Final recommendations - London region Contents 1. Initial proposals overview p1 5. Final proposals recommendations p7 2. Number of representations received p3 6. Sub-region 1: North Thames p10 North East p11, Recommendations p12 North and North West p12, Recommendations p14 Central and West p15, Recommendations p17 3. Campaigns p4 7. Sub-region 2: South Thames p18 East and South East p18, Recommendations p20 West, South West and Central p20, Recommendations p23 4. Major Issues p6 Initial/revised proposals overview 1. The London region was allocated 68 constituencies under the initial and revised proposals, a reduction of five from the existing allocation. In formulating the initial and revised proposals the Commission decided to construct constituencies using the following sub-regions: Table 1A - Constituency allocation Sub-region Existing allocation Allocation under initial Allocation under revised proposals proposals North Thames 45 42 42 South Thames 28 26 26 2. Under the initial proposals four of the existing 73 constituencies were unchanged. The revised proposals retained six of the existing constituencies unchanged. Under both sets of proposals no constituency crossed the River Thames. However we did propose one constituency that crossed the River Lee - Bow and Canning Town. 3. Throughout the region, changes had to be made to accommodate the reduction in the number of constituencies and to ensure that every proposed constituency had an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. In formulating the initial proposals, the Commission sought not to divide wards between constituencies and looked to configure a pattern of constituencies based on whole wards. This limited the number of valid options and meant some existing constituencies had to be altered, that otherwise might not have needed to be changed. 1 4. In response to the consultation on the initial proposals and secondary consultation the Commission received over 9,000 representations regarding London. These representations commented on most parts of the region, with the main issues being: North Thames ● the proposed constituency in Enfield borough - Enfield, Southgate. Respondents objected to this existing constituency being split across five new constituencies ● the proposed Hammersmith and Fulham constituency - a large number of residents objected to the Shepherd’s Bush area being included in a constituency with Ealing ● the proposed Hampstead and Golders Green constituency - the second consultation phase resulted in a large number of objections to this proposed constituency. Concerns centred around the division of Kilburn along the Kilburn High Road ● the proposed constituencies in Walthamstow - objections in the main concerned the Walthamstow area, now comprising of three different constituencies South Thames ● the proposed constituencies in the London Borough of Merton - respondents objected to changes made to the existing pattern of constituencies in Wimbledon, Mitcham and Morden 2 ● the proposed constituencies in Croydon - there was significant opposition to the ward of Purley being included in the Croydon Central constituency; respondents argued there are strong local ties between Purley and the other wards in the Croydon South constituency ● the proposed Woolwich constituency - the majority of residents from St Michael’s and Lesnes Abbey wards objected to being included in the Woolwich constituency. Three campaigns emerged as a result. 5. In considering the evidence received, the Commission altered 72% of constituencies in London. Number of representations received 6. In the London region, the Commission received a total of 2,390 representations during consultation on the revised proposals, bringing the total number of representations for this region to 11,764. This number included all those who gave evidence at the public hearings. There were also a number of duplicate representations within this total, as well as representations that made general comments that did not have any bearing on the substance of the initial proposals. Table 1B - Representations received Type of respondents Consultation on revised proposals Total number of representations Member of Parliament 19 132 Official political party 4 28 response 3 Peer from House of Lords 1 7 Local councillor 63 521 Local authority 8 57 Parish or town council 0 6 Other organisation 44 258 Member of the public 2,251 10,755 Total 2,390 11,764 7. While many of the representations can be categorised as opposing the Commission’s revised proposals, there has been a substantial amount of support for certain constituencies across the whole region. These include, but are not limited to, Cities of London and Westminster, Kensington and Chelsea, Hampstead and Golders Green, Tottenham, Battersea, Bermondsey and Old