sign in sign up
<<
Home , Brent Cross, Brunswick Park, Childs Hill, Chipping Barnet, Colindale, Colney Hatch

Kingsley, Paul

From: Barnet Labour Councillors k> Sent: 19 June 2019 08:35 To: Cc: Subject: Barnet Labour submission - response to LGBCE recommendations Attachments: FINAL Barnet Labour response to LGBCE (1).docx

Dear Paul

I attach the Barnet Labour submission in response to the published draft LGBCE recommendations.

Kind regards Geof Cooke

From: Sent: 20 December 2018 18:56 To: [email protected] Cc: Subject: Re: FW: Barnet Labour submission ‐ additional updated files

Paul

As requested I attach a spreadsheet containing a presentation of Barnet Labour's submission in the template you provided (the template was loaded with example data from Harrow). The spreadsheet shows the contributions of existing polling districts to proposed wards. Please note 1) As expected, it is messy in the sense that many polling districts are split. Barnet Labour's approach was to aim for tight electoral equality while minimising changes to ward identities as far as possible. We did not use existing polling districts as building blocks whereas Harrow appears to have split a relatively small number of polling districts. 2) As explained in the submission, "other electors" for whom coordinates were not available have been disregarded. 3) There are minor discrepancies in the figures caused by rounding error (forecast electorates rounded to whole numbers and then used in subsequent calculations). 4) In at least one case a fragment of a polling district with just 2 electors appears to be the result of a digitising error by either Barnet Labour or Barnet Council (the calculations involved superimposing the two sets of boundaries). 5) The spreadsheet shows that two of our proposed wards are currently well under the average ward electorate. They are both in the area where major development is under construction, not just planned e.g. Beaufort Park in Colindale North; Colindale Gardens in Colindale South.

Please feel free to contact me if there are any queries.

Regards

Cllr Geof Cooke

On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 at 23:19, wrote:

1

Response to the Local Government Boundary Commission for ’s Draft Recommendations on Ward Patterns in the Borough of Barnet

Joint submission to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England from

The Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and The Barnet Labour Party

Introduction

This is a joint submission from the Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and the Barnet Labour Party to the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE’s) Stage 2 consultation on proposals for ward patterns in Barnet.

For any queries about this submission, please contact Cllr Geof Cooke or call the Barnet Labour Group on

A note on the Barnet Labour Group of Councillors and the Barnet Labour Party

The Barnet Labour Group of Councillors comprises 24 elected councillors in the local authority area of Barnet. All 24 councillors live in the . The councillors were elected by residents in their respective wards to represent them on Barnet Council. Following the local elections in May 2018, Labour councillors represent the wards of , , , Colindale, Coppetts, , East , Underhill, West Finchley and Woodhouse. Prior to the local elections in 2018 the Labour Group had 30 councillors also representing two other wards in the borough – Hale and West , but not Childs Hill. Overall, in the last two local elections Labour candidates were elected in 12 out of 21 wards and lost out in a 13th by a single vote.

The Barnet Labour Party is the Local Campaign Forum (LCF) of the Labour Party in the London Borough of Barnet. Its membership comprises delegates from the three Constituency Labour Parties in Barnet covering the three Barnet constituencies of Hendon, Finchley & and .

Collectively, the three Constituency Labour Parties in Barnet and the Barnet Labour Party have around 4,000 members.

Response to the LGBCE’s recommendations This submission seeks to align with the LGBCE’s approach to reflecting the three statutory criteria as evidenced in the draft recommendations for Barnet and other London boroughs. This differs from Barnet Labour’s approach in our submission in December 2018 in the following ways. Equality of representation: In order to future-proof the final pattern of boundaries against a need to repeat the review within the 20-year period that the current boundaries have lasted, we aimed for very small variances within ±1%. However, LGBCE’s standard tolerance is ±10% and there are eight variances in the LGBCE recommendation that are equal to or greater than 5% with the largest being 7%. Reflecting community interests and identities: Most of Barnet is densely populated with few intervals of the type that exist in rural areas where settlements are separated by agricultural land. Therefore, we considered that, in Barnet, ward-level community interests and identities are relatively blurred and that this criterion was of lesser importance than the first criterion. In this submission, we have given greater weight to this criterion. Providing for effective and convenient local government: In our earlier submission, we considered that maintaining a scheme of wards with equal numbers of councillors for each was preferable for several reasons such as fair representation on area committees. LGBCE has recommended a mix of 3 and 2-member wards and one single member ward. In this submission, we accept the concept of mixing 3 and 2-member wards, but we maintain that a single member ward leaves residents unrepresented if their member is absent for any reason and that the geography of Barnet does not warrant such an arrangement.

Summary Barnet Labour supports many of the Commission’s recommendations on ward patterns, including its preference for a mix in the number of councillors but propose some amendments based on stronger community identity and convenient and effective local government.

We endorse unreservedly the Commission’s proposals for Brunswick Park, Burnt Oak, , Colindale North, Colindale South, East Barnet, , Edgwarebury & Highwood Hill, Hendon, and Whetstone wards and have no suggested amendments or edits. We believe the Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s proposals reflect community ties, and present sensible ward boundaries. We accept LGBCE’s proposal for High Barnet if the ward must be reduced to a 2-councillor ward while we continue to believe that there is not a strong case for dispensing with 3- councillor wards in the area.

Note on methodology: The variances we quote are based on the electorate forecasting methodology described in our earlier submission and they are likely to differ slightly from those that LGBCE calculates based on a different methodology. Golders Green North and Golders Green South We believe the proposals for Golders Green North and Golders Green South could be improved in community identity and convenient and effective local government terms by replacing Golders Green South with a 2-councillor Childs Hill ward and replacing Golders Green North with a 3-councillor Golders Green ward along the following lines: Community Identity & Convenient and Effective Local Government Childs Hill is an ancient place name relating to a neighbourhood distinct from Golders Green. The southern part of the Commission’s proposed Golders Green South does not have any real community ties with Golders Green, but it is distinctly Childs Hill and most people living in that part of the ward will identify as living in Childs Hill. Our proposed boundaries also have the advantage of placing all of Golders Green Town Centre, including Golders Green Tube Station, in a Golders Green ward, which improves community identity. Childs Hill is a place distinct from Golders Green. The Childs Hill neighbourhood is focused around the town centre, shops, primary school, churches and library around the /Cricklewood Lane junction. All of Golders Green town centre is included in our proposed Golders Green ward. Proposal: We propose replacing the Commission’s Golders Green South ward with a new Childs Hill ward (2 councillors) with an electoral variance of -8.93%; and replacing the Commission’s Golders Green North ward with a Golders Green ward (3 councillors) with an electoral variance of +0.25%.

