The Boundary Commission for England (BCE), on 17 October 2017, published proposals for new Parliamentary constituency boundaries and opened its third and final consultation:
"Following a decision by Parliament to reduce the number of constituencies in the UK to 600 from 650, and to ensure that the number of electors in each constituency is equal, the BCE has been asked to make independent recommendations about where the boundaries of English constituencies should be.
An initial 12-week consultation was held in the autumn last year, giving the public the first chance to view and comment on BCE’s plans, followed by a second consultation in the Spring of this year. Over 25,000 public responses were received during these consultations. Based on what the public have told us about their local communities, we have decided to revise over half of our initial proposals.
"From today (17 October), people can go to the BCE’s website,
www.bce2018.org.uk, to view the new plans we have published. All the public comments we received during the first two consultations are also published on the website."
London proposal details are
here.
People have until 11 December to have their say.
Have your say by 'making a comment' on
this page
See below for the responses about Walthamstow from last autumn [Page numbers refer to the
pdf on the Commission website], or . . .
Scroll right down to see the
Revised proposals as they affect Walthamstow
- spoiler alert: our responses were very effective -
it remains exactly as it is plus Forest ward.
Responses about Walthamstow
[p4] In light of the responses to our initial
proposals, we have revised 27 of our initial
proposals in the North Thames sub-region,
where we have been able to increase the
number of existing constituencies retained
to four: Hornchurch and Upminster, Ilford
South, Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, and
Twickenham. In particular, we have tried to
address significant concerns from the local
communities in Chingford and Woodford,
Walthamstow, Dagenham and Rainham,
Enfield and Southgate, and Harrow. In
attempting to address issues raised with our
proposals for Enfield, our revised proposals
split one ward – Brunswick Park – between
constituencies. We have made a number
of other changes based on the views of
local communities.
[p13] 3.13 The main areas of opposition to the
initial proposals were in the constituencies
of Dagenham and Rainham, Romford,
Walthamstow, Chingford and Woodford,
Finchley and Southgate, Tottenham,
Hampstead and Golders Green, Ruislip,
Northwood and Pinner, and Harrow and
Stanmore. In seeking to address these
issues our assistant commissioners
have considered counter-proposals
from a wide section of those who have
given evidence during the initial and
secondary consultations
3.15 The Liberal Democrat Party
(BCE-28274) proposed to retain 21
of the proposed constituencies, but
did not seek to address the issues of
Chingford and Woodford (Bridge ward),
or Walthamstow, instead moving Higham
Hill and William Morris wards along with
Chapel End ward into a Chingford and
Walthamstow constituency.
[p16] 3.28 Turning to our initial proposals
for the constituencies of Chingford
and Woodford Green, Walthamstow,
Leytonstone and Wanstead, and Ilford
North, these are a complex, inter-related
set of proposals. In our initial proposals,
Ilford North retained six wards from the
existing constituency and gained three
wards from the Ilford South constituency
to bring it into range. There was significant
opposition to this as Ilford North and
Ilford South are viewed as the ‘capital’
of Redbridge Borough. Clifford Harris
(BCE-34266) among other respondents
stated: ‘Ilford is a large distinct place
that is served well by being split into two
constituencies (Ilford North and South). It
is the capital of LB Redbridge.’ This was
further reinforced by the representation of
John Bryant (BCE-32650) on day one of
the Romford public hearing: ‘A key element
of these proposals is that the existing
Ilford South seat can actually be left
completely unchanged and I think that is
quite a positive thing because Ilford South,
as it stands at the moment, is beautifully
defined by the Redbridge boundary and
the A12 and the River Roding. It is within
quota. One would suggest that this is the
kind of seat that ought to be left unaltered
if that is possible and my plan does
achieve this.’
[p18] 3.33 In response to the initial proposals
there was also opposition to the
Leytonstone and Wanstead constituency,
to which we had added the Forest,
Leytonstone, and Wood Street wards. Ruth
Lukom (BCE-19833) was representative
of many respondents, stating: ‘I wish to
object to the proposed changes to the
Walthamstow constituency. Wood Street
is an integral part of the borough.’
3.34 The initial proposals for the
Walthamstow constituency also received
significant opposition due to the loss of
Chapel End and Wood Street wards. The
main opposition to the Chapel End ward
being moved to the proposed Chingford
and Woodford constituency was that it is
the location of the Waltham Forest Town
Hall. Many respondents agreed with
Barbara de Lacy (BCE-35828), who said:
‘Chapel End should remain within Waltham
Forest. Chapel End’s identity is defined by
its vicinity to the Town Hall, the College,
Lloyd Park/William Morris Gallery — all
very much Walthamstow landmarks.’
3.35 The Labour Party (BCE-33244),
John Bryant (BCE-28336) and Pete
Whitehead (BCE-27879) also gave
support to this campaign. Their counter-proposals
returned both Chapel End and
Wood Street wards to the Walthamstow
constituency. This was brought into the
permitted electorate range by the addition
of Forest ward from the existing Leyton
and Wanstead constituency, for which
there was some support from Alex Hughes
(BCE-18985) and other respondents.
Mr Hughes stated: ‘I propose that
Walthamstow retains the constituency in
its current form, but with the addition of
Forest ward. This would make nine wards in all, giving an electorate of 71,280 (against
the minimum requirement of 71,031).’ Jane
Duran (BCE-25789) stated: ‘While I would
personally prefer to keep Forest ward
(where I have lived for over twenty years)
in the same constituency as Grove Green,
Leyton and Leytonstone it is clear that
would be unacceptable due to the tight
numbers that the Commission has to work
within and — within those parameters — it
is probably the most reasonable ward to
move into Walthamstow.’
3.36 In the initial proposals the Chingford
and Woodford Green constituency retained
its existing wards and was brought into the
permitted electorate range by the addition
of Chapel End ward from the Walthamstow
constituency. There was a campaign to
bring Bridge ward from the existing Ilford
North constituency into the proposed
Chingford and Woodford constituency. Iain
Duncan Smith MP (BCE-33101) submitted
a proposal for changes to the four
constituencies of Chingford and Woodford
Green, Walthamstow, Leytonstone and
Wanstead, and Ilford North.
3.36 In the initial proposals the Chingford
and Woodford Green constituency retained
its existing wards and was brought into the
permitted electorate range by the addition
of Chapel End ward from the Walthamstow
constituency. There was a campaign to
bring Bridge ward from the existing Ilford
North constituency into the proposed
Chingford and Woodford constituency. Iain
Duncan Smith MP (BCE-33101) submitted
a proposal for changes to the four
constituencies of Chingford and Woodford
Green, Walthamstow, Leytonstone and
Wanstead, and Ilford North.
[p19] 3.38 Mr Duncan Smith’s proposal is
in line with the proposed changes that
John Bryant has made to the Chingford
and Woodford Green constituency and is
supported by the Labour Party and Pete
Whitehead. This proposal can be facilitated
following the return of the Chapel End ward
to the Walthamstow constituency.
3.39 In considering the evidence
received regarding these constituencies,
the assistant commissioners noted in
particular the opposition to the removal
of the Ilford South constituency, and the
arguments that showed the break in local
ties in the Walthamstow and Woodford
areas. While acknowledging that it is
necessary to lose a constituency across
East London, they were persuaded by the
strength of feeling shown, and arguments
relating to communities that were voiced
at the Romford hearing in particular,
that changes were necessary to the
initial proposals.
3.40 They advised us that the
counter-proposal put forward by Iain
Duncan Smith MP, supported by,
or contiguous with, those of other
respondents, is the most appropriate in
this area. It has the benefit of reinstating
the broken local ties in Walthamstow and Woodford in particular, while providing a
better fit to existing constituencies. The
recommendations also fit with those for
the constituencies to the east and south,
as proposed by John Bryant. We therefore
accept the recommendations for Chingford
and Woodford, Walthamstow, Ilford North
and Wanstead, and Ilford South.
Annex A: Revised proposals for
constituencies, including wards
and electorates:
[p69]
63. Walthamstow BC 71,280
- Chapel End Waltham Forest 8,001
- Forest Waltham Forest 7,321
- High Street Waltham Forest 7,737
- Higham Hill Waltham Forest 8,197
- Hoe Street Waltham Forest 7,960
- Lea Bridge Waltham Forest 8,459
- Markhouse Waltham Forest 7,735
- William Morris Waltham Forest 7,597
- Wood Street Waltham Forest 8,273
