Local Government Boundary Commission for England Electoral Review of Islington: Warding Arrangements Islington Labour Party Submission 1 Contents 1. Introduction 2. Our Approach 3. Proposed Boundaries Appendix 1. Maps of Proposed New Wards 2. Ward Electorate Calculations 3. 2024 Electorate by postcode methodology and calculations 2 1. Introduction 1.1. Islington Labour Party welcomes The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) decision to review the warding arrangements in Islington. 1.2. This proposal follows the first stage of the review, in which the LGBCE confirmed the number of councillors will increase from 48 to 51. 1.3. Islington Labour holds 47 of the current 48 council seats, holds both Parliamentary seats and the GLA seat, and has a membership of over 5,000 people, all of whom play active roles in their communities across the borough. This paper, which has been drawn up in consultation with all our elected representatives and wider membership, sets out our approach based on our knowledge of representing, working in, and living in communities across the borough. 1.4. This paper sets out a proposal which meets all three of the LGBCE’s criteria and provides supporting evidence. 1.5. We are happy to provide additional information, or discuss any details further, if required. 3 2. Our Approach The LGBCE’s last review of ward boundaries, in 1999, created boundaries that, for the most part, well reflected the interests and identities of communities in Islington. Our approach seeks to, as far as possible, preserve the pattern of existing representation of Islington communities which has wide acceptance. Our proposal shows how this can be achieved whilst delivering on three statutory criteria set out by the LGBCE: 1.1. To deliver electoral equality where each borough councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough. The LGBCE confirmed on the 26th March that the number of councillors would increase from 48 to 51. This would mean each councillor, by 2024, will represent an average of 3,301 electors, based on the projected electorate figures published by the LGBCE. By 2024, the projections show that 11 of the current 16 wards would have a variance of more than the 5% desired by the LGBCE. The increase in population and disparity in electoral representation has been brought about by intense development of new homes in multiple wards across the borough since the 1999 review. To deliver electoral equality across the borough, this proposal limits the variance from the average to 5% by creating one extra three-member ward. 1.2. That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities. The last ward boundary review in 1999, delivered 16 three member wards which, in almost all cases, properly reflected the interests and identities of local communities. Whilst we recognise this criterion is often used in rural areas to ensure villages and towns (often with different identities and interests) are properly represented, we believe this proposal, as far as possible, still meets this criterion. In many of the current wards in Islington there is a distinct and strong community identity, which is both historical and cultural. In drawing up this proposal, we have considered several factors to preserve those communities. To help with this preservation we have used the current boundaries as a starting point. Unlike rural areas, Inner-London boroughs such as Islington do not have communities separated by large patches of open land, but the borough does have a number of major roads which act as clear boundaries. We have, in this proposal, used the majority of these roads as ward boundaries, namely Holloway Road, Pentonville Road, St Paul’s Road and Parkhurst Road. Islington has a number of large housing estates, with a single estate often divided by streets, which form the basis of many local communities. Residents of many of these 4 estates share local services like community centres. Furthermore, Islington has an active local community with a number of residents’ groups and TRAs centered around these estates. This proposal does not divide those estates which have a strong sense of community identity. Islington has several train lines running through the borough. In most areas, these train lines do not physically divide communities, as many of them run underground. However, there are some lines which do act as clear boundaries that physically divide communities. These train lines, and the impact they have on ward boundaries, are detailed in the individual ward proposals. 1.3. That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government. The last review, conducted in 1999, resulted in sixteen, three-member wards. Since the 2002 elections, the Council has built a convenient and effective functioning model, which relies on maintaining a uniform pattern of three member wards. A large amount of decision making is devolved to ward councillors, which necessitates three-member wards – specifically in the spending of planning obligations where the council requires at least 2 out of 3 Ward Members to agree to the use of any funds before they can be allocated. The same principle applies to the allocation of small grants. By maintaining three-member wards, this proposal seeks to avoid a ‘deadlock’ situation, which could be arrived at by introducing two member wards, particularly in wards which have representation from different political parties. To ensure Islington Council continues to govern in an effective and convenient way, and to ensure the wider community receives a similar level of service and equal representation, we have considered a number of factors including historic areas of the borough, council-managed green space and community facilities, schools, major commercial areas, transport infrastructure and places of worship. In drawing up these proposals we have, as far as possible, sought to suggest wards with a relatively even amount of services and infrastructure, that are either council-managed or rely on support from Islington Council. Islington is a diverse borough which is represented by people from a range of backgrounds. Islington Council’s report on the number of councillors, which was later accepted by the LGBCE, included details of the ever-increasing workload of individual councillors. Many councillors have other responsibilities including caring responsibilities or full-time work. By maintaining three-member wards, councillors will have the same level of flexibility and support from ward colleagues to continue effectively representing their constituents, whilst managing their other responsibilities. To introduce wards with less than three members would mean many councillors may not be able to continue in their role, thus making councillors less representative of the borough’s population. Furthermore, in its work to make representatives reflective of the Borough’s population, Islington Council has adopted generous Parental and Sickness leave policies for those councillors who need it. To ensure councillors can continue to have a right to this leave, whilst also ensuring effective, convenient governance and representation of local people continues throughout any such period, three-member wards must be maintained. Electors in Islington currently vote in 4 different recurring elections: Local Elections, UK Parliamentary Elections, European Parliamentary Elections, London Mayoral and GLA 5 Elections.All elections are, at least in part, administered by Islington Council’s Electoral Services department and currently use the same polling district boundaries for all 4 elections, ensuring the effective and convenient running of each election. There have been multiple occasions where more than one election has taken place on the same day and it is expected the 2022 General Election and 2022 Local Elections will be held on the same day. To minimise disruption to the council’s Electoral Services, and allow the department to continue to operate in an effective way, this proposal delivers wards which do not cross Parliamentary constituency boundaries, thus allowing the council to again use the same polling districts, at each election. Furthermore, this continuity of polling district boundaries across elections seeks to keep disruption to voters to a minimum. 6 7 3. Proposed Boundaries Name St George’s Number of Councillors 3 Projected 2024 Electorate 10287 Projected 2024 Electorate variance 3.88% As a result of planned development, particularly the re-development of the former Holloway Prison site, the current ward is predicted to have an electorate of 10,287 by 2024, which at 3.88% above the average number of electors per ward delivers electoral equality. We therefore propose to make no changes to this ward, delivering on the other two criteria set out by the commission and accepted at the last review. Therefore, the boundary would run past from the borough boundary along Camden Road, forking to the north and running up Parkhurst Road to meet Holloway Road. From Holloway Road, the boundary would run north to the corner of Tytherton Road. The northern boundary would then run west along Tytherton Road, turning south at Gatcombe Road, west at Mercers Road, and south at Campdale Road. Finally, it would run west at Tufnell Park Road to meet the borough boundary at Brecknock Road. 8 Name Junction Number of Councillors 3 Projected 2024 Electorate 10236 Projected 2024 Electorate variance 3.36% The current Junction Ward has not seen, nor is it predicted to see, the same level of population growth or development as other parts of the borough. The current ward boundaries, based on the projected 2024 figures, would mean Junction had a 6% variance from the average number of electors per ward. Respecting the southern boundary which borders St George’s for the reason outlined above, we propose to move 920 electors from Hillrise ward into Junction, which would bring the ward electorate within a 5% variance from the average number of electors.