New electoral arrangements for Richmond upon Thames Council Final Recommendations May 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 England 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 Richmond upon Thames? 2 Our proposals for Richmond upon Thames 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-East Richmond 8 South-East Richmond 10 Hampton Wick and Teddington 12 Hampton 14 Whitton and North Twickenham 17 Twickenham 20 Conclusions 23 Summary of electoral arrangements 23 What happens next? 23 Equalities 24 Appendices 26 Appendix A 26 Final recommendations for Richmond upon Thames 26 Appendix B 28 Outline map 28 Appendix C 30 Submissions received 30 Appendix D 31

Glossary and abbreviations 31

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

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 Richmond upon Thames?

7 We are conducting a review of Richmond upon Thames Council (‘the Council’) as the last review was completed in 1999 and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council area in England ‘from time to time’. In addition, we are conducting a review of the Council as the value of each vote in borough elections varies depending on where you live in Richmond upon Thames. 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 Richmond upon Thames 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.

Our proposals for Richmond upon Thames

9 Richmond upon Thames should be represented by 54 councillors, the same number as there are now.

10 Richmond upon Thames should have 18 wards, the same number as there are now.

11 The boundaries of all but two wards should change.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Richmond upon Thames.

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.

14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary

2

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 Richmond upon Thames. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

21 May 2019 Number of councillors decided 28 May 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 5 August 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 29 October 2019 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 17 February 2020 forming final recommendations 5 May 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 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.

2018 2025 Electorate of Richmond upon Thames 139,304 147, 060 Number of councillors 54 54 Average number of electors per 2,580 2,723 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 but one of our proposed wards for Richmond upon Thames will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed at our offices by appointment, or 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 5.6% by 2025.

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 final recommendations.

2 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 3 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population. 5

Number of councillors 24 Richmond upon Thames Council currently has 54 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that keeping this number the same 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 54 councillors – for example, 54 one-councillor wards, 18 three- 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 our draft recommendations.

Ward boundaries consultation 27 We received 22 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included one partial borough proposal from the Conservative Group on Richmond upon Thames Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for wards in particular areas of the borough.

28 The partial scheme proposed a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards. We carefully considered the representation and were of the view that the proposed pattern of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

29 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that 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 best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

30 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Richmond upon Thames helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

31 Our draft recommendations were for 18 three-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.

6

Draft recommendations consultation 32 We received 104 ubmissions during the consultation on our draft recommendations. These included a significant number of responses from residents in our proposed Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals for St Margarets & North Twickenham, Hampton North and the East Sheen area. We also received several localised comments from across the rest of the borough.

33 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with modifications to Fulwell & Hampton Hill, St Margarets & North Twickenham and Mortlake wards.

Final recommendations 34 Our final recommendations are for 18 three-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.

35 The tables and maps on pages 8–21 detail our final recommendations for each area of Richmond upon Thames. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

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

36 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.

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 7

North-east Richmond

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Barnes 3 -4% Kew 3 7% Mortlake & Barnes Common 3 10% North Richmond 3 -2%

Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common 37 Our draft recommendations proposed a small amendment to the existing boundary between Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common to improve electoral equality across both wards. We proposed to move the boundary from Glebe Road to the perimeter of Barnes Green. Electors in Hillersdon Avenue, Laurel Road and The Crescent will move from Mortlake & Barnes Common ward into Barnes ward.

38 In response to the draft recommendations, we received four submissions regarding this area. Each of the submissions proposed that the boundary between Mortlake & Barnes Common and North Richmond should be Clifford Avenue. Under this proposal, electors in Kingsway, Shalstone Road and Lower Richmond Road would move into Mortlake & Barnes Common ward. Respondents argued that electors in this area have more of an affinity with Mortlake than Richmond, with Clifford Avenue providing a clear boundary between communities. Development

8

taking place in this ward will see significant growth in the west, and submissions highlighted that these changes would have a direct impact on residents in this area. The respondents also emphasised the poor local transport links between the properties on Kingsway, Shalstone Road and Lower Richmond Road and amenities in Richmond, compared to the short walking distance to Mortlake High Street.

