Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
New electoral arrangements for Westminster City CouncilFinal RecommendationsMay 2020
Translations and other formats:To get this report in another language or in a large-print or Braille version, please contact the Local Government Boundary Commission for England at:Tel: 0330 500 1525Email: [email protected]
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 © Crown copyright and database right. Unauthorised reproduction infringes Crown copyright and database right.Licence Number: GD 100049926 2020
A note on our mapping:The maps shown in this report are for illustrative purposes only. Whilst best efforts have been made by our staff to ensure that the maps included in this report are representative of the boundaries described by the text, there may be slight variations between these maps and the large PDF map that accompanies this report, or the digital mapping supplied on our consultation portal. This is due to the way in which the final mapped products are produced. The reader should therefore refer to either the large PDF supplied with this report or the digital mapping for the true likeness of the boundaries intended. The boundaries as shown on either the large PDF map or the digital mapping should always appear identical.
Contents
Introduction 1
Who we are and what we do 1
What is an electoral review? 1
Why Westminster? 2
Our proposals for Westminster 2
How will the recommendations affect you? 2
Review timetable 3
Analysis and final recommendations 5
Submissions received 5
Electorate figures 5
Number of councillors 6
Ward boundaries consultation 6
Draft recommendations consultation 7
Final recommendations 7
Conclusions 22
Summary of electoral arrangements 23
What happens next? 25
Equalities 27
Appendices 29
Appendix A 29
Appendix B 31
Appendix C 33
Appendix D 35
North-west Westminster 9
North-east Westminster 11
Bayswater, Little Venice and Westbourne 13
Hyde Park, Marylebone and West End 15
Lancaster Gate 18
South Westminster 19
Final recommendations for Westminster City Council 29
Outline map 31
Submissions received 33
Glossary and abbreviations 35
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 Parliament1. 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.
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.
1 Under the Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009
2
Why Westminster?
7 We are conducting a review of Westminster City 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 Westminster.
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 Westminster 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 Westminster
9 Westminster should be represented by 54 councillors, six fewer than there are
now.
10 Westminster should have 18 wards, two fewer than there are now.
11 The boundaries of three wards will stay the same; the rest should change.
12 We have now finalised our recommendations for electoral arrangements for
Westminster.
How will the recommendations affect you?
13 The recommendations will determine how many councillors will serve on the
Council. They will also decide which ward you vote in, which other communities are
in that ward, and, in some cases, which parish council ward you vote in. Your ward
name may also change.
14 Our recommendations cannot affect the external boundaries of the borough or
result in changes to postcodes. They do not take into account parliamentary
constituency boundaries. The recommendations will not have an effect on local
taxes, house prices, or car and house insurance premiums and we are not able to
take into account any representations which are based on these issues.
2 Local Democracy, Economic Development & Construction Act 2009 paragraph 56(1).
3
Review timetable
15 We wrote to the Council to ask its views on the appropriate number of
councillors for Westminster. We then held a period of consultation with the public on
warding patterns for the borough. The submissions received during consultation
have informed our final recommendations.
16 The review was conducted as follows:
Stage starts Description
19 March 2019 Number of councillors decided
26 March 2019 Start of consultation seeking views on new wards
3 June 2019 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
forming draft recommendations
1 October 2019 Publication of draft recommendations; start of second
consultation
20 January 2020 End of consultation; we began analysing submissions and
forming final recommendations
12 May 2020 Publication of final recommendations
4
5
Analysis and final recommendations
17 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.
18 In reality, we are unlikely to be able to create wards with exactly the same
number of electors in each; we have to be flexible. However, we try to keep the
number of electors represented by each councillor as close to the average for the
council as possible.
19 We work out the average number of electors per councillor for each individual
local authority by dividing the electorate by the number of councillors, as shown on
the table below.
2019 2025
Electorate of Westminster 136,270 149,733
Number of councillors 54 54
Average number of electors per
councillor 2,524 2,773
20 When the number of electors per councillor in a ward is within 10% of the
average for the authority, we refer to the ward as having ‘good electoral equality’. All
of our proposed wards for Westminster will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Submissions received
21 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
22 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 9% by 2025.
23 The Labour Group expressed concern during consultation on our draft
recommendations on how the Council had developed its electoral forecasts and we
noted these concerns. However, as stated in our guidance, electoral forecasting is
not an exact science, and we have carefully considered the information provided by
the Council and the Labour Group. We are satisfied that the projected figures remain
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
the best available at the present time. We have used these figures to produce our
final recommendations.
Number of councillors
24 Westminster Council currently has 60 councillors. We have looked at evidence
provided by the Council and concluded that decreasing by six will ensure the Council
can carry out its roles and responsibilities effectively.
25 We therefore invited proposals for new patterns of wards that would be
represented by 54 councillors – for example, 54 one-councillor wards, 18 three-
councillor wards, or a mix of one-, two- and three-councillor wards.
26 We received one submission about the number of councillors in response to
our consultation on our draft recommendations. The submission did not present
compelling evidence to move away from 54 councillors. We have therefore based
our final recommendations on a 54-councillor council.
Ward boundaries consultation
27 We received 40 submissions in response to our consultation on ward
boundaries. These included three authority-wide proposals from the Council, the
Labour Group, and a local resident. The remainder of the submissions provided
localised comments for warding arrangements in particular areas of the authority.
28 The Council’s scheme was developed by the majority party on the Council and
formally endorsed by the Council’s General Purposes Committee. It provided a
uniform pattern of three-councillor wards for Westminster. The Labour Group’s
scheme provided for a mixed pattern of two- and three-councillor wards. The local
resident’s scheme did not specify how many councillors should represent each ward
or provide community-based evidence relating to the proposals. We carefully
considered the proposals received and were of the view that the proposed patterns
of wards from the Council and Labour Group resulted in good levels of electoral
equality in most areas of the authority and generally used clearly identifiable
boundaries. However, on the basis of the evidence received and our observations
when we visited the authority, our draft recommendations were based on the
Council’s proposals in the most part, and the Labour Group’s proposals in some
areas.
29 Our draft recommendations also took into account local evidence that we
received, which provided further evidence of community links and locally recognised
boundaries. In some areas we considered that the proposals did not provide for the
best balance between our statutory criteria and so we identified alternative
boundaries.
7
30 We visited the area in order to look at the various different proposals on the
ground. This tour of Westminster helped us to decide between the different
boundaries proposed.
31 Our draft recommendations were for 18 three-councillor wards. We considered
that our draft recommendations would provide for good electoral equality while
reflecting community identities and interests where we received such evidence
during consultation.
Draft recommendations consultation
32 We received 197 submissions during consultation on our draft
recommendations. These included three which covered several areas of the
authority. The majority of the other submissions focused on specific areas,
particularly our proposals for West End, Marylebone, and Hyde Park wards, as well
as St James’s ward and Riverside ward.
33 We received submissions from the Council and the Labour Group which were
broadly supportive of our draft recommendations but which made suggestions in
several wards. The Council submission reversed its previous position on the
boundary between St James’s and West End wards – which we adopted in our draft
recommendations – by suggesting Chinatown remain in St James’s. The Labour
Group submission suggested minor amendments to our draft recommendations for
St James’s and West End wards, as well as more substantial suggestions for the
retention of Churchill ward and a redrawing of the boundary between Bayswater and
Lancaster Gate wards.
34 Following publication of our draft recommendations, it was noted that the
electorates for the Pimlico, Regent’s Park, Riverside and Westbourne wards had
been slightly miscalculated. This has been corrected in our final recommendations.
35 Our final recommendations are based on the draft recommendations with
modifications to the wards in the Chinatown, Marylebone, West End, and Hyde Park
areas, as well as the renaming of Pimlico and Riverside wards, based on the
submissions received. We also make a minor modification to the boundaries
between the Hyde Park and Lancaster Gate wards.
Final recommendations
36 Our final recommendations are for 18 three-councillor wards. We consider that
our final recommendations will provide for good electoral equality while reflecting
community identities and interests where we received such evidence during
consultation.
8
37 The tables and maps on pages 9–22 detail our final recommendations for each
area of Westminster. 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.
38 A summary of our proposed new wards is set out in the table starting on page
29 and on the large map accompanying this report.
5 Local Democracy, Economic Development and Construction Act 2009.
9
North-west Westminster
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Harrow Road 3 2%
Maida Vale 3 -4%
Queen’s Park 3 4%
Harrow Road
39 We received three submissions from residents of Harrow Road ward, all of
which were in favour of the draft recommendations. In particular, they noted the
inclusion of Sutherland Avenue in our proposed ward. In light of the submissions
received, we have decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as
final.
Maida Vale
40 We received five submissions from residents on our draft recommendations for
Maida Vale ward. All noted that the ‘triangle’ had been transferred from the current
Harrow Road ward and accepted its addition for the purposes of improving electoral
equality. In light of the submissions received, we have decided to confirm our draft
recommendations for this ward as final.
Queen’s Park
10
41 We received four submissions from residents responding to our draft
recommendations for Queen’s Park ward and one from the Queen’s Park
Community Council. All were strongly supportive of the ward boundaries remaining
coterminous with those of the Community Council. We are therefore confirming our
draft recommendations for this ward as final.
11
North-east Westminster
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Abbey Road 3 -2%
Church Street 3 1%
Regent’s Park 3 1%
Abbey Road
42 We received seven submissions from residents in response to our draft
recommendations for Abbey Road ward. All were supportive of the proposals and a
number stated that our proposed ward was more representative of the local
community than the current boundaries. We have therefore decided to confirm our
draft recommendations for this ward as final.
Church Street
43 We received seven submissions from residents in response to our draft
recommendations for Church Street ward. All were supportive of the proposals as
more representative of the local community than the current boundaries. We have
therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.
12
Regent’s Park
44 We received six submissions from residents in response to our draft
recommendations for Regent’s Park ward, all of which were supportive of the
proposals. We have therefore decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this
ward as final.
13
Bayswater, Little Venice and Westbourne
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Bayswater 3 4%
Little Venice 3 -4%
Westbourne 3 -4%
Bayswater
45 We received 17 submissions from residents in response to our draft
recommendations for Bayswater and one from the Labour Group. All but two
residents’ submissions were supportive of the proposals. These submissions
suggested dividing Bayswater and Lancaster Gate along a ‘north-south’ boundary,
rather than ‘east-west’, to include the various estates around Gloucester Terrace in
Bayswater ward and avoid drawing ward boundaries along the main arterial routes
around which communities cluster. We took this proposal into account but did not
consider the evidence strong enough to alter our draft recommendations. The area
around Gloucester Terrace is a mixed community and, as evidenced by the Labour
14
submission, such a ‘north-south’ division would merely transfer the bisected arterial
road from Bishop’s Bridge Road to Westbourne Grove.
Little Venice
46 We received 12 submissions in response to our draft recommendations for
Little Venice ward, three of which were from councillors. Many of the submissions
from residents strongly opposed the division of Warwick Avenue, which was a
feature of the Labour Group’s submission during the previous consultation period.
This did not form part of our draft recommendations, which maintained the current
boundaries of Little Venice.
47 Having carefully reflected on the evidence received, it is clear the current
boundaries of Little Venice accurately reflect an organic community with a strongly
held sense of identity. We are, therefore, confirming our draft recommendation for
this ward as final.
Westbourne
48 We received four submissions from residents in response to our draft
recommendations for Westbourne ward, all of which were supportive of the
proposals as reflective of the local community. We are therefore confirming our draft
recommendation for this ward as final.
15
Hyde Park, Marylebone and West End
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Hyde Park 3 -7%
Marylebone 3 5%
West End 3 3%
Hyde Park
49 We received five submissions from residents of Hyde Park ward, including two
councillors, who were supportive of our draft recommendation. In particular there
was support for our proposal to expand the ward’s boundaries east of Edgware Road
to Marylebone High Street. These submissions anticipated a need for the ward to
acquire more electors in order to maintain good levels of electoral equality and
described shared amenities either side of Edgware Road.
50 We took these submissions into account when formulating our final
recommendations. However, we received a number of submissions from residents,
local organisations and businesses in the Marylebone area which were strongly
opposed to this area being included in Hyde Park ward, many of which identified the
western boundary of Marylebone as Edgware Road. These submissions are detailed
in paragraphs 52-53.
51 After careful consideration, we decided that the need to reflect a strongly held
community identity in Marylebone outweighed the desire to moderately improve
electoral equality in Hyde Park ward. In any case, we are proposing the addition of
16
the area west of Marylebone Road – the north-western boundary of the Marylebone
Association – and a small area of Lancaster Gate ward (see paragraph 62 for
details), which will further improve electoral equality in our proposed ward. We also
agree that Edgware Road provides a clear and natural boundary between Hyde Park
and Marylebone wards. Marble Arch will remain in the Hyde Park ward under our
final recommendations. Hyde Park will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Marylebone and West End
52 We received 22 submissions from residents, local organisations and
businesses opposing our draft recommendations for Marylebone and West End,
many of which proposed alternative boundaries for these wards. Of these, the
Portman Estate, the Howard de Walden Estate and the Selfridges Group expressed
concerns about their estates being split between numerous wards and the resulting
negative impact on effective and convenient local government. This was reflected in
the Marylebone Forum’s submission, which also considered that our draft
recommendations did not accurately reflect local community identities.
53 The New West End Company, the Marylebone Forum and the Portman Estate
proposed that both sides of Oxford Street and its adjacent roads should be included
in West End ward and that its northern boundary should run along Wigmore Street.
They argued this would reflect the unique retail nature of the area and support
effective and convenient local government by allowing traders one point of contact
with the Council. We considered this compelling evidence and have therefore drawn
the boundary between Marylebone and West End wards along Seymour Street and
Wigmore Street.
54 In order to balance the number of electors in Marylebone, the Marylebone
Forum and the Portman Estate recommended drawing the boundary with Hyde Park
ward along Seymour Place. This, it was argued, would provide good electoral
equality while incorporating both sides of Edgware Road into one ward for effective
and convenient local government. As detailed in paragraph 51, we carefully
considered this proposal, but ultimately considered Edgware Road to be a more
convincing boundary between the two wards, as proposed by the New West End
Company, the Selfridges Group and a local resident.
55 A significant proportion of the submissions received for Marylebone and West
End wards concerned the Fitzrovia area. We received 10 submissions from residents
of Fitzrovia and one from the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum which were
supportive of our draft recommendations to unify the area of Fitzrovia that lies in the
City of Westminster in one ward. However, we also received submissions from the
Fitzrovia Partnership (which operates entirely on the Camden side of Fitzrovia), the
Portland Village Association, Ridgeford Properties Management, nine residents and
three councillors in opposition. These submissions supported the Council’s originally
proposed boundary of New Cavendish Street for the West End and Marylebone
wards.
17
56 A number of these submissions argued that the area north of New Cavendish
Street was more residential in character, while the area to the south was more retail-
orientated, and that both constitute a distinct area of eastern Marylebone. Others
expressed concerns about the geographic extent of our proposed West End ward, as
well as its unique nature, which creates a larger than average amount of casework
for councillors on issues surrounding licensing, planning and policing. Concern was
expressed that residents may be ‘forgotten’ as a result.
57 We were mindful of all the evidence received when considering our final
recommendations. However, we remain convinced by the evidence submitted in both
rounds of consultation in support of unifying Fitzrovia in West End ward.
Furthermore, we were not convinced that New Cavendish Street provided an
effective boundary between residential and retail-led communities in the area, as
geocoded data demonstrated that there were more electors south of New Cavendish
Street and north of Mortimer Street than there were north of New Cavendish Street.
58 The submission we received from the Portland Village Association, (mentioned
in paragraph 55), opposed our draft recommendations, as they would place more of
the Association’s area in West End ward. Under the current boundaries, only the
area between New Cavendish Street and Langham Street is in West End ward, with
the rest in the existing Marylebone High Street ward. We appreciate that Portland
Village identifies itself a distinct area of eastern Marylebone. However, given the
Association’s stated close relationship with the Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood
Forum, and the significant overlap between the Fitzrovia and Portland Village areas,
we consider that effective and convenient local government would be best served by
these organisations being represented in one ward. While this splits a small part of
the Howard de Walden Estate, it has the benefit of uniting the entire Portland Village
area in one ward, as well as creating a strong boundary between Marylebone and
West End wards along Portland Place. This boundary was proposed by the
Selfridges Group and a local resident.
59 We have therefore made some notable changes to our draft recommendations
for this area. We are satisfied that they provide the most effective balance of our
statutory criteria and provide a fair reflection of local communities in the area.
Marylebone and West End wards will have good electoral equality by 2025.
18
Lancaster Gate
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Lancaster Gate 3 -9%
Lancaster Gate
60 We received eight submissions from residents on our draft recommendations
for Lancaster Gate ward, seven of which were supportive, and one from the Labour
Group. The Labour Group submission and one unsupportive resident submission are
discussed in paragraph 45.
61 As alluded to in paragraph 51, changes to Marylebone ward left Hyde Park with
a -10% variance and we considered there was scope to improve this variance under
our final recommendations. We therefore deemed it necessary to transfer a small
part of our proposed Lancaster Gate ward to improve electoral equality in Hyde Park.
62 During this process, it was noted that the draft recommendations split
Paddington Railway Station from Paddington Underground Station, the former being
in Hyde Park ward and the latter in Lancaster Gate. We therefore decided to redraw
the boundary along Spring Street from Eastbourne Terrance to Sussex Gardens.
This will ensure that both wards have electoral variances of under 10% by 2025.
19
South Westminster
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
Knightsbridge & Belgravia 3 6%
Pimlico North 3 2%
Pimlico South 3 -3%
Knightsbridge & Belgravia
63 We received 29 submissions on our draft recommendations for Knightsbridge &
Belgravia ward, 22 of which were supportive. All but one objection concerned the
Ebury Bridge area, arguing that it had closer social and demographic ties with the
Churchill Estate east of the railway line (in our Pimlico South ward, discussed
below), and little in common with Belgravia. We were sympathetic to this evidence
but, as mentioned in the draft recommendations report, moving the area into Pimlico
South would create poor electoral equality in both wards (28% in Pimlico South and -
20% in Knightsbridge & Belgravia).
64 While we have carefully considered the warding options for this area, we have
concluded that there is no alternative warding pattern that will ensure good electoral
equality. It is an important facet of the democratic process that electors have a vote
of broadly equal weight and we concluded that the draft recommendations for this
20
area strike an effective balance of our three statutory criteria. We have therefore
decided to confirm our draft recommendations for this ward as final.
Pimlico North and Pimlico South
65 We received 20 submissions regarding the Pimlico and Riverside wards in our
draft recommendations, 13 of which were supportive of the proposals. Those
submissions which were not supportive, from residents and one councillor, were
principally against the Churchill Gardens and Dolphin Square estates being included
in the same ward. It was argued that the estates had different socio-economic
characters, with Churchill Gardens being primarily made up of social housing and
privately owned flats while Dolphin Square was principally rented. However, we do
not assume that, because two adjoining areas have a different socio-economic
profile, they will not share any sense of community identity or interest. Having
carefully considered our proposal for this area, we remain convinced that unifying the
Pimlico area in two wards offers the best outcome for electoral equality, community
identity and effective and convenient local government.
66 Several submissions dealt with the naming of our proposed Pimlico and
Riverside wards, with the majority stating that ‘Riverside’ was too vague, and that
both wards should include the name ‘Pimlico’. Several suggestions were made by
residents and councillors, including Pimlico North and Pimlico South, Pimlico Victoria
and Pimlico Riverside, and Pimlico Cubitt and Pimlico Belgrave. We are satisfied that
the names Pimlico North and Pimlico South offer the clearest and simplest
description of these wards and the communities they represent.
67 Subject to the ward name changes outlined above, we confirm as final, our
draft recommendations for these wards. Both wards will have good electoral equality
by 2025.
21
St James’s and Vincent Square
Ward name Number of
councillors Variance 2025
St James’s 3 2%
Vincent Square 3 3%
St James’s
68 We received a large number of submissions in response to our draft
recommendations for St James’s ward, 22 of which concerned Chinatown. In our
draft recommendations, the core of this area was moved from St James’s ward to
22
West End ward. These submissions were both supportive and critical. The Council
and the London Chinatown Chinese Association both made submissions supporting
Chinatown’s continued inclusion in St James’s ward. The Council considered
Shaftesbury Avenue to be a stronger boundary between the wards and cited support
from residents of Vale Royal House and Newport Court, as well as members of the
Chinese community. The London Chinatown Chinese Association considered the
area’s inclusion in St James’s to have supported its identity as an area distinct from
Soho, that many of its businesses look to Leicester Square, and that the annual
Chinese New Year celebrations organised by the Association have been held in
Trafalgar Square since 2002. These views were supported by four local residents.
69 We also received a number of submissions in favour of our draft
recommendations, notably from members of the Soho Society and other residents,
who said they considered themselves as part of Soho’s community and shared some
of the same amenities and local concerns. We received submissions from residents
of Vale Royal House and Sandringham Flats, which are located either side of the
proposed ward boundary on Charing Cross Road. It was argued that both buildings
should be in the same ward, as they operate as a single community. Submissions by
residents, the Labour Group, and two councillors proposed achieving this by
extending the West End ward boundary along Great Newport Street and Upper St
Martin’s Lane.
70 We have carefully considered the arguments made on both sides and have
decided to move Chinatown back into St James’s ward. We consider Shaftesbury
Avenue to be a stronger boundary between the two communities. This is clearly
evidenced by the use of bilingual street signs on the south side of Shaftesbury
Avenue but not the north, as well as by the pagoda on Macclesfield Street.
Furthermore, we were concerned that the draft recommendations split the area of
Chinatown between Lisle Street and Leicester Square from the rest of the
community. We also agree with the London Chinatown Chinese Association that
liaising with one set of ward councillors will be more conducive to effective and
convenient local government. These recommendations will also ensure Vale Royal
House and Sandringham Flats remain within the same ward. Our revised St James’s
ward will have good electoral equality by 2025.
Vincent Square
71 We received three submissions in response to our draft recommendations for
Vincent Square. These submissions were made by four councillors (the three
councillors for St James’s made one submission) and the Vincent Square Residents
Association. All of these respondents were supportive of the proposed boundaries as
more reflective of the local community. We have confirmed our draft
recommendation for this ward as final.
Conclusions
23
72 The table below provides a summary as to the impact of our final
recommendations on electoral equality in Westminster, 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
Final recommendations
2019 2025
Number of councillors 54 54
Number of electoral wards 18 18
Average number of electors per councillor 2,524 2,773
Number of wards with a variance more than 10%
from the average 3 0
Number of wards with a variance more than 20%
from the average 1 0
Final recommendations
Westminster City Council should be made up of 54 councillors serving 18 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 the Westminster City Council.
You can also view our final recommendations for Westminster City Council on our
interactive maps at www.consultation.lgbce.org.uk
24
25
What happens next?
73 We have now completed our review of Westminster City Council. The
recommendations must now be approved by Parliament. A draft Order – the legal
document which brings into force our recommendations – will be laid in Parliament.
Subject to parliamentary scrutiny, the new electoral arrangements will come into
force at the local elections in 2022.
26
27
Equalities
74 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.
28
29
Appendices
Appendix A
Final recommendations for Westminster City 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 Abbey Road 3 7,889 2,630 4% 8,158 2,719 -2%
2 Bayswater 3 8,222 2,741 9% 8,662 2,887 4%
3 Church Street 3 7,395 2,465 -2% 8,403 2,801 1%
4 Harrow Road 3 7,933 2,644 5% 8,491 2,830 2%
5 Hyde Park 3 6,018 2,006 -21% 7,720 2,573 -7%
6 Knightsbridge & Belgravia 3 7,372 2,457 -3% 8,786 2,929 6%
7 Lancaster Gate 3 6,926 2,309 -9% 7,590 2,530 -9%
8 Little Venice 3 6,827 2,276 -10% 8,003 2,668 -4%
9 Maida Vale 3 7,728 2,576 2% 8,016 2,672 -4%
10 Marylebone 3 8,285 2,762 9% 8,703 2,901 5%
11 Pimlico North 3 7,957 2,652 5% 8,456 2,819 2%
12 Pimlico South 3 7,781 2,594 3% 8,084 2,695 -3%
13 Queen’s Park 3 8,370 2,790 11% 8,672 2,891 4%
30
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 %
14 Regent’s Park 3 7,882 2,627 4% 8,382 2,794 1%
15 St James’s 3 6,752 2,251 -11% 8,463 2,821 2%
16 Vincent Square 3 7,831 2,610 3% 8,545 2,848 3%
17 West End 3 7,511 2,504 -1% 8,584 2,861 3%
18 Westbourne 3 7,591 2,530 0% 8,015 2,672 -4%
Totals 54 136,270 – – 149,733 – –
Averages – – 2,524 – – 2,773 –
Source: Electorate figures are based on information provided by Westminster City 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.
31
Appendix B
Outline map
Number Ward name
1 Abbey Road
2 Bayswater
3 Church Street
4 Harrow Road
5 Hyde Park
6 Knightsbridge & Belgravia
7 Lancaster Gate
8 Little Venice
9 Maida Vale
10 Marylebone
11 Pimlico North
12 Pimlico South
13 Queen’s Park
14 Regent’s Park
32
15 St James’s
16 Vincent Square
17 West End
18 Westbourne
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/westminster
33
Appendix C
Submissions received
All submissions received can also be viewed on our website at:
www.lgbce.org.uk/current-reviews/greater-london/westminster
Local Authority
• Westminster City Council
Political Groups
• Westminster City Council Labour Group
Councillors
• Councillor H. Acton (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor I. Adams (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor T. Barnes (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor D. Boothroyd (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor I. Bott (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor M. Caplan (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor O. Cooper (Camden London Borough Council)
• Councillor A. Cox (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor T. Devenish AM (Westminster City Council and Greater London
Assembly)
• Councillor J. Glanz (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor J. Glen (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor A. Harvey (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor D. Harvey (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor A. Harrison (Camden London Borough Council)
• Councillor E. Hitchcock (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor L. Hyams (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor P. Lewis (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor T. Mitchell (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor R. Robathan (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor I. Rowley (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor K. Scarborough (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor M. Shearer (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor A. Smith (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor J. Spencer (Westminster City Council)
• Councillor S. Vincent (Camden London Borough Council)
34
• Councillor J. Wilkinson (Westminster City Council)
Members of Parliament
• Nickie Aiken MP (Cities of London & Westminster)
Local Organisations
• 49 Hallam St Ltd.
• Belgravia Neighbourhood Forum
• Belgravia Residents Association
• Covent Garden Community Association
• Fitzrovia West Neighbourhood Forum
• Knightsbridge Neighbourhood Forum
• London Chinatown Chinese Association
• Marylebone Forum
• New West End Company
• Portland Village Association
• Queen’s Park Community Council
• Ridgeford Properties Management
• Selfridges Group
• The Belgravia Society
• The Fitzrovia Partnership
• The Howard de Walden Estate
• The Knightsbridge Association
• The Portman Estate
• Vincent Square Residents Association
Parish and Town Councils
• Queen’s Park Community Council
Local Residents
• 145 local residents
Petitions
• Four petitions
35
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
36
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
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 House50 Victoria Street, LondonSW1H 0TL
Telephone: 0330 500 1525Email: [email protected]: www.lgbce.org.uk www.consultation.lgbce.org.ukTwitter: @LGBCE
