundaries should be free to use both three and two member wards. Given the number of barriers in the Boroughs, this sort of flexibility is needed if communities are to be adequately represented.

The Importance of the North Circular Road

The North Circular Road (NCR) is crossable by both vehicles and pedestrians at the extreme southern end of the Borough between Stonebridge and Tokyngton, and at the “IKEA” junction at the very northern end of the existing Stonebridge ward, but at no point between. It therefore cuts Stonebridge ward in half completely making the St Raphaels an entirely isolated and standalone community on its Stonebridge side.

It also serves to cut off the southern tip of Welsh Harp ward (CWH6) creating an entirely distinct area to the south of the main body of Welsh Harp ward.

Proceeding eastward there is a very minor pedestrian footbridge on to an industrial estate from the residential area of Dollis Hill at Kenwyn Drive and no further crossing point until the unwalkable junction around Staples corner at the eastern boundary of Brent.

The IKEA junction is itself unwelcoming to both vehicular traffic and to pedestrians. For vehicles it does not allow simple crossing but requires a complicated roundabout route to get from north to south or vice versa. This is routinely subject to traffic jams. The pollution and fears of road safety make it unpleasant for pedestrians to cross, and the timings of the lights mean that they can cross in one go but must remain exposed in the midst of the traffic halfway. It is also widely regarded as a barrier to increasing cycling in the Borough.

The crossability of the NCR was a major controversy during the 2000 review, features in transport debates in the Borough in general and has seen no significant progress in the last twenty years. Brent’s planners are assuming that the road will get worse following the projected expansion of the development in Barnet.

Car Usage in Brent

The difficulty of crossing the North Circular Road is further emphasised by the relatively low car ownership in Brent. According to the 2011 Census, 43% of Brent households did not own a car or van. This figure splits out by ward in the table below.

No car or van in Ward Household 35.6% Barnhill 33.6% Brondesbury 46.2% Dollis Hill 34.0% Dudden Hill 43.0% Fryent 28.3% Harlesden 60.5% Kensal Green 52.2% Kenton 19.7% Kilburn 62.7% 53.1%

3

Northwick Park 25.6% Preston 30.9% Queens Park 47.1% Queensbury 24.8% Stonebridge 50.6% Sudbury 36.7% Tokyngton 40.2% Welsh Harp 35.1% Wembley Central 43.7% Willesden Green 59.3%

Lack of access to a car for this large minority makes the NCR still more of a barrier than it already appears.

Summary of Wards

South of North Circular Road

Below is a summary of all the proposed wards for Brent South of the North Circular Road. As the existing Kensal Green would be redistributed between Harlesden, Queens Park and a little to Brondesbury it is shown as zero.

Ward Tot Total in Total Net Added Take Per % al all PD Street n Cllr varienc Cllr Number Awa e s s y Brondesbury 2 8,342 9,242 -900 563 1,46 4,171 -3% Park 3 Dollis Hill 3 12,940 12,940 0 0 0 4,313 0% Dudden Hill 3 11,598 9,494 2,104 2,104 0 3,866 -10% Harlesden 3 13,293 13,836 -543 453 996 4,431 3% Kensal Green 0 0 0 0 0 0 na na Kilburn 3 12,581 12,581 0 0 0 4,194 -3% Mapesbury 3 11,952 12,123 -171 0 171 3,984 -8% Queens Park 3 13,723 14,286 -563 0 563 4,574 6% Stonebridge 3 11,763 10,112 1,651 1,651 0 3,921 -9% Willesden Green 3 11,674 10,211 1,463 1,463 0 3,891 -10%

Remarks on Wards in the South of the Borough

Dollis Hill Ward

Once one accepts the importance of NCR as a barrier, it forms a good hard border for a three member Dollis Hill ward to the North. The Borough Boundary performs the same function to the East.

4

The current Dollis Hill has an important existing boundary to the south of it in the railway line that runs from Bus Garage through Gladstone Park and across to Neasden. This has very few crossing points, making a good natural boundary. The only crossing points are (from east to west) the A5 at Cricklewood bus garage, a small footbridge in Gladstone Park on the eastern side that is unsuitable for vehicular traffic, an iron pedestrian bridge at the extreme western end of the park and Dudden Hill Lane itself.

The Cricklewood bus garage point is harder to cross for pedestrians then it might appear from a map, because it is extremely wide at this point. Going from south to north the last residential properties occur at Temple Road, there is then an expanse of commercial property with numerous vehicular movements due to the car park provided and the bus garage. Two railway lines have to be crossed as the railway line splits in two, and the first entry point into Dollis Hill itself is still further to the north at Gladstone Park Gardens. Even with a vehicle, the A5 is not a particularly good connector between the south and the north of the railway line as the only turning off points are Temple Road and down on Walm Lane on what is often a traffic clogged road which is likely to become more so as the Brent Cross development moves forward.

The first pedestrian bridge in Gladstone Park is suitable for pedestrians and cyclists but not designed as a major traffic point, and the iron footbridge near Aberdeen Road is designed with stairs on either side making it unsuitable for cyclists or disabled people. Dudden Hill Lane is a major road and therefore a suitable crossing point.

This argues for a strong southern barrier to the ward, which leaves only the western end suitable for expansion which is necessary if a three member ward is to be maintained. We therefore argue for a Dollis Hill ward consisting of the present ward (Polling Districts CDO1- 4, CDU1-2 and CWH6 taken from Welsh Harp ward.

This meets electoral equality at 4,313 residents per councillor according to the LGCBE projections, and incorporates the natural hinterland of Dollis Hill with its main shopping centre in Neasden.

The inclusion of CWH6 avoids the crossing of the North Circular Road which at that point has no crossing into Welsh Harp except a pedestrian subway, and is effectively entirely detached from the existing Welsh Harp ward. It is not proposed to add or delete any streets to this ward beyond the designated polling districts of CDU1, CDU2 and CWH6. It is proposed to add the major roundabout with the former Grange Museum into the ward, but as this has no electors, it should have no electoral implications.

Mapesbury ward

As argued in the Dollis Hill section above the railway line from Cricklewood bus garage to Gladstone Park forms a good natural boundary to the north of this ward. The Borough boundary forms a firm boundary to the East. In the 2000 Review, the Commission noted that all parties had agreed to the use of the Jubilee line to the west and we propose to keep this. Although this has some crossing points into Brondesbury, it is a widely recognised barrier well known to the public at large.

Therefore the only way to expand the ward in the way that the numbers require is to expand into Dudden Hill ward.

It is therefore proposed to retain the whole of the existing Mapesbury ward (CMA1-5) and add most of CDU6 from Dudden Hill with the exception of Park Avenue North, which should be added to CDU4 in a Dudden ward (see below).

5

Parts of CDU6 have formed part of Mapesbury in the past, and other parts such as the rest of Melrose Avenue have at present an entirely artificial separation. The area around Gay Close and Kenneth Crescent forms a slightly isolated pocket that could in principle be allocated on either side, but making Mapesbury into a three member ward demands its allocation to Mapesbury because of the strength of the boundaries elsewhere for that ward (see above).

Streets to be Added

It is proposed that in addition to the core polling districts of CMA1, CMA2, CMA3, CMA4 and CMA5, to add all the streets of the existing CDU6 to this ward with the exception of Park Avenue North:

CHANDOS ROAD CHANIN MEWS GAY CLOSE JEYMER AVENUE KENNETH CRESCENT LENNON ROAD MARLEY WALK MELROSE AVENUE RIFFEL ROAD WALM LANE (CDU6 part)

Dudden Hill

As argued above, we are arguing to retain the core of the Dudden Hill ward subject to losses toward Dollis Hill and Mapesbury. We suggest moving the focus of the ward more to the Church End area, which the Council has identified as an area of future growth.

The proposed ward would retain the whole of CDU3, CDU4 and CDU5 as well as Park Avenue North from CDU6. The CDU4 area has a strong identity of its own that does not fit easily into other wards. To collect enough electors for a three member ward, it is proposed to expand the border into both the current Stonebridge and the current Harlesden.

SST2 is right at the northern end of Stonebridge. Removing it from the existing ward would help make that ward, geographically the largest in the Borough, more manageable. The area concerned is widely seen as part of that nebulous area “Neasden”. It is proposed that pedestrian and vehicular access to the rest of Dudden Hill be retained through Hawkins Road to the south.