Southwark, Tooting and Balham, Kingston and Surbiton, Twickenham, Richmond Park, and Wimbledon. Campaigns 8. As expected, throughout the region, representations from a number of organised campaigns were received. In the London region, these were as follows:- 4 Table 1C - Campaigns Campaign ID Number Support/ oppose initial Strength (no. of proposals signatories) Boundary between proposed BCE-48735 Oppose 27 Camberwell & Peckham & Dulwich and Sydenham constituencies Annexation of Wimbledon Village BCE-51911 Support 27 to unite with Putney Opposition to changes in North BCE-48770 Oppose 4 Harrow Change Tooting to Balham and BCE-46189 Support 15 Tooting or Tooting and Balham Hammersmith and Shepherd’s BCE-46622 Oppose 23 Bush belong together 9. During the previous consultations the Commission received 23 campaigns in relation to London. Of these, the campaign titled Hammersmith and Shepherd’s Bush belong together was similar to the campaign received during an earlier consultation, which was titled Shepherd’s Bush united in a single constituency. 5 Major issues 10. Major issues that drew objection were as follows:- North Thames ● Opposition to the revised Dagenham and Rainham, and Romford constituencies ● There continues to be opposition to the revised Finchley and Enfield Southgate constituency ● We received some opposition to the proposed constituencies in the LB of Harrow and LB of Hillingdon. ● Opposition to the proposed constituencies of Hillingdon and Uxbridge, Hayes and Harlington, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, Harrow North, Harrow South and Kenton, and Ealing North ● The proposal for a near coterminous Hammersmith constituency and the inclusion of four Shepherd’s Bush wards in a Willesden constituency has received substantial opposition South Thames ● Opposition to the proposal to include the Belmont ward in a Carshalton and Wallington constituency. ● While there has been support for the revised Wimbledon constituency, there has been some opposition to the inclusion of the Roehampton and Putney Heath ward in the constituency. ● There continues to be opposition to the proposed Bexley and Sidcup, and Erith and Crayford constituencies. 6 Final recommendations 11. In light the of the representations and evidence received we have considered whether the revised proposals should be changed. Table 2 - Sub-regions used Initial proposals Revised proposals Final recommendations North Thames North Thames North Thames South Thames South Thames South Thames 12. The final recommendations have been formulated on the same sub-regions used as the initial and revised proposals. No counter-proposals were received during consultation on the revised proposals which suggested alternative sub-regions. 7 Table 3 - Headline numbers for schemes Schemes Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities in constituency Number Number One-ward Two-to-five Six-ward and One Two Three wholly changed change ward more change or unchanged by change more rewarding only Initial proposals 4 0 14 22 28 30 36 2 Revised proposals 6 0 10 30 22 36 31 1 Final 6 0 10 30 22 36 31 1 recommendations 13. Under the final recommendations six of the existing constituencies are unchanged. In the North Thames sub-region we ​ ​ have been able to increase the number of existing constituencies retained to four. We still however proposed one constituency split across three local authorities. In the South Thames sub-region we continue to propose two existing constituencies remain unchanged: Richmond Park, and Kingston and Surbiton. There are now no constituencies in the South Thames sub-region split across three or more local authorities. 8 More detailed breakdown of numbers for schemes Table 4 - Final recommendations Borough Constituencies - ward changes Local authorities in constituencies Number Number One-ward Two-to-five Six-ward One Two Three or wholly changed by change ward or more more unchanged rewarding change change only North Thames 4 0 9 14 16 21 20 1 South Thames 2 0 2 16 6 15 11 0 Total Overview 14. In our initial and revised proposals, we divided the London region into two sub-regions: North Thames (with 42 constituencies) and South Thames (with 26). No constituencies crossed the Thames. In general, strong support was received for our two sub-regions throughout all consultation periods and we recommend the sub-regions of North Thames and South Thames as part of the final recommendations. 9 15. Our initial and revised proposals also proposed crossing the River Lee between Tower Hamlets and Newham, at the south of its course, rather than the north (between Edmonton in Enfield and Chingford in Waltham Forest). When recommending this as part of its initial proposals, the Commission was cognisant of the lessons learned from the previous 2013 Review