Warding Pattern Arrangements

Home , Berrylands, Canbury, Canbury Gardens, Kingston Museum, Kingston upon Thames, Kingston Vale

Submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England by the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames

CONTENTS

1. Introduction 2 2. Borough Profile 3 3. Current Arrangements 8

Current Warding Patterns 8 Neighbourhoods 9

4. Principles of the Warding Review 11 Stage 1 Council Sizing 11 Statutory Criteria 11 Electoral Equality 11 Community Identity 12 Number of Councillors per Ward 13 5. Warding Recommendations 14

Summary 14 Motspur Park and Old Malden 15 King Georges and Sunray 20 Chessington and Hook 23 Surbiton, Berrylands and Tolworth 28 Norbiton 42 New Malden 45 Kingston 51 Coombe 62

1. Introduction

1.1. This report forms the Royal Borough of Kingston’s response to the second stage of the review of electoral arrangements undertaken within the Borough by the Local Government Boundary Commission for England. It sets out the Council’s preferred pattern of ward boundaries and associated arrangements including the number of Wards, the number of Councillors within each ward and the names of the wards.

1.2. The Council has arrived at these proposals following extensive engagement and consultation with ward Members in every part of the Borough. This has taken the form of both workshops and one to one and small group meetings as well as an online questionnaire issued to all Members. The work has been overseen by a cross party Member Reference Group comprising two Councillors from each of the Administration Liberal Democrat Group and the Opposition Conservative Group.

1.3. The report was approved for submission by the meeting of the Full Council on 17 December 2019.

1.4. The proposals have been drawn up on the basis of the Boundary Commission’s conclusion following the first stage of the review that it is minded to recommend that the Borough should continue to be represented by the present total of 48 elected Councillors. The Council’s submission also takes into account the three criteria applied by the Commission relating to electoral equality, community identity and effective and convenient local government and reflects the Technical Guidance issued by the Boundary Commission for the conduct of electoral reviews.

2. Borough Profile

2.1. The Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames is located in south west London, on the banks of the Thames, 12 miles from the centre of the city. It covers 3,756 hectares and has a population of 180,600. The Borough has excellent transport links so is well placed as a visitor and commercial centre and Kingston’s town centre is a popular shopping and entertainment destination. In addition to the town of Kingston Upon Thames itself there are several other distinct local areas within the Borough. These include Berrylands, Chessington, Coombe, Hook, New Malden, Surbiton and Tolworth. The borough contains significant areas of public parks and open spaces.

2.2. The local authority area includes two parliamentary constituencies. Kingston and Surbiton lies wholly within the administrative boundary of the Royal Borough, while the wards of Canbury, Coombe Hill, Coombe Vale and Tudor in the north of the borough constitute part of the Richmond Park constituency.

2.3. As the oldest royal borough in London, dating back to 838AD, Kingston has a proud history, intrinsically linked to its unique location on the River Thames. In the tenth Century, seven Anglo-Saxon kings were crowned in Kingston, and the Coronation Stone now stands in the grounds of the Guildhall. A market in Kingston has flourished since the 13th Century, and the ancient market place and stalls in the town centre were rejuvenated in 2014, which gained a RIBA Regional London Award in 2016. Surbiton saw one of the last battles of the English Civil Wars, which was fought in 1648. Such elements contribute to the borough’s attractive, distinctive image and character. It is important to conserve and enhance what makes the borough and its local areas different, to retain and enhance its unique local identity. Heritage assets form part of

the borough’s identity and play a critical role in the regeneration of the borough by creating a distinctive character experienced by all.

2.4. Kingston is one of the smallest boroughs in South West London; as well as bordering the London boroughs of Richmond, Sutton, Merton and Wandsworth it shares borders with the Surrey districts of Elmbridge, Epsom & Ewell and Mole Valley.

2.5. Like the rest of London, Kingston’s population is growing. The total projected population for 2019 is 180,600 and this is anticipated to rise to 228,500 by 2050. Kingston is home to a higher proportion of older residents (aged 65+) compared with London and this age group is projected to grow from 24,800 in 2019 to 45,100 in 2050. The number of young people (aged 0-19) is set to increase from 44,000 in 2019 to 50,300 in 2050.

2019 2025 2030 2050

Projected 180,600 190,300 202,000 228,500 population (+9,700; +5.4% (+21,400; +11.8% (+47,900; +26.5% against 2019) against 2019) against 2019

Older Residents 24,800 28,100 32,000 45,100 (65+) (+3,300; +13.3% (+7,200; +29% (+20,300; +81.9% against 2019) against 2019) against 2019)

Young People 44,000 46,500 47,300 in 2030 50,300 (0-19 years) (+2,500; +5.7% (+3,300; +7.5% (+6,300; +14.3% against 2019) against 2019) against 2019) Source: GLA 2016 Housing led population projections

2.6. Whilst people living longer is something to celebrate, Kingston’s growing population - particularly the growth in younger and older cohorts who tend to require more social care support - puts increasing pressure on a range of local services, particularly social care and housing.

Total population projected to 2050

Source: GLA 2016 Housing led population projections

2.7. Kingston is an increasingly diverse borough and will have an estimated BAME population of 35.3% by 2025. 32.7% of current working aged adults are from Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic groups.

Year

Ethnic Group 2019 2019 2025 2025 Number % Number %

White 121,900 67.5% 123,200 64.7% British/Irish/Other

BAME 58,700 32.5% 67,100 35.3% Source: GLA 2016 Housing led population projections

2.8. Residents of Kingston are generally in good health, with 86% self-reporting their health as being good or better. Like much of the country, obesity levels are a concern - 53% of the borough’s adults are classed as overweight or obese1. That said, Kingston compares favourably to London and England on this and against a range of health and lifestyle indicators, including life-expectancy.

1 Public Health England 2016/17

Self reported health per 100 persons

Source: ONS 2011 Census

2.9. Kingston ranks as the second least deprived local authority in London and is 143rd out of 152 authorities in England. Nonetheless, there are pockets of relative deprivation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation ranks every small area in England from 1 (most deprived area) to 32,844 (least deprived area). Three of Kingston’s 98 small areas - within the current Norbiton, Berrylands and Beverly wards - fall within the top 30% for deprivation in the country.

Deprivation score - comparison with London boroughs

Source: DCLG 2015

2.10. Kingston’s education outcomes are strong, with the borough consistently ranking among the best local authorities nationally for educational attainment at both GCSE and A-Level. 77.5% (93,000) of 16-64 year olds are economically active, 4.0% of which are unemployed (2017/18). This is lower than both London (5.0%) and England (4.3%).

% of 16-64 year olds economically active

Source: ONS Annual population survey (June 2018)

2.11. Kingston is amongst the safest boroughs in London, with crime rates - including anti-social behaviour, violence and sexual offences - significantly lower than the London average.

Total crime rate comparison across London (Sept 2017 - Aug 2018)

Source: data.police.uk

3. Current Arrangements

Current Warding Patterns

3.1. Since the previous Boundary Commission review, undertaken in 1999, the Council has operated with 48 Councillors divided into 16 wards as arranged in the map attached at Appendix 1. In accordance with the uniform requirements in London at the time of the last review each of these wards are represented by three Councillors. Elections to the whole Council take place every four years with the next scheduled for May 2022.

3.2. On the basis of the forecast electorate for 2025, which projects a target of one Councillor per 2,572 electors, six of the 16 existing wards (38%) would at that point breach the maximum variation of +/- 10% if no change were to be made to the current warding arrangements. This would be a sufficiently significant deviation from the guidelines to trigger intervention by the Local Government Boundary Commission.

3.3. The greatest discrepancy would be found in Kingston where Canbury, which has seen a number of major developments reach completion in recent years, would have an electorate more than 21% larger than the target figure and Grove would be 13.1% above (the third Kingston ward, Tudor, would have a deficit of 9.1%, at the outer limits of the tolerance). Significant variances would also be recorded in Coombe Hill (-14.8%), St Marks (-12%), Tolworth and Hook Rise (+11.7%) and Chessington North and Hook (-10.1%). Only seven wards, fewer than half the total, would be within the ideal variation of +/- 5%.

3.4. The table below provides details of the electorate totals and electoral equality projections to 2025 for each of the existing wards.

All wards return 3 Councillors. The target number of electors per Councillor is 2,572.

