New electoral arrangements for Bromley Council Draft recommendations October 2019

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Bromley? 2 Our proposals for Bromley 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 8 Penge 9 Beckenham and Shortlands 12 Bromley Town, Bickley and Plaistow & Sundridge 15 Chislehurst, Mottingham and the Cray Valley 19 Chelsfield, Farnborough, Crofton, Orpington and Petts Wood 22 Biggin Hill and Darwin 25 Bromley Common & Holwood, Hayes and West Wickham 27 Conclusions 31 Summary of electoral arrangements 31 Have your say 33 Equalities 37 Appendices 39 Appendix A 39 Draft recommendations for Bromley Council 39 Appendix B 41 Outline map 41 Appendix C 42 Submissions received 42 Appendix D 44 Glossary and abbreviations 44

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 Bromley?

7 We are conducting a review of Bromley 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 Bromley. 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 Bromley 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 Bromley

9 Bromley should be represented by 58 councillors, two fewer than there are now.

10 Bromley should have 22 wards, the same number as there is now.

11 The boundaries of 22 wards should 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 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 a 10-week period, from 29 October 2019 to 6 January 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 read this report and look at the accompanying map before responding to us.

16 You have until 6 January 2020 to have your say on the draft recommendations. See page 33 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 Bromley. 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

18 June 2019 Number of councillors decided 25 June 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 2 September 2019 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 29 October 2019 consultation End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and 6 January 2020 forming final recommendations 3 March 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.

2019 2025 Electorate of Bromley 242,615 249,189 Number of councillors 60 58 Average number of electors per 4,044 4,296 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 our proposed wards for Bromley 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 3% by 2025. Housing developments due to take place predominantly in Bromley town centre will contribute to this increase in electorate.

25 During our consultation on warding patterns, a borough councillor queried the electorate forecast we had agreed with the Council. The councillor specifically

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

questioned the rationale behind the forecast electorate for 12 polling districts being over 10% below the current electorate.

26 Regarding the decrease in certain polling districts, both populations and electorates change over time. They may increase or decrease, and they may change gradually or by periods of rapid change, followed by periods of relative stability. We are content that the Council’s methodology and forecast is underpinned by reasonable evidence, utilising the Greater London Authority projections that have been widely used by other London boroughs.

27 In consideration of the above, we remain satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to inform our draft recommendations.

Number of councillors

28 Bromley Council currently has 60 councillors. The Labour Group proposed reducing the council size to 58, while the Council, the Conservative Group, the Independent Group and a local resident submitted proposals to increase councillor numbers by two to 62. We have looked at all the evidence provided and consider the Labour Group provided the best evidence in regard to councillor numbers for Bromley. In particular, the Labour Group provided strong evidence that highlighted the changes to the Council’s decision-making and scrutiny processes since the last electoral review of Bromley. We note that we received a number of responses which objected to this reduction. However, we were not persuaded by the arguments put forward for retaining or increasing the total number of councillors and we are satisfied that a council size of 58 will ensure the Council can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively in the future.

29 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 58 councillors – for example, 58 one-councillor wards, 29 two- councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

30 Two separate local resident submissions also proposed borough-wide schemes comprising a council size of 61 and 62. Whilst these submissions included information about the operation of these potential councillor numbers, we were again not persuaded that they provided enough evidence to change our initial conclusions on council size.

Ward boundaries consultation

31 We received 72 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included five borough-wide proposals. Four of these came from the Conservative Group, the Labour Group, and two local residents. The Council did

6

not make a submission, but the fifth borough-wide scheme we received came from the Electoral Registration Officer (the ERO) for the Council. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments regarding warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

32 The proposals made by the Conservative Group, the Labour Group and the ERO provided for a mixed pattern of one-, two- and three-councillor wards for 58 councillors. One local resident proposed a mixed pattern based on 61 councillors. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that all of the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

33 Another local resident suggested a warding pattern for 62 councillors, comprising 38 wards. This scheme did not provide any community-based evidence relating to the proposals. Given we received multiple borough-wide schemes that proposed wards with strong community evidence and good electoral equality, and the significantly different nature of the scheme, which contained a substantial number of single-councillor wards (compared to the other borough-wide schemes), we were not persuaded to adopt these proposals.

34 We also received a submission from a local resident that suggested we adopt a warding pattern comprising 29 wards, each represented by two councillors. The local resident also suggested the names of their proposed wards, but only in the Penge & Beckenham area. We were not persuaded to adopt these proposals as no community evidence was provided, and it was not clear what the proposals outside the Penge & Beckenham area would entail.

35 Our draft recommendations are based on a combination of all the schemes we received, all of which contained various proposals that reflected our statutory criteria. Our draft recommendations also consider local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. Furthermore, in some areas, we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria, so we identified alternative boundaries.

