Local Government Boundary Commission for England …

1

Local Government Boundary Commission for England

Electoral Review of Islington: Warding Arrangements

Islington Labour Party Submission

2

Contents

1. Introduction

2. Our Approach

3. Proposed Boundaries

Appendix

1. Maps of Proposed New Wards

2. Ward Electorate Calculations

3. 2024 Electorate by postcode methodology and calculations

3

1. Introduction

1.1. Islington Labour Party welcomes The Local Government Boundary Commission for England’s (LGBCE) decision to review the warding arrangements in Islington.

1.2. This proposal follows the first stage of the review, in which the LGBCE confirmed the

number of councillors will increase from 48 to 51.

1.3. Islington Labour holds 47 of the current 48 council seats, holds both Parliamentary

seats and the GLA seat, and has a membership of over 5,000 people, all of whom play active roles in their communities across the borough. This paper, which has been drawn up in consultation with all our elected representatives and wider membership, sets out our approach based on our knowledge of representing, working in, and living in communities across the borough.

1.4. This paper sets out a proposal which meets all three of the LGBCE’s criteria and

provides supporting evidence.

1.5. We are happy to provide additional information, or discuss any details further, if

required.

4

2. Our Approach

The LGBCE’s last review of ward boundaries, in 1999, created boundaries that, for the most part, well reflected the interests and identities of communities in Islington.

Our approach seeks to, as far as possible, preserve the pattern of existing representation of Islington communities which has wide acceptance.

Our proposal shows how this can be achieved whilst delivering on three statutory criteria set out by the LGBCE:

1.1. To deliver electoral equality where each borough councillor represents roughly the same number of electors as others across the borough.

The LGBCE confirmed on the 26th March that the number of councillors would increase from 48 to 51. This would mean each councillor, by 2024, will represent an average of 3,301 electors, based on the projected electorate figures published by the LGBCE.

By 2024, the projections show that 11 of the current 16 wards would have a variance of more than the 5% desired by the LGBCE.

The increase in population and disparity in electoral representation has been brought about by intense development of new homes in multiple wards across the borough since the 1999 review.

To deliver electoral equality across the borough, this proposal limits the variance from the average to 5% by creating one extra three-member ward.

1.2. That the pattern of wards should, as far as possible, reflect the interests and identities of local communities.

The last ward boundary review in 1999, delivered 16 three member wards which, in almost all cases, properly reflected the interests and identities of local communities.

Whilst we recognise this criterion is often used in rural areas to ensure villages and towns (often with different identities and interests) are properly represented, we believe this proposal, as far as possible, still meets this criterion.

In many of the current wards in Islington there is a distinct and strong community identity, which is both historical and cultural. In drawing up this proposal, we have considered several factors to preserve those communities.

To help with this preservation we have used the current boundaries as a starting point.

Unlike rural areas, Inner-London boroughs such as Islington do not have communities separated by large patches of open land, but the borough does have a number of major roads which act as clear boundaries. We have, in this proposal, used the majority of these roads as ward boundaries, namely Holloway Road, Pentonville Road, St Paul’s Road and Parkhurst Road.

Islington has a number of large housing estates, with a single estate often divided by streets, which form the basis of many local communities. Residents of many of these

5

estates share local services like community centres. Furthermore, Islington has an active local community with a number of residents’ groups and TRAs centered around these estates. This proposal does not divide those estates which have a strong sense of community identity.

Islington has several train lines running through the borough. In most areas, these train lines do not physically divide communities, as many of them run underground. However, there are some lines which do act as clear boundaries that physically divide communities. These train lines, and the impact they have on ward boundaries, are detailed in the individual ward proposals.

1.3. That the electoral arrangements should provide for effective and convenient local government.

The last review, conducted in 1999, resulted in sixteen, three-member wards. Since the 2002 elections, the Council has built a convenient and effective functioning model, which relies on maintaining a uniform pattern of three member wards.

A large amount of decision making is devolved to ward councillors, which necessitates three-member wards – specifically in the spending of planning obligations where the council requires at least 2 out of 3 Ward Members to agree to the use of any funds before they can be allocated. The same principle applies to the allocation of small grants. By maintaining three-member wards, this proposal seeks to avoid a ‘deadlock’ situation, which could be arrived at by introducing two member wards, particularly in wards which have representation from different political parties.

To ensure Islington Council continues to govern in an effective and convenient way, and to ensure the wider community receives a similar level of service and equal representation, we have considered a number of factors including historic areas of the borough, council-managed green space and community facilities, schools, major commercial areas, transport infrastructure and places of worship. In drawing up these proposals we have, as far as possible, sought to suggest wards with a relatively even amount of services and infrastructure, that are either council-managed or rely on support from Islington Council.

Islington is a diverse borough which is represented by people from a range of backgrounds. Islington Council’s report on the number of councillors, which was later accepted by the LGBCE, included details of the ever-increasing workload of individual councillors. Many councillors have other responsibilities including caring responsibilities or full-time work. By maintaining three-member wards, councillors will have the same level of flexibility and support from ward colleagues to continue effectively representing their constituents, whilst managing their other responsibilities. To introduce wards with less than three members would mean many councillors may not be able to continue in their role, thus making councillors less representative of the borough’s population.