Ward Electorate (2025 projection) Deviation from Equality

Alexandra 8,278 +7.3%

Berrylands 7,388 -4.3%

Beverley 8,066 +4.5%

Canbury 9,362 +21.3%

Chessington North and Hook 6,935 -10.1%

Chessington South 8,054 +4.4%

Coombe Hill 6,571 -14.8%

Coombe Vale 7,369 -4.5%

Grove 8,729 +13.1%

Norbiton 7,509 -2.7%

Old Malden 7,876 +2.1

St James 7,135 -7.5%

St Marks 6,790 -12%

Surbiton Hill 7,775 +0.8%

Tolworth and Hook Rise 8,619 +11.7%

Tudor 7,015 -9.1%

Red - variation of 10% or more Amber - variation of between 5-10% Green - variation of less than 5%

Neighbourhoods

3.5. Neighbourhood Committees are an important feature of the Council’s governance arrangements, providing an opportunity for decision making at the closest possible level to local residents and more effective engagement and consultation with local communities. The Council is divided into four Neighbourhood areas with every Councillor sitting on their relevant Neighbourhood Committee. The relationship of the Neighbourhoods to the existing structure of wards is illustrated in the map below.

3.6. Under new arrangements introduced in March 2019 designed to strengthen the role of Neighbourhood Committees they are able to exercise decision making powers in respect of almost any matter within the relevant area provided that it does not have a strategic cross borough impact and is consistent with both existing budgetary and policy provisions. Matters specifically reserved to Neighbourhood Committees for determination include: responsibility for the development of local Community Plans; matters related to traffic management schemes (except those on A roads); parking controls and the determination of planning applications. Each Neighbourhood Committee has access to dedicated sources of funding for schemes within its area including locally generated Community Infrastructure Levy funding.

3.7. The Neighbourhoods have not been used as a basis of the review because they encompass significantly wider areas than individual wards and each contains several distinct community identities. Nevertheless, in certain places consideration has been given to the impact on effective governance where boundary changes might result in dilution of accountability - for example where decision making responsibility for a key location would potentially be split not just across different wards but also, as a consequence, different Neighbourhoods.

3.8. The Council will undertake a review of its Neighbourhood boundary arrangements to take account of the final revised warding pattern following the conclusion of the Boundary Commission’s work.

4. Principles of the Warding Review

Stage 1 - Council Sizing

4.1. The Council welcomes the outcome of the first stage of the review process which was designed to establish the number of Councillors that the Borough requires in the future. The Boundary Commission has indicated that it is provisionally minded to recommend that the Borough should continue to be represented by 48 Councillors.

4.2. Taking into account both Greater London Authority population growth forecasts and anticipated housing development schemes the Council has projected that the electorate will increase from 115,217 (as at 1 September 2019) to 123,489 in 2025. (Full details of the methodology used to arrive at the projection to 2025 can be found in the Council’s Stage 1 response.) The warding arrangement proposals contained in this report have therefore been devised on the basis of a ratio of 2,572 electors for each Councillor.

Statutory Criteria

4.3. The proposals contained in this report take into account and are designed to satisfy the three statutory criteria set by the Boundary Commission, namely that the pattern of wards should

● Deliver electoral equality where each borough Councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough so that the value of a vote is the same in every ward ● As far as possible reflects the interests and identities of local communities; and ● Provide for effective and efficient local government

Electoral Equality

4.4. The expectation of the Boundary Commission is that the number of electors in each ward should vary by no more than +/- 10% of the average number of electors per Councillor (in the case of Kingston this is 2,572) and preferably by no more than +/- 5%. The Council’s recommended warding pattern seek to minimise electoral imbalances by containing the variation to approximately +/- 5% except where special circumstances apply and in any event to +/- 8% in every ward. Where imbalances of +/- 7-8% are proposed this is because either it is necessary to take account of clear and obvious boundaries which delineate natural communities or to make allowance for significant development anticipated in the period beyond 2025.

4.5. The review has encompassed all existing wards, not just those with electoral inequality.

Community Identity

4.6. The Council’s proposals are designed to balance the requirement for electoral equality with the need to respect and reflect the existence of natural communities with commonalities of interests and identity.

4.7. Consistent with Boundary Commission guidelines, identity has been established by looking at the ways in which residents live their daily lives - the shops, doctors surgeries, schools, leisure facilities, transportation hubs etc that they use and the way in which they arrange themselves within community groups. These are seen as being more relevant than traditional historical associations and connections. Communities constantly evolve over time and historical considerations may be of declining importance in today’s dynamic and diverse urban communities.

4.8. In developing the warding pattern the view has been taken that there are certain geographical and physical features within the Borough which present clear barriers to movement and impede the development of coherent communities across them, chiefly major roads, railway lines and the Hogsmill river and its associated nature reserves.

4.9. It is recognised that not all such features are impermeable - for example, there is good connectivity between the northern part of the proposed New Malden Town ward and the main town centre despite the presence of a railway line dividing the two. In some cases major heavily trafficked roads which might otherwise be perceived as a barrier can in fact act as a focal point for the local community - the submission proposes that the Tolworth Broadway should sit wholly within the Tolworth ward because it represents an important shopping destination for the local community. This is also one of a number of areas where there are benefits in terms of accountability and good governance in ensuring that key facilities and amenities fall wholly within a single ward.

4.10. Nevertheless, in formulating its proposals the Council has adopted the view that the London to Portsmouth A3 trunk road which runs through the entire width of the Borough and consists of at least dual carriageway and, for most of its route, three lanes in each direction, should be treated as a hard border with no ward split across it. Similarly in the north of the borough the railway line to and from Waterloo which serves New Malden, Norbiton and Kingston stations (and also for the most part forms the border between the Kingston and Surbiton and Richmond Park Parliamentary constituencies) represents a clear and obvious division between communities, except for the stretch in New Malden referred to in 4.9 above.

Number of Councillors per Ward

4.11. At the time of the last review of Kingston’s boundaries, undertaken in 1999, London Boroughs were required to establish wards represented by three Councillors in the expectation that there would be a move towards the election of Councils by thirds. This resulted in boundaries which serve electoral equality but do not always best reflect the communities that local people recognise. For example, three of the existing wards, Alexandra, St James’ and Tolworth and Hook Rise, straddle either side of the busy six lane A3 which might otherwise be expected to represent a natural boundary between local communities.

4.12. In the event Kingston, in common with all London Boroughs, has retained a whole Council electoral structure in which all Council seats are contested at local elections every four years. Retention of a uniform three seat pattern is therefore no longer a key consideration in terms of the most appropriate warding pattern for the Borough.

4.13. Single Member wards are not, however, favoured because of the lack of resilience if a ward Member is unavailable, the potential for workload imbalance and the inability to pass casework to a ward colleague in the event of a conflict of interest. In the view of the Council the risk that residents might lack access to a directly elected representative due to the illness or indisposition of a single Member would potentially jeopardise arrangements for effective and efficient local government. Those relatively self contained communities with distinct local boundaries which might otherwise be considered for single Member wards, most notably the Sunray Estate which forms part of the existing Alexandra Ward, do not in any event possess an electorate of the right size to meet the electoral equality requirement for one Councillor.

4.14. The Council is also mindful of the Boundary Commission’s technical guidance which states that wards or divisions returning more than three Councillors result in a dilution of accountability to the electorate and will not normally be recommended.

4.15. The Council therefore proposes a warding pattern which combines two and three Member wards. This provides the flexibility required to better reflect community identity whilst still providing for electoral equality. It will also enable Members to manage individual periods of absence, balance workloads and pass on casework where another Councillor may have more relevant experience or to avoid a conflict of interest.

5. Warding Recommendations

Summary

5.1. The Council proposes moving from the present pattern of 16 three Member wards to 19 wards, 10 of which are represented by three Members and nine by two Members. A summary of the recommendations is set out below with a borough overview map at Appendix 2. Detailed descriptions of the proposals in each area, together with individual maps, can be found on the following pages.

Proposed Ward Number of Target Forecast % Variation Councillors Electorate Electorate

Alexandra Park 2 5,144 5,052 -1.8%

Berrylands 2 5,144 5,375 +4.5%

Canbury Gardens 2 5,144 5,008 -2.7%

Chessington South 3 7,716 7,563 -2%

Coombe Hill 2 5,144 4,826 -6.2%

Coombe Vale 3 7,716 7,363 -4.6%

Hook & Chessington North 3 7,716 8,101 +5%

King George’s & Sunray 2 5,144 5,343 +3.9%

Kingston Gate 3 7,716 8,052 +4.3%

Kingston Town 3 7,716 7,765 +0.6%

Motspur Park 2 5,144 5,516 +7.2%

New Malden Town 3 7,716 7,111 -7.9%

New Malden West 2 5,144 5,268 +2.4%

Norbiton 3 7,716 7,151 -7.3%

Old Malden 2 5,144 5,533 +7.6%

Surbiton Hill 3 7,716 7,570 -1.9%

Surbiton Town 3 7,716 7,839 +1.6%

Tolworth 3 7,716 7,967 +3.2%

Tudor 2 5,144 5,069 -1.5%

Proposal by Ward

5.2. MOTSPUR PARK AND OLD MALDEN

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Motspur Park Old Malden (part), St 2 5,144 5,516 +7.2% James (part)

Old Malden Old Malden (part), 2 5,144 5,533 +7.6% Alexandra (part)

5.2.1. The area south of the A3 Kingston Bypass bounded by the Borough boundary to the east and south and the Hogsmill River to the west comprises a projected 2025 electorate of 11,000 voters. It currently includes the entirety of the Old Malden Ward and that part of St James which extends south of the A3 as a consequence of the need at the last review to establish wards sufficiently large to support a uniform pattern of three Members. Now that there is greater flexibility in the size of wards it is proposed that no ward extends on both sides of the A3 because of the clear and obvious barrier it presents to the development of unified communities.