36 We visited the area in order to look at the various proposals on the ground. This tour of Bromley helped us to decide between the different boundaries proposed.

37 We also received a small number of submissions that suggested changes to parliamentary boundaries. We have no role to play in setting parliamentary boundaries, which are the responsibility of the Boundary Commission for England – a separate body.

7

Draft recommendations 38 Our draft recommendations are for 15 three-councillor wards, six two-councillor wards and one single-councillor ward. 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.

39 The tables and maps on pages 9–29 detail our draft recommendations for each area of Bromley. 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.

40 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page 39 and on the large map accompanying this report.

41 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.

8

Penge

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Crystal Palace & Anerley 2 -2% Clock House & Elmers End 3 -5% Penge & Cator 3 3%

Crystal Palace & Anerley 42 Our draft recommendations for this ward are based on the proposal from the Labour Group. We were persuaded by their argument, alongside those of Ellie Reeves MP, several local councillors, Penge Forum and a local resident that electors in the Lawrie Park triangle should be transferred into Penge & Cator ward. We found on our visit to the area that the railway line does not impose a hard boundary here

9

and that electors in the area look towards Penge High Street, Penge East railway station and other local amenities in Penge rather than Crystal Palace and Anerley. We have consequently adopted this proposal as part of our draft recommendations.

43 Conversely, the Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme proposed that the railway line should be followed in its entirety, keeping the Lawrie Park area in a Crystal Palace ward. These proposals also excluded the area of Anerley from a Crystal Palace ward. Given that the railway line, in our view, does not form a hard boundary in this area, we consider that the Labour Group proposal best reflects our statutory criteria, where good transport links exist via Anerley Road. We have therefore incorporated Anerley into a ward with Crystal Palace. Our Crystal Palace & Anerley ward will have a variance of -2% by 2025.

44 While the ERO’s proposed Crystal Palace & Anerley ward crosses the railway line, we did not consider the community evidence strong enough to transfer the area bounded by the railway line, Croydon Road, Anerley Road and Franklin Road, into this ward. We consider Anerley Road to be an effective boundary between Anerley and Penge.

Clock House & Elmers End 45 Our draft recommendations for Clock House & Elmers End ward are based on a combination of the proposals from the Labour Group, the Conservative Group and the 61-councillor local resident scheme. These proposals all kept the communities of Clock House and Birkbeck within one ward.

46 However, we decided that our Clock House & Elmers End ward should follow Upper Elmers End Road up the railway line, as per the Conservative Group proposal, to include the Elmers End Green area in this ward. This area contains the Elmers End Free Church and the Elmers End Café. We agree with the Conservative Group argument that these form part of the Elmers End community and should thus be included in a Clock House & Elmers End ward. This proposal will be supported by the West Beckenham Residents’ Association, who opposed the existing boundary along Croydon Road, which currently splits the Elmers End Green area from the larger Elmers End community, and Bob Stewart MP, who suggested that Elmers End be united into one ward.

47 We have adopted the Labour Group proposal to include the area around the Kent House railway station and Beckenham Road tram stop, which includes electors on Barnmead Road, Plawsfield Road, Thayers Farm Road and Chaffinch Road. We were persuaded by the evidence received, and from our visit to Bromley, that this area has better community links with Clock House than with Penge, where the railway line, adult education centre and school provide a barrier between the communities. This proposal was supported by Ellie Reeves MP, several local councillors, Penge Forum and a local resident.

10

48 Given our decision to include the area of Anerley in our Crystal Palace & Anerley ward, we cannot adopt the Conservative Group proposal of including Anerley in our proposed Clock House & Elmers End ward. Furthermore, we also cannot adopt the Labour Group proposal to include the area bounded by the railway line and Rectory Road in this ward as we are including this area in our Beckenham & Copers Cope ward. The justification for this decision is described in paragraph 55.

49 We were not persuaded that the community evidence provided by the ERO was strong enough to adopt their proposed Birkbeck ward, which we believed divided the Clock House and Elmers End communities.

50 We have named this ward Clock House & Elmers End, as we consider that this ward name best represents the communities that reside within this ward. We, however, welcome comments on the name of this ward, in addition to the boundaries. Our proposed Clock House & Elmers End ward will have an electoral variance of -5% by 2025.

Penge & Cator 51 Our draft recommendations for this ward are based entirely on the Labour Group proposal, given our inclusion of the Lawrie Park triangle in this ward and the transfer of the area around the Kent House railway station and Beckenham Road tram stop into Clock House. However, apart from these amendments, the Labour Group, Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme proposed broadly similar Penge & Cator wards which utilise Penge High Street as the focal point of the ward, while also keeping both Penge East and Penge West railway stations within the ward.

