sign in sign up
<<
Home , Great Portland Street, Lisson Grove, Marylebone High Street, Portman Estate, Westbourne Grove

Labour submission to the Boundary Commission

This submission on behalf of Westminster Labour Group, Westminster North CLP and Cities of and Westminster CLP seeks to address some of the significant problems present in Westminster’s current ward boundaries. The present boundaries have seen massive disparities in electorate numbers develop between different wards. This new review provides an important opportunity to take the necessary corrective measures to ensure greater electoral equality and support natural communities of interest both now and into the future.

Main assumptions underpinning this submission Westminster has a high turnover electorate. In the run up to all elections, there is significant influx of registrations which occurs without fail immediately prior to the deadline. Some wards are impacted more than others. This often makes 1 December ‘new’ registers routinely unreliable predictors of eligible electorates within each ward.

Although the current situation is exacerbated by the challenges of individual voter registration and an increasing population movement the same issue was also experienced in the last boundary review where the overall 4 year projection for 2003 was close to forecast overall, but the quality of the ‘by ward’ forecasting being significantly adrift. In recent years we have been faced with the extremes of a three member ward with close to half the number of electors per elected member compared to the highest ratio ward ( and ward which is currently almost half the size of larger wards in the north of Westminster such as Queens Park, Harrow Road, Westbourne and ). This has resulted in a grave injustice within the borough in terms of representation and effective local government. We wish to make sure that a reoccurrence of this nature is not possible. Where a ward area has demonstrated a low rate of organic growth of the electorate, irrespective of notional development potential, we have allotted a slightly higher starting electorate to take account of the proven long term trend in population and electorate change. To do otherwise would be to risk under- representing areas which do have proven high rates of organic growth

There are three fundamental reasons to be wary of assumptions of significant population growth in areas reliant on new build private properties. Firstly, as we have already shown to the LGBCE, the Westminster Council planning pipeline includes a lot of errors with a significant number of developments that have been scrapped entirely or replaced by office schemes. Westminster history also clearly shows that planning pipelines are not a reliable indicator of what will be built within a given period, with many schemes being built years after their initially scheduled timelines both for reasons of market conditions (something currently exacerbated by the uncertainty around Brexit) and the tendency towards ‘landbanking’ consented schemes in high value areas. Thirdly it is simply not the case from recent experience that new luxury developments within the borough have resulted in the same registration levels per new home created, as traditional properties. This is irrespective of whether these are owner occupied or for private rent, particularly given the explosion of short-lets (AirBnB) disrupting the private rental market and the prevalence of homes purchased for investment purposes, as high-end holiday homes for the super-wealthy and as residential properties for those not eligible to vote in UK elections.

Many of these factors listed above explain why in existing properties, there has been a clear and fundamental shift in population density from the south to the north of Westminster as property has become more of an investment or leisure asset for overseas investors, leading to many properties being unoccupied by eligible electors. This has led to fewer voters in south Westminster and therefore supports the case for an approach to setting ward boundaries that will maintain parity between real Ward electorates into the future.

As well as creating some strong wards, the last review also created some disparate wards. St James is the most extreme of these – vast in size and with communities in the east having little or no relationship with communities in the west of the ward. Knightsbridge and Belgravia, as well as St James, Regent’s Park and a lot of struggle with huge patches of zero or small numbers of electors joined with remote clusters of denser residential population. Westbourne has also been a very difficult ward to manage under current boundaries. In the east, a significant population directly faces or is a short walk from a polling place they simply cannot vote at and must walk a significant distance in a direction that doesn’t have any natural footfall if they wish to cast their vote in person. It currently joins communities north and south of the railway line that have little in common and who have more naturally alliances with their close neighbours in other wards (in the south, with , in the east with the current and in the north to the Maida Hill area).

