Lambeth council ward boundary review 2020-21
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
editor
hiraethified
Here's the link: Lambeth council ward boundary review – online briefing, 13th July 2020
Online briefing is on 13th July 2020,
Online briefing is on 13th July 2020,
BusLanes
Pedestrian
I have some vague thoughts but I intend to pop onto the call/presentation next week before I think too much harder.
If I understand how these things go in a one party state, Labour will try and tweak the wards that are trending away from them and the other parties - Greens/Tories/LDs will try and do the opposite. Presumably as Labour has almost all of the councillors their voice will be more authoritative than last time when there were more opposition LD/Tory councillors.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The size of rhe wards is seriously disparate. What were they thinking in the year 2000 - or maybe wards like Coldharbour are so large because of the very low turnout?
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
I think we should start a campaign to resurrect Angell Ward. Much more benign sounding that the utilitarian Coldharbour.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think there is some talk about Loughborough Junction. Its right on edge of Coldharbour Ward and near Herne Hill.
Recent years have seen a lot of issues- the Adventure playground/ the masterplan/ etc which really cross Herne Hill and Coldharbour. The Adventure playground is only just in Coldharour.
So possibly the boundary could be moved for Coldharbour / Herne Hill wards.
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
On the old pre 2000 boundaries the adventure playground was bang in the middle of Agelll Ward.
The Thorlands Estate etc were in Angell - as was the area round Bessemer Road and Kings College Hospital northside. Now they are in Herne Hill Ward.
I think - but not completely certain - that Moorlands Estate was Herne Hill Ward.
So for some reason they apparently moved the social housing bit east of Loughborough Junction station into Herne Hill, swapping iit with Moorlands Estate.
No idea what effect that had in electoral terms - but the big game plan was to remove the small two councillor wards Thornton and Thurlow Park.
Out of our area - but the boundary adjustments ricocheted across Herne Hill and Brixton Hill/Clapham Park.
If the boundary was moved back like it was Cpldhabrour Angell would a higher concentration of social housing and Herne Hill more owner occupied.
Not sure if that would benefit anyone. Might not affect Becca - I suspect Green voters are mainly private tenants and owner occupiers.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
I think one of the things about boundary changes is population in each ward. Supposed to be relatively equal numbers in each ward.
Coldharbour has large population. So maybe needs to be trimmed a bit.
Ex Cllr said to me the Council should have less Cllrs but they should be paid proper wage like MPs.
Cllr should be full time job. Like an MP.
I can see his point. Cllrs often to say to me they dont have time as they are also working.
So my ex Cllr said one Cllr per ward , full time, give up old job, paid decent wage.
BusLanes
Pedestrian
Yeah but that is a pretty big change out of scope for this - at best Lambeth would lose a small number of councillors - the range in London seems to be high 50s- to high 60s.
I think we would need a full review of London boroughs - which probably is due as these things probably should happen every few decades to get that kind of change. NZ and Australia largely do the small council model - so 10-15 councillors per local authority and in large local authorities they get paid full time rates (and more so). However, having lived there, I can't say they are any better or worse governed than we are here in Lambeth, Wandsworth or other London Boroughs I've lived in. So I'm not convinced that a smaller number of FT councillors would actually solve anything.
I think we would need a full review of London boroughs - which probably is due as these things probably should happen every few decades to get that kind of change. NZ and Australia largely do the small council model - so 10-15 councillors per local authority and in large local authorities they get paid full time rates (and more so). However, having lived there, I can't say they are any better or worse governed than we are here in Lambeth, Wandsworth or other London Boroughs I've lived in. So I'm not convinced that a smaller number of FT councillors would actually solve anything.
Jesterburger
Well-Known Member
Feels slightly odd to being doing reviews the year before the census is done rather than the year after - the new data should be released in 2022 so we may find out the new boundaries are wrong straight away - I know they produce estimates in between but wouldn't it be better to wait for the most accurate data?
BusLanes
Pedestrian
I believe we are the last borough - but yes, would make sense if they have discretion.
I also imagine we will see a big change in constituencies - maybe getting a Norwood constituency that is fully in Lambeth
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
You are right about numbers. Looks like someone in Bishops or Clapham Common has nearly twice as much voting power as one in Larkhall or Coldharbour.
Regarding reducing the number of councillors to one per ward and trebling the pay - or more - I totally disagreed with this.
Lambeth Council have for the last twento or so years tried to have it both ways.
They want community involvement by having workshops, consultations, Neighbourhood Forums etc whereby the council says it is consulting the community - who self-select and do it free of charge for the council. And very often the council simply ignores their recommendations.
I oppose elected mayors - which are by definition divisive electing a strong wo/man to push stuff through.
I oppose cabinet rule in councils, whereby things are stitched up without challenge to the ruling group
In my opinion reducing the number of councillors would just make this process worse.
What is required is a proportional voting system so councillors can be allocated in proportion to the number of votes in an area - split wards being an added bonus.
I am not expert in benefits, but it is quite likely that unemployed people on Universal Credit could combine this with being a councillor in basic allowances.
Certainly thirty years ago loads of councillors were on benefits and seemed to survive.