52 As previously discussed in paragraph 44, we did not consider the community evidence from the ERO strong enough to transfer the area between the railway line and Croydon Road from the existing Penge & Cator ward into a Crystal Palace & Anerley ward. Our draft recommendations result in a Penge & Cator ward with an electoral variance of 3% by 2025.

11

Beckenham and Shortlands

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Beckenham Town & Copers Cope 3 -3% Kelsey & Eden Park 3 -8% Shortlands 3 -3%

12

Beckenham Town & Copers Cope and Kelsey & Eden Park 53 We received significantly different proposals regarding the area of Beckenham. The Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme generally followed the existing warding pattern here, where the most significant amendment involved transferring electors bounded by Rectory Road and the railway line into this ward from the existing Clock House ward, as part of a proposed three-councillor Beckenham Town & Copers Cope ward.

54 Conversely, the Labour Group proposed a three-councillor Beckenham Town ward which included a substantial number of electors around the Kelsey Park area, while the ERO proposed a three-councillor Beckenham Central ward bounded by two smaller two-councillor wards for Copers Cope and Eden Park & Elmers End to the north and south respectively.

55 Based on the evidence received, we have decided to adopt the warding arrangement proposed by the Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme for this area of Bromley. We consider that placing electors bounded by Rectory Road and the railway line within a Beckenham ward will reflect community identity effectively. We agree with the Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme that this area is an extension of the Beckenham town centre and would fit more appropriately within a Beckenham-centric ward. Our proposed Beckenham Town & Copers Cope ward will have variance of -3% by 2025.

56 The Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident schemes proposed broadly similar Kelsey & Eden Park wards, the only significant difference between the two being that the Conservative Group included the Elmers End Green area in an Elmers End ward. Alternatively, the Labour Group proposed an Eden Park & Elmers End ward, which was similar to the existing ward, but which excluded Langley Waterside but included a substantial number of electors around the Kelsey Park area.

57 We are of the view that the Conservative Group proposal for this area better reflects our statutory criteria. We consider that the Labour Group proposal splits the Elmers End community and the exclusion of Langley Waterside from this ward would not reflect communities as we consider electors in this area are more likely to identify with communities in Kelsey and Eden Park, rather than Shortlands. We also consider the ERO proposal splits the Clock House, Elmers End and Eden Park communities and we have not adopted their Beckenham Central and Eden Park & Elmers End wards for this reason.

58 Apart from the borough-wide schemes, we did not receive much localised evidence for this area during consultation and we welcome any comments regarding our draft recommendations for this area.

13

Shortlands 59 All the borough-wide schemes proposed a Shortlands ward that was based upon the existing warding arrangement, which covers a large extent of the Shortlands Residents’ Association area. All the schemes extended the ward to incorporate the area between Shortlands Road and Scotts Lane. The Conservative Group and the Shortlands Residents’ Association both provided good evidence that this area is locally regarded to be part of the Shortlands neighbourhood and should therefore be included in any proposed Shortlands ward. Consequently, given the level of support for change, we have included this area in our Shortlands ward as part of our draft recommendations.

60 The Shortlands Residents’ Association, Bob Stewart MP, the Conservative Group, the ERO, the 61-councillor local resident scheme and a local resident also stated that part of Shortlands community is currently split by the railway bridge. We received strong evidence that the area, which is east of the railway line, containing the Shortlands Golf Club, Shortlands Tavern and the Shortlands village high street, should be contained with a Shortlands ward.

61 We examined this proposal on our visit to Bromley and we agree with the submissions received that the railway line does not pose a hard boundary and by including the area east of the railway line in a Shortlands ward, community identities will be better reflected. We have therefore broadly adopted the Conservative Group proposal which places the boundary behind properties on Madeira Avenue, also including electors on Highland Road, Queen’s Mead Road and Bromley Gardens.

62 In the submissions made by the Park Langley Residents’ Association and the Shortlands Safer Neighbourhood Panel, both stated the strong relationship that exists between the Park Langley Residents’ Association and Shortlands Residents’ Association, and that the two residents’ associations should continue to be within the same ward. Our proposed Shortlands ward contains both the Park Langley Estate and Shortlands area, while the ward also includes the entirety of Barnfield Wood Road, as suggested by the Park Langley Residents’ Association.

63 Our Shortlands ward will have an electoral variance of -3%, meaning the ward will both represent communities effectively and provide for good electoral equality.

14

Bromley Town, Bickley and Plaistow & Sundridge

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Bickley 2 5% Bromley Town 3 7% Plaistow & Sundridge 3 8%

Bickley 64 We have based our draft recommendations for Bickley ward on the Conservative Group proposal. The Conservative Group proposed a ward that largely follows the boundaries of the existing ward but with a significant change to the northern boundary, which places the boundary along Logs Hill, Park Farm Road and Widmore Road. We agree with the Conservative Group and a local resident that the area north of these roads would be better served in a Plaistow & Sundridge ward. The Conservative Group stated that this area is covered by the Sundridge Park

15

Residents’ Association and Sundridge Park Preservation Society and therefore should be included in any proposed ward that includes the remainder of the Sundridge Park area. We are persuaded by the evidence received that this change will better reflect communities and therefore transferred this area from the existing Bickley ward to our proposed Plaistow & Sundridge ward.

