New electoral arrangements for & Council Final Recommendations June 2020 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Hammersmith & Fulham? 2 Our proposals for Hammersmith & Fulham 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Review timetable 3 Analysis and final recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations consultation 7 Final recommendations 7 North of Goldhawk Road 9 Hammersmith 12 North Fulham 15 South Fulham 18 Conclusions 21 Summary of electoral arrangements 21 What happens next? 23 Equalities 25 Appendices 27 Appendix A 27 Appendix B 29 Outline map 29 Appendix C 31 Submissions received 31 Appendix D 33 Glossary and abbreviations 33

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 We are not part of government or any political party. We are accountable to Parliament through a committee of MPs chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. Our main role is to carry out electoral reviews of local authorities throughout England.

2 The members of the Commission are:

• Professor Colin Mellors OBE • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM

What is an electoral review?

3 An electoral review examines and proposes new electoral arrangements for a local authority. A local authority’s electoral arrangements decide:

• How many councillors are needed. • How many wards or electoral divisions there should be, where their boundaries are and what they should be called. • How many councillors should represent each ward or division.

4 When carrying out an electoral review the Commission has three main considerations:

• Improving electoral equality by equalising the number of electors that each councillor represents. • Ensuring that the recommendations reflect community identity. • Providing arrangements that support effective and convenient local government.

5 Our task is to strike the best balance between these three considerations when making our recommendations.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

1

6 More detail regarding the powers that we have, as well as the further guidance and information about electoral reviews and review process in general, can be found on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Why Hammersmith & Fulham? 7 We are conducting a review of Hammersmith & Fulham Council (‘the Council’) as its last review was completed in 2000 and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council in England ‘from time to time’.2 In addition, the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Hammersmith & Fulham. Some councillors currently represent many more or fewer voters than others. This is ‘electoral inequality’. Our aim is to create ‘electoral equality’, where votes are as equal as possible, ideally within 10% of being exactly equal.

8 This electoral review is being carried out to ensure that:

• The wards in Hammersmith & Fulham are in the best possible places to help the Council carry out its responsibilities effectively. • The number of voters represented by each councillor is approximately the same across the borough. 2

Our proposals for Hammersmith & Fulham 9 Hammersmith & Fulham should be represented by 50 councillors, four more than there are now.

10 Hammersmith & Fulham should have 21 wards, five more than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all but one ward should change; College Park & Old Oak will keep the same boundaries, but will now have three councillors.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Hammersmith & Fulham.

How will the recommendations affect you?

13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward name may also change.

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).

2 14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Hammersmith & Fulham. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

16 April 2019 Number of councillors decided 4 June 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 12 August 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming draft recommendations 17 December 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second consultation 2 March 2020 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and forming final recommendations 2 June 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3 4 Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation3 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors4 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2019 2025 Electorate of Hammersmith & Fulham 126,650 141,174 Number of councillors 46 50 Average number of electors per 2,753 2,823 councillor

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All of our proposed wards for Hammersmith & Fulham will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2025, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2020. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 11.5% by 2025. This growth is driven by large housing developments in central Hammersmith, , Shepherd’s Bush and White City.

3 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 4 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5 23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors 24 The Council currently has 46 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing the number of councillors by four will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 50 councillors – for , 50 one-councillor wards, 25 two- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

26 We received no submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 50-member council.

27 We received three submissions about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations. Two submissions were in favour of the increased number of councillors. The remaining submission was opposed but did not suggest a reasoned alternative. We have therefore maintained 50 councillors for our final recommendations.

Ward boundaries consultation 28 We received six submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included two borough-wide proposals from the Hammersmith & Fulham Labour Group and Hammersmith & Fulham Conservative Group. The Labour Group’s submission contained a number of narrative videos of their proposed wards. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

29 The two borough-wide schemes proposed mixed patterns of two- and three- councillor wards for Hammersmith & Fulham. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. Our draft recommendations were therefore based on aspects of both borough-wide proposals.