Childs Hill and Golders Green

Coppetts and Overall, we welcome the LGBCE’s proposed outer boundaries for Coppetts and Muswell Hill wards which are similar to our Stage 1 submission apart from the proposal to split the current Coppetts ward into two wards (Coppetts with two councillors and Muswell Hill with one councillor). We note the LGBCE’s reservations about creating a ward with a single councillor, and agree that this will present difficulties from the perspective of convenient and effective local government. Convenient and effective local government Lack of representation on Area Committee & Area Planning Committees: The Council has long standing area-based committees at a constituency level. For Coppetts and Muswell Hill wards this would be the Chipping Barnet Area Committee and Chipping Barnet Area Planning Committee. Both committees are made up of one councillor per ward in the Chipping Barnet area, with one substitute councillor per ward. Although a single councillor ward like Muswell Hill ward can be represented on these committees there will not be any substitute councillor on either. The current arrangements work because representation and substitution on these committees is divided between two or three councillors who alternate in the respective roles. This would not be possible with the proposed single councillor ward of Muswell Hill. Barnet is a large borough and so sub-division into areas is necessary for efficient administration of some functions. It is unlikely that the Council will abandon the Area Committee and Area Planning committee arrangements, and so a future Muswell Hill ward is likely to suffer a democratic deficit on both committees unless the single elected councillor is able to attend every single meeting of both committees without fail for four years. Reduced representation at advice surgeries: The proposal to split Coppetts ward may also result in a further democratic deficit as a singleton councillor will need to choose between doing twice as many advice surgeries as wards with 2 or more councillors where the weekly surgeries are shared, or reduce the number of surgeries currently available to residents in the ward. In summary, whilst we accept that the presents a hard boundary that could be used to create two wards, we believe that the impact of doing so will disadvantage residents in the new Muswell Hill ward to the extent that it is not worth it. In our view, the overriding consideration should be to ensure equal democratic representation as far as possible. Community identity We also note that two other wards in Barnet are bisected by the M1 in the Commission’s recommendations, so there is precedent that the presence of a main arterial road is not sufficient to override all other considerations. In the case of Muswell Hill ward there are also community identity arguments in favour of merging the ward with Coppetts. We would like to emphasise that Lane, the Friern Bridge egress route and 3 pedestrian bridges connect the Muswell Hill ward with Coppetts. None of these crossings involve interaction with the traffic on the A406. There is easy north-south travel on foot, by bicycle and by car. Bus routes 43, 134 and 234 use Colney Hatch Lane to cross the A406 and give access from the area south of the A406 to the rest of Coppetts ward and to various other parts of the borough of Barnet. All 3 routes are classed as "high frequency" by London Buses and the 43 and 134 run 24*7. The 232 bus route runs along the A406 and gives access to the west of the borough including Shopping Centre. The Tesco Extra superstore and the Friern Bridge Retail Park are both in Coppetts ward on the north side of the A406 and used by and easily accessed by residents from both sides of the A406. Funding has been approved for a new Cycleway between and that will link the existing Coppetts ward north and south of the North Circular Road (NCR): https://engage.barnet.gov.uk/Cycleway. Most of the residents in the proposed Muswell Hill ward use the bridge across the NCR to do their shopping at Tesco on the other side of the NCR, and to gain access to the rest of the Borough. Drawing the ward boundary along the NCR may look neater on the map, but it does not reflect the reality of movement and connectivity across the North Circular Road. Proposal: We propose merging the LGBCE’s Coppetts and Muswell Hill wards to form a single Coppetts ward to be represented by 3 councillors with an electoral variance of +1.00%. Coppetts

Underhill and Barnet Vale While we are not persuaded of the case for 3 wards here (including High Barnet) rather than 2, if that is part of LGBCE’s final recommendations we propose a minor amendment to improve community identity.

This involves the road called Underhill and the former football ground called Underhill being in Underhill ward not Barnet Vale ward.

Proposal: We propose transferring a small area from Barnet Vale to Underhill to give electoral variances in Underhill (2 councillors) of +5.61% and Barnet Vale (3 councillors) --5.30%. Underhill and Barnet Vale

Mill Hill and & Woodside We understand some residents in are concerned about Mill Hill East being added to the new Totteridge & Woodside ward. The central part of the borough has a relatively low population density and lends itself to 2-councillor wards rather than 3-councillor wards, so we propose the following changes to include a new Mill Hill East ward of 2 councillors, with a Mill Hill Village ward of 2 councillors and Totteridge & Woodside reducing to 2 councillors. The changes respect the separate identity of Mill Hill East. We do not believe there are strong community links between the former , now Millbrook Park, with Totteridge and . Residents of this development will use Mill Hill East Station and have better links with the rest of Mill Hill East. Our proposal of a Mill Hill East Ward would reflect the community centred around the station and roads off Bittacy Hill and Devonshire Road. The impact of this change would also be to focus the centre of the Mill Hill Village ward around the village, Mill Hill Broadway shops and Mill Hill Broadway station which is more logical than the present proposals. Proposal: We propose creating a Mill Hill East ward (2 councillors) with electoral variance -5.72%, Mill Hill Village ward (2 councillors) -1.82% and Totteridge & Woodside ward (2 councillors) --5.00%. Mill Hill Village and Mill Hill East