65 We were not persuaded by the Labour Group and ERO proposals that suggested a large part of the existing Bickley ward around Chislehurst Road be transferred into a Chislehurst ward. We consider that in this area of the borough, the railway line represents a strong, identifiable boundary and that crossing the railway line here would not enable communities to be as effectively represented.

Bromley Town 66 The borough-wide schemes proposed significantly different warding arrangements for Bromley town centre. The Conservative Group scheme and 61- councillor scheme both proposed a three-councillor Bromley Town ward. Alternatively, the Labour Group and ERO both proposed the town centre be split into two wards, comprising a two-councillor Bromley North ward and a two-councillor Bromley South ward. One local resident also proposed a Bromley South ward, stating that development in the town centre necessitated a division of the town into north and south wards.

67 After carefully examining the various proposals received, we have decided that the Conservative Group scheme best reflects our statutory criteria for Bromley town and have broadly adopted it as part of our draft recommendations. While we note that both the Labour Group and the ERO’s proposed wards would provide for good electoral equality, we considered that the Conservative Group provided the strongest community evidence for their proposal. Furthermore, on our visit to the area, we considered keeping the town together as one ward, rather than splitting the town centre through Widmore Road, would better represent communities.

68 In addition, we were also persuaded by the submissions made by Cllr Reddin and the Hayesford Park Company which suggested the Hayesford Park Estate be included in a Bromley town centre ward. Along with the Conservative Group scheme, both provided strong evidence that the estate is distinct from the Hayes community it is currently warded with and that the estate would be better represented in a ward that looks towards the town. Therefore, our Bromley Town ward includes the Hayesford Park Estate.

69 In any case, given our decision to include a significant part of the Labour Group’s Bromley North ward within our Shortlands ward, we would have been unable to adopt that proposal as part of our draft recommendations without heavily modifying the ward to achieve good electoral equality. Similarly, given our decision to include the Hayesford Park Estate in a town-centric ward, we would not have been

16

able to place the estate in any proposed Bromley South ward and still provide for good electoral equality.

70 Both the Labour Group and Conservative Group used Homesdale Road and Hayes Lane as the southern boundary of their Bromley South and Bromley Town wards respectively. We agree with the Conservative Group that these two roads, which act as a ‘significant local route often used as a “by-pass” around the town centre’, represent a better southern boundary for the town, and have adopted it as part of the draft recommendations.

71 Our Bromley Town ward also includes electors who live on Wanstead Road and Bishops Avenue. Both a local resident and the Conservative Group suggested these electors be transferred into a Bromley Town ward. We have adopted this change as we agree that it will provide for a more identifiable boundary than the existing arrangement which divides Caverleigh Place.

72 One local resident stated that the existing Bromley Town ward boundaries should not change given its importance as a commercial centre for the borough. However, given the reduction in the number of councillors for the borough and the level of development expected within the town centre, it is an inevitable consequence that we need to amend the ward boundaries in the town centre to provide for an acceptable level of electoral equality.

Plaistow & Sundridge 73 We have also based our draft Plaistow & Sundridge ward on the Conservative Group proposal. Both the Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident scheme proposed a ward similar to the existing arrangement, where the only significant difference was within the Conservative Group proposal, which included the area north of Logs Hill, Park Farm Road and Widmore Road, as discussed in paragraph 64. We were nonetheless persuaded by the evidence received that indicates that, generally, the proposals made by the Conservative Group and the 61- councillor local resident scheme would effectively reflect the identities of both the Plaistow and Sundridge communities. We have, however, made a small amendment around the Bromley North train station area in order to improve electoral equality, transferring electors from the Conservative Group’s proposed Plaistow & Sundridge ward to our proposed Bromley North ward.

74 In any case, given our proposed warding arrangements for Bromley Town, we are unable to adopt the alternative proposals for the Plaistow & Sundridge area made by the Labour Group and the ERO, which both proposed Bromley North wards that incorporated a large part of our proposed Plaistow & Sundridge ward.

17

75 However, given the lack of localised submissions for this area, we would particularly welcome comments on this proposed ward during the consultation on these draft recommendations.