30 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the

6 best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

31 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Hammersmith & Fulham helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

32 Our draft recommendations were for six three-councillor wards and 16 two- councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

Draft recommendations consultation 33 We received 160 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included detailed responses from the Labour Group and the Conservative Group with comments covering the entire borough. We also received a number of submissions from Hammersmith & Fulham councillors, MP, Greg Hands MP and local organisations and residents. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals in the Fulham Reach and Margravine and Sands End areas.

34 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with a modification to the wards in the Fulham Reach, Hurlingham, Margravine, Munster and Sands End areas based on the submissions received. We also make minor modifications to the boundaries between College Park & Old Oak, White City and Wormholt wards and and West wards.

Final recommendations 35 Our final recommendations are for eight three-councillor wards and 13 two- councillor wards. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

36 The tables and maps on pages 9–19 detail our final recommendations for each area of Hammersmith & Fulham. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

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

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

7

37 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 27 and on the large map accompanying this report.

8

North of Goldhawk Road

9

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors College Park & Old Oak 3 5% Coningham 3 -5% Shepherd’s Bush Green 2 -2% Wendell Park 2 -2% White City 3 -6% Wormholt 2 -4%

College Park & Old Oak, White City and Wormholt 38 We received 14 submissions that directly related to these three wards, in addition to the two borough-wide responses from the Conservative Group and the Labour Group. Both groups supported the proposals for these three wards.

39 Of the other submissions, Councillor Harcourt supported the proposed College Park & Old Oak ward, in particular its increase in representation from two councillors to three councillors. Three other local residents were in favour of the proposed ward. One local resident proposed that no electors south of the A40 Westway should be included in College Park & Old Oak ward but did not specify how to resolve the extremely poor electoral equality that would result from this suggestion.

40 We also received a submission from Wood Lane Tenants’ & Residents’ Association and a petition from Wood Lane Estate residents stating their desire to remain in College Park & Old Oak ward, as opposed to White City ward where they had been included under our draft recommendations. The residents stated that maintaining the estate in College Park & Old Oak ward would acknowledge their separate identity from White City and the remainder of the Wood Lane area. It would also reflect locally recognised boundaries and recognise the representational needs of being in close proximity to the new developments at Wood Lane and .

41 In of the evidence received, we are therefore proposing to return the Wood Lane Estate to College Park & Old Oak ward as part of our final recommendations.

42 We also propose a very minor amendment to the boundary between White City and Wormholt wards. A local resident stated that the Lavender Court development would be accessed via Joslings Close rather than the Westway and therefore should be included in White City ward. We accept this reasoning and propose to amend the boundary between White City and Wormholt to run around the rear of this proposed development.

10

43 We received two submissions from local residents in favour of our proposed Wormholt ward and from all three Wormholt councillors in favour of both Wormholt and White City wards.

44 Subject to the above modifications, we propose these three wards as part of our final recommendations.

Coningham, Shepherd’s Bush Green and Wendell Park 45 We received 11 submissions that directly related to our Coningham and Wendell Park wards, in addition to the Conservative Group and Labour Group submissions that supported the wards.

46 The three councillors (councillors Homan, Ree and Vaughan) for the current Askew ward supported the proposed Coningham and Wendell Park wards, as did Councillor Caleb-Landy of ward. In addition, six local residents were in favour of the proposed wards, with the consensus amongst all respondents that a boundary along Askew Road provided for an appropriate division of the area.

47 The Conservative Group and Labour Group both supported our proposed Shepherd’s Bush Green ward, as did councillors Connell, Jones, Leighton and Perez and five local residents. The respondents argued that the new proposed ward was better focused on the heart of Shepherd’s Bush, integrated the new development around Westfield Shopping Centre and recognised the strong boundaries of the Goldhawk Road and Hammersmith and City Line.

48 One local resident proposed that the Coningham ward be named Cathnor after the park within the ward, in keeping with other proposed names. Given no other suggestions for the name and the general support for the Coningham name, we do not propose to make this change. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

49 Our final recommendations for this area are for three two-councillor wards of Shepherd’s Bush Green, Wendell Park and Wormholt and three three-councillor wards of College Park & Old Oak, Coningham and White City. All six wards will have good electoral equality by 2025.

11

Hammersmith

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Addison 2 5% Avonmore 2 -1% 2 8% Grove 2 -3% Hammersmith Broadway 2 -3% Ravenscourt 2 -4%

Addison, Avonmore and Brook Green 50 These three proposed wards were supported by the Conservative Group and Labour Group. In addition, the three current councillors for Addison ward (councillors Connell, Fennimore and Leighton) wrote in support of all three wards which they felt better reflected how the Addison and Brook Green communities interact. The councillors gave particular support to the fact that the proposed wards did not divide the Springvale Tenants’ & Residents’ Association between wards and used the Hammersmith and City Line and Goldhawk Road as the northern boundary of Addison ward. We also had a submission for a local resident in favour of the proposed Addison ward.

12

51 In response to our proposals for Avonmore and Brook Green wards, councillors Harvey and Smith wrote in support of both wards. We had several submissions from local residents asking that the Olympia exhibition centre be included in Avonmore ward, arguing that residents in that ward contend with traffic issues more than residents in other wards. We do not propose to adopt this amendment as we consider that a boundary running along the length of the A315 Hammersmith Road provides for a more identifiable boundary. We also note the point made by one of the local councillors that both Avonmore and Brook Green residents contend with issues related to and that dividing the area between two two-councillor wards will increase the respresentation across the affected area.

52 Having considered the submissions for these three wards, we are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for Addison, Avonmore and Brook Green wards as final.

Grove and Hammersmith Broadway 53 The Conservative Group and Labour Group supported our draft recommendations for these two wards. In particular, the Labour Group argued that the proposed Grove ward reunited and provided for a Hammersmith Broadway ward that focused around the Broadway.

54 Councillors Murphy and Quigley also wrote in support of both the proposed Grove and Hammersmith Broadway wards, as did a number of local residents. However, two local residents considered that the proposed boundary between Grove and Ravenscourt ward still divided part of the Brackenbury Village community and that the boundary should run along Paddenswick Road, with the streets to the west of Dalling Road and the east of Paddenswick Road included in Grove ward. Finally, one submission proposed that the ward should be named Hammersmith Grove to avoid confusion with Walham Grove in Fulham, and two others suggested the name of Brackenbury.

55 Having carefully considered the evidence received, we looked to see if it was possible to include this boundary as part of our final recommendations. However, we noted that this would create an electoral variance of -16% in Ravenscourt ward by 2025. We were not convinced that the evidence received justified this level of electoral inequality. We also do not propose to rename the ward Hammersmith Grove or Brackenbury as suggested as we noted the support for the Grove name in other submissions.

56 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Grove and Hammersmith Broadway as final, subject to a minor modification to the boundaries of Hammersmith Broadway ward to include 135–151 Talgarth Road in ward. This would ensure all of the residential properties on Talgarth Road are contained in the same ward (discussed below in paragraph 67).

13

Ravenscourt 57 This ward was supported by the Labour Group and Conservative Group. We also received submissions in support from Councillor Kwon and six local residents. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Ravenscourt as final.

58 Our final recommendations in this area are for six two-councillor wards, all of which have good electoral equality by 2025.

14

North Fulham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Fulham Reach 3 4% Lillie 2 0% Munster 3 7% West Kensington 3 -1%

Fulham Reach 59 We received 40 submissions relating to this ward and Hurlingham ward, covered in the next section. The Labour Group argued that Fulham Reach ward should be amended to reflect their original proposal. They argued that our proposed Fulham Reach ward divided the Estate and separated the community on either side of Road around Hospital.

60 This view was reflected in the remaining submissions, including those from councillors Cassidy, Cooper and Vincent as well as Andy Slaughter MP, Field Road Tenants’ & Residents’ Association, former Councillor Mr Gray and a number of local residents. These submissions provided a wealth of evidence in support of Fulham Palace Road as a unifier of the community and not as a boundary, acting as it does as a focus for shopping and leisure activities, as well as having schooling and faith communities united around it. We also received a submission that proposed that the

15

originally proposed Fulham Reach ward be named Crabtree as Fulham Reach referred to a housing development within the ward.

61 Having considered the evidence received, we are of the view that a three- councillor Fulham Reach ward – as suggested by the Labour Group during the first consultation – better reflects the communities in this area. We therefore propose to adopt this arrangement as part of our final recommendations. We do not propose to rename this ward Crabtree as we considered Fulham Reach to be a well-recognised local name that reflects the area covered by this proposed ward. As a result of adopting this ward, we propose to include all of the Bishops Park Estate in a Palace & Hurlingham ward, as suggested by the Labour Group and discussed in paragraphs 70–72. In addition, we propose to make two further small amendments.

62 We propose to run the boundary between Fulham Reach and Munster wards along for its entirety, placing Lillie Road Recreation Ground and Purcell Crescent in Munster ward to recognise their community ties to this area. This proposal was suggested by a local resident who stated that this would ensure that the Crabtree community would not be divided between wards. We also propose to include 187–203 Greyhound Road in Fulham Reach ward, as suggested by a local resident. This ensures that the whole of Greyhound Road is solely in a single ward and not divided between Fulham Reach and West Kensington.

63 We received a number of submissions that objected to the inclusion of St Dunstan’s Road and Margravine Gardens in Hammersmith Broadway ward, arguing that it should be included in Margravine ward to the south. Other respondents made the opposite arguments, suggesting that this same area (focused around Beryl Road) looked towards Hammersmith rather than Margravine.

64 As our proposed Margravine ward has been superseded by our proposed Fulham Reach ward, discussed above, we looked to see if we could include St Dunstan’s Road and Margravine Gardens in Fulham Reach ward. This would result in a Hammersmith Broadway ward with a variance of -10% and a Fulham Reach ward with a variance of 10%. The Commission is not of the view that it has received sufficient evidence to justify this level of electoral inequality, particularly given the support shown by some respondents to our draft recommendations. As part of our final recommendations, we have therefore retained St Dunstan’s Road and Margravine Gardens in Hammersmith Broadway ward, with a minor amendment to include Barons Court station in the Hammersmith Broadway ward to reflect evidence of transport links in the area.

Munster 65 The Conservative Group contended that our proposed Munster ward divided the Munster Village community between Munster and Fulham Town wards. The Group argued that the proposed pattern of wards should be similar to the existing

16

pattern of wards, as these recognised the distinction between the two separate communities in the area.

66 Having considered the evidence submitted by the Conservative Group, which was supported by Greg Hands MP and submissions from local residents, we accept that our draft recommendations divided a coherent community. However, a ward identical to the existing ward would create an electoral imbalance of -14%. To address this level of electoral inequality, we propose to include the area bounded by Lillie Road, Rylston Road, Dawes Road and Pellant Road in our proposed Munster ward (as suggested in our draft recommendations). We also propose to include Purcell Crescent in Munster ward, as discussed in paragraph 62.

Lillie and West Kensington 67 In response to the consultation on our draft recommendations, we received three submissions in favour of our proposed wards. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final, subject to the modification outlined in paragraph 56 to include 135–151 Talgarth Road in our proposed West Kensington ward. This will ensure that all residential properties on Talgarth Road are included in the same ward.

68 Our proposed final recommendations for this area are therefore three three- councillor wards of Fulham Reach, Munster and West Kensington and a two- councillor ward of Lillie. These four wards all have good electoral equality by 2025.

17

South Fulham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Fulham Town 2 -2% Palace & Hurlingham 3 4% & Sandford 2 1% Sands End 3 -1% 2 -3%

Fulham Town 69 As mentioned in paragraphs 65 & 66, we propose to amend the boundaries of Munster ward, as proposed by the Conservative Group in their submission. As a consequence, it is necessary to propose a Fulham Town ward with two councillors. This ward is similar to the existing ward, with the exception of the area to the east of Parsons Green Lane/Kelvedon Road, which is included in Walham Green as we proposed at the draft recommendations stage. We received no further submissions that related to this ward and it is therefore confirmed as final, subject to the modification outlined above.

18

Palace & Hurlingham 70 In response to the draft recommendations, the Labour Group pointed out that forecast electorate for the Hurlingham Retail Park development had not been included in our proposed ward, being erroneously allocated to Sands End ward. As a result, our proposed Hurlingham ward had a variance of 11% instead of 7%. To improve this level of electoral inequality, the Group suggested a major amendment to our proposed ward.

71 The Labour Group proposed that Hurlingham ward should include the entirety of the Bishops Park Estate, be renamed Palace & Hurlingham and increased from two councillors to three. This proposal formed part of their suggestion for a reconfiguration of our proposed Fulham Reach, Hurlingham and Margravine wards. As discussed in paragraphs 59–64, we have accepted the Labour Group proposal for Fulham Reach as part of our final recommendations.

72 We have also accepted the Labour Group’s proposal for Palace & Hurlingham. The majority of the 40 submissions received during consultation were opposed to the division of the Bishops Park Estate (referred to in many submissions as the ‘Alphabet Streets’). They provided evidence relating to the strong community identity and ties within that area. Our revised Palace & Hurlingham ward includes all the Bishops Park Estate or ‘Alphabet Streets’ in a single ward, recognising their strong community ties.

Sands End 73 We received 14 submissions relating directly to Sands End ward, including one from Councillor Uberoi. All 14 proposed that the Imperial Gasworks site be included in Parsons Green & Sandford ward. This was also suggested by the Labour Group, which stated that the Imperial Gasworks site formed part of the old Sandford Manor and should be included with the rest of the old manor in Parsons Green & Sandford. We have adopted this amendment as part of our final recommendations.

Parsons Green & Sandford and Walham Green 74 We received three submissions in response to these two wards, all three of which supported the draft recommendations. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for these wards as final.

75 Our proposals for this area are for two three-councillor wards of Palace & Hurlingham and Sands End and three two-councillor wards of Fulham Town, Parsons Green & Sandford and Walham Green.

19

20

Conclusions 76 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Hammersmith & Fulham, referencing the 2019 and 2025 electorate figures. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 50 50 Number of electoral wards 21 21

Average number of electors per councillor 2,533 2,823 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 6 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 2 0 from the average

Final recommendations Hammersmith & Fulham Council should be made up of 50 councillors serving 21 wards representing 13 two-councillor wards and eight three-councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large maps accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Hammersmith & Fulham. You can also view our final recommendations for Hammersmith & Fulham on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

21

22

What happens next? 77 We have now completed our review of review of Hammersmith & Fulham. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2022.

23

24

Equalities 78 The Commission has looked at how it carries out reviews under the guidelines set out in Section 149 of the Equality Act 2010. It has made best endeavours to ensure that people with protected characteristics can participate in the review process and is sufficiently satisfied that no adverse equality impacts will arise as a result of the outcome of the review.