5.2.2. The area is predominantly residential but includes a number of substantial parks and open spaces including the playing fields at Motspur Park, Manor Park and a nature reserve which extends along the banks of the Hogsmill.

5.2.3. In order to satisfy the equality criteria it is necessary to establish two 2 Member wards of broadly equal electorates in this area. Whilst both wards would exceed the Council’s preferred 5% maximum variation in voter numbers it is felt that the boundaries which define the area and the identity which flows from that are so clear and strong that there are no grounds to breach them. Neither ward exceeds the upper variation threshold of either the Council (8%) or the Boundary Commission (10%).

5.2.4. Consideration was given to a north - south split along the route of the Chessington Branch Line from Waterloo but this would result in a significant imbalance in the number of voters within the respective wards. The railway line does not, in any event, form an impermeable barrier as there are good crossing points for both vehicles and pedestrians. The recommended boundaries of the respective wards are set out below:

Motspur Park

5.2.5. The proposed Motspur Park ward runs from the borough’s southern boundary to the A3, sitting east of a line through Malden Road and north of Amberwood Rise. The core of the ward is centered on the well established community in the vicinity of the Motspur Park playing fields which currently falls within the St James ward (the Motspur Park railway station lies just outside the borough boundary, in the London Borough of Merton).

5.2.6. The ward also includes two pockets of the existing Old Malden ward. The larger of the two is the block of residential roads south of the Chessington branch railway line and east of Malden Road. Despite the railway line this area has good connectivity with the northern part of the proposed ward due to the route provided for both vehicles and pedestrians under the railway bridge on Malden Road. Manor Park and the parade of local shops opposite Plough Green knits together the community north and south of the railway line, providing a shared focal point and identity.

5.2.7. The heavily trafficked Malden Road forms a convenient border with the proposed re-shaped Old Malden Ward. It is, however, recommended that in the north of the ward the boundary line deviates to run along the rear of properties in Lyndhurst Drive and Wilverley Road up to Amberwood Rise in order to meet equality requirements. This is the second part of the existing Old Malden ward incorporated within the proposal.

Old Malden

5.2.8. The Council recommends that the existing Old Malden ward be reduced in size in order to facilitate the creation of the two Member Motspur Park ward described above. The changes ensure compliance with the principle of electoral equality within this south eastern corner of the borough.

5.2.9. The proposed ward is bordered by Malden Road to the east up to the junction of South Lane and Sheephouse Way and then follows the inverse of the Lyndhurst Drive/Wilverley Road line referred to at paragraph 5.2.7 in the description of Motspur Park before reaching Amberley Rise and the A3 in the north. In the south its border runs along the Borough boundary.

5.2.10. In the west the Hogsmill River and nature reserve provides a natural separation from the Sunray Estate north of the Chessington Branch railway line. South of the railway, however, the largely open land west of the Hogsmill, which includes sports grounds and the small Riverhill development, is closely connected with Old Malden as residents enjoy access from Church Road and via Old Malden Lane. It is therefore proposed that this be transferred from the existing Alexandra Ward.

5.2.11. The existence of the railway line is not felt to constitute a significant boundary between communities within the ward because of the presence of good pedestrian and vehicular connections under bridges across both Manor Drive North and the Malden Road.

5.3. KING GEORGE’S AND SUNRAY

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

King Georges Tolworth & Hook 2 5,144 5,343 +3.9% and Sunray Rise (part), Alexandra (part)

5.3.1. The proposed ward of King George’s and Sunray brings together the greater part of those sections of the current Alexandra and Tolworth and Hook Rise wards which lie south of the A3.

5.3.2. The ward is tightly bounded by the A3 to the north, the Hogsmill River Nature Reserve to the east and, to the south, the Chessington branch railway line and the Borough boundary. In the west its border runs along Cox Lane and Hunters Road before following the line of Fullers Way South to the A3. It consists of two largely residential communities north of the railway line and a trading estate, playing fields, the home ground of the Corinthian Casuals Football Club and the Tolworth Court Farm nature reserve to the south.

5.3.3. The Sunray Estate in the east of the ward is a well defined residential area with a strong sense of community identity which closely abuts the A3 to the north and the railway line to the south. The A3 clearly separates the estate from the rest of the Alexandra ward within which it is presently located. There is no meaningful sense of shared identity either side of the A3 with the borders of the existing ward designed purely to meet the old uniform requirement for three Members in each electoral area. There are only two crossing points, both in the form of pedestrian subways.

5.3.4. With more than 3,000 electors Sunray would be too large to justify the establishment of a single Member ward. The Council is, in any event, of the view that multi Member wards provide the most effective form of representation for local residents.

5.3.5. There are, however, commonalities and community links with the area to the west of the A240 Kingston Road along Hook Rise South and across to the King Georges Trading Estate and adjacent residential roads on the outskirts of Hook. This is an area of similar housing stock which is also closely bound by the A3 and railway line. Like the Sunray Estate it currently forms part of a larger ward which straddles the A3, in this case Tolworth and Hook Rise. Despite the presence of Tolworth station within this area the A3 forms a substantial and effective barrier to any sense of a shared identity with Tolworth to the north.

5.3.6. Sunray residents tend to associate themselves with communities to the south and south west, as evidenced by their usage of social media pages established for residents within the Council’s South of the Borough Neighbourhood which

predominantly covers Chessington and Hook. Tolworth station forms a common transport hub and the Sunray Community Association participates in shared activities and social events with residents groups in the direction of Hook, including a joint monthly litter pick. The Council is therefore satisfied that the proposed ward meets the requirement for a shared community identity. A planned major residential development adjacent to Toby Way situated between Hook Rise South and Sunray will by 2025 ensure that the two communities are geographically contiguous, thereby promoting even further connectivity.

5.3.7. The proposed name for the new ward reflects not only the Sunray Estate itself but also the King George’s Playing Fields and Trading Estate with which the area is associated.

5.4. CHESSINGTON AND HOOK

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Chessington Chessington South, 3 7,716 7,563 -2% South Chessington North & Hook (part)

Hook & Chessington North 3 7,716 8,101 +5% Chessington & Hook, North Chessington South (part), Tolworth & Hook Rise (part)

5.4.1. Chessington and Hook are situated in the south west of the Borough, forming a salient projecting into the county of Surrey. With the A3 to the north and the borough boundary on either side options for realignment of the two existing wards within this area, Chessington South and Chessington North and Hook, are relatively limited.

5.4.2. Some form of adjustment in boundaries is, however, necessary because the electorate in Chessington North and Hook is otherwise forecast to deviate from the borough average by 10.1% in 2025, thereby breaching equality requirements. Consideration was given to an East/West split of the wards along the line of the Chessington branch railway line which runs through both wards to its terminus at Chessington South. This option was discounted because it would not provide for electoral equality, nor allow a good representation of local community identity which follows a north/south line between Chessington and Hook.

5.4.3. In any event the railway is not seen as an impermeable barrier with multiple crossing points along its length. The Council’s preferred solution is therefore set out below.

Chessington South

5.4.4. Chessington South is bordered on three sides by the borough’s external boundaries. The predominantly residential settlement in the north of the ward around Chessington itself gives way to open countryside to the south, the Chessington World of Adventures zoo and theme park and the village of Malden Rushett. The ward also includes the Chessington South railway station.

5.4.5. Two relatively minor boundary changes between Chessington South and the proposed Hook and Chessington North ward are proposed. The first, on the grounds of effective governance, would see the boundary re-located from Mansfield Road to a line along Stormont Way, thus including all of Lovelace School within Chessington South - access to the school is presently split across both wards.

5.4.6. The second, to reduce the differential in the number of voters, provides for simplification of the current somewhat awkward boundary which follows Bridge Road before skirting around Mount Road and Chantry Road. The new line along the busy Moor Lane is a natural continuation of the Bridge Road route. In order to cap the Chessington North electoral variation within the preferred range of no more than +5% the Chessington South boundary extends to the rear of properties directly fronting Moor Lane adjacent to the Moor Lane Junior School and those in Melford Close abuting the school.