Not sure why we would want to professionalise the councillor class and turn them into a wealthy cadre.
Notwithstanding that the particular councillor suggesting this was one of the two expelled by Labour over the last ten years for being too left-wing.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
The 1999 review was constrained by John Prescott's insistence that all of London would move to annual elections* and therefore all the wards had to be three member wards with councillors coming up for election one at a time.
The resulting need to abolish and redistribute Lambeth's former two member wards is why some of the current ward boundaries are just plain odd.
*This plan was hastily ditched shortly afterwards - the review this time around allows proposals for a mixture of two and three member wards.
The resulting need to abolish and redistribute Lambeth's former two member wards is why some of the current ward boundaries are just plain odd.
*This plan was hastily ditched shortly afterwards - the review this time around allows proposals for a mixture of two and three member wards.
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
The recommendation is to stick with 63 councillors.
More details at:
Lambeth on Local Government Boundary Commission for England site
LGBCE said:
More details at:
Lambeth on Local Government Boundary Commission for England site
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
More details of current ward and polling district map here
And here's how the current ward electorates compare.
I'm not sure why Larkhall ward has grown so dramatically bigger - can't think of any big new developments around that side of Stockwell/Clapham North???
And here's how the current ward electorates compare.
I'm not sure why Larkhall ward has grown so dramatically bigger - can't think of any big new developments around that side of Stockwell/Clapham North???
| Name of ward | Number of cllrs per ward | Electorate 2020 | Variance 2020 | Electorate 2026 | Variance 2026 |
| Coldharbour | 3 | 13,335 | 14% | 13,750 | 13% |
| Herne Hill | 3 | 12,155 | 4% | 12,328 | 1% |
| Thurlow Park | 3 | 10,697 | -8% | 10,820 | -11% |
| Knight's Hill | 3 | 10,818 | -7% | 11,107 | -9% |
| Gipsy Hill | 3 | 10,739 | -8% | 10,944 | -10% |
| Tulse Hill | 3 | 12,060 | 4% | 12,282 | 1% |
| Brixton Hill | 3 | 12,453 | 7% | 12,319 | 1% |
| Clapham Common | 3 | 10,513 | -10% | 10,995 | -10% |
| Thornton | 3 | 10,257 | -12% | 11,579 | -5% |
| Streatham Hill | 3 | 11,832 | 2% | 11,755 | -4% |
| Streatham Wells | 3 | 11,874 | 2% | 11,900 | -3% |
| St Leonard's | 3 | 11,641 | 0% | 11,662 | -5% |
| Streatham South | 3 | 10,533 | -10% | 10,749 | -12% |
| Bishop's | 3 | 7,615 | -35% | 9,177 | -25% |
| Prince's | 3 | 12,646 | 9% | 13,927 | 14% |
| Oval | 3 | 12,685 | 9% | 18,633 | 53% |
| Stockwell | 3 | 11,760 | 1% | 12,029 | -2% |
| Vassall | 3 | 12,631 | 8% | 12,442 | 2% |
| Ferndale | 3 | 12,830 | 10% | 12,661 | 4% |
| Larkhall | 3 | 13,924 | 20% | 13,836 | 13% |
| Clapham Town | 3 | 11,636 | 0% | 11,665 | -5% |
Last edited:
BusLanes
Pedestrian
Deadline is coming for consultation - 21 Sept - as per here
consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Has anyone submitted anything?
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
consultation.lgbce.org.uk
Has anyone submitted anything?
ViolentPanda
Hardly getting over it.
I've heard of a few Labour cllrs making noise about reducing Streatham St Leonards & Gipsy Hill wards to 2 member wards. I wonder why?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
The Council's own proposals are now online.
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Response
Zoomable map of the proposed boundaries
Coldharbour Ward is dead - long live "Brixton Central" ward
Vassall Ward also goes, but with more fundamental changes to create a new "Myatt’s Field & North Brixton" ward
Local Government Boundary Commission for England Consultation Response
Zoomable map of the proposed boundaries
Coldharbour Ward is dead - long live "Brixton Central" ward
Vassall Ward also goes, but with more fundamental changes to create a new "Myatt’s Field & North Brixton" ward
happyshopper
Well-Known Member
You don’t need to wonder. Just read the report.I've heard of a few Labour cllrs making noise about reducing Streatham St Leonards & Gipsy Hill wards to 2 member wards. I wonder why?
editor
hiraethified
Thus ending the argument about which postcode represents the 'real' Brixton. SW9 it is then. We're smack bang in the centre.
editor
hiraethified
Update
www.brixtonbuzz.com
Colharbour Ward to be renamed Brixton Central and new Vauxhall ward to appear under proposals put forward by Lambeth Council to change local election boundaries
Coldharbour ward looks set to be renamed and redrawn as Brixton Central under plans put forward by Lambeth Council.
www.brixtonbuzz.com
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Update
Colharbour Ward to be renamed Brixton Central and new Vauxhall ward to appear under proposals put forward by Lambeth Council to change local election boundaries
Coldharbour ward looks set to be renamed and redrawn as Brixton Central under plans put forward by Lambeth Council.
It should be remembered that at the last boundary review (in 1998-99) the Council's own proposals were mostly ignored by the Local Government Boundary Commission as they failed to deliver either electoral equality or clear boundaries, and those from an opposition party (Lib Dems) and other independent submissions had much more influence on the wards we have been living with since the 2002 elections.
The council has made a much more serious effort this time round (it would have been difficult to come up with anything more amateurish than their 1998 submission!), but it does seem to driven primarily by having the minimum possible change to current wards and therefore minimum changes to CLP branch areas (apart from the obvious attempt to shaft the Greens in Streatham).
Last edited:
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
Good point made tonight in the (virtual) meeting of Lambeth's Corporate Committe by Scott Ainslie of Green Party that council has not formally sought out input from other key stakeholders.
From the report: "The Council is therefore not required to consult stakeholders. Information about the consultation was sent to the Borough Commander for Lambeth as the Safer Neighbourhood Teams for the police are organised by ward."
Unfortunately, I suspect Met Police would see this as far too much of a "political" hot potato to make comments if they think any of the council's proposed boundaries don't make sense for neighbourhood policing.
So if local people do have concerns on this (or for any other reason), you need to respond before 21st September.
consultation.lgbce.org.uk
As an example - here is detail of suggested boundary between the council's proposed "Brixton Central" and "Myatt's Field and North Brixton" wards
From the report: "The Council is therefore not required to consult stakeholders. Information about the consultation was sent to the Borough Commander for Lambeth as the Safer Neighbourhood Teams for the police are organised by ward."
Unfortunately, I suspect Met Police would see this as far too much of a "political" hot potato to make comments if they think any of the council's proposed boundaries don't make sense for neighbourhood policing.
So if local people do have concerns on this (or for any other reason), you need to respond before 21st September.
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
consultation.lgbce.org.uk
As an example - here is detail of suggested boundary between the council's proposed "Brixton Central" and "Myatt's Field and North Brixton" wards
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
Since you are clearly learned in these affairs - I note that whereas Angell and Vassall - and subsequently Coldharbour and Vassall - sort of fitted with the old parish boundaries.Good point made tonight in the (virtual) meeting of Lambeth's Corporate Committe by Scott Ainslie of Green Party that council has not formally sought out input from other key stakeholders.
From the report: "The Council is therefore not required to consult stakeholders. Information about the consultation was sent to the Borough Commander for Lambeth as the Safer Neighbourhood Teams for the police are organised by ward."
Unfortunately, I suspect Met Police would see this as far too much of a "political" hot potato to make comments if they think any of the council's proposed boundaries don't make sense for neighbourhood policing.
So if local people do have concerns on this (or for any other reason), you need to respond before 21st September.
The Local Government Boundary Commission for England
As an example - here is detail of suggested boundary between the council's proposed "Brixton Central" and "Myatt's Field and North Brixton" wards
View attachment 230753
The new council proposal seems to cast this aside. Do you feel that the vestry system has finally been eclipsed by mammon?
lang rabbie
Je ne regrette les gazebos
I have to admit to having no idea what the modern (post WW2) parish boundaries are.
Because Anglicans in Lambeth still have the luxury of being able to choose between "High Church", "Low Church" and a few "Middle Stump" congregations, I just don't think of these churches as having particularly local catchments.
I eventually found this on the St John's, Angell Town website - presumably there to aid anyone wanting to claim residence in the parish rather than worship as grounds to be able to get married in the church.
Last edited:
CH1
"Red Guard"(NLYL)
The boundary is as I thought. And in the case of church schools - such as St John's Angell Town - I wondered if this might be the material consideration.
The school's admissions policy seems pretty open - unless you are a card carrying atheist. Living in the parish is not mentioned - but church attendance is.
They mention denominations approve by Churches Together in England and the Evangelical Alliance.
This would presumably rule out Catholics - but they have their own similarly state funded Catholic school on the opposite side of Brixton Road anyway.
Last edited:
BusLanes
Pedestrian
Seems like the Greens and Lib Dems are making a bit of a fuss about it online - the Greens being annoyed at St Leonards being reduced of course. Which I think is fair enough. St Leonards is only slightly under quota and chopping a bit off to fix another ward seems a bit odd. Why not just give Streatham South two councillors?
I am also quite taken with the idea of a Clapham Park Estate centered two member ward. It was the Thornton by elections last year which finally got the local Labour councillors to take the estates seriously there when they almost lost it - so why not give make the ward 2 member and split the non estate bits off either side? Might keep the accountability go.
Other than that I like some of the proposed changes in the north - Bishops needs two of course. I don't like the name of ex Vassal though.
I am also quite taken with the idea of a Clapham Park Estate centered two member ward. It was the Thornton by elections last year which finally got the local Labour councillors to take the estates seriously there when they almost lost it - so why not give make the ward 2 member and split the non estate bits off either side? Might keep the accountability go.
Other than that I like some of the proposed changes in the north - Bishops needs two of course. I don't like the name of ex Vassal though.
Gramsci
Well-Known Member
Last edited:
