New electoral arrangements for Westminster City 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 Westminster? 2 Our proposals for Westminster 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-west Westminster 9 North-east Westminster 11 Bayswater, Little Venice and Westbourne 13 Hyde Park, Marylebone and West End 15 Lancaster Gate 18 South Westminster 19 Conclusions 22 Summary of electoral arrangements 23 What happens next? 25 Equalities 27 Appendices 29 Appendix A 29 Final recommendations for Westminster City Council 29 Appendix B 31 Outline map 31 Appendix C 33 Submissions received 33 Appendix D 35 Glossary and abbreviations 35

Introduction Who we are and what we do

1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament1. 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 • Peter Maddison QPM (Chair) • Amanda Nobbs OBE • Andrew Scallan CBE • Steve Robinson (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE (Chief • Susan Johnson OBE 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.

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.

1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009

1

Why Westminster?

7 We are conducting a review of Westminster City Council (‘the Council’) as its last review was completed in 1999, and we are required to review the electoral arrangements of every council in England ‘from time to time’.2 In addition, the value of each vote in council elections varies depending on where you live in Westminster. 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 Westminster 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 Westminster

9 Westminster should be represented by 54 councillors, six fewer than there are now.

10 Westminster should have 18 wards, two fewer than there are now.

11 The boundaries of three wards will stay the same; the rest should change.

12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for Westminster.

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 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.

2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).

2

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Westminster. We then held a period 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

19 March 2019 Number of councillors decided 26 March 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 3 June 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 1 October 2019 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 20 January 2020 forming final recommendations 12 May 2020 Publication of final recommendations

3

4

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation3 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors4 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.

2019 2025 Electorate of Westminster 136,270 149,733 Number of councillors 54 54 Average number of electors per 2,524 2,773 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 of our proposed wards for Westminster 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 9% by 2025.

23 The Labour Group expressed concern during consultation on our draft recommendations on how the Council had developed its electoral forecasts and we noted these concerns. However, as stated in our guidance, electoral forecasting is not an exact science, and we have carefully considered the information provided by the Council and the Labour Group. We are satisfied that the projected figures remain

3 Schedule 2 to the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009. 4 Electors refers to the number of people registered to vote, not the whole adult population.

5

the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

Number of councillors 24 Westminster Council currently has 60 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and concluded that decreasing by six 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 one submission about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations. The submission did not present compelling evidence to move away from 54 councillors. We have therefore based our final recommendations on a 54-councillor council.

Ward boundaries consultation 27 We received 40 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three authority-wide proposals from the Council, the Labour Group, and a local resident. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the authority.

28 The Council’s scheme was developed by the majority party on the Council and formally endorsed by the Council’s General Purposes Committee. It provided a uniform pattern of three-councillor wards for Westminster. The Labour Group’s scheme provided for a mixed pattern of two- and three-councillor wards. The local resident’s scheme did not specify how many councillors should represent each ward or provide community-based evidence relating to the proposals. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards from the Council and Labour Group resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries. However, on the basis of the evidence received and our observations when we visited the authority, our draft recommendations were based on the Council’s proposals in the most part, and the Labour Group’s proposals in some areas.

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.

6

30 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This tour of Westminster 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.

Draft recommendations consultation 32 We received 197 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included three which covered several areas of the authority. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals for West End, Marylebone, and Hyde Park wards, as well as St James’s ward and Riverside ward.

33 We received submissions from the Council and the Labour Group which were broadly supportive of our draft recommendations but which made suggestions in several wards. The Council submission reversed its previous position on the boundary between St James’s and West End wards – which we adopted in our draft recommendations – by suggesting Chinatown remain in St James’s. The Labour Group submission suggested minor amendments to our draft recommendations for St James’s and West End wards, as well as more substantial suggestions for the retention of Churchill ward and a redrawing of the boundary between Bayswater and Lancaster Gate wards.

34 Following publication of our draft recommendations, it was noted that the electorates for the Pimlico, Regent’s Park, Riverside and Westbourne wards had been slightly miscalculated. This has been corrected in our final recommendations.

35 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with modifications to the wards in the Chinatown, Marylebone, West End, and Hyde Park areas, as well as the renaming of Pimlico and Riverside wards, based on the submissions received. We also make a minor modification to the boundaries between the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards.

Final recommendations 36 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.

7

37 The tables and maps on pages 9–22 detail our final recommendations for each area of Westminster. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory5 criteria of:

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

38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 29 and on the large map accompanying this report.

5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

8

North-west Westminster

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Harrow Road 3 2% Maida Vale 3 -4% Queen’s Park 3 4%

Harrow Road 39 We received three submissions from residents of Harrow Road ward, all of which were in favour of the draft recommendations. In particular, they noted the inclusion of Sutherland Avenue in our proposed ward. In light of the submissions received, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Maida Vale 40 We received five submissions from residents on our draft recommendations for Maida Vale ward. All noted that the ‘triangle’ had been transferred from the current Harrow Road ward and accepted its addition for the purposes of improving electoral equality. In light of the submissions received, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Queen’s Park

9

41 We received four submissions from residents responding to our draft recommendations for Queen’s Park ward and one from the Queen’s Park Community Council. All were strongly supportive of the ward boundaries remaining coterminous with those of the Community Council. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

10

North-east Westminster

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Abbey Road 3 -2% Church Street 3 1% Regent’s Park 3 1%

Abbey Road 42 We received seven submissions from residents in response to our draft recommendations for Abbey Road ward. All were supportive of the proposals and a number stated that our proposed ward was more representative of the local community than the current boundaries. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Church Street 43 We received seven submissions from residents in response to our draft recommendations for Church Street ward. All were supportive of the proposals as more representative of the local community than the current boundaries. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

11

Regent’s Park 44 We received six submissions from residents in response to our draft recommendations for Regent’s Park ward, all of which were supportive of the proposals. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

12

Bayswater, Little Venice and Westbourne

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Bayswater 3 4% Little Venice 3 -4% Westbourne 3 -4%

Bayswater 45 We received 17 submissions from residents in response to our draft recommendations for Bayswater and one from the Labour Group. All but two residents’ submissions were supportive of the proposals. These submissions suggested dividing Bayswater and Lancaster Gate along a ‘north-south’ boundary, rather than ‘east-west’, to include the various estates around Gloucester Terrace in Bayswater ward and avoid drawing ward boundaries along the main arterial routes around which communities cluster. We took this proposal into account but did not consider the evidence strong enough to alter our draft recommendations. The area around Gloucester Terrace is a mixed community and, as evidenced by the Labour

13

submission, such a ‘north-south’ division would merely transfer the bisected arterial road from Bishop’s Bridge Road to Westbourne Grove.

Little Venice 46 We received 12 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Little Venice ward, three of which were from councillors. Many of the submissions from residents strongly opposed the division of Warwick Avenue, which was a feature of the Labour Group’s submission during the previous consultation period. This did not form part of our draft recommendations, which maintained the current boundaries of Little Venice.

47 Having carefully reflected on the evidence received, it is clear the current boundaries of Little Venice accurately reflect an organic community with a strongly held sense of identity. We are, therefore, confirming our draft recommendation for this ward as final.

Westbourne 48 We received four submissions from residents in response to our draft recommendations for Westbourne ward, all of which were supportive of the proposals as reflective of the local community. We are therefore confirming our draft recommendation for this ward as final.

14

Hyde Park, Marylebone and West End

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Hyde Park 3 -7% Marylebone 3 5% West End 3 3%

Hyde Park 49 We received five submissions from residents of Hyde Park ward, including two councillors, who were supportive of our draft recommendation. In particular there was support for our proposal to expand the ward’s boundaries east of Edgware Road to Marylebone High Street. These submissions anticipated a need for the ward to acquire more electors in order to maintain good levels of electoral equality and described shared amenities either side of Edgware Road.

50 We took these submissions into account when formulating our final recommendations. However, we received a number of submissions from residents, local organisations and businesses in the Marylebone area which were strongly opposed to this area being included in Hyde Park ward, many of which identified the western boundary of Marylebone as Edgware Road. These submissions are detailed in paragraphs 52-53.

51 After careful consideration, we decided that the need to reflect a strongly held community identity in Marylebone outweighed the desire to moderately improve electoral equality in Hyde Park ward. In any case, we are proposing the addition of

15

the area west of Marylebone Road – the north-western boundary of the Marylebone Association – and a small area of Lancaster Gate ward (see paragraph 62 for details), which will further improve electoral equality in our proposed ward. We also agree that Edgware Road provides a clear and natural boundary between Hyde Park and Marylebone wards. Marble Arch will remain in the Hyde Park ward under our final recommendations. Hyde Park will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Marylebone and West End 52 We received 22 submissions from residents, local organisations and businesses opposing our draft recommendations for Marylebone and West End, many of which proposed alternative boundaries for these wards. Of these, the Portman Estate, the Howard de Walden Estate and the Selfridges Group expressed concerns about their estates being split between numerous wards and the resulting negative impact on effective and convenient local government. This was reflected in the Marylebone Forum’s submission, which also considered that our draft recommendations did not accurately reflect local community identities.

53 The New West End Company, the Marylebone Forum and the Portman Estate proposed that both sides of Oxford Street and its adjacent roads should be included in West End ward and that its northern boundary should run along Wigmore Street. They argued this would reflect the unique retail nature of the area and support effective and convenient local government by allowing traders one point of contact with the Council. We considered this compelling evidence and have therefore drawn the boundary between Marylebone and West End wards along Seymour Street and Wigmore Street.

54 In order to balance the number of electors in Marylebone, the Marylebone Forum and the Portman Estate recommended drawing the boundary with Hyde Park ward along Seymour Place. This, it was argued, would provide good electoral equality while incorporating both sides of Edgware Road into one ward for effective and convenient local government. As detailed in paragraph 51, we carefully considered this proposal, but ultimately considered Edgware Road to be a more convincing boundary between the two wards, as proposed by the New West End Company, the Selfridges Group and a local resident.

55 A significant proportion of the submissions received for Marylebone and West End wards concerned the Fitzrovia area. We received 10 submissions from residents of Fitzrovia and one from the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum which were supportive of our draft recommendations to unify the area of Fitzrovia that lies in the City of Westminster in one ward. However, we also received submissions from the Fitzrovia Partnership (which operates entirely on the Camden side of Fitzrovia), the Portland Village Association, Ridgeford Properties Management, nine residents and three councillors in opposition. These submissions supported the Council’s originally proposed boundary of New Cavendish Street for the West End and Marylebone wards.

16

56 A number of these submissions argued that the area north of New Cavendish Street was more residential in character, while the area to the south was more retail- orientated, and that both constitute a distinct area of eastern Marylebone. Others expressed concerns about the geographic extent of our proposed West End ward, as well as its unique nature, which creates a larger than average amount of casework for councillors on issues surrounding licensing, planning and policing. Concern was expressed that residents may be ‘forgotten’ as a result.

57 We were mindful of all the evidence received when considering our final recommendations. However, we remain convinced by the evidence submitted in both rounds of consultation in support of unifying Fitzrovia in West End ward. Furthermore, we were not convinced that New Cavendish Street provided an effective boundary between residential and retail-led communities in the area, as geocoded data demonstrated that there were more electors south of New Cavendish Street and north of Mortimer Street than there were north of New Cavendish Street.