Hook and Chessington North

5.4.7. The proposed ward of Hook and Chessington North consists of residential properties radiating off the A243 Hook Road flanked by open countryside, including Five Acres Farm and an Equestrian Centre, in the west and bordered by the King Georges Trading Estate and Borough boundary in the east. To the north lies the A3 and to the south the boundary with Chessington South.

5.4.8. The ward is, for the most part, formed from the existing Chessington North and Hook but, as well as the minor boundary changes with Chessington South referred to in paragraphs 5.4.5 and 5.4.6 above, also includes segments of the existing Tolworth and Hook Rise ward either side of the A243 which identify as Hook. This includes Kelvin Grove to the west and Elmcroft Drive, Williams Close and Priory Road up to Fullers Way South to the east.

5.4.9. The reversal in the order of precedence given to the respective names reflects the fact that with this adjustment the entirety of Hook is brought together and forms the core of the re-drawn ward. The hub of the community is centered around the Hook Road on which the multi purpose Hook Community Centre and library provides a clear focal point for residents and local community groups. The adjacent shopping parade and the St Pauls Church, parish hall and primary school, all of which are also located either side of the Hook Road, further contribute to a distinct sense of a Hook community.

5.4.10. Hook and Chessington identities can in places overlap, however. For the purposes of electoral equality the ward also includes residential areas around Chessington North station and, east of the railway line, in the vicinity of Chantry Road, which may equally identify as Chessington or Hook. The main community group operating in the area, the Chessington and District Residents Association, represents both communities.

5.5. SURBITON, BERRYLANDS AND TOLWORTH

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Alexandra Berrylands (part), 2 5,144 5,052 -1.8% Park Alexandra (part)

Berrylands Berrylands (part) 2 5,144 5,375 +4.5%

Surbiton Hill Surbiton Hill (part), 3 7,716 7,570 -1.9% Berrylands (part), Tolworth & Hook Rise (part)

Surbiton Town St Marks, Grove 3 7,716 7,839 +1.6% (part)

Tolworth Tolworth & Hook 3 7,716 7,967 +3.2% Rise (part), Surbiton Hill (part), Alexandra (part)

5.5.1. The predominantly residential areas of Surbiton, Berrylands and Tolworth sit between Kingston in the north and the A3 in the south. They are seperated from New Malden in the east by the Hogsmill River and nature reserve while to the west lies the border with the Surrey district of Elmbridge.

5.5.2. Network Rail’s busy South Western Main Line from London to the South Coast runs across the north of the area, separating Surbiton town centre (which presently forms St Marks ward) from the rest of the area to the south. As a consequence, for the purposes of this review the existing wards which sit between the railway line and the A3, namely Surbiton Hill, Berrylands, Alexandra and Tolworth and Hook Rise, effectively form something of a discrete entity with an electorate sufficient for 10 Councillors.

5.5.3. Two of these wards, Tolworth and Hook Rise and Alexandra, currently extend either side of the A3 in order to support the uniform pattern of three Member wards required at the time of the last review. In order to properly reflect the substantial barrier that the A3 represents in respect of the development of coherent community identity relatively substantial reconfiguration of the warding arrangements in this part of the Borough is required.

Berrylands

5.5.4. Berrylands is a residential neighbourhood to the immediate south and east of Surbiton town centre with its own railway station on the South Western Main Line. It is proposed

to reduce the size of the current ward from three Members to two in order to better reflect the core Berrylands identity and allow for the creation of a two Member ward from the residual parts of the existing Alexandra ward which lie north of the A3 and outside an extended Tolworth boundary.

5.5.5. The essential shape of the existing ward is retained, including the use of the railway as the northern boundary with Surbiton Town. There is only one crossing point - at King Charles Road - and the railway forms a clear and strong boundary line.

5.5.6. The western boundary of the ward continues to be formed by the main A240 Ewell Road which represents a natural point of divergence from Surbiton Hill. Consideration was given to moving the line to the King Charles Road so as to include the Alpha housing estate, which sits between the two roads, in Surbiton Hill but this was discounted both on the grounds of electoral equality and community identity.

5.5.7. The relatively self contained Alpha Estate consists of nearly 2,000 electors (2025 projection) and has a strong sense of self identity with its own residents association. Too small for even a single Member ward in its own right it does, nevertheless, sit most appropriately with Berrylands. There are good connections across the King Charles Road where the local facilities provide a shared focus. The Alpha Road Residents Association extends membership east of King Charles Road and its events are open to residents in adjacent parts of Berrylands. In turn residents from the rest of Berrylands regularly utilise the library and day centre facilities on the estate and share the same bus route to Kingston.

5.5.8. The Council proposes that the only part of the existing ward which currently sits west of the Ewell Road, a small triangular wedge between South Bank and the railway line, is transferred to Surbiton Hill. Residents in this area are immediately adjacent to Surbiton station and have a natural and close connection with Surbiton.

5.5.9. To the south of the ward, where the boundary currently runs along Broomfield Road, Alexandra Drive and Raeburn Avenue curving up to the roundabout at the junction with Elmbridge Avenue, it is recommended that in future it follows a similar trajectory but on a line slightly further north. This ensures that the proposed Alexandra Park ward to the south has sufficient population to comply with the electoral equality standard.

5.5.10. The redrawn boundary runs along the rear of Hollyfield Road, thus retaining within the ward the amenities along its length, including the British Legion Club and King Charles Centre (which it is proposed will shortly be the site of a new primary school), as well as the Fishponds open space which is much used by residents of Browns Road and the Alpha Estate. It then cuts into Christchurch Road and The Avenue for equality purposes before progressing north up Kings Drive and Chiltern Drive to the existing end point at the Hogsmill Nature Reserve.

5.5.11. It is recognised that there are no geographical features or boundaries which clearly separate Berrylands from the proposed Alexandra Park ward and there will be some overlap of identity within the area. Some compromise is necessary in order to satisfy

electoral equality and the proposed boundaries retain the core components from which Berrylands derives its identity. These include Berrylands station and the access to it with its parade of shops along Chiltern Drive, the local landmark of the Berrylands Public House and the Berrylands road itself along with its adjacent residential streets.

Alexandra Park

5.5.12. The existing Alexandra ward requires significant reconfiguration because it presently stretches across both sides of the A3 in order to provide sufficient electors to justify a three Member ward. This does not reflect community identity on the ground with the A3 presenting a significant barrier between the Sunray Estate to the south and the rest of the ward on the northern side. The only crossing points are provided by two pedestrian underpasess. (See St Georges and Sunray for further details of the proposals regarding the Sunray Estate)

5.5.13. In addition it is considered that a significant proportion of the present ward, bounded by Elgar Avenue to the north, Highfield Road to the east and Tolworth Broadway to the west identifies closely with Tolworth and should be included within an enlarged Tolworth ward (see the section concerning Tolworth for more details).

5.5.14. It is therefore proposed that a reshaped two Member ward be established focused around the the Hogsmill Open Space/Berrylands Nature Reserve and Alexandra Park. Connected by the Edith Gardens Nature Reserve along the line of a tributary to the Hogsmill River this forms a continuous green expanse through the heart of the ward which is well used for dog walking and recreation by the local community in the adjacent residential roads.

5.5.15. The eastern boundary of the new ward is defined naturally by the Hogsmill River and nature reserve and the western border by the busy A240 Ewell Road - beyond that point residents orientation is naturally directed towards the Tolworth Broadway. Beaconsfield Road, Bloomfield Road and Derby Road are included within the ward because of the close association with the adjoining Alexandra Park.

5.5.16. As described above, the border with the proposed Tolworth ward runs along the rear of properties in Elgar Avenue to the junction with Highfield Road, thus ensuring that all of the residents facing directly on to Alexandra Park sit within the ward. It subsequently follows the line of the A3 itself. In the north the boundary with Berrylands is the inverse of the line set out in the Berrylands ward description.

5.5.17. A variety of different warding configurations were considered in this area in order to identify the best balance between an accurate reflection of community identity and the provision of wards with an equality of voter representation. It is recognised that around the margins just beyond the ward boundaries some residents, particularly in the vicinity of Raeburn Avenue and Alexandra Drive, will to an extent be Berrylands facing, most notably through use of Berrylands station. Equally, in the south around Elgar Avenue and Beresford Avenue some will associate with Tolworth due to the shopping facilities and transport links on The Broadway.

5.5.18. However, the full extent of the wider area which might loosely self identify with Berrylands is not sufficiently large to justify a ward represented by three Members while Tolworth is too small for the establishment of two wards with four Members between them. Given that the Council believes single Member wards are detrimental to

effective governance because voters would lack a resilient form of representation, electoral equality in this area can only be maintained with the creation of a two Member ward between the outskirts of Berrylands and Tolworth. This requires an electorate in the region of 5,000. The arrangements set out above achieve this while also ensuring that the ward contains sufficient commonality of interest and identity around its green heart to form a cohesive and coherent whole.

