New electoral arrangements for Waltham Forest Council Draft recommendations December 2019 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 2019
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 Waltham Forest? 2 Our proposals for Waltham Forest 2 How will the recommendations affect you? 2 Have your say 3 Review timetable 3 Analysis and draft recommendations 5 Submissions received 5 Electorate figures 5 Number of councillors 6 Ward boundaries consultation 6 Draft recommendations 7 North Waltham Forest 8 Central Waltham Forest 11 South Waltham Forest 4 Conclusions 4 Summary of electoral arrangements 4 Have your say 6 Equalities 10 Appendices 12 Appendix A 12 Draft recommendations for Waltham Forest Council 12 Appendix B 14 Outline map 14 Appendix C 15 Submissions received 15 Appendix D 16 Glossary and abbreviations 16
Introduction Who we are and what we do
1 The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is an independent body set up by Parliament.1 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 • Amanda Nobbs OBE (Chair) • Steve Robinson • Andrew Scallan CBE (Deputy Chair) • Jolyon Jackson CBE • Susan Johnson OBE (Chief Executive) • Peter Maddison QPM
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.
1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
1
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
Why Waltham Forest?
7 We are conducting a review of Waltham Forest 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 borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Waltham Forest. 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 Waltham Forest 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 Waltham Forest
9 Waltham Forest should be represented by 60 councillors, the same number as there are now.
10 Waltham Forest should have 22 wards, two more than there are now.
11 The boundaries of all wards change; none will stay the same.
How will the recommendations affect you?
12 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. Your ward name may also change.
13 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 consider any representations which are based on these issues.
2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).
2
Have your say 14 We will consult on the draft recommendations for an 11-week period, from 17 December 2019 to 2 March 2020. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to comment on these proposed wards as the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be in making our final recommendations.
15 We ask everyone wishing to contribute ideas for the new wards to first read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.
16 You have until 2 March 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 19 for how to send us your response.
Review timetable 17 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Waltham Forest. We then held a period of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our draft recommendations.
18 The review is being conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
16 April 2019 Number of councillors decided 4 June 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 12 August 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 17 December 2019 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 2 March 2020 forming final recommendations 30 June 2020 Publication of final recommendations
3
4
Analysis and draft recommendations
19 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.
20 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.
21 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.
2018 2025 Electorate of Waltham Forest 182,195 193,060 Number of councillors 60 60 Average number of electors per 3,037 3,218 councillor
22 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 Waltham Forest will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Submissions received 23 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 24 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 6% by 2025.
25 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our draft recommendations.
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
Number of councillors
26 Waltham Forest Council currently has 60 councillors. The Labour Group proposed the retention of 60 councillors, while the Conservative Group proposed increasing by three, to 63 councillors.
27 We note that both groups were primarily concerned with pressures on workload resulting from changes to communication and working practices, population increases and demographics. We concluded that while there are undoubtedly pressures on workload, the Conservative Group did not provide sufficiently compelling evidence to suggest an increase was required. We noted the Labour Group’s argument that in light of these pressures, a reduction in council size should be avoided.
28 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 60 councillors.
29 We received no significant comments on the number of councillors in response to our consultation on warding patterns and have therefore based our draft recommendations on a 60-member council.
Ward boundaries consultation
30 We received 19 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included a borough-wide proposal from the Conservative Group on the Council (‘the Conservatives). The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.
31 The borough-wide scheme proposed a mixed pattern of two- and three- councillor wards for Waltham Forest. We carefully considered the proposal and were of the view that the proposed pattern of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.
32 Our draft recommendations also take into account local evidence that we received which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In light of the evidence received and the fact we only received one borough-wide submission, we are basing our draft recommendations on the Conservatives’ proposals. We note that these proposals reflect many of the other comments received. Where they do not we have carefully considered the evidence and consequently propose one amendment between Chingford Green and Hatch Lane & Highams Park wards.
6
33 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the ground. This visit to Waltham Forest helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.
Draft recommendations 34 Our draft recommendations are for six two-councillor wards and 16 three- councillor wards. We consider that our draft recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.
35 The tables and maps on pages 8–16 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Waltham Forest. 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.
36 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 25 and on the large map accompanying this report.
37 We welcome all comments on these draft recommendations, particularly on the location of the ward boundaries, and the names of our proposed wards.
5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
7
North Waltham Forest
Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Chingford Green 3 -4% Endlebury 2 4% Hale End 2 3% Hatch Lane & Highams Park 3 -1% Larkswood 3 -3% Valley 3 3%
8
Chingford Green 38 We received one proposal for this ward, from the Conservatives. Its proposed ward is based on the existing ward, but takes in a small area to the south of Kings Road. This helps improve electoral equality while also placing the retail and business centre in a single ward. We note that its proposed ward uses good boundaries while also securing good electoral equality. A resident expressed general support for the Conservative proposals.
39 A local resident argued that Courtland Avenue and Rosslyn Avenue should be in Chingford Green ward. Our visit to the area confirmed that these roads, along with British Legion Road, access on to Whitehall Road and therefore into Chingford Green ward, and not directly into Hatch Lane & Highams Park ward. In addition, transferring these roads would improve electoral equality in Chingford Green to 4% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average by 2025. We are therefore basing our draft recommendations on the Conservatives’ Chingford Green ward, subject to this amendment.
Hale End, Hatch Lane & Highams Park and Larkswood 40 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. Its Hale End ward is based on the existing Hale End & Highams ward. However, the proposed ward would be represented by two rather than three councillors to accommodate the transfer of the area to the south of the A406 to Wood Street ward. This proposed amendment would provide for more clearly identifiable ward boundaries. Its Hatch Lane & Highams Park ward is based on the existing Hatch Lane ward, but with amendments to strengthen the boundaries while securing good electoral equality. Its proposed Larkswood ward is based on the existing ward, with the addition of a small area of the existing Chapel Hill ward to the south of the A406.
41 We received a number of other comments on this area, many of which are broadly reflected in the Conservatives’ proposals. A couple of local residents argued that the A406 should form the southern boundary of the wards in this area, unlike the existing wards which breach it. Two residents and Walthamstow Stadium Residents’ Association argued that the Grove Park Avenue and Empress Avenue area should be in Larkswood ward. A couple of residents argued that Winchester Road, along with Wadham Road and Wadham Avenue, should be in a ward with the Hale End/Highams Park area. There was also argument that Wadham Avenue should be in Larkswood ward. However, our visit to the area confirmed that this road has better access into the Conservatives’ proposed Hale End ward, so we are including it in that ward as part of our draft recommendations.
42 A resident argued that the area to the west of the railway line in the existing Hale End & Highams ward should be in Larkswood ward, with particular reference to the Aldriche Way estate. However, this would place Winchester Road in Larkswood
9
ward, which we consider contrary to the evidence provided above. In addition, it would worsen the electoral variance in Larkswood ward to 19% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2025, so we are not adopting this amendment.
43 A resident expressed concern about the Coolgardie Avenue area, citing links to Highams Park and a number of community facilities in that area. However, the Conservative proposal retains the Coolgardie Avenue area in a ward with Highams Park, albeit with the addition of the Hatch Lane area and with access via Larkshall Road. Finally, two residents proposed that their roads should remain in a Larkswood ward, which they do under the Conservatives’ proposals.
44 We have given careful consideration to the evidence received, noting that the Conservative proposals for these wards broadly reflect the wider evidence received. Based on our visit to the area, we consider that the Conservatives’ proposals will reflect community identities and interests while following clearly identifiable ward boundaries. Therefore, subject to the amendment in the Courtland Avenue and Rosslyn Avenue area discussed in the Chingford Green section above, we are adopting its proposals as part of our draft recommendations. The amendment to transfer the named roads to Chingford ward marginally improves electoral equality in Hatch Lane & Higham Park ward from 2% more electors per councillor than the borough average by 2025 to 1% fewer.
