New electoral arrangements for the Royal Borough of Greenwich Council Final Recommendations August 2021 Translations and other formats: To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at: Tel: 0330 500 1525 Email: [email protected]

Licensing: The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with the permission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right. Licence Number: GD 100049926 2021

A note on our mapping: The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.

Contents

Introduction 1 Who we are and what we do 1 What is an electoral review? 1 Why Greenwich? 5 Our proposals for Greenwich 5 How will the recommendations affect you? 5 Review timetable 6 Analysis and final recommendations 8 Submissions received 8 Electorate figures 8 Number of councillors 9 Ward boundaries consultation 9 Draft recommendations consultation 10 Final recommendations 10 Southern Greenwich 11 Eltham 14 Blackheath and Kidbrooke 19 Plumstead and Shooters Hill 22 Abbey Wood and Thamesmead 25 Woolwich 27 Charlton 30 Greenwich Town 33 Conclusions 36 Summary of electoral arrangements 36 What happens next? 38 Equalities 40 Appendices 42 Appendix A 42 Final recommendations for Greenwich 42 Appendix B 45 Outline map 45 Appendix C 46

Submissions received 46 Appendix D 48 Glossary and abbreviations 48

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 Greenwich?

7 We are conducting a review of Greenwich Council (‘the Council’) as the value of each vote in borough council elections varies depending on where you live in Greenwich. 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 Greenwich 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 Greenwich

9 Greenwich should be represented by 55 councillors, four more than there are now.

10 Greenwich should have 23 wards, six more than there are now.

11 The boundaries of all wards should change; none will stay the same.

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

How will the recommendations affect you?

13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in and which other communities are in that ward. Your ward name may also change.

14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to take into account any representations which are based on these issues.

5

Review timetable 15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of councillors for Greenwich. We then held two periods of consultation with the public on warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation have informed our final recommendations.

16 The review was conducted as follows:

Stage starts Description

18 September Number of councillors decided 2020 22 September Start of consultation seeking views on new wards 2020 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 30 November 2020 forming draft recommendations Publication of draft recommendations; start of second 2 March 2021 consultation End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and 10 May 2021 forming final recommendations 3 August 2021 Publication of final recommendations

6

7

Analysis and final recommendations 17 Legislation2 states that our recommendations should not be based only on how many electors3 there are now, but also on how many there are likely to be in the five years after the publication of our final recommendations. We must also try to recommend strong, clearly identifiable boundaries for our wards.

18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the council as possible.

19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on the table below.

2020 2026 Electorate of Greenwich 195,212 217,708 Number of councillors 51 55 Average number of electors per 3,828 3,958 councillor

20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All but one of our proposed wards for Greenwich are forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026.

Submissions received 21 See Appendix C for details of the submissions received. All submissions may be viewed on our website at www.lgbce.org.uk

Electorate figures 22 The Council submitted electorate forecasts for 2026, a period five years on from the scheduled publication of our final recommendations in 2021. These forecasts were broken down to polling district level and predicted an increase in the electorate of around 11.5% by 2026.

23 We considered the information provided by the Council and are satisfied that the projected figures are the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our final recommendations.

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

8

Number of councillors 24 The Council currently has 51 councillors. We have looked at evidence provided by the Council and have concluded that increasing by four will ensure that it can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.

25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be represented by 55 councillors – for example, 55 one-councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.

26 We received no submissions specifically about the number of councillors in response to our consultation on our draft recommendations. We have therefore maintained 55 councillors for our final recommendations.

Ward boundaries consultation 27 We received 311 submissions in response to our consultation on ward boundaries. These included three borough-wide proposals from the Council, Greenwich Conservative Group and Greenwich Liberal Democrats. The remainder of the submissions provided localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the borough.

28 The three borough-wide schemes provided mixed patterns of one-, two- and three-councillor wards for Greenwich. We carefully considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns of wards resulted in good levels of electoral equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable boundaries.

29 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative boundaries.

30 Given the travel restrictions, and the social distancing, arising from the Covid- 19 pandemic, there was a detailed ‘virtual’ tour of Greenwich. This helped to clarify issues raised in submissions and assisted in the construction of the draft recommendations.

31 Our draft recommendations were for nine three-councillor wards and 14 two- councillor wards. We considered that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

9

Draft recommendations consultation 32 We received 786 submissions during consultation on our draft recommendations. These included comments across the borough from Greenwich Conservative Council Group & Greenwich Conservative Federation (‘Greenwich Conservatives’), Greenwich Labour Group, Greenwich Borough Liberal Democrats and a number of residents who made wide-ranging comments on our proposals. Clive Efford MP and Matthew Pennycook MP offered detailed comments and proposals for the areas of the borough within their respective constituencies. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas, particularly our proposals in Woolwich, Eltham and the south of the borough.

33 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with modifications to the wards in the Woolwich, Eltham and Kidbrooke areas based on the submissions received.

Final recommendations 34 Our final recommendations are for nine three-councillor wards and 14 two- councillor wards. We consider that our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence during consultation.

35 The tables and maps on pages 8–32 detail our final recommendations for each area of Greenwich. They detail how the proposed warding arrangements reflect the three statutory4 criteria of:

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

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

4 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.

