New electoral arrangements for Lambeth Council Further Draft Recommendations June 2021 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 Analysis and further draft recommendations in Clapham Common, Stockwell East and the South-East of Lambeth 1 Gipsy Hill, West Dulwich & St Martin’s and West Norwood 2 Clapham Common and Stockwell East & Landor 9 Have your say 13 Equalities 17 Appendices 19 Appendix A 19 Further draft recommendations for wards in Lambeth Council 19 Appendix B 20 Submissions received 20 Analysis and further draft recommendations in Clapham Common, Stockwell East and the South-East of Lambeth 1 Following our consultation on the draft recommendations for Lambeth, the Commission has decided to hold a period of consultation on further draft recommendations in the areas of Clapham Common, Stockwell East and the south- east of the borough before we publish our final recommendations. The Commission believes it has received sufficient evidence relating to the rest of the borough to finalise its recommendations, so this consultation is focused on the areas mentioned above. 2 During consultation on the draft recommendations that were published on 2 February 2021, we received 767 representations, a significant number of which commented on our proposals for wards in the above-mentioned areas. Many of these submissions opposed our draft recommendations. Many respondents provided evidence describing their community to substantiate their opposition to our proposals. 3 Accordingly, we have been persuaded to amend our proposals and publish further draft recommendations for these areas. We are now inviting further views in these areas. 4 We welcome all comments on these proposals, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries and the names of our proposed wards. This stage of consultation begins on 29 June 2021 and closes on 26 July 2021. Please see page 13 for more information on how to send us your response. 5 The tables and maps on pages 2–12 detail our further draft recommendations. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory criteria of: • Equality of representation. • Reflecting community interests and identities. • Providing for effective and convenient local government. 1 Gipsy Hill, West Dulwich & St Martin’s and West Norwood Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Gipsy Hill 3 1% West Dulwich & St Martin’s 3 7% West Norwood 3 -4% Gipsy Hill, West Dulwich & St Martin’s and West Norwood 6 In addition to the borough-wide schemes, we received over 165 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for this area. There were different views expressed about the communities and what the boundaries of the wards in this area 2 should be. Some supported the draft recommendations, others partially supported them, while some proposed a different warding pattern altogether. 7 The Council supported our draft recommendations for Gipsy Hill and Knight’s Hill wards but proposed splitting our St Martin’s ward across Rosendale and Streatham Hill Leigham wards to create two three-councillor wards. This was supported by Helen Hayes MP. They were of the view that the western half our proposed St Martin’s ward looked to Streatham while the eastern side of the ward looked towards West Dulwich, as was Councillor Tiedemann. 8 The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats supported our draft recommendations but proposed uniting Lancaster Avenue in Rosendale ward on community identity grounds. This modification was echoed by the Lancaster Avenue Residents’ Association and many residents. The Norwood Forum also supported our draft recommendations but, in addition to the above modification with respect to Lancaster Avenue, also proposed the inclusion of the area between Kingsmead and Kinfauns roads in St Martin’s ward. We note that the Conservatives included these roads in a similar ward at the last stage and so did the Norwood Action Group (NAG). The Norwood Forum also suggested that the names of the four wards should be pre-fixed with Norwood to ‘fix a sense of unity and identity’. 9 We also received support for the boundaries of our draft recommendations St Martin’s ward from the Deronda Estate Tenants’ & Residents’ Association who confirmed that there was a community centred around the station and were of the view that its residents did not feel connected to their current (Thurlow Park) ward. It supported the uniting of three adjacent neighbourhoods in the new ward. It, however, proposed renaming the ward High Trees. A number of residents including some who lived in the area the Council was proposing we include in Streatham Hill Leigham supported being in a ward centred around Tulse Hill station and the surrounding area. One resident was of the view that while the gyratory ‘makes moving around trickier on foot’ it was still a significant town centre with pubs, shops and businesses and that it was much more convenient for residents of St Martin’s Estate to travel to than Brixton. 10 The Lambeth Council Green Party Group (‘Green Group’) proposed three three-councillor wards across the area, as did the Gipsy Hill Labour Party (‘GHLP’), albeit with slightly different boundaries, on the grounds that the draft recommendations split the Gipsy Hill community and the amenities that residents used. The Green Group stated that residents of Gipsy Hill wished to maintain the existing links through the whole of Norwood Park, West Norwood and West Dulwich. The GHLP stated that Elm Wood Primary School and the Emmanuel Youth & Community Centre were important to the Gipsy Hill community and that under the draft recommendations the former would be outside the ward and the latter at the edge of the ward. Both organisations also pointed to Kingswood Primary School 3 whose sites would be split across Knight’s Hill and Gipsy Hill wards. This was supported by no fewer than 55 other respondents, some of whom attached the GHLP proposals as their preferred option. A number of the submissions expressed the view that their community was not solely defined by its relationship or proximity to Crystal Palace. 11 NAG re-submitted its warding proposals from the previous round which proposed four two-councillor wards. These wards had significantly different boundaries to the draft recommendations and the other proposals, including with regards to its Gipsy Hill ward. It stressed that its proposals were ‘well-researched, evidenced and locally pre-consulted detailed suggestions’ and that the key reasons were ‘community identities and focus, and importantly, a ward centred on the town of West Norwood’ which it states had suffered from ‘under-representation compared to other Lambeth areas’. 12 NAG also explained that there was community cohesion in its proposed Tulse Hill South ward but that the draft recommendations for Rosendale ward included two communities which look in different directions: one ‘to Tulse Hill, Herne Hill and Dulwich Village’ and the other to ‘the local centre known as West Dulwich on Rosendale Road, and West Norwood’. It also centred its proposed West Norwood Town ward around the centre of ‘retail, culture and leisure’ in the area. 13 We also received representations from Rise & Gardens Residents’ Association who argued that Brockwell Gardens and Trinity Rise looked east towards West Dulwich and Rosendale Road and should therefore be included in our proposed Rosendale ward. More than 25 residents also objected to the inclusion of Norwood Road in St Martin’s ward, which they considered looked more to the west. Some described their community as being Herne Hill/Brockwell Park-facing (north) while others were of the view that their community looked south. This point was echoed by the councillors for the existing Thurlow Park ward. In addition to these we received submissions from some residents who expressed support for Rosendale ward while many more restricted their comments to the name of the ward which they considered would be more appropriately named West Dulwich. 14 We considered the representations we received carefully. There appear to be lots of areas with strong communities and no consensus about how to group them together in wards. These communities also appear to overlap in places. For example, the boundaries proposed by NAG (its Gipsy Hill and West Norwood Town wards in particular) are considerably different from those proposed by either the Green Group, the GHLP or our draft recommendations, all of which have some community support. The boundaries proposed by the GHLP and Green Group also differ in a number of places. 4 15 Despite the support expressed by some for our draft recommendations we acknowledge that there were also objections.