58 The submission we received from the Portland Village Association, (mentioned in paragraph 55), opposed our draft recommendations, as they would place more of the Association’s area in West End ward. Under the current boundaries, only the area between New Cavendish Street and Langham Street is in West End ward, with the rest in the existing Marylebone High Street ward. We appreciate that Portland Village identifies itself a distinct area of eastern Marylebone. However, given the Association’s stated close relationship with the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum, and the significant overlap between the Fitzrovia and Portland Village areas, we consider that effective and convenient local government would be best served by these organisations being represented in one ward. While this splits a small part of the Howard de Walden Estate, it has the benefit of uniting the entire Portland Village area in one ward, as well as creating a strong boundary between Marylebone and West End wards along Portland Place. This boundary was proposed by the Selfridges Group and a local resident.

59 We have therefore made some notable changes to our draft recommendations for this area. We are satisfied that they provide the most effective balance of our statutory criteria and provide a fair reflection of local communities in the area. Marylebone and West End wards will have good electoral equality by 2025.

17

Lancaster Gate

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Lancaster Gate 3 -9%

Lancaster Gate 60 We received eight submissions from residents on our draft recommendations for Lancaster Gate ward, seven of which were supportive, and one from the Labour Group. The Labour Group submission and one unsupportive resident submission are discussed in paragraph 45.

61 As alluded to in paragraph 51, changes to Marylebone ward left Hyde Park with a -10% variance and we considered there was scope to improve this variance under our final recommendations. We therefore deemed it necessary to transfer a small part of our proposed Lancaster Gate ward to improve electoral equality in Hyde Park.

62 During this process, it was noted that the draft recommendations split Paddington Railway Station from Paddington Underground Station, the former being in Hyde Park ward and the latter in Lancaster Gate. We therefore decided to redraw the boundary along Spring Street from Eastbourne Terrance to Sussex Gardens. This will ensure that both wards have electoral variances of under 10% by 2025.

18

South Westminster

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Knightsbridge & Belgravia 3 6% Pimlico North 3 2% Pimlico South 3 -3%

Knightsbridge & Belgravia 63 We received 29 submissions on our draft recommendations for Knightsbridge & Belgravia ward, 22 of which were supportive. All but one objection concerned the Ebury Bridge area, arguing that it had closer social and demographic ties with the Churchill Estate east of the railway line (in our Pimlico South ward, discussed below), and little in common with Belgravia. We were sympathetic to this evidence but, as mentioned in the draft recommendations report, moving the area into Pimlico South would create poor electoral equality in both wards (28% in Pimlico South and - 20% in Knightsbridge & Belgravia).

64 While we have carefully considered the warding options for this area, we have concluded that there is no alternative warding pattern that will ensure good electoral equality. It is an important facet of the democratic process that electors have a vote of broadly equal weight and we concluded that the draft recommendations for this

19

area strike an effective balance of our three statutory criteria. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Pimlico North and Pimlico South 65 We received 20 submissions regarding the Pimlico and Riverside wards in our draft recommendations, 13 of which were supportive of the proposals. Those submissions which were not supportive, from residents and one councillor, were principally against the Churchill Gardens and Dolphin Square estates being included in the same ward. It was argued that the estates had different socio-economic characters, with Churchill Gardens being primarily made up of social housing and privately owned flats while Dolphin Square was principally rented. However, we do not assume that, because two adjoining areas have a different socio-economic profile, they will not share any sense of community identity or interest. Having carefully considered our proposal for this area, we remain convinced that unifying the Pimlico area in two wards offers the best outcome for electoral equality, community identity and effective and convenient local government.

66 Several submissions dealt with the naming of our proposed Pimlico and Riverside wards, with the majority stating that ‘Riverside’ was too vague, and that both wards should include the name ‘Pimlico’. Several suggestions were made by residents and councillors, including Pimlico North and Pimlico South, Pimlico Victoria and Pimlico Riverside, and Pimlico Cubitt and Pimlico Belgrave. We are satisfied that the names Pimlico North and Pimlico South offer the clearest and simplest description of these wards and the communities they represent.

67 Subject to the ward name changes outlined above, we confirm as final, our draft recommendations for these wards. Both wards will have good electoral equality by 2025.

20

St James’s and Vincent Square

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors St James’s 3 2% Vincent Square 3 3%

St James’s 68 We received a large number of submissions in response to our draft recommendations for St James’s ward, 22 of which concerned Chinatown. In our draft recommendations, the core of this area was moved from St James’s ward to

21

West End ward. These submissions were both supportive and critical. The Council and the London Chinatown Chinese Association both made submissions supporting Chinatown’s continued inclusion in St James’s ward. The Council considered Shaftesbury Avenue to be a stronger boundary between the wards and cited support from residents of Vale Royal House and Newport Court, as well as members of the Chinese community. The London Chinatown Chinese Association considered the area’s inclusion in St James’s to have supported its identity as an area distinct from Soho, that many of its businesses look to Leicester Square, and that the annual Chinese New Year celebrations organised by the Association have been held in Trafalgar Square since 2002. These views were supported by four local residents.

69 We also received a number of submissions in favour of our draft recommendations, notably from members of the Soho Society and other residents, who said they considered themselves as part of Soho’s community and shared some of the same amenities and local concerns. We received submissions from residents of Vale Royal House and Sandringham Flats, which are located either side of the proposed ward boundary on Charing Cross Road. It was argued that both buildings should be in the same ward, as they operate as a single community. Submissions by residents, the Labour Group, and two councillors proposed achieving this by extending the West End ward boundary along Great Newport Street and Upper St Martin’s Lane.

70 We have carefully considered the arguments made on both sides and have decided to move Chinatown back into St James’s ward. We consider Shaftesbury Avenue to be a stronger boundary between the two communities. This is clearly evidenced by the use of bilingual street signs on the south side of Shaftesbury Avenue but not the north, as well as by the pagoda on Macclesfield Street. Furthermore, we were concerned that the draft recommendations split the area of Chinatown between Lisle Street and Leicester Square from the rest of the community. We also agree with the London Chinatown Chinese Association that liaising with one set of ward councillors will be more conducive to effective and convenient local government. These recommendations will also ensure Vale Royal House and Sandringham Flats remain within the same ward. Our revised St James’s ward will have good electoral equality by 2025.

Vincent Square 71 We received three submissions in response to our draft recommendations for Vincent Square. These submissions were made by four councillors (the three councillors for St James’s made one submission) and the Vincent Square Residents Association. All of these respondents were supportive of the proposed boundaries as more reflective of the local community. We have confirmed our draft recommendation for this ward as final. Conclusions

22

72 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Westminster, referencing the 2019 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

2019 2025 Number of councillors 54 54 Number of electoral wards 18 18 Average number of electors per councillor 2,524 2,773 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 3 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 1 0 from the average

Final recommendations

Westminster City Council should be made up of 54 councillors serving 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 the Westminster City Council. You can also view our final recommendations for Westminster City Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

23

24

What happens next? 73 We have now completed our review of Westminster City Council. 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.

25

26

Equalities 74 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.

27

28

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Westminster City Council Number of Number of Variance Number of Electorate Variance from Electorate Ward name electors per electors per from councillors (2019) average % (2025) councillor councillor average % 1 Abbey Road 3 7,889 2,630 4% 8,158 2,719 -2%