Furthermore, in its work to make representatives reflective of the Borough’s population, Islington Council has adopted generous Parental and Sickness leave policies for those councillors who need it. To ensure councillors can continue to have a right to this leave, whilst also ensuring effective, convenient governance and representation of local people continues throughout any such period, three-member wards must be maintained.

Electors in Islington currently vote in 4 different recurring elections: Local Elections, UK Parliamentary Elections, European Parliamentary Elections, London Mayoral and GLA

6

Elections.All elections are, at least in part, administered by Islington Council’s Electoral Services department and currently use the same polling district boundaries for all 4 elections, ensuring the effective and convenient running of each election. There have been multiple occasions where more than one election has taken place on the same day and it is expected the 2022 General Election and 2022 Local Elections will be held on the same day.

To minimise disruption to the council’s Electoral Services, and allow the department to continue to operate in an effective way, this proposal delivers wards which do not cross Parliamentary constituency boundaries, thus allowing the council to again use the same polling districts, at each election. Furthermore, this continuity of polling district boundaries across elections seeks to keep disruption to voters to a minimum.

8

3. Proposed Boundaries

Name St George’s

Number of Councillors 3

Projected 2024 Electorate 10287

Projected 2024 Electorate variance 3.88%

As a result of planned development, particularly the re-development of the former Holloway

Prison site, the current ward is predicted to have an electorate of 10,287 by 2024, which at 3.88%

above the average number of electors per ward delivers electoral equality.

We therefore propose to make no changes to this ward, delivering on the other two criteria set out

by the commission and accepted at the last review.

Therefore, the boundary would run past from the borough boundary along Camden Road, forking

to the north and running up Parkhurst Road to meet Holloway Road. From Holloway Road, the

boundary would run north to the corner of Tytherton Road. The northern boundary would then

run west along Tytherton Road, turning south at Gatcombe Road, west at Mercers Road, and south

at Campdale Road. Finally, it would run west at Tufnell Park Road to meet the borough boundary

at Brecknock Road.

9

Name Junction




The current Junction Ward has not seen, nor is it predicted to see, the same level of population

growth or development as other parts of the borough.

The current ward boundaries, based on the projected 2024 figures, would mean Junction had a 6%

variance from the average number of electors per ward.

Respecting the southern boundary which borders St George’s for the reason outlined above, we

propose to move 920 electors from Hillrise ward into Junction, which would bring the ward

electorate within a 5% variance from the average number of electors. This minimal change delivers

a recognisable ward boundary, delivering on the two other criteria.

The boundary would therefore run from the western borough boundary east along the northern

edge of St George’s, as outlined above, to Holloway Road. The boundary would then run north,

taking in the eastern side of Holloway Road, to Upper Holloway Station, then turn east to follow

the train line. The boundary would then run north up Ashbrook Road to St John’s Way. At the

junction the boundary would run east along at John’s Way, taking in properties on the northern

side of the road, the turn North up Cressida Road to Harberton Road. The boundary would take in

the properties on the southern side of Harberton Road, before turning north up Archway Road, to

the borough boundary.

The existing ward takes its name from Junction Road, which acts as a spine of the community with

residents on either side of the road sharing the same interests. Junction Road is a busy commercial

road which serves the needs of the local community.

At the top of Junction road, sits Archway Station - the heart of the local community. The recent

removal of the gyratory and regeneration at Archway, has only strengthened the sense of

community around this area. By expanding the boundary east, Archway Station, Archway Park and

Navigator’s Square – the home to Archway Market, become part of the same ward, further

strengthening the already well establish sense of community identity in the ward.

10

Name Hillrise




Hillrise ward is the only ward in the borough projected to see a decrease in its population and with

only a small number of developments planned between now and 2024, the current ward

boundaries would leave Hillrise with a variance of almost 15% from the average number of

electors per ward.

To compensate for the 920 electors moved to Junction, as detailed above, and to bring about

electoral equality, we propose to move 2,461 electors from the existing Tollington ward into

Hillrise.

This would mean the western boundary of the ward would follow the proposal outlined above for

Junction, running north to the borough boundary at Hornsey Lane. The boundary would then

follow the borough boundary east, before turning south behind Ella Road, continuing on to Mount

Pleasant Villas, and then Mount Pleasant Close. At the Hanley/ Stapleton/ Stroud Green Junction,

the boundary would run north up Crouch Hill, before running west, following the train line to

Ormond Road. It would then run south to Hanley Road, turning west to take in the properties on

the northern side of Hanley Road, continuing across Hornsey Road, to take in the northern side of

Marlborough Road to Holloway Road to meet the Junction border.

After the 1999 review Hillrise ward was formed by combining two wards; Hillrise and Highview,

who’s residents shared a strong sense of community identity, which comes from living in the most

northern point of the borough. This proposal seeks to preserve a recognisable ward shape, in turn

protecting a community identity which pre-dates the 1999 review.

Hillrise has multiple geographically large council estates, like the Elthorne Estate which straddles

different streets, residents on these estates have a strong sense community identity, born out of

shared interests, services and spaces. This proposed ward boundary respects those estates as

single communities by not dividing them across wards.

The proposal seeks to move Crouch Hill from the Tollington ward into Hillrise.

The current boundary which divides Crouch Hill, is neither based on geographical or community

lines. The majority of Crouch Hill already sits within the current boundaries of Hillrise, the area

which sits in Tollington is clearly separated from the central and southern parts of Tollington by a

busy junction, at Stapleton/ Hanley/ Stroud Green Road. There is already a strong sense of

community which comes from being in the most northern part of the borough, with most

residents associating themselves with the Crouch End area, and this proposal seeks to strengthen

that by removing the current, unnatural, boundary. This proposal would move Holly Park Estate,

which sits off Crouch Hill from Tollington to Hillrise. This estate is large in both population and

geography and has its own identity, strengthened by a new community centre which sits on the

edge of the estate, on Crouch Hill. By moving the entire estate, along with Ilex House, which also

sits on Crouch Hill, we have sought to preserve the identity of the Crouch Hill/ Holly Park

Community.

11

Name Tollington




Based on the projected 2024 electorate figures, the current Tollington ward boundaries would

deliver electoral equality. However, in order to bring about electoral equality to its neighbouring

wards, we propose to move 2,461 electors from Tollington to Hillrise, as outlined above, and to

move 2,779 electors from Finsbury Park to Tollington, delivering a variance of 3.63%.

The proposed boundary would run from the corner of Holloway Road and Marlborough Road east

along the new proposed boarder of Hillrise. At the Hanley/ Stapleton/ Stroud Green junction the

boundary would run south down Stroud Green Road, turn west, after Tollington Park, to follow the

current boundary line west to the corner of Tollington Park and Hornsey Road. The boundary

would then run south down Hornsey Road, to include properties on the eastern side of the road.

The boundary would the run west, behind Seven Sisters Road, to Holloway Road. The boundary

would then run north up Holloway Road, to the corner of Marlborough Road.

This proposal seeks to preserve the strong community identity that exists around the Hanley Road

and Crouch Hall Court area. The residents of both Hanley Road and Crouch Hall Court on Sparsholt

Road, which the primary walking access is from Hanley Road, and the residents to the south of

Hanley Road, share common interests and services including, but not limited to the medical service

on the edge of Crouch Hall Court, access to green space at Wray Crescent, including a children’s

play area and use the same transports hubs to travel in and out of the area.

The proposed new boundary seeks to combine the remainder of Tollington with the majority of

Finsbury Park polling district NFPC. Until 1999, Sussex Way acted as the spine to the then Sussex

Ward, which sat between Hornsey Road and Holloway Road.

This proposal seeks to combine both sides of Tollington way, so Sussex Way is no longer divided.

Residents on either side of the current Tollington Way divide, share access to the same transport

links (on both Hornsey Road and Holloway Road), council services like Manor Gardens Library, with

children on either side of Tollington Way attending the same schools. The proposed new boundary

does not cross the southern part of Hornsey Road to preserve the identity of the estates in

Finsbury Park, as detailed in the Finsbury Park ward proposal.

12

Name Finsbury Park




Based on the projected 2024 electorate figures, Finsbury Park is predicted to see an 8% rise in

population across the ward and with a number of developments planned the current ward boundaries

would see an 17% variance from the average number of electors.

In order to bring about electoral equality, whilst meeting the other two criteria, we propose to move

2,779 electors from Finsbury Park to Tollington, as detailed above and move 1,095 electors from

Highbury West into Finsbury Park.

The boundary would run from Holloway Road east along Seven Sisters Road, to include properties on

both sides of the road, turning north up Hornsey Road to include properties on the eastern side of the

road. The boundary would then run east along the existing border with Tollington ward, before turning

south down Stroud Green Road. The boundary would continue south down Blackstock Road then run

west along Monsell Road, taking in the properties on the northern side of the road until Plimsoll Road.

The boundary would run north up Plimsoll Road, continuing in the same direction until the railway line.

The boundary would then follow the current line, running south down the railway track, before going

north at Citizens Road, east at Tolllington Road, then running north up Holloway Road to the corner of

Seven Sisters Road.

Finsbury Park Ward has a distinct sense of community identity that this proposal seeks to protect.

Running through the middle of the ward is Seven Sister Road, which is a busy commercial road, which

includes the Nag’s Head Market, and an array of shops, cafes, restaurants which are all reflective of the

community around it. Seven Sisters Road is served by a number of bus routes and Finsbury Park Tube

station, meaning most people across the ward visit the area on a daily basis.

This proposal would see almost all of the NFPC polling district moved from Finsbury Park to Tollington

Ward to deliver electoral equality. We propose that Finsbury Park retains all of Seven Sisters Road,

including the part in NFPC, to preserve the community identity around Seven Sister Road.

In the middle of Finsbury Park ward are two large estates: The Andover Estate and Six Acres. Residents

on these estates share an extremely strong sense of identity. There are active community groups and a

community centre in the middle of the estate. This proposal does not divide the estates, to protect the

interests of this strong community.

This proposal seeks to move the most northern point of Highbury West ward into Finsbury Park. The

area around the top of Blackstock Road, is most frequently accessed from Seven Sisters Road. Local

People in this area identify with living in Finsbury Park, as both the station and the park are with close

walking distance.

Finsbury Park is an incredibly diverse ward, and has an above average Muslim population. This proposal

would move Finsbury Park Mosque into Finsbury Park ward. Finsbury Park residents, of all faiths and

non, see the mosque as a playing an integral part in their community and moving the boundary to

include the mosque would strengthen that community spirit, whilst helping to build even closer links

between residents, faith groups and elected representatives.