25

26

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Hammersmith & Fulham Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Addison 2 5,681 2,841 12% 5,936 2,968 5%

2 Avonmore 2 5,315 2,658 5% 5,576 2,788 -1%

3 Brook Green 2 5,811 2,906 15% 6,102 3,051 8%

College Park & 4 3 5,855 1,952 -23% 8,881 2,960 5% Old Oak

5 Coningham 3 7,779 2,593 2% 8,052 2,684 -5%

6 Fulham Reach 3 8,359 2,786 10% 8,847 2,949 4%

7 Fulham Town 2 5,312 2,656 5% 5,558 2,779 -2%

8 Grove 2 5,193 2,597 3% 5,452 2,726 -3% Hammersmith 9 2 5,188 2,594 2% 5,468 2,734 -3% Broadway 10 Lillie 2 4,695 2,348 -7% 5,619 2,810 0% 11 Munster 3 8,734 2,911 15% 9,027 3,009 7%

27

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 12 Palace & 3 8,181 2,727 8% 8,768 2,923 4% Hurlingham Parsons Green & 13 2 5,458 2,729 8% 5,712 2,856 1% Sandford

14 Ravenscourt 2 5,075 2,538 0% 5,414 2,707 -4%

15 Sands End 3 6,897 2,299 -9% 8,421 2,807 -1% Shepherd’s Bush 16 2 3,675 1,838 -27% 5,509 2,754 -2% Green 17 Walham Green 2 5,256 2,628 4% 5,481 2,740 -3%

18 Wendell Park 2 5,397 2,699 7% 5,537 2,768 -2%

19 West Kensington 3 6,836 2,279 -10% 8,390 2,797 -1%

20 White City 3 6,655 2,218 -12% 7,976 2,659 -6%

21 Wormholt 2 5,298 2,649 5% 5,448 2,724 -4%

Totals 50 126,650 – – 141,174 – –

Averages – – 2,533 – – 2,823 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Hammersmith & Fulham.

Note: The ‘variance from average’ column shows by how far, in percentage terms, the number of electors per councillor in each electoral ward varies from the average for the borough. The minus symbol (-) denotes a lower than average number of electors. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. Figures have been rounded to the nearest whole number. 28

Appendix B Outline map

29

Number Ward name 1 Addison 2 Avonmore 3 Brook Green 4 College Park & Old Oak 5 Coningham 6 Fulham Reach 7 Fulham Town 8 Grove 9 Hammersmith Broadway 10 Lillie 11 Munster 12 Palace & Hurlingham 13 Parsons Green & Sandford 14 Ravenscourt 15 Sands End 16 Shepherd’s Bush Green 17 Walham Green 18 Wendell Park 19 West Kensington 20 White City 21 Wormholt

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

30

Appendix C Submissions received

All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/hammersmith-and- fulham

Political Groups

• Hammersmith & Fulham Council Conservative Group • Hammersmith & Fulham Council Labour Group

Councillors

• Councillor C. Aherne (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor J. Caleb-Landy (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor I. Cassidy (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor A. Connell (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor C. Cooper (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor L. Culhane (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor S. Fennimore (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor W. Harcourt (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor R. Harvey (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor L. Homan (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor A. Jones (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor B. Kwon (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor R. Leighton (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor A. Lloyd-Harris (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor S. MacMillan (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor P.J. Murphy (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor N. Perez (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor P. Quigley (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor R. Ree (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor M. Schmid (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor A. Siddique (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor F. Smith (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor M. Uberoi (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor R. Vaughan (Hammersmith & Fulham Council) • Councillor G. Vincent (Hammersmith & Fulham Council)

31

Members of Parliament

• Greg Hands MP (Chelsea & Fulham) • Andy Slaughter MP (Hammersmith)

Local Organisations

• Field Road Tenants’ & Residents’ Association • Friends of Margravine Cemetery • Wood Lane Estate Tenants’ & Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 130 local residents

Petitions

• One petition of 64 names by the residents of the Wood Lane Estate

32

Appendix D Glossary and abbreviations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

33

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

Parish (or town) council electoral The total number of councillors on any arrangements one parish or town council; the number, names and boundaries of parish wards; and the number of councillors for each ward

Parish ward A particular area of a parish, defined for electoral, administrative and representational purposes. Eligible electors vote in whichever parish ward they live for candidate or candidates they wish to represent them on the parish council

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

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

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

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

34

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