Totteridge & Woodside

East Finchley, Garden , Finchley Church End, West Finchley and Woodhouse While we acknowledge that there are few obvious boundaries in a suburb like Finchley, we believe that town centres are a good indicator of people’s sense of place, and we suggest that the following changes present stronger community identity. i) We support the West Finchley Residents Association proposal as far north as Argyle Road; ii) We propose extending West Finchley ward south-east of Squires Lane (as per the existing ward) and south-west of the Tube line; iii) We propose extending Woodhouse westwards to its existing boundary on Etchingham Park Road, Queens Road and Ballards Lane but extending northwards all the way to Tally Ho (so taking part of existing West Finchley); iv) We propose extending southwards into Garden Suburb taking in both sides of East Finchley Tube station as we proposed previously and the area between Ossulton Way and . The wards we propose are firmly based on town centres, major roads and public transport connectivity. Major roads link residents to the town centres which they visit for their various needs such as shopping at Tesco and on Ballards Lane and Sainsburys on High Road plus access to transport hubs at Finchley Central and North Finchley. The local bus network links the parts of each ward to other parts of the same ward.

East Finchley ward:

The Squires Lane area has no community identity with East Finchley. The proposals from the LGBCE are a re-creation of the previous boundaries prior to 2002. Unfortunately, the reasons for the change then are still relevant now, namely the widening of the North Circular Road and limited connections between Squires Lane and East Finchley. There are no discernible connections between the mainly family sized Victorian and Edwardian terraced housing north of the North Circular Road and the mainly estate and flatted developments on the East Finchley side. We therefore do not believe there is any sufficient argument to be made that this community should re-join with East Finchley. Most of the residents use Finchley Central Station and would identify Finchley Central as their town centre, or North Finchley for those on Glebe Road.

The North Circular Road runs for a mile along the northern boundary of East Finchley between East End Road and High Road. In that distance there is one road crossing (Long Lane) and one footbridge that does not connect well with the housing on the north side. In contrast to Colney Hatch Lane in Coppetts ward, which has three north- south bus routes centrally located in the east-west direction, there is a single bus route crossing the North Circular Road along the High Road (at the eastern extremity of the Squires Lane area) and none serving the relevant section of Long Lane. We strongly reject the Conservative proposals for this ward, which are to remove the areas south of the tube line. Their submission is inaccurate in stating there are only two links between the rest of East Finchley and this area - Church Lane and East End Road. In fact, there are foot bridges on Prospect Ring to Prospect Place, at Stanley Road and an underpass between Trinity Road and Manor Park Road, all of which are extremely well used and demonstrative of the close links between residents off East End Road and the rest of East Finchley. It is their Town Centre, their library is located in East Finchley, the Cemetery off East End Road is named "The East Finchley Cemetery", the area between Church Lane, East End Road and the tube line up to and including Briar Close are part of the Grange Big Local area which has funding from the lottery for community projects.

It is also worth noting that the roads currently in the Garden Suburb Ward that we are proposing to include in East Finchley are in the "East Finchley" Controlled Parking Zone. We believe adding these roads would reduce the confusion that many residents of the area have, when they live closer to East Finchley Station than most East Finchleyans but are not in a ward named East Finchley.

East Finchley on both sides of the Tube line has an identity epitomised by the iconic Archer sculpture at East Finchley tube station. Our proposal would place the Upper School campus of the Archer Academy in Beaumont Close in the same ward as the Lower School and sports facilities in Eagans Close. The school serves both sides of the Underground line as does the local Archer newspaper.

Our proposed boundaries are more rational and take into consideration local community realities and balances. Our proposed East Finchley ward quite simply contains all roads where residents describe themselves living in a place called East Finchley.

West Finchley ward:

We agree with the West Finchley Residents Association that the proposal to remove Westbury Road N12, Westbury Grove N12 and Court House Road N12 from the West Finchley ward and incorporate these roads into the Totteridge & Woodside ward does not reflect community identity. These roads are currently within the West Finchley Neighbourhood Forum area and are part of an identifiable community and should remain within the (revised) West Finchley ward. They have stronger community identity with West Finchley.

