Further to our earlier stories and requests for peoples comments, here is the submission we have made today to the LGBC on the Lambeth electoral boundary review:
Norwood Forum is a volunteer-led organisation covering the three southern Lambeth wards of Gipsy Hill, Knights Hill and Thurlow Park. We aim to celebrate our wonderful neighbourhood and its vibrant, diverse, but cohesive community whilst making a positive difference to the quality of life for people who live and work here. Our regular newsletter is dedicated to communicating and connecting the local community and has a registered readership of almost 1300, but reaches at least 10,000 people.
During the lockdown period we continued to actively serve our community with many new projects including extensive website signposting to accurate advice and guidance, supporting and promoting new community focussed voluntary organisations, and holding online events including a new Community Conversation strand which has reached more than 4,400 people to date. Our submission, therefore, is based on considerable local knowledge over all the current three wards.
Several of our committee attended the on-line presentation organised by the Local Government Boundary Commission and have taken into account the criteria set out in that presentation.
We appreciate that development in the north of the borough will necessitate the creation of additional representation. We do not accept, however, that this should result in a decrease in the number of councillors that currently represent Norwood since this would inevitably result in at least one ward that would have only two councillors. Rather, we would wish the reorganisation to recognise the local understanding of what constitutes the area of ”Norwood” and expand current wards to include these areas (explained in detail below).
The statistics made available to the public by the LGBC do not enable any accurate redrawing of boundaries by the public since these are restricted to polling district level. Lambeth Council did not make its software available to the public or engage with the public at all during its working group deliberations. The public can therefore only make broad brush comments with certainty.
We feel that the projections for 2026 are subject to several variable factors and should be treated with caution as projections made in 1998 did not prove to be accurate. It is not clear if these statistics have included an accurate assessment of elector growth since a proportion of new build flats are built and sold for investment (often from abroad) and not occupied, or are occupied part-time by non-electors. Variations between wards north of Norwood can be evened out without affecting Norwood whilst continuing to maintain the same number of councillors for the borough as a whole.
We have been given previews of the submissions made by the Norwood Action Group (NAG) and Lambeth Council. Both these have much to recommend them, but also have several disadvantages. We wholeheartedly approve of NAG's contention that ward boundaries ought not to run down the middle of a road in neighbourhoods - because at a neighbourhood level you share more with people across the road than over the back garden fence. However, we do feel than boundaries along the middle of main roads –e.g. in town centres, makes perfect sense. The NAG submission also may fit with the electoral demand of approximately 4070 electors per councillor.
Lambeth Council's proposals include expanding the boundary of Norwood to take in a small amount of housing by the Tulse Hill gyratory on Christchurch Road and Tulse Hill (a transfer to the ward from the current Tulse Hill ward), as well as a similar section of shop fronts and Parade Mews from Streatham Hill ward. This appears to be a sensible arrangement, as it unifies the Business Improvement District.
It proposes to change the name of Thurlow Park Ward to Rosendale and extend its boundaries further south to include the cemetery and as mentioned above expand eastwards to include housing by the Tulse Hill gyratory on Christchurch Road and a section of shop fronts and Parade Mews. This ward will then have the population of electors to qualify to be a three-councillor ward. We have no objection to these proposals.
Its proposals for the rest of Norwood are more contentious. It offers two alternative solutions for the rest of Norwood by creating a two-councillor ward and a three-councillor ward. Whether it is Knights Hill or Gipsy Hill that has two councillors, depends on whether the boundary between the two runs along Norwood High Street or Knights Hill.
We have already stated our preference for three three-councillor wards to be retained for Norwood. Compared to the north of the borough, which generates large amounts of revenue for the council, Norwood has frequently been regarded as the tail-end of Lambeth and has not been given the priority it deserves. We are aware that the LGBC is not constrained by such matters but are driven by community interests. For that reason we propose that necessary adjustments to ward boundaries should be made by extending existing wards west and north.
The starting point should be to adjust the boundaries of Gipsy Hill ward as necessary, and work then to Knights Hill, Thurlow Park and all wards to the west and then north up through the borough.
We feel the town centre will benefit from its inclusion in all three Norwood wards. The principle that local residents have an improved stake in their local town centre is critical to us, and maximising the number of councillors to express those views will benefit the town centre and the operations of the Business Improvement District.
We do not support the Council proposal to maintain a very short stretch of Norwood Road as part of Streatham Hill ward.
We propose that the anomaly of Polling District STE being part of Streatham Hill ward must be addressed. This Polling District should be transferred in its entirety to Knights Hill since the population of this area will regard the Tulse Hill shopping centre close by to the east as their town centre, not Streatham Hill (well over a mile away to the west). The border should be tidied further by running along the entire length of Hillside Road (but extend the boundary west to the back of gardens of houses on western side of road) and through the pedestrian alley to Lydhurst Avenue/ Hitherfield Road. The railway line is not a relevant ward boundary since travel to the key town centre shops etc to the east is not constrained by the railway.
Similarly, we propose that Polling District SOE (St. Martins Estate) should be part of Thurlow Park (Rosendale) ward as it relates to the close by Tulse Hill shopping centre (not Brixton as stated by the Council).
Also, we feel the three wards will have a fair mix of housing, including council housing and estates and the more hidden social housing (both Council and Housing Association accommodation in residential streets).
If despite the above points, the decision is taken (as recommended by the Council) to reduce either Gipsy Hill or Knights Hill to two councillors, we would favour that adjustment being made to Gipsy Hill. We therefore support the Council option B (as amended by our other views above) as the recommended area (as far as can be understood, as the Council has not provided a map for this option). This area is much more orientated to Crystal Palace and its own shopping centres of Gipsy Road and Gipsy Hill station.