10

Southern Greenwich

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Middle Park & Horn Park 2 -11% Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham 3 -6%

Middle Park & Horn Park 37 We received broad support for our draft recommendations for this ward. Greenwich Conservatives and Greenwich Liberal Democrats supported our proposals; however, the latter noted that in common with some other wards in the south of the borough, the electoral variance was relatively high.

38 We propose to make one change to our draft recommendations for this ward. As discussed in more detail at paragraph 49, we propose to move the northern boundary of this ward to the A210 Eltham Hill. Given this change, and the desire to retain good electoral equality, we considered moving a small number of electors on Middle Park Avenue into this ward from our proposed Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham ward. However, given the lack of evidence for this proposed change, and the minimal improvement in electoral equality that would result, we were not persuaded to make that change.

11

39 The result of the change above leaves Middle Park & Horn Park forecast to have 11% fewer electors per councillor than the borough average. This is just outside the bounds of what we consider to be good electoral equality. However, we consider that the strong community evidence supporting neighbouring wards justifies this slight departure from good electoral equality.

Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham 40 We received a large number of submissions regarding this ward, both considering the name and the northern boundary. A large number of residents indicated support for the proposed boundary and the inclusion of ‘Mottingham’ in the name of the ward. This position was further supported by Greenwich Conservatives, Greenwich Liberal Democrats, Councillors Clare, Fletcher, Hartley, Hills and Tester, the Mottingham Residents’ Association, Friends of Fairy Hill Park, Friends of Southwood Park and Friends of Coldharbour Open Spaces.

41 Some residents suggested that the A20 Sidcup Road would be a more effective northern boundary for this ward, which would be re-named ‘Coldharbour’. This proposal was also made by the Labour Group and Clive Efford MP. A number of residents stated that using Sidcup Road as a boundary would allow the centre of New Eltham to be united within a single ward.

42 We considered all the suggestions in this area carefully. We received a large amount of evidence in our initial warding pattern consultation, reinforced by additional evidence in consultation on our draft recommendations, that the ‘Montbelle Triangle, comprising Montbelle Road, Charldane Road and Felhampton Road, shares a community identity with New Eltham that a boundary along the A20 would not respect. Clive Efford MP provided evidence that these streets have historical links with the Coldharbour Estate; however, we prefer evidence that reflects communities as they are presently, rather than relying on historical associations.

43 We considered alternatives in this area, including reverting to the existing boundary along the A211. The Eltham Society suggested extending the ward to the north to allow the area between Footscray Road and Green Lane, and on either side of Avery Hill Road as far as Sparrows Lane and Cradley Road, to be a part of New Eltham ward. However, this latter suggestion would leave Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham ward with 14% more electors than the average across the borough – well beyond what we consider to be good electoral equality.

44 With regard to the name of this ward, a large number of residents indicated their support for the inclusion of Mottingham in its name. This was opposed by Clive Efford MP, who provided evidence that the larger part of the Mottingham area was in the neighbouring borough of Bromley. He maintained that this area in the borough of Greenwich was best described as Eltham.

12

45 We have carefully considered all the submissions we received for this ward. On balance, we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations. We consider that the evidence that the New Eltham community extends south of the A20 precludes us from proposing this road as a boundary, and that the large number of submissions supporting this proposed ward gives ample evidence that it reflects community identity.

46 We accept that our proposed boundary will divide the centre of New Eltham into two wards, with facilities and shops both north and south of our proposed boundary on the railway line. However, given that the only practical alternatives are to move away from good electoral equality, or to split the significantly larger ‘hub’ of Eltham High Street, we consider that this proposal best meets our statutory criteria.

47 Mottingham, Coldharbour & New Eltham ward is forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026. Middle Park & Horn Park is forecast to depart from good equality, with 11% fewer electors than the average across Greenwich. We confirm these recommendations as final.

13

Eltham

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Eltham Page 2 -9% Eltham Park & Progress 2 7% Eltham Town & Avery Hill 3 0%

Eltham Page 48 While the principle of a ward based around the Page Estate had broad support, with the Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Labour Group all offering support, we received several specific comments and alternatives regarding the precise boundaries of this ward.

49 A resident suggested that the A210 Eltham Hill would make for a stronger and more recognisable boundary than that proposed in our draft recommendations, which was to the north of this road in several areas. The Old Page Estate Residents’ Association supported this proposal and provided evidence that Yolande Gardens and other properties to the north of Eltham Hill were integral parts of the Page Estate. Clive Efford MP also supported this proposal.

14

50 We have adopted these proposals and propose to change our draft recommendations accordingly. As discussed above (paras 38–39), we are moving away from good electoral equality in Middle Park & Horn Park ward.

51 In the north-west of this ward, we propose to move electors on Nelson Mandela Road, Hither Farm Road and the neighbouring streets into Eltham Page ward, from our previously proposed Kidbrooke Park ward. This was supported by Clive Efford MP, the Labour Group and Greenwich Conservatives. Mr Efford noted that this area had historically been in an Eltham-based ward, while the Conservative submission provided evidence that crossing the strong boundary of Rochester Way would not provide for effective and convenient local government.