Our submission seeks to redress as many of these anomalies as possible without creating change for the sake of change (even where odd boundaries exist). As such we believe a small number of 2 member wards is therefore important to fulfil the remit of effective and convenient local government. It is not met by the current ward structure, nor have we been able to model the borough in a way that it can be met by 18 x 3 member wards that make sense in terms of geography or community. We do however propose to retain 20 wards, so that whilst change is unavoidable, we are seeking to retain current borders and communities wherever possible, whilst redressing shortfalls where the opportunity must be grasped.

Under our current boundary proposals (W1 to W20) we have 14 x3 member wards and 6 x2 member wards made up as follows:

LG Boundary Review 2019

Ideal Variation to GIS Tool 2024 New Ward GIS ref Cllrs electorate ideal electorate

Queen's Park W1 3 8,321 -4.9% 7916

Fernhead & Maida Hill W2 3 8,321 2.3% 8514

Maida Vale W3 3 8,321 -5.6% 7857

Abbey Road W4 3 8,321 0.6% 8373

Regent's Park W5 2 5,547 -4.8% 5281

Church Street W6 3 8,321 1.0% 8404

Little Venice W7 3 8,321 7.6% 8953

Grand Union W8 3 8,321 -6.1% 7815

Westbourne W9 3 8,321 6.8% 8890

Bayswater W10 3 8,321 5.2% 8751

Hyde Park W11 2 5,547 7.0% 5936

Baker Street & Bryanston W12 3 8,321 -4.9% 7915

Marylebone Village W13 2 5,547 -5.2% 5258

Fitzrovia, & W14 3 8,321 -6.7% 7764 St James W15 2 5,547 3.1% 5721

Vincent Square W16 3 8,321 -5.2% 7892 Tachbrook W17 2 5,547 6.8% 5925

Churchill W18 3 8,321 -4.2% 7972

Knightsbridge & W19 2 5,547 0.5% 5576

Belgravia & W20 3 8,321 3.9% 8644 54 149,772 -0.28% 149,357

1 The projected population we have worked with is as advised – namely 149,772 though we believe that, as set out above, history would suggest that some of the planning assumptions are both ambitious (and possibly over-stated, a number of sites will not be developed for housing and others will not be completed by 2024) and simplistic (using existing elector per home averages rather than new development averages). Likewise some of the organic growth assumptions are modest and take little account of under registration.

149,772 electors assumed for 54 Council Members equates to 2,773.6 electors per Member (the basis for the calculation of the “ideal electorate” data below.

The most over quota ward in 2024 according to the data provided is the new Little Venice but this ward has a huge planning growth assumption. We believe that this proposal combines strengthening communities, simplicity of boundaries (and access to established polling places) and new wards well within statistical tolerance assuming the ward electorate forecasts are reasonably robust.

1 Note there are some minute differences in the elector numbers generated by the Westminster Council GIS Tool and the Elector 2024 constrained to Borough Total. All relevant figures are included in the separate Excel sheet provided to the LGBCE. W1 - Queens Park (QP) – 3 members

Our proposal simplifies (cleans up) Queens Park into a strong compact (and densely populated) trapezium using the borough boundaries to the north, west and south and the eastern border following Portnall Road from end to end and crossing the Harrow Road to run down Fermoy Road opposite to the small wharf on the canal which is a completely natural break in Fermoy Road.

At present the boundary runs down Harrow Road between Fermoy Road and Halfpenny Steps bridge, placing the northern and southern sides in different wards. The southern side of Harrow Road here is mostly residential: since the fire in 413-419 there have been no retail units in this stretch, save for the pharmacy next to the medical centre. It therefore can be distinguished from the Harrow Road closer to Prince of Wales Junction (Great Western Road / Elgin Avenue) which has a very retail character.

This change to the ward boundaries has had support from John McArdle of the Queens Park Community Council who said (in a personal capacity) ‘Your choice of Portnall as the new eastern boundary is sound and well explained. So too are your proposals for adjustments at Harrow Road to make the boundary clearer and more content. I am, therefore, fully in support.’

W2 - Fernhead & Maida Hill (FM) – 3 members

This ward includes the retail centre of north centring on the Harrow Road between Great Western Road and Fermoy Road, and secondary centres on Shirland Road at the junction with Malvern Road and and junction with Fernhead Road. Housing in the area is predominantly street properties rather than estates and tower blocks, which characterise neighbouring areas.

With only a small part of the Harrow Road now falling into this ward we propose a new name combining the central arterial road in the ward (Fernhead Road) with the general area postal name (also chosen by the local neighbourhood forum), Maida Hill. We don’t think with the proposed name there will be confusion with ward. If simplicity was preferred simply calling it Maida Hill would be a suitable option.

The north-south western streets now fall wholly within either Queen’s Park or this ward - simpler in structure without an artificial boundary halfway along them as they are in the present ward configuration. The population on the canalside is lost from this ward to Queen’s Park and is no longer an outlying corner of this ward. This proposal also seeks to transfer the street block bounded by Lanhill Road and Shirland Road from the current Harrow Road ward to Maida Vale as it fits one of our key priorities – namely to aim to help residents adjacent to a polling station to (wherever possible) be included in the ward that uses that polling station. Shirland and Lanhill Roads are significantly closer to Essendine School (and polling places in Maida Vale prior to using the school) than their existing polling place. We believe therefore this move will help democracy.

We have some concerns that development and organic growth data in this ward is understated based on known developments on site which are more likely than others to house new electors (notably the new social housing on the Walterton and Elgin Community Homes- WECH- Estate) and heavy under- registration in the annual census, which corrects itself to a degree, when elections are called.

W3 - Maida Vale (MV) – 3 members

Our proposal is for minimal change to a well understood natural community. We are however, as set out above, looking to transfer the Lanhill and Shirland Roads street block into Maida Vale as we do not feel that Shirland Road is a strong natural boundary with retail and other commercial activity on both sides of the road and importantly this would be beneficial for democracy from bringing those in the existing Harrow Road ward, into Maida Vale and therefore using the polling place (Essendine school) adjacent to their own homes.

The area proposed to be added includes Elgin Avenue between Shirland Road and Lanhill Road which has a red brick character similar to Elgin Avenue to the west; it includes a mansion block (at no. 80) and the residential conversion of Welford's Dairies (114 Shirland Road and 97A Elgin Avenue) which are far more typical of Maida Vale property than the Maida Hill/Harrow Road area.

This ward has a lower end elector per member ratio but past registration patterns prior to elections and our own view of on-going developments in this proposed ward would both indicate the 2024 forecast are pessimistic and we feel that if adopted, over time then this would be quite close to target elector per member benchmarks. W4 - Abbey Road (AR) – 3 members

This places Abbey Road (Grove End Road and Lisson Grove in parts) itself as the main artery of this ward and re-connects all of the Maida Vale (East) street plan communities together, from the canal to the borough boundary. Hamilton Terrace (and by extension, Northwick Terrace) and Maida Vale both have a strong unifying link and reconnecting these works well for these communities.

Similarly in the northern end, keeping Carlton and Clifton Hill and Boundary Road/Greville Place together are also important for community cohesion.

North and South of Lords Ground is different, with traditional communities and family homes in the north and purpose modern apartments to the south. As such, south of St John’s Wood Road and the east of Cunningham Place, this newer community identifies together and links to the Park Road community (also south of Lords but east of the Park).

Wellington Road is a useful boundary at the eastern side but we recommend keeping the boundary road communities together as their connectivity to the Park is significantly less. We propose that none of the sub-communities within this newly fashioned ward identify strongly with being “part of” the wider Regent’s Park area. W5 - Regent’s Park (RP) – 2 members

Our proposal limits this ward to those communities closely attached to the park area itself – except for those to the south of the park where they identify more closely with their neighbouring adjacent areas around the Road, rather than the canalside blocks overlooking the Park in the north.

The communities around Lodge Road and Wharncliffe Gardens (Henderson and Pollitt Drives) do identify with Park Road (the main transport artery) and to a degree St John’s Wood High St and so whilst the geography of this ward is large, it is a significantly more cohesive group of communities than the current ward configuration and the relationship between the Park and all parts of this new ward is strong and thereby retained.

W6 - Church Street (CS) – 3 members

We submit that this is a cohesive and well identified community that would be hard to extend or contract and since it falls almost exactly onto the desired mean population we propose that any change would be unhelpful in any way.

Neither the canal nor the rail lines borders are breach-able on identified community grounds. The southern border is strong too. The remaining boundaries ( Road and ) cannot be adjusted without significant arithmetic impact.

The current ward forms the basis for the Church Street Ward Neighbourhood Forum (CSWNF) and neighbourhood area. It also follows the contours of the Council’s Church Street Regeneration area. Therefore we are proposing to leave the current ward boundaries unchanged.

W7- Little Venice- 3 Members

This newly configured ward combining the communities around the Warwick Avenue stretch of canal with the Paddington Basin communities works reasonably well. The significant developments in the Paddington Basin that will be joined with developments north of Harrow Road such as West End Gate (and whatever new development will replace the Police Station and Section House, also north of Harrow Road), will mean that these areas will increasingly look and feel similar. A suitable alternative name for the ward would be Paddington Green.

The population estimate makes this a high elector per Councillor ward under this proposal. However using 2018 data it is quite low. This highlights that if the estimates on this ward do not come to fruition (and currently most new developments once registered ‘come in’ at significantly lower elector densities than the existing communities) then far from being in the higher end of the elector per Councillor ratio, it will be close to target. We strongly believe that our own data estimates at lower densities for new build, will deliver this ward close to average.

W8 - Grand Union (GU) – 3 members

This ward is linked by the east-west alignment of the railway line, Harrow Road, and Grand Union canal. All three divide the area to an extent, but the railway line is the most difficult to cross. Harrow Road provides a main thoroughfare with a retail area that links the residential areas of the ward. The canal is increasingly the focus for regeneration of the area.

The most cohesive feature of this area is the canal and the new ward brings in some areas around the canal that lead into and surround the Little Venice basin. However as a southern boundary the only sensible option to follow is the railway line (which to the west of Great Western Road is the basis of the borough boundary).

At present the current Westbourne Ward suffers from a disconnect between residential areas now contained in this new ward (current polling districts WBA and WBC) and the southern section (WBB) which sits south of the railwayline and Westbourne Park tube station and is oriented towards Westbourne Grove (now in the new ‘Westbourne Ward’-W9).

W9 - Westbourne (WB) – 3 members

This is a very simple construct with the southern border Westbourne Grove/Bishops Bridge Road and the northern border the railway line. These two borders gradually converge so there is no eastern border. These communities are a natural fit together given the current Westbourne ward WBB polling district’s orientation towards Westbourne Grove, the natural shopping street and community hub for these residents. Local links also for example include St Stephen’s primary school, sitting directly opposite and contains a large number of children from the Brunel estate, which currently serves as a polling station for neighbouring Bayswater ward, the source of much confusion and frustration as set out in the opening paragraphs of this submission.

This ward will continue to include the Westbourne Park tube station (as well as Royal Oak station). The new ward is an almost entirely residential area, although Porchester Road gives it a clear centre of retail and municipal buildings (the Porchester Centre). It unifies in one ward the whole of the East Neighbourhood Forum area (in other words, the area covered by Westbourne Neighbourhood Association).2

Bishops Bridge Road and Westbourne Grove formed the southern boundary for Westbourne ward from 1900 to 1965, and this ward returns the name 'Westbourne' to the area it originally referred to.

2 Notting Hill East http://www.nottinghilleast.org.uk/nhe/about-us/area-covered/ W10 - Bayswater (BW) – 3 members

As with Westbourne Ward (area W9) to the north, this ward geographically fits very well with at its heart. The existing Lancaster Gate ward (very few people to the west of Lancaster Gate itself would identify themselves as living in Lancaster Gate rather than Bayswater) also has a small piece of Westbourne Terrace included – probably at the last re-warding, for arithmetic precision. We have extended this “block” down to Chilworth Street. Again the arithmetic does not, sadly, allow a straightline border here along either Westbourne or Gloucester Terrace, but we feel our proposal improves the existing arrangement from the annex like situation of Westbourne Terrace currently.

Queensway, as a retail centre, is a clear link for this ward which is dominated by white stucco property and smaller flat blocks. The east-west alignments of Bishops Bridge Road/Westbourne Grove and of Bayswater Road are more significant than the streets which run north-south; these streets are narrower and secondary. There also is a strong sense of local community in the area between Bishops Bridge Road and Bayswater Road, where Queensway is a unifying factor and there are no natural divisions. We believe this area should be kept together in one ward. W11 – Hyde Park (HP) – 2 members

This reduced size ward now just combines Park Estate streets, running from the park all the way north to Praed Street, with the rows of uniform terraced homes running away from the park up the arterial routes of Gloucester, Eastbourne and Westbourne Terraces. Paddington station remains in this ward as the new station is very closely interwoven with Eastbourne Terrace.

This feels like a more coherent ward than the existing ward with a relatively small number of well established community hubs within it. Another problem with the existing ward is the democratic deficit with significant development and newer but dense communities all at some considerable distance from the two existing polling places. This proposal addresses this issue significantly. W12 – and Bryanston (BB) – 3 members

This proposal unifies upper and lower Baker Street and places the tube station (and important hub) within a ward that finally bears its name.

One linking factor in this ward is the Portman Estate. Although the estate is generally thought of in terms of its land holdings around near , the estate originally built Dorset Square and owned it along with land north of , up to the early 1950s. Extending the former Bryanston and Dorset Square ward east up to Baker Street brings this estate largely into a single ward. This new configuration would also unite the Baker Street Quarter Business Improvement District (BID) area within the ward.

By contrast with other areas in Marylebone, this ward is predominantly mansion block flats; it includes some commercial and office areas but is more the residential part of south Marylebone.

W13 – Marylebone Village (MY) – 2 members

We propose that much of the existing ward works well, though Marylebone Village better describes the wider area. The western border is now tidy and transparent. is removed from the ward to be re-unified within the new ward to the east and the Cavendish Streets are equally re-unified, with northern and southern boundaries unchanged.

This ward brings the 'institutional' area of Marylebone together: the headquarters buildings on together with the medical speciality area around Harley Street and the academic areas including the University of Westminster on Marylebone Road. Many of its residents will be living in close proximity to either commercial or office uses.

W14 – Fitzrovia, Soho and Covent Garden (FT) – 3 members

The proposed ward is currently at the lower end of the elector per member ratio. However the nature of the ward – in particular the intensity of licensed premises and the high density of mixed residential and commercial uses – means there would be an especially high workload for representatives, and therefore the lower end of the elector per member ratio is justifiable. The elector per member ratio is well within tolerance.

The current West End Ward boundary does not meet the Commission’s criteria for effective boundaries: it does not reflect community identities and interests, and it does not promote effective and convenient local government. The West End Ward electoral boundary presently:  separates Soho (currently in West End Ward) from Leicester Square, Covent Garden and the Strand (currently in St James’ Ward) even though these are areas with strongly similar characteristics and shared community identities and interests.  artificially divides Fitzrovia into two wards (one section of Fitzrovia falls within West End Ward, and the other Ward) even though Fitzrovia is a single neighbourhood.  includes Mayfair in the same ward as Soho even though the two have very little in common with each other.

The proposals for Fitzrovia, Soho and Covent Garden Ward bring together communities with shared characteristics and interests.  Soho, Leicester Square, Covent Garden, and the Strand are brought together. This area houses a high density of entertainment venues, including world-renowned theatres, cinemas, bars, and restaurants. Indeed, the high density of licensed premises makes it unique not only in London but the whole country.  The area is unique in housing a high density of residential and community uses that co-exist together, creating shared challenges and characteristics. We understand that community groups in Soho, Covent Garden and elsewhere have made representations to this consultation arguing Covent Garden and Soho should be in the same ward.  Soho (currently in West End Ward) and Chinatown (currently in St James’ Ward) are brought back together. Prior to the 1999 review the two were in the same ward. They share community facilities, for example the GP service on Frith Street.  Fitzrovia is in one Ward. We note that the FitzWest Neighbourhood Forum has made a submission to the Commission arguing that Fitzrovia should be in one ward.  Mayfair is included in a separate ward with Knightsbridge. This is logical because Mayfair and Knightsbridge have similar characteristics (see W19- Knightsbridge and Mayfair).

The current boundary for West End Ward creates barriers in enabling effective cross- borough coordination with London Borough of Camden (LBC). Running north from to the Thames in the south, there are at present 3 (WCC) wards that share the boundary with LBC: Marylebone High Street, West End, and St. James’. Efforts to resolve cross- borough issues occur through multiple channels and are often not in coordination with each other. The sheer number of issues affecting this part of the WCC and LBC boundary is very high due to its central London location. Issues include but are not limited to changes to road use (like the new two-way system at Court Road), licensing and planning issues, and challenges like busking and street begging. Resolving these complex issues requires sustained focus and coordination, and special attention from local government is needed.

The ward boundaries for the Fitzrovia, Soho & Covent Garden provides a better framework to deal with these challenges by ensuring three Westminster councillors (rather than the current 9 spread across three wards) are tasked with working on these cross-borough challenges. As a result coherent and integrated cross-border strategies could be better developed and executed. We understand that London Borough of Camden Councillors who share ward boundaries with the current West End and St James’ wards have made arguments that a configuration similar to that which we propose here would be more effective than the current arrangements.

W15 – St James’s (SJ)– 2 members

This proposal essentially unites three communities: historic St James’s (including its Palace), historic Westminster (and its Palace) and the northern section of Victoria (with on its border), giving a possible alternative name for this ward as ‘Palaces’.

We have deliberately breached Horseferry Road as we believe that the river end of Page Street more closely identifies with Smith Square than with the Grosvenor and Estates. This ward is aimed at bringing together those areas where residential and non-residential properties are mixed. A large part of the ward is dominated by institutions of government and Parliament, shading more towards office and retail at the western end of Victoria Street. In the St James's area some institutions (for instance embassies) are mixed with residential properties. W16 – Vincent Square (VS) – 3 members

This proposal unites the areas of Vincent Square, the Millbank and Grosvenor Estates and the communities clustered either side of Great Peter Street.

This ward is quite densely populated towards the Victoria street and riverside parts of the ward but are faced with many common local issues. There are also pockets of very obvious under-registration in this area in addition to residents not eligible to vote who are long-standing within the communities but set them apart from the communities around the historic palaces around St James and Westminster.

Unlike the area to the north in proposed St James ward, residential properties this ward are in predominantly residential areas rather than being mixed together with offices or institutional uses.

Our proposals address concern from residents around Maunsel Street who find the current boundary between Vincent Square and St James's ward is artificial and divides one building actually on Vincent Square away from the ward which bears that name.

W17 – Tachbrook (TB) – 2 members

Very little change is proposed to this ward other than a neatening of edges to deliver arithmetic imperatives whilst retaining core communities. As a two member ward this is now a compact and neat self-contained proposal and not materially different to the existing ward which we believe positively groups the eastern Warwick Way and Lupus Street communities with Lillington & Longmoore Gardens Estate, plus the Dolphin Square, St George’s Square and Bessborough communities together.

In addition, there are no logical directions to grow this ward without dividing other communities. As a two member ward it is at the higher end of the elector per member ratio, but well within tolerance and the ward as proposed is a very cohesive grouping. W18 – Churchill (CH) – 3 members

We have restored the majority of Belgravia to being covered by a single ward with neighbouring areas of Pimlico but in turn have restored the Abbots Manor Estate to Churchill ward which it was part of for some years. With the recently developed Sir Simon Milton Westminster University Technical College at the axis of the Abbots Manor, Peabody Avenue, Ebury Bridge, Pimlico Road and Churchill Gardens communities this proposal coherently re-links these communities for the future.

Again we believe this new Churchill ward to be a neat but significant improvement compared to the current ward boundaries where a handful of Belgravia Streets are separated from their natural community bases in the rest of Belgravia. It should be noted in the context of wider discussions of the community in South Westminster that the Churchill Gardens Estate has its own neighbourhood forum, distinct from the Pimlico Neighbourhood forum that covers the streets of the much wider area.

In 2012, when adjudicating on local Neighbourhood Areas, Westminster Council decided ‘that the area to the south and east of the (Chelsea Barracks) development site, including the Ebury Bridge Estate, and Grosvenor Waterside development, is a distinct neighbourhood worthy of designation as a separate neighbourhood area. This area has been renamed as ‘Ebury Bridge Neighbourhood Area’.3 Therefore they did see Ebury Bridge Estate and Grosvenor Waterside (including Chelsea Gardens) as separate and distinct from Belgravia to the North. This clear delineation is also shown by the Belgravia Neighbourhood forum map also shows the distinction between Belgravia and Ebury Bridge/Grosvenor waterside.4 The St Barnabas Streets and those to their north also form part of the Belgravia Conservation Area.5 Local estate agents Savills describe St Barnabas Street as being Belgravia6, while the recent Belgravia Society magazine covers issues relating to the Cundy Street Quarter and Pimlico Road.7 The March edition of the Belgravia Society magazine includes information on Cundy Street quarter and Pimlico Road indicating they feel both are in Belgravia. The Pimlico Road Association describes the area as “Set within the heart

3 The application and final ruling is at http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications store/Ebury%20Bridge%20Designation%20Notice.pdf 4 See here for the Belgravia Neighbourhood forum https://www.thebelgraviaforum.org/ 5 The designation of the Belgravia Forum http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications store/belgraviamap.pdf 6 Savills https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbssresll150116l 7 Pimlico Road Association https://issuu.com/sarajaneoliver/docs/753545 24b9769968994a7799ad7537e86d/6?ff&e=7589595/69309563 of Belgravia”.8 The 1999 report on the new wards says part of Belgravia ward was taken into Churchill so this is simply correcting this error.

Abbots Manor estate was part of Churchill ward before the last reorganisation, the estate is the major social housing area in the current Warwick ward (along with Russell House) and is at odds with the rest of Warwick which is mainly terraced town houses/flats. The estate has a natural orientation westwards towards the social housing in Peabody Avenue and Ebury Bridge estate rather than eastwards to the rest of Warwick ward. The nursery there also draws in families from Churchill ward.

8 http://www.thepimlicoroad.com/the-district/ W19 – Knightsbridge and Mayfair (KM) – 2 members

Our proposal combines all but the southernmost part of the existing Knightsbridge and Belgravia ward with the western part of the existing West End ward.

This makes a perfect two member ward to replace the disastrous current arrangement which was never going to meet its population projections when it was created two decades ago and it is likely that the significant international community will limit the scope of population growth. Our proposals aim to give the issues of the Southern and Eastern ends of the Hyde Park a single voice and the international community unites Mayfair and Knightsbridge through their unique shopping and hospitality opportunities.

There is a precedent for a similar split: between 1959 and 1968 the boundary between Eaton and Wilton wards ran down Eaton Place.

W20 – Belgravia and Pimlico (PB) – 3 members

Belgravia and Pimlico describes an area, within which each of the separate small communities in the ward, will identify.

These proposals are forging a strong link between southern Belgravia and Pimlico Communities (see Belgravia and Pimlico below), again to create a significant 3 member ward to singly represent these communities that whilst different have common pressures.

As set out in the description of the new Churchill ward (W18) there are some proposed alterations between the current Churchill and Warwick Wards. The Abbots Manor Estate sits more naturally with the neighbouring social housing in Churchill rather than the terraced town housing of Belgravia and Pimlico. Similarly the delineation between Belgravia and Ebury Bridge/Grosvenor Waterside has been made clear. 9

This ward is united by the presence of Victoria station, which dominates the environment around it; issues connected with the station are a regular issue for neighbouring residents and including all the areas around Victoria in a single ward will help ward councillors focus on understanding the issues. The ward also contains almost of all of the Victoria Opportunity Area, which now centres on the station and Buckingham Palace Road. It should also be remembered that the streets of the Pimlico Grid were laid out by Thomas Cubitt who had earlier developed Belgravia, so there is a logic in bringing the two areas together in the same ward.

9 The Belgravia Neighbourhood forum map also draws a delineation from Belgravia and Ebury Bridge/Grosvenor waterside. https://www.thebelgraviaforum.org/ and http://transact.westminster.gov.uk/docstores/publications store/belgraviamap.pdf See also the March edition of the Belgravia Society magazine https://issuu.com/sarajaneoliver/docs/753545 24b9769968994a7799ad7537e86d/6?ff&e=7589595/69309563 This Savill’s advert https://search.savills.com/property-detail/gbssresll150116l and this info from the Pimlico Road Association http://www.thepimlicoroad.com/the-district/

Conclusions In this submission we have tried to find flexible and creative ways to meet the requirements set out by the LGBCE in such a way that meet the needs of local communities. We believe the mix of 3 and 2 member wards suggested here helps to address the challenges posed by a city that combines compact geographical areas of high population density, particularly in North Westminster, and the large areas of the city where residential areas are spread out amid the office, retail, tourist, government and other uses at the heart of a capital city. Given that mixed ward sizes are common throughout local government we do not see that there are any insurmountable administrative challenges for a council such as Westminster to adapt to this new position. Ward Name Area (ha) Electors 2024 (Rounded) Electors 2024

Marylebone Village 95.98449643 5258 5329.087188 Regent's Park 208.0701158 5386 5392.964389 Knightsbridge & Mayfair 441.7312901 5576 5650.234201 St. James's & Victoria 240.2286276 5721 5738.561693 Tachbrook 43.70356437 5925 5925.108027 Hyde Park 69.60318822 5936 5938.977216 Grand Union 73.74508135 7815 7816.223 Fitzrovia & Theatreland 182.3963523 7764 7844.352503 Maida Vale 66.72260698 7857 7865.149075 Vincent Square 64.81776623 7892 7903.090088 Queen's Park 53.70311602 7916 7916.667269 Churchill 56.6755435 7972 7972.716858 Baker Street & Bryanston 90.46201138 7915 7972.797705 Abbey Road 120.9908002 8268 8272.773697 Church Street 44.26799757 8404 8404.138214 Fernhead & Maida Hill 52.15249131 8514 8517.34547 Belgravia & Pimlico 99.24264516 8644 8668.766838 Bayswater 70.40765693 8751 8755.499754 Westbourne 58.9132461 8890 8892.875902 Little Venice 69.24265463 8953 8957.200099 Total 2203.061252 149357 149734.5292 Average 7486.726459 Elector 2024 constrained to No of Councillors Electors per Councillor Borough Total 5331 2 2665 5395 2 2697 5652 2 2826 5740 2 2870 5927 2 2963 5941 2 2970 7818 3 2606 7846 3 2615 7867 3 2622 7905 3 2635 7918 3 2639 7975 3 2658 7975 3 2658 8275 3 2758 8406 3 2802 8519 3 2840 8671 3 2890 8757 3 2919 8895 3 2965 8959 3 2986 149771 54 55588 7488.526459 2779 Final Deviation of Electors Per Councillor ‐4.10% ‐2.95% 1.68% 3.27% 6.62% 6.87% ‐6.24% ‐5.90% ‐5.65% ‐5.20% ‐5.03% ‐4.36% ‐4.36% ‐0.76% 0.81% 2.17% 3.99% 5.03% 6.67% 7.45%