Surbiton Town

5.5.19. The proposed ward of Surbiton Town consists of the entirety of the existing St Marks ward together with a small section of Grove identified below. It is predominantly residential in character but also has a significant retail offering and a major commuter transport hub in the form of Surbiton railway station which provides frequent fast train services to London Waterloo. The proposed change of name from St Marks to Surbiton Town better reflects the town centre location and provides a more locally meaningful sense of place.

5.5.20. The South Western Main Line railway provides a natural boundary with Surbiton Hill and Berrylands to the south. It is recognised that there is some permeability in the stretch between Brighton Road and King Charles Road with three road crossings and a footbridge in a relatively short area. However, there is much less so in the length adjoining the Berrylands ward and any overspill across the railway line would in any case disturb the electoral equality balance in this area.

5.5.21. The River Thames (and Borough boundary) borders the ward in the west. On this riverside section it is proposed to relocate the boundary with the existing Grove (proposed Kingston Town) ward north from St Leonards Road to Uxbridge Road, thus bringing the streets on both sides of Maple Road together into the same ward and better reflecting local community identity. While residents north of the Uxbridge Road tend to be Kingston facing those to the south look towards Surbiton for shopping and recreation, as illustrated by their widespread participation in the annual Surbiton Festival which takes place in the area between Maple Road and Victoria Road/Claremont Road.

5.5.22. This adjustment will also necessarily bring the whole of Ravens Ait island in the Thames into Surbiton Town so that it continues to sit in the same ward with the landing stages and ferry on the Queens Promenade opposite.

5.5.23. The remainder of the border with Grove/Kingston Town mostly follows the existing line running through Beaufort Road and Lingfield Avenue which is considered to accurately represent the point at which residents on either side tend to face Kingston or Surbiton. One further minor adjustment is, however, proposed in order to tidy the boundary along Lower Marsh Lane, bringing the entire width of the road in front of the Hogsmill Sewage Treatment Works within the ward. Consideration was given to extending the boundary to include the Sewage Works themselves but this was not pursued because it would have further complicated governance of the Hogsmill River by increasing the number of wards through which it flows.

Surbiton Hill

5.5.24. The Council recommends that the existing Surbiton Hill ward be retained with a number of relatively minor adjustments. Effectively forming the southern half of Surbiton, the ward is almost entirely residential save for a small nature reserve and bird sanctuary off Oak Hill Grove and a concentration of shopping facilities on the Ewell Road. Surbiton station sits on its northern boundary with the proposed Surbiton Town ward.

5.5.25. As described in the Surbiton Town narrative above, connectivity with the town centre to the north is relatively good despite the presence of the South West Main Line railway because there are crossing points for both vehicles and pedestrians on the Upper Brighton Road and Ewell Road as well as a pedestrian footbridge at the station itself.

5.5.26. Nevertheless, the railway track does provide a clear line of demarcation from the town centre ward and it is proposed that it should form the boundary across the full width of the ward. This means the inclusion within Surbiton Hill of a small triangular wedge of the existing Berrylands ward between Ewell Road, South Bank and the railway line. Residents in this area are immediately adjacent to Surbiton station and have a natural and close connection with the town.

5.5.27. This adjustment also means that the busy Ewell Road will serve as the ward’s eastern boundary along it’s full length. There is no scope to extend beyond it because the Alpha Estate, which sits on the other side of the road for the majority of its length, more closely identifies with Berrylands (see the Berrylands ward description).

5.5.28. The west of the ward meets the borough boundary with Surrey and is therefore unchanged but modifications to the southern boundary with Tolworth are proposed. Whereas the existing boundary with the Tolworth and Hook Rise ward follows Red Lion Road, Thornhill Road and Herne Road, it is now proposed that it follows Douglas Road, Thornhill Road and Thornhill Avenue to Tolworth Road before extending down Hook Road to the A3.

5.5.29. The contraction of the boundary from Red Lion Road to Douglas Road is recommended in the interests of community identity because residents south and east of the latter tend to naturally associate with Tolworth rather than Surbiton for the reasons set out in paragraph 5.5.38 in the Tolworth ward description.

5.5.30. The extension of the boundary from Herne Road to the A3 and the inclusion within Surbiton Hill of Vale Roads North and South and Culsac Road is principally designed to ensure electoral equality in both Surbiton Hill and the proposed Tolworth ward. However, it also takes account of the fact that residents in this area, further removed from the Broadway than the rest of the Tolworth ward and with easy direct access north to Surbiton on the Hook Road, are as likely to identify with Surbiton as Tolworth.

Tolworth

5.5.31. The existing Tolworth and Hook Rise ward is not sustainable in its present form because it stretches across both sides of the A3 in order to provide sufficient electors to justify a three Member ward. This fails to properly take into account community identity. Connectivity between Tolworth and Hook at this point is limited with just one vehicular crossing point at the extremely busy Tolworth Roundabout and, except at the Roundabout itself, just two pedestrian underpasses. Despite the presence of Tolworth station south of the A3 and the existence of proposals for the improvement of the Roundabout crossing, the A3 is considered a significant and identifiable barrier between Tolworth and Hook.

5.5.32. The ward in its current shape is also forecast to breach voter equality requirements by 2025 when it will contain over 8,600 electors, some 11.7% more than the target figure.

5.5.33. It is therefore proposed to establish a new three Member Tolworth town centre ward entirely on the north of the A3 and, crucially, extending across both sides of the Tolworth Broadway, the major retail destination in the local area and key gateway to the A3. The extension beyond the existing boundary along the centre line of the Broadway to encompass the roads south of Elgar Avenue up to Highfield Road in the current Alexandra ward will bring together residents on both sides of the Broadway around what is the heart of Tolworth. There is a clear and direct identification with Tolworth in the entirety of this area due to the pull of its shopping facilities and its public transport connections. It will also ensure that all the major stores along The Broadway, including Marks & Spencer, the substantial proposed residential development at the landmark high rise Tolworth Tower, and the Tolworth Ambulance station all fall inside the ward with which they are directly associated.

5.5.34. A further advantage of this adjustment is that will improve accountability with responsibility for this strategic location no longer falling between two wards. Subject to the outcome of the Council’s review of its Neighbourhood governance arrangements which will take place after the new warding pattern is settled it is also likely to mean that the area will no longer be split between two Neighbourhood Committees.

5.5.35. Highfield Road has been chosen as the eastern boundary point for reasons of electoral equality but it is also the case that residents in this area, being more distant from the Broadway, are less likely to closely identify with Tolworth town centre.

5.5.36. North of the Broadway the proposed boundary follows its existing line along the heavily trafficked main A240 Ewell Road - roads to the east within the immediate vicinity of Alexandra Park are considered to be a better fit with the ward of the same name.

5.5.37. Modifications are also proposed to the western boundary with Surbiton Hill. Currently it follows Red Lion Road, Thornhill Road and Herne Road but the Council recommends that it takes a line through Douglas Road, Thornhill Road and Thornhill Avenue to Tolworth Road before extending down Hook Road to the A3.

5.5.38. The extension of the boundary from Red Lion Road to Douglas Road is recommended in the interests of community identity because residents south and east of the latter tend to naturally associate with Tolworth due to the shopping and transport facilities on The Broadway. The bus routes in this area, including the 265, K1 and 465, are focused on The Broadway and the adjustment would bring Tolworth Infant and Junior Schools within the ward.

5.5.39. Conversely, the contraction of the boundary from Herne Road to the A3 and the exclusion of Vale Roads North and South and Culsac Road is principally designed to ensure electoral equality in both Tolworth and Surbiton Hill. It also takes account of the fact that residents in this area, further removed from the Broadway than the rest of the Tolworth ward and with easy direct access north to Surbiton on the Hook Road, are as likely to identify with Surbiton as Tolworth.

5.6. NORBITON

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Norbiton Norbiton (part) 3 7,716 7,151 -7.3%

5.6.1. Situated immediately to the east of Kingston Town Centre Norbiton retains a separate identity. This is in part due to its busy commuter station which sits on the Kingston Loop Line from Waterloo. The railway track forms the northern boundary of the proposed ward which is also bounded by the Hogsmill River in the south and New Malden in the east.

5.6.2. The area is predominantly residential in character but also contains Kingston Cemetery and Crematorium and the Kingsmeadow sports complex which comprises of a football ground occupied by Chelsea FC Women (and, until the summer of 2020, AFC Wimbledon) and athletics arena.

5.6.3. At the heart of the ward is the Cambridge Road Housing Estate which, subject to the approval of residents in a ballot in early 2020, will shortly be the focus of the Council’s largest ever redevelopment scheme. The works will see approximately 2,000 new homes being delivered over the next 12/15 years as well as improved public spaces, community facilities, and employment opportunities.