39 Given this local evidence, we propose to modify our draft recommendations so that the new boundary between Mortlake & Barnes Common and North Richmond should run along the railway line to Clifford Avenue and up to Lower Richmond Road. This will include electors in Kingsway, Shalstone Road and Lower Richmond Road in Mortlake & Barnes Common ward.

40 We received no submissions in response to our recommendation for Barnes Green to be included in Barnes ward. As a result, we confirm our draft recommendations for this area as final.

41 Our final recommendations for Barnes and Mortlake & Barnes Common will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of -4% and 10% respectively by 2025.

North Richmond and Kew 42 Our draft recommendations for North Richmond and Kew were based on the existing ward boundaries, with a small modification to the boundary to run behind the properties at 46–80 The Avenue. We received no submissions regarding this area in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations.

43 As a result, we confirm our draft recommendations for Kew and North Richmond as final, with the exception of the proposed amendments to North Richmond ward as referenced in paragraph 39.

44 Our final recommendations for Kew and North Richmond will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of 7% and -2% respectively by 2025.

9

South-east Richmond

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors East Sheen 3 -2% Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside 3 -6% South Richmond 3 0%

East Sheen 45 Our draft recommendations for this area proposed to move the existing boundary between East Sheen and South Richmond ward to wholly include Sheen Common Drive and East Sheen Common in East Sheen ward. In response to our draft recommendations we received five responses to our proposals, from local residents and a local councillor.

46 Of these submissions, four objected to our proposal regarding Sheen Common Drive. Respondents provided strong evidence for keeping Sheen Common Drive as part of South Richmond ward, citing community identity and access to amenities as key examples of their connections to South Richmond.

47 We received one submission in support of our draft recommendations. However, this representation did not provide any examples of the area’s links to East

10

Sheen.

48 Having carefully considered the evidence provided, we agree that the boundary proposed by residents provides for a better reflection of communities whilst maintaining good electoral equality in both wards. We therefore propose to base our final recommendations on the current ward boundary, including Sheen Common Drive, Orchard Rise and Berwyn Road within South Richmond ward, with a small modification to the southern boundary. This will include all properties on Christchurch Road in East Sheen ward, creating a clearer and more identifiable boundary whilst ensuring effective and convenient local government for these electors.

49 Our final recommendations for East Sheen will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of -2% by 2025.

Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond 50 Our draft Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond wards were based on the existing ward boundaries here. In response to our draft recommendations we received one response to our proposals, from a local resident.

51 The submission argued that the areas of Ham and Petersham should form a stand-alone ward, while electors on Richmond Hill and the surrounding area should be included in South Richmond ward. While we accept that there is a sense of separation between these two communities, a three-councillor Ham & Petersham ward would have poor electoral equality at -18%. A two-councillor Ham & Petersham ward would also have poor electoral equality at 20%. Because of the strong physical boundaries surrounding this ward (the Thames in the west, the authority boundary in the south and Richmond Park in the east), we consider that continuing to group Ham and Petersham with electors living north of Star and Garter Hill provides for the best balance of our statutory criteria in this area.

52 Our final recommendations for Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond wards are therefore based on the existing ward boundaries (with the exception of the small amendment to South Richmond ward referenced in paragraph 48).

53 Our final recommendations for Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside and South Richmond will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of -6% and 0% respectively by 2025.

11

Hampton Wick and Teddington

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Hampton Wick & South Teddington 3 4% Teddington 3 3%

Hampton Wick & South Teddington 54 Our draft Hampton Wick & South Teddington ward was based on the existing ward boundaries here. However, at warding patterns stage we did receive a detailed submission from a local councillor that argued in favour of reflecting the community of South Teddington in the name of the ward. In response to our draft recommendations we received one response to our proposals, from a local resident.

55 The submission strongly agreed with our draft recommendations proposal to name the ward Hampton Wick & South Teddington. No responses were received from local interests relating to the proposed boundaries. We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Hampton Wick & South Teddington as final.