West Finchley takes in almost all the shops on both sides of Finchley Central Tube station as far north as the edge of Victoria Park and Woodhouse takes in the great majority of North Finchley town centre. The spine of West Finchley is Ballards Lane running south-west to north-east and the spine of Woodhouse is High Road running south to north with Woodhouse Road as a major corridor in the centre running west to east. We believe that our proposed boundaries are readily identifiable on the ground.

West Finchley is linked by routes 13, 125 and 460 from Regents Park Road along the full length of Ballards Lane, route 221 runs from the northern part of Ballards Lane westwards along Alexandra Grove and Argyle Road, route 143 links Manor View and Long Lane with Finchley Central, route 326 runs from Regents Park Road along Nether Street, Courthouse Gardens and Courthouse Road to Argyle Road and route 382 links Squires Lane and Long Lane with Finchley Central and Dollis Road. The Northern Tube line links West Finchley station with Finchley Central station.

Woodhouse ward:

We propose bringing the whole of Summers Lane back together and keeping Sandringham Gardens, Addington Drive and Kenver Avenue in Woodhouse - these residents feel part of a community, use local shops and cafes on Woodhouse Road and frequent North Finchley town centre for shops and the library (most of North Finchley town centre is in Woodhouse). In addition, children living in these roads attend local schools in Woodhouse - Summerside (primary), Compton (secondary), Wren Academy (primary and secondary). They also use the Glebelands nature reserve/open space.

On the other side of the High Road our proposed Woodhouse/West Finchley ward boundary is a more natural boundary keeping together the roads that feel more part of North Finchley and use the High Road to travel to North Finchley town centre for shopping and the library and where children cross the High Road to attend school. In particular, the catchment area for includes Granville Road. Our boundary also better unites the West Finchley community, where residents tend to use Finchley Central town centre and library and Finchley Central and West Finchley tube stations.

Woodhouse is linked by route 263 for the full length of High Road that lies within the ward and by route 125 for the northern part, routes 134 and 221 provide westwards travel to North Finchley along Woodhouse Road, route 382 runs along Summers Lane, High Road and Squires Lane and route 383 links Lane via Torrington Park to North Finchley High Road and Woodside Park Road.

Some of these features around town centres, major roads and transport networks apply too to the ward pattern proposed for West Finchley and Woodhouse by LGBCE in its Draft Recommendations but overall, we contend that that scheme is less coherent and less in tune with residents' feeling of place than what we are proposing. For instance, the central part of LGBCE's West Finchley ward extends from the Sandringham Gardens area on the eastern side of the High Road along Granville Road to Ballards Lane but there is no bus service along Granville Road.

As this link shows http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/north-finchley- 010417.pdf there is no east-west link in the Granville Road area so LGBCE's proposed West Finchley ward does not have good connectivity. The 382 bus route does provide some connectivity http://content.tfl.gov.uk/bus-route-maps/finchley-central- 010417.pdf but via an indirect route. The neighbouring wards that we are proposing have good internal transport links and identity too.

Finchley Church End ward:

Our proposals for the Finchley Church End ward anchor the new ward's focus around the junction of Regents Park Road, Gravel Hill and East End Road. This is an identifiable community. We would reiterate our previous submission that it makes sense for the users of Finchley Central Station to be in one ward and that the proposed West Finchley Ward contains the Town Centre, which is based around Ballards Lane. We do not believe that the current proposals reflect the community dynamic. For example, the Dollis Road, Gordon Road, Nether Street area included in the proposed Finchley Church End ward has little merit - this proposal stems from the previous boundaries extant before 2002. However, since 2002, Crescent Road, which is the only direct road connection, has become a one-way road, with the exit onto Nether Street. For a resident of Gordon Road to visit any other part of this proposed ward by car, it would require them leaving the ward. But a journey from Gordon Road to south of the station is somewhat unlikely, except to visit the local library, would be in our proposed West Finchley ward. Their Town Centre, as previously mentioned, is on Ballards Lane.

Garden Suburb Ward:

Our proposed Garden Suburb ward contains minor changes, already explained in the East Finchley ward submission. We believe this warding pattern better reflects the local communities, and the distinct differences between the older and original Garden Suburb, which is south of the A1, and the "newer" elements north of it.