13

Name Arsenal

Number of councilors 3



This ward is a successor to the current Highbury West ward.

As a result of major development in the past two decades across the ward, the projected 2024 figures

would see the current ward boundaries deliver a variance of over 30% from the average electorate

size.

To deliver a variance of less than 5%, whilst still respecting strong community lines which exist in the

ward, we propose to move 1,095 electors from Highbury West into Finsbury Park and move 1,633

electors from the existing Highbury West ward into a new Highbury ward (see below).

The boundary would follow the existing line, running north on Holloway Road from Drayton Park to

Tollington Road. The boundary would continue east, following the existing boundary along the train

track before turning south east, to run along the new Finsbury Park border, as outlined above, to

Blackstock Road. As with the existing boundary, the new boundary would run south down Blackstock

Road to the corner of Aubert Park. The boundary would then run east along Aubert Park, turning

south down Drayton Park to the corner of Holloway Road.

Recognising that a significant change is required to deliver on the criterion of electoral equality, this

proposal seeks to limit the impact on community identity and interests. This proposal preserves the

core area of the current Highbury West Ward. The areas which have been removed and the reasoning

are detailed in the Finsbury Park and Highbury Ward proposals.

The Emirates, home to Arsenal F.C., sits in the middle of the ward. The area around the stadium has

seen major development over a number of years, including the development of the old Arsenal

Stadium into residential units. Both new residents and long standing residents identify as living ‘near

the Arsenal’.

Arsenal Tube station sits to one side of the stadium which many local people in the use to travel.

This proposal suggests that the northern part of Highbury West moved into Finsbury Park but the

area just north of Gillespie Road, including Quill Street is retained because the train line acts a

physical divide between communities. Residents in this area are far more likely to travel using Arsenal

tube station, and use Holloway Road or Blackstock Road to travel by bus or as shopping and leisure

destinations than travelling north to Finsbury Park.

The new ward boundaries would see Arsenal Station and both Arsenal’s old and new stadiums sit in

the centre of the ward. We therefore tentatively propose to re-name this ward Arsenal.

14

Name Highbury



Projected 2024 Electorate variance -1.02%

This ward is a successor to the current Highbury East Ward.

The ward is predicted to have a limited amount of growth and development between now and 2024,

and as such, the current boundaries would not deliver electoral equality as the ward would be 10.9%

under the average electorate size.

To bring about this electoral equality in the ward and neighbouring wards, we propose to move 1,633

electors from Highbury West into Highbury and move 1,056 from the current Highbury East ward into

Mildmay ward. We also propose to move 344 from Mildmay into Highbury to create a ward shape

which better reflects the interests of the community.

The boundary would follow the existing line, running north up Holloway Road from the corner of

Highbury Place to Drayton Park. Turning east to run along Drayton Park, before following the new

border of Arsenal ward set out above, to the corner of Aubert Park and Highbury Park. The boundary

would follow the existing line north up Highbury Park to the borough boundary, at Mountgrove Road.

The boundary would run east, continue along the borough boundary running south down Green Lane

continuing on to Petherton Road, then running west just south of St Augustine’s Church. The boundary

would then run south down Highbury New Park stopping at the roundabout at Beresford Terrace. At

the roundabout the boundary would run west, south of Aberdeen Lane and north of Baalbec Road, the

boundary would then run down the back of properties on Highbury Place to the corner of Holloway

Road.

There is a strong sense of community on the streets which immediately face Highbury Fields. In seeking

to preserve this, as far as possible, we have proposed that Highbury ward retains both Highbury Place

and the streets to the north western side of the fields.

This proposal would move the area west of Highbury Barn from Highbury West ward into Highbury

ward. This section of Highbury Park acts as a centre to the community with Highbury Barn being home

to a number of shops, cafes and a pub which local people from around the area use and frequent. The

area is also served by several bus routes, which local people on both sides of the road use to travel. By

not using this section of the road as a boundary, this proposal seeks to enhance the community

identity, born out of a shared use of services, around Highbury Barn. Moving these streets into this

ward creates a much more coherent shape to the revised ward, given it’s need to expand.

This proposal would see Highbury Fields School moved into the new Highbury ward, which many local

children attend. Helping to provide better links between parents and their local representatives, thus

guaranteeing more effective and convenient local government.

As part of our proposal to preserve the sense of identity of people around Highbury Fields, strengthen

the community around Highbury Barn and move Highbury Hill and Highbury Fields School into this

ward, we tentatively suggest this ward is re-named Highbury Ward.

15

Name Mildmay




The current ward boundaries would almost deliver electoral equality based on the 2024

figures.

Therefore, the minimal changes we are proposing is to deliver better electoral equality

for the pattern of wards, across the borough.

The ward boundary would run from Highbury Place and Holloway Road following the new

border with Highbury, as set out above, north to the borough boundary at Petherton

Road. The boundary would follow the existing borough boundary, south east to the

corner of Balls Ponds Road. The boundary would again follow the exiting boundary run

east along Balls Pond Road, and the St Paul’s Road, back to the corner of Highbury Place

and Holloway Road.

Whilst the primary reasoning for this small change is to deliver better electoral equality

for Mildmay and the neighbouring wards of Highbury and Arsenal, by retaining almost all

current Mildmay residents in the new ward, this delivers on the other two criteria, as

accepted in 1999.

Mildmay is one of the boroughs more residential wards, with small pockets of commercial

or community hubs, scattered across the ward. As a result, the sense of identity exists in

pockets of streets or particular estates. This proposal does not divide any estate

including Highbury Estate and the Mayville Estate.

Up until the 1999 review, the streets west of Highbury Grove were included in Mildmay

Ward. Highbury Grove, as in the Highbury proposal, does not serve as a natural

boundary, with the area to the west of Highbury Grove sharing an interests with those to

the east, born from having the same access transport links, services, and the need to

travel slightly further to access some services than other residents of the borough have

to.

The minimal changes on Highbury New Park, seeks to deliver a geographically more

sensible boundary, by not dividing those who live in the cul-de-sacs accessed from

Highbury New Park and those who live on Highbury New Park, which would also allow for

more effective and convenient local government.

16

Name Holloway




As a result of major development across the ward, the projected 2024 figures would see the

current ward boundaries deliver a variance of 20% from the average electorate size.

To, as far as possible, preserve the interest and identities of the community in Holloway, while

delivering electoral equality we propose to move 2179 electors from the south of the ward in to

Central Ward (see below).

The ward boundary would therefore follow the existing boundary by running west along Camden

Road/Parkhurst Road, before running south down Holloway Road to Eden Grove. The boundary

would then run west along Eden Grove to include properties on the northern side of the road,

continuing south down Eden Grove. The boundary would then run west along Piper Close,

continuing west across Piper Close to meet the railway line then following the railway line south

to Market Road. The boundary would follow the existing boundary west to York Way, then north

up York Way to the corner of Camden Road.

The current Holloway ward was re-drawn in 1999 to combine the then Hillmarton ward with the

northern part of the then Holloway ward, namely the Ringcross estates and surrounding areas.

“The Ringcross" is made up of a range of estates centred around Georges Road, known locally as

the the ‘Old Ringcross’ and ‘New Ringcross’ Estates and has its own distinct identity, that has

existed for over a century. To preserve this identity this proposal would move the entire estate to

Central Ward. The remainder of the area in the south of the ward (north of Eden Road and Piper

Close) which this proposal seeks to retain in Holloway ward is largely new developments, built

since the last review, form part of a socially and culturally different community to those around

the Ringcross.

The remainder of Holloway is made up of several other large housing estates, which this proposal

seeks not to divide to avoid dividing communities.

Whilst delivering electoral equality, this proposal seeks to preserve a recognisable ward shape

and protect the strong sense of community in the areas which surround Hillmarton and

Caledonian Road which still exist based on the previous boundaries.

17

Name Central




This ward is a new ward formed of 2179 electors from Holloway Ward Polling District SHYC,

5085 from St Mary’s Ward, 2209 from Caledonian Ward polling district SCAA.

The existing ward boundaries would result in Holloway and Caledonian both having an electoral

variance from the average of over 20% by 2024.

The existing St Mary’s ward boundary runs from the southern end of Holloway Road and the

area around Highbury Corner, right down to Islington Green, at the southern end of Upper

Street, combining two distinct areas which local people separately identify with.

This new ward seeks to deliver electoral equality for Holloway and Caledonian, and create a

ward which better reflects community identities and interests by moving the northern part of St

Mary’s ward into Central Ward.

The Boundary would therefore run from the corner of Eden Grove and Holloway Road south to

Highbury Corner, following the existing St Mary boundary east along St Paul’s Road, then

running south down Compton Road. The boundary would then run west along Alwyne Lane,

south down Canonbury Road, then west along Sable Street and Tyndale Lane to Upper Street.

The boundary will then run south down Upper Street, turning west at Barnsbury Street to

Liverpool Road. The boundary will run north up Liverpool Road, the run west along the train line

to Caledonian Road. The Boundary will run north up Caledonian Road, west at Brewery Road,

then follow the train line north to Caledonian Tube Station. The Boundary would then run west

along Piper Close, turning north up Eden Grove to reach Holloway Road.

The new ward seeks to strengthen community identities by combining a number of housing

estates from across three wards, which already share a common interest and identity, and until

now have been unnaturally divided including Ringcross Estate, Caledonian Estate, Westbourne

Estate and the Mersey Estate.

This ward will combine residents who identify with ‘around Highbury and Islington’ as an area

and who share a multitude of services at the southern part of Holloway Road and the northern

end of Upper Street including, Highbury and Islington Station, St Mary Magdalen’s Church and

Gardens, Paradise Park & Compton Terrace Gardens. The removal of the Highbury Corner

Gyratory and its redevelopment as a new public space will strengthen the sense of shared

identity in this new ward.

This ward sits almost in the centre of Islington, and includes Highbury and Islington station,

which is the central tube and train station that residents across the borough use to travel in and

out of Islington. We therefore propose to name this Central Ward.

18

Name Caledonian



Projected 2024 Electorate variance -3%

As a result of major development across the ward, the projected 2024 figures would see the current

ward boundaries deliver a variance of almost 20% from the average electorate size.

We propose to move 2209 electors to Central ward from the north east of the ward, thus delivering

electoral equality for the ward, whilst still delivering on the other two criteria.