56 Our final recommendation for Hampton Wick & South Teddington will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of 4% by 2025.

12

Teddington 57 Our draft recommendations for the Teddington area proposed an amendment to the existing ward boundary, based on the proposal we received from the Conservative Group. This would have included electors on Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way in Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward. In response to our draft recommendations we received 55 responses to our proposals, from local residents and local councillors.

58 All representations were opposed to our draft recommendations and argued for both Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way to remain a part of Teddington ward, on the basis of community identity and effective and convenient local government. We received several well-evidenced representations which provided a strong argument for retaining this area as part of Teddington. Respondents highlighted the community ties they have to Teddington through good accessibility to its high street, local amenities, residents’ groups, and other local community groups. They also contended that the local issues that electors in this area face are relevant to the Teddington area, and would be best served by councillors who also represent other parts of Teddington.

59 Having carefully considered the evidence provided, we agree that the existing warding arrangement provides for a better reflection of communities. We therefore propose to amend our draft recommendations to reflect existing warding arrangements, including Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way within Teddington ward.

60 Our final recommendation for Teddington will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of 3% by 2025.

13

Hampton

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Fulwell & Hampton Hill 3 1% Hampton 3 -3% Hampton North 3 -10%

Fulwell & Hampton Hill 61 In our draft recommendations for Fulwell & Hampton Hill, we proposed a small modification to the existing wards to include all electors along Queen’s Road and Hartland Road in our draft Hampton North ward. We adopted the Conservative Group’s proposal to include electors on Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way in the ward. We also recommended a councillor’s proposal to include the entirety of Fulwell golf course in Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward. In response to our draft recommendations we received 58 responses to our proposals, from local residents and local councillors.

62 We received a submission from a local resident which argued that the current boundary of the Uxbridge Road makes for a stronger boundary, as the electors in this area have a greater affinity with Fulwell & Hampton Hill. The resident also highlighted the lack of accessibility to amenities in Hampton North in comparison with Hampton Hill High Street. We agree that electors in Queen’s Road and Hartland

14

Road have good local connections to Hampton Hill, and that the Uxbridge Road and Longford River act as a strong and identifiable boundary between this area and Hampton North. We therefore include this modification as part of our final recommendations.

63 We received a submission from a local resident that requested electors in Fairlight flats, Arundel Close, The Garth, Jeffs Close (and by extension Longford Court) be included in our final Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward as opposed to Hampton North on the basis of community ties. We visited this area on our tour of the borough and felt that Longford River forms a strong and identifiable boundary between electors here and electors in Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward. Furthermore, this proposed modification would create poor electoral equality of -15% for the ward, which in our view would be unacceptably high. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

64 Councillors from West Twickenham proposed an amendment to our draft recommendations to account for Fulwell Golf Course, which is used by residents in both wards. However, the proposed alternative did not provide for a clear and identifiable boundary which would reflect the access points and facilities within the space. We are therefore not adopting this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

65 Fifty-five submissions objected to our draft proposals for Coleshill Road and Admiralty Way, discussed above in paragraph 58.

66 Our final Fulwell & Hampton Hill ward is therefore based on the existing ward boundaries, with the exception of the inclusion of Fulwell Golf Course.

67 Our final recommendation for Fulwell & Hampton Hill will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of 1% by 2025.

Hampton and Hampton North 68 Our draft recommendations adopted the Conservative Group proposal in this area, proposing that the boundary between Hampton North and Hampton run behind the properties on the south side of Broad Lane, as opposed to down the centre of the road. We also recommended a small modification to the existing Hampton North ward to include all electors along Queen’s Road and Hartland Road. In response to our draft recommendations we received four responses to our proposals, from local residents and local councillors.

69 All representations objected to our draft recommendations. However, none provided an alternative proposal to improve electoral inequality between the wards. One submission argued that moving the boundary to include electors on the south side of Broad Lane in Hampton North ward would not accurately reflect communities

15

or the services they use. While we note these objections, we are of the view that our proposal provides for a stronger boundary by including all electors from the road in the same ward. Furthermore, retaining the current boundary would lead to a higher level of electoral inequality at -13%.

70 We received one submission objecting to our draft proposal to include Queen’s Road and Hartland Road in our draft Hampton North ward, discussed further in paragraph 62.

71 Having carefully considered the representations provided, we therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Hampton and Hampton North as final (with the exception of the amendment to Hampton North ward referenced in paragraph 62).

72 Our final recommendations for Hampton and Hampton North will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of -3% and -10% respectively in 2025.

16

Whitton and North Twickenham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Heathfield 3 -7% St Margarets & North Twickenham 3 7% Whitton 3 -3%

St Margarets & North Twickenham 73 In our draft recommendations for the area, we proposed to include electors to the north of the Chertsey Road within Whitton ward, extending the boundary of St Margarets & North Twickenham to the south to include electors in Gladstone Avenue, Rosecroft Gardens and Denehurst Gardens. In response to our draft recommendations we received 18 responses to our proposals, from local residents and local councillors.

74 All representations objected to our draft recommendations. Several submissions stated that splitting the ward here would separate a strong and identifiable community, which is distinct from the Whitton area, and that electors would be isolated from the ward’s main amenities and transport links. Councillors representing St Margarets & North Twickenham also argued that this proposal would not provide for effective and convenient local government, due to the volume of

17 casework associated with Twickenham Stadium. They also argued that the stadium should remain in a Twickenham ward.

75 One submission argued that, in order to maintain electoral equality in the area, the southern boundary of the ward should move from the railway line to the River Crane. This would include electors in the new Twickenham Station and Brewery Lane developments in Twickenham Riverside ward. We believe that this provides for the best balance between our statutory criteria through maintaining electoral equality in the area and providing a clear and identifiable boundary between communities.

76 Our final St Margarets & North Twickenham ward is therefore based on the existing ward boundaries here, with the exception of the changes discussed in paragraph 75.

77 Our final recommendations for St Margarets & North Twickenham will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of 7% in 2025.

Whitton and Heathfield 78 In our draft recommendations for Whitton and Heathfield, we recommended one small amendment to use the railway line north of Nelson Road as the boundary. Electors in Argyle Avenue and Whitton Waye, and electors at 300–368 Nelson Road, would move from Heathfield into Whitton ward. We also proposed to include electors to the north of the Chertsey Road within Whitton ward. The Conservative Group suggested renaming the existing Heathfield ward Whitton South to better reflect community identity, which we proposed in our draft recommendations. In response to our draft recommendations we received 20 responses to our proposals, from local residents and local councillors.

79 We received one submission in support of our draft recommendations.

80 One submission opposed the proposal to rename Heathfield Whitton South. They cited evidence about the historical and community ties to the name, and we agree that this better reflects the community here. We are therefore adopting this proposal as part of our final recommendations.

81 Eighteen submissions objected to our draft proposal to include electors to the north of the Chertsey Road within Whitton ward, discussed further in paragraph 74.

82 Our final Whitton and Heathfield wards are therefore based on our draft recommendations (with the exception of the amendment to Whitton ward referenced in paragraph 74, and the retention of the existing Heathfield ward name).

83 Our final recommendations for Whitton and Heathfield will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of -3% and -7% respectively in 2025 18

19

Twickenham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors South Twickenham 3 -4% Twickenham Riverside 3 2% West Twickenham 3 4%

South Twickenham and West Twickenham 84 Our draft recommendations for these wards adopted the suggestion we received from the Conservative Group. This proposed a small amendment to the ward boundary between South Twickenham and West Twickenham, to include 120– 136 Mereway Road and all of Colne Road within South Twickenham ward. We modified this to also include Briar Road and 2–26 Staines Road in South Twickenham ward, as we felt this offered a more distinct boundary. In response to our draft recommendations we received two responses to our proposals, from a local resident and local councillors.

85 Both submissions objected to our draft recommendations, arguing that residents in this area look towards West Twickenham and Twickenham Green. However, neither proposal offered a strong alternative to our draft recommendations, which aimed to place electors on the same street within the same ward. In our view this provides for more effective and convenient local government, and better reflects

20

the divide between wards. We are therefore not adopting these proposals as part of our final recommendations.