Endlebury and Valley 45 A resident expressed general support for the Conservative Group’s proposals in this area. The Conservatives’ boundaries for these wards were based on the existing warding pattern. However, the number of councillors representing Endlebury ward would be reduced to two-councillors as the proposed ward would lose some areas to the adjoining Valley and Chingford Green wards to secure improved electoral equality. Valley ward takes in part of Endlebury ward and has good north to south transport links.
46 We only received one other comment relating to this area from a resident who argued that Valley ward should be extended north to Lambourne Gardens. We note that the Conservatives’ proposals do this. Based on our visit to the area, we consider that the Conservative Group’s proposals use good boundaries, while also securing good electoral equality. We are therefore basing our draft recommendations on its proposals for these wards without amendment.
10
Central Waltham Forest
Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Black Horse 3 -8% Chapel End 3 -6% High Street 2 -3% Higham Hill 3 0% Markhouse 3 -1% St James 3 4% Walthamstow Village 3 -6% Wood Street 3 9%
Chapel End, Walthamstow Village and Wood Street 47 We received only one set of proposals for these wards from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. Its Chapel
11
End ward is similar to the existing ward, but would include a small area of the existing William Morris ward. The proposed ward would also lose the area to the north of the A406. The Conservative Group considered that this road would make an effective ward boundary. Its Walthamstow Village ward is centred around the Walthamstow Village and Orford Road conservation areas. It proposed placing an area of the existing Hale End & Highams ward into Wood Street ward, arguing that the A406 should not be breached. The south-west of the existing ward would be transferred to Walthamstow Village ward to secure good electoral equality.
48 As discussed earlier, a number of residents argued that the A406 should form the boundary. We note that the Conservative Group’s proposed Chapel End and Wood Street wards reflect this. One resident argued that the area of Hale End & Highams Park ward to the south of the A406 should be in Chapel End ward. The Conservative Group placed this area in Wood Street ward. Transferring this area of Hale End & Highams Park ward to Chapel End would result in electoral variances of 18% in Chapel End ward and 15% fewer in Wood Street ward. We would require compelling evidence to support such variances and we are of the view that insufficient evidence has been received to support the proposed amendment.
49 Based on our visit to the area, we consider that the Conservatives Group’s proposals will provide an effective balance of our three statutory criteria. We have therefore based our draft recommendations on the Conservative Group’s warding scheme for this area.
Black Horse and Higham Hill 50 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. Its proposed Black Horse ward is created from parts of the existing Higham Hill and William Morris wards and will be subject to substantial growth over the next few years. Its Higham Hill ward reflects changes elsewhere and the need to accommodate growth in adjoining areas.
51 Based on our visit to the area we consider that the Conservative Group’s proposals use good boundaries, while also securing good electoral equality. We are therefore adopting its proposals for these wards as part of our draft recommendations.
High Street, St James and Markhouse 52 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. Given the growth in the existing High Street ward, the Conservative Group proposed to divide the existing ward and create a three-member St James ward based around St James Street and a two-councillor High Street ward. The group acknowledged that this would split Walthamstow High Street between two wards. Its Markhouse ward is
2
broadly unchanged from the existing ward, with minor amendments primarily to improve electoral equality.
53 We received no other significant comments. Based on our visit to the area we consider that the Conservative Group’s proposals reflect an effective balance of our three statutory criteria. We are therefore basing our draft recommendations for these wards on the Conservative Group’s proposals.
3
South Waltham Forest
Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Bakers Arms 3 -6% Cann Hall 3 4% Cathall 2 8% Forest 2 -3% Grove Green 3 1% Lea Bridge 3 6% Leyton 3 2% Leytonstone 2 6%
Bakers Arms, Forest, Grove Green and Leytonstone 54 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. The
4
Conservatives’ Bakers Arms ward is based around the retail area at the junction of Lea Bridge Road, Hoe Street and High Road Leyton. Its Forest ward is based on the existing ward which is centred around Whipps Cross Hospital. However, its representation would be reduced from three to two members, reflecting the transfer of some of the existing ward to Bakers Arms ward. Its Grove Green ward takes in an area of the existing Leytonstone ward, while losing an area to Leyton ward. It straddles the Gospel Oak to Barking railway line but there is access under this via Grove Green Road. Finally, its Leytonstone ward is based on the existing ward, but reduced from three members to two, with the area to the west of Fairlop Road transferred to Grove Green ward. As with the existing ward, it straddles the A12 and Central Line.
55 Councillor Lyons put forward amendments to the existing Forest and Hoe Street wards, around Livingstone Road and Poplars Road. He also proposed amendments around Midland Road and Hainault Road. We received no other significant comments on this area.
56 We have considered the comments from Councillor Lyons and note that, under the Conservative Group proposals, Livingstone Road and Poplars Road are placed in a new Bakers Arms ward. We are adopting the Conservative Group’s Bakers Arms ward. We also note his comments about Midland Road and Hainault Road. However, our visit to the area confirmed that these roads provide strong boundaries, as used by the Conservative Group for its Forest, Grove Green and Leytonstone wards. Therefore, we are basing our draft recommendations on the Conservative Group proposals, noting that they use good boundaries and will ensure good electoral equality.
Lea Bridge and Leyton 57 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A local resident expressed general support for the group’s proposals. We received no other significant comments with regard to this area. The Conservative Group’s Lea Bridge ward is broadly unchanged, with minor amendments primarily to improve electoral equality. It proposed changes to Leyton ward to improve electoral equality. It transferred the area furthest from Leyton underground station to Bakers Arms ward, while adding part of the existing Grove Green ward which is nearer Leyton underground station. Based on our visit to the area we consider that these proposals use good boundaries, reflect community identities and keep electoral variances to a minimum. As part of our draft recommendations, we are adopting the Conservative Group’s proposals for these wards without amendment.
Cann Hall and Cathall 58 We received only one set of proposals for these wards, from the Conservative Group. A resident expressed general support for the Conservative Group’s proposals. We received no other significant comments for this area. The
2
Conservative Group’s proposals retain the A12 as the northern boundary for this area, while reducing the representation of Cathall ward from three members to two. The Group also proposed an amendment to the boundary with Cann Hall ward to ensure good electoral equality. Based on our visit to the area we consider that the Conservative proposals reflect local communities and keep electoral variances to a minimum. We are therefore basing our draft recommendations for this area on the Conservative Group’s proposals.
3
Conclusions
59 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Waltham Forest, referencing the 2018 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
Draft recommendations
2018 2025 Number of councillors 60 60 Number of electoral wards 22 22 Average number of electors per councillor 3,037 3,218 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 4 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 1 0 from the average
Draft recommendations Waltham Forest Council should be made up of 60 councillors serving 22 wards representing six two-councillor wards and 16 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 Waltham Forest Council You can also view our draft recommendations for Waltham Forest Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
4
5
Have your say
60 The Commission has an open mind about its draft recommendations. Every representation we receive will be considered, regardless of who it is from or whether it relates to the whole borough or just a part of it.
61 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Waltham Forest, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.
62 Our website has a special consultation area where you can explore the maps and draw your own proposed boundaries. You can find it at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
63 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:
Review Officer (Waltham Forest) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL
64 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Waltham Forest Council which delivers:
• Electoral equality: each local councillor represents a similar number of voters. • Community identity: reflects the identity and interests of local communities. • Effective and convenient local government: helping your council discharge its responsibilities effectively.
65 A good pattern of wards should:
• Provide good electoral equality, with each councillor representing, as closely as possible, the same number of voters. • Reflect community interests and identities and include evidence of community links. • Be based on strong, easily identifiable boundaries. • Help the council deliver effective and convenient local government.
6
66 Electoral equality:
• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Waltham Forest?