52 In the north-east of this ward, we received varying views about the suitability of Well Hall Road as a boundary. Our draft recommendations, using Well Hall Road as a boundary, were supported by Greenwich Conservatives (who originally proposed the wards in question), a number of residents and Councillors Drury and Davis. These submissions noted that Well Hall Road was a clear potential boundary and that it formed the boundary of the proposed Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), meaning that wards would fall either entirely within or entirely outside the ULEZ.

53 In contrast, a number of residents, Clive Efford MP, the Labour Group, the Eltham Society and the Progress Estate Residents’ Association submitted evidence that the Progress Estate on both sides of Well Hall Road was a coherent community that should be united within a ward. Residents provided evidence of a number of cross-estate community activities, such as VE Day celebrations, mutual aid groups and holiday activities, together with the fact that the entire Progress Estate is a conservation area.

54 We have carefully considered all the submissions in this area. On balance, we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations and move the section of the Progress Estate west of Well Hall Road, together with extra streets to the north, into a ward with the remainder of the Progress Estate.

Eltham Park & Progress and Eltham Town & Avery Hill 55 As with Eltham Page, discussed above, we received a large number of submissions for this area. The fundamental point of divergence in this area is the status of Eltham High Street and whether this road could most effectively form either the central hub of a ward or an effective boundary between two wards.

56 We received a large number of submissions making the case for both of the propositions outlined. Greenwich Conservatives, Greenwich Liberal Democrats, Councillors Clare, Davis, Drury, N. Fletcher and Greenwell and the Eltham Society made the case for unifying Eltham High Street within a single ward. They argued that

15

this provided for effective and convenient local government by allowing for issues regarding the High Street to be effectively dealt with by a single set of councillors.

57 A large number of residents indicated their broad support for our proposed Eltham Park ward. The Liberal Democrats recorded their ‘strong support’ for a proposal to unite Eltham High Street within a single ward. Greenwich Conservatives noted that our proposed Eltham Park ward had a natural focus on the Westmount Road shopping parade and suggested that this would be to the benefit of the Westmount Road Independent Traders’ Group.

58 In contrast, another significant body of opinion, comprising residents, the Labour Group, Clive Efford MP and the Eltham Park Residents’ Association (supported by the South Greenwich Forum), argued for the use of Eltham High Street as a natural southern boundary to an Eltham Park/Eltham North ward. Residents argued that the historical nature of the Corbett Estate made it suitable for being reunited within a ward. In contrast to the Progress Estate, discussed above, we received relatively little specific evidence, beyond the existence of a residents’ association, as to how the Corbett Estate operates as a community in the present day, or where residents of this area look to for shops, services and other amenities.

59 The Conservative submission and those of a few residents suggested that our proposed draft recommendation boundary included the whole Corbett Estate. While we accept that in the absence of a conservation area or similar formal demarcation precise definition of an estate within a contiguous urban area is difficult, we accept the submission of a number of residents that our draft recommendation boundary splits what is accepted as the Corbett Estate in the area of Glenure Road, Gourock Road and Balcaskie Road.

60 Clive Efford MP and the Labour Group proposed the creation of a three- member Eltham Park & Progress ward, stretching from the Progress Estate to Eltham High Street. Of itself, this proposal offered good electoral equality, but it was dependent upon the adoption of proposals around New Eltham, which we rejected (paras 41–43).

61 Mr Efford and a number of local residents argued that the High Street benefited from being split between two or more wards and that this warding pattern should be maintained. Mr Efford noted the existence of the Eltham Town Centre Partnership, which aims to bring together all those, including councillors from all relevant wards, who have an interest in the town centre.

62 We have carefully considered all the submissions in this area, and we consider that this judgment is particularly finely balanced. Overall, we continue to consider that based on the evidence available to us, uniting Eltham High Street in a single ward will provide for effective and convenient local government, and mean that

16

licensing, planning and other issues regarding the High Street can be dealt with by a single set of councillors.

63 Having taken this decision, and the decision to unify the Progress Estate in this ward, we note that our proposed draft recommendation boundary no longer offers good electoral equality. With the addition of the Progress Estate, our proposed draft recommendation boundary would leave this ward with 17% more electors than the average, significantly beyond the bounds of good electoral equality.

64 As well as evidence regarding the Corbett Estate, we received several representations to the effect that our proposed southern boundary of Eltham Park ward was unclear and confusing. We accept that the boundary proposed was not as strong as some in the borough and are taking the opportunity to improve it, as well as correct the electoral equality.

65 Given the inevitability of splitting the Corbett Estate based on the other decisions we have taken, we are taking the opportunity to recommend a more clear and recognisable boundary in this area, along the line of the railway cutting. We appreciate that the railway in this area is easily crossed along Westmount Road and Glenesk Road, but we consider that it still represents a clear and recognisable boundary, while at the same time offering good electoral equality.

66 In the north of this ward, we received evidence from Greenwich Conservatives, Councillors Davis, Drury and N. Fletcher, The Eltham Society and several residents arguing that it would facilitate effective and convenient local government for the northern boundary not to run immediately to the north of properties on Castlewood Drive and Crookston Road. Evidence was provided that it would be helpful for the wooded area immediately north of these streets to be included in the same ward so that the management of the woodland and the properties affected by run-off would be together in the same ward.