Proposal: We propose the above changes to create East Finchley (3 councillors) with an electoral variance of -4.78%, Garden Suburb (2 councillors) -4.46%, Finchley Church End (2 councillors) +6.81%, West Finchley (3 councillors) +0.50% and Woodhouse (3 councillors) +4.91%.

West Finchley and Woodhouse

Finchley Church End, Garden Suburb and East Finchley

Comments on wards where we agree with the LGBCE’s proposals

Cricklewood ward: We welcome the Commission’s recommendation to create a ward focused around the Cricklewood town centre and the regeneration area of Brent Cross South along similar lines to our Stage 1 submission. We believe there are strong reasons to do so on the grounds of community identity and convenient and effective local government. The proposed Cricklewood ward has a low forecast electorate but the recently announced funding agreement with national government covers the planned Brent Cross West railway station which is seen as crucial in making sure the Brent Cross South housing and business development is commercially viable and deliverable on schedule. Please see: http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s51730/Brent%20Cross%20Cricklewood%2 0Update%20Report.pdf There is also a large development proposed on the B&Q site on Cricklewood Lane that is not included in the figures submitted by Barnet Council to the Commission. Please see recent announcement: https://www.propertyfundsworld.com/2019/04/30/275347/montreaux-acquires- seven-acre-site-cricklewood.

High Barnet ward: We do not endorse the principle of creating an extra ward in this area but, if there is to be a 2-councillor ward there, putting all the town centre in one ward makes sense as do the boundaries on the east and south-west sides. We acknowledge the need to balance the electorates with Underhill ward and believe that running the boundary along the backs of shops in the town centre is preferable to alternatives that would bisect neighbourhoods elsewhere. High Barnet Underground station could be included without affecting any electors and the boundary would be no less obvious on the ground than the nearby boundaries. We agree that the caravan sites at Stirling Corner have more connection with High Barnet than with Edgware.

East Barnet and Brunswick Park wards: The railway line with few crossings is a hard boundary to the west and the adjustment to the boundary between the two wards tends to equalise the electorates without compromising the ward identities. We agree strongly that the Coppies Grove area is part of and belongs in that part of Brunswick rather than with Friern Barnet on the other side of the railway.

Whetstone ward: The ward is focused on the town centre which gives it an important sense of place. The eastern and western boundaries are railway lines. The southern boundary gives a sensible separation of Whetstone from North Finchley and Friern Barnet. In the north the proposed boundary balances the electorate numbers and respects the identity of Whetstone separate from . We would be opposed to moving the boundary with Barnet Vale ward northwards to make a 3-councillor Whetstone ward and a 2-councillor Barnet Vale ward (as the Conservatives proposed) because it would require the Lyonsdown area of New Barnet to be split with much of it

being tacked on to Whetstone. That is an undesirable feature of the existing Oakleigh ward. An example of the implications of a northwards boundary move would be the splitting of the catchment areas of places of worship such as Barnet which is in Eversleigh Road.

Hendon and West Hendon wards: The Shirehall area has much more affinity with and links to Hendon than with West Hendon and the A41 is a suitable hard boundary between the two wards. The negative variance of the proposed West Hendon ward is likely to be redressed when the proposed development at the Sainsburys site on (A5) takes place - it is not included in the new developments notified to LGBCE by Barnet Council. The development is called Silk Park and there was a recent public consultation: http://silkparkconsultation.co.uk/wp- content/uploads/sites/74/2019/04/Silkstream_Sainsburys_Banners.pdf.

Burnt Oak, Colindale North and Colindale South wards: The proposed boundaries respect the different characteristics of these neighbourhoods and make use of natural boundaries where appropriate. The division between the two Colindale wards and the number of councillors for each should be kept under review as large scale development proceeds over the next few years.

Edgware and Edgwarebury & Highwood Hill wards: The boundary between the two wards follows the A41 and is easy to identify on the ground, unlike the existing Hale ward whose shape is somewhat arbitrary and whose identity is not recognised by local residents. It is a difficult area to divide into wards and we think this proposal is about the best that can be done in the circumstances.

Barnet borough map