5.6.4. As the build programme and associated growth in the local population extends significantly beyond 2025 the proposed ward has been designed with a projected electorate of 7.3% below the Borough average. This is beyond the preferred variation of no more than +/- 5% but within the maximum tolerance of the Boundary Commission (+/- 10%) and the Council (+/- 8%). By allowing scope for future growth it helps ensure electoral equality is maintained over the longer term.

5.6.5. Two relatively minor adjustments to the existing ward are proposed in order to help create the capacity for future growth. Both also enhance community identity.

5.6.6. In the west, where the border with Kingston follows Villiers Road and Queen Elizabeth Road It is proposed that Minerva Road be transferred to Kingston Town. Residents here are immediately adjacent to the Fairfield Recreation Ground which is associated with Kingston and there is no direct vehicular or pedestrian access to the road from Norbiton (drivers approaching from Norbiton would be routed into Kingston Town centre and through its one way system).

5.6.7. The Council also recommends that the border with New Malden which currently runs along the curtilage of properties in California Road and then follows St Johns Road be moved slightly further east. The proposed boundary now sits at the rear of properties on Archdale Place, Fleetwood Square and Norbiton Common Place and runs south of

Kingston Road across the centre of the Kingston Road Recreation Ground to the Hogsmill River.

5.6.8. The effect of this would be that Dickerage Lane and adjacent roads, together with a small number of properties on Kingston Road and half of the Recreation Ground transfer to the new New Malden West ward. This point, where residents are approximately half way between Norbiton and New Malden stations, broadly marks the furthest extent to which the New Malden Residents Association extends membership and residents tend to begin to associate with New Malden rather than Norbiton.

5.6.9. The Kingston Road Recreation ground is the only major public open space within the Norbiton ward and thus important for residents of the Cambridge Road Estate and those in the vicinity of Kingsmeadow. However, splitting it across two wards recognises the active interest in it also shown by the New Malden Residents Association and residents in California Road.

5.7. NEW MALDEN

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

New Malden Beverley (part), St 3 7,716 7,111 -7.9% Town James (part)

New Malden Beverley (part), St 2 5,144 5,268 +2.4% West James (part), Norbiton (part)

5.7.1. New Malden is presently split into two wards, Beverley and St James, on a north-south basis. Beverley broadly sits north of the Fountain Roundabout and includes the High Street and town centre while St James covers the area to the immediate south of New Malden town centre and also extends across the A3 to include Motspur Park. This arrangement was designed to meet the need at the time of the last review for electorates large enough in every case for three Member wards but is not considered an appropriate fit with the natural communities either side of the A3 in New Malden and Motspur Park respectively.

5.7.2. In line with its view that the A3 represents a clear and obvious barrier to the development of unified communities, the Council therefore proposes that the New Malden wards should be confined to the area to the north of the A3 with a separate solution for the Motspur Park element of the existing St James ward to the south (see the Motspur Park section for further details). This reduces the number of electors represented in New Malden wards from a 2025 projection of 15,200 to 12,400 and thereby requires a corresponding reduction in the number of Councillors from six to five.

5.7.3. In its re-shaped form a north-south division along coherent boundaries which satisfies the electoral equality requirements is no longer possible. Consideration was given to extending into the residential area known as The Groves to the north west of New Malden station. However, this was discounted because it would have involved splitting the large and cohesive residential community radiating off Clarence Avenue and Coombe Girls School, much of which associates with Coombe, and the lack of an obvious available boundary which would preserve electoral equality in the Coombe Vale ward.

5.7.4. It is therefore proposed to establish one three Member and one two Member ward based around an east - west division as set out below.

New Malden Town

5.7.5. This proposed three Member town centre ward covers the greater part of the existing Beverley ward including the key commuter hub of New Malden station and the strategically important High Street with its extensive retail offering.

5.7.6. The boundary with the London Borough of Merton lies to the east of the ward. North of the railway station its border is unchanged, extending along Coombe Road to the Coombe Brook where both the Brook itself and more particularly the Malden Golf Course present an obvious point of separation from Coombe.

5.7.7. The Council does not believe that the railway line which stands between this area and New Malden High Street presents a significant barrier to the maintenance of a shared identity with the rest of the ward. The station and High Street shops provide a clear common focus and there are good vehicle and pedestrian links under the railway bridge on the High Street itself. There is also a pedestrian footbridge linking Alric Avenue and Dukes Avenue which is well used by residents, including dog walkers accessing Beverley Park to the south east.

5.7.8. South west of the station the proposed ward boundary follows the track of the South Western Main Line to the railway bridge across Kingston Road before taking the line of Kingston Road and Westbury Road to the A3, encompassing parts of the existing St James ward.

5.7.9. It is recognised that a clearer boundary with the proposed New Malden West ward could be achieved using the main heavily trafficked route along the Malden Road from the A3 Roundabout to the Fountain Roundabout and then following the Kingston Road. This would not, however, satisfy electoral equality requirements as the Town Ward would then be too large for three Members and New Malden West too small for two.

5.7.10. It is forecast that the ward will contain 7,111 electors by 2025. This is 7.9% below the Borough average, the largest variation proposed by the Council. While it is beyond the preferred +/-5% target it is within the Council’s tolerance of +/-8% and the +/- 10% of the Boundary Commission. The variation is designed to allow scope for anticipated growth in the local electorate beyond 2025 arising from the proposed development of various vacant and underused sites in the vicinity of Cocks Crescent including the Fountain Leisure Centre, Blagdon Road Open Space and surface car parking.

New Malden West

5.7.11. The smaller of the proposed New Malden wards is formed from parts of St James ward sitting north of the A3, the westernmost part of the current Beverley ward and a small part of Norbiton. This creates a two Member ward to the south and west of New Malden town centre.

5.7.12. The ward is mostly residential but some retail and light industrial units can be found off the Kingston Road in the north west. Along the full length of the western boundary, defined by the Hogsmill River, there is an unbroken expanse of open space which includes the Kingston Road and Green Lane Recreation Grounds and the sports grounds of the London School of Economics. Consideration was given to naming the ward Hogsmill but it was felt that this would not sufficiently differentiate it from other wards through which the river also flows.

5.7.13. To the south the A3 forms a clear boundary separating the ward from Old Malden and Motspur Park. In the east the border runs from Malden Road along Westbury Road and Kingston Road before reaching the Kingston Loop railway line. The latter is a logical northern boundary as there is only one, narrow, vehicular and pedestrian crossing point in the vicinity, at Elm Road. As acknowledged in the New Malden Town description above, the boundary between the respective wards cannot for the most part follow the obvious main road route along Malden Road to the Fountain Roundabout and then along Kingston Road due to the need to maintain electoral equality.

5.7.14. The proposed boundary extends slightly further west towards Norbiton than the existing Beverley border. It is recommended that it should run round the rear of Kings Oak Primary School and south across Kingston Road, through the centre of the Kingston Road Recreation Ground to the Hogsmill River.

5.7.15. As described in paragraphs 5.6.8 and 5.6.9 in the Norbiton section, this would transfer Dickerage Lane and adjacent roads, together with a small number of properties on Kingston Road and half of the Recreation Ground, into the New Malden West ward. Residents are approximately half way between Norbiton and New Malden stations at this point and tend to begin to associate with New Malden rather than Norbiton, as illustrated by the fact that the New Malden Residents Association extends its membership and activities into this area. Splitting the Kingston Road Recreation Ground across two wards recognises the active interest in it shown by the New Malden Residents Association and residents in California Road, as well as those in Norbiton.

5.7.16. The South Western Main Line bisects the ward towards its Norbiton boundary, as is the case with the existing Beverley arrangements. This, however, is not considered detrimental to community identity because of the associations with New Malden referred to above and the presence of the good vehicle and pedestrian links under the railway bridge spanning the main Kingston Road. It would not, in any case, be possible

to achieve electoral equality in either Norbiton or New Malden West if the boundary was drawn at this point.

5.8. KINGSTON

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Kingston Grove (part), 3 7,716 7,765 +0.6 Town Norbiton (part)

Kingston Gate Canbury (part), 3 7,716 8,052 +4.3% Tudor (part), Coombe Hill (part)

Canbury Canbury (part), 2 5,144 5,008 -2.7% Gardens Tudor (part)

Tudor Tudor (part) 2 5,144 5,069 -1.5%

5.8.1. The largest town in the Borough, Kingston retains today its historic position as one of the most important administrative and commercial centres in the region with a sphere of influence across South West London and north Surrey. It is a major shopping, cultural and leisure destination and is also home to Kingston University. The administrative headquarters of both the Royal Borough of Kingston and Surrey County Council are located in the town, as are the local Crown and County Courts.