67 We have accepted these submissions and propose a revised boundary following ground features in this area. We note that vehicular access for this area is to the north, to the A207 Shooters Hill, and we have ensured that this is reflected with buildings in this area being placed to the north of the boundary, in Shooters Hill ward. The changes to this boundary do not affect which ward any electors are placed in.

68 The submissions we received with regard to Eltham Town & Avery Hill ward on its own merits, as opposed to as a result of proposed changes to neighbouring wards, were almost entirely supportive. Subject to the change to the northern boundary outlined above, we are therefore confirming our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

17

69 Eltham Page, Eltham Park & Progress and Eltham Town & Avery Hill wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026.

18

Blackheath and Kidbrooke

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Blackheath Westcombe 3 3% Kidbrooke Park 2 -3% Kidbrooke Village & Sutcliffe 2 -9%

Blackheath Westcombe and Kidbrooke Village & Sutcliffe 70 We received several comments on our proposals in this area. There was broad support for the principle of a ward based around the large number of new developments in the Kidbrooke area and for the principle of unifying the Cator Estate into a single ward.

71 Our draft recommendations were supported by Greenwich Conservatives and Councillor Brighty.

72 Matthew Pennycook MP, Len Duvall AM, Councillors Lolavar, Gardner, L. Fletcher and a number of residents of the area in question provided evidence that the Brook Estate, to the west of the A2 and north of Kidbrooke Way, saw their community identity, in terms of schools and shopping in particular, lying towards Blackheath rather than Kidbrooke. We have adopted these submissions and propose

19

to revert to Brook Lane, Susan Road, Delme Crescent and neighbouring streets being placed in Blackheath Westcombe ward.

73 Greenwich Conservatives argued that the Brook Estate shared a community identity with Kidbrooke, citing the use of Kidbrooke Parade shops and Post Office. However, we note that this set of facilities lies north of Kidbrooke Way, and will remain in the same ward as the Brook Estate under our revised proposals. We were persuaded by the evidence provided by Councillor Lolavar, who noted a recent campaign by residents in connection with a potential mobile phone mast on St James’ Church in Blackheath Westcombe ward.

74 While there was broad support for the principle of unifying the Cator Estate within a single ward, this support did not extend to the southern tip of our proposed Blackheath Westcombe ward. Both Matthew Pennycook MP and Clive Efford MP suggested that the area around Meadowcourt Road, Osborn Terrace and Hamlea Close was a separate area from the Cator Estate, and that there was no compelling reason for this area to be included within Blackheath Westcombe ward. This evidence was supported by Councillor Lolavar, who noted that the key links in this area were to Lee (in the neighbouring borough), and to the Sutcliffe area of Greenwich, a position the Greenwich Liberal Democrats further supported.

75 Greenwich Conservatives, on whose proposal this ward was originally based, did not provide specific evidence for the southern area being linked to the remainder of the Blackheath Westcombe ward. We consider that amending our draft recommendations in this area will reflect community identity, as well as balancing the removal of the Brook Estate from our proposed Kidbrooke Village ward.

76 The name of this ward divided opinion, with the Conservatives supporting our proposed name as reflective of the emerging community of Kidbrooke Village. In contrast, Clive Efford MP stated that this name was associated with controversy regarding the history of the developments and did not recognise key areas of the ward.

77 As in the case of other wards in Greenwich, we are persuaded to adopt a relatively inclusive approach to ward names, recognising as many areas within a proposed ward as is sensible. We consider that whatever the historical associations, Kidbrooke Village is a recognised description of the areas of development in the centre of this proposed ward. We are persuaded, however, that this name in isolation could be improved and propose to name this ward Kidbrooke Village & Sutcliffe.

20

Kidbrooke Park 78 We received relatively few representations with regard to our proposed Kidbrooke Park ward. Those we received were broadly supportive of the boundaries proposed, with the exception of the Nelson Mandela Road area, discussed above (para 51). Submissions were particularly supportive of using Shooters Hill Road as the northern boundary of this ward, noting that this was seen locally as the natural border between Kidbrooke and Charlton.

79 We received mixed comments on the name of this proposed ward, with some residents noting that there is no single park known as Kidbrooke Park, but there was no consensus for any alternative name. We are therefore not persuaded to alter our draft recommendation.

80 Blackheath Westcombe, Kidbrooke Park and Kidbrooke Village & Sutcliffe wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026.

21

Plumstead and Shooters Hill

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Plumstead & Glyndon 3 9% Plumstead Common 3 -5% Shooters Hill 2 7%

Plumstead & Glyndon and Plumstead Common 81 We received broad support for these wards, with the Conservatives, Clive Efford MP and almost all residents who provided evidence supporting our draft proposals. The Liberal Democrats and Positive Plumstead Project also offered broad support but suggested one amendment to the north of Plumstead & Glyndon ward.

82 The area which the Liberal Democrats and Positive Plumstead Project wished to include within a Plumstead-based ward lies across Nathan Way, to the south of the prisons, extending as far as Pettman Crescent. This is the site of proposed new development which, it is argued, will look largely towards Plumstead.