This relates to the proposed additions from Harlesden ward. It is proposed to add to Dudden Hill both the area in the north of CHA1 north of Hawkins Road and to the north of CHA2 to the north of Ambleside Road. Both of these constitute clearer boundaries than Dudden Hill’s current southern boundary which is simply part way along Church Road with no significant land mark marking the boundary. It is proposed not to split CHA3 as that constituted a well integrated community area.

Streets to be Added

In addition to the core polling districts of CDU3, CDU4, CDU5 and SST2 we would add the following streets:

From CDU6: PARK AVENUE NORTH

6

From CHA1 CHURCH ROAD (part only) CROME ROAD GARNET ROAD HAWKINS ROAD (northern half only) HELPERBY ROAD HERON CLOSE MAYO ROAD TALBOT ROAD TYNSDALE ROAD

From CHA2 AMBLESIDE ROAD (northern half only) CHURCH ROAD (part only) CONLEY ROAD ESSEX ROAD HAWKSHEAD ROAD OLDFIELD ROAD OUTGATE ROAD ROUNDWOOD ROAD

Willesden Green

It is proposed to retain the whole of Willesden Green ward as a three member ward, thus including CWG1, CWG2 and CWG3. The natural focus of this ward is on Willesden High Road and it retains many well known Willesden landmarks such as , King Edward VII Park (Willesden), Willesden Sports Centre, Willesden Community Hospital, Willesden Green Tube station, Willesden Library Centre and Willesden Post Office.

It is also proposed to add slightly to the boundaries in several areas (working from the eastern end clockwise. Adding in the Brondesbury Park/Alverstone Road and Staverton Road area would help give greater legibility to the southern end of the ward through the retention of Sidmouth Road as a strong northern boundary to Brondesbury Park. This area forms a natural grouping by itself and looks towards the nearby Willesden Library centre and the High Road as a community focus. It would also bring Willesden Synagogue, a long established land mark in the area, within the ambit of Willesden. Incidentally the back entrance of Willesden Synagogue actually backs on to Heathfield Park already in Willesden.

Two more minor alterations are envisaged. Newman Close, by chance is currently divided between Willesden and Brondesbury and it is proposed to put the whole of Newman Close into Willesden Green. Grange Road is mostly in the existing Willesden and it is proposed to add the single property that is currently in HBP1. Similarly there are a small number of properties on Harlesden Road that currently are in HBP1, but have a more natural focus with the Library Centre and the High Road. The vast bulk of Harlesden Road is already in Willesden so this would bring those properties more in line with their neighbours. It is also proposed to include Frontenac (HBP1) in with the rest of Donnington Road as part of Willesden ward, recognising that its postal address is as part of Donnington Road although as a corner property it has not previously been included.

Finally it is proposed to extend the southern boundary of the ward along Harlesden Road on both sides down to number 415 Harlesden High on the odd side and down to Longstone Avenue on the even number side. This allows for a strong southern boundary to the ward along the middle of Longstone Avenue meaning that the whole of Roundwood Park is in Willesden. The omission of 417 to 443 Harlesden Road is because those flats, currently in

7

Kensal Green, have their front doors opening on to Cardinal Hinsley Close, which has access through Wrottesley Road in the present Kensal Green ward. This scheme would also include Dairy Close as part of Willesden as it opens on to Harlesden Road.

Streets to be Added

It is proposed that in addition to the core polling districts of CWG1, CWG2 and CWG3, the following streets be added to this ward:

From CKG2 DAIRY CLOSE HARLESDEN ROAD LONGSTONE AVENUE

From HBP1 FRONTENAC, DONNINGTON ROAD GRANGE ROAD (HBP1 part) HARLESDEN ROAD (HBP1 part) NEWMAN CLOSE (HBP1 part) BRONDESBURY PARK (HBP1 part) ALVERSTONE ROAD STAVERTON ROAD

Brondesbury

It is proposed to make Brondesbury into a two member ward comprising HBP1-5 subject to the minor boundary changes with Willesden described above and some further changes with Queens Park described below. This would retain Brondesbury largely as it is with an anchor on Kilburn High Road and a major feature in Willesden Lane. The principal community features would be the NW London Jewish School, Queens Park Community School and access to Tiverton Green.