18

Chislehurst, Mottingham and the Cray Valley

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Chislehurst 3 -10% Mottingham & Chislehurst North 2 -6% St Mary Cray 3 1% St Paul’s Cray 3 -2%

Chislehurst and Mottingham & Chislehurst North 76 The borough-wide schemes all suggested various configurations for where the boundaries between the areas of Chislehurst and Mottingham should be drawn. The Labour Group and 61-councillor local resident schemes mostly closely resembled the existing warding arrangements, where the Labour Group slightly expanded the existing Mottingham ward southwards, while the local resident included electors on Elmstead Lane. The ERO included a larger area of Elmstead within their two- councillor Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward, while the Conservative Group created a much larger three-councillor Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward that incorporated a larger part of the west Chislehurst area.

19

77 The geography of the existing two-member Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward, which is bounded on three sides by the boroughs of Lewisham and Greenwich, made formulating a warding arrangement that adequately reflected communities, while also providing for good electoral equality, a difficult task. On our visit to Bromley, we were of the view that Mottingham is a distinct community from Chislehurst. This view was shared by several local residents who stated the differences between the two areas. We were therefore not persuaded to adopt the Conservative Group proposal that combines a large part of Chislehurst with the Mottingham area.

78 We considered that it was more appropriate to adopt the Labour Group proposal, which we note still includes parts of Chislehurst with Mottingham and which expands the existing ward down to Red Hill Primary School in order to achieve good electoral equality. We consider it is a better reflection of communities if the ward containing Mottingham is primarily based on the Mottingham community with fewer parts of Chislehurst included with it. Our Mottingham & Chislehurst North ward is forecast to have a variance of -6%.

79 We have nonetheless adopted the Conservative Group proposal to use the railway line in its entirety as a boundary for our proposed Chislehurst ward, as justified in paragraph 65. All the borough-wide schemes also included the Marlings Park Estate within a Chislehurst ward, as per the existing arrangement. We have therefore kept the estate within our proposed Chislehurst ward, which will have an electoral variance of -10% by 2025.

St Mary Cray and St Paul’s Cray 80 We received 14 submissions from local residents who all objected to the existing warding arrangement for the Cray Valley area. It was argued that the Cray Valley area should return to the warding arrangement in place prior to Bromley’s last electoral review, comprising a St Mary Cray ward and a St Paul’s Cray ward, which utilised the railway line as the boundary between the two wards. The Labour Group also proposed that the Cray Valley wards return to their previous arrangement as part of their borough-wide proposals. The other borough-wide schemes all proposed various configurations of existing Cray Valley East and Cray Valley West wards.

81 We were persuaded by the evidence received from the Labour Group and the 14 local residents that the railway line is a clear and identifiable barrier between communities in this part of the borough and it should be reinstated as a ward boundary, allowing the communities of St Mary Cray and St Paul’s Cray to return to a warding arrangement that reflects their respective identities. We concur that the A224 should not be used as the boundary between wards and note that it has multiple crossing points to facilitate travel across our proposed St Mary Cray and St Paul’s Cray wards.

20

82 We have therefore adopted the Labour Group proposal for the Cray Valley area, where our three-councillor St Mary Cray ward and three-councillor St Paul’s Cray ward will have electoral variances of 1% and -2% respectively, both achieving good electoral equality.

21

Chelsfield, Farnborough, Crofton, Orpington and Petts Wood

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Chelsfield 2 2% Farnborough & Crofton 3 7% Orpington 3 6% Petts Wood 2 8%

Chelsfield 83 The borough-wide schemes proposed a broadly similar warding arrangement for the Chelsfield area. The only scheme that significantly differed here from the other proposals was the ERO’s Chelsfield & Goddington ward, which excluded the village of Pratts Bottom in their proposed ward. One local resident submitted support for keeping Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom together.

22

84 Our proposed Chelsfield ward is based a combination of all the borough-wide schemes. We have transferred the village of Pratts Bottom to our proposed Biggin Hill ward for reasons justified in paragraph 97, as per the ERO submission, but we have also transferred the estates centred on St Leonards Rise and around Southfleet Road into our proposed Farnborough & Crofton ward. These estates both have better road access into Farnborough and Crofton, and we agree with the Conservative Group that electors here will be better served within a Farnborough & Crofton ward.

85 We have also adopted the Labour Group suggestion to incorporate a larger part of the Schools Estate, which both the Conservative Group and Labour Group state looks towards amenities in Chelsfield rather than Orpington town. While we have not followed the boundary as far as the Labour Group, given it would result in poor electoral equality for our proposed Chelsfield ward, we have decided to incorporate the streets of Ampleforth Close, Eton Road, Malvern Road, Stowe Road and Winchester Road into our Chelsfield ward. We consider that this change will reflect communities effectively and provide for good electoral equality for our Chelsfield ward, which will have an electoral variance of 2% by 2025.

86 Given our decision to transfer Pratts Bottom to our proposed Biggin Hill ward, we have named this ward Chelsfield. We welcome any comments regarding the name, and boundaries, of this ward.

Farnborough & Crofton 87 We have based our Farnborough & Crofton ward almost entirely on the Conservative Group proposal, bar an amendment in the north of the ward to create what we consider is a more identifiable boundary. This proposal is similar to the existing warding arrangement, which already effectively represents the communities of Farnborough, Crofton and Locksbottom. We adopted this proposal based on the strong evidence received by the Conservative Group, which provided good examples of the community links within the ward. The ward will also provide for good electoral equality, with an electoral variance of 7% by 2025.

88 The ERO and 61-councillor local resident scheme both proposed broadly similar warding patterns. However, we did not adopt the ERO proposal as we considered it split the Crofton community along Crofton Road, and we could not adopt the 61-councillor scheme given our decision to transfer the estates centred on St Leonards Rise and around Southfleet Road into our proposed Farnborough & Crofton ward from the existing Chelsfield ward.

89 We also decided not to adopt the Labour Group’s proposed two-councillor Farnborough & Crofton ward as we considered this proposal, which splits the Farnborough area along the A12 between wards, would not effectively represent communities.

23

Orpington and Petts Wood 90 Our draft recommendations for the wards of Orpington and Petts Wood are largely based on the proposals made by the Labour Group and the ERO. The Labour Group proposed a two-councillor Petts Wood ward and three-councillor Orpington ward, transferring the Knoll and Broom Hill areas into an Orpington ward. The ERO also proposed to transfer these two areas into an Orpington ward, but proposed a three-councillor Petts Wood & Crofton ward and three-councillor Orpington ward. Alternatively, the other borough-wide proposals kept these areas in a Petts Wood & Knoll ward, largely similar to the existing arrangement.

91 We have decided to include the Knoll and Broom Hill areas in our proposed Orpington ward based primarily on the strength of the evidence received from the Knoll Residents’ Association. The organisation provided good evidence that the area they represent would be better represented in an Orpington ward. We also note, the Conservative Group in their borough-wide submission, stress the distinct nature of Petts Wood, also stating that residents of the Knoll are more likely to look towards the major shopping district of Orpington High Street than towards Petts Wood.

92 Our proposed Orpington ward incorporates Dale Wood Road and Lynwood Grove, using the A224 as a strong, identifiable boundary, as per the ERO submission. However, the rest of our Orpington ward most closely resembles the Labour Group proposal, which includes electors in the areas of Ramsden and Goddington. We consider that our proposed Orpington ward will reflect our statutory criteria, effectively reflecting community identities and providing for good electoral equality.

93 As a consequence of our decision to incorporate the Knoll and Broom Hill areas in our proposed Orpington ward, our Petts Wood ward most closely follows the proposals made by the Labour Group. This ward keeps the distinct community of Petts Wood together within one ward, but we have included the area north of Oregon Square and Monks Way, along Crofton Lane, in our Petts Wood ward. This suggestion was made by the Conservative Group, who provided community evidence that this area could be included in a Petts Wood ward. This change will ensure good electoral equality for our Petts Wood and Farnborough & Crofton wards and we have adopted it as part of our draft recommendations.

94 We also received several submissions which suggested that properties on the evens-side of Chislehurst Road and Scotsdale Close should be included in a Petts Wood ward as they form part of the Petts Wood Area of Special Residential Character. Given this change will better reflect the Petts Wood community, we have adopted this modification as part of our draft recommendations.

24

Biggin Hill and Darwin

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Biggin Hill 2 1% Darwin 1 -1%

Biggin Hill and Darwin 95 Our draft recommendations for these two wards are based a combination of the proposals made in all the borough-wide schemes. The Labour Group, Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident schemes all proposed to retain a warding pattern comprising a two-councillor Biggin Hill ward and a single-councillor Darwin ward, while the ERO proposed a three-councillor Biggin Hill & Downe ward which combined the existing Biggin Hill and Darwin wards, also including the area of Pratts Bottom.

96 We received representations from the Biggin Hill Independent Group, the Biggin Hill Residents’ Association and several local residents that suggested several

25

hundred electors on Aperfield Road, Jail Lane and a larger area in the southern part of Biggin Hill be transferred into a Biggin Hill ward from the existing Darwin ward. The Biggin Hill Independent Group stated within their submission that electors in these areas are an integral part of Biggin Hill. We were persuaded by the evidence received and we have moved these electors into Biggin Hill ward as part of our draft recommendations.

97 However, transferring these electors from Darwin ward to Biggin Hill ward under the existing warding arrangement would result an electoral variance of -16% for Darwin ward. This would not provide for good electoral equality. We have therefore decided to include Pratts Bottom within our Darwin ward, which will accordingly improve the electoral variance of Darwin ward to -1%. On our visit to Bromley, we considered Pratts Bottom was similar in character to the other rural villages that sit within Bromley’s green belt land. We have followed the boundary proposed by the ERO in this area, using the A21 as the boundary between the proposed Darwin and Chelsfield wards.