67 Community identity:
• Community groups: is there a parish council, residents’ association or other group that represents the area? • Interests: what issues bind the community together or separate it from other parts of your area? • Identifiable boundaries: are there natural or constructed features which make strong boundaries for your proposals?
68 Effective local government:
• Are any of the proposed wards too large or small to be represented effectively? • Are the proposed names of the wards appropriate? • Are there good links across your proposed wards? Is there any form of public transport?
69 Please note that the consultation stages of an electoral review are public consultations. In the interests of openness and transparency, we make available for public inspection full copies of all representations the Commission takes into account as part of a review. Accordingly, copies of all representations will be placed on deposit at our offices and on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk A list of respondents will be available from us on request after the end of the consultation period.
70 If you are a member of the public and not writing on behalf of a council or organisation we will remove any personal identifiers. This includes your name, postal or email addresses, signatures or phone numbers from your submission before it is made public. We will remove signatures from all letters, no matter who they are from.
71 In the light of representations received, we will review our draft recommendations and consider whether they should be altered. As indicated earlier, it is therefore important that all interested parties let us have their views and evidence, whether or not they agree with the draft recommendations. We will then publish our final recommendations.
72 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft
7
Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Waltham Forest Council in 2022.
8
9
Equalities 73 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.
10
11
Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Waltham Forest Council
Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Bakers Arms 3 8,825 2,942 -3% 9,051 3,017 -6%
2 Black Horse 3 5,848 1,949 -36% 8,854 2,951 -8%
3 Cann Hall 3 10,141 3,380 11% 10,050 3,350 4%
4 Cathall 2 6,704 3,352 10% 6,964 3,482 8%
5 Chapel End 3 8,876 2,959 -3% 9,067 3,022 -6%
6 Chingford Green 3 9,013 3,004 -1% 9,228 3,076 -4%
7 Endlebury 2 6,552 3,276 8% 6,671 3,336 4%
8 Forest 2 6,099 3,049 0% 6,214 3,107 -3%
9 Grove Green 3 9,410 3,137 3% 9,730 3,243 1%
10 Hale End 2 6,436 3,218 6% 6,631 3,316 3%
Hatch Lane & 11 3 9,255 3,085 2% 9,514 3,171 -1% Highams Park
12 High Street 2 5,139 2,570 -15% 6,212 3,106 -3%
12
Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2018) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % 13 Higham Hill 3 9,514 3,171 4% 9,607 3,202 0%
14 Larkswood 3 9,023 3,008 -1% 9,319 3,106 -3%
15 Lea Bridge 3 9,556 3,185 5% 10,187 3,396 6%
16 Leyton 3 9,621 3,207 6% 9,820 3,273 2%
17 Leytonstone 2 6,537 3,268 8% 6,846 3,423 6%
18 Markhouse 3 9,288 3,096 2% 9,558 3,186 -1%
19 St James 3 7,976 2,659 -12% 9,994 3,331 4%
20 Valley 3 9,747 3,249 7% 9,933 3,311 3% Walthamstow 21 3 8,799 2,933 -3% 9,070 3,023 -6% Village 22 Wood Street 3 9,835 3,278 8% 10,541 3,514 9%
Totals 60 182,195 – – 193,060 – –
Averages – – 3,037 – – 3,218 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Waltham Forest 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.
13
Appendix B Outline map
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/all-reviews/greater-london/greater- london/waltham-forest
14
Appendix C Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater-london/waltham-forest
Political Groups
• Waltham Forest Council Conservative Group
Councillors
• Councillor G. Lyons (Waltham Forest Council)
Local Organisations
• Walthamstow Stadium Residents’ Association
Local Residents
• 15 local residents
15
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
16
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
17 The Local Government Boundary Local Government Boundary Commission for Commission for England (LGBCE) was set England up by Parliament, independent of 1st Floor, Windsor House Government and political parties. It is 50 Victoria Street, London directly accountable to Parliament through a SW1H 0TL committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It is responsible for Telephone: 0330 500 1525 conducting boundary, electoral and Email: [email protected] Online: www.lgbce.org.uk or structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE