Where do you live? Is it West Norwood, Tulse Hill, West Dulwich, or Gipsy Hill?
What is this all about?
Periodically the boundaries for both Wards and Constituencies are reviewed to reflect shifting population and changes in legislation. Unusually the cycle of consultation for both has come to Lambeth at roughly the same time and the deadlines for commenting on both is now close.
Ward (local electoral districts - represented by Councillors): Our local Wards are currently: Thurlow Park, Knight's Hill and Gipsy Hill and we have three Councillors for each of them. Deadline 26 July
Constituency (parliamentary - electing a single representative to the House of Commons): Our constituency is called Dulwich and West Norwood and our MP is currently Helen Hayes. Deadline 2 August see our story on how to contribute here
Both consultations encourage and value individual responses.
Ward Boundaries
Lambeth is currently divided into 21 wards, and our local wards are Gipsy Hill, Knight's Hill and Thurlow Park (see maps for these wards here). Each one is represented on the council by three councillors who are elected every four years to represent the best interests of the residents in their ward. The Local Government Boundary Commission for England (LGBCE) is reviewing the wards to make sure each one has roughly the same number of voters.
Due to the significance of the proposed changes in our area the Commission is now accepting a second round of additional opinions and comments (submissions) from local people about the areas affected. Please see the maps above that illustrate the situation more clearly.
For the details behind this second round of consultation, read the LGBCE report here. There is clearly no easy solution.
The Commission statement on the purpose behind this review:
An electoral review recommends new ward boundaries that mean each councillor will represent approximately the same number of voters. We also aim to ensure that the pattern of wards reflect the interests and identities of local communities as well as promoting effective local government.
Here are some thoughts on the Commission's second proposal that you might like to consider in making your own submission:
1: New ward name: West Norwood.
West Norwood is the name of the town centre and the surrounding area; using the same name, or a version of it – as in Norwood - for the name of a ward which forms part of that area will cause confusion. We recommend this ward should retain its existing name of Knight’s Hill, the name of a significant through road.
2: Combining communities: The combination of parts of the existing Tulse Hill Ward with parts of the existing Thurlow Park Ward.
We agree that removing the name of Tulse due to its connections to the slave trade is important.
The proposed new name: West Dulwich and St Martins immediately illustrates the challenge of combining two communities and does not fit with the stated aim of: ‘reflecting the interests and identities of local communities’. The community east of Tulse Hill Gyratory does not have a natural connectivity with the community west of Tulse Hill Gyratory.
We pose two questions:
- Representation: With 3 councillors designated to this new ward – will it be feasible for each of these communities to receive the dedicated focus it deserves?
- Number of voters: The second proposal shows that the new ward of West Dulwich and St Martins will be 10% oversized at inception and still be 7% oversized by 2026. Since the purpose of this review is to address this very issue, this option does not meet the basic criteria.
3: Neighbourhoods: How many wards?
Tulse Hill, West Norwood and Gipsy Hill stations could be viewed as the focus around which each main community is drawn.
Here is our quick summary of the situation:
Existing wards:
Knight’s Hill ward (3 Cllrs) – this existing ward is perhaps the most geographically consistent
Gipsy Hill ward (3 Cllrs) – residents living north of West Norwood Cemetery are unlikely to consider that they live in Gipsy Hill
Thurlow Park ward (3 Cllrs) – the name has no meaning for residents, we agree a new name should be found. The ‘home’ for Tulse Hill station is more naturally Tulse Hill ward.
Boundary Commission proposal no1:
Knight’s Hill ward (3 Cllrs) – expands into Gipsy Hill ward to reflect the community that looks to West Norwood
Gipsy Hill ward (2 Cllrs) – retracts to better reflect the scale of its community
Rosendale ward (2 Cllrs) – with redrawn boundaries to reflect its local community
St Martin’s ward (2 Cllrs) – retracts from parts of Tulse Hill ward and expands to include the Tulse Hill station area
None of the boundaries were perfect, but there was the beginning of a plan that recognised the heart of each community and its distinctiveness.
See Norwood Forum’s original submission that goes into more detail on these and other issues here.
Boundary Commission proposal no 2:
West Norwood ward (3 Cllrs) – name change should revert to Knight’s Hill, geography about right?
Gipsy Hill ward (3 Cllrs) – stretches too far north into West Norwood?
West Dulwich and St Martins (3 Cllrs) – can two distinct communities be individually served whilst being combined into an oversized ward?
As you can see there are no easy answers.
If you value your community please ‘have your say’: link and information here: https://consultation.lgbce.org.uk/have-your-say/21383
If you have any thoughts or questions that the Forum might help with – please get in touch