Streets to be Added

It is proposed that addition to the core polling districts of CBP1, CBP2, CBP3, CBP4 and CBP5 the following streets should also be added:

From CKG5 ALL SOULS AVENUE (CKG5 part only) BUCHANAN GARDENS (northern half, or even numbers only) COLLEGE ROAD DOYLE GARDENS HERBERT GARDENS HOLLAND ROAD (numbers 1-45)

Kilburn

Since Kilburn almost meets the electoral quota on its present boundaries, it is proposed to retain the ward as it is (HKI1-5). Kilburn is a familiar name; most of whose boundaries consist of the Borough boundaries with the recognised North London line as a boundary to the North and Willesden Lane in the North West. The Kilburn High Road and established South Kilburn estate give it a widely recognised community character.

8

Queens Park Ward

The documentation from Brent concerning this review recognised that the Queens Park is a distinct community that should continue be a three member ward. Queens Park is a dense urban ward bounded by Kilburn in the east and by the Borough boundary to the south giving it clear boundaries in those directions. It has established centres of focus in the shape of the park and the two high streets - Salusbury Road and Chamberlayne Road

As councillors for Queens Park we can confirm that the ward has clear geographical and community coherence. The ward benefits from active resident and tenant associations covering the whole footprint. Up until 2002, the middle of Chamberlayne Road formed a boundary between Queens Park and former Kensal Rise ward. Since this time the east and west of Chamberlayne Road has been included in a single ward. Residents not consider Chamberlayne Road to be a hard boundary. Ark Academy Primary School at the western end of Harvist Road has in intake drawn from both sides of Chamberlayne Road

There is active cross resident association collaboration as exemplified by the coordinating group to support the bid by Brent Council to secure the TfL funding for improvements along the Chamberlayne Road corridor. It is our view, that a single ward should therefore continue to straddle and unite Salusbury Road and Chamberlayne Road.

We therefore propose keeping the existing wards in a three member ward of HQP1-5 and adding CKG6 to it. We further propose detaching CKG5 from Kensal Green ward and dividing it partly into the revised Queens Park and partly to the revised Brondesbury Park. We propose that the split occur along Buchanan Gardens with the southern (odd number side) in Queens Park and the northern even number side in Brondesbury.

Thus, the new western boundary of Queens Park would run up from the Borough boundary along the boundary of polling district CKG6 (which is numbers 1-7 Wrottesley Road) along the odd numbers of All Souls Avenue up to Buchanan Gardens. It would then take in Buchanan Gardens and head northward along the existing Queens Park boundary up the middle of College Road. The split at Buchanan Gardens occurs at the same point as Elemwood Tennis Court giving a visual cue as to the break in the road. The rest of the northern boundary of Queens Park would remain as it currently is. This arrangement would also have the advantage of clarifying the somewhat unclear existing boundary between Hardinge Road and the area just south of it, which is sometimes a source of confusion to some residents.

While we do not propose any names for these wards, the Commission may wish to consider renaming the ward as either “Queens Park” or as “Queens Park and Kensal Rise”. This would be a recognition that the western area has a strong affinity with the Kensal Rise name on both sides of College Road which is currently split by the existing boundary along College Road. One of the advantages of our proposal is that it would bring more of the widely recognised Kensal Rise area together including familiar landmarks such as the Princess Frederica Primary School, Kensal Green Tube station and the former Kensal Rise Library. It would also now include Kensal Rise station which is in the existing Queens Park ward.

Streets to be Added

From CKG5 BUCHANAN GARDENS (northern half only) BATHURST GARDENS

Kensal Green

9

The existing Kensal Green ward has six polling districts. We suggest that the whole of CKG6 go into Queens Park. CKG5 be split between Queens Park and Brondesbury as described in the Queens Park section.

The remainder of Kensal Green (with the exception of the small number of electors we propose putting into Willesden Green) would go into a ward focused on Harlesden Town Centre and called Harlesden.

Harlesden

We propose that Harlesden ward resume the strong Harlesden Town Centre focus that it had prior to the 2000 Review. To this end we propose that it include CHA3, CHA4 and most of CHA5. We further suggest adding the CKG1, CKG2, CKG3 and CKG4 (subject to the minor adjustments with Willesden Green described above and Stonebridge described below). We also propose adding part of CHA2 (see below).

Harlesden is an area with a strong sense of community that was formerly united but was split by the 2000 Boundary Review. This strong identity focuses on the Town Centre and around the symbol of the recently refurbished Jubilee Clock which currently stands on the periphery of the existing Harlesden ward roughly opposite the junction between the High Street and Wendover Road. Many of the Town Centre’s landmarks are actually in Kensal Green ward at the moment.

This includes almost all of Harlesden High Street, Harlesden Post Office, All Souls CofE Church Harlesden (the area’s only listed building), the Harlesden Salvation Army building on Manor Park Road, the Royal Oak, Willesden Junction station and the Convent of Jesus and Mary Girls School, Harlesden. These markers would be re-united to the landmarks in the existing Harlesden ward including Harlesden Library and Harlesden Methodist Church (the longest established Church in the area).

We have proposed under “Dudden Hill” adding the northern part of CHA2 above Ambleside Road to Dudden Hill. We would take the rest of that polling district and add it to Harlesden, with which it has a natural relationship. CHA3 forms a natural unit centred on the Roundwood Estate and we propose keeping it in Harlesden. The remaining parts of the existing Harlesden ward we propose adding to Stonebridge as described in the Stonebridge section.

Streets to be Added

It is proposed that the new Harlesden ward focus on the existing core polling districts of CHA3, CHA4 and CHA5 and add in the core polling districts from Kensal Green of CKG1, CKG3 and CKG4. We would also include the bulk of CKG2 except for Harlesden Road down to 415, numbers 1-47 Longstone Avenue and Dairy Close. We would also add:

From CHA2 AMBLESIDE ROAD (southern side) HAWKSHEAD ROAD LONGSTONE AVENUE MARIAN WAY THE DRIVE

Stonebridge

10

Finally for this area South of the North Circular Road, we propose a reconfigured Stonebridge ward. Stonebridge is currently the physically largest ward in Brent, and in our view somewhat unwieldy and disparate.

Following our belief in the NCR as a fundamental divider in the Borough, we propose putting SST1 (the St Raphael’s Estate) into Tokyngton ward. This creates a strong boundary down the middle of the NCR. For the same reason, the ACE Café (which we believe has no registered electors) should be in the North of the North Circular Road Area. We would add SST2, also a detached area, into Dudden Hill as described in the Dudden Hill section above.

The remaining polling districts SST3, SST4, SST5 and SST6 we put into a squatter and more manageable Stonebridge estate, which also incorporates what is known as the “Stonebridge Estate” which has historically formed the core of the ward.

To add to this, we would include the part of CHA2 south of Hawkins Road creating a clear boundary with our proposed Dudden Hill down the middle of the road. We would also add a number of streets from CHA5 nearest the Stonebridge border in order to maximise electoral equality. This would also add some parts of older versions of Stonebridge ward back into the ward.

Streets to be Added

The new Stonebridge ward would consist of the core polling districts of SST3, SST4, SST5 and SST6. In addition we would add:

From CHA1 ARMSTRONG ROAD BRITTIDGE ROAD CHURCH ROAD (part) CREUKHORNE ROAD DIXON WAY FIG TREE CLOSE GIFFORD ROAD HAWKINS ROAD (southern side only) PAULET WAY

From CHA5 CRAVEN PARK CRAVEN PARK ROAD PARK ROAD ST ALBANS ROAD BAKER ROAD CECIL ROAD

Remarks on wards in the north of the borough

Eastern Area

Welsh Harp

We prefer to retain the existing name of Welsh Harp for the area containing the Reservoir of that name. It is a long established feature of the Area, with a definite focus. For that reason, although it has no significant electoral implications and because of the view we take of the importance of the North Circular Road we would like the entire extent of the Welsh Harp Reservoir within Brent to be in Welsh Harp ward. We suggest that the name “Neasden”

11 which has been canvassed as an alternative is too nebulous a name and is widely attached to areas such as the northern part of Stonebridge, the northern part of Dudden Hill, the present Dollis Hill ward and Welsh Harp ward itself to be a suitable alternative. We therefore suggest retaining the “Welsh Harp” name for this area as it is established, historic and widely recognised as being specific to this area whereas “Neasden” can be taken as referring to a number of different parts of the Borough.