The ward boundary would therefore run west along Market Road, turning south to follow the

railway line to Brewery Road. The Boundary would then run east along Brewery Road turning south

at Caledonian Road, retaining the properties on the west of Caledonian Road. The Boundary would

then follow the train line east to Roman Way before turning south to follow the existing boundary

down Hemingford Way, running west along Copenhagen Street, then running south to Pentonville

Road. The boundary would continue to follow the existing line west along Pentonville Road before

running north up York Way to Market Road.

Caledonian ward takes its name from Caledonian Road with runs horizontally through the ward. The

busy road is seen as a ‘community hub’ as it provides excellent exactly transport links by bus, tube

and overground train and has a multitude of retails premises, bars, cafes and a leisure centre,

resulting in residents using services on road on a daily basis. The majority of people who live in the

ward identifying as living in ‘The Cally’.

The annual Cally Festival, a celebration of this community, closes off the road south of the railway

bridge and this proposal would keep both sides of the road, where this event takes place, in the

same ward. Whilst recognising the need to shrink the electorate of this ward to deliver, electoral

equality we have sought to preserve the interests of the community by retaining the area of

Caledonian Road which sits at the heart of the community.

Caledonian ward has several large estates, each of which has its own identity - specifically, the

Bemerton Estate, which sits to the west of Caledonian Road covers a huge geographical area, but

has a strong sense of community spirit and shared interest right across the estate. To preserve this,

and ensure local people are represented in a convenient and effective way, we have not divide any

of these estates.

19

Name Barnsbury




The current ward is predicted to have an electorate of 9520 by 2024, which is only 3.87% below

the average, and is therefore projected to deliver electoral equality.

The distinct local community of Barnsbury is well represented by the current boundary.es We

therefore propose to make no changes to this ward, delivering on the other two criteria set out by

the commission and accepted at the last review - the rationale for which still applies today.

The boundary would therefore follow the existing boundary line. Running north from Pentonville

Road, up Calshot Street to Copenhagen Street. The boundary would run east along Copenhangen

Street, then North up Hemingford road, retaining properties on the eastern side, to the rail way

line. The Boundary would the follow the railway line east to Liverpool Road, before running south

down to Pentonville Road, to run west back to Calshot Street.

20

Name Canonbury




Based on the current ward boundaries Canonbury ward would have just under 7% variance in the

average number of electors.

To lower that variance and bring about better electoral equality, we propose to move 73 3electors

from the current St Peter’s ward.

The boundary would follow the existing boundary running east along St Paul’s Road to the

borough boundary, following the borough boundary south to the corner of Southgate Road and

Shepperton Road, the boundary would the run in a north westerly direction, continuing up New

North Road to include properties on the north eastern side of the road. The boundary would then

continue along the existing line running north west up Canonbury Road, then north up Alwyne

Villas and Compton Road back to St Paul’s Road.

This proposed new boundary is almost identical to the current boundary which was accepted

Boundary Commission at the last review, as it met the criterion set out.

The slight change would deliver electoral equality, whilst continuing to allow for effective and

convenient local government.

This proposal preserves the interests and identities shared by not moving any residents to a

different ward.

The current boundary line, Rotherfield Street, divides streets which have residents who feel part of

the same community. By moving the boundary line to New North Road, these streets will no

longer be divided, and the council blocks on either side of Rotherfield Street, who share the same

interests will share elected representatives.

The expansion of the south western border would see Rotherfield School move into Canonbury

ward, which many local Canonbury children attend, thus strengthening the relationship between

parents of these school children and their local representatives.

21

Name St Mary’s and St James’




The ward is a new ward combining parts of the existing St Mary’s and St Peter’s wards.

Whilst the current St Mary’s boundary delivers electoral equality on the projected 2024 electorate

figures, it does not reflect the interest and identities of two separate communities. The current St

Mary’s ward is an a album of two very separate communities – both demographically and

culturally – north and south of the proposed boundary between Central ward and this ward. This

proposal puts both of those separate communities together with areas they identify with more

closely. The current ward boundaries of St Peter’s would, based on the 2024 figures, not deliver

electoral equality. This proposal seeks to combine the community in the south of St Mary’s with

the community in St Peter’s who share a common sense of identity.

The boundary would therefore run south from the corner of Barnsbury Street down Liverpool

Road to Upper Street. The boundary would then run North from Angel, forking to the east at

Islington Green, then turn east down St Peter’s Street to Rheidol Terrace. The boundary would run

north up Rheidol terrace and Prebend Street, turn south at Packington Street to the junction with

St Paul Street. The boundary would the down the south western side of Union Square, continuing

down Bevan Street to the borough boundary. The boundary would then follow the borough

boundary in a north east direction to the junction of Baring Street and Shepperton Road. The

boundary would the run north west up Shepperton Road, continuing up new north road before

turning north at Alwyne Villas. The boundary would then run west along Alwyne Lane to follow the

new Central ward boundary line west to Upper Street, before turning south on Upper Street then

west up Bransbury Street to Liverpool Road.

At the most southern point of the ward sits Islington Green, which is a commercial and transport

hub for the community around it. From Islington Green, Upper Street and Essex Road run north. In

this proposal, we have maintained not using either of these roads as boundaries as the residents

on either side of each road share common interests. This ward seeks to reflect the strong sense of

community identity amongst these resident, which born out of use of shared facilities,

independent local shops and open spaces.

The ward is a combination of the Parish of St Mary’s and the Parish of St James’, which is the basis

of the proposed name ‘St Mary’s and St James’ Ward’.

22

Name Canalside




This ward is a new ward which combines the northern part of the current Bunhill ward with the

southern part of the existing St Peter’s ward.

The current Bunhill and St Peter’s wards do not deliver electoral equality based on the 2024

electorate, as they are both over quota, therefore, this proposal seeks to bring about electoral

equality in neighbouring wards by the creation of this new ward.

The boundary would run north from the corner of Lever Street up Goswell Road, turning west at

Rawstrone Street, before running north up St John Street and continue north along Upper Street

to Islington Green. The boundary would then run down Islington green then turn east down St

Peter’s Street to Rheidol Terrace. The boundary would run north up Rheidol terrace and Prebend

Street, turn south at Packington Street to the junction with St Paul Street. The boundary would

the down the south western side of Union Square, continuing down Bevan Street to the borough

boundary before turning west to follow the borough boundary down to Wharf Road. The

boundary would continue to follow the borough boundary south down Wharf Road and City Road

then turn west along Lever Street to Goswell Road.

In drawing up this proposal we have considered a number of factors to ensure we preserve the

interest and identities of the communities in the ward while reflecting new populations as well.

The northern part of Bunhill and the Canal Basin in the current St Peter’s ward historically formed

part of the London Borough of Finsbury. In recognition of the division set out in the Bunhill

proposal, we have created an expanded boundary based on this historical line. Whilst we

recognise City Road is a busy road, it is well served by multiple pedestrian and cycle crossing

making it less of a clear dived than other ‘A’ roads in Islington. The canal, and it’s associated

public space and leisure activities, are a focal point for residents at the northern end of City Road,

on both sides of the road.

Angel Tube Station, and the nearby bus stops would act as the main transport hub for residents

across the new ward.

The area around the canal has, in recent years, been significantly developed including the delivery

of the new Canalside estate, which used to be called the Packington Estate before comprehensive

regeneration. Both new and old residents show a strong sense of identity.

The community around the canal has a strong sense of identity, which is exhibited every year at

the Angel Canal Festival where residents from around the community come together.

The canal, which runs through the centre of this new ward, forms the basis for the name

Canalside Ward.

23

Name Bunhill




The projected population figures have predicted an increase of almost 35% across Bunhill ward,

coupled with a large amount of development across the borough, the current ward boundaries

would lead to an almost 50% variance from the average number of electors.

Recognising the need for significant change to deliver on the criterion of, this proposal seeks to

retain a recognisable Bunhill ward to deliver on the two other criteria.

We propose to move 4821 voters from Bunhill to Canalside from the northern part of the ward,

thus preserving the central and southern parts of the ward. To help deliver equality whilst also

and creating a more geographically sensible boundary between wards, it is proposed to move

145 to Clerkenwell from Bunhill.

The boundary would follow the existing borough boundary from west of Old Street, running

down Tabernacle Street then Wilson Street down to Eldon Street. The boundary would then run

in north westerly direction, turning north up Moor Lane, west along Chiswell Street before

running North up Golden Lane. The boundary then runs west before reaching Banner Street,

runs North to Baltic Street, then runs south down Goswell Road to Charterhouse Street. The

boundary would run north up St John’s Street, running east along Compton Street, then north

up Agdon Street to Percival Street. The boundary would run east along Percival Street, and then

Leaver Street to meet City Road, where it would follow the existing boundary south east sown

City Road to Old Street.

The current Bunhill ward made up part of the historic borough of Finsbury and has an unusually

strong sense of community identity. This proposal seeks to deliver a new Bunhill, which as far as

possible within the tolerated divergence in ward size, retains that identity.

Bunhill has several large housing estates spread across the ward, which each have their own

identity, with active TRAs and shared community facilities. This proposal has not divided the

majority of estates to help with maintaining this strong sense of community.

The new Bunhill boundary would retain the majority of sites of historical and cultural

importance, including Charterhouse and Bunhill Fields. Furthermore, St Luke’s Garden, St Luke’s

Estate, and St Luke’s CoE School, all of which take their name from the historic parish of St

Lukes, would sit in the centre of the ward, strengthening the St Luke’s community, that many

Bunhill residents identify as being a part of.

24

Name Clerkenwell




The current ward is predicted to have an electorate of 9,591 by 2024, well within the 5% variance,

desired by the electoral commission.

We therefore propose to make one minimal changes to this ward, to help deliver electoral equality

to neighbouring wards by moving 145 from Bunhill to Clerkenwell, and create a more sensible

geographical boundary between the two wards.

The remainder of the ward uses the same boundaries as the current one, which were accepted at

the last review, thus meeting the other two criteria.

The boundary would therefore run along the borough boundary from St John’s Street west along

Charterhouse Road, the run north up Farringdon Road. The boundary would the run west along

Clerkenwell Road, before following the existing borough boundary north up to Calthorpe Street,

before running west to Farringdon Road, then running up Kings Cross Road to Pentonville Road.

The boundary would the run east along Pentonville Road, turning south at St John’s Street,

following the existing line to Goswell Road. The boundary would then run south down Goswell

Road, then west along Percival Street, turning south down Agdon Street, west along Compton

Street, and turning south back down to St John Street.

25

Appendix 2. Maps of Proposed New Wards

44

APPENDIX 2. Ward Electorate Calculations

45

St George's - 3 members

Polling District Total number of electors 2024 Description

NSGA 2152 All

NSGB 4307 All

NSGC 3828 All

Total 2024 electorate 10287

Variance from Borough Average 3.88%

Junction - 3 members


NJUA 3504 All

NJUB 2002 All

NJUC 3810 All

NHRA (part) 122 Harberton Road

NHRB (part) 798 Area bordered by St John's Way, Cressida Road, Harberton Road and Archway Road



Hillrise - 3 members


NHRA (part) 1772 All except Hareberton Road.

NHRB (part) 3391 All except area west of Cressida Road

NHRC 2591 All

NTOC (part) 1746

Crouch Hill and area to the east. Area North of the railway line. Grenville Road, Spears Road, Lambton Road,Jutland Close and Hornsey Road between Hanley Road and current PD boundary. Marlobrough Road (north side) and streets to north

NTOA (part) 715 Marlborough Road (north side) and streets north of Marlborough Road.



46

Tollington - 3 members


NTOA (part) 3408 All except Marlborough Road (north side) and streets north of Marlborough Road.

NTOB 3439 All

NTOC (part) 637 Hanley Road, Hanley Gradens, Sparhsolt Road,

NFPB (part) 2779 All except Seven Sisters Road



Finsbury Park - 3 members


NFPA 2850 All

NFPB 56 Seven Sisters Road

NFPC 2658 All

NFPD 3270 All

NHWA (part) 1095 Area Bordered by Seven Sisters Road, Blackstock Road, Monsell Road and Plimsoll Road



Arsenal - 3 members


NHWA (part) 1611 Area South of Plimsoll Road and South if Monsell Road

NHWB 3374 All

NHWC (part) 1005 Area North of Aubert Park. Drayton Park.

NHWD 2048 All

NHWE 2166 All



47

Highbury - 3 members


NHEA(part) 2253 All except area east of Highury Place

NHEB 2684 All

NHEC (part) 2888 All except Holmcote Gardens

NMIC (part) 344 Highbury New Park and Seaforth Crescent

NHWC (part) 1633 Area South of Aubert Park and east of Drayton Park


Variance from Borough Average -1.02%

Mildmay - 3 members


NMIA 2604 All

NMIB 3152 All

NMIC (part) 3474 All except Highbury New Park and Seaforth Crescent

NHEA (part) 1005 East of Highbury Place

NHEC(part) 51 Holmcote Gardens



Holloway – 3 members


SHYA 3699 All

SHYB 4119 All

SHYC(part) 1888 Area North Of Eden Grove



48

Central – 3 members


SCAA(part) 2209

SHYC(part) 2179 Area South of Eden Grove

SSMA 3251 All

SSMB(part) 1099 Area North of Barnsbury Street

SSMC(part) 735 Area bordered by Upper Street, Compton Road, St Paul's Road and Alwyne Lane/ Tyndale Lane



Caledonian – 3 members


SCAA(part) 1057 Area south of Brewery Road and West of Caledonian Road

SCAB 5903 All

SCAC 2645 All



Barnsbury – 3 members


SBAA 2658 All

SBAB 3617 All

SBAC 3245 All



49

Canonbury – 3 members


SCNA 3181 All

SCNB 2674 All

SCNC 3144 All

SSPA(part) 733 Area bordered by Essex Road, New North Road, Sheeprton Road and Rotherfield Street



St Mary's and St James'– 3 members


SSMB (part) 2846 Area South of Barnsbury Street

SSMC(part) 1837 Area South of Alwyne Lane to Tyndale Lane line

SSPA(part) 3004 All except are to North East of New Nort Road

SSPB(part) 2014 All except area bordered by Rheidol Terrace, Unon Square (South Side) and the canal



Canalside – 3 members


SSPB(part) 720 Area bordered by Rheidol Terrace, Unon Square (South Side) and the canal

SSPC 4451 All

SBUC(part) 4821 Area North of Lever Street



50

Bunhill – 3 members


SBUA 5006 All

SBUB(part) 3606 All except Agdon Street and area to the West

SBUC(part) 886 South of Lever Street



Clerkenwell – 3 members


SCWA 3454 All

SCWB 3446 All

SCWC 2691 All

SBUB (part) 145 Agdon Street and area to the West



51

Appendix 3. 2024 Electorate by postcode methodology and calculations. Some ward boundaries in this proposal divide current polling districts. In these cases, we have used the total number of electors in each postcode to accurately calculate each new ward total. The methodology for calculating the postcode breakdown is explained below and reflects the projected 2024 electoral figures published by the LGBCE. Formula for electorate by postcode breakdown: 2024 electorate – predicted new build electorate = 2024 electorate without new build 2024 electorate without new build – new build electorate = 2024 electorate without new build 2024 electorate without new build/ 2018 electorate x 100 = % electorate increase/decrease. (unique to each polling district) Apply % Electorate increase/decrease to relevant polling district Add predicted 2024 new build electorate to relevant postcode. = 2024 electorate by postcode

Local Government Boundary Commission for England …

Documents

Transcript of Local Government Boundary Commission for England …