98 We agree with the Conservative Group that combining the more densely populated Biggin Hill area with the rural villages would not reflect community identities effectively. Therefore, we were not persuaded by the ERO’s proposal to create a three-councillor ward that combines Biggin Hill with the rural villages, despite the ward providing for good electoral equality.

99 We have also adopted a minor change suggested by the Conservative Group and 61-councillor local resident schemes, which proposes a small number of electors residing on Shire Lane be included in Darwin ward. We have adopted this proposal as we concur that electors here would be better represented within a rural Darwin ward.

100 We received one submission that suggested the Darwin & Biggin Hill area be moved into the county of Kent, given the rural nature of the wards in comparison to the rest of the borough. However, changing the external boundaries between boroughs falls outside the scope of the electoral review.

26

Bromley Common & Holwood, Hayes and West Wickham

Number of Ward name Variance 2025 councillors Bromley Common & Holwood 3 6% Hayes & Coney Hall 3 -5% West Wickham 3 -7%

Bromley Common & Holwood 101 We received different warding proposals relating to this area. The Conservative Group proposed to broadly retain the existing ward but excluded Keston village from the ward and moved the northern boundary along Homesdale Road. The ERO kept Keston village in their proposed Bromley Common & Keston ward, but placed Chatterton village and the Coppice Estate in their proposed Bickley and Petts Wood & Crofton wards respectively. The 61-councillor local resident scheme proposed to keep the existing ward in its entirety. Alternatively, the Labour Group proposed a

27

significantly different warding pattern for this area, comprising a two-councillor Bromley Common & Chatterton ward and a two-councillor Keston & Locksbottom ward.

102 We also received two local resident submissions that related to this area. One of these submissions questioned the suitability of placing Bromley Common in a ward with the Keston area given the differences between the two communities. The other local resident stressed the difference in character between Keston village and Keston, which are separated by Padmall Wood and Keston Common.

103 We very carefully considered the submissions received for this area. While we note that the Labour Group proposed ward will provide for good electoral equality, and reflect the distinct nature of communities in Chatterton village, Trinity village and Keston, we considered the proposal to include part of Farnborough, and part of the Crofton community, in their Keston & Locksbottom proposed ward, would not reflect those two communities effectively. We also decided not to adopt the ERO proposal for this area as we did not consider the proposal to include Chatterton village in a Bickley ward appropriate, given it has better road access into Bromley Common via the A21.

104 We have therefore adopted the Conservative Group’s proposed ward. We were persuaded by the evidence received that Keston village should be transferred into our proposed Hayes & Coney Hall ward, where it has stronger transport access via the B256 to the Hayes and Coney Hall communities. Our proposed Bromley Common & Holwood ward will also have strong internal road links, via the A21 and A233, which represents a strong spine for the ward.

105 Given our proposal to transfer Keston village into our proposed Hayes & Coney Hall ward, we have adopted the Conservative Group’s proposal to name this ward Bromley Common & Holwood. However, we would encourage comments in regard to the name, and also the boundaries, of this proposed ward during this consultation.

Hayes & Coney Hall and West Wickham 106 We also received varied proposals for warding arrangements in the areas of Coney Hall, Hayes and West Wickham. The Labour Group and 61-councillor local resident schemes retained the existing wards. The ERO proposal also retained the existing wards but included a small area around Pickhurst Lane and Pickhurst Park in their proposed West Wickham ward in order to improve electoral equality. Both wards would continue to be served by three councillors each.

107 On the other hand, the Conservative Group suggested three wards, each represented by two councillors. The proposal consisted of a Hayes & Keston ward, a Coney Hall & West Wickham South ward and West Wickham North ward.

28

108 After carefully examining the various options, our draft recommendations for this area most closely resemble the existing warding pattern that the Labour Group, the ERO and the 61-councillor local resident schemes suggested we retain. We consider that the existing warding pattern in this area already reflects communities effectively and we were not persuaded to adopt the significant changes as proposed by the Conservative Group. This is because we considered keeping the whole of West Wickham together within one ward would be preferable to dividing the West Wickham community across the High Street into north and south wards.

109 Therefore, our proposed West Wickham ward is almost identical to the existing ward. The only modification we have made is to transfer Barnfield Wood Road in Shortlands ward, as discussed in paragraph 62.

110 However, while our Hayes & Coney Hall ward does broadly adhere to the existing warding arrangement, we have adopted two changes that were suggested by the Conservative Group. As discussed in paragraph 104, we have included Keston village in this ward, and we have also transferred the Hayesford Park Estate into our proposed Bromley Town ward, also previously discussed in paragraph 69.

111 Under our proposals, our Hayes & Coney Hall and West Wickham wards will have good electoral equality in 2025, with variances of -5% and -7% respectively, and will effectively reflect community identities.