The northern boundary of this ward is weak. Historically, the area around Church Lane was part of Fryent ward and the boundary is somewhat arbitrary. This was felt to be the case in 2000, and was acknowledged in the subsequent Parliamentary review. The area known as “the bungalows cannot be easily be separated from the area near Church Lane due to the exits and entries in that area. That is polling districts CWH2 and CWH7 are hard to prise apart, although CWH2 could be drawn more rationally for this purpose.

The entrance on to Salmon Street is also somewhat odd, with that street divided into a southern Barnhill fragment, a central Welsh Harp part and a northern Fryent part.

Fryent

Fryent is an historically recognised name in this part of the Borough and the area and decisions relating to it are constrained by the Borough boundary to the East, the very substantial barrier of to the West and whatever decisions are made regarding the proposed Welsh Harp and Queensbury wards.

Queensbury

The existing Queensbury ward currently virtually meets the electoral criteria for a three member ward as it is. There is an argument as to how much of Kingsbury Town Centre can be included as it is currently split, but it should also be noted that the “boxing in” by the Borough boundary in this north eastern corner of the Borough limits the flexibility available.

Central Area

Barnhill

In itself the Barnhill area is an electorally balanced and logically coherent ward. Its weakest boundary is to the North where the top part of the ward (polling districts NBA1 and NBA2) can be added to Kenton without any barriers being crossed. We favour keeping the Chalkhill estate linked to the Barnhill area as they have an established and coherent relationship. For instance, the former Town Hall on Forty Lane and the estate that was rebuilt during the noughties are designed with sightlines that relate to each other. Thus we would favour keeping something like this area (polling districts NBA3-6) together in some form.

We cannot agree with the suggestion that the area around the Stadium should be shoehorned in with the Barnhill area. Such an arrangement creates a peculiar “hour glass” arrangement with an isthmus between the Barnhill and the Stadium parts. The two parts have a dissimilar character, with the historic Barnhill area as a long established suburban area, the Chalkhill estate a coherent creation of the last twenty years (albeit based on an earlier estate) and an area of new build around the Stadium which as yet does not have a fully formed character.

Kenton

Kenton is a ward given definition by the Borough boundary to the North. There is an argument either way as to whether the existing Kenton should absorb the northern part of

12

Barnhill and the semi-detached NNP1 polling district of next door. NNP1, as a result of railway lines and the Borough boundary, added to the very well established eponymous park make this polling district into something of an “island” however it is constituted.

Preston

Preston is in its present form is a triangle with railway lines giving a firm definition to either side, but a more open area towards the bottom of the ward where it could be expanded into CTO2 in the less well defined area west of Empire Way.

Tokyngton and Stadium ( existing and new ward)

The existing Tokyngton ward is the main cause of the present review thanks to the huge amount of construction in recent years. The northern two polling districts (CTO1 and 2) are effectively cut off from the southern three by the major barrier of the railway line running from the IKEA junction to the White Horse bridge. Between those two points there is no passing point of any kind for either pedestrians or vehicles. There is therefore a strong case for these two polling districts to be formed into their own ward perhaps called “Wembley Stadium” or “Stadium”. The Stadium also creates a community of interest in the area since the frequent event days need special measures that throw up a number of challenges for residents and traders in the area in a way that sets it apart from the rest of the Borough.

The rest of the existing Tokyngton is a natural, and indeed the only fit with the SST1 polling district of Stonebridge ward. SST1 is separated from the rest of the existing Stonebridge by the North Circular Road, a fact which is all the more striking given that the majority of Stonebridge households do not have access to a car (see figures above). It is also an area that has been historically separate being known as the “St Raphaels Estate”. SST1 does however have an important area of common interest with Tokyngton in the slim Brent River Park where the River is crossable into the Monks Park area, and there has been investment to create a broader community of interest than was in place at the time of the 2000 Review.

Western Area

Alperton

Alperton is once again constrained by the Borough boundary. It main linking feature is the Canal which runs through and constitutes a major part of Brent Council’s designation of the ward as a “Growth Area”. Growth in this area can really only move northward up the Road and we anticipate its boundaries will be largely electorally determined.