86 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for South Twickenham and West Twickenham as final.

87 Our final recommendations for South Twickenham and West Twickenham will provide for good electoral equality, with variances of -4% and 4% respectively in 2025.

Twickenham Riverside 88 Our draft recommendations proposed retaining the existing ward boundaries of Twickenham Riverside, as the ward is forecast to have good electoral equality by 2025. We received no submissions regarding this area.

89 We therefore confirm our draft recommendations for Twickenham Riverside as final with the exception of a small amendment to the northern boundary of the ward, as discussed in paragraph 75.

90 Our final recommendations for Twickenham Riverside will provide for good electoral equality, with a variance of 2% in 2025.

21

22

Conclusions 91 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Richmond upon Thames, referencing the 2018 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 2018 2025 Number of councillors 54 54 Number of electoral wards 18 18 Average number of electors per councillor 2,580 2,723 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 0 1 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Final recommendations Richmond upon Thames Council should be made up of 54 councillors serving 18 wards representing 18 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 Richmond upon Thames Council. You can also view our final recommendations for Richmond upon Thames on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

What happens next? 92 We have now completed our review of Richmond upon Thames. 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

Equalities 93 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.

24

25

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Richmond upon Thames Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Barnes 3 7,314 2,438 -5% 7,875 2,625 -4%

2 East Sheen 3 7,489 2,496 -3% 7,974 2,658 -2% Fulwell & 3 3 7,785 2,595 1% 8,232 2,744 1% Hampton Hill Ham, Petersham 4 & Richmond 3 7,274 2,425 -6% 7,689 2,563 -6% Riverside 5 Hampton 3 7,742 2,581 0% 7,909 2,636 -3%

6 Hampton North 3 7,142 2,381 -8% 7,367 2,456 -7% Hampton Wick & 7 3 8,007 2,669 3% 8,485 2,828 4% South Teddington 8 Heathfield 3 7,743 2,581 9% 7,629 2,543 7%

9 Kew 3 8,400 2,800 3% 8,769 2,923 10% Mortlake & 10 3 8,006 2,669 5% 9,011 3,004 -2% Barnes Common 11 North Richmond 3 8,126 2,709 -5% 8,003 2,668 -4%

26

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 12 South Richmond 3 7,931 2,644 2% 8,208 2,736 0% South 13 3 7,238 2,413 -6% 7,804 2,601 -4% Twickenham St Margarets & 14 North 3 8,413 2,804 9% 9,054 3,018 7% Twickenham 15 Teddington 3 7,951 2,650 3% 8,394 2,798 3% Twickenham 16 3 7,636 2,545 -1% 7,999 2,666 2% Riverside 17 West Twickenham 3 7,962 2,654 3% 8,499 2,833 4%

18 Whitton 3 7,168 2,389 -7% 7,895 2,632 -3%

Totals 54 139, 304 – – 147,060 – –

Averages – – 2,580 – – 2,723 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Richmond upon Thames Council.

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.

27

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Barnes 2 East Sheen 3 Fulwell & Hampton Hill 4 Ham, Petersham & Richmond Riverside 5 Hampton 6 Hampton North 7 Hampton Wick & South Teddington 8 Heathfield 9 Kew 10 Mortlake & Barnes Common 11 North Richmond 12 South Richmond 13 South Twickenham 14 St Margarets & North Twickenham 15 Teddington 16 Twickenham Riverside 17 West Twickenham 18 Whitton

28

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/richmond-upon-thames

29

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/richmond-upon-thames

Councillors

• Councillor P. Allen (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor R. Baker (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor A. Ehmann (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor M. Elengorn (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor P. Fleming (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor A. Juriansz (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor B. Khosa (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor H. Lee-Parsons (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor S. Nicholson (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor G. Roberts (Richmond upon Thames Council) • Councillor G. Thomason (Richmond upon Thames Council)

Local Organisations

• Heatham Alliance

Local Residents

• 92 local residents

30

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

31

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

32

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