22

83 We are not persuaded to make this change. While the community identity of any new area is inevitably speculative, we accept that it is likely that new electors in this area may well look towards Plumstead, at least in terms of transport links. However, the addition of the 974 electors forecast to be in this area by 2026 would leave Plumstead & Glyndon ward with 17% more electors than average across the borough. This is well beyond the bounds of good electoral equality. We also note that the development in question is currently marketed as ‘Plumstead-West Thamesmead’, indicating that its position within a West Thamesmead ward may somewhat reflect community identity.

84 Several residents commented on the allocation of green space between the two Plumstead wards. They noted that the majority of parks and commons are in Plumstead Common ward. We received no specific suggestions with regard to changes to boundaries, and we note that it would be difficult to assign additional green space to Plumstead & Glyndon ward without moving at least some electors. Given that our proposed Plumstead & Glyndon ward has a relatively high variance of 9% more electors than average, we are not persuaded to make any changes.

85 Several residents suggested that the ordering of the name of ‘Plumstead & Glyndon’ could be reversed, either on an alphabetical basis or based on a west-east alignment. In contrast, the Positive Plumstead Project reported that 91% of respondents to a survey undertaken preferred the excision of Glyndon altogether, with ward names of Plumstead and Plumstead Common.

86 Given the lack of consensus in this area, we are not persuaded to make any changes to our proposed ward names. We note that it is within the power of the Council to change the names (but not the boundaries) of wards on their own initiative.

Shooters Hill 87 We received broad support for this ward, including from the Conservatives, a joint submission from Councillors Thorpe and Merrill, and Clive Efford MP. The Liberal Democrats and the Labour Group did not comment specifically on this ward in their submissions. Mr Efford noted that the Shrewsbury Park and Barnfield Estates have particularly strong community identities, which are respected by our proposals.

88 A number of residents on High Grove indicated a preference to remain within Shooters Hill ward. Little evidence of community identity with areas on the far side of Clothworkers Wood or the golf club was provided. The single submission received did not suggest an alternative boundary which would meet the residents’ desire and maintain good electoral equality. We have therefore not been persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area.

23

89 As discussed above (paras 66–67), we have altered the southern boundary of Shooters Hill ward in a manner that does not directly affect any electors.

90 Plumstead & Glyndon, Plumstead Common and Shooters Hill wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026, and we confirm these recommendations as final.

24

Abbey Wood and Thamesmead

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Abbey Wood 3 9% Thamesmead Moorings 2 3% West Thamesmead 2 -1%

Abbey Wood 91 The few submissions we received for this area welcomed our proposals. The Liberal Democrats noted that Abbey Wood, together with the neighbouring Plumstead & Glyndon ward, had relatively high electoral variances at 9% more electors per councillor than the borough average. This remains, barely, within the bounds of what we consider to be good electoral equality. We note that any attempt to improve the electoral equality in these areas would be arbitrary and would result in wards which were a poorer reflection of community identity.

25

92 One resident and the Positive Plumstead Project noted that our proposed boundaries run along roads such as Manton Road and Woodhurst Road that are not, of themselves, major roads that would offer very clear and recognisable boundaries. We accept this point, but note that in many cases major roads do not exist that would divide communities into neat wards with good electoral equality. We consider that our proposals for Abbey Wood continue to reflect the best available balance of our statutory criteria, and we confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.

Thamesmead Moorings and West Thamesmead 93 We received broad support for these wards, with Greenwich Conservatives describing them as ‘an improvement on [their] original proposals’, and the majority of residents who commented in this area supporting our recommendations. As discussed above (paras 82–83), we received suggestions to move a small section of West Thamesmead ward into Plumstead to accommodate a new development site; however, we were not persuaded to alter our recommendations in this area.

94 One resident on Erebus Drive stated that they felt closer to Woolwich rather than West Thamesmead in terms of shopping and dining. This resident did not offer an alternative boundary. We note that vehicular access from Erebus Drive into Woolwich requires travelling through Pier Way, Broadwater Road and Tom Cribb Road, in West Thamesmead ward, with no direct access into Woolwich. We have not been persuaded to change our draft recommendations in this area.

95 Abbey Wood, Thamesmead Moorings and West Thamesmead wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026, and we confirm our draft recommendations in this area as final.

26

Woolwich

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Woolwich Arsenal 3 -4% Woolwich Common 2 4% Woolwich Dockyard 2 8%

96 Responses to the consultation in this area focused on the internal boundaries between the three Woolwich wards and how best to reflect community identity. Responses were broadly supportive of the external boundaries. Woolwich Arsenal and Woolwich Common 97 We received a significant number of objections to our draft recommendations in this area, with the Labour Group, Matthew Pennycook MP, Len Duvall AM, the Labour Group and a number of residents arguing that our draft recommendations for

27

these wards did not reflect the community identity of Woolwich Town Centre or provide for effective and convenient local government. The Wick Tower Residents’ Association also supported this view.

98 Our draft recommendations were supported by the Greenwich Conservatives and Liberal Democrats, as well as a small number of residents. The Conservatives argued that our draft recommendations meant that ‘the bulk’ of the Town Centre is within our proposed Woolwich Town ward. The Conservative submission also noted that this ward would represent the developing community around Spray Street and that this area would share transport links with the Woolwich Arsenal site.