Northwick Park

Northwick Park is a very large area constrained by the Borough boundary to the west and the north and a railway line to the East. It has an important community feature in terms of its Park, and we suggest that the boundaries be electorally determined. Since, however, there is no street by street breakdown of the estimated population it is hard for us to suggest boundaries in this area.

Sudbury

Sudbury is a long established ward with strong links to Wembley as a shopping Centre that naturally looks towards Wembley Central ward, and has good communications links with that area through both public transport and car routes. Indeed the presence of one of the Borough’s only two District shopping areas at Ealing Road and Ealing Road library

13 effectively draws Sudbury residents into this area as well giving them alternatives of ingress and egress via the bus network. The ward is also constrained to the west by the boundary with Ealing.

Wembley Central

Wembley Central has two key features forming it as a ward, the eponymous station and the Ealing Road shopping area which has a unique character of its own. It also includes a large chunk of the Wembley High Road which could be used to justify straddling the railway in this area and expanding the ward in either direction. The boundary with the existing Tokyngton is a weak one. While Wembley is no longer the shopping centre it once was, it remains a widely recognised and used name and is widely regarded as being part of a broader area.

Cllr Neil Nerva

14

11/6/2018 Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Portal

Brent London Borough

Personal Details:

Name: Cllr Ketan Sheth

E-mail:

Postcode:

Organisation Name: Councillor, London Borough of Brent

Comment text:

I write to express, on behalf of many of our constituents who have got in touch with me, of mine and their great disappointment of the proposal to move parts of Wembley Hill and out of Tokyngton Ward and to bring in St Raphael’s Estate - part of Neasden neighbourhood and Willesden district. As you will no doubt appreciate Wembley Hill and Wembley Park are intrinsically part of Tokyngton Ward; and indeed, have been since the formation of the London Borough of Brent. The communities of Tokyngton, South Wembley, Wembley Hill and Wembley Park are very similar, if not identical, in terms of demography, built environment, placemaking, streetscape, and the environment generally. These communities have hitherto lived as one for past decades and have been similarly represented as such by their elected local councillors. Additionally, and perhaps importantly, these communities have a shared experiences of the impacts of living in a very close proximity of Wembley Stadium; and as such, have benefited from being in a single Ward - Tokyngron - and from being represented by a single Ward councillors. It is argued that with the large amount of regeneration work around Wembley Stadium warrants the removal of Wembley Hill and Wembley Park out of Tokyngton Ward. However, many of the schemes will not complete for some time. And, in any event, many of these schemes are for hotel or office accommodations, while equally there are many schemes that are for solely student accommodations - a large proportion of students are registered to vote at their home addresses rather than at their temporarily universities digs at Wembley Park. Furthermore, even if the arguments can be substantiated to move Wembley Hill and Wembley Park out of Tokyngton Ward as a result of Wembley Park regeneration schemes, then I think that Wembley Hill and large part of Wembley Park should continue to remain in Tokyngton Ward for the reasons outlined above. On a broader note, I believe the way the local Ward boundaries have been redraw is wholly destructive of well-placed communities and do not serve the community cohesiveness or residents interests. What needs to happen is to rethink about the smaller wards like Kenton and Northwick Park and similarly other smaller wards in the south of the Borough - perhaps amalgamation of these wards or reduction of 3 councillors to two to reduce the overall councillors from 63 to 57. This would be much more fair and equitable way to achieve the desired result rather than shoring up political support in some wards and dividing communities in other wards.

Uploaded Documents:

None Uploaded

https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/node/print/informed-representation/15381 1/1 Cooper, Mark

From: Cattermole, Thomas Sent: 05 November 2018 12:49 To: Cooper, Mark Subject: FW: Tokyngton boundary submission

Dear Mark

Please see below.

Tom

Sent: 05 November 2018 12:46 To:

Subject: Re: Tokyngton boundary submission

Apologies I had a re think of the ward name it should be Wembley City, as all of Wembley is a high profile area already, with or without the stadium. The stadium area should can be called Wembley Stadium and be a separate ward.

North End Road and empire court should remain in Wembley City.

Wembley City should have three ward councillors.

Regards Cllr Hylton

Councillor Orleen Hylton Labour Councillor for Tokyngton Member of the Planning Committee

1