29

30

Conclusions

112 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our draft recommendations on electoral equality in Bromley, 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

Draft recommendations

2019 2025 Number of councillors 58 58 Number of electoral wards 22 22 Average number of electors per councillor 4,183 4,296 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 1 0 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 0 0 from the average

Draft recommendations Bromley Council should be made up of 58 councillors serving 22 wards representing one single-councillor ward, six two-councillor wards and 15 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 Bromley Council. You can also view our draft recommendations for Bromley Council on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

31

32

Have your say

113 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 Bromley or just a part of it.

114 If you agree with our recommendations, please let us know. If you don’t think our recommendations are right for Bromley, we want to hear alternative proposals for a different pattern of wards.

115 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

116 Submissions can also be made by emailing [email protected] or by writing to:

Review Officer (Bromley) The Local Government Boundary Commission for England 1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street London SW1H 0TL

117 The Commission aims to propose a pattern of wards for Bromley 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.

118 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.

33

119 Electoral equality:

• Does your proposal mean that councillors would represent roughly the same number of voters as elsewhere in Bromley?

120 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?

121 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?

122 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.

123 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.

124 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.

125 After the publication of our final recommendations, the changes we have proposed must be approved by Parliament. An Order – the legal document which

34

brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in draft in Parliament. The draft Order will provide for new electoral arrangements to be implemented at the all-out elections for Bromley Council in 2022.

35

36

Equalities 126 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.

37

38

Appendices Appendix A Draft recommendations for Bromley Council

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Beckenham Town 1 3 12,052 4,017 -4% 12,511 4,170 -3% & Copers Cope 2 Bickley 2 9,197 4,599 10% 9,026 4,513 5%

3 Biggin Hill 2 8,533 4,267 2% 8,719 4,360 1% Bromley Common 4 3 13,813 4,604 10% 13,704 4,568 6% & Holwood 5 Bromley Town 3 10,776 3,592 -14% 13,819 4,606 7%

6 Chelsfield 2 8,473 4,237 1% 8,763 4,382 2%

7 Chislehurst 3 11,568 3,856 -8% 11,613 3,871 -10% Clock House & 8 3 12,393 4,131 -1% 12,184 4,061 -5% Elmers End Crystal Palace & 9 2 7,954 3,977 -5% 8,381 4,191 -2% Anerley 10 Darwin 1 4,167 4,167 0% 4,261 4,261 -1% Farnborough & 11 3 13,533 4,511 8% 13,791 4,597 7% Crofton Hayes & Coney 12 3 12,176 4,059 -3% 12,226 4,075 -5% Hall 39

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2019) (2025) councillor average % councillor average % Kelsey & Eden 13 3 11,642 3,881 -7% 11,891 3,964 -8% Park Mottingham & 14 2 7,904 3,952 -6% 8,087 4,044 -6% Chislehurst North 15 Orpington 3 13,139 4,380 5% 13,620 4,540 6%

16 Penge & Cator 3 13,307 4,436 6% 13,313 4,438 3%

17 Petts Wood 2 9,166 4,583 10% 9,247 4,624 8% Plaistow & 18 3 13,515 4,505 8% 13,900 4,633 8% Sundridge 19 Shortlands 3 12,526 4,175 0% 12,444 4,148 -3%

20 St Mary Cray 3 13,169 4,390 5% 13,018 4,339 1%

21 St Paul’s Cray 3 11,861 3,954 -5% 12,624 4,208 -2%

22 West Wickham 3 11,751 3,917 -6% 12,047 4,016 -7%

Totals 58 242,615 – – 249,189 – –

Averages – – 4,183 – – 4,296 –

Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Bromley 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.

40

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/current-reviews/greater- london/bromley

41

Appendix C Submissions received

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

Political Groups

• Biggin Hill Independent Group • Bromley Conservative Group • Bromley Labour Group

Councillors

• Councillor M. Ahmad (Bromley Council) • Councillor V. Allen (Bromley Council) • Councillor K. Bance (Bromley Council) • Councillor K. Brooks (Bromley Council) • Councillor I. Dunn (Bromley Council) • Councillor S. Jeal (Bromley Council) • Councillor J. King (Bromley Council) • Councillor N. Reddin (Bromley Council)

Members of Parliament

• Ellie Reeves MP (Lewisham West & Penge) • Bob Stewart MP (Beckenham)

Local Organisations

• Aperfield Green Belt Action Group • Biggin Hill Residents’ Association • The Federation of Private Residents’ Association • Friends of Warren Road • Hayesford Park Company • Knoll Residents’ Association • Park Langley Residents’ Association • Penge Forum • Shortlands Residents’ Association • Shortlands Safer Neighbourhood Panel • West Beckenham Residents’ Association

42

Local Residents

• 48 local residents

43

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

44

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

45 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. 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