As there is far more to say than could be captured on a Twitter thread or Facebook post, I have revived this long dormant blog to discuss the proposals for Lambeth ward boundary changes.
I hope to put together a number of posts over the Easter holiday, and generate some comments from outside the "usual suspects" of those who are already politically committed, both in Streatham and the wider borough.
As a starter, at the bottom of this post is the response that I submitted to the LGBCE (Local Government Boundary Commission for England) back in September 2020.
At that time, the only proposals in the public domain were those that had been published by Lambeth Council: Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Response and which were endorsed by the council's Corporate Committee.
In an attempt to get some wider publicity for these, I published a thread on Twitter on September 14th which provides a summary of what the Council then had planned for Streatham, and which hopefully puts my responses into context.
My Submission to the LGBCE
1. Experience and declarations of interest - These comments are made in a personal capacity based on my experience as a candidate and campaigner, and ongoing involvement in community life in Streatham and the wider life of the borough. I am a trustee of the Streatham Society (the registered amenity society for Streatham) and a member of the committee of Streatham Action (the local community forum). I was also one of the authors of the 1998 submission made by the then separate Streatham local party of the Liberal Democrats, but I have not been in any executive role with the party for the last decade.
2. Size of wards - I welcome the flexibility given on the mix of one, two, and three-member wards. The artificial constraint imposed by then ministers on the last boundary review of making all wards three-member resulted in some boundaries that do not correspond with natural communities.
3. General population projections - I am slightly concerned by the lack of transparency for the basis of assumed growth in electorate in some parts of North Lambeth, included in the ward projections provided by Lambeth Council. I would urge the Commission to ensure that these are subject to robust scrutiny. There were substantial difference between the 1998 forecasts for residential development and what has actually been built, resulting in the current situation in Bishops ward. The medium term impact of COVID-19 remains unforeseeable, but residential construction is unlikely to progress in the immediate future on the scale recently forecast.
4. Ward areas as a basis for neighbourhood policing patches - while I am aware that this is strictly outside the commission's remit, one major difference since previous boundary reviews has been the introduction of neighbourhood policing by the Metropolitan Police. This is organised on a ward basis, based on the pattern of three member wards from the last review. If ward boundaries are to be used for other public service provision, it becomes even more important that wards genuinely reflect the identities and interest of local communities. I have commented below on a number of proposals in Lambeth Council's submission (as presented to corporate committee on 17/9/2020) that seem to me to fail this test.
5. Avoidance of both gerrymandering and any perception of gerrymandering - Lambeth Council's proposals have *somehow* determined that one of the wards to be reduced from three councillors to two is the only ward in the borough (St Leonard's) that is wholly represented by councillors of an opposition party. The arguments made for selecting St Leonard's do not appear to be compelling. I hope that the Commission will give the Council's proposals for the allocation of wards in Streatham robust scrutiny.
6. Renaming of wards - I support the proposals in Lambeth Council's submission to cease the use of Vassall and Thurlow Park as names for wards. I think it is entirely legitimate to erase such dubious characters from our contemporary electoral geography, which is *not* the same thing as erasing from our shared history.
7. Representation of Streatham
7.1 I believe that there should be wider community discussion on whether (i) the current definition of Streatham as the current four wards making up the town centre makes sense; and (ii) whether we should simply reduce its representation from twelve to eleven members or to look at the town centre boundaries again. My comments are somewhat speculative as I am not sighted on any firm counter-proposals to those of the Council.
7.2 I think that there is a fairly widespread acceptance that Leigham Court Road and the railway line between Leigham Vale and Knollys Rd provides a reasonable proxy for the boundary between "Streatham" and "West Norwood" (NB: the SW16/SE27 postcode boundary follows the rear of properties rather than the centre of the road). The western and southern boundaries are set by the borough boundaries with LB Wandsworth, LB Merton and LB Croydon.
7.3 However, the northern boundaries between Streatham Hill and Balham, Clapham Park, Brixton Hill and Tulse Hill are less certain. I will discuss these in order moving from west to east
7.4 The current Thornton Ward is the result of the mandated three-member wards of the 1999 review. It is a curious mix of
- the Clapham Park Estate, a major area of social housing which is in the midst of a lengthy and delayed regeneration programme, which has an identify of its own, but also looks north to Brixton and Clapham
- the Hyde Farm Estate, now predominantly owner occupied and much of which looks to Balham for transport and shopping - however it also has a parade of shops on Emmanuel Road that is shared with the Telford Park area of Streatham Hill. There is also a long-standing joint parish of St Thomas and St Stephen that links the Telford Park and Hyde Farm communities.- streets at the north-western corner of the ward around Honeybrook and Rudloe roads that look to Clapham South- areas of suburban housing and smaller infill council estates between Kings Avenue and New Park Road south of the Clapham Park Estate that were historically in Clapham parish but now look more to Streatham.
In any review of boundaries, there may now be a case to rethink Thornton ward again, between the areas that look to Streatham/Balham and those that look to Clapham/Brixton.
7.5 The historic parish of Streatham (and the parliamentary constituency) once went as far north as Upper Tulse Hill and the modern parish of Christchurch Streatham still straddles the South Circular. However, ward boundaries have followed the heavily-trafficked corridor of Christchurch Road since the 1980s.
The most significant change since the last review has been the opening of the City Heights E-ACT Academy secondary school which does give more common interests across the road.
There have been a number of regeneration and employment initiatives branded as "Tulse Hill" that include estates on both sides of Palace Road currently in Streatham Hill.
While I am agnostic as to whether these areas might be better in Streatham or Tulse Hill, I think it is important to note that there was no local support for the boundaries set by the former DCLG for the abortive Tulse Hill Neighbourhood Plan.
This was imposed with no real engagement, as I can confirm from my time with Streatham Action, the existing community forum covering the ward. The boundary line down the middle of Wavertree Road for the plan area was the most egregious of several errors pushed through. If there is any counterproposal for changes to ward boundaries in this area, my view is that it should follow the rear boundary walls between Wavertree Road and Palace Road.
7.6 I am aware that there is some debate on whether the area currently in Streatham Hill ward (polling district STE) to the east of Hillside Rd/Hillside Gardens Park looks more to Tulse Hill district centre rather than to Streatham. There is undoubtedly a community of interest around the much-cherished Hillside Gardens Park, but my perception is that the roads east of the park predominantly look to Tulse Hill for both commuter travel and local shopping.
8 Detailed boundary proposals in Lambeth Council's submission
8.1 St Leonard's Ward/Streatham South Ward - subject to my wider concerns about the arbitrary decision to reduce St Leonard's to a two member ward, the proposed boundary along Natal Rd does not reflect the attachment of occupants of properties on the south side of Natal Road to the rest of the "Henfra" triangle (former name of the Hambro, Ellora, Natal, Ferrers Residents Association) and does not correspond to neighbourhood watch or other boundaries that would be conducive to effective neighbourhood policing.
8.2 Streatham Wells/Streatham Hill Ward - the current boundary that follows the SW2/SW16 postcode boundary does at least have some consistency. Lambeth's proposed new boundary that splits along Mount Nod Rd appears to be even more confusing. I understand that there are other submissions that may allow for a border along Leigham Court Rd. This seems to be to be a more intuitive solution both in corresponding to traffic management cells and for community policing.
8.3 Streatham Hill Ward /Tulse Hill Ward- I endorse the inclusion of households with Norwood Road in Tulse Hill Ward. This resolves an error made in the 1999 boundaries that was not picked up until too late.
8.4 Brixton Central/Myatt’s Field & North Brixton ward - while this is not an area that I have close personal involvement with, given the general point I have raised about the use of boundaries for neighbourhood policing, I think I should draw attention that I do not believe this boundary will be understood by anyone without a knowledge of the history of Lambeth housing management. I hope that there are counter-proposals that provide a more easily recognisable boundary.