5.8.2. Kingston is bordered by the London Borough of Richmond to the west and north with the main features at the boundaries being the River Thames and Richmond Park respectively. In the east Queens Road, which leads to the Kingston Gate entrance to Richmond Park, presently marks the boundary with Coombe Hill while to the south lie Norbiton and Surbiton. The Kingston Loop railway line sits between Grove ward in the town centre and Canbury and Tudor to the north. It also forms the boundary between the Kingston & Surbiton and Richmond Park Parliamentary constituencies.

5.8.3. Some realignment of the arrangements in Kingston is necessary because, together with the adjoining Coombe Hill ward, this is the area of the borough with the most significant divergence from electoral equality. If no action was to be taken the electorates of Canbury and Grove are forecast to be 21.3% and 13.1% respectively above the Borough average by 2025, beyond the maximum variation of +/- 10%. Tudor, meanwhile, would be at the outer margins of acceptability at 9.1% below the average.

5.8.4. The proposed solution, designed to better reflect community identity as well as create a more equal voter to Councillor ratio, is for an additional ward to be created in north Kingston, partly through extension along Kingston Hill into Coombe Hill ward (which also requires adjustment due to a projected variation of -14.8%) and partly the reconfiguration of the boundaries of the existing wards. Kingston would be represented by 10 Councillors in four wards (two wards with three Members and two with two

Members) instead of 9 Councillors in three wards (all with three Members) as is the case currently. Details of the proposals are set out below.

Kingston Town

5.8.5. The Council recommends that the existing town centre ward of Grove should largely retain its current form with the exception of the loss of some riverside facing roads to the south.

5.8.6. Predominantly residential in the south of the ward, the north and east contain the main shopping district, including the Eden Walk Shopping Centre and Bentall Centre as well as the Market Place (in which the ancient market is still held daily) and multiple recreational facilities including the Rose Theatre, Kingston Museum, cinemas, night clubs and a concentration of pubs and restaurants along the riverside. There is a cluster of civic and academic buildings south of the Market Place in the vicinity of Penrhyn Road and Kingston Hall Road including the Royal Borough of Kingston’s Guildhall, Surrey County Council’s County Hall, the Crown and County Courts, Kingston University and Kingston College.

5.8.7. The Kingston Loop railway line forms a clear and natural boundary with the north of the town, which is more residential in character. The railway and bus stations at this point are an important local transport hub. The ward’s limits are also well defined in the west where the borough boundary runs along the River Thames.

5.8.8. In the east the existing border is largely unchanged, following the route of the one way system around Queen Elizabeth Road before continuing to the Fairfield Recreation Ground. One minor adjustment at this point would see the transfer from Norbiton of Minerva Road, which abuts the Fairfield and has no direct vehicular or pedestrian access from Norbiton (drivers would be routed into the town centre and through the one way system).

5.8.9. The line then continues along the main Villiers Road, excluding Dawson Road both on the grounds of electoral equality and its proximity to Norbiton’s Cambridge Road Estate, before projecting further east to encompass Athelstan Recreation Ground, much used by residents in the streets opposite off Portland Road and Alfred Road, and a business park, the Borough’s waste and recycling centre and a sewage treatment works. Consideration was given to transferring the sewage works to Surbiton Town ward but this was not pursued for the reasons set out in the Surbiton section of this submission (paragraph 5.5.23)

5.8.10. As before, the southern boundary with Surbiton Town follows the line of Lower Marsh Lane, Lingfield Avenue and Beaufort Road to Maple Road, but will now stop at its junction with Uxbridge Road rather than extending down to St Leonards Road. This also transfers the Ravens Ait island in the Thames to Surbiton Town. The adjustment enhances community identity for the reasons set out in the Surbiton Town narrative (paragraph 5.5.21) and addresses the surplus of voters within the existing Grove ward.

5.8.11. It is proposed that the ward be renamed Kingston Town so as to provide a more geographically meaningful and recognisable reflection of its town centre location.

Canbury Gardens

5.8.12. The proposed ward of Canbury Gardens is one of two formed partly from the significantly over sized north Kingston ward of Canbury. It also includes part of the existing Tudor ward to create a two Member ward with a distinctive local identity framed largely by its river frontage and the popular Canbury Gardens public space. Unlike its predecessor, the ward includes the whole of the Gardens from which it takes its name.

5.8.13. The entire riverside length of the ward coincides almost exactly with the reach of the very active Canbury and Riverside Gardens Residents Association, bringing together residents with a commonality of concerns and issues due to their Thames side location. (The Residents Association does not formally include the Admiralty development at the southernmost point of the ward but does allow associate membership).

5.8.14. The north of the ward consists of a relatively narrow band of riverside properties between the Thames and the A307 Richmond Road with a natural barrier at the boundary of the Hawker Centre and its sports ground which sit with the relatively self contained Hawker Estate in the re-shaped Tudor ward. Richmond Road is utilised as the boundary at this point because it marks the extent of the properties with a common riverside interest (the Residents Association also uses the Richmond Road as its eastern cut off point)

5.8.15. At the junction of Richmond Road and Latchmere Road the proposed ward projects to the east between Latchmere Road, Staunton Road, Kingsgate Road and Acre Road which encompasses the wider community around the focal point of Canbury Gardens and its community run Pavillion. These boundaries also reflect the organic community around Burton Road, Richmond Park Road and Gibbon Road represented by the BRAG Residents Association which organises regular events for residents within the area, including an annual Oktoberfest. Staunton Road is proposed as the eastern boundary because The Keep, which sits just beyond it, is associated more with the proposed Kingston Gate ward for reasons set out in the relevant section. Acre Road, meanwhile, is the outer limit of the BRAG community and, as the one way system prevents vehicular access to Richmond Road, residents south of this point tend to face away from the river roads. Kingsgate Road marks the point at which the ward meets the main town centre one way system.

5.8.16. The southern boundary of the proposed ward is formed by the natural and significant border presented by the Kingston Loop railway line.

Tudor

5.8.17. Already one of the smaller wards in the Borough, the transfer of its riverside properties to the proposed Canbury Gardens ward for the reasons set out above leads the Council to recommend that Tudor be reduced in size from three Members to two. This has the effect of consolidating the ward around its core identity, namely the area radiating off either side of Tudor Drive which is represented, for the most part, by the Tudor Area Residents Association Kingston Upon Thames (TARAK).

5.8.18. The re-shaped ward is surrounded to the north and east by the Borough boundary with Richmond, including in part Richmond Park. It encompasses the Hawker Estate, which unlike the roads immediately to the south in Canbury Gardens ward, is not river facing, and the area to the east of Richmond Road. While residents in the vicinity of the Hawker Estate may to some extent look to Ham in neighbouring Richmond, Tudor Drive with its shops and library (supported by an active friends group) provides an important shared focal point for the local community.

5.8.19. The ward’s southern boundary has been simplified, now running almost entirely along Latchmere Road whereas previously it reached it only halfway along its length with a stepped transition from Kings Road via the rear of properties in Thorpe Road/Burton Road, Archer Close and Earl Gardens. Latchmere Road marks, for the most part, the southernmost extent of TARAK’s activities.

5.8.20. The boundary at this point is drawn to ensure that all of the residential properties immediately facing Latchmere Recreation Ground (save for a small number on the southern side of Latchmere Road either side of Latchmere School) fall within the ward. The Recreation Ground is another important focal point for the local community, as evidenced not only by the involvement of TARAK but also the Friends of Latchmere Recreation Ground group.

5.8.21. As before, at its eastern end the boundary reaches from Latchmere Road down Park Road, though now only as far as Kelvedon Close rather than resuming its interrupted route along Kings Road. This is due to the need to maintain electoral equality and the improvements in community identity and governance achieved through the creation of a single ward around the Kingston Gate entrance to Richmond Park (addressed in more detail in the description of the Kingston Gate ward).

Kingston Gate

5.8.22. The proposed three Member ward of Kingston Gate consists of the greater part of the existing Canbury ward and segments from both Tudor and Coombe Hill wards either side of the Kingston Gate entrance to Richmond Park. Its creation would overcome the significant projected electoral inequality in Canbury (21% above the Borough target figure), establish a ward with a coherent community identity and enhance the governance around long standing traffic management issues in the vicinity of the Kingston Gate.

5.8.23. The Kingston Loop railway line presents a clear and consistent southern boundary with the main town centre while the western border runs along Kingsgate Road, Acre Road and Staunton Road to the northern boundary line of Latchmere Road. At Kingsgate Road the ward includes the northern section of the town centre one way system and access to Kingston Station.

