South East Initial proposals
Contents Initial proposals summary... 3 1. What is the Boundary Commission for England?... 5 2. Background to the 2013 Review... 6 3. Initial proposals for the South East region... 9 Initial proposals for the Berkshire sub-region... 10 Initial proposals for the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway sub-region... 10 Initial proposals for the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes sub-region... 13 Initial proposals for the Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton sub-region... 14 Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight sub-region... 16 Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub-region... 16 Initial proposals for the Surrey sub-region... 17 Initial proposals for the West Sussex sub-region... 17 4. How to have your say... 19 Annex: Initial proposals for constituencies, including wards and electorates... 22 Glossary... 49
Initial proposals summary Who we are and what we do The Boundary Commission for England is an independent and impartial non-departmental public body which is responsible for reviewing Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. 2013 Review We have the task of periodically reviewing the boundaries of all the Parliamentary constituencies in England. We are currently conducting a review on the basis of new rules laid down by Parliament. These rules involve a significant reduction in the number of constituencies in England (from 533 to 502), and require that every constituency apart from two specified exceptions 1 must have an electorate that is no smaller than 72,810 and no larger than 80,473 (please refer to A guide to the 2013 Review for details of how this has been calculated). Initial proposals We have now completed the first stage of the review process and have published our initial proposals for the new Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. Information about the proposed constituencies is now available on our website or in hard copy at a local place of deposit near you. What is changing in the South East? The South East region has been allocated 83 constituencies a reduction of one from the current arrangement. Our proposals leave 18 of the 84 existing constituencies unchanged. We propose only minor changes to a further 23 constituencies, with two wards or fewer altered from the existing constituencies. The rules that we work to state that we must allocate two constituencies to the Isle of Wight. Neither of these constituencies is required to have an electorate that is within the requirements on electoral size set out in the rules. Where it has not been feasible to allocate whole numbers of constituencies to individual counties, we have grouped local authority areas into sub-regions. The number of constituencies allocated to each sub-region is determined by the electorate of the combined local authorities. Sub-region Existing allocation Proposed allocation Berkshire 8 8 Brighton and 25 24 Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes 7 7 Hampshire, 18 17 Portsmouth, and Southampton Isle of Wight 1 2 Oxfordshire 6 6 Surrey 11 11 West Sussex 8 8 In Berkshire, six of the eight existing constituencies are unchanged, while the remaining two are changed only by the transfer of one ward. In Oxfordshire, Surrey, and West Sussex seven out of 25 of the existing constituencies are unchanged. In addition, for a number of other constituencies 1 The specified exceptions in England to the rules on constituency size are the two constituencies on the Isle of Wight. However, in all other aspects of the 2013 Review, the Isle of Wight is treated in the same way as other parts of England. South East 3
Initial proposals summary in these counties we have been able to identify constituencies which comply with the new rules by making only minor changes. In other cases, more substantial changes have proved to be necessary. We propose one constituency that contains electors from East Sussex and Kent, which combines the towns of Battle, Crowborough, and Cranbrook. We also propose one constituency that contains electors from the Borough of Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, two constituencies that contain electors from the City of Portsmouth and Hampshire, and three constituencies that contain electors from the City of Southampton and Hampshire. if you can propose alternatives for areas you disagree with that meet the statutory rules we set out in our report. You can find more details of how to respond on our website, or you can write to us direct or email southeast@bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk. You can also find details of where and when we will be holding public hearings in your area on our website. How to have your say We are consulting on our initial proposals for a 12-week period, from 13 September 2011 to 5 December 2011. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new constituencies the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we receive. We ask everyone wishing to contribute to the design of the new constituencies to first read the Initial proposals report and accompanying maps before responding to us. In particular, we would like to know: if you agree in full, in part or not at all with our initial proposals for the South East region; which sub-regions you agree with and why; which sub-regions you disagree with and why; and 4 South East
1. What is the Boundary Commission for England? 1. The Boundary Commission for England (BCE) is an independent and impartial nondepartmental public body, which is required by Parliament to review Parliamentary constituency boundaries in England. We conduct a review of all the constituencies in England every five years. Our role is to make recommendations to Parliament for new constituency boundaries. 2. The Chair of the Commission is the Speaker of the House of Commons, but by convention he or she does not participate in the formulation of the Commission s recommendations, nor in the conduct of the review. The Deputy Chair, Mr Justice Sales, and two further Commissioners take decisions on recommendations for new constituency boundaries. Further information about the Commissioners can be found in the About us section of our website. 2 3. Our website also contains all the information needed to view and comment on our initial proposals. You can also contact us with any general enquiries by emailing information@bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk, by calling 020 7276 1102, or by writing to: The Secretary to the Commission Boundary Commission for England 35 Great Smith Street London SW1P 3BQ 2 At www.consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/about-us/ South East 5
2. Background to the 2013 Review 4. In February 2011, the UK Parliament passed legislation 3 stating that all four Boundary Commissions covering the UK (there are separate Commissions for Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland) must conduct a review of Parliamentary constituency boundaries, and make recommendations to the Government, by October 2013. The four Commissions work separately, and this report covers only the work of the BCE and, in particular, introduces our initial proposals for the South East region. 5. Parliamentary constituency boundaries are important, as they define the area that a Member of Parliament will represent once elected to Parliament. The next General Election is expected to be in 2015 (as, at the time of writing and subject to legislation, the Government intends to introduce fixedterm Parliaments i.e. that last for five years). Therefore any recommendations we make, if accepted, are likely to be used for the first time at the General Election in 2015. 6. The legislation we work to states that there will be 600 Parliamentary constituencies covering the UK a reduction of 50 from the current number. For England, that means that the number of constituencies must reduce from 533 to 502. There are also new rules that the Commission has to adhere to when conducting the Review a full set of rules can be found in the BCE s A guide to the 2013 Review, 4 published in the summer of 2011, but they are also summarised later in this chapter. Most significantly, the rules state that every constituency we recommend (with the exception of two covering the Isle of Wight) must contain between 72,810 and 80,473 electors. 7. This is a significant change to the old rules under which Parliamentary boundary reviews took place, where achieving as close as possible to the average number of electors in each constituency was an aim but not an overriding legal necessity. For example, in England, constituencies currently range in electorate size from 55,077 to 110,924. Achieving a more even distribution of electors in every constituency across England, together with the reduction in the total number of constituencies, means that a significant amount of change to the existing map of constituencies is inevitable. 8. A Guide to the 2013 Review contains further detailed background, and explains all the policies and procedures that we are following in conducting the Review, in greater depth than in this consultation document. We encourage anyone wishing to be involved in the Review to read this document to enable greater understanding of the rules and constraints placed on the Commission, especially if they are intending to comment on our initial proposals. The rules in the legislation 9. The rules contained in the legislation state that every constituency in England (except two covering the Isle of Wight) must have an electorate of between 72,810 and 80,473 that is 5% either side of the electoral quota of 76,641. The legislation also states that when deciding on boundaries, the Commission may also take into account: a. special geographical considerations, including the size, shape and accessibility of a constituency; 3 The Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act 2011, available at www.legislation.gov.uk 4 Available at www.consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/publications and at all places of deposit 6 South East
2. Background to the 2013 Review b. local government boundaries as they existed on 6 May 2010; c. boundaries of existing constituencies; and d. any local ties that would be broken by changes in constituencies. 10. It is essential to understand that none of the factors mentioned in the list above overrides the necessity to achieve an electorate in each constituency that is within the range allowed, as explained previously. In particular, it should be noted that we are obliged to take into account local government boundaries as they existed in May 2010. Our initial proposals for the region and the accompanying maps are based on the wards as they existed in May 2010. A guide to the 2013 Review outlines further our policy on how, and to what extent, we take into account local government boundaries. We propose to use the local government districts and wards as at May 2010 as the basic building blocks for construction of constituencies. 11. We have also taken into account the boundaries of existing constituencies so far as we can. We have tried to retain existing constituencies as part of our initial proposals where possible, so long as the other factors can also be satisfied. As mentioned earlier in this chapter, because of the scale of change required to fulfil the obligations imposed on us by the new rules, this has proved difficult. Our initial proposals retain 21% of the existing constituencies in the South East region the remainder are new constituencies (although in a number of cases we have been able to limit the changes to existing constituencies, making only minor changes as necessary to enable us to comply with the new rules). The use of the regions used for European elections 12. Our proposals are based on the nine regions used for European elections. This report relates to the South East region. There are eight other separate reports containing our initial proposals for the other regions. In early 2011, following a consultation exercise on the issues, we decided to use these regions as a basis for working out our initial proposals. You can find more details in A guide to the 2013 Review and on our website. While this approach does not prevent anyone from making proposals to us that cross regional boundaries (for example, between the South East region and the South West region), in light of the reasons we have set out for the region-based approach and the level of support for this approach expressed in response to our consultation, we would need to have compelling reasons provided to us in order to persuade us to depart from the region-based approach. Timetable for the 2013 Review Stage one initial proposals 13. In March 2011 we published breakdowns of the electorate for each ward, local authority area, and existing constituency, which were prepared using electorate data provided by local authorities and the Office for National Statistics. These breakdowns are available on our website. 5 The Commission spent a number of months considering the factors outlined above and drawing up our initial proposals. We published our initial proposals for consultation for each of England s nine regions on 13 September 2011. 5 At www.consultation.boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk South East 7
2. Background to the 2013 Review Stage two consultation on initial proposals 14. We are consulting on our initial proposals for 12 weeks, until 5 December 2011. Chapter 4 outlines how you can contribute during the consultation period. We are also hosting five public hearings in the South East, at which people can give their views (see chapter 4). Once the consultation has closed, the Commission will collate all the responses received, including transcripts of the public hearings. Stage three consultation on representations received 15. The legislation requires us to publish all the representations we receive on our initial proposals. This publication will mark the start of a four-week period, likely to be in spring 2012, during which anyone can make further written representations with respect to the representations we have received and published. Once we have all the representations from both consultation periods, the Commission will analyse those representations and decide whether changes should be made to the initial proposals. throughout the Review, before making final recommendations to the Government. The legislation states we must do this by 1 October 2013. Further details about what the Government and Parliament must do to implement our recommendations are contained in A guide to the 2013 Review. 18. At the launch of each stage of consultation we will be taking all reasonable steps to publicise our proposals so that as many people as possible are aware of the consultation, and can take the opportunity to contribute to our review of constituencies. Stage four publication of revised proposals 16. If we decide that the evidence presented to us is such that it is appropriate to change our initial proposals, then we must (under the legislation) publish our revised proposals for the areas concerned, and consult on them for a further period of eight weeks. This is likely to be towards the end of 2012. During that consultation period, there is no provision for further public hearings, nor is there a repeat of the four-week period for commenting on the representations of others. Stage five final recommendations 17. Finally, following the consultation on revised proposals, we will consider all the evidence received at this stage, and 8 South East
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 19. The South East region comprises the counties of Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, East Sussex, Hampshire, Kent, Oxfordshire, Surrey, and West Sussex (which are covered by a mix of district and county councils, and unitary authorities) and the unitary authorities of Brighton and Hove, Isle of Wight, Medway, Milton Keynes, Portsmouth, and Southampton. 20. The region currently has 84 constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, 45 have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates of 30 constituencies fall below the 5% limit, while the electorates of nine constituencies are above the upper limit. As discussed in chapter 2, following our consultation on using the regions as the basis for our initial proposals, we have taken an initial decision that the South East region is to be allocated 83 constituencies, a reduction of one. 21. As discussed in chapter 2, the legislation we work to states that we must allocate two constituencies to the Isle of Wight. Neither of these constituencies is required to have an electorate that is within 5% of the electoral quota. 22. In seeking to produce initial proposals for the region in which 81 of the 83 constituencies have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota, we first considered whether, and how, the local authorities could usefully be grouped into sub regions. We were mindful of seeking to respect, where we could, the external boundaries of the local authorities. Our approach in attempting to group local authorities together in sub-regions was based both on trying to respect county boundaries wherever possible and on achieving (where we could) obvious practical groupings such as those dictated in some part by the geography of the area. 23. Our division of the South East region into sub-regions is a purely practical approach. Respondents to our consultation are welcome to make counter-proposals based on other groupings of counties and unitary authorities, if the statutory factors can be better reflected in those counter-proposals. 24. The City of Brighton and Hove has 195,038 electors which would result in an allocation of 2.54 constituencies. Given its historic links to East Sussex and the current configuration of constituencies, we initially considered whether it would be appropriate to consider Brighton and Hove together with East Sussex. With a joint electorate of 589,221, the combined area would require an allocation of eight constituencies. With an allocation of eight constituencies, the average electorate for each constituency would be 73,653, just 843 electors above the lower limit (72,810) of the 5% target. We considered that, in all likelihood, it might prove difficult to allocate eight constituencies all with electorates within the 5% target. We therefore considered whether we should group the City of Brighton and Hove and East Sussex with either Kent and Medway or West Sussex. 25. With an electorate of 602,338 it is possible to allocate eight constituencies to West Sussex, which is the same number as at present. The electorate of Kent and Medway is 1,235,505, and it is possible to allocate 16 constituencies, a reduction of one from the current situation. As there would need to be significant change to some of the constituencies in Kent to accommodate this reduction, we considered that grouping Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway into one sub-region, with an allocation of 24 constituencies, would be most appropriate. As a result our proposals contain one constituency which crosses the boundary between the City of Brighton and Hove and the County of East Sussex, and one constituency that crosses the boundary between East Sussex and Kent. South East 9
3. Initial proposals for the South East region One constituency also crosses the boundary between Kent and Medway (see the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway subregion). 26. The electorate of Milton Keynes, at 166,778, is too large to be contained within two whole constituencies. We therefore propose to group Milton Keynes with Buckinghamshire in one sub-region, given that Buckinghamshire is the only county in the South East region that Milton Keynes borders. With a combined electorate of 541,158, we propose to allocate seven constituencies to this sub-region, the same number as at present. Our proposals include one constituency which crosses the boundary between Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire (see the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes sub-region). 27. The area of Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton has an electorate of 1,312,952. This enabled us to develop a proposal in which 17 constituencies are allocated to the area without the need to cross the boundary of another county. Two of the constituencies cross the boundary between Hampshire and the City of Portsmouth and three cross the boundary between Hampshire and the City of Southampton (see the Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton sub-region). 28. The electorates of the counties of Berkshire, Oxfordshire, Surrey, and West Sussex enable each of them to be allocated a whole number of constituencies with electorates within 5% of the electoral quota, therefore allowing us to consider them individually. We accordingly propose that eight constituencies be allocated to Berkshire, six constituencies to Oxfordshire, eleven constituencies to Surrey, and eight constituencies to West Sussex. The number of constituencies allocated to each of these counties is the same as at present. 29. The term ward used throughout this document should be taken to mean electoral division in reference to the Isle of Wight. Initial proposals for the Berkshire sub-region 30. There are currently eight constituencies in this county. We are proposing no change to the number of constituencies. Of the existing constituencies, six have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. Of the remaining two constituencies, Slough is above the 5% limit and Windsor is below it. 31. We propose to keep unaltered all six constituencies that are within the 5% electoral quota (Bracknell, Maidenhead, Newbury, Reading East, Reading West, and Wokingham). 32. In order to reduce the large electorate of the Slough constituency and to increase the electorate of the neighbouring Windsor constituency, we propose to transfer the Foxborough ward of the Borough of Slough to our proposed Windsor constituency. We note that the neighbouring ward of the Borough of Slough, Colnbrook with Poyle, is already in the existing Windsor constituency. Apart from this one alteration, we propose no further changes in Berkshire. Initial proposals for the Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Kent, and Medway sub-region 33. There are currently 25 constituencies in this sub-region. Of the existing constituencies, 10 have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota (Bexhill and Battle; Brighton, Pavilion; Canterbury; Dartford; Eastbourne; Hastings and Rye; Rochester and Strood; Sittingbourne and Sheppey; Tunbridge Wells; and Wealden). Of the remaining constituencies, 13 have electorates that are below the 5% limit, and two are above it. We propose to reduce the number of constituencies to 24. 10 South East
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 34. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the 10 existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. However, in developing proposals in which all the proposed electorates are within the 5% limit, and taking account of the reduction in the number of constituencies in this subregion, we propose changing all but three constituencies (Eastbourne, Hastings and Rye, and Sittingbourne and Sheppey). We propose only minor changes to the constituencies of Ashford, Dartford, Dover, Folkestone and Hythe, Gillingham and Rainham, Gravesham, and Rochester, with two wards or fewer altered from the existing constituencies. 35. The existing constituencies of Hove and Brighton, Kemptown have electorates which are below the 5% limit. We therefore propose a reconfiguration within the City of Brighton and Hove. 36. We propose a constituency that includes three wards from the existing Hove constituency, four wards from the existing Brighton, Pavilion constituency and the Queen s Park ward from the existing Brighton, Kemptown constituency. We consider that this constituency brings together the central elements of the city. For reasons of clarity, we have taken a policy decision not to include commas in the names of constituencies. We therefore propose to name this constituency Brighton Pavilion and Hove. 37. We propose a Brighton and Hove North constituency which includes six wards from the existing Hove constituency and three wards from the existing Brighton, Pavilion constituency, including the Patcham area. 38. Due to the small electorates of the neighbouring Lewes and Brighton, Kemptown constituencies, we propose a Lewes and Brighton East constituency that contains eight wards from the existing Brighton, Kemptown constituency, four of which are City of Brighton and Hove wards, and four of which are District of Lewes wards. In addition, our proposed constituency includes a further eight wards of the District of Lewes, from the existing Lewes constituency. It broadly follows the path of the River Ouse along the eastern boundary and both parts of the constituency are accessed by the A27 road. 39. Due to the changes elsewhere, we propose an entirely new Uckfield constituency that contains 12 wards from the existing Wealden constituency. The proposed constituency extends to the Kent county boundary in the north and further to the south, and also includes ten wards from the existing Lewes constituency, covering the coastal towns of Newhaven and Seaford, and the Newick ward from the existing Lewes constituency in the west. 40. We propose a new Bexhill constituency comprising almost half of the existing Bexhill and Battle constituency: it includes 16 wards from that constituency, encompassing the towns of Bexhill and Heathfield. In addition, our Bexhill constituency includes three wards from the existing Wealden constituency, including the town of Hailsham, and two wards from the existing Lewes constituency covering the town of Polegate. 41. As previously mentioned, we propose retaining the existing Eastbourne and Hastings and Rye constituencies. 42. As a result of the changes we have made in East Sussex, we propose a constituency called The Weald that crosses the county boundary between Kent and East Sussex. We considered that the similarity of areas on both sides of the county boundary and the geographical nature of the Weald meant that this was the most suitable place in which South East 11
3. Initial proposals for the South East region to create a constituency across the county boundary. The proposed constituency includes the remaining six wards from the existing Bexhill and Battle constituency, including the town of Battle, and nine wards from the existing Wealden constituency, including the town of Crowborough. In addition, it includes seven Borough of Tunbridge Wells wards, including the town of Cranbrook. We consider that the A21 road that runs through the centre of the constituency provides a good link between its northern and southern parts. 43. As a consequence of our proposed The Weald constituency, the existing Tunbridge Wells constituency has to be reconfigured in order to have an electorate that is within 5% of the electoral quota. Our proposed Tunbridge Wells constituency includes 13 wards of the existing constituency, covering the town of Tunbridge Wells, six wards of the existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency, and the Westerham and Crockham Hill ward from the existing Sevenoaks constituency. 44. In order to increase the electorate of the Sevenoaks constituency, we propose to include all wards from the existing Sevenoaks constituency (apart from the Farningham, Horton Kirby and South Darenth ward, which we consider has links with Dartford, and the Westerham and Crockham Hill ward referred to above) in our proposed Sevenoaks constituency. We have also included four Borough of Tonbridge and Malling wards from the existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency with which there are strong communication links along the M26 motorway. 45. The existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency has been significantly reconfigured due to the changes elsewhere. Our proposed Tonbridge constituency includes 11 wards from the existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency and ten wards of the Borough of Maidstone from the Faversham and Mid Kent, and Maidstone and the Weald constituencies, as well as the Weald North ward from the existing Ashford constituency, which we considered was the most suitable. Apart from this transfer, we propose no further changes to the existing Ashford constituency. 46. Our proposed Maidstone constituency is significantly different from the existing Maidstone and The Weald constituency. We propose a more compact Maidstone constituency, comprising only Borough of Maidstone wards and respecting the northern boundary of the borough. 47. Our proposed Dartford constituency includes the Farningham, Horton Kirby and South Darenth ward of the District of Sevenoaks, from the existing Sevenoaks constituency, instead of the Hartley and Hodsoll Street ward of the District of Sevenoaks, which is transferred to the Gravesend constituency. Apart from this transfer, our proposed constituency of Gravesend remains unchanged from the existing constituency, save for the name change from Gravesham to Gravesend. 48. Our proposed Rochester constituency is largely unchanged, apart from the inclusion of the Chatham Central ward from the existing Chatham and Aylesford constituency, and the transfer of the Rochester South and Horsted ward to our proposed Chatham and Aylesford constituency. In addition, we propose to shorten the name to Rochester from the existing Rochester and Strood. 49. We propose a Gillingham and Rainham constituency that is largely unchanged apart from the inclusion of the Luton and Wayfield ward of the Borough of Medway from the existing Chatham and Aylesford constituency and the transfer of the Hempstead and Wigmore ward to our proposed Chatham and Aylesford constituency. 12 South East
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 50. We note that the Chatham Central ward is not included in our proposed Chatham and Aylesford constituency. However, we consider that some disruption in this area is unavoidable as our options are limited by the River Medway, the large electorates of the wards and the close proximity to each other of all the major towns. Our proposed Chatham and Aylesford constituency includes 11 wards of the existing constituency; a ward each from the existing Gillingham and Rainham, and Rochester and Strood constituencies, as previously discussed; and the two wards of East Malling, and West Malling and Leybourne from the existing Tonbridge and Malling constituency. 51. As previously mentioned, our proposed Sittingbourne and Sheppey constituency remains unchanged from the existing constituency. 52. In order to reduce the electorate of the Folkestone and Hythe constituency we propose the transfer of the Elham and Stelling Minnis, and North Downs East wards of the District of Shepway to the Dover constituency. This also allows us to increase the small electorate of the existing Dover constituency without making further changes to the existing constituency. 53. The changes we have suggested elsewhere in Kent have led us to propose a new Margate and Ramsgate constituency that contains the resort towns of Margate, Broadstairs, and Ramsgate. Our proposed constituency contains the majority of the existing South Thanet constituency. 54. As a consequence, on the North Kent coast the remainder of the wards in the existing North Thanet constituency, encompassing the towns of Herne Bay and Westgate-on-Sea, are included in our proposed Herne Bay constituency. This constituency also includes five wards from the existing Canterbury constituency and the ward of Little Stour and Ashstone of the District of Dover from the existing South Thanet constituency. 55. As a further result of the changes elsewhere, we propose a new Canterbury constituency that includes 13 wards from the existing constituency, including the City itself, and six wards from the existing Faversham and Mid Kent constituency, including the town of Faversham. The A2 road provides good communication links throughout the proposed constituency. Initial proposals for the Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes sub-region 56. As mentioned previously, we decided that Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire should be considered as one sub-region as it would not be necessary to cross the boundary with any other county. There are currently seven constituencies in this sub-region. We are proposing no reduction to the number of constituencies. 57. Of the existing constituencies, four have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. Of the remaining constituencies, Milton Keynes North and Milton Keynes South are above the 5% limit and Chesham and Amersham is below. 58. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the four existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. We propose keeping Beaconsfield the same as the existing constituency. 59. The Borough of Milton Keynes is currently divided into two constituencies, both of which have electorates above the 5% limit. In order to reduce the electorates of the two Milton Keynes constituencies it is necessary to South East 13
3. Initial proposals for the South East region cross the boundary between the Borough of Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire, and we therefore propose to include the Bletchley and Fenny Stratford, and Eaton Manor wards of the Borough of Milton Keynes in our proposed Buckingham constituency. We consider these two wards to be the most appropriate for inclusion in a cross-county constituency due to the communication links between the county and the borough. 60. As a consequence, we propose that our Milton Keynes North constituency include the two wards of Danesborough and Walton Park from the existing Milton Keynes South constituency and that, in turn, the two wards of Bradwell and Campbell Park be moved to the Milton Keynes South constituency, from the existing Milton Keynes North constituency. 61. The inclusion of the two Borough of Milton Keynes wards in the cross-county constituency has led us to move the Haddenham ward of the District of Aylesbury Vale and the Icknield and The Risboroughs wards of the District of Wycombe to our proposed Aylesbury constituency from the existing Buckingham constituency. This allows us to improve the shape of the existing Aylesbury constituency. 62. We propose that the Chesham and Amersham constituency, which currently has an electorate below the 5% electoral quota, include the wards of Greater Hughenden, and Lacey Green, Speen and the Hampdens of the District of Wycombe, from the south east of the existing Aylesbury constituency. Our proposed Wycombe constituency includes the wards of Bledlow and Bradenham, and Stokenchurch and Radnage. We consider that there are strong communication links within each of these two constituencies. Initial proposals for the Hampshire, Portsmouth, and Southampton sub-region 63. There are currently 18 constituencies in this sub-region, eight of which (Basingstoke; Eastleigh; Fareham; Gosport; New Forest East; North West Hampshire; Southampton, Itchen; and Winchester) have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates of all the remaining constituencies are below the lower 5% limit. We propose to allocate 17 constituencies to this sub-region, a reduction of one from the current arrangement. 64. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the eight existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. However, in developing proposals in which all constituency electorates are within 5% of the electoral quota we propose altering all but one of these constituencies Gosport. Our proposed Basingstoke constituency differs only to take account of a very small ward boundary alteration. 65. In the north of the county the constituencies we propose are not dissimilar to the existing constituencies; however, the shape and the electoral size of the wards, and the geographical features in the south of the county and along the coast, proved to be more of a challenge. 66. Our proposed Aldershot and North East Hampshire constituencies remain largely unaltered from the existing constituencies, except for the inclusion in our Aldershot constituency of the Fleet North ward of the District of Hart from the existing North East Hampshire constituency. This is necessary in order to bring the constituency s electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. As a consequence, our proposed North East Hampshire constituency includes the three wards of Oakley and North Waltham, Tadley Central, and Tadley South of the Borough 14 South East
3. Initial proposals for the South East region of Basingstoke and Deane, which are in the existing North West Hampshire constituency. 67. As the existing North West Hampshire constituency has had wards transferred into our proposed North East Hampshire constituency, our proposed North West Hampshire constituency extends further south than the existing constituency and includes six wards that are in the existing Romsey and Southampton North constituency. 68. In the New Forest, our options are limited by the shapes of wards and by our reluctance to propose a constituency that straddles either Southampton Water, thereby making travel between the constituency s parts difficult, or the South East region boundary, contrary to our stated policy. The existing New Forest West constituency s electorate is too small. Our proposed New Forest West constituency therefore contains all the wards that are in the existing constituency as well as the Boldre and Sway, Lyndhurst, and Brockenhurst and Forest South East wards from the existing New Forest East constituency. 69. As a consequence, the New Forest East constituency s electorate becomes too small, and we therefore include the town of Romsey in our proposed New Forest East and Romsey constituency. This constituency contains 14 wards from the current New Forest East constituency and four wards from the current Romsey and Southampton North constituency. 70. The City of Southampton contains too many electors to be wholly contained within two constituencies, and the ward electorates permit few options in this area. Our proposals create two constituencies that are similar to the existing Southampton constituencies. Our proposed Southampton Test constituency includes the Chilworth, Nursling and Rownhams ward of the Borough of Test Valley (to the north west of the city) and the Bassett ward of the City of Southampton, both of which are in the existing Romsey and Southampton North constituency. We propose to include the Swaythling ward of the City of Southampton in a newly configured Eastleigh constituency, and the Bevois ward of the City of Southampton in our proposed Southampton Itchen constituency. This constituency does not include any wards from outside the city. In accordance with our policy decision mentioned earlier, we propose to remove the comma from the name of the existing Southampton, Itchen constituency. 71. Our proposed Eastleigh constituency is significantly reconfigured as a result of our suggested changes elsewhere. It extends further to the north of Southampton than the existing constituency and no longer extends to the Solent. It includes three wards of the Borough of Test Valley that are in the existing Romsey and Southampton North constituency, four wards of the Borough of Eastleigh that are in the existing Winchester constituency, and seven wards that are in the existing Eastleigh constituency. This arrangement allows us to respect much of the district boundary between the City of Winchester and the boroughs of Eastleigh and Test Valley. 72. We propose to include the remaining eight wards from the existing Eastleigh constituency, with five wards from the current Fareham constituency, to create a new Hedge End and Hamble constituency. This constituency also includes the Bitterne ward of the City of Southampton. 73. As a consequence of these changes we propose a new Fareham and Horndean constituency which extends further north and east than the existing Fareham constituency to include 12 wards that are in the present Meon Valley constituency, which ceases to exist. The existing Gosport constituency remains unchanged. South East 15
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 74. The City of Portsmouth currently contains two constituencies Portsmouth North and Portsmouth South. In order to create two constituencies that are within 5% of the electoral quota and to take into account the geographical features of the city, we propose an East and a West constituency, each of which includes one ward from outside the city boundary. We propose to include the Portchester East ward of the Borough of Fareham in our Portsmouth West constituency and the Purbrook ward of the Borough of Havant in our Portsmouth East constituency. We considered this configuration to be the most suitable in terms of their proximity to the City of Portsmouth. 75. Our proposed Havant and East Hampshire constituencies are largely unchanged. Our proposed Havant constituency no longer includes the Purbrook ward, but it includes the Waterloo ward of the Borough of Havant and the Rowlands Castle ward of the District of East Hampshire, both of which are in the existing Meon Valley constituency. Our proposed East Hampshire constituency includes the Clanfield and Finchdean ward of the District of East Hampshire, which is also currently in the Meon Valley constituency. Initial proposals for the Isle of Wight sub region 76. As discussed earlier, the Isle of Wight is specifically allocated two whole constituencies. While the legislation does not state that the two constituencies should have similar electorates, we considered that it would be in accordance with the spirit of the legislation to divide the island relatively equally in terms of electorate. We will, however, consider representations that do not follow this approach, given there is no legislative necessity to do so. 77. We considered a number of configurations for how to divide the island between constituencies. We propose to divide the island into Isle of Wight North and Isle of Wight South constituencies. The northern constituency is geographically smaller and contains the urban areas of the towns of Cowes, Newport and Ryde. The geographically larger southern constituency is more rural in nature. It extends from The Needles in the west to Bembridge in the east. Initial proposals for the Oxfordshire sub region 78. There are currently six constituencies in the County of Oxfordshire. We are proposing no change to the number of constituencies. 79. Four of the existing constituencies (Henley, Oxford West and Abingdon, Wantage, and Witney) have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The remaining two constituencies (Banbury and Oxford East) are above the 5% limit. 80. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the four existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. We propose keeping Wantage and Witney the same as the existing constituencies. 81. To reduce the electorate of the existing Banbury constituency, which is too large, we considered that the only suitable option is to include the Ambrosden and Chesterton, and Launton wards of the District of Cherwell in our proposed Henley constituency. Therefore, our proposed Henley constituency extends further to the north than at present, up to but not including the town of Bicester. In addition, it includes the Radley ward of the District of the Vale of White Horse from the existing Oxford West and Abingdon constituency. This is necessary in order to accommodate changes to the existing Oxford East constituency, which has an electorate more than 5% above the electoral quota. 16 South East
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 82. To provide for a reduction in the electorate of the existing Oxford East constituency, we propose the transfer of the Carfax ward of the City of Oxford to our proposed Abingdon and Oxford North constituency, which, to reflect the changes in this area, we propose to rename from the existing name of Oxford West and Abingdon. We also propose to rename the Oxford East constituency Oxford. Initial proposals for the Surrey sub-region 83. There are currently 11 constituencies in the County of Surrey. We are proposing no change to the number of constituencies. 84. Eight of the existing constituencies have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates of three constituencies Mole Valley, Reigate, and Spelthorne are below the 5% limit. 85. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the eight existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. In developing proposals in which all the constituency electorates are within 5% of the electoral quota we have not made alterations to three constituencies: Epsom and Ewell, Esher and Walton, and South West Surrey. 86. To increase the electorate of the existing Reigate constituency we have included the Chaldon ward of the District of Tandridge from the East Surrey constituency, as the other wards were either too large geographically or would result in a division of the town of Horley. We are not proposing any further changes to either constituency. 87. The Mole Valley constituency remains largely unchanged, apart from the inclusion of the Ewhurst ward of the Borough of Waverley from the existing Guildford constituency. In order to increase the electorate of the existing Spelthorne constituency, we propose the transfer of the Weybridge North ward of the Borough of Elmbridge to our proposed Spelthorne constituency from the existing Runnymede and Weybridge constituency. As a consequence, our proposed Runnymede and Weybridge constituency includes the Byfleet ward of the Borough of Woking, from the existing Woking constituency. We further propose to transfer the Bisley ward of the Borough of Surrey Heath to our proposed Woking constituency, from the existing Surrey Heath constituency. In all these constituencies we consider that the wards that have been transferred are the most suitable in terms of geographic proximity and communication links. 88. We propose to transfer the Pilgrims ward of the Borough of Guildford from the existing Guildford constituency to our proposed Woking constituency, in order to bring the latter s electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. Initial proposals for the West Sussex sub region 89. There are currently eight constituencies in the County of West Sussex. We are proposing no change to the number of constituencies. 90. Five of the existing constituencies have electorates within 5% of the electoral quota. The electorates of two constituencies (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, and Crawley) are below the 5% limit and one constituency (Chichester) is above the 5% limit. 91. We considered whether we could leave unchanged any of the five existing constituencies that have an electorate within 5% of the electoral quota. In developing proposals in which all the constituency electorates are within 5% of the electoral quota we have not made alterations to the composition of two constituencies East Worthing and Shoreham, and Worthing West. South East 17
3. Initial proposals for the South East region 92. Our proposed Chichester constituency remains largely unchanged from the existing constituency, with only the Easebourne and Plaistow wards of the District of Chichester transferring to our proposed Arundel and South Downs constituency, in order to bring it within 5% of the electoral quota. Although we did not need to alter the existing Mid Sussex constituency, we have included the Bolney ward of the District of Mid Sussex, which is in the existing constituency, in our proposed Arundel and South Downs constituency. We consider that this improves the shape of both constituencies. 93. We also propose including the Barnham and Walberton wards of the District of Arun, which are currently in the Arundel and South Downs constituency, in our proposed Bognor Regis and Littlehampton constituency, in order to increase its electorate to within 5% of the electoral quota. 94. The existing East Worthing and Shoreham, and Worthing West constituencies remain unchanged, except for the proposed change of name of the former to Worthing East and Shoreham. 95. The only change we have made to the existing Crawley and Horsham constituencies is the transfer of the Copthorne and Worth ward of the District of Mid Sussex from the existing Horsham constituency to Crawley in order to increase the latter s electorate to within 5% of the electoral quota. 18 South East
4. How to have your say 96. We are consulting on our initial proposals for a 12-week period, from 13 September 2011 to 5 December 2011. We encourage everyone to use this opportunity to contribute to the design of the new constituencies the more public views we hear, the more informed our decisions will be when analysing all the views we receive. 97. In particular, we ask people to bear in mind the tight constraints placed on the Commission by the rules set by Parliament, as well as the decisions we have taken regarding adoption of a regional approach and use of local government wards discussed in chapter 2 and in the BCE s A guide to the 2013 Review. Most importantly: a. We cannot recommend constituencies that have electorates that are more or less than 5% from the electoral quota (apart from the two covering the Isle of Wight). b. We are basing our initial proposals on local government ward boundaries (as at May 2010) as the building blocks of constituencies. Our view is that, in the absence of exceptional and compelling circumstances, it would not be appropriate to divide wards in cases where it is possible to construct constituencies that meet the 5% statutory requirement without doing so. c. We have constructed constituencies within regions, so as not to cross regional boundaries. Compelling reasons would need to be given to persuade us that we should depart from this approach. 98. These issues mean that we encourage people who are making a representation on a specific area to bear in mind the knock-on effects of their proposals. The Commission must look at the recommendations for new constituencies across the whole region (and, indeed, across England). We therefore ask everyone wishing to respond to our consultation to bear in mind the impact of their counter-proposals on neighbouring constituencies, and on those further afield across the region. How can you give us your views? 99. There are two ways you can give us your views on our initial proposals: in writing (including by email or through the online form on our website), or in person at one of a series of public hearings we are conducting during the consultation period. People are welcome to both attend a hearing and send us a written representation. Written representations 100. We encourage everyone to make use of our consultation website, at www.consultation. boundarycommissionforengland.independent. gov.uk, when contributing to our consultation. The website contains all the Initial proposals reports and maps, the electorate sizes of every ward and an online facility where you can have your say on our initial proposals. 101. You can also contribute to our consultation by writing directly to us at: Boundary Commission for England, 35 Great Smith Street, London SW1P 3BQ. Or email us with your views, at: southeast@ bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you wish to comment on more than one region, please send your email to reviews@ bcommengland.x.gsi.gov.uk. If you wish to write to us directly, we encourage you to follow the structured approach outlined below and on the separate summary sheet, copies of which can be found at your local place of deposit, or downloaded from our website, at www.consultation.boundarycommissionfor england.independent.gov.uk. 102. We encourage everyone, before submitting a representation, to read our approach to data protection and, South East 19