New electoral arrangements for Bromley CouncilDraft recommendationsOctober 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

1

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

(Chair)

• Andrew Scallan CBE

(Deputy Chair)

• Susan Johnson OBE

• Peter Maddison QPM

• Amanda Nobbs OBE

• Steve Robinson

• Jolyon Jackson CBE

(Chief Executive)

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.

2

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).

3

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

2 September 2019 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and

forming draft recommendations

29 October 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second

consultation

6 January 2020 End of consultation; we begin analysing submissions and

forming final recommendations

3 March 2020 Publication of final recommendations

4

5

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

councillor 4,044 4,296

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.

6

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

7

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.

8

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.

9

Penge

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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

10

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.

11

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.

12

Beckenham and Shortlands

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

Beckenham Town & Copers Cope 3 -3%

Kelsey & Eden Park 3 -8%

Shortlands 3 -3%

13

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.

14

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.

15

Bromley Town, Bickley and Plaistow & Sundridge

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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

16

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

17

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.

18

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.

19

Chislehurst, Mottingham and the Cray Valley

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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.

20

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.

21

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.

22

Chelsfield, Farnborough, Crofton, Orpington and Petts Wood

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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.

23

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.

24

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.

25

Biggin Hill and Darwin

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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

26

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.

27

Bromley Common & Holwood, Hayes and West Wickham

Ward name Number of

councillors Variance 2025

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

28

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.

29

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.

30

31

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%

from the average 1 0

Number of wards with a variance more than 20%

from the average 0 0

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

32

33

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 reviews@lgbce.org.uk 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.

34

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

35

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.

36

37

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.

38

39

Appendices

Appendix A

Draft recommendations for Bromley Council

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2025)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

1 Beckenham Town

& Copers Cope 3 12,052 4,017 -4% 12,511 4,170 -3%

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%

4 Bromley Common

& Holwood 3 13,813 4,604 10% 13,704 4,568 6%

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%

8 Clock House &

Elmers End 3 12,393 4,131 -1% 12,184 4,061 -5%

9 Crystal Palace &

Anerley 2 7,954 3,977 -5% 8,381 4,191 -2%

10 Darwin 1 4,167 4,167 0% 4,261 4,261 -1%

11 Farnborough &

Crofton 3 13,533 4,511 8% 13,791 4,597 7%

12 Hayes & Coney

Hall 3 12,176 4,059 -3% 12,226 4,075 -5%

40

Ward name Number of

councillors

Electorate

(2019)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

Electorate

(2025)

Number of

electors per

councillor

Variance

from

average %

13 Kelsey & Eden

Park 3 11,642 3,881 -7% 11,891 3,964 -8%

14 Mottingham &

Chislehurst North 2 7,904 3,952 -6% 8,087 4,044 -6%

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%

18 Plaistow &

Sundridge 3 13,515 4,505 8% 13,900 4,633 8%

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.

41

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

42

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

43

Local Residents

• 48 local residents

44

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

45

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

arrangements

The total number of councillors on any

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

Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, pleasecontact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525

Email: reviews@lgbce.org.uk

Licensing:The mapping in this report is based upon Ordnance Survey material with thepermission of Ordnance Survey on behalf of the Keeper of Public Records © Crowncopyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyrightand 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 effortshave been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report arerepresentative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variationsbetween these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or thedigital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in whichthe final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to eitherthe large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness ofthe boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map orthe digital mapping should always appear identical.

The Local Government BoundaryCommission for England (LGBCE) was setup by Parliament, independent ofGovernment and political parties. It isdirectly accountable to Parliament through acommittee chaired by the Speaker of theHouse of Commons. It is responsible forconducting boundary, electoral andstructural reviews of local government.

Local Government Boundary Commission forEngland1st Floor, Windsor House 50 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0TL

Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: reviews@lgbce.org.ukOnline: www.lgbce.org.uk orwww.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE