ELECTORAL REVIEW OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY THE COUNCIL’S PROPOSALS FOR A NEW PATTERN OF ELECTORAL WARDS IN THE LONDON BOROUGH OF BEXLEY Section 1 Introduction The Council on 23 rd July 2014 resolved to seek a review of the electoral arrangements in the London Borough of Bexley on the basis of a proposal that the number of elected members of the Council should be reviewed to allow appropriate representation to best support residents. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (“the Commission”) agreed that it would undertake a review of the London Borough of Bexley’s electoral arrangements. Initial meetings and briefings were conducted by the Commission in February 2015. The Council’s Constitution provides that General Purposes Committee is responsible for elections and electoral matters. On 14 th April that Committee agreed that a Working Group consisting of elected Members of the Council would meet to consider key issues with a view to reaching a consensus on the submissions to be made by the Council. The Working Group met on 2 nd June 2015 and 28 th July 2015 and its discussions informed the submission on Council size. The Council in its submission, with unanimous support from all political groups, proposed that the number of elected Councillors should be reduced from 63 to 45. The Commission has indicated that it is minded to recommend that 45 borough councillors should be elected to the London Borough of Bexley in future and on 8 th September opened its consultation inviting proposals for a new pattern of electoral wards to accommodate those councillors. The consultation period ends on 16 th November 2015. The Working Group also met on 29 th October to consider any proposals that the political groups wished to share with a view to establishing whether consensus could be reached on all or part of the warding arrangements to be submitted. Although draft proposals were shared by the Conservative Group and UKIP Group, the Labour Group did not share their proposals. The Council’s General Purposes Committee met on 12 th November and agreed the proposals set out in this report as the submission on behalf of the Council. Section 2 Projections of Electoral Numbers The Council set out in the Appendix to its submission on size the methodology that it had adopted in determining its projections of electoral numbers in 2021. This document and the projections are attached as Appendix 1 to this submission for ease of reference. Overall we forecast that the electorate will increase by 9,750 residents aged 18 and over from 2015 to 2021, a 5.4% increase to 189,189. Based on a number of councillors of 45, this gives an average number of electors to councillors of 4,204. Section 3 The Statutory Criteria In developing these proposals, the Council has been mindful of the statutory criteria that the Commission will apply when making its recommendations, namely:- • Electoral equality (a consistent number of electors per Councillor); An electoral review must as far as is practicable deliver electoral equality where all Councillors in a local authority area represent a similar number of electors. The proposals in this submission deliver excellent electoral equality with all proposed wards being within +/- 10% of the average number of electors per councillor, based on projections of electoral numbers for 2021. Of the 19 proposed wards only two wards have variances in excess of +/-7%, with 10 under +/-3%. The highest variance is in the proposed ward of Thamesmead East at -8.8%. In February 2015 the Mayor of London gave his backing to a new housing zone here, but only some of the anticipated supply of houses from this initiative is within the scope of the electoral numbers projections for this review. However, the variation gives sufficient margin for substantial population growth in this ward on top of the amount predicted, should the early phases of delivery (in respect of which the size and timing are currently not known) deliver more properties occupied by electors than projected. The proposed ward of Crayford with Barnehurst has the only other high variance at 8.5%. These two communities are closely linked and it would be difficult to conveniently divide the ward into separate parts within acceptable variances. Consequently the high variance is considered reasonable for administrative convenience. Predicted growth in the electorate up to 2021 is highest in the proposed wards of Picardy at +40% (due to the Erith Quarry development), Erith & Slade Green (due to the Howbury development) at +13% and North End (due to the Erith Park development) at +11%. Where any proposal varies from the target number of electors, we have justified such variance on the grounds of other statutory criteria set out below. • Community identity (strong ward boundaries that reflect communities); We have in our proposals included information about the transport links, community groups, facilities, identifiable boundaries and shared interests where relevant to defining community identity of a proposed ward. The proposals in this submission ensure that areas which have a community identity are contained within a single ward, as far as electoral equality allows. Where the nature of the neighbourhood and community interests are aligned, some neighbourhoods have been included together in a single ward to achieve this. • Effective and convenient local government (coherent wards with good internal transport links). The proposals take account of the particular geographical and infrastructure features of the borough, specifically major trunk roads, railway lines, open spaces and rivers. The proposals explain where these features are considered to be an impediment to effective and convenient local government, e.g. because they make travel to different locations difficult or act as natural or recognised boundaries to communities. This submission describes the rationale for each proposed ward and presents evidence in relation to each of these criteria. Section 4 The rationale for proposals In considering these proposals and the proper application of the statutory criteria, a number of factors have influenced the formulation of proposals. • The geography and infrastructure of the Borough The Borough has a number of features which in some areas act as considerable barriers or obstacles to movement from one area to the other and therefore in our view should mark the boundaries of wards. Specifically these features include: o The A2 and A20 are major roads (dual carriageways) providing excellent links to London or Kent. Whilst the A20 provides the Southern boundary to the borough, the A2 runs West/East through the middle of the borough with only three road intersections and few other effective crossing points such as bridges, crossings or subways,. o Major trunk roads in the north of the borough also act as barriers to effective communication to different degrees. o There are three train lines that run West/East across the borough from London to Dartford. ° The Sidcup loop line runs from New Eltham through Sidcup, Albany Park, Bexley, Crayford and then on to Dartford. ° The Bexleyheath line runs from Falconwood through Welling, Bexleyheath, Barnehurst then to Dartford. For these two lines there are few road crossings. ° The North Kent line runs from Abbey Wood through Belvedere, Erith, Slade Green then on to Dartford. For much of the route of this line, major roads run parallel to the track, further reinforcing the barrier. o Parks and open spaces are numerous in the Borough. The largest of these are Danson Park and Foots Cray Meadows, both of which are particular barriers, especially when flanked by significant roads. There are some spaces which by contrast act as a focal point such as the Green in Falconwood or Golden Acre in Bexley. o Rivers such as the Cray and Shuttle in the south in places act as natural boundaries o The escarpment to the north of the borough delineates the flood plain there and has impacted on where communities have developed. At the western edge at Lesnes Abbey Woods, the steepness of the escarpment is a very significant barrier (and was a major reason for an independent Inspector refusing the construction of the Thames Gateway Bridge proposed for Gallions Reach in 2007). The escarpment runs from there to Franks Park becoming less steep as it swings towards Erith. In each of the proposed wards, we have indicated how these features impact on the proposed ward. • Improving representation of our town centres It seems to the Council sensible that the interests of the larger town centres which act as hubs for the community around them, will drive growth and prosperity in the borough and in respect of which a range of issues such as planning and licensing are key, should be clearly represented by creating wards with enough Councillors to provide effective representation on common issues that impact on the local community. The current arrangements for town centres do not provide clear and effective representation. For example, in Welling 4 wards converge at Welling Corner so that an issue affecting the High Street might be relevant to 12 Councillors. • Communities recognised by their residents The Council has sought in this submission to ensure that wards reflect the areas and neighbourhoods that residents recognise and refer to in their daily lives. This recognition, in our view, is based on identification with the local area and its people, demonstrating a community identity based on shared interests, facilities and associations (e.g. primary schools, local shops, community centres, libraries etc.). Bexley’s residents are very much more settled than in many Boroughs and exhibit strong allegiance to an area. • Single Member Wards The Council is of the view that only in exceptional cases will single member wards provide effective and convenient local government in Bexley.