99 Approximately 40 residents, together with Matthew Pennycook MP and the Labour Group, noted that our draft recommendations, with a boundary along the A206 Plumstead Road and the railway line, had the effect of creating a two-member ward tightly focused on new developments around the Royal Arsenal site. They argued that this did not reflect the community identity of the wider Woolwich Town Centre, which has retail and dining facilities on both sides of our proposed boundary. Some residents also argued that Woolwich Arsenal station should have its main entrance in the ward of the same name.

100 Some residents suggested that our proposals could lead to ‘gentrification’ of the Woolwich Arsenal area. This is not something that we can take into consideration – under our statutory criteria we aim to reflect the identity of communities without commenting on the nature of these communities.

101 Some residents suggested a boundary running along Grand Depot Road and Woolwich New Road would reflect the community identity of central Woolwich more effectively. However, this proposal would not offer good electoral equality, with Woolwich Town and Woolwich Arsenal wards having electoral variances of -15% and 15%, respectively.

102 Matthew Pennycook MP and the Labour Group proposed a boundary further to the south, running along Sandy Hill Road and Crescent Road, which offers good electoral equality between Woolwich Arsenal and the ward to the south. Under this proposal, Woolwich Arsenal would become a three-councillor ward with 2% fewer electors than average; the remaining Woolwich Town ward would become a two- councillor ward with no variance from the average. However, the proposal splits some relatively small residential roads in a way which we consider does not reflect community identity or provide a strong and clear boundary. We note that Councillor Gardner provided evidence that Crescent Road looks towards the rest of the Burrage area for its community identity.

28

103 Having taken into account the evidence received in relation to this wider Woolwich area we are persuaded to alter our draft recommendations. We consider that an enlarged Woolwich Arsenal ward offers a better reflection of community identity, and promotes effective and convenient local government by bringing the entirety of Woolwich Town Centre within a single ward. Given the change in focus of our previously proposed Woolwich Town ward, we propose re-naming the amended ward to Woolwich Common.

104 We propose to modify the boundary offered by Matthew Pennycook MP and the Labour Group, to run behind St Peter’s RC Primary School and the properties on Crescent Road. We consider that not dividing this street offers a better reflection of community identity and still provides for good electoral equality.

105 In our draft recommendations, we specifically asked for further evidence regarding the boundary between Woolwich Town/Common ward and Shooters Hill. Most of the limited evidence we received in this area supported our proposed boundary. Greenwich Conservatives suggested that a few properties on Eglinton Road, which were part of the Woolwich Common Estate as defined by the Council, could move into Woolwich Town/Common ward in order to fully reflect the community identity of the estate. However, we note that these properties would have no direct vehicular access to the remainder of Woolwich Common ward, and we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area.

Woolwich Dockyard 106 We received broad support for this proposed ward, with Greenwich Conservatives and Matthew Pennycook MP supporting the draft recommendations. The Liberal Democrats also supported our proposed ward but noted that growth over the next few years could lead to problems with poor electoral equality.

107 We propose one minor change to our draft recommendations for the boundary of this ward. This is to include two blocks on Hillreach within Woolwich Dockyard ward rather than being isolated on the northern side of Woolwich Common. This change, affecting 39 electors, was suggested in the Conservative submission, has a minor effect on electoral equality, and we consider it improves the community identity of both Woolwich Dockyard and Woolwich Common wards.

108 Woolwich Arsenal, Woolwich Common and Woolwich Dockyard wards are all forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026, and we confirm these recommendations as final.

29

Charlton

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors Charlton Hornfair 2 8% Charlton Village & Riverside 2 -5%

Charlton Hornfair 109 We received broad support for this ward, with Greenwich Conservatives, the Liberal Democrats and Matthew Pennycook MP offering support for our proposed boundaries, together with the Charlton Neighbourhood Forum and The Charlton Society.

110 A small number of residents suggested that the B210 could provide a more effective boundary between the two Charlton wards, but this would not offer good electoral equality with two-member wards, and would result in a single-member ward

30

south of the B210. Evidence from both stages of the consultation indicated that single-member wards in Greenwich would not provide for effective and convenient local government, and we have therefore not adopted this suggestion.

111 Matthew Pennycook MP suggested renaming this ward ‘Charlton Slopes & Hornfair’, recognising the Charlton Slopes area in the ward name. However, we received submissions from residents of the Slopes area supporting both the boundaries and name of this proposed ward. We are therefore not persuaded to change our proposed name for this ward.

Charlton Village & Riverside 112 We received broad support for the southern and eastern boundaries of this ward. However, the evidence we received was more balanced with regard to the north-western boundary between this ward and our proposed Greenwich Peninsula ward.

113 The Charlton Neighbourhood Forum and the Charlton Society supported the extension of this ward westward, as far as the Angerstein railway spur. This is a largely retail-based area on either side of Bugsby’s Way but also includes around 1,500 electors on Woolwich Road, Gurdon Road and neighbouring streets. The transfer of these electors from Greenwich Peninsula ward would leave both Greenwich Peninsula and Charlton Village & Riverside wards with poor electoral equality, with electoral variances of approximately -20% and 20%, respectively. We have considered consequential changes, but given the broad support for the remaining boundaries of Charlton Village & Riverside, have not been persuaded to make that change to our draft recommendations.

114 Based on the submission of a resident, we divided Greenwich Peninsula and Charlton Village & Riverside wards along Victoria Way in our draft recommendations. Greenwich Conservatives supported this proposal, noting that this allowed the entire Woolwich Road Estate to be combined in a single ward. However, Matthew Pennycook MP argued that the entire area between Woolwich Road and the railway line was a single community which should not be split, citing such unifying features as the Rose of Denmark pub and the new Synergy development providing direct access between Rathmore Road and the Gurdon Road area.

115 Mr Pennycook argued that although the community identity of this area was ambiguous between Charlton and Greenwich, it was a single community that should not be split, particularly as Victoria Way did not offer a particularly strong boundary. This view was supported by a resident, who also cited links to the neighbouring retail parks.

116 We have carefully considered all the submissions received. While we consider that the evidence in this area is finely balanced, we are persuaded to alter our draft

31

recommendations and place the Troughton and Rathmore Road area within Greenwich Peninsula ward. We have adopted the submission of Matthew Pennycook MP that this is a single community which, if possible, should not be split. Once this decision is taken, the requirements of electoral equality dictate that this area should be place within Greenwich Peninsula, rather than Charlton Village & Riverside ward.

117 Charlton Hornfair and Charlton Village & Riverside wards are forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026, and we confirm these recommendations as final.

32

Greenwich Town

Number of Ward name Variance 2026 councillors East Greenwich 3 -4% Greenwich Creekside 2 4% Greenwich Park 2 1% Greenwich Peninsula 3 -4%

East Greenwich and Greenwich Peninsula 118 We received almost unanimous support for our proposed wards in this area, which largely split the existing, over-sized Peninsula ward. Residents noted that the issues facing East Greenwich and the Peninsula were somewhat different. They supported both the creation and the boundaries of an East Greenwich ward. This support was replicated by Matthew Pennycook MP, Greenwich Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

33

119 Two residents suggested that the name of this ward should change, with one noting that ‘East Greenwich’ may have had negative connotations historically. However, given the widespread support expressed for this ward, and the lack of evidence for any particular alternative name, we are not persuaded to alter our draft recommendations for the ward name.

120 Other than the boundary with Charlton Village & Riverside, discussed above (paras 113–116), we received one alternative proposal for the boundary, of Greenwich Peninsula ward. This did not offer good electoral equality, and we have not been persuaded to alter our draft recommendations in this area.

Greenwich Creekside and Greenwich Park 121 We received broad support for these wards, with residents welcoming the recognition of the different communities to the west of Greenwich Park. One resident argued that our proposals ‘split old and historic from new build’ and suggested a boundary along the A2211. However, this would not offer good electoral equality, and would not reflect community identity as we understand it from other submissions which welcomed our decision to keep the ‘Hills and Vales’ area together in one ward.

122 Councillor Smith suggested that the Meridian Estate, proposed to be in Greenwich Creekside ward, should be included in the Greenwich Park ward. He cited links to the town centre facilities and issues around busking and noise which could cause problems for residents uncertain which councillor was responsible for this situation.

123 We considered this suggestion carefully, but note that the proposal would involve moving roughly 800 electors and leave Greenwich Creekside with 14% fewer electors than average in the absence of any other changes. We do not consider that this departure from electoral equality is justified by the evidence provided, or that there are any plausible consequential changes that could restore good electoral equality. We have therefore not adopted this proposal.

124 In our draft recommendations report, we specifically requested further evidence on whether Vanbrugh Castle should be placed in Greenwich Park ward to ensure that the entire World Heritage Site was within a single ward. Evidence from Greenwich Conservatives confirmed our view that the strong boundary of the eastern edge of the park outweighed the ‘minor inconvenience’ of this portion of the World Heritage Site being in a different ward. We therefore have not altered our draft recommendations in this area.

125 A small number of residents commented on our proposed name for Greenwich Creekside ward, noting that the creek in question is Deptford Creek, not Greenwich Creek. Given the relative lack of support for any alternative name, and the multiple

34

submissions received supporting our draft proposals, we are not persuaded to alter the name of this ward. 126 Greenwich Creekside and Greenwich Park wards are forecast to have good electoral equality by 2026, and we confirm these recommendations as final.

35

Conclusions 127 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final recommendations on electoral equality in Greenwich, referencing the 2020 and 2026 electorate figures against the proposed number of councillors and wards. A full list of wards, names and their corresponding electoral variances can be found at Appendix A to the back of this report. An outline map of the wards is provided at Appendix B.

Summary of electoral arrangements

Final recommendations

2020 2026 Number of councillors 55 55 Number of electoral wards 23 23 Average number of electors per councillor 3,549 3,958 Number of wards with a variance more than 10% 8 1 from the average Number of wards with a variance more than 20% 3 0 from the average

Final recommendations Greenwich Council should be made up of 55 councillors serving 23 wards representing 14 two-councillor wards and nine three- councillor wards. The details and names are shown in Appendix A and illustrated on the large map accompanying this report.

Mapping Sheet 1, Map 1 shows the proposed wards for Greenwich. You can also view our final recommendations for Greenwich on our interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk

36

37

What happens next? 128 We have now completed our review of Greenwich. The recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament. Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into force at the local elections in 2022.

38

39

Equalities 129 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.

40

41

Appendices Appendix A Final recommendations for Greenwich Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % 1 Abbey Wood 3 11,360 3,787 7% 12,916 4,305 9% Blackheath 2 3 11,723 3,908 10% 12,195 4,065 3% Westcombe

3 Charlton Hornfair 2 8,222 4,111 16% 8,579 4,290 8%

Charlton Village & 4 2 7,152 3,576 1% 7,516 3,758 -5% Riverside 5 East Greenwich 3 10,084 3,361 -5% 11,374 3,791 -4%

6 Eltham Page 2 6,888 3,444 -3% 7,176 3,588 -9% Eltham Park & 7 2 8,067 4,034 14% 8,451 4,226 7% Progress Eltham Town & 8 3 11,342 3,781 7% 11,916 3,972 0% Avery Hill Greenwich 9 2 7,746 3,873 9% 8,194 4,097 4% Creekside

10 Greenwich Park 2 7,721 3,861 9% 8,008 4,004 1%

42

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % Greenwich 11 3 6,595 2,198 -38% 11,416 3,805 -4% Peninsula 12 Kidbrooke Park 2 7,375 3,688 4% 7,704 3,852 -3% Kidbrooke Village 13 2 3,848 1,924 -46% 7,208 3,604 -9% & Sutcliffe Middle Park & 14 2 6,758 3,379 -5% 7,044 3,522 -11% Horn Park Mottingham, 15 Coldharbour & 3 10,739 3,580 1% 11,191 3,730 -6% New Eltham Plumstead & 16 3 12,469 4,156 17% 12,901 4,300 9% Glyndon Plumstead 17 3 10,830 3,610 2% 11,254 3,751 -5% Common 18 Shooters Hill 2 8,150 4,075 15% 8,476 4,238 7% Thamesmead 19 2 7,881 3,941 11% 8,183 4,092 3% Moorings West 20 2 6,630 3,315 -7% 7,847 3,924 -1% Thamesmead 21 Woolwich Arsenal 3 8,307 2,769 -22% 11,362 3,787 -4%

Woolwich 22 2 7,751 3,876 9% 8,213 4,107 4% Common Woolwich 23 2 7,574 3,787 7% 8,584 4,292 8% Dockyard

43

Number of Variance Number of Variance Number of Electorate Electorate Ward name electors per from electors per from councillors (2020) (2026) councillor average % councillor average % Totals 55 195,212 – – 217,708 – –

Averages – – 3,549 – – 3,958 –

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

44

Appendix B Outline map

A more detailed version of this map can be seen on the large map accompanying this report, or on our website: www.lgbce.org.uk/all-reviews/greater-london/greater- london/greenwich

45

Appendix C Submissions received

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

Political Groups

• Greenwich Conservative Council Group & Greenwich Conservative Federation • Greenwich Labour Group • Greenwich Borough Liberal Democrats

Councillors • Councillor G. Brighty (Greenwich Council) • Councillor P. Brooks (Greenwich Council) • Councillor M. Clare (Greenwich Council) • Councillor C. Davis (Greenwich Council) • Councillor S. Drury (Greenwich Council) • Councillor L. Fletcher (Greenwich Council) • Councillor N. Fletcher (Greenwich Council) • Councillor D. Gardner (Greenwich Council) • Councillor P. Greenwell (Greenwich Council) • Councillor M. Hartley (Greenwich Council) • Councillor J. Hills (Greenwich Council) • Councillor M. Lolavar (Greenwich Council) • Councillor A. Smith (Greenwich Council) • Councillor R. Tester (Greenwich Council) • Councillors D. Thorpe & S. Merrill (Greenwich Council)

Members of Parliament

• Clive Efford MP (Eltham) • Matthew Pennycook MP (Greenwich & Woolwich)

London Assembly Member

• Len Duvall OBE AM (Greenwich & Lewisham)

46

Local Organisations

• Charlton Neighbourhood Forum • The Charlton Society • Eltham Park Residents’ Association • The Eltham Society • Friends of Coldharbour Open Spaces • Friends of Fairy Hill Park • Friends of Southwood Park • Mottingham Residents’ Association • Old Page Estate Residents’ Association • Positive Plumstead Project • Progress Estate Residents’ Association • Riefield Road Residents’ Association • South Greenwich Forum • Wick Tower Residents’ Association

Local Residents

• 751 local residents

47

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

48

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

49

Local Government Boundary Commission for The Local Government Boundary England Commission for England (LGBCE) was set 1st Floor, Windsor House up by Parliament, independent of 50 Victoria Street, London Government and political parties. It is SW1H 0TL directly accountable to Parliament through a committee chaired by the Speaker of the Telephone: 0330 500 1525 House of Commons. It is responsible for Email: [email protected] conducting boundary, electoral and Online: www.lgbce.org.uk structural reviews of local government. www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk Twitter: @LGBCE