5.8.24. While it is difficult in relatively densely populated urban areas to identify precise points of separation this line broadly reflects the point at which the focal point of the community turns away from the River Thames and Canbury Gardens. Acre Road has no direct vehicular access to Richmond Road due to the one way system and provides a clear northern path for the route of the boundary. It’s use as a border also ensures that the community around Burton Road, Richmond Park Road and Gibbon Road represented by the BRAG Residents Association can sit within a single ward (Canbury Gardens).

5.8.25. Staunton Road is proposed as a boundary because the adjacent gated Ministry of Defence housing estate at The Keep presents something of a self contained community. It is retained within the same ward as Latchmere School where there are arrangements for attendance by the children of service families.

5.8.26. Latchmere Road continues to form the northern border with Tudor ward as far as the junction with Park Road, at which point it dips slightly south but now only as far as Kelvedon Close. The boundary has been tidied at this point to remove the existing narrow extension of Tudor Ward projecting down to Kings Road. This helps to create the opportunity for the rationalisation of the boundary arrangements at the Kingston Gate access to Richmond Park.

5.8.27. Currently Kingston Gate sits at a point separated between three wards, Tudor, Canbury and Coombe Hill, and two local Neighbourhood Committees, Kingston Town and Maldens & Coombe. However, it is considered desirable for the entire community around both sides of the Kingston Gate access to Richmond Park to be represented in a single ward. Residents around the Richmond Park access have a clear commonality of interest and shared focal point. Queens Road, which forms the existing boundary between Canbury and Coombe Hill, is intimately connected with both Kings Road to the west and Liverpool Road and Crescent Road to the east, sitting in the same conservation area and experiencing historic shared traffic management issues relating to access to Richmond Park.

5.8.28. The Council therefore proposes to extend the boundary of the new ward to include the area currently in Coombe Hill which sits east of Queens Road and north of the A308 Kingston Hill up to and including Kingsnympton Park. By drawing the boundary along Kingston Hill the ward would encompass all of the Richmond Park facing residents. On the other side of the road properties sit adjacent to the private Coombe Estate and Coombe Wood Golf Club and begin to take on the characteristic qualities of the area. The relatively self contained housing estate at Kingsnympton Park is included within the ward because it sits off Crescent Road and has a Kingston facing community, thanks in part to its good bus connections into the town centre and the fact that it is the furthest extent of the main catchment area of St Pauls and Alexandra Schools west of Queens Road.

5.8.29. This extension into the existing Coombe Hill ward properly recognises the local community identity around the Kingston Gate and, by bringing the area into a single ward (and under the auspices of a single Neighbourhood Committee), offers clear potential benefits in terms of effective local governance through the simplification of accountability.

5.8.30. Consideration was given to achieving the same effect through the reversal of the direction of the change in boundaries, so that Coombe Hill extended east to Park Road but this would not have resolved the issue with the Tudor boundary on Kings Road and the local community within the New Road, Tudor Road, Alexandra Road area is significantly more focused on Kingston town centre for local facilities and identity than it is on Coombe. It would also have made the resolution of the electoral equality disparities in North Kingston more difficult to resolve.

5.8.31. Further south, off Kingston Hill, the existing Canbury border along Wolverton Avenue is maintained, with Kingston Hospital effectively marking the point of divide with Coombe Hill.

5.9. COOMBE

Proposed Current Ward(s) No of Target 2025 Variation ward Cllrs Electorate Forecast Electorate

Coombe Hill Coombe Hill (part), 2 5,144 4,826 -6.2% Coombe Vale (part)

Coombe Vale Coombe Vale (part), 3 7,716 7,363 -4.6% Coombe Hill (part)

5.9.1. Coombe lies to the east of Kingston, bordered by Richmond Park to the north, Wimbledon Common to the east and New Malden to the south. It is presently separated into two wards, Coombe Hill and Coombe Vale. Coombe Hill to the north has a relatively low population density with much of the area occupied by private estates and golf courses while Coombe Vale is predominantly residential.

5.9.2. An adjustment of boundaries is necessary in order to maintain electoral equality because Coombe Hill has the smallest 2025 projected electorate in the Borough at just 6,572 voters, some 14.8% below the target figure for a three Member ward. Across both wards the total forecast electorate of 13,940 is not sufficient for two three Member wards, equating only to an allocation of 5.4 Councillors on the established voter-Member ratio.

5.9.3. With the borough boundary to the north and east, and railway line providing a clear point of separation with New Malden in the south there is relatively little scope within this area for the shortfall to be rectified. The possibility of extending Coombe Hill into the proposed Kingston Gate ward was discounted for the reasons set out in XX. Conversely, the achievement of equality by reducing the size of Coombe Vale through reconfiguration of the New Malden arrangements was not pursued for the reasons identified in paragraph 5.8.30.

5.9.4. However, the proposed creation of a new Kingston Gate ward provides the opportunity for the establishment of a two Member Coombe Hill ward within a slightly reduced boundary. This would result in five Members across the two Coombe wards and satisfy electoral equality requirements. Details of the proposals for both wards can be found below.

Coombe Hill

5.9.5. The core of the proposed two member ward of Coombe Hill is formed by the private Coombe Estate and the extensive Coombe Hill and Coombe Wood Golf courses. The ward’s western boundaries abut Kingston with the border running along Wolverton Avenue so that the Kingston Hospital site forms a clearly identifiable boundary. For reasons identified in paragraph 5.8.28 the area north of Kingston Hill between Queens

Road and Kingsnympton Park, which currently falls within Coombe Hill, is considered to more appropriately sit within the new Kingston Gate ward. Residents to the south, however, are more likely to naturally identify with Coombe, being immediately adjacent to the Coombe Estate and its private roads, as well as the Coombe Wood Golf Course

5.9.6. The ward then follows the borough’s northern boundary with Richmond Park along the incline of Kingston Hill, past a campus belonging to Kingston University before arriving at the relatively small residential community at Kingston Vale. Its eastern boundary runs alongside the border with Wimbledon Common, the A3 sitting just inside it as it follows a north-south route before re-entering the borough further south on an east-west course.

5.9.7. In the south eastern corner of the ward the line of Coombe Brook along the perimeter of Malden Golf Course continues to form a natural border with New Malden town centre. The boundary then continues along Traps Lane, separating the ward from the quite distinct residential district of The Groves in Coombe Vale. However, instead of continuing to the junction with Coombe Lane West as it does currently, it is proposed that the boundary now skirts around the rear of properties in Burghley Avenue and Coombe Hill Infants School before joining up once more with its existing line along Coombe Lane West. This deviation is necessary for electoral equality purposes, although it also has the advantage of bringing together into the same ward the adjoining Coombe Hill and Coombe House Conservation Areas.

5.9.8. The southern border of the ward continues to run along the easily identifiable line of Coombe Lane West, though now all the way to its junction with Wolverton Avenue, tidying up the existing diversion down Galsworthy Road.

5.9.9. Overall the ward’s electorate is projected to be 6.2% below the Borough average, marginally beyond the preferred target figure of +/- 5% variation, which reflects the relative lack of options for expansion of the boundaries in this area. It is, however, still within the Council’s +/- 8% maximum tolerance and the proposed ward delivers strong community identity with its clear focus around the Coombe Estate and other open spaces and a high degree of commonality in the nature of the residential accommodation.

Coombe Vale

5.9.10. Coombe Vale lies to the south of Coombe Hill and the Coombe Estate and is almost entirely residential in character with clearly defined boundaries. No significant changes to the essential shape or nature of the ward are proposed with only relatively minor adjustments in its north eastern and north western corners recommended.

5.9.11. The Kingston Loop railway line defines the ward’s southern and western boundaries with New Malden and Norbiton respectively while Traps Lane marks the eastern border with New Malden Town and Coombe Hill wards.

5.9.12. Consideration was given to transferring the residential area known as The Groves, which stretches from Acacia Grove to Langley Grove to the west of Traps Lane to the New Malden town centre ward. However, the Council decided not to recommend this option because it would have involved splitting the large and cohesive residential community radiating off Clarence Avenue and around Coombe Girls School which forms the core of the ward. Much of this area associates with Coombe, and there is a lack of an obvious available boundary which would otherwise preserve electoral equality in the ward. The shops and post office at The Triangle where Clarence Avenue meets Kenley Road provides residents with a local shopping counterpoint to the facilities in New Malden.

5.9.13. As detailed in the Coombe Hill section, the proposed boundary in the north eastern corner of the ward no longer continues to the Traps Lane junction with Coombe Lane West, skirting instead around the rear of properties in Burghley Avenue and Coombe Hill Infants School in order to help Coombe Hill meet electoral equality requirements. However, in the north western corner of the ward the boundary along Coombe Lane West now continues in a straight course to the junction with Wolverton Avenue, removing the awkward extension of Coombe Hill south of Kingston Hospital.

APPENDIX 1

EXISTING WARDS

APPENDIX 2

PROPOSED WARDS