2 Bayswater 3 8,222 2,741 9% 8,662 2,887 4%

3 Church Street 3 7,395 2,465 -2% 8,403 2,801 1%

4 Harrow Road 3 7,933 2,644 5% 8,491 2,830 2%

5 Hyde Park 3 6,018 2,006 -21% 7,720 2,573 -7%

6 Knightsbridge & Belgravia 3 7,372 2,457 -3% 8,786 2,929 6%

7 Lancaster Gate 3 6,926 2,309 -9% 7,590 2,530 -9%

8 Little Venice 3 6,827 2,276 -10% 8,003 2,668 -4%

9 Maida Vale 3 7,728 2,576 2% 8,016 2,672 -4%

10 Marylebone 3 8,285 2,762 9% 8,703 2,901 5%

11 Pimlico North 3 7,957 2,652 5% 8,456 2,819 2%

12 Pimlico South 3 7,781 2,594 3% 8,084 2,695 -3%

13 Queen’s Park 3 8,370 2,790 11% 8,672 2,891 4%

29

Number of Number of Variance Number of Electorate Variance from Electorate Ward name electors per electors per from councillors (2019) average % (2025) councillor councillor average % 14 Regent’s Park 3 7,882 2,627 4% 8,382 2,794 1%

15 St James’s 3 6,752 2,251 -11% 8,463 2,821 2%

16 Vincent Square 3 7,831 2,610 3% 8,545 2,848 3%

17 West End 3 7,511 2,504 -1% 8,584 2,861 3%

18 Westbourne 3 7,591 2,530 0% 8,015 2,672 -4%

Totals 54 136,270 – – 149,733 – –

Averages – – 2,524 – – 2,773 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Westminster City 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.

30

Appendix B Outline map

Number Ward name 1 Abbey Road 2 Bayswater 3 Church Street 4 Harrow Road 5 Hyde Park 6 Knightsbridge & Belgravia 7 Lancaster Gate 8 Little Venice 9 Maida Vale 10 Marylebone 11 Pimlico North 12 Pimlico South 13 Queen’s Park 14 Regent’s Park

31

15 St James’s 16 Vincent Square 17 West End 18 Westbourne

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/current-reviews/greater- london/westminster

32

Appendix C Submissions received All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/greater-london/westminster

Local Authority

• Westminster City Council

Political Groups

• Westminster City Council Labour Group

Councillors

• Councillor H. Acton (Westminster City Council) • Councillor I. Adams (Westminster City Council) • Councillor T. Barnes (Westminster City Council) • Councillor D. Boothroyd (Westminster City Council) • Councillor I. Bott (Westminster City Council) • Councillor M. Caplan (Westminster City Council) • Councillor O. Cooper (Camden London Borough Council) • Councillor A. Cox (Westminster City Council) • Councillor T. Devenish AM (Westminster City Council and Greater London Assembly) • Councillor J. Glanz (Westminster City Council) • Councillor J. Glen (Westminster City Council) • Councillor A. Harvey (Westminster City Council) • Councillor D. Harvey (Westminster City Council) • Councillor A. Harrison (Camden London Borough Council) • Councillor E. Hitchcock (Westminster City Council) • Councillor L. Hyams (Westminster City Council) • Councillor P. Lewis (Westminster City Council) • Councillor T. Mitchell (Westminster City Council) • Councillor R. Robathan (Westminster City Council) • Councillor I. Rowley (Westminster City Council) • Councillor K. Scarborough (Westminster City Council) • Councillor M. Shearer (Westminster City Council) • Councillor A. Smith (Westminster City Council) • Councillor J. Spencer (Westminster City Council) • Councillor S. Vincent (Camden London Borough Council)

33

• Councillor J. Wilkinson (Westminster City Council)

Members of Parliament

• Nickie Aiken MP (Cities of London & Westminster)

Local Organisations

• 49 Hallam St Ltd. • Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum • Belgravia Residents Association • Covent Garden Community Association • Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum • Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum • London Chinatown Chinese Association • Marylebone Forum • New West End Company • Portland Village Association • Queen’s Park Community Council • Ridgeford Properties Management • Selfridges Group • The Belgravia Society • The Fitzrovia Partnership • The Howard de Walden Estate • The Knightsbridge Association • The Portman Estate • Vincent Square Residents Association

Parish and Town Councils

• Queen’s Park Community Council

Local Residents

• 145 local residents

Petitions

• Four petitions

34

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

35

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

36

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